This last week/month/year (take your pick) has seen a slew of big name deaths on the high street. Jessops, HMV and Blockbusters all fell in the last week and more will follow. The doom sayers will bemoan another boarded up shop and talk about the death of the high street, the sad lose of the jobs, and cast snide remarks at the internet stealing the soul out of town centres and the social aspect of the shopping experience (in articles published and read mostly on the very Internet they are bemoaning). Not me though. For some reason I’m in an optimistic mood tonight (possibly cause my glass is now only half full of this fine alcholic beverage) and have decided to concentrate on the good.
Look at this (click on it to show in full size):
Doesn’t make any sense does it? The print subscription (which The Economist admits includes the digital subscription) is the exact same price as the digital subscription at £117 per year? Despite the cost of printing and posting the magazine? Surely this is a typo?
Also why do electronic books, music, movies and video games cost the same price (and often more) when buying on-line as in the shops? Don’t these companies realise we’re getting less for our money (no hardcopy) and dont want to pay more for that privilege? Don’t they realise we are saving them money by not making them print books, press discs, haul physical goods around the country AND pay for shop fronts and retail space? Surely digital copies of media should be much cheaper?
OK so this isn’t going to be exactly a revolutionary statement as most people seem to agree, but I think big, rich, multi-nationals like Starbucks, Google, Apple, Amazon…etc. SHOULD pay more tax. So why bother blogging about this? And repeating what countless others have already said? Well I specifically want to refute some of the (so far few) arguments on the other side. Not many people have risked bucking the trend and arguing for the companies however few like this opinion piece in The Register and this in the Telegraph and now this in The Guardian are arguing that the public are wrong in this case and I’d like to look into their arguments a little closer.