How much is Amazon missing by not having a waterproof Kindle?

[ZodWallop]

Just read an MPR article: Predictions from 1996: The e-book

It's a softball, jokey article. But near the end they question why e-book sales didn't take off. Of course, I know you're saying 'agency pricing!' and you're probably right.

But twice they mention reading in the tub. There are already waterproof e-readers, but Amazon hasn't bothered with a waterproof Kindle. And Kindle is, for better or worse, what the general (American) public thinks of when they think of e-readers.

I do wonder what would happen if there was, say, a black Friday-timed commercial showing the latest high-end Kindle and then they dunk it in water. And it works!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Just read an MPR article: Predictions from 1996: The e-book

It's a softball, jokey article. But near the end they question why e-book sales didn't take off. Of course, I know you're saying 'agency pricing!' and you're probably right.

I'm a little puzzled by the comment that ebook sales "didn't take off". I believe that for fiction, ebooks outsell paper books now, at least in the US market.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm a little puzzled by the comment that ebook sales "didn't take off". I believe that for fiction, ebooks outsell paper books now, at least in the US market.

Good point.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm a little puzzled by the comment that ebook sales "didn't take off". I believe that for fiction, ebooks outsell paper books now, at least in the US market.

Could be articles like this one: http://the-digital-reader.com/2016/1...tinue-decline/

[Ravensknight]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Could be articles like this one: http://the-digital-reader.com/2016/1...tinue-decline/

I think the comments to that article are more telling than the article itself...

[barryem]

The AAP only includes stats from the 1200 publishers that submit sales figures to them. Lots of small publishers don't. In addition self published books on Amazon and others are also not included.

The AAP is, of course, aware of that but they're using their true statement to tell a lie; namely that ebooks aren't doing so well. Most people reading that statement won't realize that it doesn't really mean much.

There's the old story about the used car guy who took in a nice clean looking piece of junk that needed a lot of work but looked good. He called his grandmother and asked her to come by the lot and drive it to the grocery store, which she did. Later that day he sold the car to an unsuspecting couple explaining that the car had been driven by an elderly lady only to the grocery store. He didn't make a single untrue statement but he told a lie. That's exactly what the AAP is doing. There's a word for that. It's called "marketing".

Ebooks didn't do away with paper books overnight and that's partly because of agency pricing and partly due to marketing and partly because a lot of people just like paper books. Over time my guess is that ebooks will continue to do better, as they are now. I don't know that paper books will ever go away. I hope not. But at least for fiction they'll probably become the main way to buy books.

A waterproof Kindle kind of makes sense for a few people but for most people waterproofing has no real value. Most people read at home most of the time. People reading out and about mostly use phones. Reading in the tub is perfectly safe if you put your ereader in a baggy or in a waterproof case. The vast majority of readers will have no use whatever for waterproofing.

I have no use for waterproofing but if an ereader could be bought with or without it and waterproofing only raised the price a little I'd probably get it just to feel good about it. But not if it cost much more.

Barry

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by barryem

The AAP only includes stats from the 1200 publishers that submit sales figures to them. Lots of small publishers don't. In addition self published books on Amazon and others are also not included.

The AAP is, of course, aware of that but they're using their true statement to tell a lie; namely that ebooks aren't doing so well. Most people reading that statement won't realize that it doesn't really mean much.

There's the old story about the used car guy who took in a nice clean looking piece of junk that needed a lot of work but looked good. He called his grandmother and asked her to come by the lot and drive it to the grocery store, which she did. Later that day he sold the car to an unsuspecting couple explaining that the car had been driven by an elderly lady only to the grocery store. He didn't make a single untrue statement but he told a lie. That's exactly what the AAP is doing. There's a word for that. It's called "marketing".

Ebooks didn't do away with paper books overnight and that's partly because of agency pricing and partly due to marketing and partly because a lot of people just like paper books. Over time my guess is that ebooks will continue to do better, as they are now. I don't know that paper books will ever go away. I hope not. But at least for fiction they'll probably become the main way to buy books.

A waterproof Kindle kind of makes sense for a few people but for most people waterproofing has no real value. Most people read at home most of the time. People reading out and about mostly use phones. Reading in the tub is perfectly safe if you put your ereader in a baggy or in a waterproof case. The vast majority of readers will have no use whatever for waterproofing.

I have no use for waterproofing but if an ereader could be bought with or without it and waterproofing only raised the price a little I'd probably get it just to feel good about it. But not if it cost much more.

Barry

Nope.

The AAP is pretty clear about the limits of their stats. It's not their fault that the data is frequently misinterpreted.

[tdonline]

I agree with Barry about the value of waterproofing. I bought the last Nook e-reader and one of its features was being waterproof. One day of using it was enough to tell me I had made a mistake and I should have gotten a Paperwhite. The Nook's minuses far exceeded the value of waterproofing. I returned it and bought the non-waterproof PW.

Waterproofing, for most people, is a nice, cool feature to have, but it's not an essential. I'll consider readability, weight, battery life, pricing and design well before waterproofing.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by barryem

A waterproof Kindle kind of makes sense for a few people but for most people waterproofing has no real value. Most people read at home most of the time. People reading out and about mostly use phones. Reading in the tub is perfectly safe if you put your ereader in a baggy or in a waterproof case. The vast majority of readers will have no use whatever for waterproofing.

I have no use for waterproofing but if an ereader could be bought with or without it and waterproofing only raised the price a little I'd probably get it just to feel good about it. But not if it cost much more.

Barry

I mostly agree, but I would say that putting my reader in a plastic bag* worked better when most readers had buttons. Touchscreens don't work very well through plastic.

*I was talking to a 25-year-old co-worker the other day about "baggies". She didn't know that there was actually a brand-name version of a lunch- or quart-sized plastic called "Baggies". Mentioning the "alligator skin" texture didn't ring any bells for her. Yet another word/phrase from my lifetime that young people have no idea where it came from.

ETA: Who knew? I haven't seen these in stores for years (and years), but when I hit Google to see if I can find a picture, I came across an option to purchase Baggies from soap.com! I'm tempted to order them for old-times' sake, but I don't know if I want to pay shipping for nostalgia.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

I mostly agree, but I would say that putting my reader in a plastic bag* worked better when most readers had buttons. Touchscreens don't work very well through plastic.

*I was talking to a 25-year-old co-worker the other day about "baggies". She didn't know that there was actually a brand-name version of a lunch- or quart-sized plastic called "Baggies". Mentioning the "alligator skin" texture didn't ring any bells for her. Yet another word/phrase from my lifetime that young people have no idea where it came from.

ETA: Who knew? I haven't seen these in stores for years (and years), but when I hit Google to see if I can find a picture, I came across an option to purchase Baggies from soap.com! I'm tempted to order them for old-times' sake, but I don't know if I want to pay shipping for nostalgia.

I thought Baggie was one of those brand names like Kleenex that everybody uses instead of the generic term for the product. I guess I don't know that many young people......

[barryem]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Nope.

The AAP is pretty clear about the limits of their stats. It's not their fault that the data is frequently misinterpreted.

They say that there are 1200 publishers contributing data. What they don't say is that there are many more publishers and sellers such as Amazon with it's self published books that aren't contributing data. They sent their grandmother to the grocery store.

Barry

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by barryem

They say that there are 1200 publishers contributing data. What they don't say is that there are many more publishers and sellers such as Amazon with it's self published books that aren't contributing data. They sent their grandmother to the grocery store.

Barry

You can learn that detail from their annual estimates.

[ZodWallop]

Somewhere in there the point of the thread was lost. Maybe I wasn't clear in my original post.

The point is in public perception. Many (most?) e-book articles that I read that aren't at e-book specific sites make many of the same claims the article I linked to did: E-book sales didn't take off like expected. People prefer paper books. And, inevitably, the 'read it in the tub' or 'read it at the beach' argument comes up.

To you and me, a water-proof Kindle would be a nice thing that Amazon is maybe behind the times on. But I'm betting it would generate buzz and bring in lots of new Kindle readers. Similar to the way that Apple can roll out a feature and you hear how they may not have invented X, but they perfected X.

Yeah, it's a bunch of bull, but if it gets more people using e-readers, who cares?

[crich70]

One thing that the Kindle has (at least the Kindle Fire) is a Gorilla Glass screen which makes it very hard for it to break even if dropped. I don't think paper will ever go completely away either. Technical manuals for example and other reference volumes are more likely going to stay in paper for a while if not forever. Fiction on the other hand has more portability in e-book format. If I have a book in the cloud I can access it anywhere I can get access to a WiFi connection. And it makes it easier to store books than it is when all your books are paper. Plus all your e-books weigh the same amount (the weight of the e-reader). You can't say that with paper.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

To you and me, a water-proof Kindle would be a nice thing that Amazon is maybe behind the times on. But I'm betting it would generate buzz and bring in lots of new Kindle readers.

I would love to have a waterproof e-ink reader. (Please notice I did not say Kindle.) It would come handy perhaps 5 days per year, when I am camping and want to pack my reader with me in a canoe. And perhaps another week when I am at the beach.

But, there are many other features that could be implemented by Amazon to generate much more buzz. Such as support for side-loaded fonts or better typography. And those could be implemented using a simple software patch.