Via oreillyradar:

I imagine more and more authors will start seeing things as Terrill Lee Lankford does:

While this deal would have given us a quick infusion of cash, by the time that book “earned out” at a rate of three to one in the publisher’s favor in e-book sales, the publisher would have reaped a small fortune, far more than the time and money it would have invested in the project. From that point on, the split would have seemed even more ridiculous. I see it as a permanent 75% tax on a piece of work that generates income with almost no expense after the initial development and setup charges. This deal could haunt my family long after I was gone.

Via oreillyradar:

Interesting look at the uptick in book sales at nontraditional brick-and-mortar stores (specialty shops, boutiques, etc.). Of particular note, the insane return policy doesn’t apply to these alternative retailers:

Though sales to nonbook retailers can be more complicated and labor-intensive for publishers, books are generally sold on a nonreturnable basis. Bookstores, on the other hand, can return unsold books to publishers.

Via oreillyradar:

Nice analysis.

It is a brilliant countermove. Apple is basically saying, “Let the subscriber decide,” knowing full well they will choose iTunes. After all, it’s simply easier for consumers to subscribe to digital publications from one place.

On a related note: This latest brouhaha over pricing and data and subscribers is a reminder that publishers should diversify beyond the App Store (or app store). The App Store needs to be one distribution channel among many.

The claim that we’re making big profits on the back of newspapers also misrepresents the reality. In search, we make our money primarily from advertisements for products. Someone types in digital camera and gets ads for digital cameras. A typical news search—for Afghanistan, say—may generate few if any ads. The revenue generated from the ads shown alongside news search queries is a tiny fraction of our search revenue. [Emphasis added.]