Update: At the time I wrote this, the US site was showing a single price (at least in my browser), but it’s now split between a Kindle with special offers ($79) and one without ($109). The $109 model is the only one available for pre-order in the UK, and while £89 is still high as a conversion, it’s not too awful and is still a price-cut over the existing model.

I wrote about the new Kindles earlier. Amazon’s now put up some pricing and, well, it’s interesting. In the US, the cheapest Kindle sets you back $79. I assumed that would translate to 65 quid or so in the UK. Boy, was I wrong! The UK price is £89. That’s pretty outrageous, especially from a company usually intent on aggressive pricing, and it shows Amazon’s either lowballing in the US, to boost sales, or realising the UK can bear a much higher price.

Frankly, I’m shocked and a little disappointed. At £65, I’d have been all over a new Kindle. At £89, I can’t help feeling ripped off.

Note: I’m fully aware that one cannot do direct price conversions, and that’s something I bang on about a lot to other people. US prices lack tax. Also, exchange rates fluctuate. However, even taking the year low of $1.53 and knocking off 10 cents, you end up with 55 quid. Add UK VAT and you get £66. At the moment, Sterling’s trading at about $1.55.

Three new Kindles from Amazon!

Kindle. $79. More or less the current model, but 30 per cent lighter and minus a keyboard. This thing is going to fly off the shelves. It has an astonishing price-point that puts ebooks firmly within reach of far, far more people. It ditches the keyboard, which is fair enough, and it looks fab.

Kindle touch. $99 or $149 for 3G. Retains e-ink and nukes buttons; adds touch interface. An interesting move, given the price. I’m unsure if it’ll lead to purchase issues because of doubt over which model to pick (standard or touch), or whether it’ll be a straight upsell from the standard Kindle. I’m not sold on the touch interface for this kind of device: I like the Kindle buttons, and getting fingerprints all over the screen doesn’t seem like a great prospect. I’m just not sure this model is necessary in the line-up.

Kindle Fire. $199 7-inch Android-based tablet. This is initially going to sell like hot cakes. There’s no camera, mic or 3G, but you get Wi-Fi and 30 days of Amazon Prime (which in the UK seemingly means items being dispatched and lost by Royal Mail half the time anyway…) The question mark will be over usage. I do read on my iPad, which has a similar kind of display, but a standard Kindle’s e-ink is much better for long-form reading. But the Kindle Fire also has access to apps, games, movies and music. It’ll be interesting to see just how many buyers go for this (or if they go for this and a standard Kindle) and how it affects (if at all) the iPad, not least considering Amazon’s pretty dev-hostile app store.

Regarding Apple, I disagree with some tech pundits—there is a minor threat here. Amazon’s providing people with a much cheaper and potentially more than ‘good enough’ tablet option, for general media consumption. The iPad has brand awareness, a larger screen and a massive range of apps, but the Kindle Fire will eat up a lower end of the market, potentially snaring people who might later have bought an iPad, and who don’t care for or need advanced apps on a large screen. The real losers today, though, are every other manufacturer of 7-inch Android-based tablets. As of the Kindle Fire’s released, they are royally screwed.

Good grief, The Guardian. Last week, you reported:

Doctor Who has faced many fearsome foes in the past, but none of them have been a Bolton-born TV presenter who yells “Our survey says”.

This was on the back of the show’s plummeting audience share, which saw it beaten by All Star Family Fortunes, to which The Guardian suggested:

The current series of Doctor Who – the second overseen by showrunner Steven Moffat – has faced criticism that it is too scary and too complicated for younger fans.

To be fair, The Guardian isn’t alone. Lots of publications are saying Doctor Who is screwed, largely because Moffat has the audacity to create plots that make you think a bit, that hold up brilliantly to rewatching (so you can figure out what you missed), and that have an intelligence and horror that was largely lacking in the (still pretty good) Russell T Davies era.

Only it’s not quite that simple. Tom Spilsbury reports that ratings are far more complicated than they used to be, and Who performs extremely well on the BBC Three repeat, recordings and iPlayer. The linked post shows that the current series is up on the first three series, and down only slightly on the 2008 run. Spilsbury says the following on this (WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR SERIES FOUR):

This can partially be put down to the final half of the series which concluded with Journey’s End, the return of Rose, the return of Davros, the fake regeneration, etc. Journey’s End was the top rated show of the week, and amassed almost 15 million viewers across all outlets, so this really gave a boost to the series average.

So what does The Guardian run with this week? Doctor Who’s mixed fortunes continue, which at least notes that the statistical reversal of All Star Family Fortunes ‘winning’ the ratings war again will be “shortlived”. So, not really mixed fortunes at all then, unless you consider it to be ‘mixed fortunes’ when your favourite football team goes to half-time a goal down, but then ends up winning two-one.

Spotify is seriously Facebook-friendly, says the service on its website. But it’s one thing being friendly and another being assimilated. So it’s with more than a little sadness that I read this thread on Get Satisfaction. Baffled user Dean asks:

There seems to be nowhere on Spotify’s website that lets you sign up for Spotify without a Facebook account. The sign up links ask to to log in to Facebook or create a new Facebook account.

Is there a hidden link anywhere on the website that lets you sign up without linking it to a Facebook account?

Clearly, Dean must be some kind of numpty, because, surely, Spofity wouldn’t be so insanely stupid to require you to have a Facebook account to sign-up, right? Right? Luckily, ’employee’ Darran was on hand to put everyone’s minds to rest. And by ‘put everyone’s minds to rest’, I mean ‘punch you all in the face if you had any idealistic thoughts about Spotify being anything other than Facebook’s bitch these days’:

Unfortunately you will need a Facebook account to access Spotify from now on, unless you already have an account set up.

This does not stop you creating the Facebook account adding nothing to it and making it totally private as the Facebook account does not have to be actively used.

This is a mind-bafflingly stupid decision. The only thought that crossed my mind is that Spotify is in a financial mess and needed a Facebook injection, but Facebook said “I will only inject money goodness into you, if you’re shackled to me forever”. Because Zuckerberg is kinky that way.

Matt Gemmell, writing SEO for Non-dicks:

I’m asked sometimes for advice on building an internet presence, and I usually have to fumble for an answer – because I haven’t pursued any particular strategy beyond the glaringly obvious: create original, relevant content repeatedly.

He’s right, of course, but it’s not quite that easy. The stats in Gemmell’s post that he says aren’t massive nonetheless dwarf those I get, and, from what I hear, my stats are larger than some people I know who are writing great stuff. I’d argue the same sort of effect we see in the App Store is just as rampant on the internet in general, in that big brands (and people can be brands in this context) get lodged in people’s heads, regardless of whether they’re writing great content or utter bollocks. It’s also well known that sites that update more often get more hits, even if the content is churn-based tat that you can read on a million other sites. Now and again, you get a ‘breakout indie’, which is where I’d place Gemmell—smart, intelligent writing that bucks the trend of ‘churnalism’ that’s depressingly common these days.

The thing is, content is all that should matter for most writers at the personal level, unless they’re naïve enough to think their blog is the road to riches. Revert to Saved bumbled about in various forms for a bit, before settling in its current incarnation—largely tech-oriented bitching from a largely tech-oriented writer. It was never meant to be anything massive, although I am hugely grateful when people read my stuff and it sparks discussion, either online on other blogs, or directly with me in the comments or on Twitter. And then there is always that possibility that audience and traffic will grow, The Deck will come knocking and you’ll be able to make something of a living off of your own project’s writing, rather than solely writing for others.

Of course, traffic tends to only grow if you’re a dick (write often, rip-off others, use dodgy SEO) or a talented non-dick who perhaps gets a bit lucky (or makes their own luck). I’d certainly rather be the latter than the former.