Dead-tree edition exclusive is the most draconian DRM of them all in 2014. I bought the first, but won't be a customer anymore. I'm also surprised it's a full price upgrade so soon.
Referring to their decision to go print-only as "DRM" is inflammatory.
It's a book, dude. Not a piece of technology that allows publishers to control your access. It has it's limitations, which are fairly well known at this point in history.
Perhaps it's a form of copy protection but IMO, without it being digital, DRM isn't possible.
I did purchase this book because the last version has so many good reviews and I too would have preferred a digital copy but to me, calling it DRM is technically incorrect and smells like bait. I'm mostly disappointed that I fell for it.
This discussion hinges on some pretty fundamental questions of what is "a book," whether you can protect digital rights by not having a digital form, and whether the term DRM is understood to mean any kind of IP protection. I think there are reasonable answers to all of those that would have people falling on both sides of the question.
If physical only was done to prevent piracy, it is at the least a "RM" move.
Seems like they're shooting themselves in the foot, creating a bigger incentive to scan the book and promoting the distribution of unofficial digital version of their book and not getting a dime for those.
Now, not only they made themselves look bad, show they misunderstand the digital world but they will also pass on a whole market.
Really? That's the last point of three. I gave more weight to this one:
"Creating and proofing each ebook format is not a trivial effort. It involves reformatting every code sample to work on every ebook reader, accounting for differences in screen contrast, accessibility testing, and proofreading the text and code samples several times on each device. Instead of spending our time struggling with reformatting, we're choosing to focus on improving the technical material."
In the comments of the announcement, PyDanny lists their reasons why they skipped an ebook format this time:
- The print version of Two Scoops of Django 1.5 has been by far the most popular version of the book with readers, selling several times more than the e-books. In addition, the feedback we've gotten has been that technical books are generally better to have in print than as an ebook.
- Creating and proofing each ebook format is not a trivial effort. It involves reformatting every code sample to work on every ebook reader, accounting for differences in screen contrast, accessibility testing, and proofreading the text and code samples several times on each device. Instead of spending our time struggling with reformatting, we're choosing to focus on improving the technical material.
- Considering that we publicly offered a free electronic copy to those who requested it, seeing piracy of the electronic editions from the first day of sales has been disheartening. As indie authors, it hurts to see this happening.
They can't produce a digital edition without extra cost and it would be frustrating to make that investment only to see people immediately circulating copies. Yes, they'll loose readers, but they've estimated that is an acceptable trade off at this time.
Good point on the PDF version, especially if Amazon allows PDF sales (instead a Kindle version). I am a bit surprised that pirating was a significant issue with the first book. Didn't they offer free or discounted versions if people requested they didn't have the money? If so, that might have gave people the impression that passing around copies wasn't a concern of the authors.
It's an interesting conclusion the authors have reached.
As far as I can tell, they've made sure that they go from poor profit from e-book sales, to no profit, as the only e-book version that will be available (and it will, I'm quite certain) will be a non-sanctioned pdf of the scanned paper edition. Additionally, those that do download the copy, won't have any reasonable recourse to pay for the privilege -- if they want an e-book they're not very likely to want or need a paper edition as well.
Additionally, I'm not sure how good one year (or is it two) old data for e-books are -- I know I didn't have a reasonable reading platform for e-books until mid-2013 (and therefore no need for e-books) -- now that I have one, I don't see any reason to put an additional burden on my shelves, the environment etc in purchasing paper books for all but the most exceptional of texts. As I only have a small e-reader -- I'd very much prefer a DRM free epub to a pdf -- but hopefully 2014[1] will be the year of a4(ish) e-ink readers -- in which case I will be more than happy to rid myself of most of my books.
Also note that they've chopped off all revenue from Asia and Australia since the book is unobtainable there. Whether or not that is a large sum of money (I'm one of their former customers) is probably something they've already taken into account using the 1.5 book sales. Still sad to see them not offer an e-book version.
Well they put a single sentence in another announcement page that said:
> We're also exploring distribution in Australia, Asia, and South America.
But considering how money seems to be the primary motivator behind not offering an e-book version, that pretty much means they will never get the print book to any of those regions (distributions to those areas will cost far more than creating the e-book due to demand risk and distributors). I've already emailed them yesterday with information on the major book outlets in Japan, but I have serious doubts I'll ever hear back. Non-English speaking regions in particular are almost guaranteed to never see this book because the distribution cost for a print book far outweighs the market demand.
I'd buy the book in a heartbeat if it were digital.
I went paperless a few years ago, one of the biggest deciding factors was my huge collection of dead-tree books that continued to take up space even though the content was obsolete.
A $20 digital version for me would be an instant buy. A $40 dead-tree only version is a no-sale.
As someone who has moved between continents a little bit too much, a $40 digital no-DRM version would be an instant buy. A $20 dead-tree version is a no-sale.
Nope, you're wrong. I was pretty clear that those are two separate complaints. Paper is a form of DRM, and they specifically noted that as a primary reason why they were using it.
I would have (begrudgingly) paid for another electronic copy. However, had I known the first time that I'd just have to buy it again for a much-expanded 1.6 in a few months, I'd have waited and bought only the 1.6 version (assuming it wasn't paper only).
DRM is bad because it punishes your customers. I'm not giving up shelf space, ctrl-f ability, and loss of mobility because they chose this DRM.
And part of the reason that "upgrade discounts" aren't being considered is because it's impractical with a paper book. That makes sense, and is another reason not to use them exclusively. O'Reilly on the other hand, does provide upgrade discounts. This is always a better deal for both the vendor and the consumer, because the number of customers who buy every edition of a paper book they already have is incredibly small.
I don't really understand this point of view. If you'd prefer not to purchase their book then that's cool - but only Audrey and Daniel are in a position to assess if it was worth their effort to publish an ebook or not, surely you can respect their decision not to do so.
Really, you don't understand why a programmer would want a digital version of a programming book in 2014? You don't have to agree, but I'm surprised that someone would claim to not even understand it.
I don't think they are in a position to assess it, and I think it is a poor decision, so I don't really respect it. This is like saying only the RIAA are in a position to assess the effect of piracy and using this as rationale to keep something off iTunes.
My prediction is that they will soon discover that most of those pirates won't suddenly buy the paper version, and neither will anybody who previously only bought the ebook version. They will also lose a fair bit of the word-of-mouth promotion from anyone who was a fan of the ebook version.
This story ends with them eventually caving and releasing an ebook version again, so they're just throwing away sales between now and then, and since release time is when the majority of purchases occur, they'll permanently lose that benefit.
No, I understand why you might want a digital version.
What I don't understand is why you think you're entitled to a digital version.
These are two independent authors making their own informed decision about which medium they'd like to publish in. Their work, their choice.
(Not the op) I can still be annoyed by their apparent conclusion that 'nobody wants an ebook' and attempt to make them aware that not only do I want an ebook, but I actively do not want a printed book.
It is a dumb decision for it will not prevent a digital version to be shared on the internet and alienating your potential customers is not the best marketing move.
The ability to search and to copy/paste is something programmers usually like, being deprived of these on the premises that the author want to maximize profit is sure to alienate a significant portion of them.
> surely you can respect their decision not to do so.
Personally, I can't. Just as I can't respect any game publisher that decides to tack on an always-online mode for their game with some lame excuse of why they did it when the real reason is that it's a form of DRM.
Unfortunately, we are unable to offer upgrade discounts. This is due to the following:
* The sheer amount of work that it has taken to update and revise the book. We have had to take significant time off from consulting in order to get the 1.6 edition done on time. The effort involved in putting together the 1.6 edition is equivalent to a whole new book in itself.
* The inability to offer discounts to specific readers on print books through Amazon.com. Offering discounts would require us to manually coordinate payment and ship books one at a time, which is impractical.
* We need to be able to cover our costs for printing a significantly larger book, and for working with multiple printers and fulfillment warehouses around the world in small quantities. We have been shouldering quite a bit of financial risk with international logistics and wholesale printing orders.
I'm assuming it's a tactic to increase dead-tree edition sales, so they can go a big reseller and have them agree to sell it at a much bigger scale. I know of authors who've employed this strategy before (and had it work). So, I suppose give it something like 6 months, when it's available at your local Barnes&Noble and whatnot, and the eBook version will be made available then.
I loved the 1.5 version, and just ordered the new version. If Pydanny or Audrey stops by to read this, I have a suggestion.
You two should write a book aimed at someone entirely new to Django. I've seen your book often recommended as the second book on Django you should read. However, there isn't a good first book that isn't very outdated. How about "One Scoop of Django", as an intro for someone brand new to Django? Perhaps more example based, but still with your fun style. Or you could expand your current book with some new chapters.
I'm writing an intro to Django book right now, aimed at a more visual/template-based way of learning. Aiming to have it out by June: http://hellowebapp.com
I think the actual Django manual is One Scoop, at least if you already have a basic understanding of webdev and Python. It's fantastically well written. I downloaded the PDF version and read it pretty much cover to cover to learn Django. To me, Two Scoops picks up right where the manual leaves off. Maybe the biggest problem is that the manual maybe doesn't present itself as totally valid linear resource.
It is a great resource, but it is getting out of date. They even have a disclaimer on that page [1] now:
While the book mentions Django version 1.4 in places,
the vast majority of the book is for Django version 1.0,
which was released over four years ago.
Therefore this resource is extremely out of date and,
until the book is finished being updated, we ask that,
at this time, djangobook.com not be used for educational purposes.
That matters most to a beginner. If you're following along at home with Django 1.6, and the code doesn't work like it says, then you're stuck.
Admittedly, this is aimed at Django 1.5, but I've found it to be very good. We're current using it the main resource for students learning Django and they seem to be finding it very useful.
Just to add to the HN echo chamber, I bought and love the 1.5 ebook, but the lack of a digital version for this new edition means I won't be updating. When I am building new projects I often find myself using ctrl+F to search for specific mentions of variables or settings. A print book adds "stuff" to my life, gives me another thing to carry between work and home, and makes it harder for me to find the information I need. But I understand that as a member of the minority (i.e. ebook purchasers) I am in a strategically disadvantaged position and accept that. I can live without it.
No digital version ? I think that's absolutely ridiculous!
I read their reasons for not having one but lets be honest, this is a book for programmers ? And it doesn't have a digital version ? Someone's clearly lost the plot here!
I supported the previous edition of the book since the beta version. I'm a digital nomad, I work all over the world, I'm not about to lug a 446 page django book with me wherever I go.
There are several developers who like to search for and bookmark stuff in their ebooks. Now it's impossible to Ctrl+F.
Some of us like to read on the train or like to read on different platforms (kindle/ipad/iphone/android/etc).
I recommended the first version of this book to several fellow django programmers. Unfortunately I am really disappointed by this print-only decision. The fact that piracy was a reason for it disheartens me even more.
I guess these guys have never heard of anyone scanning in a physical book and sharing PDFs over the internet. Providing a print only version will just hurt legitimate customers, the pirates are still gonna pirate :( I can count down the days that this shows up on the pirate bay.
As for the fact that "The print version sold the most". Well, were the print people supporting your book while you were in beta releasing new versions every week ? Did they give you feedback on how good/bad the content was ?
Seriously guys, your next book should be about "How not to do programming books".
Yeah. Fairly disappointed. I just paid print+epub version of "Two Scoops of Django 1.5" very recently, and now out comes this. Not saying that I should get a free copy, no. But I don't have a choice but to pay another $40.
Agreed, I really don't like physical technical books. If an epub was available, I would have spent the time writing this comment by filling out my credit card details in stead.
Same here, I would immediately buy this new version (I bought the first one) if it were available electronically.
I stopped buying paper technical books, they are never around when I need them. I also like to read them on my iPad, phone and laptop at different times.
My money now goes to publishers (like O'Reilly) who support my workflow.
Right, I read them also. Unfortunately I think they aren't very good reasons and won't be purchasing the book because of that. I really loved the first book, easily the best django book I've read but I don't buy print books any longer for several reasons, storage space, environmental concerns, and price. I'm not angry about it but I'll not be supporting authors who won't provide the books in a format that is useful to me. It's far too useful for me to have all of my books available to me at a moments notice where ever I go. I work from a lot of different locations and it's far more practical to carry an ipad with me them a mountain of books.
>The book is being released in print format only. We've decided on this because:
>The print version of Two Scoops of Django 1.5 has been by far the most popular version of the book with readers, selling several times more than the e-books. In addition, the feedback we've gotten has been that technical books are generally better to have in print than as an ebook.
>Creating and proofing each ebook format is not a trivial effort. It involves reformatting every code sample to work on every ebook reader, accounting for differences in screen contrast, accessibility testing, and proofreading the text and code samples several times on each device. Instead of spending our time struggling with reformatting, we're choosing to focus on improving the technical material.
>Considering that we publicly offered a free electronic copy to those who requested it, seeing piracy of the electronic editions from the first day of sales has been disheartening. As indie authors, it hurts to see this happening.
Now I don't agree with those reasons. I prefer an ebook version as I can bookmark it, make notes, read it on my phone etc. But they have their reasons. It's not going to stop piracy and I might purchase the paper copy and then download one of the pirate versions that will come out. I would prefer they offered a free ebook version that they didn't spend time fixing the code layout issues they mention. The book exists as an electronic version anyhow when it goes to the publisher so it wouldn't be a big deal.
Funny how I said to pydanny (on Reddit) a couple days ago that i'd buy the new Two Scoops as soon as it came out. Little did I know that it would not be a digital release.
In the conversation, pydanny did mention that nearly everything in Two Scoops 1.5 should apply to 1.6, and it does (as I went through the book with a fresh 1.6 install). So for those of you contemplating the books for current use, I'd say, go ahead!
You can definitely count me out for this new version of Two Scoops, I have no need for a print copy of any programming book. I just recycled some old PHP and Javascript books I had laying around for years unused. It seems useless to me that in 2014 we'd forgo printing this kind of book when the coding and reading/learning are happening on the same screen.
So thanks pydanny for Two Scoops, but I've unsubscribed from your mailing lists and will be opting out of this release.
Bought 1.5 ebook, received email about 1.6, no mention of "no ebook" anywhere in email. Found FAQ. Lists reasons why "no ebook" is best for them, not their customers.
I like supporting authors, but not by buying paper books. O'Reilly and PragPub have figured this out which is why I support them.
Edit:
Wow, three emails to the list of folks who bought the ebook version of 1.5. The third to email the entire faq out. Self publishing apparently isn't for everyone.
Here, there are two pain points--one is that this is a "minor" version change of the core library and the second is that there is no electronic version. If there were an electronic version, I would still buy it, but it's not worth it for the shelf space...I would recommend the earlier version to people, it was an excellent resource. Reading their explanation, perhaps if they just provided a pdf?
I completely agree with this. I own the ebook of the last edition, but the combination of a new edition for 1.5->1.6 and the lack of an electronic version for the new copy is more than I'm willing to swallow. Here's to hoping the authors change their mind...
Maybe I misread originally, but I didn't expect to have to buy a new ebook to go from 1.5 -> 1.6.
I understand why the authors have decided to produce a new* book, but I don't think they've thought about the emotional impact from a customer's perspective.
*new for existing owners, who have to buy it all over again
Basically, the book is now 1.5x the size as it was before. To me, this totally justifies releasing a new book. Having taken a chance on the early release of the original book and having my mind blown, I give these guys the benefit of the doubt.
My biggest disappointment is the lack of eBook. That's how I read the first version, and that's how I would read this version. I'd be glad to pay the price for a physical book, but I definitely want to actually read it electronically.
Haven't seen this version yet, but the 1.5 edition was a great resource for me. If you've done something with Django already and are trying to improve, this book is perfect.
Me too, I bought the first and would not have minded paying full price for again for an ebook of the second. It's up to the authors of course. They seem like very nice people online so it's a shame they're getting so much criticism. Nevertheless, here's my bit of criticism: This is obviously BS and so a bit annoying to include: "In addition, the feedback we've gotten has been that technical books are generally better to have in print than as an ebook."
I've said as much to @pydanny already on Twitter, but I think it bears repeating.
Piracy absolutely does exist, and it will continue. This is the ugly part of society, that some feel entitled to steal and rob others from the fruits of their labor. This is absolutely wrong.
That said, it's also not right to punish your honest customers by not providing the material that they are MORE THAN HAPPY to pay for - in the medium they want.
I'm not arguing that ebook prep is easy. I'm sure it is very laborious. I have no personal experience with this, so I will take your word for it.
That said, you deserve to be compensated for your efforts. If it's more work to do the digital stuff, then charge enough to cover your work. Charge the same price for digital, as you do for print.
I know that some will object. I do not. I'd be HAPPY to pay a higher than normal price (since many publishers discount digital vs. print)
I understand your discouragement, based on previous experience. I'd be pissed off too. That said, if I were writing, and selling it for profit... I would welcome revenue from as many legitimate sources as I could get it from.
Like others, I've moved nearly everything in my technical library to digital format. I don't want to carry a book, if I don't have to. There's enough in my backpack already.
Since you currently only offer print for the new version, I bought it.
As a paying customer, who wants to support your continuing work, I hope you will reconsider your decision to discontinue offering ebooks.
> "for the same reasons developing on SQLite causes problems"
I've used SQLite with Django and Flask where it was appropriate option (i.e. as a low-traffic low-volume simple database) and never had any problems. While there are things about SQLite one certainly has to be aware of (mostly related to the type system), I doubt SQLite causes more problems than any other RDBMS, as every one has its own specifics and quirks.
Am I unaware of something?
EDIT: Thanks, now I get it. Misunderstood what this quote was about.
That quote is about developing and testing on SQLite but deploying on another database such as PostgreSQL and MySQL. Unsurprisingly, doing so is likely to result in bugs that only occur in production.
The point is not about avoiding SQLite when it makes sense to use it, but to have the same DB in the development and production environment. SQLite is much more permissive than, say, Postgres, and these differences mean that bugs could go unnoticed until deployment.
I bought the 1.5 version and I consider it a technically well written book. However, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the examples (too ice-cream centric)
In my opinion, it's better to take generic models that represent a real world scenario that most people would be familiar with e.g. an e-commerce catalog like Amazon's. I would have found it much enjoyable to read as compared to a database of ice creams which sounds fun but not practically intuitive as a db.
Sorry, without an ebook I'm going to pass - I read/utilize most of my tech books on my iPad.
I purchased the original as an ebook, and even went back and bought a physical copy to because I thought what Dan and Audrey were doing was pretty cool. I really don't need a second physical book, but could use an updated epub. Too bad.
While I'm disappointed that there is no eBook, I'd have been happy to pay full ebook price for the upgrade, I'm more disappointed that getting the book into Canada is going to cost almost $60US with shipping and end up being much less useful.
Well no e-book (my preferred format for technical books) and no shipping to where I live (in Asia) so, despite liking the 1.5 version, I won't be getting the 1.6 version. Not that I have much of a choice in the matter.
Perhaps the authors will do some market research here on HN? I'm not sure what price point would get me to "repurchase" the electronic version, but I'm unlikely to get the paper version until it's steeply discounted.
I'll never forget the day I had this book recommended to me. It's fortunate that I was two-handing old-fashioned's since I have a fear of resting on best practices akin to the way a Midway albatross fears the Pacific garbage gyre; the ocean seems to be moving, so I'm not stuck in one place, yet the garbage just keeps floating by, and every time I eat some, I'm a little closer to dying.
Months later, my conclusion is that web is pretty irritating, and never call Django MVC. Calling it MVT is kind of like waking up in front of a mirror and realizing you've been sawing your hand off with a fork -- a rude awakening. Think about it, templates do absolutely nothing that controllers do, nothing. MVC is convergent evolution in application programming, yet web programming kind of doesn't have it directly.
Probably the best recommendation I can make to any web developer, is to work in application programming. The biggest difference is in application state persistence and the massive indirection across caches, http, databases, sessions, message queues etc that one finds in web programming.
The second biggest difference is that instead of relying on a variety of run-times that are supposed to match a standard, there is a single run-time/program that has to rely on features of the OS and a lot more platform specific deployment hoops to jump through. However, internet explorer.
History of web development: Used to, the internet was used to network applications together. Then one day, we put the entire application on the internet. 50% of the indirection is still geared towards networking application instances, the whole global community part of the internet. The other 50% of indirection is geared towards recovering through abstraction what is missing when doing application development. Hybrid API architectures make this explicit.
I'm saying that the best way, in my experience, to get better at web development, is to work outside of web, where you find the stark lack of indirection somewhat awesome, and when going back into the web world, all of this indirection now speaks to me as if a kind of synesthesia where badly arranged furniture appears to be on fire.
Not node.js, rails, meteor, flask or cold-hard gevent http servers will make this apparent. All of web development is riddled with this indirection, top to bottom. It's almost painful to me to be helping someone learn how to program LAMP because I'm doing them the greatest good on their current trajectory while 100% conscious of how all the problems they're experiencing are in trying to pierce the indirection that is web application programming.
Let's just start calling web programming mainframe programming with soft client terminals in virtual machines called browsers and where UNIX has been replaced with a relatively massive software stack because not many people like writing OS's but everyone likes writing http servers and libraries. Don't get me wrong, I'm still making a ton of skrill on Django and web programming in general, but can we just raise the alarm a little bit? Web application programming does not seem to have the goal of abstracting on top of web stacks to make it into application programming, but rather stops at a C-like worldview where it's still possible to utterly destroy all that is consistent application state for the sake of being able to run trampolines written in assembly.
You do realize that django is MVC, but that templates are not the C right? Their naming convention is kinda terrible, but the M is the models (obviously), the V is the templates (the "views") and the C is the views.py file (this is the poorly named part). If you compare to other MVC systems, those are the appropriate parts of django.
Roles are mixed in Django almost without exception. I blame this on the fact that you want to make changes to M, V, and C during a UI interaction while usually only one URL gets called, and so the view updates the M, V, and C. It's like having a layer cake to keep things separate and then cutting it from the top into pie-slices. Sure it makes sense somewhat, but each slice now contains every layer. That is typical web programming.
Unless you're using class-based views or Meteor etc AND hybrid-style API's, things aren't even beginning to resemble application programming with a separate network aspect to the application. These days I'd just about rather print HTML/CSS onto paper so I can at least burn it. The whole web-standards movement never grasped me as egalitarian or a good way to get FOSS into closed platforms. I know there are supporters to web, but basically I view web as pretty limited in spite of all the work that's been done with it.
Templates in Django are nothing that I would call views in application programming. If I use data binding to hook up my controller state (in some way a wrapper around the model), then this has nothing to do with the M, V, or T in Django. It's a js object and not part of Django at all.
Templates are a decent way to somewhat modularize HTML/CSS without falling back to generating HTML/CSS from objects and giant data-structures, which would be torture. This is not what views do.
I prefer to think of it as: M is obvious, V is views and templates, C is handled by django and if you need to to custom "C" stuff (which is fairly rare) you intercept the request/response flow with middleware.
Your mapping, Djano's MTV ~= MVC (in that order), is not a bad way to build your conceptual model.
Is Django still relevant in the web community? I watched "Making Disqus Realtime" a year ago, where they were talking about building a real-time system using Django, gevent, gunicorn, Redis, Flask, nginx, haproxy. The entire stack could be condensed into node.js + socket.io.
If you want a schema database backed Web App or API then yeah, sure, both Rails & Django are clearly still the most mature and fully featured frameworks. Yes, there's plenty of other interesting things happening, and yes Django is only going to be one part of many in your stack, but it's still got a hell of a lot going for it.
Still relevant? You've got to be kidding me. Sure node is the new cool thing, but Django is going to "relevant" for years to come. Even just looking at job openings in very tech forward places like SF the Django jobs out weigh node jobs 5 to 1.
Keep in mind not everything needs to be that "real time" and it is also a horrible business decision to rewrite your core apps in the latest framework without reason.
If the web community is those hipsters who want to rewrite everything to a fad tech of the month, every month, then Django is completely outdated and irrelevant.
Otherwise, it's just another relatively solid general-purpose framework. Probably not fit (unless heavily tinkered with) for edge cases, missing certain features and has its share of quirks, but still a fine choice for many typical websites out there.
I love node but really!? Django is used in ALOT of really big sites/startups and with tornado/gevent/twisted it's able to handle almost anything that node can.
