Will Ebooks Rule?


8 responses to “Will Ebooks Rule?”

  1. While I agree that the prices of ebooks holds it back from becoming more popular, I could easily see some incarnation of ebooks becoming something more then a gimmick.

  2. You feel my article implied that ebooks are a gimmick? That was not my intention.

    I intentionally avoided giving a precise prediction about the ebooks potential market share because that kind of speculation was not the point of the essay. For the article I simply said “minority share.” The point was demonstrating why I don’t think ebooks will destroy print books. I could see ebooks coming to rule in certain segments of the market (for example, perhaps college textbooks) but if I had to hazard a wild speculation, I would say the total ebook segment of the entire book market (once pricing was reduced to a fair level) would be at best 25% to maybe 45%.

    One interesting possibility is that if ebook prices are reduced across the board to a $1 – $3 range people might start impulse buying a lot of ebooks they never actually read. This could inflate the number of titles sold on ebooks.

    As an aside, the morning after I published this article I got an advert from Amazon, dropping the Kindle price to $189.

    If ebook prices came down significantly, and ebook reader prices dropped a bit more, I would find it strongly appealing as a very cheap way to check out more writing. But in my mind the pricing is still too high for what, in my mind, is only a competitor for the mass-market paperback section of the market.

  3. It wasn’t so much that I thought you implied that ebook readers are gimmicks so much as that they would never be a major competitor to regular books and that on demand books would become mainstream.
    Granted, I don’t think the current ebook readers will be popular. I don’t even think dedicated ebook readers will be popular. It is my understanding that the only point of having a dedicated ebook reader is the screen. As the screens on laptops/computers/tablets continue to get better; at some point I expect they will get to a point where they are comparable to paper.
    Let’s say the screens have improved to that point and the price of ebooks came down to a reasonable amount, and most people would already have a laptop/computer for other reasons.Why would you want to travel 40 minutes to the next big store so you could pick up a book that you may only read once or twice when you could start reading it instantly?
    Or wait in a long line in the rain for the latest super popular book when you could have it the instant it came out?
    Ebooks could have also huge advantages when it comes to textbooks, the ability to have multiple parts of the books open at the same time, copy & paste, search, interactive sections, lack of weight, etc.
    In my opinion the technical advantages of ebooks outweigh the aesthetic advantages of physical books. As for the price, you already stated that the primary factor for the high price of ebooks is the publishers. Who is to say that the publishers/stores wouldn’t inflate the price of POD books? And if the publisher is out of the picture they could be sold as ebooks even easier.
    Regardless, I don’t feel that strongly one way or the other about ebooks, I just felt like you dismissed them because of their current limitations instead of their potential. After all, books started out expensive, had to be written & bound by hand, were easily damaged, etc.

  4. Bah, when I copied my comment from Word it didn’t keep the line-breaks it seems.. Oh well.

  5. I said “Ebooks will have a part of the publishing future, but they will not cause paper books to become nearly extinct. Ebooks will surely remain a minority player in the book publishing field.” If (for example) Verizon has 55% of the cell phone market, AT&T has 30% and T-Moble has 10% and Tracfone 5% then Verizon holds a majority. AT&T is a minority player, but is Verizon’s main competitor. The statement that AT&T is a minority player does not contradict the statement that AT&T is Verizon’s major competitor.

    By your reaction to my article, you seem to have read it as a dismissal of ebooks, which was not my intention. My position is that ebooks will not cause physical books to become “nearly extinct” and further that ebooks will hold less than 50% of market share. I did not state exactly how large a minority share ebooks will have because I am not certain.

    If you are saying that ebooks will nearly wipe out paper books, and that POD printing is only a passing fad that will not go mainstream, then we do have differing opinions.

    Now in regards to some points you raised:

    You said, “It is my understanding that the only point of having a dedicated ebook reader is the screen.” That is not my understanding. Beyond the issue of the screen there is also the issues of ergonomics, portability, and price. Ergonomics is a primary focus of ebook readers. The way we sit in front of computers is not the way we sit to comfortably read a book. Current computer usage cannot mimic the comfort of the normal reading position, regardless of screen material. This becomes obvious if you tape a book to your computer screen and start reading it.

    Now someone might (and many people have!) suggested that devices like ebook readers will replace computers. That may be the direction computers are going, but I still maintain that the majority of the population will not be affluent enough for everyone to have their own computer and a household is not going to want to share one book/computer for reading.

    You said, “Why would you want to travel 40 minutes to the next big store so you could pick up a book that you may only read once or twice when you could start reading it instantly? Or wait in a long line in the rain for the latest super popular book when you could have it the instant it came out?” I do not deny that their are advantages to ebooks, but you are constructing something of a straw man argument here. When the final Harry Potter books were coming out, smart people pre-ordered the books from Amazon, etc. and it arrived the day of release. Traveling 40 minutes to the next big store, and standing in long lines was only for fools and fanatics.

    It is true that ebooks have instant gratification, but this is not limited to ebooks. When the Espresso Book Machine advances to the place of being no more expensive than an office copier machine you will see it appearing in all retail stores–the Walmarts, Targets, etc. Much like magazine racks function now, the EBM will entice shoppers for instant gratification–and without the waste of the current magazine racks, because books will be produce only when someone makes a purchase. Ebooks and EBM books each have a particular instant gratification appeal, so I don’t see that as definitive.

    I have not denied that ebooks may be a great advantage for textbooks.

    I did not advance an argument based on the aesthetic of physical books.

    You concluded by saying, “I just felt like you dismissed them because of their current limitations instead of their potential” My argument is primarily economic. I raised the issue of the price of ebooks themselves first, because that is the huge obstacle keeping ebooks from having any kind of significant success. But it is the cost of being able to read ebooks that I see as definitive in keeping it from becoming a majority market share. I do not see the majority of people having a personal computer/ebook reader which they can take with them wherever they wish to read.

    In my opinion, ebooks will largely cannibalize the mass market paperback, leave the hardcover market mostly untouched and (depending on how things turn out) either slightly cannibalize or slightly improve the trade paperback market. The textbook market will be an exception. I think of authors and publishers act rightly, ebooks could be used as a great sales device for physical books so I do not see the two at odds.

  6. “If (for example) Verizon has 55% of the cell phone market, AT&T has 30% and T-Moble has 10% and Tracfone 5% then Verizon holds a majority. AT&T is a minority player, but is Verizon’s main competitor. The statement that AT&T is a minority player does not contradict the statement that AT&T is Verizon’s major competitor.”

    The way I see it books didn’t have a competitor before, and that even if ebooks only had a 20% “share” they would have a huge impact on the amount and how books are read. Being a minor player doesn’t stop you from having large effects on the market.

    “By your reaction to my article, you seem to have read it as a dismissal of ebooks, which was not my intention..”

    The first time I commented that was pretty much the tone I picked up on. The second time I was just disagreeing with some of your points and assumptions.

    “My argument is primarily economic. I raised the issue of the price of ebooks themselves first, because that is the huge obstacle keeping ebooks from having any kind of significant success. But it is the cost of being able to read ebooks that I see as definitive in keeping it from becoming a majority market share. I do not see the majority of people having a personal computer/ebook reader which they can take with them wherever they wish to read.”

    You seem confident that Espresso Book Machines could come down to price of a copy machine, but the price of an ebooks & readers won’t come down? You don’t explain why you think so. And if people are so poor they can’t afford any sort of computing device that could read ebooks do you really think they would be buying any books at all?

    You say people won’t want to share their readers, but if your claim that women read 9 books per year and men 5, how often will they really need to?

    “Beyond the issue of the screen there is also the issues of ergonomics, portability, and price. Ergonomics is a primary focus of ebook readers. The way we sit in front of computers is not the way we sit to comfortably read a book. Current computer usage cannot mimic the comfort of the normal reading position, regardless of screen material. This becomes obvious if you tape a book to your computer screen and start reading it.”

    Computers, yes. Laptops and tablets not so much. To be honest always forget it is that way for most people, I find it more comfortable for me to work on the computer than read a book.

    “It is true that ebooks have instant gratification, but this is not limited to ebooks. When the Espresso Book Machine advances to the place of being no more expensive than an office copier machine you will see it appearing in all retail stores–the Walmarts, Targets, etc. Much like magazine racks function now, the EBM will entice shoppers for instant gratification–and without the waste of the current magazine racks, because books will be produce only when someone makes a purchase. Ebooks and EBM books each have a particular instant gratification appeal, so I don’t see that as definitive.”

    With an EBM you have to already know what you want, I don’t even see the point of having them in a store except to save shipping I guess. Not even comparable to browsing the first chapter or so of a book from the comfort of your home before buying it instantly.

    “In my opinion, ebooks will largely cannibalize the mass market paperback, leave the hardcover market mostly untouched and (depending on how things turn out) either slightly cannibalize or slightly improve the trade paperback market. The textbook market will be an exception. I think of authors and publishers act rightly, ebooks could be used as a great sales device for physical books so I do not see the two at odds.”

    Exactly! Yet you don’t mention that at all in your article.

    “. . .you are constructing something of a straw man argument here.”

    Yes, that was a poor example of some of the benefits of an ebook reader over a physical book. The benefits of ebooks over normal books might not be as large as that of snail mail and email, but I think after ebooks mature they will have significant advantages that will not be limited to textbooks.

  7. I am resisting the E-Book craze wholeheartedly. I love the smell of old books! When I see a copy of a book I read years ago, sitting on my shelf, I like the fact that I can go pick it up and remember the experience of the read. It’s like reconnecting with an old friend. I won’t go into all my many idiocyncracies regarding books in physical form (as opposed to electronic). Just remember this: I can pass on my extensive collection of books to whomever I please, whether one nephew gets the biographies, the other gets the science fiction, one niece gets the history books, and the other gets the collectible, signed and oldest books dating back to the early 1700’s. When you “buy” an Ebook, you are only purchasing the right to use the book for your own perusal. You can NOT pass on the Ebook to anyone. When you die, your right to the Ebook dies with you. It is an utter dead end. Books are history. Books are life. Reading books is one of the most wonderful, enjoyable pasttimes one can have. It is becoming lost in a sea of electronic devices, and I for one will always cherish the hours I have been privileged to spend reading and rereading old friends. My nephews and nieces will one day be thankful for the treasure I will bequeath them.
    In a more conspiratorial tone, where will you turn if a massive EM pulse hits the world ala “Revolution?” You Ebook crazies will not be able to finish the latest novel, whereas I will be able to simply turn to my old friend and say to myself, “Now, where was I?”