Article on ebook profits

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I have noticed in these threads about the big publishers that those who defend the publishers deny the concepts of price gouging and now money grubbing.

This I think is a moral argument.

If you wish to cast it as one, I can't stop you.

But "price gouging" and "money grubbing" are relative. I can't afford a Ferrari Testarosa. (It retailed for $220,000 when issued.) Should I accuse Ferrari of price gouging and money grubbing because I can't afford one? I suppose I could, but it would be disingenuous, because I have some idea of why they are so expensive, and would hardly expect Ferrari to be able to price it at a level I could afford and remain a going concern.

Accusations of "price gouging" and "money grubbing" make an underlying assumption that the producer could price it cheaper, but chooses not to. What if that's a fallacious assumption?

Any producer will set prices intended to cover the costs of making whatever it is, plus sufficient profit to remain a going concern. The fact that the price might be higher than I want to pay is my problem. If the producer can get enough sales at the price they charge to cover their costs and make the requisite amount of money, there is no particular reason why they should cut the price to benefit me. I don't have a problem with that, and don't see it as a moral issue. I can't afford everything I want, so I prioritize, make choices, and buy what is most important to me within the limits of my budget.

If I recall correctly, you're a lawyer specializing in real estate. You have a standard hourly billing rate for your professional services. If I'm in the market for the services you provide, what would your response be to accusations on my part that you are price-gouging and money-grubbing if the rate you quote me is higher than I wish to pay? I suspect a polite but firm variant of "You are welcome to go elsewhere." I don't see you cutting your rate because I don't like it, without some other incentive like "I'm an old friend and you're doing me a favor."
______
Dennis

[elcreative]

Nicely put... a good response...

[leebase]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I have noticed in these threads about the big publishers that those who defend the publishers deny the concepts of price gouging and now money grubbing.

This I think is a moral argument.

If you think the price is too high - then don't buy the ebook. Buy the paperback when it comes out. Check it out from the library. Wait for your friend to buy it, read it, then ask to borrow it.

We aren't talking about milk and bread, we're talking about entertainment. You can't "price gouge" a non-essential item. If a hurricane is coming and you triple the price of duct tape -- that's price gouging. If you sell a Gucci purse for $15,000 - that's not price gouging.

One could spend their entire life reading just the freely available books from Gutenberg, or going to their local library, or buying books for $.05 a piece at local garage sales.

If you want to read the latest popular book -- you will pay the "new release popular book price". It's a choice.

I question the moral system angle -- or how twisted someone's view of morality is as to think the price of ebooks is a moral issue at all.

Lee

[elcreative]

Yet another posting awarded the accolade of "maybe there is some common sense around." Why does everybody ignore their free right to refuse participation in the buying process if they object to the prices? Simples...

Originally Posted by leebase

If you think the price is too high - then don't buy the ebook. Buy the paperback when it comes out. Check it out from the library. Wait for your friend to buy it, read it, then ask to borrow it.

We aren't talking about milk and bread, we're talking about entertainment. You can't "price gouge" a non-essential item. If a hurricane is coming and you triple the price of duct tape -- that's price gouging. If you sell a Gucci purse for $15,000 - that's not price gouging.

One could spend their entire life reading just the freely available books from Gutenberg, or going to their local library, or buying books for $.05 a piece at local garage sales.

If you want to read the latest popular book -- you will pay the "new release popular book price". It's a choice.

I question the moral system angle -- or how twisted someone's view of morality is as to think the price of ebooks is a moral issue at all.

Lee

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Ankh

Do you consider claims that ebook sales have tripled year-over-year a success, considering the rate of proliferation of ebook readers (and generic tablet platforms that can be used as readers, like iPods)?

Yes, I do. Keeping in mind that many people who bought new readers in the past year already owned a reader. I.e., many people who bought a K3 already owned a K2. Keeping also in mind that there is a certain amount of duplication - i.e., a number of people who bought an iPad also own an e-reader. And keeping finally in mind the fact that many of the millions of people who bought an iPad did so with no intention of using it for an e-reader...

So, yeah, I think that tripling was pretty good.

[GA Russell]

If I may, I'll deal with the points made by Dennis, Lee and el creative together.

1) Dennis, I use the term moral argument as opposed to factual argument. Your stating that a publisher cannot sell an eBook at a price below x and break even is a factual statement. But I believe that disagreeing over who is a price gouging money grubber is a moral disagreement. I see price gouging and money grubbing to be immoral, and some here do not.

In my view, price gouging and money grubbing are not relative. They are absolute sins, if you will, regardless of the size of the amount considered.

It would not surprise me if all of the decision makers at Ferrari and all manufacturers of extravagantly luxurious goods were money grubbers.

I don't see any difference between a "money grubber" and a "bean counter". There have been a number of posts (I don't remember if you were among the posters) that stated that the six large publishers are owned by even larger corporations interested primarily in the bottom line and the ROI. There are your money grubbers right there.

(This isn't the place to decide whether capitalism can exist without money grubbing, but perhaps we can discuss whether book publishing can exist in the US without capitalism.)

I disagree with this: "Any producer will set prices intended to cover the costs of making whatever it is, plus sufficient profit to remain a going concern." I wish it were true. Charging more than the sufficient profit is what price gouging is all about. I met many price gougers in the cigar industry ten years ago. I know they exist.

It is certainly possible for an attorney to price gouge. I can think of two areas where the charge has been made. The first is the filing of forms. Companies sell legal forms and encourage their customers to act as their own attorneys, suggesting that attorneys price gouge for that service. The second is the standard 35% contingency fee charged for personal injury cases. Some argue that that figure is too high, and there should be more competition among attorneys for what the rate will be.

It seems to me that the basis of price gouging is the inability of the customer to go elsewhere. There is no charge of price gouging for public domain books because more than one publisher can offer the title. If you don't like Penguin's price, you can go to Bantam. The price gouging charge comes into play with copyrighted material. My favorite example is the eBook of the 49 year old Catch-22 which sells for $12.00. We keep hearing that the price will come down for an eBook title if we are just patient, but I think Catch-22 proves the error of that argument.

By the way, I don't particularly mind a little price gouging in the book business. I know that for music, 80% of a CD's sales occurs within the first eight weeks of its release. I don't mind if the company demands a high price for eight weeks for the early adopters so to speak, and then reduces its price when the product has paid for itself.

2) Lee, your statement "If you think the price is too high - then don't buy the ebook" is good advice, but it doesn't refute the argument that the publisher is price gouging. All you are saying is...Don't cooperate with the price gougers. I agree with that. My point is that the fact of price gouging should not be denied.

I don't agree with your statement "You can't "price gouge" a non-essential item." I don't know where you get that idea, and I don't think it's true. I think that any item of which you control the supply can be price gouged.

Your statement that one can choose to read other books is certainly true, but again does not refute the charge of price gouging. And I note that your suggestion is valid only if there are other books which are not price gouged.

What if every book were price gouged? We have in the US a public policy that reading should not be limited to the well to do.

About 25 years ago I read a column which I still remember about Ilie Nastase and his antics. The column quoted a philosopher from ages past (I wish I could remember who it was) who said that the individual should not be allowed to do what would result in disaster if everyone did it.

If every book were price gouged, only the well to do could read. Or more specifically, only the well to do could read a book published after 1923. Is that what you want America to be?

And by the way, you mention using the library. I'm happy for everyone who finds what he wants at his local library. I've lived many places, and that has never been the case for me. Praise the Lord for Amazon!

3) el creative, you ask, "Why does everybody ignore their free right to refuse participation in the buying process if they object to the prices?" I don't know who you are referring to. I have seen only a million and one posts here of people shouting from the rooftops that they will not buy an eBook priced over $9.99.

[elcreative]

That may be the case in the US but wherever I have lived in the UK there is a library service and if a particular library doesn't have a book then they will order it in either new for that library or on loan from another library so being well-to-do has nothing to do with the ability to obtain post-1923 books... sorry if that's not the case in the "Land of the Free."

As for my quoted comment (with your additions), "Why does everybody ignore their free right to refuse participation in the buying process if they object to the prices?" "I don't know who you are referring to. I have seen only a million and one posts here of people shouting from the rooftops that they will not buy an eBook priced over $9.99." And I've seen the same number of people (including you) complain that they can't buy at the price they want to pay and so we should force the sellers to change their ways because they must be price gougers and money grubbers... very democratic and freedom loving...

Originally Posted by GA Russell

What if every book were price gouged? We have in the US a public policy that reading should not be limited to the well to do.

About 25 years ago I read a column which I still remember about Ilie Nastase and his antics. The column quoted a philosopher from ages past (I wish I could remember who it was) who said that the individual should not be allowed to do what would result in disaster if everyone did it.

If every book were price gouged, only the well to do could read. Or more specifically, only the well to do could read a book published after 1923. Is that what you want America to be?

And by the way, you mention using the library. I'm happy for everyone who finds what he wants at his local library. I've lived many places, and that has never been the case for me. Praise the Lord for Amazon!

3) el creative, you ask, "Why does everybody ignore their free right to refuse participation in the buying process if they object to the prices?" I don't know who you are referring to. I have seen only a million and one posts here of people shouting from the rooftops that they will not buy an eBook priced over $9.99.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by elcreative

And I've seen the same number of people (including you) complain that they can't buy at the price they want to pay and so we should force the sellers to change their ways because they must be price gougers and money grubbers... very democratic and freedom loving...

You haven't heard me say that anyone should be forced to change his ways. I believe that copyright should be limited to 14 years plus the life of the author, after which anyone should be free to publish the work. I also believe that once a work has been issued, no one should have the right to keep it out of print.

In my view, no one should be forced to do anything he doesn't want to do. I want to free up the system.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

1) Dennis, I use the term moral argument as opposed to factual argument. Your stating that a publisher cannot sell an eBook at a price below x and break even is a factual statement. But I believe that disagreeing over who is a price gouging money grubber is a moral disagreement. I see price gouging and money grubbing to be immoral, and some here do not.

In my view, price gouging and money grubbing are not relative. They are absolute sins, if you will, regardless of the size of the amount considered.

I won't, because it's not a black and white matter. They are indeed relative. Among other reasons, value is a relative, not an absolute. (Failure to understand that is the biggest error Marx made.)

It would not surprise me if all of the decision makers at Ferrari and all manufacturers of extravagantly luxurious goods were money grubbers.

Do you then assume that luxury goods like Ferraris should not be made, because they are not affordable by the wider market?

I don't see any difference between a "money grubber" and a "bean counter".

I do. "Bean counters" do what the name implies. They count the beans. It isn't normally their job to make the decisions you might count as "money grubbing" - only to provide the information on which the folks who do make those decisions base their judgments.

There have been a number of posts (I don't remember if you were among the posters) that stated that the six large publishers are owned by even larger corporations interested primarily in the bottom line and the ROI. There are your money grubbers right there.

No, they are large organizations that want to remain in business, and open tomorrow and do more business with their customers.

(This isn't the place to decide whether capitalism can exist without money grubbing, but perhaps we can discuss whether book publishing can exist in the US without capitalism.)

We can, but preferably as a separate thread. Right now, the US economic system is a modified form of capitalism, and I don't see that changing. What "ism" would you substitute?

I disagree with this: "Any producer will set prices intended to cover the costs of making whatever it is, plus sufficient profit to remain a going concern." I wish it were true. Charging more than the sufficient profit is what price gouging is all about. I met many price gougers in the cigar industry ten years ago. I know they exist.

Define "more than sufficient profit". There will indeed be greedy folks who will try to extract the extra dollars by fair means or foul, but I stand by my original statement. What happens when "sufficient profit to remain a going concern" results in prices you don't like and consider price gouging? The producers should say "Goodbye, cruel world!" and go belly up because you think the price is too high?

It is certainly possible for an attorney to price gouge. I can think of two areas where the charge has been made. The first is the filing of forms. Companies sell legal forms and encourage their customers to act as their own attorneys, suggesting that attorneys price gouge for that service. The second is the standard 35% contingency fee charged for personal injury cases. Some argue that that figure is too high, and there should be more competition among attorneys for what the rate will be.

I'll concur on both.

But you sidestep my original question. How would you respond if I accused you of "price gouging" and "money grubbing", because I didn't like the rate you quoted me for your services?

It seems to me that the basis of price gouging is the inability of the customer to go elsewhere. There is no charge of price gouging for public domain books because more than one publisher can offer the title. If you don't like Penguin's price, you can go to Bantam. The price gouging charge comes into play with copyrighted material. My favorite example is the eBook of the 49 year old Catch-22 which sells for $12.00. We keep hearing that the price will come down for an eBook title if we are just patient, but I think Catch-22 proves the error of that argument.

Popularity is the missing piece. Catch-22 is a classic. It's taught in literature classes. Publishers will charge $12 for an ebook version because they can get it. Enough people want to read it and are willing to pay $12 to make it a viable price. Pricing is what the market will bear, and the market bears that price.

By the way, I don't particularly mind a little price gouging in the book business. I know that for music, 80% of a CD's sales occurs within the first eight weeks of its release. I don't mind if the company demands a high price for eight weeks for the early adopters so to speak, and then reduces its price when the product has paid for itself.

Assume longer than 8 weeks for books. Most of discussions like this stem from unhappiness that the ebook issued at the same time as the hardcover carries a higher price than the mass market paperback edition that will follow.

2) Lee, your statement "If you think the price is too high - then don't buy the ebook" is good advice, but it doesn't refute the argument that the publisher is price gouging. All you are saying is...Don't cooperate with the price gougers. I agree with that. My point is that the fact of price gouging should not be denied.

I don't agree with your statement "You can't "price gouge" a non-essential item." I don't know where you get that idea, and I don't think it's true. I think that any item of which you control the supply can be price gouged.

I can't agree. What makes price gouging an anathema is precisely the fact that whatever it is is an essential, and you don't have a choice. You have to have it, and must pay the price asked. If you don't have to have it and choose not to pay the asking price, it's simply a decision on your part about how you will allocate your resources. You may not be happy about the price being asked, but it's not gouging, simply more than you want to pay.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by elcreative

That may be the case in the US but wherever I have lived in the UK there is a library service and if a particular library doesn't have a book then they will order it in either new for that library or on loan from another library so being well-to-do has nothing to do with the ability to obtain post-1923 books... sorry if that's not the case in the "Land of the Free."

Libraries all have budget problems these days, but inter-library loans are common practice. If I'm willing to wait a bit, the chances are good my library can get something for me.
______
Dennis

[elcreative]

This is getting to be a habit Dennis... nail on the head time again...

[GA Russell]

Once more into the breach!

1) "Do you then assume that luxury goods like Ferraris should not be made, because they are not affordable by the wider market?"

Are you referring to what is legal? I have never suggested that money grubbing should be illegal. I just think that it is legitimate to point it out when it occurs.

2) ""Bean counters" do what the name implies. They count the beans. It isn't normally their job to make the decisions you might count as "money grubbing" - only to provide the information on which the folks who do make those decisions base their judgments."

No point in quibbling over slang. I have often seen the decision makers of corporations referred to as bean counters. I think that typically they are the corporations whose CEO is a former CFO. I've often seen such references to the management of the record companies in comparison to the management of the record companies of fifty years ago.

3) "Right now, the US economic system is a modified form of capitalism, and I don't see that changing. What "ism" would you substitute?"

Patricia posted for me some works on Distributism earlier this year. AJ Penty, GK Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc. Also Rerum Novarum. I'd like to see how those ideas could be implemented in the US.

4) "What happens when "sufficient profit to remain a going concern" results in prices you don't like and consider price gouging?"

Then it's not price gouging. I've never said that just because I think a price is too high for me it should be considered gouging.

5) "How would you respond if I accused you of "price gouging" and "money grubbing", because I didn't like the rate you quoted me for your services?"

I've never been in a position where I controlled the supply or cornered the market. Just because someone doesn't like my fee wouldn't make it gouging. But if I were the only attorney licensed by the state to perform a particular function within a county, and the state refused to certify any other attorney, and if my fee were then unaffordable for all except the well to do, then that would be price gouging.

What would I do? I would lower my fee to make it affordable for the population. But that's my moral code. I wouldn't price gouge.

6) "Pricing is what the market will bear, and the market bears that price."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the price reflects what the publisher thinks he can get for it. The publisher may be wrong. In the real world, the publisher does not necessarily lower the price to maximize his profit. Competency cannot be assumed, particularly when there is a monopoly on the product such as a specific book title.

Correct me if I misread you, but it appears to me that you believe that what the market decides is just. For example, you would consider the price which maximizes the publisher's profit to be just, even if it were too high for the general public, wouldn't you? As I've stated elsewhere (above, I think), we have in the US a public policy of encouraging everyone to read, and a price point which limits books to the well to do violates that public policy. I would consider such a price to be unjust. Particularly in the case of books which are "classics", which you say Catch-22 is.

7) "Most of discussions like this stem from unhappiness that the ebook issued at the same time as the hardcover carries a higher price than the mass market paperback edition that will follow."

I've never had a problem with high eBook prices for brand new books.

It does appear to me that the Agency 5 have colluded to fix prices, however, because I understand that all of their eBooks of their new best sellers have the same price ($12). The posts here complain about the price point, but what concerns me is that it is the same for all five Agency publishers. I suspect collusion.

8) "If I'm willing to wait a bit, the chances are good my library can get something for me."

That's great news for you! You live in New York City, don't you? That scenario has never been my experience.

[Highroller]

No, I said money grubbing and I MEANT money grubbing. When I buy a paper book I OWN it. I can resale it. I can donate it and write it off my taxes. I can lend it to a friend. I can keep it for any many years as I want to take care of it. For an ebook that costs LESS to produce and I CAN'T resell it or donate it or in most case lend it to cost as much as a hardback IS the definition of money grubbing. I also run the risk of needing to change to a new ebook reader and not being able to. Since you are at BEST renting an ebook you should pay a RENTAL price not a purchase price. Until the publishers do this they are money grubbing or at least trying to maintain their status quo by keeping ebook prices so high they aren't worth "buying" (ie renting).

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Once more into the breach!

1) "Do you then assume that luxury goods like Ferraris should not be made, because they are not affordable by the wider market?"

Are you referring to what is legal? I have never suggested that money grubbing should be illegal. I just think that it is legitimate to point it out when it occurs.

Would you be kind enough to answer the question I asked?

We disagree on what classifies as money grubbing, and I suspect we'll continue to do so. I'm trying to nail down the context in which we disagree.

2) ""Bean counters" do what the name implies. They count the beans. It isn't normally their job to make the decisions you might count as "money grubbing" - only to provide the information on which the folks who do make those decisions base their judgments."

No point in quibbling over slang. I have often seen the decision makers of corporations referred to as bean counters. I think that typically they are the corporations whose CEO is a former CFO. I've often seen such references to the management of the record companies in comparison to the management of the record companies of fifty years ago.

You're referring to cases where the CEO came from the finance side, rather than the sales and marketing, operations, product development or other areas. of the enterprise. But even they aren't all "bean counters" in a pejorative sense.

I can think of classic cases of CEOs coming from the financial track damaging their business because they saw everything in terms of numbers, but didn't clearly grasp what the numbers meant. The numbers are simply measurements, and are meaningless unless you understand what is being measured and why it's measured that way.

It's a particularly pernicious problem in organizations which depend upon creativity. I'm not especially fond of the management of DisneyCo for that reason. Walt Disney was a genius, who just wanted to tell stories and entertain people. He did so very well indeed, and became rich and famous as a result, founding an enterprise which is now a global institution.

The current management are bean counters, who seem to see the world in terms of "How can we make a lot of money?", not "How can we tell a wonderful story that will entertain millions of people?" They put the cart before the horse, and are less likely to actually tell wonderful stories that will entertain millions of people in consequence.

3) "Right now, the US economic system is a modified form of capitalism, and I don't see that changing. What "ism" would you substitute?"

Patricia posted for me some works on Distributism earlier this year. AJ Penty, GK Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc. Also Rerum Novarum. I'd like to see how those ideas could be implemented in the US.

I'll respond to this in a separate post, as it's a complex topic.

4) "What happens when "sufficient profit to remain a going concern" results in prices you don't like and consider price gouging?"

Then it's not price gouging. I've never said that just because I think a price is too high for me it should be considered gouging.

I fear your comments can be read that way. You have been objecting to prices and calling them price gouging.

What would I do? I would lower my fee to make it affordable for the population. But that's my moral code. I wouldn't price gouge.

How low? And what would make you decide your rate was "unaffordable by the population"? A single complaint by someone who didn't like your quoted rate?

What if what people wanted was a rate low enough to dramatically reduce your income and leave you unable to pay your bills?

6) "Pricing is what the market will bear, and the market bears that price."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the price reflects what the publisher thinks he can get for it. The publisher may be wrong. In the real world, the publisher does not necessarily lower the price to maximize his profit. Competency cannot be assumed, particularly when there is a monopoly on the product such as a specific book title.

Agreed, all pricing reflects what the seller assumes they can get. If they can't get it, they have to make adjustments or go out of business. If enough people will pay the asked price to let them make money and stay in business, guess what? The market will bear it.

Correct me if I misread you, but it appears to me that you believe that what the market decides is just. For example, you would consider the price which maximizes the publisher's profit to be just, even if it were too high for the general public, wouldn't you? As I've stated elsewhere (above, I think), we have in the US a public policy of encouraging everyone to read, and a price point which limits books to the well to do violates that public policy. I would consider such a price to be unjust. Particularly in the case of books which are "classics", which you say Catch-22 is.

No, I think the market decides what it will pay. "Just" is a matter of viewpoint.

7) "Most of discussions like this stem from unhappiness that the ebook issued at the same time as the hardcover carries a higher price than the mass market paperback edition that will follow."

I've never had a problem with high eBook prices for brand new books.

It does appear to me that the Agency 5 have colluded to fix prices, however, because I understand that all of their eBooks of their new best sellers have the same price ($12). The posts here complain about the price point, but what concerns me is that it is the same for all five Agency publishers. I suspect collusion.

I don't believe this is collusion in the sense you're thinking of. The Agency Model redefines the relationship between Amazon and the publishers. The publishers are not selling ebooks to Amazon at a specified discount, with Amazon then free to offer the product at whatever price they like, accepting a lower margin or even taking a loss on each sale. Under the Agency Model, Amazon becomes the agent for the publisher, selling the book at a defined price, and getting a defined commission on the sale, specified by contract.

Five of the Big 6 publishers agreed that the Agency Model was an appropriate response to Amazon. (The sixth, Random House, did not.)

They aren't colluding on pricing. All large publishers charge roughly the same amount for books, because all have similar cost structures and revenue and profit targets. Nobody will want to be the first to raise prices, for fear of losing market share to lower priced competitors, but no one is going to cut prices across the board, either. They probably don't have the cushion to do that safely.

8) "If I'm willing to wait a bit, the chances are good my library can get something for me."

That's great news for you! You live in New York City, don't you? That scenario has never been my experience.

I do live in New York city, with a branch the the NYC public library around the corner from me, and the main library within walking distance. But your library should be able to process an inter library loan request for a title they don't happen to have. Is this not the case where you are?
______
Dennis

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Highroller

No, I said money grubbing and I MEANT money grubbing. When I buy a paper book I OWN it. I can resale it. I can donate it and write it off my taxes. I can lend it to a friend. I can keep it for any many years as I want to take care of it. For an ebook that costs LESS to produce and I CAN'T resell it or donate it or in most case lend it to cost as much as a hardback IS the definition of money grubbing.

I also run the risk of needing to change to a new ebook reader and not being able to. Since you are at BEST renting an ebook you should pay a RENTAL price not a purchase price. Until the publishers do this they are money grubbing or at least trying to maintain their status quo by keeping ebook prices so high they aren't worth "buying" (ie renting).

Then you should buy a paper book because it doesn't sound like e-books will meet your needs. It's not like publishers make any additional money because you can't lend, resell, or donate e-books. It's not like the authors, editors, proof-readers, etc. have to work any less on an e-book. The fact that you can't lend, sell, donate, etc. an e-book doesn't really affect the publisher's bottom line; it is merely your preference. If these things are important to you (they're not to me), buy a paper book.

You do run the risk of needing to change to a new e-book reader. That's a risk that everyone incurs when they buy an e-book reader; it's inherent in the technology. It's not like publishers or authors somehow benefit from this.

Buying an e-book isn't like renting a book. Rented books have to be returned. E-books don't have to be returned.

Publishers generally sell e-books at a discount (not a large one) to hardbacks. If, based on your personal needs, a hardback is a better fit, than you should buy a hardback and not complain that the e-book medium doesn't fit your needs.

But I don't see that the publishers are any more money grubbing than, say, you are.