|
Grex > Music3 > #145: Apple presents iTunes - online music store |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 81 responses total. |
anderyn
|
|
response 25 of 81:
| 
May 6 17:17 UTC 2003 |
Why are books/cds/etc. more cheap in India? That seems odd to me.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 26 of 81:
|
May 6 18:00 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sj2
|
|
response 27 of 81:
|
May 7 07:15 UTC 2003 |
I don't think it has anything to do with manufacturing costs or
royalties. Its just plain marketing. If you sold a technical text book
for $20 in India almost none of the students would buy it. It would end
up getting photcopied and pirated. Now if you sold it for say $2-$4,
all students will buy a copy (as they do).
You have to remember that in volumes the Indian market for technical
text books must be bigger than that of US+UK+other-English-speaking-
countries. So its a BIG market and something that the publishers can't
simply ignore. With more than 250 universities, 1,500 research
institutions and 10,428 higher-education institutes, India churns out
200,000 engineering graduates and another 300,000 technically trained
graduates every year.
The local authors have local publishers and can sell a book at $2-$4,
so to compete with them the foreign publishers must sell at similar
prices. Low volume books are imported and sell at US prices for example
medical textbooks. Heh, so lots of medical students buy pirated books.
I wish the music publisher's take a hint from the book publishers and
do more like what Sony is doing.
|
gull
|
|
response 28 of 81:
|
May 7 13:57 UTC 2003 |
It's simple economics. If the population makes less money, you have to
price your goods lower if you want to sell them.
For a simple, local example, compare the cost of gas at the Meijer on
Ann Arbor-Saline Road to the cost of gas at the one on Carpenter. ;)
Last I checked it was seven cents cheaper per gallon on Carpenter Road.
|
keesan
|
|
response 29 of 81:
|
May 7 14:12 UTC 2003 |
So if they sell as tape for $5, everyone will make copies for their friends.
If they sold it cheaper, people might buy originals.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 30 of 81:
|
May 7 15:03 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sj2
|
|
response 31 of 81:
|
May 7 15:57 UTC 2003 |
Yeah. But you can visit India and buy those books and read them in the
US. My sis bought Rs. 50K of books on her first visit to India after
she went to study in the US. Thats ... ummm ... $1000. But I guess the
US value of those books would be anywhere between US $5k-$10k.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 32 of 81:
|
May 7 16:00 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 33 of 81:
|
May 7 17:32 UTC 2003 |
The economic concept here is called "market segmentation," IIRC.
It also happens on a geographic basis with medical drugs; on a
"class" basis, it is used by the airline industry so they can
charge thousands of dollars for a business traveller, but only
hundreds for vacationers.
|
gull
|
|
response 34 of 81:
|
May 7 20:56 UTC 2003 |
Part of that is because vacationers act in ways that help the airlines. For
example, vacationers generally buy tickets a month or two in advance, which
lets the airline plan ahead. Business travellers are always buying at the
last minute and rescheduling their flights, which makes it harder for the
airlines to ensure the planes will be full.
|
slynne
|
|
response 35 of 81:
|
May 7 21:26 UTC 2003 |
If that were the only consideration gull, the airlines would simply
give a big discount for advance purchases. But they also have things
like cheaper fares if you stay overnight saturday which is totally
designed to offer cheaper fares to vacationers.
An airline might offer a route between city A and city B because
typically they can fill 75% of the plane with business travelers who
are willing to pay say $400 for the flight. Vacationers arent so
willing to spend the $400 because they have other options (they can
spend their vacation at home for instance). The airlines use the "sat
stay" requirement to offer the vacationers seats at $200 or even $100.
|
keesan
|
|
response 36 of 81:
|
May 8 00:30 UTC 2003 |
Amtrak offers cheaper fares if you buy in advance.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 37 of 81:
|
May 8 02:36 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 38 of 81:
|
May 8 13:31 UTC 2003 |
Yes they do. I have to wonder how many people take Amtrak for business
except for on the East Coast.
|
gull
|
|
response 39 of 81:
|
May 8 13:33 UTC 2003 |
Last time I looked into taking Amtrak, it was cheaper to fly.
|
slynne
|
|
response 40 of 81:
|
May 8 13:40 UTC 2003 |
Opps. My #38 was a reply to #36. I agree with Sapna that not everyone
wants to spend days and days getting to their destination.
I have found that Amtrak is cheaper and more convenient than flying
when one is going on a short trip. For example, Ann Arbor to Chicago.
But even New York to Washington DC seems easier and cheaper too at
least the last time I checked. Consider also that the train usually
puts someone right downtown without the hassles of the airport.
Still, I imagine that Amtrak probably has a smaller percentage of
business travellers than the airlines. Even so, they probably could
learn a thing or two from the airlines about ticket pricing. I think
they are starting to do that. When I first started taking Amtrak, they
pretty much had the same fares for everyone but now they have things
like the "rail sale" on the website.
|
gull
|
|
response 41 of 81:
|
May 8 14:05 UTC 2003 |
The trip that was cheaper by plane was Grand Rapids, MI to Seattle, WA.
But supposedly the long transcontinental runs are the ones Amtrak has
trouble making a profit on, so it makes sense that they'd be more expensive.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 42 of 81:
|
May 8 15:45 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 43 of 81:
|
May 8 15:54 UTC 2003 |
Yeah. It takes three days and two nights to get to the west coast from
here via train. That is a little long for business travel. However, it
is perfect for folks who have a lot of time. FWIW, it is a great
experience. I have gone to California on the train twice. The views are
awesome. The people on the train are generally pretty neat. If you get
a sleeper car (very expensive) it is *really* nice but coach isnt too
bad.
|
keesan
|
|
response 44 of 81:
|
May 8 18:14 UTC 2003 |
They drag around a special car in which you can sit and look straight out the
window (instead of sideways) and also some dining-type cars where they sell
expensive potato chips and soda that they just took onboard from the
supermarket at the previous stop. (On the transcontinental run).
Unlike European trains, you cannot lie down in the train cheaply, you have
to pay for a private compartment and the use of a shower. In Europe a
six-person compartment can make up into a six-bunk compartment where you can
all lie down for the night at reasonable cost. One reason not to travel long
distances on American trains.
|
krj
|
|
response 45 of 81:
|
May 8 19:15 UTC 2003 |
Do people listen to songs from the Apple music store on their iPods on
these train trips?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 46 of 81:
|
May 8 19:26 UTC 2003 |
Well, the Apple store didn't exist at the time, but I spent quite a bit
of the time listening to my iPod on my Seattle to Oakland Amtrak trip this
March.
I doubt I'll ever choose to take a long-distance Amtrak trip again.
Thanks to a special fare sale they were having, I managed to travel for
about $30 less than if I had booked my travel by air, but it took about
24 hours to reach my destination and while I enjoyed watching the scenery
on the first part of the trip, scenery wasn't much use to me after it got
dark.
The rail system does have some great right-of-ways towards the south end
of the Puget Sound, running right along the water in some places. Very
pretty, but you could get the same views on a much more enjoyable trip
by just taking the segment between Seattle and Portland.
|
tod
|
|
response 47 of 81:
|
May 8 19:30 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 48 of 81:
|
May 8 19:37 UTC 2003 |
The views from the train were much more interesting than those from the road,
also when we are biking we tend to keep our eyes on the gravel surface.
If the trains were full they would be cheaper than the planes.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 49 of 81:
|
May 8 19:41 UTC 2003 |
re #47: could you? actively-used rail right-of-ways are generally
off-limits for bicyclists and I don't recall seeing any parallel bike-
or multi-use-paths..
|