When will eBooks take over from print?

[mcgrath]

I wonder if Amazon considers the "purchase" of a free e-book a sale. I guess it would be a sale with zero revenue. If that is the case, then I've purchased more ebooks in one month than I've purchased hardbacks in my entire life.

I would be interested in seeing total revenue from the sale of hardbacks versus total revenue from e-books. I'm not sure if Amazon is counting sales in terms of total dollars (or euros, pounds, etc.) spent or number of e-books purchased.

[CyGuy]

I feel like eBook growth is being intentionally stunted. Most eBooks still have DRM, there are a myriad of different formats, and the pricing model is way off. Once these issues are resolved, I think eBooks will really take off, and a lot of trees will get to keep standing. In my opinion, this will happen in a few years, I vote 2015…

[Penforhire]

I don't think e-books will dominate until their total price (including e-reader) is less than p-books AND the Balkanized DRM situation is reduced (so an e-book is essentially durable). I say 2020.

[carld]

Originally Posted by mcgrath

I wonder if Amazon considers the "purchase" of a free e-book a sale.

No, they don't. This was the second bullet point in the press release back when they announced ebook sales had surpassed hardbacks.

[mcgrath]

Originally Posted by carld

No, they don't. This was the second bullet point in the press release back when they announced ebook sales had surpassed hardbacks.

I missed the original press release. That is pretty impressive.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I don't think ebook sales will outnumber print sales by 2020. Not only is there still a lot of inertia for paper, we have to consider the impact of countries that have not yet adopted ebooks, or any non-essential electronic equipment. And there are still enough issues re: ebook formats, DRM, availability, perceived price, etc, to keep many potential customers away.

I do see it happening closer to 2020 than 2030, as I expect most of those aforementioned issues to be resolved by then, and other issues (environmental pressure to cut back on paper products, space and portability issues, etc) to help tip the scales.

[GA Russell]

A typical Borders has many, many trade paperbacks whose dimensions are unlike those of best sellers. They are loaded with pictures and graphs. I do not see those trade paperbacks going away in the foreseeable future.

In regard to best sellers, CDs replaced LPs because the record companies wanted them to. I see no indication that book publishers want to see hardbacks replaced. In 1988-89, most CDs cost 50% more than LPs. But today people expect eBooks to retail for less than hardbacks. Until publishers are willing to accept much less for their eBooks than they get for their hardbacks, I do not see hardbacks going away either.

Mass market paperbacks are the most easily replaced by eBooks. But I see their buyers to want something cheap and disposable, with no worries if the books are lost or damaged. I don't see that market investing in eBook readers in order to read their mass market paperbacks.

As a result, I don't see eBooks taking over until publishers are willing to accept less per title, and go for the volume.

PS - What I do see disappearing are those trade paperbacks which in the past would have been printed as mass market paper backs, i.e., fiction novels like Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by simonroyle

We've all read the WSJ, the Huffington Post and the myriad of blogs on this subject, but what do you think? When will ebooks take over from print, or are ebooks "just a fad" as I read on a blog comment the other day.

If you mean "replace print entirely", I suspect never.

Too much of the optimistic views about ebooks taking over the world assume the reader has a device to read them - either a computer or dedicated reader - and has broadband access to get them. This is not true for the majority of the world, and will not be for the foreseeable future.

Personally, I consider ebooks an additional format, and not a replacement for print, have thousands of books in both formats, and continue to get books in both formats. (I have some books in both paper and ebook formats.)

I don't especially care if ebooks take over from paper. I'm more concerned that those who prefer ebooks have convenient access to content they want in a format they can read. We still have a way to go on that front.
______
Dennis

[simonroyle]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

If you mean "replace print entirely", I suspect never.

No I don't mean entirely, like you I believe print will always be around. I'm simply interested in finding out when people think that the balance of words in digital format will outweigh that in print.

Like you I also don't care, what format a book is in as long as I can read it.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by simonroyle

No I don't mean entirely, like you I believe print will always be around. I'm simply interested in finding out when people think that the balance of words in digital format will outweigh that in print.

That's actually two separate questions. Given the work of efforts like Project Gutenberg and the stuff issued under a Creative Commons license on top of what is available for sale in things like Amazon Kindle editions, there's an enormous amount in electronic format. There may be more available than is currently in print in paper editions.

The more apposite question is how much is actually being read in digital format, and right now I'd bet the vast majority is still consumed on paper. If I had to guess, in a decade of so that balance may shift in favor of electronic format, but a lot of dust has to settle around things like supported formats, access to content, and distribution of the tools required to read it.

Like you I also don't care, what format a book is in as long as I can read it.

I care in the sense that I'd like to see content available in the form the reader wishes, but I'm more concerned that people do read, in any format. Way too many folks never learned to see reading as as fun, and read only because they have to.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

A typical Borders has many, many trade paperbacks whose dimensions are unlike those of best sellers. They are loaded with pictures and graphs. I do not see those trade paperbacks going away in the foreseeable future.

Nor will you. I have a number of volumes in my library that simply would not work in electronic format. Most of my volumes on art, architecture, and design require large page sizes, and even though you could produce them as PDFs and retain formatting, most folks don't have screens large enough to display them as intended, and wouldn't want to read on them if they did. (I have a screen like that, and wouldn't want to.)

In regard to best sellers, CDs replaced LPs because the record companies wanted them to.

Not just wanted to. One of the questions for some time was what would replace vinyl. There was slow but steady development from the old 78rpm records to the 33 1/3 rpm LP, and in the recording and pressing technology that allowed more music and greater dynamic range to be presented on LP. But LPs presented some hard limitations, like the difficulty of getting more than about 20 minutes of music per side on an LP and maintaining sound quality. There were also cost pressures. The best LPs were made from "virgin" vinyl, but record companies tended to use a mix of virgin and recycled vinyl for lower costs. You could make better quality LPs, but save for collectors buying foreign imports, most LP buyers balked at the costs.

The CD provided for better quality, more music on a single volume, and extras like metadata provided along with the music. No surprise the industry migrated. The fact that there was a pop in sales as consumers replaced LPs with CDs didn't hurt, but it wasn't the point of the exercise. There were inherent limits in the existing technology that required a new storage medium to address. (Note that LPs have not gone away entirely. There is still a collectors market, and current stuff produced on vinyl for that market, who believe there is better sound quality from old analog storage than modern digital media.)

And CDs are giving way to DVDs, which offer much higher capacity, and the option to include things like video along with the audio tracks.

I see no indication that book publishers want to see hardbacks replaced. In 1988-89, most CDs cost 50% more than LPs. But today people expect eBooks to retail for less than hardbacks. Until publishers are willing to accept much less for their eBooks than they get for their hardbacks, I do not see hardbacks going away either.

Two kinds of buyers buy hardcovers. Some want a durable long-term copy that they plan to keep. Others want the book now, and will pay a premium to get it. The latter group were the ones who provoked the "Agency model" imposed on Amazon by Simon and Schuster, Hachette, Macmillan et al. They were buying Kindle editions instead of current hardcover bestsellers, because they just wanted to read the book now, didn't care about format, and chose the cheaper alternative.

The publishers behind the Agency model were seeing lost revenue as people chose the cheaper alternative, and essentially forced Amazon to charge a higher price and remit more of the sale if it wanted to offer electronic editions at the same time as the hardcover, to compensate for the lost revenue in not selling the hardcover edition.

Mass market paperbacks are the most easily replaced by eBooks. But I see their buyers to want something cheap and disposable, with no worries if the books are lost or damaged. I don't see that market investing in eBook readers in order to read their mass market paperbacks.

If they can read on something like their smartphone, they have no reason to. They can use what they already have for other reasons

As a result, I don't see eBooks taking over until publishers are willing to accept less per title, and go for the volume.

This assumes that volume will increase if prices drop. It may, in the sense of "the buyer will get the cheaper MMPB edition over the more expensive ebook edition", but price is not the only factor. eBooks offer convenience - they can be purchased and read at any time, without requiring a visit to the retailer - and they don't have the storage issues of paper volumes. Many folks may find the electronic edition worth a premium over the paper volume.

Ultimately, though, books in either format compete for the reader's discretionary time, and must content against the other things the reader could be doing instead. This will tend to impose limits on how many books a reader buys, period. The scarce resource here is time to read the books, not money to buy them, and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

PS - What I do see disappearing are those trade paperbacks which in the past would have been printed as mass market paper backs, i.e., fiction novels like Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler.

Some of that stuff is still issued in mass market format. There is still a large market for PB editions of stuff in the public domain you can get from Project Gutenberg if you don't mind electronic versions.

Trade paper editions address the market segment that want something better than a mass market PB, but aren't quite willing to spring for a hardcover edition.

Both will still be there as long as a large enough number of people prefer paper volumes.
______
Dennis

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Two kinds of buyers buy hardcovers. Some want a durable long-term copy that they plan to keep. Others want the book now, and will pay a premium to get it. The latter group were the ones who provoked the "Agency model" imposed on Amazon by Simon and Schuster, Hachette, Macmillan et al. They were buying Kindle editions instead of current hardcover bestsellers, because they just wanted to read the book now, didn't care about format, and chose the cheaper alternative.

The publishers behind the Agency model were seeing lost revenue as people chose the cheaper alternative, and essentially forced Amazon to charge a higher price and remit more of the sale if it wanted to offer electronic editions at the same time as the hardcover, to compensate for the lost revenue in not selling the hardcover edition.

Publishers weren't seeing lost revenue from people buying ebooks instead of hardbacks, as they were setting the ebook RRP the same as the hardback — they were getting the same in gross revenue for an ebook as a hardback, with the benefit of much lower marginal cost on ebooks.

Publishers were worried by Amazon's loss-leader selling of the ebooks at less than cost, expecting this to set public expectation for the price of ebooks, leading to Amazon being able to force them to set a lower RRP.

And then publishers cut their own throats by agreeing with Amazon to accept less money for ebooks, and agreeing to require the public to pay more. I can't think what they were doing - less money and fewer sales, all to turn new release ebooks from loss-leaders for Amazon into a revenue stream for Amazon.

[UPDATE: carld reminds me that the publishers (and/or Apple) were the driving force behind agency pricing, and that Amazon didn't want agency pricing. Apologies to Amazon.]

IMO publishers should have been looking for a way to make money from the ones who buy hardbacks to get the book NOW. The obvious way is to have released the ebook at a high price /before/ the hardback, dropping it when the hardback gets released.

Dare I say Baen again? Their eARCs cost $15. Two and a half times the cost of the ebook when released. Translating to 'big publisher' pricing:

One month before the hardback gets released, release the 'Advance eBook' for $24.99. When the hardback come in at $24.99, release the 'Finished eBook' for $9.99.

[JimKal]

Originally Posted by Clancy_s

Define "takeover". Outnumber, for prose - within 10 years.

Entirely replace - IMO, never.

Clancy makes a great point. When I responded to the poll I was considering the Amazon announcement that e-Book sales had surpassed hard back sales and were on target to overtake paperback sales in the foreseeable future. But, that is one company and not a whole industry and certainly not the whole world.

I own an iPad and find that I actually prefer reading on it to a "real" book. This was actually an unexpected outcome as I've always loved the experience of reading and holding a book. My preferred format has been hardback or trade paperback. Despite my enjoyment of the iPad there are some books that I am so fond of that I want to own the real thing.

I think the price drop on devices like the Kindle and Nook will make them an attractive option for many people. As we see more e-publishers and more low cost e-books I think the trend will accelerate. But, just like TV didn't kill radio and film, and paperbacks didn't kill hardbacks, the e-book won't kill off the physical books.

[Latinandgreek]

I think that they will always co-exist, with e-books becoming more prominent in the coming decades. There are many books (some fiction, some academic) that I have yet been able to find in e-book format, and I can't imagine that changing any time soon.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Richey79

Worldwide computer ownership is estimated to be something less than 5%

Where do you get that figure? Estimates I see say around a billion computer users in the world, which means around 15 percent. And there are 500 million users of Facebook alone, which is a little over 7 percent of the world's population.