Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
I did just use Best Buy's pick-up service to order a 5G Nano, since they offer $10 off if you order it online. Ironically, since you have to wait in the same line as people who are returning stuff, it can actually take longer to pick up something you've already purchased than it does to get through the fully-staffed checkout lane.
I can only hope this drive-thru crap isn't as literal as it sounds. Wal-Mart's had online-order, pick-up in-store for a while now. If they think losing the need to get out of your car is going to make some difference, they're idiots.
Then again, if the managers I used to work for are any indication....
Roll out the welcome mat. Here comes the Wal-Mart literal drive-thru window!
@OCEntertainment: Unless you ask them to match their own web site's price. The stores will not match Wal-mart's online prices, which are sometimes a good deal cheaper. But you can order online and pick it up in the store, which seems to me like basically the same thing as just buying it in the store, so why won't they just give me the stupid online price and save everyone the hassle? Ugh. I hate Wal-mart soooo much.
This strategy is aimed squarely at a person like me, who loves to order online and passes a Wal-Mart on my way to and from work every day (in fact, cutting through their parking lot would save me an additional block). But for the masses, I would think that direct-to-door delivery would still be preferred. If you have to drive to the store to pick up the item, what was the point of ordering online?
This just might be brilliant. I don't see it working for TV's so much as those random walmart trips where you have to walk around the entire store several times to get milk, eggs, q-tips, batteries, a pack of pens, condoms. Just send the list with your walmart app, pay with your credit card, and go pick up your sack of random stuff.
@Gann: Its only for online orders. In order to do that you'd have to pay extra for the amount of time it would take a store associate to run around the store picking up the items.
The new service includes everything on walmart.com, which now has a beta section for 'grocery' and 'health and beauty'. I believe that covers everything in my comment. As for paying extra, I don't see that anywhere. I assume you just made it up.
To be fair I hate waiting for deliveries. Sitting around, constantly looking out the window, hoping the damn package will arrive. Then they happen to not deliver it that day despite the indications from the tracking that they would. Then they shop up at some stupid time when no one is around to accept it and it ends up back at the post office anyway meaning in the end you have to pick it up.
Still unless you don't have to go far to do these pick ups and you still get competitive online pricing I can't see it taking off.
@tamoko: I went to college about a half hour from the drive through strip club. To stay on topic, though, I still think Amazon wins with same-day delivery -- then you don't have to wait OR get off your ass.
I absolutely hate shopping at Wal-Mart. The people who work there are poor tortured souls with hardly any lifeforce left in them, exerting minimal effort.
@Deckard: But it's the American dream: Capitalism at its finest. Bringing you the lowest prices by making life miserable for your employees and suppliers.
Interesting idea. Online sales without the waiting or cost of shipping (although you have the time and cost of driving and petrol). It would appeal to me sometimes though, if they had the same kind of prices you get an online only stores.
@Professional_Iceberg_Hunter: I can only comment on New Zealand's stores unfortunately; most will price match but only other retail stores, they usually exclude "online only stores".
I'd say the price is *somewhat* fair for what you're getting. Digital delivery means, once the text is edited and converted to e-book format, there's pretty much nothing further to do than make money.
No publication or production costs, no shipping, no wholesale market. Straight from the publisher to the reader.
To add to that, the reader is also getting a lot less. You can't collect or sell a rare e-book, you can't lend an e-book to a friend, you can't rent an ebook for free from a library, you can't finish reading it and then sell it at a garage sale.
The great thing about physical media is that I have more freedom of doing what I want when I'm done with it or I'm sick of it. I can hand down or sell CDs, Movies, books. Or from the other perspective, I can buy used or receive a hand-me-down. Can't do that (legally) with iTunes.
To me, MP3/e-book downloads have always been like the pay-per-view business model, except you're paying full price.
@Ninety-9: Some misses. Yes you can lend an eBook (though limited to once currently - Nook). And yes, you can get eBooks from the library: [ebooks.nypl.org]
Totally agree that the re-sale or transfer potential is the nail in the coffin for their model. It turns an "own it" business model into strictly a "rent it" model, and that's unacceptable to me.
Unless this gets fixed, the library model is our only hope...
@Ninety-9: You can rent ebooks for free from libraries. I do it all the time on my Sony. Sure, the selection isn't that great, but I can always find something worthwhile to read.
@ross9999: Hmmm, I wasn't aware the libraries have caught up with technology. If that's the case, how do you define "Renting?" I don't expect they need me to "return" it, since they probably retain the original file. In addition, they'd never run out of a particular book because someone else has it checked out.
If that's the case, then, why buy it? Why be married to a copy of a book you're only going to read once, maybe twice? I understand, I can eat my words, because I could say the same thing about libraries vs. physical books. But physical books still have much, much more value, as far as saving, collecting, sharing, putting on a shelf to make people think you're intellectual.
And to all, I do take back the full price comment, I do know it's a reduced price, but you're still "paying" for ownership when you download it from amazon. I'd rather pay $2.99 to read it once and have it expire after 2 months, then pay $10 and be married to a piece of information for the rest of my life. When I say it's like Pay per view except you're paying full price, this is what I mean. They did reduce the cost, since you're eliminating ink and paper, but you're still 'paying to own' something you can never really 'own.'
While we're talking about iTunes and other online music stores, it seems to me that even with variable pricing, the cost of downloading music IS the same as purchasing the CD.
Here's what chaps my ass about e-books: I have to re-buy, at full price, digital versions of books I already own in print form. Music services like iTunes, on the other hand, allow you to upload music you already own into your library, including album artwork, etc.
I understand; music is already digitized, so no one had to do any extra work to crank out a digital copy. Books are paper, and they take work to digitize. There should, however, be some sort of acknowledgement that I own the print copy already, like a reduced-price digital version.
@spookyu: I'll readily admit that it takes work to make a digital version of a book, and that work has value. I'll pay it, just at a reduced rate. Publishers don't need to recoup the same costs from me twice.
@Segador: A small handful of books come with the digital copy on CD... the Honor Harington sci-fi series used to come with not only the ebook for the book you bought, but every book in the series and the spin-offs... which was pure awesome, great way to jump into a series in the middle.
If more publishers did this, or provided a code you could use to download the kindle or ereader version, I would actually buy a lot more physical books, because I like to read ebooks on the go, but I also like having the hard copy for posterity.
@Segador: The problem is that you've got it backwards. iTunes just allows your library to contain digital copies of music you provide them in addition to the music you buy from their store. But iTunes will not let you scan the UPC code of a cassette you bought in 1983 and download a digital version - you'd have to re-purchase them. It would be nice, but I don't think it's a very realistic request.
Any eBook reader can display any number of text formats though, if you can provide them.
On that note, eBook readers do put public domain works on the same standing as published novels. It's very nice to get copies of all the classics for free, instead of having to pay a publisher for printing a hard copy.
@Segador: I've always felt that undapants, as Jesus likes to say it, that are too tight chap my bum more so than not getting a digital copy of a book when I purchase the hard copy.
@smith186: Well stated. I'd still like the option to receive a digital copy of new books that I purchase today. I don't expect free digital copies of books I check out of the library, or books from 20 years ago.
@thechansen: not without a lot of complicated setup and then it would still be a race and potentially more involved afterwards. I bought a $35 package that I scanned a half page size book with on a flat bed scanner. Despite it being 300 pages, there was no need to cut it apart. It even can adjust for the curvature of the binding (try that with your cameras). I scanned them 2 up, it auto-numbered, auto-scaled, auto-cropped, auto-footered with left/right alternating footers and it turned the pages into image files which I could then tweak or even rotate quickly paging through all them and then after setting a couple further options with one button turned it into a PDF (or ePub...). They go in at the speed of your flat page scanner.
With two cameras, even if you get them and keep them well aligned, you need something like clear glass to cover and flatten them and good lighting that will not be off color in rendering (i.e. not incandescent or flourescent...), and then you end up with file numbering that's in two groups and no means to smoothly put it all together.
@brianmi40: well I used scrap, open source software, and cameras I already had. So my cost was zero dollars, and I can do about 300 pages in half an hour, 15 minutes in post production.
To compare book-buying habits to those of movies or music is folly. The publishing industry has never fostered the "you need to go get it immediately" mentality among the American public. In fact, only three things come to mind that are pushed in that fashion:
1- Twilight
2- Harry Potter
3- whatever nonsense Oprah's pushing down the gullets of middle-aged housewives
That's it.
I'd also add that you can argue they are treating e-books like paperbacks.
@thechansen: Except he's made large amounts of dough from his books. I do agree that his writing follows a formula, but Uwe Boll has lost lots of dough on his movies if I recall my bored Wikipedia surfing correctly.
I for one think we should just call Danny boy's formula the "Da Vinci Code".
/SPLAT
That was the sound of my pathetic pun falling flat on its face.
@thechansen: I totally agree on Michael Bay. I'm not a Transformers canonical purist and I found Transformers 2 to be pretty to watch and could write off the cheesy dialogue and story to the movie being targeted at a teenage audience.
Shoot me for being a shallow sellout all you want but I knew what I was getting into. And yes by pretty I meant Miss Fox, not just the FX.
Fact is the publishing industry is bloated and lazy just like the music industry. This will be similar to the litmus test that rocked the music industry. Bands that people respect and enjoy will prosper, up coming indie bands will gain huge amounts of exposure through file sharing and build a solid online following... Lady Gaga will have most of her shit torrented and disappear slowly. Similarly, that author that everyone loves and respects will continue to sell books, Sarah Palin will have her shitty and terrible book torrented and mocked. Bring it on folks, its the open marketplace...if its worth it, it'll be purchased.
@TonyWonder: One main difference is that portable music and movies or TV have always relied on a powered technology. Record players, tape players, CD players, TVs and movie theaters. Not so for books; print on paper and it's always there when you want it, no need for any technology. I think that's a major difference. Music and video lend themselves to digitized formats. Books, less so.
I won't buy a book at the Reader Store (the Sony eBook Store), unless it is under $14.00, which seems like an arbitrary number but there is some wacky prices on there. I recently paid $11.20 for Wake Up, Sir by Jonathan Ames. Prices seem to dropping on the Sony store to compete with Amazon/B&N. I have no issue buying a book for prices over $20 for a hardcover, and I would pay the same for a paperback as I would for an eBook.
I feel authors tend to get shafted by publishers even harder than musicians by record labels. On the average book that is simply released by a publisher with no marketing push, signing tour, etc. you are lucky to get a 100k copy printing, and even luckier if you manage to sell all of those. The ability to self publish on Amazon, iTunes, and other stores will be a great boost to the financial return that authors see. You don't get advances, and zero marketing (how many books actually get marketing??) but at least you are getting a better cut.
12/15/09
12/15/09
Then again, if the managers I used to work for are any indication....
Roll out the welcome mat. Here comes the Wal-Mart literal drive-thru window!
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
[www.walmart.com]
The new service includes everything on walmart.com, which now has a beta section for 'grocery' and 'health and beauty'. I believe that covers everything in my comment. As for paying extra, I don't see that anywhere. I assume you just made it up.
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
Still unless you don't have to go far to do these pick ups and you still get competitive online pricing I can't see it taking off.
12/15/09
RoadsideAmerica.com
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/09/09
No publication or production costs, no shipping, no wholesale market. Straight from the publisher to the reader.
To add to that, the reader is also getting a lot less. You can't collect or sell a rare e-book, you can't lend an e-book to a friend, you can't rent an ebook for free from a library, you can't finish reading it and then sell it at a garage sale.
The great thing about physical media is that I have more freedom of doing what I want when I'm done with it or I'm sick of it. I can hand down or sell CDs, Movies, books. Or from the other perspective, I can buy used or receive a hand-me-down. Can't do that (legally) with iTunes.
To me, MP3/e-book downloads have always been like the pay-per-view business model, except you're paying full price.
12/09/09
12/09/09
Totally agree that the re-sale or transfer potential is the nail in the coffin for their model. It turns an "own it" business model into strictly a "rent it" model, and that's unacceptable to me.
Unless this gets fixed, the library model is our only hope...
12/09/09
12/10/09
#ebooks
12/10/09
If that's the case, then, why buy it? Why be married to a copy of a book you're only going to read once, maybe twice? I understand, I can eat my words, because I could say the same thing about libraries vs. physical books. But physical books still have much, much more value, as far as saving, collecting, sharing, putting on a shelf to make people think you're intellectual.
And to all, I do take back the full price comment, I do know it's a reduced price, but you're still "paying" for ownership when you download it from amazon. I'd rather pay $2.99 to read it once and have it expire after 2 months, then pay $10 and be married to a piece of information for the rest of my life. When I say it's like Pay per view except you're paying full price, this is what I mean. They did reduce the cost, since you're eliminating ink and paper, but you're still 'paying to own' something you can never really 'own.'
12/10/09
While we're talking about iTunes and other online music stores, it seems to me that even with variable pricing, the cost of downloading music IS the same as purchasing the CD.
12/09/09
I understand; music is already digitized, so no one had to do any extra work to crank out a digital copy. Books are paper, and they take work to digitize. There should, however, be some sort of acknowledgement that I own the print copy already, like a reduced-price digital version.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
If more publishers did this, or provided a code you could use to download the kindle or ereader version, I would actually buy a lot more physical books, because I like to read ebooks on the go, but I also like having the hard copy for posterity.
12/09/09
12/09/09
Any eBook reader can display any number of text formats though, if you can provide them.
On that note, eBook readers do put public domain works on the same standing as published novels. It's very nice to get copies of all the classics for free, instead of having to pay a publisher for printing a hard copy.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
With two cameras, even if you get them and keep them well aligned, you need something like clear glass to cover and flatten them and good lighting that will not be off color in rendering (i.e. not incandescent or flourescent...), and then you end up with file numbering that's in two groups and no means to smoothly put it all together.
Best $35 I ever spent.
12/09/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/09/09
1- Twilight
2- Harry Potter
3- whatever nonsense Oprah's pushing down the gullets of middle-aged housewives
That's it.
I'd also add that you can argue they are treating e-books like paperbacks.
12/09/09
Also: Dan Brown, the Michael Bay of authors. Actually that is too kind. He is more like the Uwe Boll of authors.
12/09/09
I for one think we should just call Danny boy's formula the "Da Vinci Code".
/SPLAT
That was the sound of my pathetic pun falling flat on its face.
12/09/09
12/09/09
Shoot me for being a shallow sellout all you want but I knew what I was getting into. And yes by pretty I meant Miss Fox, not just the FX.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/10/09
12/09/09
I feel authors tend to get shafted by publishers even harder than musicians by record labels. On the average book that is simply released by a publisher with no marketing push, signing tour, etc. you are lucky to get a 100k copy printing, and even luckier if you manage to sell all of those. The ability to self publish on Amazon, iTunes, and other stores will be a great boost to the financial return that authors see. You don't get advances, and zero marketing (how many books actually get marketing??) but at least you are getting a better cut.