Archive for March, 2010

Make digital books cheaper than paper.


25 Mar

At the time of writing the Amazon Kindle edition of Sarah Pain’s book “Going Rogue” is selling for $14.09 and the hardback edition for $13.50.  This is utterly ludicrous – it’s a rip off and it’s bad for the environment. Amazon’s capitulation to Macmillan over selling eBooks (at a loss!) for $9.99 as a Kindle loss leader is a disaster for the customer and the planet… now Rupert Murdoch has sniffed an opportunity for increased profits price gouging us, the consumer, while his print media empire inexorably collapses around him (along with everyone else’s) [ref 2].  And all because the currently mythical iPad will apparently let publishers charge more… cheers Steve.

They’ve done it to us with music and now they’re trying to do it again with books.  A CD had to be pressed, packaged and transported to the point of sale then collected and taken home by the customer [ref 1] this last step contributing a significant amount to the energy cost.  A digital download is loaded onto a server and is ready to go… only the vendor has to be paid.  Server farms certainly consume energy in substantial quantities, however, they are becoming more efficient with each improvement in technology and monetary and energy costs are tiny compared to shipping a physical product.

With books the gap is even more pronounced as the finished physical product is bulkier and heavier than a CD and the digital download is tiny compared to music at a high sample rate [ref 1] shows bandwidth is a factor with music, not so with books.  Also a book was often read by many people particularly if a copy is released to the library system so the author got paid once and once only – well protected digital books vastly reduce this ability for people to share and they therefore sell more copies. There is no justification for using this huge reduction in overhead and the improvement in profitability to make a killing at the expense of the customer.

eBooks reduce the need for paper, power and water.

Please hug me...

There are other reasons to encourage people to use digital books rather than paper.  Paper, even when recycled, is a very expensive resource in terms of materials and water consumption – 3 times the raw material and 78 times more water than an eBook [ref 3].  Don’t misunderstand me here – it’s still better to take an unwanted book, pulp it, clean it, bleach it and make it into another book than it is to burn it or kill another tree.  It’s also highly desirable to stop creating new paper and process what we have it into insulation and use it to build a low cost well insulated home.

But any way you look at it paper is a dreadful waste of energy and water.  Publishers, therefore, have a moral duty to discourage the use of paper and encourage the use of eBooks.  Stick a little advert at the bottom of the page to make it worth your while… I’m really not bothered.

© Chas Newport 2010 All rights reserved.

References

Relative cost of CDs by retail method

Rupert Murdoch gunning to raise eBook Prices

Wikpedia eBooks

Good, Fast, or Cheap… pick two.


24 Mar

When I first saw this I thought it was genius.  A cool little project management axiom… but does it bear closer scrutiny?

The thinking is something like this:

  • If you make something cheap and fast you’ll need a lot of cheap people so it won’t be good.
  • If you want to make it cheap and good you’ll use cheap people and let them take their time to get it right, so not quick.
  • If you make something good and finish it fast you need the very best people and plenty of them so they won’t be cheap.

Now some cracks start to appear in the underlying assumptions…

Tick, tock... steam, steam...

Cheap/Fast assumes a large team of people is always quicker than a small one but I’m not convinced of that.  A large team requires excellent communication, clear goals regularly revised and first class leadership.  That combination of things is hard to achieve consistently. Communication becomes exponentially harder the bigger the team gets and layers of managers and team leaders can muddy the message.  Ensuring a large team understands the current goals and is fearless in reporting failures is very tricky and failure can easily be hidden.  True leadership means having a connection with all the people who work for you and that is harder to do with a big team.

Cheap/Good assumes cheap people are poor at their jobs.  This is clearly untrue as our experience of Eastern European migrants in the UK indicates.  Work ethic is a strongly cultural trait in terms of pay, hours, effort and quality.  A person from a country with subsistence wages and long hours of hard labour is likely to find even the worst UK jobs are an improvement from their low baseline.  As a result they are likely to be grateful for that improvement and that will show as diligence and quality.

Good/Fast assumes good people are expensive and that expensive people are good but I’m not sure either is universally true.  Experienced people may be at the upper limit of the pay for their skills but we are are conflating expensive with cost effective here.  A big team can be a burden where a small experienced team can bond, communicate and co-ordinate very easily so this may well give you cheap as well.  However, expensive people are not necessarily good, there are always a few individuals who are ballsy enough to demand an obscene amount of money which increases people’s perception of their ability and like the emperor’s new clothes it takes a rare individual to point it out.  All consultancy companies rely on being reassuringly expensive.

You can have good, fast and cheap if you keep the team small, use a blend of carefully vetted experts with less qualified but enthusiastic people. Have clear but revisable goals, great communication and good leadership.

Only six words? Can’t be done!…


21 Mar

Only six words? Can’t be done! … Doh! #sixwordsplusanexclamation

Belief: what trusted sources tell you.


09 Mar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QII’m not only talking about religion here I’m talking about everything.  The TV program QI (Quite Interesting) has a round called “General Ignorance” where they ask questions you think you know the answer to but virtually every “common knowledge” answer turns out to be either completely untrue, wildly inaccurate or superseded by the progress of human knowledge.

Philosophers have been debating the nature of “truth” for years with the best known protagonist being Martin Heidegger who called it by the Greek word for truth “aletheia”.  It’s heady stuff but my take is put in a simpler way:  we believe what trusted sources tell us and continue to believe it until evidence to the contrary changes our minds.

At school I was taught that glass is a viscous liquid and that the “sagging” you see in the glass of old buildings is caused by it imperceptibly “flowing” due to gravity.  Modern thinking is now that glass is an amorphous solid which doesn’t flow and that the sagging phenomenon was always present as a result of crude manufacturing processes in the early days of glass making.  Until the subject came up in the pub I was unaware of my flawed belief and defended it vigorously.  My opponents weren’t giving me scientific rebuttals – just a gut “that doesn’t sound right” and I hit Google feeling confident I could persuade them to my point of view.  Humble pie was consumed in some quantity.  This is a perfect example of the progress of knowledge leaving you behind.

A lighter example some data tables for the mineral content of vegetables briefly over stated the iron content of spinach by a factor of ten and Popeye was born…

My favourite example is the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum.  If you look on Wikipedia – Light you will find the history of understanding the nature of light has (at the time of writing) eleven different theories about light from particle and wave through to quantum theories.  Add to this the increasing knowledge of the spectrum of EM radiation.  Initially we could only detect radiation visible to the human eye and we were unaware of its component colours until the invention of the prism.  Later we could detect heat (infrared), ultraviolet (UV) and ultimately radio waves, microwaves, X-Rays and Gamma rays.  The history of EM radiation is littered with the certainties which always precede discovery…

Science then is a work in progress which means something we believe “true” today may not be “true” tomorrow.

Given most of us don’t have the time or inclination to apply a rigid scientific or philosophical framework to our every belief; how do we as individuals decide what’s true and what isn’t?  The answer, as far as I can see, is trust.  The most nebulous and fragile of mental constructs based on a combination of instinct and knowledge from different sources, averaged, weighed and analysed.

So, finally, to religion.  A set of never changing beliefs with no underlying evidence or proof.  Beliefs which often do not allow the possibility for change, development, expansion or adaptation.  Systems where the ultimate penalties are often reserved for those who question or choose not to believe the current “truth”.  I don’t understand that – but if you want to try to explain it, I will listen.

I can accept that some percentage of my beliefs are, or have become, objectively incorrect without my being aware of it.  I can also accept my trusted sources make mistakes and revise their views.  I’m comfortable with that, far more comfortable in fact than I am with dogma.

Six Word Ideas

Brevity, clarity, power, elegance and emotion.™


© 2010 Chas Newport All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright