For comparison’s sake, this plain text version of Hamlet at Project Gutenberg is 118 pages in length and 188 kb in size.
The OED is nearly 21,000 pages in length and doing a little back of the envelope math would be about 33 MB. Just a bit bigger than an MP3 (and probably quite a bit more unwieldy to use as a plain text file).
DVD burning isn’t even a blip on the radar to any reasonable exec in the movie industry and I have grave doubts that piracy is hurting anyone in the music business.
Book publishing is even more immune to piracy as the library will always be free. And it would only become a concern then if things like the Kindle weren’t just ubiquitous, but required to read books. And I’m positive that will not happen in the next 10 lifetimes.
Sorry for the slight hijack… I only came in here to tell a funny, some what related anecdote. A friend of mine moved from GA to FL with his company. When I asked if he was getting a raise or a promotion, his response was that it was a lateral move, but he’s basically getting a raise in pay because he won’t have to pay state income tax! :rolleyes::dubious::smack::eek:
Sometimes there just aren’t enough smilies to cover the range of emotions that statement caused.
I’ve had a fair number of new books start to fall apart despite being handled carefully; it’s not just poor treatment. The older books are simply better made.
Wrong; if making shoddy goods is more profitable and people will still buy the shoddy goods, then shoddy goods are ALL that will be made. Regardless of demand; if people WANT the good stuff but will buy the shoddy stuff if that’s all that’s available, then no one will make the good stuff. Which is how products like the original Corningware and the original nylon stockings went off the market; they were replaced with versions that were designed to decay and fall apart far more easily to increase turnover.
Sometimes you can, sometimes you can’t. Quite a few low quality items aren’t less expensive to make; some are even deliberately altered to be lower quality, which would tend to make them more expensive to make. It’s called market segmentation and planned obsolescence; there’s more profit to be made with having a range of low-to-high quality products sold to different income ranges, and if necessary manufacturers will create that difference in quality artificially. Common in electronics, for example, where low quality goods are often high quality products with various functions deliberately disabled or degraded. And of course, the sooner a product falls apart, the sooner it needs to be replaced.
Always remember that businesses are in it for the profit, not some abstract devotion to supply and demand or giving people what they want. When producing inferior products makes them more money, when denying people what they actually want makes them more money, that’s what they will do.
We’ll just have to disagree. I believe that if enough people wanted, books printed in glossy paper and bound in leather and were willing to pay for them then the market would offer them. You seem to think profit is a dirty word. I happen to think that it is the profit motive which makes the bookseller and the TV manufacturer and the grocery store provide me with things I need at the best possible price. It is also what encourages me to provide my services to others. Remove the profit and you get a Soviet Union where nobody has any interest in meeting my needs because there is nothing in it for them.
Business owners expect to be paid too, we don’t just open up shop for the pure joy of giving people jobs. You are correct about crippled/downgraded electronics. The sad thing is its easier in many cases to cripple the same unit than it would be to have separate production lines for a reduced feature bargain unit.
You make a reasonable point. Remember the console TV? The biggest tube that RCA, Zenith or Sylvania could manufacture. They put it in a wood cabinet with legs, a top and it looked like a piece of living room furniture. Why can’t we buy those anymore? The answer is that we want to buy our own furniture, just give me a TV and I’ll find a way to display it. If it craps out, becomes obsolete or I want another one I don’t have to throw out a piece of furniture. The consumer learned.
Go to the book store. How much of the stuff there is worth stitching and leather? Jackie Collins? Steven King? Mitch Albom’s shit? See my leather bound copy of “Love Story”.
Sometimes, as is the case with diapers, disposable makes sense even if it runs counter to our instincts.
There have always been cheaply printed books. Despite the OP’s comments I have plenty of hard bound books from the sixties and seventies that were bound with glue rather than stitched. On the other hand there are still stitch bound books in regular distribution. I suspect, but can’t confirm, that it’s a situation where the publisher does the math on how many copies they’re going to run, how much they can charge, and which presses are available and just goes with the convenient option.
I have to take exception to the idea that paperbacks are more durable than hard covers. There are three problems with paperbacks that are real problems:
The spine. Yes, glue bound hard covers have problems when they’re bent far but paperbacks have the same problem and are more inclined to be badly damaged by heavy reading. I’m careful and I still crack paperback spines on occasion.
The paper quality. The trade paperback format uses decent paper but the smaller, more common paperbacks typically use a much lighter weight paper.
The covers suffer quickly from handling; that’s inherent to the nature of paperbacks. Creases in the corner in particular show us fast.
I think it’s more along the lines of companies figuring out what they can get away with. You think people want to see sneakers advertised before a movie in a theater? But not enough people stopped going to the movies for the companies to stop doing it.
Your dichotomy between profit and communism is ringing false. There’re more dimensions to that scale.
Sorry, I was discussing the paperback/hardcover difference from a library’s point of view. Hardcovers are more durable overall, but the “unreadable” threshold for a hardcover is much lower. As soon as pages pull away from the spine it’s a lost cause because patrons will lose those pages.
A paperback doesn’t have that problem and bended cover corners don’t detract from the ability to circulate the book. They’ll circulate until they disintergate in your hand.
How about books that don’t start falling apart after the first reading if not before ? My paperbacks from the 50s-60s are as tough if not tougher than my recent hardbacks. I don’t care about leather; I just want something that doesn’t disintegrate.
Not if producing low quality books is more profitable; not if the people who would buy those superior books are willing to settle for the shoddy version if that’s all that’s offered.
Then you are clueless. They sell at what the market will bear, not the best possible price. And sell the shoddiest marketable goods. This is America; there’s no pride in workmanship or any sense of obligation to the consumer; just a desire for maximum profit.
Because, of course, there’s no other alternative than a Soviet command economy or an American one dimensional, profit is all that matters economy. :rolleyes:
Ah, I see your point quite clearly then. I’ve received quite a few ex-library hardcover books where the glue spine has been broken despite the fact that it takes almost an effort to mistreat a hardcover book to get it in that shape. It annoys me since used book dealers never mention that kind of damage in the descriptions (used book dealers with inadequate descriptions is a pitting in itself, really) but it must be murder for you since I can see what you mean about that damage being the end of its useful life as a library book.
As they say: “The don’t make things like they used to. But then again, they never did.”
Some things were made more sturdily but that is because it made sense then. a phone set then cost a small fortune and if it broke it would be repaired which cost another small fortune. Today you can buy a phone for under $10 and if it breaks you buy another one because it is not worth repairing. Society has decided, through the millions and millions of votes of consumers when they buy, that it is more desirable to have a cheap phone than a sturdy phone which will stand a nuclear war.
Yeah, sure. I am sure there is a conspiracy of everyone in the world to not make something where they could make money. And they do this because… they are evil. Everybody is evil. Or something. :rolleyes:
I’ve an odd little take on this. A good friend and mentor is the son of the DuPont inventor who patented Hot Melt. This durable flexible glue was used to bind books for decades. ( Literally ). The man is still alive, in his mid-90’s.
When the patent ran out, I suspect many binders went to cheap knock-off formulas of “hot melt binding glue” and in doing so have surrendered the durability.
Then again, if books do not last, a binder sells more books per year and decade. Planned obsolescence ?
Cartooniverse
p.s. The man was paid $ 1.00 for his invention, which is customary. Or was.
Conspiracy by accident is my guess. I think Der Trihs is right. My older paperbacks are orders of magnitude more durable than most hardcovers now. It was discovered that people would pay just as much for shit quality if that was all that was offered – and at reduced cost to the manufacturer. Guess what happened?
No, they do it because they want to make money, and can make more by producing a shoddy product that people will buy when they have no alternative. As I said earlier, but you evidently aren’t bothering to read; I expect that you are the sort who just can’t accept that the Free Market isn’t the one true path to perfection. That sometimes, people will screw you over and the free market will reward them for it.
:rolleyes::dubious::smack::eek: