You may have heard of the Kindle and its use for reading books. Big-screen e-readers are being produced to provide similar options for other media. Go to the link below and read the article. Write a reflective comment that shows you have read the article, expresses your views, and addresses my questions. Note that I expect more from you than just answering my questions to get full credit.
How much do you think that the new big-screen e-readers should sell for? The article mentioned the possibility of having textbooks on Amazon’s larger version of its Kindle. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of having textbooks in this form? The article states that “The move by newspapers and magazines to make their material freely available on the Web is now viewed by many as a critical blunder that encouraged readers to stop paying for the print versions.” Do you agree? What should newspapers and magazines have done instead? What can publishers do to get people to pay for subscriptions to newspapers and magazines that they would read on big-screen e-readers?
E-Reader Article
16 comments:
In my opinion, the new big-screen e-readers should sell for around $500 or $600. Why? Well, Amazon’s Kindle sells for around $360, and this is roughly twice the size, and much more efficient. So I think adding around $140 dollars to the price of the smaller one, makes sense. Some advantages to having textbooks in this new e-reader would definitely be the lack of weight; textbooks are really heavy. Another advantage would have to be that the textbook cannot be ruined, or torn up. It’s there for as long as you want it. Some disadvantages, although hard to find, would be lack of color (I’m assuming that the Kindle and e-reader aren’t in color). One more thing, is that when you find a textbook you judge its quality by its length straight away, or at least I do. But if the textbooks on an e-reader, it’s harder to judge. Also, finally, a disadvantage to textbooks on e-readers is that if used in school, students can easily be looking at something else while their teacher thinks that they’re reading from the textbook. I do agree because if the content is available online, and constantly not only for a short time; I’ll read it there. But if it’s available in a magazine stand, or newspaper stand, for only a short while and with money, then I wouldn’t buy it. There are many more pros to reading it and getting it online on an easy to handle object; rather than a big newspaper that always falls apart. Newspapers and magazines can begin having specialized e-reader subscriptions; which would cost either more or less than the actual print version; depending on which one makes more profit. Since the e-reader’s already expensive, publishers can make subscriptions through passwords. If you pay a specific amount, you get a password to put on your e-reader which will get you through to the magazine or newspaper you’re trying to read. They can get people to pay by adding bonuses to e-reader magazines; such as more pictures, or possibly sound.
Personally, I believe the new big-screen e-readers should sell for about 450 to 600 dollars. Just like Nadine mentioned, Amazon’s Kindle sells for about 360 dollars and it is not very efficient, especially when uploading pictures and it cannot be seen in high-definition color, so it only makes sense for the advanced, multi-color e-reader to sell for a couple hundred dollars more. The advantages I see in having textbooks in this form are that they are always available to readers if they have the device and prevent them from having to deal with damaged or lost textbooks. Also, people with such devices do not need to go around carrying all the extra weight of textbooks. The disadvantages I see is that sometimes readers will not have the needed texts available to them if their devices malfunction. Furthermore, readers will be more technically dependent and will slowly steer away from the original and traditional texts. Thus, students who depend on such devices a lot will have trouble relying on the print versions of texts and interacting with them in order to complete things when they are in such places, like classrooms where devices like the e-reader are usually prohibited from being used. As for the quote from the article, I completely agree with it, as in our technically advanced world today, we have come to greatly depend on the computer and when something is available for free online, why would a person go to some store and pay money to get this? It only seems reasonable that readers would rely more on the free and widely-available texts online than those that are printed and can be found in stores. Therefore, I side with the article, as print version readers will be likely to turn to online sources, as it is more conventional. Instead, newspapers and magazines should have made their online content only available to the people who already have subscriptions to the print versions of their content, which would ultimately not affect the number of people that read the print versions of their content. To encourage payment by people for subscriptions to newspapers and magazines they would read on big-screen e-readers, publishers could send members other free and entertaining or educational articles, which would make such a membership worth its price. Publishers could also possibly make other newspapers available to members based on the amount of money they pay.
Omar Abdel-Rahim
In my opinion, the new e-readers should sell for considerably more than the smaller, $360 Amazon Kindle. They should sell for around 500 or 515 dollars, as they are far superior to the Kindle in efficiency, and it is now possible to view more on the screen at one time. With these advantages, it seems like a plausible idea to sell the new e-readers for a fairy larger sum. The advantages of having textbooks on these e-readers would definitely be the amount of space taken up being reduced, along with weight amount decreasing with the vanishing of heavy textbooks. Also, the e-readers would be much easier to take with you, as they are light and relatively small compared to larger, heavy textbooks. There would be no need to maintain or worry about the condition of a textbook, as the information would already be on the e-reader and portable no less. Some disadvantages of the e-reader would be, as Ramy said, the possibility of a malfunction with the e-reader, with all data being lost. That is not possible with textbooks. Also, as Nadine said, students could use them to secretly look at something other than the textbook or school material. This might even be inappropriate content, and the teacher would not know. Again, that could not happen with textbooks, as it would be quite obvious if a student tried that. As for the quote from the article, I wholeheartedly agree. It is a mistake for magazines and newspapers to do this, as it will cost them much money. Their information and articles are now online constantly, and for free, then why bother paying for the print version when you can just look up the same news for free? It really was a foolish move, as now their print sales will decrease rapidly; as nobody wants to pay for what they can see later, at any time they please, for no cost. It will really cost them money, and I agree with the quote, in that it was a foolish blunder. As my colleagues have said, what they should have done is put their information and news online, but make a subscription policy, with a password, so that only those with a subscription can view the news. It would cost about the same as the newspaper itself, which is cheap, and would appeal to everyone. It would also retain profits for the newspaper and magazine companies. It would have been a smart move to keep up with the fast moving, modern, recession ravaged community. It would still be making them money, and they would be more convenient and constant with their information. That's what they should have done, to prevent everyone from seeing their news for free. They can get people to pay for these subscriptions on e-readers by advertising how easily, constantly, and quickly the information is readily available. Also, they could add bonuses to their articles, like sound, possibly videos, images, maps and those sorts of things, included in the actual news and information articles. They could even offer free trials for a certain amount of time. Those would appeal to everybody, and the subscriptions would come quickly for the newspaper and magazine companies. That's what they could do, and it would make the people feel like they are getting a good deal.
I think that the big screen e-readers should see for about 500 USD because there will be profit from the buyers buying subscriptions to these news paper, magazine, and text book companies. I think there would be plenty of advantages because it would cut down on the cost of books that schools have to buy, and it'll save paper, and if the larger versions of the Kindle come with a writing system, students can take notes on these books and highlight certain quotations. The only disadvantage I could see would be these e-readers running out of power for class, and there's no other text book available for the student to use. I totally and completely agree with the statement that making printed resources freely available on the web was a mistake- it's like free music- why pay for it, when it's available somewhere else completely free of charge? I think they should have charged for subscriptions of the online version- it makes more sense to pay people for the work they do instead of giving it away for free. It'd actually be very easy to charge for these e-reader subscriptions- why else would the consumer buy an e-reader if not to read newspaper and magazine articles? That is the entire reason for this invention, so I they simply take off their internet sites that give the articles away for free, then there will be no issue making people pay for them. The publishers of these big name print companies should really take advantage of people wanting to know what's going on in the world and make them pay for their employees' hard work writing the articles.
I think that the new big-screen e-readers should sell for about 400-500 dollars because it is a very useful thing. I see in having advantages of textbooks in Amazon’s larger version of its kindle is that it is much lighter than the textbook and it can be put in smaller bags for school so that you don’t have to waste your money and buy a larger bag. I think that the disadvantages would be that this e-reader can easily break once you accidently drop it and with a textbook nothing can happen except that the papers can rip or bend. Another disadvantage would be that when you open up something in an e-reader, it might take a couple of seconds but when you have a textbook, it can only take you one second to flip the page. I would definitely have to agree on this quote because it says that it “…encouraged readers to stop paying for the print versions”, and so that I would have to agree because people can save a lot of money. I think that the newspapers and magazines should’ve made it cost a couple of dollars online so that they would not lose money, but they should make it cheaper than the print. I think that the publishers can make accounts for the E-readers and when people make accounts they would have to pay how much the publisher is putting the price for.
The new e-reader seems like a nice product. I don't think it should cost more that 300 dollars. This device seems to be a great invention for the people who don't like to carry books or lugg around a heavy periodical books. I think it should be at least 300 dollars because I think the average american should be able to afford such a contraption without becoming bankrupt. I think the text books would not be such a bad idea because this could be extremly beneficial for students who don't like carrying a heavy back pack. It is scientifically proven that some kids do get back problems from carrying heavy bags. If the text books make it on the e-reader then this would lighten the load on the children when they go to school. I cannot see a disadvantage to having full textbooks on the device, except one, the disadvantage is that the amazon version might hurt the sale of the original e-reader. I think that people should pay to the company of the types of news papers and magazines they want by just selecting them and using their credit card, give them their money. I don't think it should be free to read any news paper or magazine because it would be worse towards the economy because it is already in a horrible state. I really don't understand the quote. I understand what it means but I sort of agree and disagree. It states valid points that support the cause for both sides of this. I think this is a good contraption to have and I would definatly buy it but I don't like to read so it would just be a waste of money.
The new e-reader seems like a nice product. I don't think it should cost more that 300 dollars. This device seems to be a great invention for the people who don't like to carry books or lugg around a heavy periodical books. I think it should be at least 300 dollars because I think the average american should be able to afford such a contraption without becoming bankrupt. I think the text books would not be such a bad idea because this could be extremly beneficial for students who don't like carrying a heavy back pack. It is scientifically proven that some kids do get back problems from carrying heavy bags. If the text books make it on the e-reader then this would lighten the load on the children when they go to school. I cannot see a disadvantage to having full textbooks on the device, except one, the disadvantage is that the amazon version might hurt the sale of the original e-reader. I think that people should pay to the company of the types of news papers and magazines they want by just selecting them and using their credit card, give them their money. I don't think it should be free to read any news paper or magazine because it would be worse towards the economy because it is already in a horrible state. I really don't understand the quote. I understand what it means but I sort of agree and disagree. It states valid points that support the cause for both sides of this. I think this is a good contraption to have and I would definatly buy it but I don't like to read so it would just be a waste of money.
ALSADI
I think that this product should cost about 400-450 dollars because it is a very useful peace of technology. I think this is great because it is better than carrying usual books with you to school. Heavy book causes back problems, which can ruin your future. This is an amazing thing because it is very handy and a much easier way to deal with textbooks. I think the disadvantage is that it is fragile and can break easily. Students usually throw their backpacks so it will break quickly and that will waste a person’s money. I agree with this quote because it will save people money. Newspapers and magazines should raise the price. I don’t think that people want to pay for online newspapers and magazines.
Honestly, I can’t tell I would never buy one, I don’t really see the point, but I think they should sell for 400-600$. The advantages of having a textbook in this version is they could prevent the loss of books or books wouldn’t get damaged, or there would be more space. There are many disadvantages too like for example if it breaks, it’s expensive to buy a new one. The quote is right, I seriously can’t think of what the newspapers and magazines could’ve done. And I agree with Omar A. no one would want to pay for newspapers and magazines online.
Honestly, I can’t tell I would never buy one, I don’t really see the point, but I think they should sell for 400-600$. The advantages of having a textbook in this version is they could prevent the loss of books or books wouldn’t get damaged, or there would be more space. There are many disadvantages too like for example if it breaks, it’s expensive to buy a new one. The quote is right, I seriously can’t think of what the newspapers and magazines could’ve done. And I agree with Omar A. no one would want to pay for newspapers and magazines online.
I think that the new big-screen e-readers should sell for 400-600 dollars so that they will make profit from the buyers. I think there would be more advantages than disadvantages because it would make the books that schools and if the Kindle version comes up with a writing system, it could help many people, students and teachers. I don’t think there are any disadvantages other than no good colors. I definitely agree with the quote that making printed resources for free on the web was a big mistake; it’s like downloading videos for free off of LimeWire, why would you pay for it when it’s free? I think that they should have charged for subscriptions of the online version. It would be easy to charge for the e-reader subscriptions. The publishers could advertise and delete the free ones in the web.
I think that they should sell it for $600 to $700. It's good that it's saved in the amazon because if you didn't get it you can tell them. I do agree. They should put it on the beginning of the site.
I think the new big-screen e-readers should sell for around $350. The textbooks would help students through out the world so much because of its light weight and easy-use. The only bad thing about it is that if it breaks you loose all your information and the books/textbooks you purchased. Yes I agree. The magazines shouldn’t have to do anything because they probably made a deal with the e-reader companies to pay them for each one purchased. Publishers should make people have an account that allows them to access their stuff, and the people would have to pay for it to work.
The kindle, probably can save a lot of publishing companies, and it can also save lots of trees. I think it is very useful to introduce it into the world because more people are now concerned about the environment, but not reading. So since it also uses less energy, and special Kindles such as the DX, I think that a lot of people are going to be interested in the new BIG-screen reading devices coming out soon or that are already out. I think that there should be contracts with new big screen readers. this way the reader would be paid for, over time, and the publishers would make money also. for example, you order a kindle, for 20 $ and you agree to buy 24 books a year and 2 magazine or newspaper subscriptions (per annum). So 24*10$ (the average kindle book price)and 10$*12( subscription price by month)makes about 360 dollars a year. Say you do that for two years... One of the biggest advantages of having textbooks in electronic form is the paper. So much more paper, won't be used if the E-readers are used.
I agree that companies should not have put their materials freely available on the web because it then makes people reluctant to pay for the material when a price is put on it. Publishers should've asked for internet prices for their publications, then have slightly lower prices for the kindle, this way, people would've paid for the internet version, and then would be willing to buy the e-reader.
I think that the big-screen e-readers should sell for 400-500 dollars. I think that the kindle is much better because it saves things and it could be lighter and more useful because its not just for textbooks. I think that textbooks are heavier and the text may be small, but with the kindle you may change the font. I agree and disagree with the quote, I agree because the kindle is much more better than newspapers and magazines but I disagree because maybe not all people may afford and think its that useful. I think the publishers should let people have accounts to they can have access to their things and information.
I think that new big-screen e-readers should sell for 400 to 600 dollars. I see that it has more advantages than disadvantages having of textbooks in this from because it makes it easier. “The move by newspapers and magazines to make their material freely available on the Web is now viewed by many as a critical blunder that encouraged readers to stop paying for the print versions.” I agree. Newspapers and magazines should have done is to use Kindle also but also have Newspaper and Magazines because some people can't afford Kindle. I think publishers should let people access.
Post a Comment