Subject:
|
Re: O'Reilly book news
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Apr 2000 13:11:34 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1611 times
|
| |
|
|
I like the mindstorms site.If this small amount of cash help further
develop/justify it power to them. I'd rather the 15% went to TLC rather than
AMAZON, as I've found them to be a little shoddy in the past. It is good
that TLC is willing to recognise the work others are doing, rather than just
copying Dave et al. & produce a equivalent text for much more $$.
Scott A
Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote in message
news:dbaum-344EC6.19542307042000@lugnet.com...
> In article <Fso7Gt.ILF@lugnet.com>, Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I just think it's incredibly ironic, if not a bizarre turn of events.
> >
> > It's surprising to see TLC jumping on the opportunity to take advantage • of
> > books written by people in the AFOL community that support it. Maybe • they'll
> > give a portion of the fees back to the authors, that would be nice.
> >
> > What's particularly ironic about it, IMHO, is that the books fill holes • left
> > open by TLC. Now they come in and profit from the holes they forgot to • fill
> > themselves. :) See the irony? I'm not sure whether to chuckle in • admiration
> > from a capitalist market standpoint or whether to have a sore stomach • from
> > what it might mean about how TLC views AFOLs.
>
>
> I hope people don't get too worked up about all of this. I assume TLC
> decided to put links on their site, then someone had the idea that if
> they used an associate link, they'd get a little extra income. From
> their perspective, why not take advantage of a little free money?
>
> TLC left some holes with Mindstorms, and for the last 18 months I've
> been filling a couple of them (NQC and a book). When the Mindstorms
> site started accepting NQC programs, people generally looked at this as
> a positive step from TLC. I think their acknowledgments of the books -
> including a link on their web site - is also a positive step.
>
> Is it just the fact that they are profitting from AFOL contributions
> that is upsetting? To be honest, I suspect NQC's existence created more
> net profit for TLC than the amazon.com link for my book will. I'm
> perfectly happy to let them derrive some profit from my efforts. After
> all, NQC and the book have brought me plenty of rewards, and neither of
> those efforts would've been possible without Mindstorms. Personally,
> I'm very content in this sort of half-acknowledged symbiotic
> relationship with TLC. I can't speak for Jonathan, but I hope nobody
> gets the impression that I (as an AFOL) am getting a bad deal here.
>
> Is there a concern that the lego links will reduce the hits through
> similar links on other AFOL sites? Although I can see where this would
> be disconcerting, its hardly a reason to get upset with Lego. Its just
> free market operating with respect to referrals. If other sites
> (LUGNET, etc) were depending on such money, then we will need to find
> other ways to support them.
>
> Dave Baum
>
> --
> reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: O'Reilly book news
|
| (...) I hope people don't get too worked up about all of this. I assume TLC decided to put links on their site, then someone had the idea that if they used an associate link, they'd get a little extra income. From their perspective, why not take (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
