Simon & Schuster is delaying ebooks by four months

[NormHart]

Originally Posted by markbot

Maybe we can recruit some environmental groups into our cause. It is certainly very inefficient to destroy forests for paper books when there is an environmentally friendly alternative.....that is also cheaper and what consumers want.

Hum... Are ebook readers really more environmentally friendly than pbooks?

Looking at them from an resource view point, I doubt it. Trees are a renewable resource. Cut one down, plant one, forestry husbandry is fairly well understood. Not always practiced but understood. On the other hand what is required to produce an ebook reader? Petroleum for the plastics, mining for the metals, and chemicals for circuit boards, batteries, eink, glass etc. etc. That doesn't sound so good, does it? Most of the ereader resources do not appear to be renewable.

OK how about from an environmental impact view point? If you drop a pbook in the forest and no one sees it what happens? Over a decade or so the pbook will decay into the ground, much of it will eventually be eaten or consumed as fertilizer. True, the inks and any bleaching as well as the binding glues may have a negative effect but, all in all, a relatively modest impact IMO. Now dropping an ereader will impact the environment much more. The plastic could remain un-degraded for many decades, some of the metals would eventually rust away but many other would remain as would many of the chemicals. The most impact would probably be from the batteries, depending on their construction.

Recyclable? Again the ereader comes off a very poor second. Recycling paper products is a fairly low tech process and is commonly practiced. eProduct recycling, on the other hand, is a world wide mess.

How about the impact of the supporting manufacturing industries? Paper industry vs Petroleum Industry, Mining Industry, Electronic Manufacturing Industry. At best, IMO, this is about even although I suspect, when one factors in such things as support for internet connectivity the overall industry impact is substantial.

I admit that 1 ereader does not equal one pbook, in fact using the Kindle2 as a base, 1 ereader equals about 1200 pbooks. I also admit that it is nowhere as simple as what I've listed above but I question the ebook = green comments.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by crutnacker

There is one crucial element that should encourage publishers to sell e-books. Nobody can share it, loan it, or resell it.

Legally, they can, regardless of what the stores told them when they purchased it. The US has rules about what you can resell and what's only licensed, and the way ebooks are sold isn't considered a license.

[markbot]

Originally Posted by NormHart

Hum... Are ebook readers really more environmentally friendly than pbooks?

Looking at them from an resource view point, I doubt it. Trees are a renewable resource. Cut one down, plant one, forestry husbandry is fairly well understood. Not always practiced but understood. On the other hand what is required to produce an ebook reader? Petroleum for the plastics, mining for the metals, and chemicals for circuit boards, batteries, eink, glass etc. etc. That doesn't sound so good, does it? Most of the ereader resources do not appear to be renewable.

OK how about from an environmental impact view point? If you drop a pbook in the forest and no one sees it what happens? Over a decade or so the pbook will decay into the ground, much of it will eventually be eaten or consumed as fertilizer. True, the inks and any bleaching as well as the binding glues may have a negative effect but, all in all, a relatively modest impact IMO. Now dropping an ereader will impact the environment much more. The plastic could remain un-degraded for many decades, some of the metals would eventually rust away but many other would remain as would many of the chemicals. The most impact would probably be from the batteries, depending on their construction.

Recyclable? Again the ereader comes off a very poor second. Recycling paper products is a fairly low tech process and is commonly practiced. eProduct recycling, on the other hand, is a world wide mess.

How about the impact of the supporting manufacturing industries? Paper industry vs Petroleum Industry, Mining Industry, Electronic Manufacturing Industry. At best, IMO, this is about even although I suspect, when one factors in such things as support for internet connectivity the overall industry impact is substantial.

I admit that 1 ereader does not equal one pbook, in fact using the Kindle2 as a base, 1 ereader equals about 1200 pbooks. I also admit that it is nowhere as simple as what I've listed above but I question the ebook = green comments.

I read an interest book on industrial ecology called Down to Earth. It gets into this question although with other consumer products. For example, people assume a paper cup is more environmentally friendly than a Styrofoam cup but it actually isn't. A Styrofoam cup is much cheaper to manufacture and to transport, requires less energy to make, and can be recycled or burned for energy. A paper cup requires a lot more energy to create, is more pollutive due to the paper manufacturing process, such as the release of chemicals into rivers.

There was some research done on the Kindle. They analyzed the environmental impact and concluded that the Kindle has a net benefit after 23 books read...although they looked at the carbon footprint, which I think is an okay proxy.

some links i quickly found

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/arie...fficiency-king

[markbot]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Legally, they can, regardless of what the stores told them when they purchased it. The US has rules about what you can resell and what's only licensed, and the way ebooks are sold isn't considered a license.

Great! So technically when one sells an old Kindle with all the books still on it...this is legal.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by markbot

Great! So technically when one sells an old Kindle with all the books still on it...this is legal.

If you didn't keep a copy of them, yes. If you did, it starts getting iffy.

I have photocopied versions of some of my RPG books. If I sold the books, I wouldn't go through my shelves looking for the photocopies to destroy them. OTOH, I wouldn't think it was reasonable to buy a game for the purpose of photocopying it and then selling the original.

I have ripped many of my CDs to MP3. I wouldn't feel guilty giving away the CDs, or think I was breaking laws if I didn't strip the MP3s out of my computer. (What, it'd be okay to destroy the CDs but not give them away? Not buyin' that.) But I wouldn't think it was legit to buy new CDs at a store, rip them, then return them for store credit.

HOWEVER: Amazon's lawyers are probably bigger than yours, and "legal" doesn't mean "able to sustain a lawsuit for the length of time it takes to get through the court process." I'd be cautious about how publicly I resold a Kindle with lots of content on it.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by NormHart

Hum... Are ebook readers really more environmentally friendly than pbooks?

Looking at them from an resource view point, I doubt it. Trees are a renewable resource. Cut one down, plant one, forestry husbandry is fairly well understood. Not always practiced but understood. On the other hand what is required to produce an ebook reader? Petroleum for the plastics, mining for the metals, and chemicals for circuit boards, batteries, eink, glass etc. etc. That doesn't sound so good, does it? Most of the ereader resources do not appear to be renewable.

OK how about from an environmental impact view point? If you drop a pbook in the forest and no one sees it what happens? Over a decade or so the pbook will decay into the ground, much of it will eventually be eaten or consumed as fertilizer. True, the inks and any bleaching as well as the binding glues may have a negative effect but, all in all, a relatively modest impact IMO. Now dropping an ereader will impact the environment much more. The plastic could remain un-degraded for many decades, some of the metals would eventually rust away but many other would remain as would many of the chemicals. The most impact would probably be from the batteries, depending on their construction.

Recyclable? Again the ereader comes off a very poor second. Recycling paper products is a fairly low tech process and is commonly practiced. eProduct recycling, on the other hand, is a world wide mess.

How about the impact of the supporting manufacturing industries? Paper industry vs Petroleum Industry, Mining Industry, Electronic Manufacturing Industry. At best, IMO, this is about even although I suspect, when one factors in such things as support for internet connectivity the overall industry impact is substantial.

I admit that 1 ereader does not equal one pbook, in fact using the Kindle2 as a base, 1 ereader equals about 1200 pbooks. I also admit that it is nowhere as simple as what I've listed above but I question the ebook = green comments.

Harvesting trees to create paper products is an 'enabling' concept. It enables the massive (over)use of chemicals known to be harmful to the environment, not just once, but over and over again, both to create paper products using newly-harvested trees *and* in recycling current (disposed, wasted) paper into more paper products. The net use of petrochemicals and other chemicals, as well as energy, to create the vast quantities of books, magazines and newspapers is far more harmful than creating ebook readers and selling electronic newspapers, magazines and books.

Derek

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I have ripped many of my CDs to MP3. I wouldn't feel guilty giving away the CDs, or think I was breaking laws if I didn't strip the MP3s out of my computer. (What, it'd be okay to destroy the CDs but not give them away? Not buyin' that.) But I wouldn't think it was legit to buy new CDs at a store, rip them, then return them for store credit.

Not turfing out old photocopies mouldering on a shelf? fine. You're unlikely to be referring to them, and will probably chuck them next time you have a clear out

Not deleting your MP3s from your computer, so you can (& do) still play them? Not so fine.

And yes - IMO there is a difference between destroying the CDs and giving them away.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Legally, they can, regardless of what the stores told them when they purchased it. The US has rules about what you can resell and what's only licensed, and the way ebooks are sold isn't considered a license.

Same in the EU. Any technical restrictions are illegal and will fall when someone challenges them.

Of course, you've (generally) purchased a single copy and are not entitled to keep it if you sell it on.

[PortaDiFerro]

This is quite disturbing how they are trying to artificially keep the old books alive. I'm sure there's always people who prefer them, and I suppose libraries would still want them even if they could lend ebooks too. But the ebook just offers so many advantages from environmental to convenience and cost saving that it makes no sense why the publishers would want to fight against it. The bookstores are a different thing though, they will probably die out slowly, which is sort of a shame.

Of course there are disadvantages too, like the whole DRM nonsense. I understand they are afraid to let it go, but it is just such a hindrance to end user I hope they'll see that in reality it doesn't do any good. It will not hinder piracy no matter what they think, rather encourage it if they make things too difficult for users. They could always still watermark the sold books to discourage regular users from copying those to their friends, then it just becomes a legal issue if they choose to do it or not.

I just bought wife Sony reader for xmas, but now that I've been trying to acquire her some books to go with it, I've realized how infantile the business still is and how hard it is for user to legally acquire ebooks, especially if not in US.. these delays with ebook releases and geographical restrictions along with DRM really is dampening my excitement about the whole thing and probably will wait to see how things develop until getting myself one.

[eGeezer]

Originally Posted by amjbrown

Surely they will release the vinyl LP first, followed a couple of months later by a handy cassette, a CD after four months, and the digital versions in time for Christmas?!

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!!

Both you and Daithi completely skipped over the venerable 8-track tape.

I, myself, slept in the day it was on the market, but I still read about it the next morning in the obituaries.

But still, we must always have our eye on our Publishly Correct obligations.

[charleski]

Originally Posted by Daithi

[Regarding my post that ebooks were substancially cheaper than hardcovers.]


This "myth" has NOT been debunked. The fact is that printing costs run about 20% of a book's costs, returns are another 20% cost, and distribution (BTW, NOT paid by retailer) is 10%+. Ebooks are absolutely substancially cheaper than hardcovers and even paperbacks. There is no doubt in my mind.

They're cheaper to the extent that a 20-30% discount on the physical price would be reasonable. Anything more is sheer fantasy.

Tim Hutchinson (the CEO of Hodder Headline) did a breakdown of costs in 1998. It was:
Booksellers' share: 55%
Manufacturing costs: 15%
Overheads: 9%
Marketing (including some distribution cost): 8%
Royalties: 8%
Publisher's profit: 5%

The idea that an ebook should be half the price is just wishful thinking.

[BeccaAnn]

I would love to boycott S & S on principle, but the reality of the situation is that their children companies publish the majority of books that I read, so unless I want to go back to reading on paper, I will have to wait (impatiently) for the release of the ebook. I can't use the library to check out ebooks because in my part of the country, the closest library that does is ebooks is 6 hours away and they only let you check them out if you live or work in the county.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by charleski

They're cheaper to the extent that a 20-30% discount on the physical price would be reasonable. Anything more is sheer fantasy.

Great, 20-30% off the paperback price is a fine price from my perspective.

(If they start it 20-30% cheaper than hardback and ramp the price down over the six months it takes to get to the paperback? Well, that's reasonable as well. But very few companies want to take advantage of the flexible pricing afforded by the internet!)

[charleski]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

This is incorrect.

Advances, editing, art etc are all sunk costs. They're paid only once, amortized over the whole run and eventually can be paid off entirely.

Manufacturing is a marginal cost that is paid per book and never ends. (The same applies to royalties).

What this means is that as the number of book sold increases, the sunk costs count for less and less while the marginal costs become totally dominant and eventually the only real cost after the sunk costs are completely covered.

Marginal costs only become dominant when the print run is very large. Very few books have a print run over 50000 or so.

My statements are correct.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by charleski

They're cheaper to the extent that a 20-30% discount on the physical price would be reasonable. Anything more is sheer fantasy.

Tim Hutchinson (the CEO of Hodder Headline) did a breakdown of costs in 1998. It was:
Booksellers' share: 55%
Manufacturing costs: 15%
Overheads: 9%
Marketing (including some distribution cost): 8%
Royalties: 8%
Publisher's profit: 5%

The idea that an ebook should be half the price is just wishful thinking.

Those figures are very misleading. Do you honestly think the book seller gets 55% of the profit. Yeah, sure. If they can sell the book for the list price they would, but nobody sells the book for the list price. If you have a book with a $30 list price that sells for $15 then the book seller is making nowhere near 55%.

What happens in reality is the book seller gets the book for 55% of the list price, and if he is able to sell the book at 50% of the list price he gets to keep 5% (minus his costs for overhead & personnel). The figures you have provided are only valid in the fantasy world where people pay list price for a book.

The reality is that you would need to double all your figures to have a true representation. Yes, the publisher may only be getting 45% of a $30 book, but he's getting 90% of a $15 book. Furthermore, half the cost of the hardback book produced by the publisher is not incurred when producing an ebook. Using your own figures, manufacturing and overhead puts you at nearly 50%.