I read a recent email from a PR agency that works with entertainment clients, and I almost hit delete. The email quoted book making odds on which electronic reader will top the 2010 market in sales. I though it was plain silly – and useless to argue odds about whether Apple iPad will bludgeon the rest of the readers. But then, I figured my readers have a right to know. So here it is.
Bookmaker’s odds – will iPad beat Kindle, Nook, Sony Reader and the rest?
The email press release says:
With the recent unveiling of the new iPad, it has without doubt raised awareness on how it will compare to similar pieces of technology on the market today. CEO Mickey Richardson and his team at Bookmaker.com, one of the leading sportsbooks, have put together odds on the BEST SELLING TABLET IN 2010.
| AMAZON’S KINDLE | +300 | |||
| BARNES & NOBLE NOOK | +275 | |||
| SONY’S READER | +400 | |||
| IREX ILIAD | +500 | |||
| FUJITSU FLEPIA | +550 | |||
| DELL’S MINI 5 | +400 | |||
| APPLE’S IPAD | +200 | |||
| MICROSOFT/ HP SLATE | +350 |
The +/- Indicates the Return on the Wager. For Example: Betting on the candidate least likely to win would earn the most amount of money, should that happen. The percentage is the likelihood the contestant(s) will win.]
That’s for what it’s worth. My two cents-worth: None of these electronic book readers is quite there yet. I’m waiting for electronic paper, promised by gurus since the early ’90s. It will, they say, look, sound, and feel like paper. (Harry Potter’s newspaper?) I also want the equipment to be smaller, and to do more, and to multi-task.
I haven’t seen iPad up close yet, so I won’t critique it. Early word is early adopters of that unit will be folks who are slightly less tech-oriented. No problem there, plenty of baby boomers like technology but don’t want to wallow in it. Let’s see how it goes.
The odds above are not much use to me, but if you’re in to that sort of thing, maybe you can get up an office pool or something. Of course all proceeds would go to charity, and none of you would gamble….
More reading:
High class papers for photo printing via inkjet
Writers and agents are at war. There’s a battle in a fairly well-known agent’s blog. Agent Chip MacGregor published a guest post about agents refusing to read slush pile stuff. A writer took exception and commented that she consigned Mr. MacGregor’s blog to her slush pile and 86ed it.
Attitude is everything. <a title=”agents authors” href=”http://chipmacgregor.typepad.com/main/2010/01/im-going-to-add-a-coda-to-what-sandra-wrote-one-reader-wrote-to-us-and-argued-you-can-do-something-about-it-how-would-yo.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email” target=”_blank”>Mr. MacGregor</a> retorted the writer’s comment was “stupid. For me, dissension never warrants bandying about the word “stupid.” It’s an offensive word, especially when translated – “How dare you call me out? You’re stupid.”
<strong>Why neither writer nor agent is stupid</strong>
Writer – agent is a business arrangement. No one owes anyone anything unless and until a contract is negotiated. Writers may submit whatever they want to whomever will allow it over the transom. Agents are free to read or not to read. I’m puzzled by apparent animosity between the two groups. Writers and agents, most especially writers never before published. Is it a battle? Is there need for a battle?
If an agent decides not to read <em>anything</em> coming across her desk this week, and sets fire to all, cool. Do it. How does that indicate lack of prowess in writers?
If a writer chooses to submit dreck and embarrass herself, not attending to mechanics of producing publishable writing, does that indict other writers, all writers heretofore unpublished?
<strong>How agents and writers can stop the battle</strong>
I shake my head when this perpetual argument, good agents vs. bad writers, sparks. It’s like silly arguments about should bad writers go ahead and write for content mills. There is no right answer. Both are just arguments. They make great article and blog fodder for articles and blog posts.
Some “professional agents” have a chip on their shoulders as big as a Sequoia. Their halos blind their own vision. they get puffed up with a sense of bloated importance. Read some tweets at Twitter, or blogs in the blogosphere, or columns in publishing industry periodicals. some agents are rational and compassionate, remembering how all written work begins – with an idea, often a great idea.
Having been a publisher and editor, I empathize. Some awful stuff is submitted by writers who don’t have a clue and don’t want a clue. Burn them!
Controversy draws readers. Is that what perpetuates the battle? If junk lands on an editor/agent/publisher’s desk – it should be junked. Why bother to chastise the sender, indict writers, yammer at anyone who has ever or ever will make a submission? And is there <em>any</em> purpose for less than conscientious writers to whine about rejection?
<strong>How agents and writers, authors, can use their time</strong>
Now, both agents and writers could resign themselves to the state of the publishing nation and realize it’s all in flux anyway. Five years from now neither writing nor agenting will resemble the current paradigm. Agents may not even exist. Sad, but true. Chill the battle.
Agents, you might simply vow to never read anything that doesn’t come in from, say, a subagent who screens the stuff before they bother you with it. spend more time, then, shopping the bright, shiny stuff that sets your soul afire. You <em>know, </em>deep in your heart, there is <em>no</em> King, Steele, or Updike in that pile.
Writers, stop whining when work is rejected. Don’t write slanderous challenges to the editor or agent who says you need to clean up your work. Authors and writers can use the extra time to learn self-editing. Read books. Take classes — a grammar brush-up? Learn how verbs and nouns must agree. Understand that not every line of dialog can begin with the name of the person being addressed. Learn the difference between “effect” and “affect.” Learn that punctuation rules are seldom optional, and a comma is not something sprinkled liberally about a page for embellishment. Commas have functions. Hire a ghost or an editor to help you succeed.
At the end, isn’t it stupid to be intolerant or set oneself up on a pedestal, whether writer or agent? Am I right, people?
<strong>How to land an agent!</strong>
<object classid=”clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000″ width=”560″ height=”340″ codebase=”http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0″><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true” /><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always” /><param name=”src” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/hP3tB5Wixjg&hl=en_US&fs=1&” /><param name=”allowfullscreen” value=”true” /><embed type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” width=”560″ height=”340″ src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/hP3tB5Wixjg&hl=en_US&fs=1&” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true”></embed></object>
<strong>More reading</strong>
<a title=”web links for authors writers” href=”http://ontext.com/2009/10/freelance-writers-top-online-tools/” target=”_blank”>Must have web links for successful writers</a>
<a title=”sell your writing” href=”http://ontext.com/2009/08/stop-bitching-sell-writing/” target=”_blank”>Stop bitching and sell your writing</a>
<a title=”brad pitt headlines” href=”http://ontext.com/2009/08/brad-pitt-headlines/” target=”_blank”>Brad Pitt doesn’t belong in your headlines</a>
2 Comments to “Pro bookmakers set odds on Apple iPad success”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by mkpelland and mkpelland, Maryan Pelland. Maryan Pelland said: Bookmakers laying odds on which electronic reader will win – iPad , Kindle, Sony? http://bit.ly/aOlMLU [...]
[...] Professional bookmakers take on Apple and other tablet computers. Who will win the consumer wars? [...]