Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Books are not too expensive

millersbookreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 216 posts

Re: Books are not too expensive

#171

Post by so-cal-schemer »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #139
randusername wrote: post #84

It's nice to own books. Read them multiple times, dog-ear the pages, scribble in the margins, risk reading them in the pool. But for the price conscious general reader just inter-library loan. If you want to buy To Kill A Mockingbird or The Hobbit be my guest, but any library in the US would have a few copies of those. Public libraries are awesome. Use it or lose it.

AFAICT, publishers don't donate books to public libraries. Those public libraries use our taxes to buy books. So if books are expensive then our taxes buy fewer books. San Francisco public libraries spend $200m per year, of which 15% is spent on 'collections', including books, ebooks, magazines etc. That's $35 per resident. The denominator includes newborns, infants and others that can't read or don't like to read.

San Francisco Public Library [0] is the best resource for readers in California. Of all the libraries in the state, I've found they are the most likely to acquire new titles, and often they are the only holder if the subject is particularly niche and technical. Even most university libraries are switching to digital collections *which can't be loaned out*.

One reason I say SFPL is great for all^H^H^H many Californians+ is their book collection is available for free pickup at a your local library via the inter-library sharing program, Link+ [1].

((People, submit purchase requests at your local libraries. It's what it's for.))

The other is that they are subscribers to "O'Reilly for Public Libraries", which lets people access Everything from O'Reilly for Free [2].

[0]: https://sfpl.org/

[1]: https://linkencore.iii.com/

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOsOTawdWFc

Re: Books are not too expensive

#172

Post by rahimnathwani »

so-cal-schemer wrote: post #171
rahimnathwani wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAICT, publishers don't donate books to public libraries. Those public libraries use our taxes to buy books. So if books are expensive then our taxes buy fewer books. San Francisco public libraries spend $200m per year, of which 15% is spent on 'collections', including books, ebooks, magazines etc. That's $35 per resident. The denominator includes newborns, infants and others that can't read or don't like to read.

San Francisco Public Library [0] is the best resource for readers in California. Of all the libraries in the state, I've found they are the most likely to acquire new titles, and often they are the only holder if the subject is particularly niche and technical. Even most university libraries are switching to digital collections *which can't be loaned out* . One reason I say SFPL is great for all^H^H^H many California…

My point was not whether $35/year per person on books is a lot or a little. I was responding to a comment where someone suggested libraries were a way to avoid high book prices. But they're not!

Libraries themselves (and by extension, taxpayers) suffer from high book prices.

Separately, would you mind explaining this part, as I'm not familiar with university libraries: "Even most university libraries are switching to digital collections which can't be loaned out."

Does this mean you can only read the digital collections when physically present in the library, or that they're only available to members and not via inter-library loan?

A few years ago I suggested a book via this form: https://sfpl.org/services/ask-librarian/suggest-title I never received any response.

I've since (very recently) learned there's another way to suggest titles here: https://sfpl.bibliocommons.com/user_dashboard#overlay456

Just now, I went to suggest a book there and got a popup message saying they won't get that book because it's over 10 years old. It's a book about critical thinking. It doesn't need to be updated.

Re: Books are not too expensive

#173

Post by toast0 »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #172
so-cal-schemer wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco Public Library [0] is the best resource for readers in California. Of all the libraries in the state, I've found they are the most likely to acquire new titles, and often they are the only holder if the subject is particularly niche and technical. Even most university libraries are switching to digital collections *which can't be loaned out* . One reason I say SFPL is great for all^H^H^H many California…

My point was not whether $35/year per person on books is a lot or a little. I was responding to a comment where someone suggested libraries were a way to avoid high book prices. But they're not! Libraries themselves (and by extension, taxpayers) suffer from high book prices. Separately, would you mind explaining this part, as I'm not familiar with university libraries: "Even most university libraries are switching to…

> I was responding to a comment where someone suggested libraries were a way to avoid high book prices. But they're not!

Most of the books I've bought got read by me, and then sit on a shelf forever. If a book is bought by a library, and used multiple times before it's weeded, that's a big win for $/read.

> Just now, I went to suggest a book there and got a popup message saying they won't get that book because it's over 10 years old. It's a book about critical thinking. It doesn't need to be updated.

I think the library is suggesting a 10 year old book might be better accessed through other means. Can you get it from interlibrary loan? Is it available on the used market? It may not be available through the library's usual sourcing, etc.

Re: Books are not too expensive

#174

Post by rahimnathwani »

toast0 wrote: post #173
rahimnathwani wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was not whether $35/year per person on books is a lot or a little. I was responding to a comment where someone suggested libraries were a way to avoid high book prices. But they're not! Libraries themselves (and by extension, taxpayers) suffer from high book prices. Separately, would you mind explaining this part, as I'm not familiar with university libraries: "Even most university libraries are switching to…

> I was responding to a comment where someone suggested libraries were a way to avoid high book prices. But they're not! Most of the books I've bought got read by me, and then sit on a shelf forever. If a book is bought by a library, and used multiple times before it's weeded, that's a big win for $/read. > Just now, I went to suggest a book there and got a popup message saying they won't get that book because it's o…

Why would the age of the book matter? If it were from a big publisher and they were to publish a new substantially-unchanged edition every three years, why would that make the library willing to consider the book?

The book in question is still in print and still available new.

Re: Books are not too expensive

#175

Post by bombcar »

WillAdams wrote: post #136

One thing not mentioned in this article, and which doesn't seem to be discussed much these days is how the tax law changed to essentially eliminate the backlist (which was unsold copies of a book from the initial print run stored in a warehouse). Time was, an initial print run would be quite large, and books would then be stored and taxes deferred until they were actually sold --- when the law changed, requiring that…

> the law changed, requiring that taxes be paid on unsold inventory each year, these warehouses became a tax liability

How exactly did the law change? I can see them costing as an expense in the year published and not counted as revenue until sold (that's a "tax advantage") - but having to pay tax each year on inventory? That's more than just removing a tax advantage.

Re: Books are not too expensive

#176

Post by bombcar »

palmotea wrote: post #142
ericol wrote: post #138

Books _are_ expensive. This article only looks at the monetary side of it. The cost goes beyond the price tag. Books take up space, and that space compounds as you keep acquiring them. It's space you can't use for anything else, dedicated entirely to objects most people open once or twice and never touch again. And that cost doesn't stay abstract: at some point you're buying more bookshelves, upgrading to a larger on…

> It's space you can't use for anything else, dedicated entirely to objects most people open once or twice and never touch again. It worth noting that books can be decor. To the point where people who don't read buy them for decoration.

https://booksbythefoot.com is either the most horrible gore site you've ever seen, or interesting.

Re: Books are not too expensive

#177

Post by bombcar »

ninalanyon wrote: post #106
Brajeshwar wrote: post #51

I moved entirely to buying hardcovers. It is easier on the eye, and paperbacks, especially in India, are horribly bad quality. The cost is a matter of perspective (or geography). A typical hardcover costs ~₹2,000 (~$20) which is the norm, but that is a costly thing in India (is roughly the cost of the tea/milk supply for the whole month for my family.) Of course, this makes me choose my books wisely and with intentio…

What is the advantage of an ebook reader versus an ordinary Android tablet?

They often have much more "paper like" screens that are not thrashing your eyes with blue light, so they're more comfortable and less "screen like" for reading.

Re: Books are not too expensive

#178

Post by bombcar »

amonith wrote: post #70
ceplabs wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the print in hardbacks is better quality than paperbacks? I had no idea.

It is especially true for MMPBs (mass market paperbacks). It's a specific term for a specific format of books that are just recently being phased out. You can find more info about this online.

There are tons of price cuts that paperbacks (and especially MMPBs) use that they don't bother with on (most) hardcovers, because if you're getting a hardcover you probably don't care about absolute lowest cost.

And there's stuff much cheaper than MMPB but they're very rare (think phonebooks and old catalogs).

Re: Books are not too expensive

#179

Post by bombcar »

monksy wrote: post #37

I'm seeing books get released for 60/70$ a pop now in the tech market. That's insane. I don't mind the 35-40$ price which is kind of pricey, and books have a short shelf life.

The tech market books have such a small market and short lifespan that I'm surprised that they can make it at even $70.

Re: Books are not too expensive

#180

Post by toast0 »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #174
toast0 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was responding to a comment where someone suggested libraries were a way to avoid high book prices. But they're not! Most of the books I've bought got read by me, and then sit on a shelf forever. If a book is bought by a library, and used multiple times before it's weeded, that's a big win for $/read. > Just now, I went to suggest a book there and got a popup message saying they won't get that book because it's o…

Why would the age of the book matter? If it were from a big publisher and they were to publish a new substantially-unchanged edition every three years, why would that make the library willing to consider the book? The book in question is still in print and still available new.

If nobody wanted it in the first 10 years it was available, chances are it's only going to get one circulation if they buy it for you. That's not a great use of the libraries purchase budget or shelf space budget.

If they had a copy that wore out and it was circulated many times, they would have reordered it when they discarded it.

Post reply on HN