<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <title>Charlie&apos;s Diary</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/atom.xml" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010-01-01:/charlie/blog-static//1</id>
    <updated>2010-02-08T17:01:40Z</updated>
    <subtitle>Being the blog of Charles Stross, author, and occasional guests ... </subtitle>
    <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Pro 4.261</generator>

<entry>
    <title>The future of web publishing, part seventeen million and six.</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/02/the-future-of-web-publishing-p.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2945</id>

    <published>2010-02-08T16:03:18Z</published>
    <updated>2010-02-08T17:01:40Z</updated>

    <summary>...this is that post about the future of web publishing that I promised Charlie I would write.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Elizabeth Bear</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=148</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Publishing" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Writing" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="hyperfiction" label="hyperfiction" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="shadowunit" label="shadow unit" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="webpublishing" label="web publishing" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p>...<em>this</em> is that post about the future of web publishing that I promised Charlie I would write.</p>

<p>As many of you probably already know, I am a writer. I write science fiction, fantasy, mystery, young adult, nonfiction (notably book reviews and criticism--which are actually two different things), short stories, novels, poetry--basically, anything that will sit still long enough for me to slap a keyboard on top of it. </p>

<p>As of the end of this month, I have published sixteen novels, a handful of novellas, and almost a hundred pieces of short fiction. It's been critically well received, garnered me some praise and a handful of awards, and has performed modestly well in terms of what the publishing industry refers to as "the numbers." </p>

<p>Like every other narrative-prose writer on the planet who does not have the covers pulled up over her head (and believe me, the temptation is enormous) I am trying to figure out how the heck to continue doing what I am good at--what I have spent twenty years learning how to do at a professional level--in the face of developing technology.</p>

<p>I do believe that books (both paper and electronic) are here to stay, for a long time to come. Paper books are a mature technology: they're a durable and inexpensive way in which to archive information. While modern books are not the thousand-year technology that a medieval or even Renaissance book was, they can still endure for many years undegraded. Ebooks, meanwhile, are tremendously portable, revisable, and information-dense in terms of bits per pound. They adapt admirably to multitasking--I often read on my laptop between IMs or emails, for example--and you can carry six hundred of them in your carryon as easily as one.</p>

<p>But ebooks are not optimized to the web, because the web can do all kinds of things that a print book cannot--and an ebook often can.</p>

<p>I'm currently engaged in a crowdfunded side project with a group of other SFF writers and visual artists (and a computer geek or two) that's attempting to explore some of the options for things a web-optimized written narrative can do. That narrative (what we're calling a "hyperfiction environment") is called <em>Shadow Unit</em>. While it exists in various places around the web (a wiki, some livejournals, some web pages linked to pieces of fiction), <a href="http://shadowunit.org/">the launchpad is here</a>.</p>

<p>We've been at it for three years now, and we've learned some very interesting things. </p>

<ul>
	<li>A hyperfiction can be nonlinear.</li>
</ul>

<p>So that might seem self-evident, but it's one of the most interesting things for us as writers. While the main narrative of Shadow Unit (the "episodes," a serial comprised of short stories, novellas, and (so far) two short novels) is linear, it forms a kind of scaffolding on which other shorter stories are hung. Meanwhile, the characters who maintain blogs maintain them in real time, and they are interactive--as long as participants respect the fourth wall and their privileged information, and engage with the characters as if they were real people. </p>

<p>Which leads us to the next point:</p>

<ul>
	<li>A hyperfiction can be interactive</li>
</ul>

<p>Self-evident, right? But tricky. The people playing along have to be willing to separate their in-character and out-of-character knowledge,  just as they would in a roll-playing game. But if they are willing to do that, it allows ARG-like possibilities to emerge. There are several instances in <em>Shadow Unit</em> where the narrative (which sometimes happens in real time in the stories as well as the blogs) was significantly affected by things the fans did or information that they provided to the characters.</p>

<ul>
	<li>A hyperfiction can be multimedia.</li>
</ul>

<p>Shadow Unit has not exploited this particular element particularly well. We've got some music, some web pages, some visual art (and we're working on more), but most of the people involved in the project are writers first, so we've not been as successful at broadening out into things like comics, video, and audio as we would have liked.</p>

<ul>
	<li>A hyperfiction can be confusing.</li>
</ul>

<p>It's easy as heck to lose people in the corners. Hyperfiction by its nature is sprawling--it rewards curiosity, investigation, peering into corners. (Reading dozens of blog comment threads for scraps of narrative, for example, is much easier at the beginning of a five-year narrative run than the end.) </p>

<p>It will help, in the future, to develop protocols for mapping hyperfictions (a sort of table of contents, perhaps, graphically represented in the form of a web? <em>Shadow Unit</em> has done this with a "suggested reading order" page on the wiki, but experience has revealed this to be helpful but not entirely adequate.).</p>

<p>On the other hand, some of the fun is the discovery, and the fan community delights in sharing their discoveries with each other, so we intentionally hide stuff in inobvious places. There's a balance to be struck between the fans who adore logic puzzles and the ones who just want to read a damned story, and accommodation must be made for both.</p>

<p>We do this with a BBS where (a) can show off their finds to (b).</p>

<ul>
	<li>Fan engagement is key.</li>
</ul>

<p>We have discovered that the more we gives the fans the keys to the enterprise, the more they enjoy it. There's a wiki, a BBS, interactive blogs--and a thriving and integrated fan community. We've creative-commonsed the whole endeavor, and fans have put together Kindle versions and programmed <em>Shadow Unit</em> Google widgets that sound the alert when new content appears.</p>

<ul>
	<li>Keep the content coming.</li>
</ul>

<p>Something new every week is ideal. Two or three times a week would be better, but we are mortal and all have other work.</p>

<p>Also, keep clever with the content. We've run contests (an Easter-egg hunt, a vidding contest), put up websites, mailed out boxes of goodies "from the characters" to their internet friends, run episodes in real-time day by day with blog posts that reflected the narrative as it happened, and so on. </p>

<p>And there's room for playfulness. One of the characters wrote a short story about his alternate life as a Texas sheriff and posted it to his livejournal for "Down The Rabbit Hole" day, as an example.</p>

<p>This is part of what makes hyperfiction unique and wonderful--along with the nonlinearity and interactivity. It also keeps the creators scrambling to come up with ever niftier stuff.</p>

<ul>
	<li>Making it pay for itself?</li>
</ul>

<p>We're donation-funded. (We decided early on not to sell advertising, but that may someday change.) </p>

<p>So far, we're making beer money, and the site is paying for itself, but not for our time. First season was better than second, but then, the bottom fell out of the world economy in our second year, so it's nonconclusive--and we just started our third year, which so far seems to be more on the level of the first.</p>

<p>Merchandise has largely been break-even so far, though we are planning dead-tree versions of the primary narrative arcs, and those should be out this year. We'll see if anybody wants them.</p>

<p>So we haven't cracked the number-one problem of making a living telling stories in the information era, but this was an experiment, and we're still playing with variables.</p>

<ul>
	<li>Have a plan.</li>
</ul>

<p>Since we're keeping an enormous number of balls in the air, it's essential that the team have a plan, that somebody or at most two somebodies be in charge of keeping track of how the narrative is adhering to that plan, and wow, is shared-calendar software a godsend. </p>

<p>Also, everybody has to be prepared to work together to cover crises and pitch in when something breaks.</p>

<ul>
	<li>A hyperfection presents the opportunity for extraordinary richness.</li>
</ul>

<p>It's astounding how real this world has become to me, and to others. Because I am not the only one writing the characters, because they have lives outside the story arc (they live in and around Washington, DC, and lately have been blogging up the storm of the century) they feel like friends to me rather than people I made up. I hear similar things from the fans--that it's a unique experience to be able to drop a fictional character an email and get a response, or to get a package from one in the snail mail.</p>

<p>That's the baseline so far: we have learned that this stuff <em>is really cool</em>. And that there's tons of unexplored potential for similar narratives out there.</p>

<p>Sometimes I feel that, to what hyperfiction will eventually become, <em>Shadow Unit</em> is the equivalent of very early television--shot like a stage play, not yet quite exploiting its medium, balancing between fish and fowl. </p>

<p>Which is one of the reasons, I suppose, that our mascot is the platypus. Because what we've got here is weird and curious and hard to classify, but hey, somehow it works, and I, at least, am finding it utterly fascinating to spend time working on.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>This is not that post about the future of web publishing I was going to write.</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/02/this-is-not-that-post-about-th.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2944</id>

    <published>2010-02-08T15:40:22Z</published>
    <updated>2010-02-08T16:02:06Z</updated>

    <summary>I come bearing... chocolate.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Elizabeth Bear</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=148</uri>
    </author>
    
    <category term="food" label="food" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Greetings! As Charlie mentioned in the exceedingly cute robot post, I am Elizabeth Bear, and I will be helping keep this space active while he's visiting my native New England. I told him I was going to blog on publishing and futurism and futuristic publishing...</p>

<p><.< **looks shifty** >.></p>

<p>...but by now he's safely over the North Atlantic, and we can party. </p>

<p>Just remember the kick the empties under the couch before he lands.</p>

<p>...Okay, no, I really am going to behave. But the publishing post is going to come in a bit, after I tell you how virtuous I am, because I come bearing... chocolate. <span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/assets_c/2010/02/black bean brownie 02-84.html" onclick="window.open('http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/assets_c/2010/02/black bean brownie 02-84.html','popup','width=3264,height=2448,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/assets_c/2010/02/black bean brownie 02-thumb-200x150-84.jpg" width="200" height="150" alt="black bean brownie 02.jpg" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto 20px;" /></a></span></p>

<p>I am so virtuous that I spent the morning making "brownies" out of black beans, good chocolate, agave nectar, and ground-up walnuts, because I am on this refined-carb restriction and woman does not live by brown rice alone. They're actually pretty good--not vegan, but safe-ish for diabetics and celiac sufferers. <a href="http://diabeticbaking.blogspot.com/2009/01/black-bean-brownies.html">The base recipe is here</a>, but I don't mess around with all the fussiness--I just melt the chocolate and butter, puree the beans and walnuts in the food processor, and then add the other ingredients one at a time until it makes a smooth paste, which I then panify and bake. </p>

<p>I sub in <a href="http://www.kingarthurflour.com/shop/items/black-cocoa-16-oz">black cocoa powder</a> for the espresso, and use about twice as much vanilla extract as the recipe calls for. And a good shot of chocolate liqueur. Ahem. What? It cooks out. Mostly....</p>

<p>Tasty and high-protein, which is what I'm after. They make good energy bars for caving, climbing, and long hikes, though they do smush.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>When the machines dance</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/02/when-the-machines-dance.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2943</id>

    <published>2010-02-06T12:30:47Z</published>
    <updated>2010-02-06T13:04:40Z</updated>

    <summary> &quot;Hexapodia is the key insight.&quot; (You&apos;ve probably seen that video already, but I couldn&apos;t resist sharing. Just in case.) In about 48 hours I&apos;m off to Boston and New York for a week and a half. Needless to say...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Charlie Stross</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=2</uri>
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p><object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/msaWXY3OuQQ&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/msaWXY3OuQQ&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object></p>

<p>"Hexapodia is the key insight." (You've probably seen that video already, but I couldn't resist sharing. Just in case.)</p>

<p>In about 48 hours I'm off to Boston and New York for a week and a half. Needless to say I won't be blogging much (although I'm hoping to record and podcat the panel I'm on at Boskone &mdash; a retrospective appraisal of the Singularity in SF with Al Reynolds and Vernor Vinge).</p>

<p>But surprise! The blog won't be left to the tumbleweed.</p>

<p>Because I travel too damn much, I've decided to invite guest bloggers to take over Charlie's Diary while I'm away. (I've also recruited a couple of moderators to ride herd on the discussions in my absence.)</p>

<p>First up is the &mdash; what's the right adjective here? Fantastic? Feisty? Fragrant? Formidable? &mdash; <a href="http://matociquala.livejournal.com/">Elizabeth Bear</a>, who has won twice as many Hugo awards for her SF as me. If you haven't heard of her, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Bear">start here</a>. (Better still, <a href="http://us.macmillan.com/author/elizabethbear">buy her books</a>.) She's got my soapbox for the next week. I'm looking forward to seeing what she does with it!</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Amazonfail round-up</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/02/amazonfail-round-up.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2942</id>

    <published>2010-02-05T11:04:43Z</published>
    <updated>2010-02-05T14:04:45Z</updated>

    <summary>In my most recent posting on this topic I noted &quot;Amazon surrender&quot;, and cited a New York Times article as saying that Amazon had agreed to re-list the Macmillan titles they&apos;d dropped. As of this morning, five days later, my...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Charlie Stross</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=2</uri>
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p>In my <a href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/02/amazon-surrenders.html">most recent posting on this topic</a> I noted "Amazon surrender", and cited a New York Times article as saying that Amazon had agreed to re-list the Macmillan titles they'd dropped.</p>

<p>As of this morning, five days later, my own Tor books are still not available from Amazon. I'm hearing lots of reports from other Tor authors, too. </p>

<p><em>Amazon lied.</em></p>

<p>They lied about other things, too; in their press release they lied like a rug about Macmillan's negotiating position, mischaracterising it in the worst possible light from the point of view of onlookers. They lied by falsely positioning themselves as the defenders of cheap $9.99 ebooks and Macmillan as some kind of capitalist oppressor; the truth is that many ebooks sold via Kindle cost well over $9.99, while Macmillan were proposing to sell some titles for under $6. </p>

<p>Amazon lie by omission. They lie like politicians in an election campaign. And you've got to ask, if they're selling such a good product, and if they're such good-hearted folks, <em>why do they need to lie?</em></p>

<p>I'd like to note in passing that Amazon has a long history of bullying &mdash; from union-busting among its employees, <a href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article5337770.ece">abusive treatment employees</a> (arguably in violation of health and safety standards in the UK), to punishing authors by de-listing their books as a way of applying negotiating pressure to publishers; <a href="http://www.thebookseller.com/news/59533-hachette-clashes-with-amazon.html">they did this to Hachette in May 2008</a>, and the people who got hurt the worst were the authors and their readers. In fact, Amazon are <a href="http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/">the WalMart of the book trade</a>.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, things have been moving rapidly this week:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/agents/breaking_hachette_book_group_to_transition_to_agency_model_151128.asp">Hachette are switching to the agency model, too</a> &mdash; which means Amazon will be fighting a war on two fronts next week. (Are they going to de-list close to a third of all the books they sell before this is over?)</p>

<p><a href="http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100202/news-corp-beats-earnings-revenue-estimates/">HarperCollins are also queueing up to renegotiate terms with Amazon</a>. That's the publishing arm of NewsCorp, who I am not terribly keen on &mdash; the third of the big six publishing groups. (What does it say about a retailer that half its suppliers are <em>really</em> unhappy with the terms it has imposed on them separately?)</p>

<p>Macmillan's CEO had this to say about Amazon, in <a href="http://www.publishersmarketplace.com/lunch/free/">a public letter to his authors and their agents</a>: "A word about Amazon. This has been a very difficult time. Many of you are wondering what has taken so long for Amazon and Macmillan to reach a conclusion. I want to assure you that Amazon has been working very, very hard and always in good faith to find a way forward with us. Though we do not always agree, I remain full of admiration and respect for them. Both of us look forward to being back in business as usual." (I don't think I'd have been that polite.)</p>

<p>There's a lot more stuff going on behind the scenes. In particular, it looks like the industry-wide shift to the agency model, catalysed by Apple, has finally cracked open the door to a <a href="http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/macmillan-e-royalties-at.html">renegotiation of royalty rates</a> payable by publishers to authors for ebooks. The traditional 10% royalty rate on hardcovers didn't come out of nowhere &mdash; it reflected a 50/50 split in the profits (the other 80% of the cover price going on production, printing, and distribution). With much lower printing and distribution costs, it looks like royalty rates of 25% or 30%, <em>on a much lower overall price</em>, may be where things are going under the new model. (Hint: this isn't finalized yet, which is why Macmillan aren't promising readers the moon on a stick &mdash; unlike Amazon.)</p>

<p><b>Finally</b>, let's look at the authors, because we're the small mammals who get steamrollered when the dinosaurs start stomping on each other.</p>

<p>Novelist Cat Valente explains <a href="http://yuki-onna.livejournal.com/563086.html">lays out why she sides with her publisher</a>: "the costs of publishing an ebook are not zero. That is, if you have any interest at all in a quality product. No one goes around suggesting that everyone should become their own autonomous cheesemakers and cheering the death of the cheese industry. Why? Because that would result in <em>a lot of shitty cheese</em>."</p>

<p>John Scalzi <a href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/02/04/a-quick-interview-of-me-by-me-to-catch-up-with-everything-amazon/">explains what's been going on this past week</a>. He also  <a href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/02/03/why-in-fact-publishing-will-not-go-away-anytime-soon-a-deeply-slanted-play-in-three-acts/">explains why publishing will not go away anytime soon</a> in most amusing fashion. </p>

<p>Susan Pivar, former music label exec (and author) <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-piver/the-macmillan-vs-amazon-t_b_444879.html">compares and contrasts the Amazon/Macmillan dust-up to how the music industry (mis)handled things</a>.</p>

<p>And finally, I commend to you this blog posting by <a href="http://www.blakecharlton.com/2010/02/what-happens-to-a-debut-author%E2%80%99s-brain-on-amazonfail/">a guy whose first novel came out from Tor the very week Amazon decided to delist all Tor's books</a>. Talk about depressing ways to start (and quite possibly finish) a career.</p>

<p>The rumble is on-going, but on Monday I'm flying out to Boston and New York for about ten days. This means that your questions here are likely to go unanswered and I won't be posting for a week or so ... but I have a <b>surprise</b> waiting for you on Monday!</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Information, Freedom, Flame-bait</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/02/information-freedom-flame-bait.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2941</id>

    <published>2010-02-03T11:59:58Z</published>
    <updated>2010-02-03T12:25:44Z</updated>

    <summary>The phrase &quot;Information wants to be free&quot; gets 92,000 hits on Google. As wikipedia notes, Stewart Brand (then editor of Whole Earth Review, and a clueful chappie) uttered the fateful words at the first hacker&apos;s conference in 1984:On the one...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Charlie Stross</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=2</uri>
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p>The phrase "Information wants to be free" gets 92,000 hits on Google.</p>

<p>As wikipedia notes, Stewart Brand (then editor of <em>Whole Earth Review</em>, and a  clueful chappie) uttered the fateful words at the first hacker's conference in 1984:<blockquote>On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.</blockquote>He  subsequently  reformulated it slightly:<blockquote>Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive ... That tension will not go away.</blockquote></p>

<p>The condensed version &mdash; and it's almost <em>always</em> quoted in the condensed form, much as those who quote "<a href="http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/jun02/voice.htm">my country right or wrong</a>" almost invariably miss out the second clause ("when right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right") &mdash; is an attractive slogan because it's simple, but ambiguous. It's worth noting that English, the language in which "information wants to be free" was coined, makes no distinction between two usages of the word free: free as in "civil liberties", and free as in "no payment expected". "Information" is also ambiguous; Brand's explanation of the coinage uses the word "information" to mean both content and bandwidth, but this nuance is lost in the shortened form.</p>

<p>Richard Stallman <em>also</em> reformulated it in a way that puts a different spin on it:<blockquote>I believe that all generally useful information should be free. By 'free' I am not referring to price, but rather to the freedom to copy the information and to adapt it to one's own uses... When information is generally useful, redistributing it makes humanity wealthier no matter who is distributing and no matter who is receiving.</blockquote>Stallman's reformulation is transformed into a statement of political aspiration by the substitution of "should" for "wants", and it's an aspiration that I can't object to on moral grounds (although in practical terms, I see obstacles).<br />
</p><br />
Here's the rub, though: it's a <em>slogan</em>. Stripped of their social context, slogans are a great way of motivating people &mdash; but they don't put food in your belly. More to the point, slogans with ambiguous wording or implicit subtexts are lethally sharp double-edged swords. "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign">Let a hundred flowers bloom</a>" had [probably] unplanned consequences; so, too, does "information wants to be free". It has, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/science/12tier.html">as Jaron Lanier notes in this interview</a>, become the governing ideology of a large and vocal segment of internet users: <blockquote>He blames the Web's tradition of "drive-by anonymity" for fostering vicious pack behavior on blogs, forums and social networks. He acknowledges the examples of generous collaboration, like Wikipedia, but argues that the mantras of "open culture" and "information wants to be free" have produced a destructive new social contract.</blockquote>I'd put it another way: it's the tragedy of the commons in action. </p>

<p>There's a big difference between a gift economy (where items are given freely, as gifts) and a theft economy (where items are taken without offer of recompense, be it monetary or participatory). While "information wants to be free" remains a valuable insight, the <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Freetard">freetards</a> who are its loudest proponents these days seem blind to the flip side of the coin, which is <b>the obligation to create and release information of use to others.</b></p>

<p>I'm big on obligations, because it seems to me that they're the flip side of rights. The right to not be murdered in my bed imposes on me the <em>obligation</em> not to murder other people in their beds. Human beings are social animals; we do not exist in isolation, and if we desire some specific behaviour from our peers, we, too, are required to abide by it. The alternative is tyranny, a state in which some individuals are exempt from ordinary rules and may exercise their liberty at the expense of others.</p>

<p>So it follows that if you <em>want</em> information to be free you are taking on an obligation to <em>make</em> information, and <em>give</em> it freedom. An obligation to work to better the lot of humanity, not to merely sponge off the labour of others.</p>

<p>Next time you hear someone invoke "information wants to be free" as a justification for demanding free-as-in-no-payment-expected content, ask them: precisely what content have <em>you</em> released for free lately? </p>

<p>Note: buying an ebook, stripping the DRM from it, and uploading it to usenet <em>does not count</em> (unless they're the author). The point is recipricocity in creation.</p>

<p><b>Finally</b>: this posting was prompted by the fact that just before the Amazon/Macmillan custard pie fight broke out, my editor and I at [<tt>name of publisher withheld</tt>] were discussing the possibility of releasing another of my novels as a free download. I'm now wondering &mdash; in view of the huge number of Kindle cheapskates yelling that $14 is <em>too much</em> to pay for a bestseller on the day of publication, it <em>must</em> be $9.99 or less, even if the publisher can't make a profit at that level and subsequently publishes fewer books &mdash; whether this would merely encourage the perception that my books are valueless. I'll probably get over my dog-in-the-manger mood soon enough &mdash; I tend to take an optimistic view of human nature &mdash; but right now I'm a bit annoyed. (PS: yes, I use open source software, and yes: I have in the past written and released software under an open source license &mdash; it's on CPAN if you want to look for it. See "obligation", above.) </p>

<p>What have <em>you</em> created and released lately?</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Amazon surrenders</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/02/amazon-surrenders.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2940</id>

    <published>2010-02-01T08:46:57Z</published>
    <updated>2010-02-01T09:03:18Z</updated>

    <summary>The New York Times reports that Amazon has conceded to Macmillan:&quot;We have expressed our strong disagreement and the seriousness of our disagreement by temporarily ceasing the sale of all Macmillan titles,&quot; Amazon said. &quot;We want you to know that ultimately,...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Charlie Stross</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=2</uri>
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p><a href="http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/amazon-relents-in-fight-over-e-book-pricing/">The New York Times reports that Amazon has conceded to Macmillan</a>:<blockquote>"We have expressed our strong disagreement and the seriousness of our disagreement by temporarily ceasing the sale of all Macmillan titles," Amazon said. "We want you to know that ultimately, however, we will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books".</blockquote>Which is highly interesting: as Bruce Schneier puts it, "in a supply chain, profit &mdash; and power &mdash; tends to flow to the most constrained member of that chain." In an airport food court, most of Starbucks' or MacDonald's profits flow towards the airport, for real estate in that situation is constrained; in ebook publishing on the Kindle platform, profits flow towards the platform owner (i.e. Amazon).</p>

<p>I'd rate this as a temporary setback for Amazon; in the war to define the internet book distribution chain, Macmillan have merely clawed back some of the territory they've lost over the past five years and bought themselves some time in which to try and get their ebook sales up and running on a profitable basis. In the long run, though, if they don't make it work within a couple of years, expect to see more battles (and possibly a new CEO: there are many firing crimes in publishing, but pissing off a major distribution channel in order to win a concession <em>and failing to exploit it successfully</em> has got to be one of them).</p>

<p>Longer term the publishers badly need to reconsider the entire idea of selling ebooks wholesale or on an agency basis via internediaries. This goes against everything they've ever done before &mdash; but the correct model for selling ebooks (profitably and at a fair price) is to establish a direct-to-public retail channel, like Baen's Webscription subsidiary. Oh, and once you're there, you can ditch the annoying DRM.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Amazon/Macmillan: other perspectives</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/01/amazonmacmillan-other-perspect.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2939</id>

    <published>2010-01-31T18:42:24Z</published>
    <updated>2010-01-31T19:05:02Z</updated>

    <summary>Here&apos;s a round-up of what other insiders are saying about the Amazon/Macmillan dust-up. (Almost all ellipses are mine): John Scalzi opines:They&apos;re both playing hardball. That said, I think this particular negotiating tactic of Amazon&apos;s makes it look worse than Macmillan...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Charlie Stross</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=2</uri>
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Here's a round-up of what other insiders are saying about the Amazon/Macmillan dust-up. (Almost all ellipses are mine):</p>

<p><a href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/01/30/a-quick-note-on-ebook-pricing/">John Scalzi opines</a>:<blockquote>They're both playing hardball. That said, I think this particular negotiating tactic of Amazon's makes it look worse than Macmillan in the short term, and certainly will make other Amazon partner wary in the long term.</blockquote>Also, <a href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/01/30/its-all-about-timing/">Scalzi explains why Amazon threw the switch on a Friday</a>:<blockquote>As the White House across several administrations knows, Friday is the day to do or say anything you don't want heavily reported in the traditional media or heavily read by traditional media consumers, including on traditional media Web sites ...</blockquote><br />
<a href="http://syndicated.livejournal.com/feedtobiasbucke/37723.html">Tobias Buckell explains</a> about how books are produced and how ebooks are sold:<blockquote>Let's take a look at how this particular sausage is made. ... A book is a group undertaking.<br />
... Just like a pill requires research to bring to market, or a jacket requires artists, designers and invention, professionally published books that look slick and readable use the services of a number of different people. ... </blockquote><br />
<a href="http://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2010/01/a131a.html">C. E. Petit explains how the law affects this</a> (for lo, he is an attorney):<blockquote>Macmillan's position depends fundamentally on assuming full ownership and control of not just the rights actually transferred in publishing agreements with the authors, but of a full, unrestricted ownership interest in Macmillan's packaging of the author's intellectual property for market. Crucially, Macmillan could not maintain this position without having oligopoly power to exert &mdash; and we'll be returning to that shortly. Nonetheless, most of the blame here goes to Amazon. It's actually fallout from a bad Supreme Court decision a couple of years ago regarding ladies' leather accessories ...</blockquote><br />
Andrew Wheeler (an Editor And A Gentleman) <a href="http://antickmusings.blogspot.com/2010/01/amazon-and-macmillan.html">notices a disturbing parallel</a>:<blockquote>I haven't seen anyone yet note that this is the second time that Amazon has applied the big hammer of delisting an entire publisher; they tried the same thing to Hachette in the UK almost two years ago. In that case, Amazon was the aggressor &mdash; they were attempting to demand higher discounts from Hachette (and their other suppliers) and pursued the delisting to get the publishers to agree to its new, and much more favorable to Amazon, terms.</blockquote></p>

<p>Your eyes are probably glazing over by now, so I will stop flogging the deceased equine for now, until there's some concrete news to report. Normal LOLcat video service will be resumed shortly.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Amazon, Macmillan: an outsider&apos;s guide to the fight</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/01/amazon-macmillan-an-outsiders.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2938</id>

    <published>2010-01-31T09:39:11Z</published>
    <updated>2010-01-31T19:43:30Z</updated>

    <summary>(Apologies for the formatting; I&apos;m typing this on a netbook with a tiny keyboard.) Last Friday, Amazon.com unilaterally pulled most or all of Macmillan&apos;s books (edit: including all paper editions, not just electronic) from their online store. (You can still...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Charlie Stross</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=2</uri>
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p>(Apologies for the formatting; I'm typing this on a netbook with a tiny keyboard.)</p>

<p>Last Friday, Amazon.com unilaterally pulled most or all of Macmillan's books (<em>edit</em>: <b>including all paper editions</b>, not just electronic) from their online store. (You can still find them via afilliates or second-hand stores, but Amazon themselves won't sell them to you. Note that this only affects me via my Merchant Princes books &mdash; published by Tor, a Macmillan subsidiary &mdash; in the US Amazon store. My Ace titles are safe ... for now.)</p>

<p>This whole mess is basically about duelling supply chain models.</p>

<p>Publishing is made out of pipes. Traditionally the supply chain ran: author -&gt; publisher -&gt; wholesaler -&gt; bookstore -&gt; consumer.</p>

<p>Then the internet came along, a communications medium the main effect of which is to <em>disintermediate indirect relationships</em>, for example by collapsing supply chains with lots of middle-men.</p>

<p>From the point of view of the public, to whom they sell, Amazon is a bookstore.</p>

<p>From the point of view of the publishers, from whom they buy, Amazon is a wholesaler.</p>

<p>From the point of view of Jeff Bezos' bank account, Amazon is the entire supply chain and should take that share of the cake that formerly went to both wholesalers <em>and</em> booksellers. They do this by buying wholesale and selling retail, taking up to a 70% discount from the publishers and selling for whatever they can get. Their stalking horse for this is the Kindle publishing platform; they're trying to in-source <b>the publisher</b> by asserting contractual terms that mean the publisher isn't merely selling them books wholesale, but is sublicencing the works to be republished via the Kindle publishing platform. Publishers sublicensing rights is SOP in the industry, but not normally handled this way -- and it allows Amazon to grab another chunk of the supply chain if they get away with it, turning the traditional publishers into vestigial editing/marketing appendages.</p>

<p>The agency model Apple proposed -- and that publishers like Macmillan enthusiastically endorse -- collapses the supply chain in a different direction, so it looks like: author -&gt; publisher -&gt; fixed-price distributor -&gt; reader. In <em>this</em> model Amazon is shoved back into the box labelled 'fixed-price distributor' and get to take the retail cut only. Meanwhile: fewer supply chain links mean lower overheads and, ultimately, cheaper books without cutting into the authors or publishers profits.</p>

<p>Amazon are going to fight this one ruthlessly because if the publishers win, it destroys the profitability of their business and pushes prices down.</p>

<p>(Note that Amazon have been trying to grab a larger share of the cake by dipping into the publishers -- and the authors -- share of what meagre profits there are (book publishing is notoriously, uniquely unprofitable, within the media world), even though they've already got the wholesale <em>and</em> retail supply chains stitched up. Their buy wholesale/sell retail model screws publishers' ability to manage their cash flow and tends to induce price wars on the supply side, which is okay if we're talking widgets with a range of competing suppliers, but books are individually unique products and the industry already runs on alarmingly narrow margins: this isn't the music or movie biz.) </p>

<p>Now, as to pricing and DRM -- those issues are <b>entirely irrelevant</b> -- at least at <b>this</b> stage of affairs. They're different battles. For what it's worth, the ePub format Apple, Sony, Baen, and everybody except Amazon are going with doesn't mandate DRM (although it provides an optional vendor-specified DRM layer). The DRM push comes from the board level of the corporations who own both the book publishers and the music vendors, and individual editors and publishers know it's crap. This is a battle that'll be lost or won within the publishers.</p>

<p>Pricing ... we sell books by reverse auction, most expensive editions first, then cheaper editions, then mass market, until we get to the remainder shelves. What any sane publisher would like to do is to get away from the current crude fixed-price points -- a system they can't do anything about right now because it's locked in via the wholesale/retail distribution model -- and get round to <em>flexible pricing</em> on books: start selling high, then drop the price incrementally with much higher granularity than is currently possible. Such a system would allow them to get a lock on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand">price elasticity of demand</a>, and thus work out the price point at which they can maximize book sales. A fixed-percentage agency model (distributor takes a flat 30 or 35%, whatever the price, while the price is set by the publisher) lets them do that.</p>

<p>It's interesting to note that unlike the music industry who had to be pushed, the big publishers seem to be willing to grab a passing lifeline.</p>

<p>Final note: to customers, Amazon would like to be a monopoly (i.e. the only store in town). To suppliers, Amazon would like to be a monopsony (i.e. the only customer in town). Their goal is to profit via arbitrage, and if they can achieve those twin goals they will own everyubody's nuts -- the authors, the customers, <em>everyone</em>. They are, in fact, exactly the kind of middle-man operation that the internet tends to squish, gooily. And if you think things would be different if I, Charlie Stross, went into self-publishing and sold my wares directly without any icky publisher to 'help' me ... do you really think I'd get better terms out of Amazon than a huge publishing conglomerate?</p>

<p>Whether this means Macmillan is any better placed to adapt to the post-internet order is an entirely separate issue which I can't begin to address here.</p>

<p>But Amazon, in declaring war on Macmillan in this underhand way, have screwed <b>me</b>, and I tend to take that personally, because they didn't need to do that.</p>

<p><b>[Edit]</b>: Just before Apple announced the iPad and the agency deal for ebooks, Amazon pre-empted by announcing an option for publishing ebooks in which they would graciously reduce their cut from 70% to 30%, "same as Apple". From a distance this looks competitive, but the devil is in the small print; to get the 30% rate, you have to agree that Amazon is a publisher, license your rights to Amazon to publish through the Kindle platform, <em>guarantee</em> that you will not allow other ebook editions to sell for less than the Kindle price, <em>and let Amazon set that price, with a ceiling of $9.99</em>. In other words, Amazon choose how much to pay you, while using your books to undercut any possible rivals (including the paper editions you still sell). It shouldn't surprise anyone that the major publishers don't think very highly of this offer ...<b>[/Edit]</b></p>

<p><b>And more</b>: <a href="http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2010/01/31/why-my-books-are-no-longer-for-sale-via-amazon/">Here's Tobias Buckell's take on the situation</a>, for a different angle.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>News flash</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/01/news-flash.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2937</id>

    <published>2010-01-30T16:01:11Z</published>
    <updated>2010-01-30T16:24:26Z</updated>

    <summary>Still on the road with a Vaio P instead of a full-on computer, so I&apos;ll be brief: Amazon.com can kiss my ass. Shorter version: they&apos;re engaging in monopolistic practices that damn well ought to be illegal, in an attempt to...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Charlie Stross</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=2</uri>
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Still on the road with a Vaio P instead of a full-on computer, so I'll be brief: <a href="http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/012148.html">Amazon.com can kiss my ass</a>. Shorter version: they're engaging in monopolistic practices that damn well ought to be illegal, in an attempt to use their near-monopoly position to fuck over authors and bring publishers to heel. Longer version: google on "Amazon" and "Macmillan". Hint: Tor, who publish my Merchant Princes books, are part of Macmillan. And I've got a new book in that series coming out in six weeks' time.</p>

<p>Srsly. They can fuck right off. As of now, I'm not sending them any more trade. If you follow the 'buy my books' links in the sidebar to the right, you'll notice that they don't go to Amazon any more. This is the third time I've done this in 12 months, and this time it's personal &mdash; they've gone too far.</p>

<p>A full, detailed explanation of the story behind the current pissing match will follow on Sunday or Monday, but right now I'm too livid to type and I don't want to break my netbook. </p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>What the internet is made of.</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/01/what-the-internet-is-made-of.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2936</id>

    <published>2010-01-28T14:37:28Z</published>
    <updated>2010-02-09T13:16:26Z</updated>

    <summary> NB: The &quot;singularity&quot; word is uttered at two minutes and six seconds in ... In other news, I just received a bunch of author copies of the paperback of The Revolution Business, so if you order it now it...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Charlie Stross</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=2</uri>
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zi8VTeDHjcM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zi8VTeDHjcM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></p>

<p>NB: The "singularity" word is uttered at two minutes and six seconds in ...</p>

<p>In other news, I just received a bunch of author copies of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0765355906/charlieswebsi-20">the paperback of The Revolution Business</a>, so if you order it now it should be with you shortly. (Amazon say February 2nd.)</p>

<p>I'm hitting the road tomorrow so blogging will be sparse until next week. Play nice!</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Reality check</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/01/reality-check.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2935</id>

    <published>2010-01-27T18:02:51Z</published>
    <updated>2010-02-07T10:39:38Z</updated>

    <summary>Okay, so now we know what all the hype was about: the iPad. First thoughts: I wasn&apos;t too far wrong. And this thing is going to slaughter the Kindle and most of the other ebook readers on the market, even...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Charlie Stross</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=2</uri>
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Okay, so now we know what all the hype was about: the iPad.</p>

<p>First thoughts: I wasn't too far wrong. And this thing is going to <em>slaughter</em> the Kindle and most of the other ebook readers on the market, even without Apple coming up with a better business model for the publishers. With Penguin, Hachette, Macmillan, Simon and Schuster and HarperCollins on board, they've just about aced the main US trade publishers &mdash; remains to be seen how smaller outfits plug into the platform, but at this point Amazon have a struggle on their hands. As iBook reads ePub format files it may be possible to add free content to it. Maybe. </p>

<p>The addition of iWork makes this more than just a fancy iPod Touch; it's actually going to be a useful personal productivity tool. So I guess I was right to guess Apple were positioning it as a whole new platform alongside the Macintosh line. (Not bundling the iWork apps for free with the tablet seems a bit odd to me, however.)</p>

<p>They've got the battery life right: as I noted previously, we're seldom more than four hours from a power socket, so 12 hours of video playback is ample. The text input is sufficiently right &mdash; you probably wouldn't want to write an entire book on a multitouch screen, but for email and web and light document editing it's going to be infinitely nicer than poking one finger at a time (or two-handed thumb-typing) on the iPhone ... and for that novel there's the hardware keyboard. The ability to run all iPhone apps out of the box means that it's got a pre-canned ecosystem; you're not stuck with iWork or iBook, given that office suites like QuickOffice or Documents to Go, and ebook readers like Stanza or the Kindle app, will run unmodified.</p>

<p>At the very least, this is going to clean up in some specialist sectors &mdash; medical computing, for example, which has already taken to tablet PCs (they're easy to sanitize and you can poke at them without sitting down and typing). More likely, given the aggressive (for Apple) pricing, it's going to make inroads into the netbook market &mdash; and education; this thing is brilliant for students. (12 hour life, reads textbooks, takes notes, weighs exactly as much as a single 300-page hardback, i.e. 600 grams: it's half the weight of a typical netbook, or a Macbook Air.) And charging over a regular dock connector means you can top it up on the go using any USB power source and an adapter cable.</p>

<p>Summarizing: I think this is a convergent device. It's not going to live up to the expectations generated by the initial hype, because <em>nothing</em> could; but it's significant, and I can see a lot of uses for it in the weird niche between a real computer and a mobile phone that is currently occupied by sluggish, small, cut-down laptops running Windows XP. In particular, the App store ecosystem is <em>really</em> going to help. I reckon the total cost of ownership of an iPad is actually going to be <em>lower</em> than that of a netbook, once you consider the necessary extra software you need to make a netbook do anything useful (and recall that the App store price points are typically cheaper than Windows application price points).</p>

<p>(As you probably guessed, I am <em>very</em> relieved that I wrote in that escape clause in my new year's resolution last month!)</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>I have no life, so I must blog</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/01/i-have-no-life-so-i-must-blog.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2934</id>

    <published>2010-01-26T12:55:17Z</published>
    <updated>2010-01-27T19:53:28Z</updated>

    <summary><![CDATA[Right now I'm busy working on a couple of short writing gigs &mdash; taking a week or so off from the grind on "Rule 34", which is half-written (or half-baked, depending on the mood I'm in) &mdash; and trying to...]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Charlie Stross</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=2</uri>
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Right now I'm busy working on a couple of short writing gigs &mdash; taking a week or so off from the grind on "Rule 34", which is half-written (or half-baked, depending on the mood I'm in) &mdash; and trying to recover my <em>joi de vivre</em>.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, I am a geek with no life so of course I must blog about the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-confirms-mystery-jan-27-creative-event.ars">Announcement from Apple that's due tomorrow</a>, and which Steve Jobs says is "<a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/24/steve-jobs-tablet-most-important/">the most important thing I've ever done</a>". I believe in giving hostages to fortune, so here's <a href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/07/guesswork.html">what I wrote about it last July</a>:<blockquote>My bet is that what we're going to see is what you might call an iPod Touch HD. It'll have a 10" multi-touch screen, probably 1280x800 pixels (a standard Apple resolution, rather than the Netbook spec 1024x600). It will run a version of the iPhone OS &mdash; OSX ported to run on ARM hardware rather than Intel, with a different user interface. There may well be haptic feedback for the on-screen keyboard (as featured on MIDs like the <a href="http://www.myviliv.com/ces/main_s5.html">Viliv S5</a>) , or some species of "real" keyboard &mdash; either a clamshell like a netbook, or a slider like a high-end mobile phone. (My money is on the on-screen keyboard with haptic feedback &mdash; it makes for a cleaner design.) It'll almost certainly have a 3G data connection, and some sources have been touting an $800 price point; others suggest it'll be subsidized to $300 when sold with a monthly mobile data contract.</blockquote>There: one hostage to fortune delivered! About as controversial as saying "water is wet" at <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/itablets-or-iphones-firm-fingers-50-devices-in-testing.ars">this</a> <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/25/apple-tablet-barnes-noble-bookstore/">point</a> <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=5800">in</a> <a href="http://www.thevarguy.com/2010/01/11/apple-tablet-iwork-to-include-multi-touch/">time</a>. So, using my imagination, what would I <em>like</em> to see?</p>

<p><br />
I'd like to see two models &mdash; a 10" slate, and a smaller, 7" jacket-pocket-sized machine. (If you want a size metaphor, think of the Kindle DX and the regular Kindle &mdash; the former is a wee bit cumbersome, but excellent for textbooks, while the latter is what you want to read a novel on.)</p>

<p>I'd like to see, for the first time ever, a multitouch-based text input system that works and that scales. The iPhone's keyboard is crippled by the 4" screen size &mdash; for me, it's something I have to poke at with a single finger. A 7" screen would permit two- or four-finger typing, while a 10" screen has room for touch-typing. Drawbacks (the lack of sensory feedback) are offset against benefits (no mechanical keyswitches, no gaps for crumbs to fall down). Just please give us something that <em>works</em>?</p>

<p>I'd like to see a tablet that is more of a computer than the iPhone/iPod touch. The existing Apple tablets are read-only appliances; while you can enter text or draw on them, it's cumbersome and tiresome, suitable only for quick emails or text messaging. Mostly you're expected to use a laptop or desktop computer to shovel data <em>into</em> the device, then read/watch/listen to it on the move. The tablet needs to do a bit more, and including <a href="http://www.thevarguy.com/2010/01/11/apple-tablet-iwork-to-include-multi-touch/">a multitouch version of iWork</a> will be as essential to its success as a new platform (assuming that's what Apple are doing) as was the inclusion of MacWrite and MacDraw with the original 128K Mac.</p>

<p>I'd like to see the <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=5800">rumours about publishers, Apple, and an agency model for ebook sales</a> come true, please. This is publishing industry insider policy wonk territory here, so let's just say I think it's terribly important and move on swiftly to: the App store to be joined by a Book store.</p>

<p>Battery life: many commentators &mdash; who show no sign of ever having used an ebook reader &mdash; seem to think that anything less than a 24 hour battery life is going to cripple any ebook reading device. This is complete nonsense. While reading a novel cover-to-cover may indeed take many hours, few people do such a thing without taking a break, if only to go to the toilet. A more realistic picture is that people read for a couple of hours a day while commuting. If reading at home, it's usually in bed, in a chair, or on a sofa &mdash; conveniently close to a power strip. Most of us are very rarely more than 6 hours from a wall socket, and if the tablet takes after the iPhone in charging over USB, an in-car adapter will do the job too. (If Apple's designers go for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magsafe">magsafe</a> or an entirely new charge system this may be another matter, but I don't think they're that stupid.) More realistically, look to the battery life of the iPod Touch when playing movies or games as a guideline to what to expect.</p>

<p>Finally, if I'm going to ask for a pony, I'd like Apple to pursue a more enlightened policy towards folks who want to, er, <em>compute</em> on the computing device they just bought. The iPhone OS is locked down tight because under the hood it's a kluge; if you jailbreak it you discover to your horror that everything runs as root, and there's even a hopelessly weak root password ("alpine") on what is actually a networked UNIX box as powerful as a mid-1990s Sun workstation. I'll settle for a virtualized sandbox if inecessary, instead of a fully implemented security system &mdash; but please can I have a shell, a python interpreter, and some elbow room? (Not likely, but I can hope ...)</p>

<p>Here's the key insight, though: Apple have been working on this thing for <em>years</em>. Steve Jobs is excited enough about it to say so in the middle of a financials call focussing on the previous quarter &mdash; that's odd and unusual enough to add support to the hypothesis that Apple is getting ready to launch something that they hope will be to the Macintosh as the Mac was to the Apple II: an entirely new paradigm for personal computing &mdash; one that is network-centric, but in a rather different direction from Google's Android platform (which is Google cloud-centric instead &mdash; a subtle but important distinction). And if that isn't enough to make you sit up and pay attention, you're more jaded than I am after 30 years of computer industry watching.</p>

<p>The launch event is at 6pm tomorrow, 10am in California. And in case you were wondering about my <a href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/12/new-years-resolutions.html">new year's resolution</a>: I've stuck to it so far, but see the small print (specifically clause 5).</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Too many spammers</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/01/too-many-spammers.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2932</id>

    <published>2010-01-23T19:12:54Z</published>
    <updated>2010-01-30T09:58:58Z</updated>

    <summary>I have never seen so many blog spammers show up in a seething, pullulating mass as happened within half an hour of the previous post showing up on Hacker News. Debate seems to have run its course, so without further...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Charlie Stross</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=2</uri>
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p>I have <em>never</em> seen so many blog spammers show up in a seething, pullulating mass as happened within half an hour of the previous post showing up on <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/">Hacker News</a>. Debate seems to have run its course, so without further ado I'm closing comments there. If you need to talk among yourselves, feel free to continue here.</p>

<p>(In other news: exhausted, so taking the weekend off. Then I've got a short story to finish and a chunk of novel-outline to write and some more research for $SEKRIT_MEDIA_PROJECT to do.)</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>The monetization paradox (or why Google is not my friend)</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/01/the-monetization-paradox-or-wh.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2931</id>

    <published>2010-01-20T13:51:55Z</published>
    <updated>2010-01-23T19:23:07Z</updated>

    <summary>The continual plaint in newspapers around the world is that the news media are in big trouble. Au contraire: what&apos;s in trouble is their monetization model. In a nutshell: when you buy a newspaper with a circulation of, say, one...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Charlie Stross</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=2</uri>
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p>The continual plaint in newspapers around the world is that the news media are in big trouble. Au contraire: what's in trouble is their monetization model.</p>

<p>In a nutshell: when you buy a newspaper with a circulation of, say, one million copies, you are not paying a cover price equal to one millionth of their production costs. Far from it &mdash; you may well be paying less than 10% of the actual cost of the newspaper. It's not hard to see why. A paper with 64 pages of news coverage and editorial contains on the order of 60,000 words of text &mdash; maybe more. Paying people to write those words <em>costs money</em>. Even a harried journalist, cranking 'em out by regurgitating press releases (rather than pounding the pavement, talking to people) isn't going to be producing much more than five pieces a day, running 300-1000 words. It takes twenty writers to write the content of those pages, and another half-dozen editors to ensure the typos and solecisms and potentially libelous misstatements are spotted before it hits the typesetters (again: ever tried to lay out 64 pages in a hurry?) and then the press.  That's about 30-40 staff, plus management, minimum &mdash; a more realistic figure would be 200 bodies (the word rate and editorial figures I pulled out of my ass are insanely intensive). Pay &pound;0.50 per copy per day for 330 days a year, with a 1M circulation, and the paper would only net &pound;180M a year, <em>before</em> printing and distribution costs for 330 million lumps of dead tree are taken into account.</p>

<p>The real profit centre in newspaper publishing isn't what you, the customer, are paying for; it's advertising revenue. I haven't worked on a newspaper. I have, however, written regularly for newsstand magazines. In the USA, to take advantage of bulk printed matter shipping rates mags and newspapers were required to have at least 20% editorial/non-advertising content by page count. The other 80% is ads. My rule of thumb when I was writing for <em>Shopper</em> was that they were getting around five times as much revenue from the advertisers as from their paying readers: when software and computer component advertising spend went online post-1998, it was a disaster.</p>

<p>These days, a lot of newspapers look to cut their overheads by reducing their actual journalist and editor head-count &mdash; after all, these folks aren't contributing much to the bottom line (which is advertising sales) &mdash; and running news straight off the syndicated wire feeds.</p>

<p>This is the kind of move that looks sensible on a balance sheet, to a bean-counter who's wondering where the profits have gone. By axing 80% of the journalists and 50% of the editors, our hypothetical 40-person newspaper can in principle save 30 payroll entries, or on the order of &pound;900,000 a year. But in the long term, it's insane: it's the kind of move that cuts one or two percentage points off the bottom line, but pisses off the subscribers. Subscribers are the lifeblood of a periodical; the number of subscribers directly dictates how much money the advertising sales department can charge their customers. So a spiral of decline triggered by a loss of advertising sales frequently leads to cuts elsewhere &mdash; in editorial and other content &mdash; that drives away subscribers and causes further drops in advertising revenue. And with the internet competing for advertiser's marketing budgets, that's a recipe for catastrophic decline.</p>

<p>There's another side-effect of the internet, though. The internet is business-model neutral; it's like the postal service, or the telephone &mdash; all it does is put suppliers in touch with consumers. The revolutionary new quality it adds is that it <em>cuts out middlemen</em> &mdash; if a supplier can make their existence known to a consumer, there's no need for wholesaler warehouses, distributors, and a pavement-pounding sales force. </p>

<p>Enter Google.</p>

<p>(You knew I was going to say that name sooner or later, didn't you?)</p>

<p>Google's revenue stream is predicated on their success as an advertising company first and foremost. Remember DoubleClick? They're part of Google.</p>

<p>Google's business model is to monetize all internet content by slapping advertising on it and positioning themselves as the most convenient find-everything-at-your-fingertips gateway. The more high-quality content, the better; hence the drive towards free email, digitizing books, syndicating blogs via Google Reader, and so on. If all content is available over the internet via Google, then all content is monetizable. Content producers who expect to be paid by end-users for access to their content are inevitably going to come into conflict with Google, because this restricts the number of end-users who will see the content, and hence contribute to Google's revenue stream.</p>

<p>We all like free content. And we all like to be able to find things conveniently on the web. But I'm increasingly having a problem with the "information wants to be free" viewpoint &mdash; because it ain't necessarily so, depending on how you define "information" and "free". <em>Bandwidth</em> is in the process of becoming so cheap it might as well be free, at least by the standards of the 1990s, let alone any earlier decade. <em>Information</em> is another matter, though. Not all information is created equal, and the cost of compiling and producing something new is disproportionately high. I write books for a living, and take roughly 6-12 months per book. If I can't earn a living at it &mdash; if you wave a hypothetical magic wand and make all information free, thereby disintegrating the publishing, music, and commercial content industries overnight &mdash; I'd probably not stop writing fiction <em>but I'd have to do something else to earn a living</em>, and therefore <em>I'd have less time to write fiction</em>, and consequently you'd have fewer of my stories to download.</p>

<p>This doesn't really interest Google, of course. I've occasionally wondered what I'd say if someone at Google offered to hire me to write fiction and release it under a Creative Commons license; it's an attractive proposition from my side of the table &mdash; my two goals are to earn a living, and to reach as many readers as possible. There are only about 1000 full-time genre SF/F novelists, and the same number of part-timers; Google could in principle afford to pay every novelist currently active in the English language out of the petty cash. (Except maybe JKR and PTerry. And Dan Brown.) But it ain't going to happen. Google runs on quantifiable data, and the one bit of data I can offer them is that as a data source, including all overheads, I cost on the order of one US cent per byte. Given that the crappiest spam blog is as useful to Google as the greatest virtuoso symphony performance or the Nobel prize winning novel, if it generates the same number of advertising click-throughs, they'd do just as well to spend the money on automated spambots. They've got my backlist to draw eyeballs and advertising clicks (the Google Book Settlement is a crock: by opting out of it, all I'd achieve would be to reserve the right to <em>sue Google</em> &mdash; that's not a realistic option from where I stand). Even if I never write another word, my existing corpus is out there and much cheaper than 5.5 cents per word.  So my profitability as an advertising host is minimal. Google isn't going to save content creators from the burning wreckage of their distribution industries. </p>

<p>So what's left?</p>

<p>Far be it from me to back Rupert Murdoch's all-out threat to pick a fight with Google over the News International paywall. I think he's onto a loser &mdash; it's hugely ironic to see the mogul who used to regularly phone Arthur C. Clarke for advice about the future of media clinging to an obsolete 20th century business model. Unless he radically reverses the trend towards syndicating content off the wires and hires a buttload more journalists, <em>and starts providing content worth paying for</em>, his policy doesn't stand a chance of working. Worse, in picking a fight with Google he's picking a fight with those news media who don't play by his rules. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/">The BBC</a> has a public-service remit and arguably <em>can't</em> set up a paywall around their news (hence Murdoch's recent overtures to the Conservative Party in the UK, who will likely form part of the next government and who are not friendly towards the BBC). <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/">The Guardian</a> is run by a trust and has picked as its target the goal of becoming the planet's leading left-wing news portal; ideologically and practically they're Murdoch's direct opposite. As long as Google can leverage news sources like these, the Murdoch paywall is going to have an uphill struggle.</p>

<p>If they're smart, News International's managers <em>might</em> start to roll back the damage of 30 years of complacent lard-assed journalism &mdash; hire new investigators, train them to go for the throat and chase the scandals, and start raising hell. A combination of targeted micro-news coverage and turning over rocks to see what's underneath could pay off. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/">The Daily Telegraph</a> started an avalanche running in the UK last year with their series of explosive revelations on the subject of MP's expenses; there hasn't been anything like it in the USA this century, as the insider-culture of the Washington beltway has captured the journalistic corps. When the press cosy up to power, the result is a culture of collusion, and both news and open and accountable government suffer.</p>

<p>However, I don't expect them to do that &mdash; if nothing else, it's going against a generation of entrenched newsroom practice. And hiding behind a paywall isn't a workable solution for a jobbing novelist in the age of ubiquitous online copying, because I don't have the subscriber/advertiser dynamic that a news corporation can count on to pad out the bottom line. So, what to do?</p>

<p>Paper books are going to be around for a long time to come, but I'm betting on the ebook  cannibalizing the mass-market paperback by 2020 at the latest &mdash; which is where half the paper book revenue stream comes from. Hardcovers pay much better than paperbacks, but far fewer people are willing to pay for them. Paperbacks pay the author roughly 7-10% of the cover price of a &pound;7 or $8 book. But the ebook shift is potentially catastrophic: ebook royalties are typically in the 15-30% range, but the cost of e-goods in general is being deflated towards the $1.99 price point by the App Store model pushed by Apple and their competitors. <a href="http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/g5lSmqH-D0k/amazons-new-plan-for-ebooks-70-cut-for-publishers-10-max-price">Amazon aren't helping either</a> &mdash; increasing the publisher's cut sounds good, until you realize that the proposed $9.99 cap on ebooks replaces the high-end $24  hardcover. Not only does it mean less royalties for the authors, it means less money for the publishers &mdash; or, more importantly, their marketing divisions.</p>

<p>Here's a hint: if I wanted to spend my time marketing my books I'd have gone into marketing. I'm a <em>writer</em>. Every hour spent on marketing activities is an hour spent <em>not writing</em>. Ditto editing, proofreading, commissioning cover art, and so on. This is what I have publishers for. It's called "division of labour", and it's why self-publishing &mdash; unless you're an instinctive sales/marketing genius &mdash; is a Really Bad Idea&trade; for most writers. </p>

<p>So I'm trying to figure out what constitutes a workable business model in the post-Google age for someone who wants to earn a living by writing. </p>

<p>I'm not much of a public speaker &mdash; unlike Cory Doctorow  I find speaking exhausting, and worse, I can't write while I'm travelling. Maybe a hybrid business model would make sense for some writers: a full range of posable action figures based on the characters in their books, backed up by a manga serial and some themed casual gameplay. But I'm not convinced that's where I want to go, either. What I really need is some kind of subscription model that makes the disintermediating depradations of Google strictly irrelevant. So this leads me to ask <b>what new business models exist that I can monetize and that aren't going to (a) be devalued by Google, (b) undercut by infinite free bandwidth, or (c) require an old dog to learn new skills (like cat-emulation, or screenwriting)?</b></p>

<p>Some data for your analysis: traditional industry estimates suggest that there are four readers for each book sold. Many of my readers overlap, so my best guess (which is a stab in the dark) is that I have an English-language audience of around 100,000-200,000 (of whom some read one book and won't be coming back, and some will read everything I produce ... via the library). Of course, I sell far fewer books than that. I <em>do</em> know that 3000 of you bought "Missile Gap" for $35 &mdash; a novella that cost 50% more than an undiscounted hardback &mdash; so we can use that as an approximation for the size of my dedicated fan base. Finally, if I aim to maintain quality, I can probably average 200,000 words of fiction per year. (250-300,000 in a good year, 150,000 in a challenging year.) That averages a single 600-700 page novel, or two 300 page novels, or six novellas. And I am not in the movie/TV/comic script business at this point in time.</p>

<p>Suggestions on the back of a <s>postcard</s> blog comment, please. </p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>More Flame Bait</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/01/more-flame-bait.html" />
    <id>tag:www.antipope.org,2010:/charlie/blog-static//1.2930</id>

    <published>2010-01-17T14:42:14Z</published>
    <updated>2010-01-30T10:00:56Z</updated>

    <summary><![CDATA[This is an oldie but a goodie, and I haven't written about it before &mdash; at least, not on my blog. I'm writing this entry sitting on a sofa and using a Macbook Air. The desktop computer in my office...]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Charlie Stross</name>
        <uri>http://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&amp;blog_id=1&amp;id=2</uri>
    </author>
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/">
        <![CDATA[<p>This is an oldie but a goodie, and I haven't written about it before &mdash; at least, not on my blog.</p>

<p>I'm writing this entry sitting on a sofa and using a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbook_Air">Macbook Air</a>. The desktop computer in my office is also a Mac. Why?</p>

<p>There are several good arguments for <em>not</em> using Apple's computers. For one thing, they're expensive; no cheap netbooks here. If money was all there was to it, I'd stick to generic cheap PCs &mdash; and indeed, I have run PCs in the past.</p>

<p>I'm on the public record as being a UNIX bigot. Although Mac OS X is BSD UNIX based, these days the various flavours of Linux will turn just about any PC (except for a few portables with exotic hardware) into a decent workstation. If it was just about the UNIX experience, I'd be running Linux on commodity PCs.</p>

<p>The reason I choose to pay through the nose for my computers is very simple: unlike just about every other manufacturer in the business, <em>Apple appreciate the importance of good industrial design</em>.</p>

<p>Most of the major computer vendors were started by salesmen or engineering executives. Over time, marketing took over as the main driving force. Design doesn't get much of a look in edgeways &mdash; with the intermittent exception of Sony's high-end kit, most PC vendors wouldn't know good industrial design if you hit them over the head with it. Apple, however, is different.</p>

<p>There is a focus on industrial design at Apple that is ubiquitous in other business sectors but absent from the rest of the personal computing industry. Automobile marketing is almost entirely design- and fashion-driven these days, followed by technology in second place. The PC business isn't; what passes for design is a choice of differently-coloured injection-molded plastic cases stuffed full of badly-integrated cruft. There are wires everywhere, bad ergonomics (did I rant yet about the iniquities of far eastern keyboard designers and their contempt for the right-shift key?), and to cap it all there's Windows &mdash; a dog's dinner of an operating system &mdash; plus lashings of try-before-you-buy junkware. Sure you can get decently designed PCs, but you'll end up paying as much as you would for a Mac: and you still have to scrape the crud off them to get a halfway acceptable experience.</p>

<p>Worse: for the most part, PC people don't understand the value of good design. The value of good design is simple, literally: stuff that's well designed is easy to use, fit for purpose, and doesn't put obstructions in the way of you using it to get stuff done. Design, in the computing biz, is all too often confused with technology, which is something entirely different. Yes, there <em>is</em> a place for advanced technology: but it shouldn't be getting in your face. All too often, PC vendors market their products by over-emphasizing the technology that goes into them, rather than by making the damn things useful. And then they look down their nose at anyone who complains that this stuff is <em>hard</em>.</p>

<p>I use Macs because I appreciate good industrial design when I see it; I work sitting in an Aeron chair in front of a 1970s vintage Swedish desk, and I don't want to spend sixty hours a week sitting at that desk staring at something that looks like it was thrown together from the spare parts bin. I want an operating system descended from UNIX under the hood, because I have twenty-plus years experience of bossing UNIX systems around (and UNIX, in my opinion, exhibits a degree of basic design consistency in its userland experience that is missing from the Microsoft world). I like the Mac OS X graphical experience because it <em>looks good</em>, (as it should, because before it could be released it had to satisfy a <a href="http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html">fanatical design perfectionist obsessed with caligraphy</a>). And I am sitting in front of this thing for <em>sixty hours a week</em>. I have better things to do with my time than nurse a balky, badly-designed system that shits itself all over my hard disk on a regular basis, or spends half its time running urgent maintenance tasks that stop me getting stuff done.</p>

<p>I <em>could</em> write while sitting on a cheap IKEA stool in front of a kitchen table, banging away on a netbook loaded with Windows XP. But after a week, my back and my wrists would hurt and I'd be bleeding from the eyeballs every time I looked at the screen. It'd be like spending sixty hours a week driving a cheap Chevrolet Shitweasel instead of a Mercedes: sure, think of the savings &mdash; but the pain will get to you in the end.</p>

<p>Let the average price of a laptop PC (when you add in the necessary applications) be &pound;600, and the average price of a Macbook Pro be &pound;1200. Amortized over a year, I'm paying about &pound;2 a day for a decent working environment. That's the price of a cup of coffee in Starbucks. If you drive to and from your day job for an hour a day, you'd seriously consider buying a more comfortable car. A better, more comfortable computing environment costs peanuts in comparison.</p>

<p>One day, I hope, the entire PC industry will cotton on to the value of good industrial design and start taking it as seriously as Apple; or that those companies who don't will go bust.  I'll spend less of my time answering questions from confused friends and family. Maybe it'll mean less employment for technical support staff. But for the rest of us, it'll mean more time to do the things we consider to be important.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

</feed>
