The 2010s were supposed to bring the ebook revolution. It never quite came.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

For someone who reads a book a week, and lives in a generally affluent nation — like me — US$90 for a Kindle is cheap. For the large number of people who read three or four books a year, it still is expensive.

The next increment of the eBook revolution requires the price of a dedicated eReader to be no more than the price of one book.

Maybe some patents need to run out and then it will happen.

Why is there need for dirt cheap dedicated ereaders? One kind of pbook is already going the way of the Dodo. That is the printed manual booklet for devices. You are lucky anymore to get a quick start leaflet or folded sheet of paper, which also includes download instructions for the complete manual. Sometimes all you get is a small warranty card with a web page.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The next increment of the eBook revolution requires the price of a dedicated eReader to be no more than the price of one book.

I don't see why. Dedicated e-readers are a niche market. A reading app on a device that is already owned for other reasons meets the needs of most people and is effectively zero cost.

[binaryhermit]

Originally Posted by jhowell

A reading app on a device that is already owned for other reasons meets the needs of most people and is effectively zero cost.

And can operate as a sort of gateway drug.
Now that I think of it, the Kindle app for iOS was released at about the same time most of the big... I think at the time 6... were shoving agency down Amazon's throat pre-antitrust case.
I suspect this is likely a side effect of agency in the same way that cheap kindles were.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I've never paid $25 for a hardback novel. I always waited for them to come to paperback where they used to sell for less than $5, later in the $6 or $7 range. $10 eBooks where the first books I bought at initial release.



I've never listened to an audio book and I definitely wouldn't pay $30 for an audio book novel.



Yep. And, unfortunately, a lot of them aren't very good. I've come to that conclusion after reading quite a few of these free and cheap books from Amazon. I haven't downloaded one of my free Prime books in about six months. I go to Overdrive instead. Mostly I use Amazon for inexpensive reprint books (on history or religion) not for novels.



Do you have proof that Amazon was "losing money" on $10 eBooks? Or is this an assumption? There's no reason why eBooks should cost more than paperback books. You have no physical product that has to be processed, stored, shipped or bought back from the distributor when it fails to sell on the shelves. My first choice "cheaper option" is now Overdrive. I don't know what the publishers make loaning books via Overdrive, but I'm guessing they would make more selling me copies at $10.

We have been through this before. I gave the figures showing how Amazon was losing money on $10 eBooks back when we had this discussion before. I see no particular point in presenting the same data over and over again just because it doesn't match what you want to believe.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yes. It's called basket pricing, as has been mentioned many times. A perfectly legal and non-nefarious practice for anybody except for Amazon, apparently. I also find it hard to believe that Amazon was paying more than mere pennies above $9.99 for those ebooks.


I certainly do. Any blanket claims of "losing money" without mentioning the fact that they were talking about pennies on particular titles (and that their ebook business always operated in the black on the whole) is misleading at best. So yeah... I find any notion that "Amazon's 'lose money to buy up market share' campaign" is the same thing as "Amazon was selling 'certain' new releases and best sellers at a price that 'roughly matched,' or was slightly lower than, the wholesale price it paid to the publishers..." to be a huge shift. And disingenuous to boot.

But if you want to say "losing money" and "flirting with no margin on limited items" is the same thing. Have at it.

Now who is moving the goal post. We go from Leebase's statement that Amazon was losing money on $9.99 eBooks and you saying that Amazon was not losing money on $9.99 eBooks to Well, it's not illegal except apparently for Amazon.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

We have been through this before. I gave the figures showing how Amazon was losing money on $10 eBooks back when we had this discussion before. I see no particular point in presenting the same data over and over again just because it doesn't match what you want to believe.

I think the problem is your letting Apple & Company do your figuring for you. I simply don't believe Amazon was losing money selling eBooks before Apple's collusion with the publishers resulted in the agency system. Loss leaders maybe, but almost all retail stores use loss leaders and they don't do it to lose money.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

If the used market counts...

I’ll buy lightly used, but I think most people decline to. So when it comes to hundreds of millions of readers worldwide moving off paper to eInk, I think that the mainstream eReader price, now about US$90, is more determinative. We will see about that if patent expirations slash prices.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Now who is moving the goal post. We go from Leebase's statement that Amazon was losing money on $9.99 eBooks and you saying that Amazon was not losing money on $9.99 eBooks to Well, it's not illegal except apparently for Amazon.

Nice try. I've consistently been about what leebase said. Why it was innaccurate, and why it was misleading. Saying Amazon was "losing money on ebooks" is either wrong, deceptive, or both. Losing pennies on loss leaders is immaterial to any discussion about a company purposely "losing money." Precisely because everybody does it.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I think cheap Kindles came before Apple's collusion. I think it was driven by competition with Barnes & Noble, who had lowered the price on their Nooks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/t.../29kindle.html

I think it was about a year after this announcement that the sub-$100 Kindle 4 (no touch) came out (with ads). Still before the Apple mess.

https://ebookfriendly.com/timeline-kindle-history/

Yep! that was what killed Astaks $200 (direct) entry, as well as other players. That price was below parts cost for many reader sellers.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by leebase

Also, Audio books are even MORE expensive and they are the highest growth area right now (as someone else also pointed out).

With the advent of Author submission by computer (Hitch can probably point to the horrid, disaster ones), and laser plate making. Paper IS the cheap format to create.

OTOH (IMHO Good) Audio books are Performances.. It takes time to script (the voices) and make-edit the recordings ( I might guess: over 4x play time) AND Compen$ate the talent

[Apache]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yes. It's called basket pricing, as has been mentioned many times. A perfectly legal and non-nefarious practice for anybody except for Amazon, apparently. I also find it hard to believe that Amazon was paying more than mere pennies above $9.99 for those ebooks.


I certainly do. Any blanket claims of "losing money" without mentioning the fact that they were talking about pennies on particular titles (and that their ebook business always operated in the black on the whole) is misleading at best. So yeah... I find any notion that "Amazon's 'lose money to buy up market share' campaign" is the same thing as "Amazon was selling 'certain' new releases and best sellers at a price that 'roughly matched,' or was slightly lower than, the wholesale price it paid to the publishers..." to be a huge shift. And disingenuous to boot.

But if you want to say "losing money" and "flirting with no margin on limited items" is the same thing. Have at it.

In my business wholesalers always claim to sell to small and large retailers at the same price. Technically that is true. Take Seiko. They invoice their merchandise to everyone at the same price. But, large retailers, think Zales, Kays and Jareds, get large discounts off the back end. And by the way Zales, Kays and Jareds are all owned by the same corporation ( Sterlings) which is owned by Signet.
Apache

[Apache]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I think the problem is your letting Apple & Company do your figuring for you. I simply don't believe Amazon was losing money selling eBooks before Apple's collusion with the publishers resulted in the agency system. Loss leaders maybe, but almost all retail stores use loss leaders and they don't do it to lose money.

Think Wal Mart. They even got sued many years ago because they were selling merchandise at a loss. The businesses suing them lost.
Apache

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I think the problem is your letting Apple & Company do your figuring for you. I simply don't believe Amazon was losing money selling eBooks before Apple's collusion with the publishers resulted in the agency system. Loss leaders maybe, but almost all retail stores use loss leaders and they don't do it to lose money.

My problem is that I actually read the information. You are trying to spin the statement of selling specific eBooks at a loss into not making a overall profit for the overall eBook business, which no one is claiming.

The definition of loss leader is selling specific items at a loss to get the customer into the store, which is exactly what Leebase was saying.

No one is saying that it's illegal or that it's not something that is frequently done. What is being said is that the publisher's had an issue with it for very good business reasons.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The only expense that doesn't apply to eBooks is the actual printing, binding and storage cost.

Do not forget returns of unsold books from bookshops to publishers.

[not reading]

Originally Posted by kacir

Do not forget returns of unsold books from bookshops to publishers.

I would add salary, space, overhead etc. related to operations, warehouse, and shipping teams.

The financing cost of physical books, physical space, staff, etc. is a major "hidden" expense. That is a bit tricky to estimate (there is financing from vendors, from banks, from equity owners).

These days financing costs are relatively cheap by historic standards, but have a lot of runway to rise very quickly. Also, I don't think banks and investors are scrambling to invest in the publishing industry, so publishers will pay high financing rates if they can find people who want to extend loans or equity.