Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadin
The fallacy of the list is that it assumes that each of these points constitute the bulk of the cost. More importantly, it assumes that no pbook version is created. And, even more importantly, it assumes that ebook sales do not cannibalize pbook sales.
It does a publisher no good if they print 10,000 hardcover copies of a book for sale at $24.95 and simultaneously release an ebook version at $9.99 if they do not recover the costs of printing the hardcover version through sale of the pbook. There is a symbiotic relationship between ebooks and pbooks that has to be maintained for the publishing industry to survive.
Whether the industry should survive or whether it should survive in its present form is a different question. However, authors and consumers would both be adversely impacted, in my opinion, if the industry does not survive. Publishers do bring a lot of benefits to books -- including to both authors and readers -- benefits that will not be adequately replaced by direct publishing by authors.
|
None of the "assumptions" that you listed had any bearing on my arguement. If you are going to argue that the items I listed aren't major cost components of producing books then this argument has become pointless. Furthermore, the list I provided simply provided reasons for why ebooks should cost less than pbooks, so whether or not the publisher also produces pbooks is immaterial.
If I produce 2 items and one cost me $12 to manufacture and the other costs me $5 to manufacture then I would need to sell product A for $17 to make $5 in profit and item B for $10 to make the same amount of profit. (This isn't even taking into account 'profit margins' but the math easier). The point is that product B should have a lower price than product A, and whether or not product B cannabilizes product A is immaterial.
Lastly, I never argued that publishers should be replaced by authors publishing directly. I said publishers that don't embrace ebooks deserve to go out of business, so that's all I have to say in regards to your strawman arguement.