Skip to main content

Kindling for a blog

I'm sure we can all think of a few blogs that could do with a bit kindling. They lack that vital spark. But that's not what I have in mind. Amazon has now started to offer blogs on its Kindle ebook reader - and the frightening thing is that the user has to pay.

Not a lot, I'll admit. To enjoy Now Appearing on your Kindle you would have to fork out the princely sum of $1.99 (you can see the Now Appearing page on Amazon here) for a month's subscription. In practice, the majority of this is for delivery by Whispernet, Amazon's mobile phone network delivery service that allows things to ping to the Kindle wherever you are (at least, in the US - the rest of us are still waiting to get our hands on Kindle).

But will punters really pay to read blogs? I have to admit, when I added Now Appearing to the program I assumed I would be given the choice of setting the amount, and could make it free - but no, Amazon decides the subscription rate.

It's an interesting venture by the books-and-more giant. I can't see a huge demand, but I think some will pay a little to read their favourite blogs with the ease that the Kindle provides. However, the change in mindset required to go from 'blogs are free comment' to 'I don't mind paying to read a blog' is more than trivial. Many have tried to make the web pay by charging for content. Few have succeeded.

It should be fun to see what happens.


  1. Interestingly the price has gone down to $0.99 per month; which makes me wonder whether Amazon have responded to your comments about price, or whether they've started variable pricing based on blog popularity (blogpop)- do you pay more or less for the most popular blogs I wonder?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou