[Muckraker]

I've blogged about this practice as well because it seems counterproductive to me. Not so long ago Amazon released the Kindle Fire--a multimedia device capable of showing off high-resolution, color ebooks. The "delivery cost" dissuades writers and publishers from providing content with high-resolution color images though. That fee actually encourages KDP publishers to decrease the quality of non-text content--which is exactly what I do. A few of my books contain roughly 150 b/w illustrations. After optimizing the graphics I wind up with a 10MB EPUB, which is exactly what Nook owners receive. Kindle owners, on the other hand, receive a 3.5MB MOBI because I refuse to pay a $1.50 file-size fee on a $2.99 book.

This policy forces me to supply Kindle readers with content of a slightly lower quality than Nook readers. It probably isn't much of an issue when we are comparing a B/W Kindle to a B/W Nook but now we are comparing high-rez color devices and the differences in quality will be much more apparent.

The absurdity of this policy becomes very apparent when we are talking about color graphic novels. The higher the quality and quantity of material published the more the publisher will feel the "file-size fee" pain. They have the option of getting dinged with a fee that knocks their royalty down from 70% to 40% (or lower) or opting for the 35% royalty where the delivery fee is magically waived.

And the text-only folks won't understand because they look at their fees, see a nickel or a dime, and tell the graphic-novel folks to just suck it up and accept it as a cost of doing business. However, the text-only folks are not the ones supplying content that shows off the features and power of Amazon's highest-end ebook reader--the Kindle Fire. They are supplying content that displays on the Kindle Fire in pretty much the same way it displays on a five-year-old hand-me-down Kindle. And I would think Amazon prefers we buy new Fires over hand-me-downs.

So no it's not fair. It's absolutely counter-intuitive to pitch a device as being able to display high-end multimedia content and then impose fees only on people publishing high-end multimedia content. If there really is a "delivery cost" to Amazon, which I doubt there is, then they should kick everyone's royalty down to a flat 65% and call it a day.

The "file-size fee" is archaic and reminds me of the days when I used to pay by the minute for 2400-baud internet access.

EDIT: Oh, and it is a bit underhanded to claim a royalty rate of %70--5% higher than Barnes and Noble--and then take fees which may very well drive the actual royalty below 65%.