Cost of eBooks vs dead-tree books

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by DNSB

In the last 2.5 years, I've seen Kobo hardware on sale on several occasions though mostly on the low end devices. Heck, I've even received emails from Kobo and Chapters/Indigo about sales on Kobo devices.

Same here. I would say there is device on sale at least four times a year. I don't remember if the Forma has ever been on sale.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

I got my Kobo on sale, but that was through a retailer (Chapters Indigo) rather than directly from Kobo. This was also in 2012/2013 or thereabouts.

Retailers here have occasionally offered discounts on some Kobos. The largest discount I can recall was 10% off on an H2O2, offered once by one retailer. The typical discounts offered on Kobos by retailers here are less than $5US. Which is still more generous than Kobo's own discounts.

[ownedbycats]

I believe my discount was more than 10%, but I think I got it on Boxing Day (day after Christmas, in Canada we often have big sales then).

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Kindle's were priced too much even back then. The Sony Reader PRS-500 was priced at $300.

$350 at launch, I think?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

I doubt selling more Kindles was the primary or even a significant motivation for Amazon discounting of new releases. Amazon tends to plan long term. The more readers in its walled garden, the more money it makes from books. And of course many of those readers became Amazon customers generally, buying Prime, Music and the many different products Amazon offers. So far as books are concerned, once in the Amazon walled garden readers were seeing not only Big 5 new releases but also KDP and later Amazon imprint books. Competing directly without obvious differentiation. And securing for Amazon an increasingly important source of books independent of the large traditional publishers. Amazon's discounting of new releases not only drew attention to the lack of price competition in tradpub but brought many new readers to Amazon at a time when it was needed. By the time the tradpub cartel had lost or settled with the DOJ and their contracts for Amazon came up for negotiation, Amazon saw no need to continue this practice. It continues this day to distance itself from the prices of e-book new releases by making clear that the price is set by the publisher. Self-published, Indie published and Amazon imprint sales continue to boom and at least anecdotally grow. And for those who continue to buy print books, many now buy from Amazon.

Posts which talk about Amazon seeking to gut Tradpub's business model imply that there is something wrong with this. But that model depended on the lack of price competition in a tradpub market best described as a shared monopoly or an oligopoly. And the tool which Amazon used? Price competition. The very heart and soul of a capitalist system. And the holy grail so far as the prevailing Chicago School of anti-trust law in the US is concerned, which puts the consumer above all else.

You question why it's bad for a monopolistic company to gut it's suppliers' business model? Fortunately, at the end of the day, Amazon was unsuccessful and predicted demise of the traditional publishers was grossly exaggerated. Major authors haven't abandoned the traditional publishers for the Amazon's indie market as predicted by some here.

The bottom line is that while most here like eBooks, they never became mainstream for a number of reasons. Unless that happens, there is very little incentive for major authors to move to a mostly digital book (eBook and audiobook) business model.

[binaryhermit]

But the Kindle (back then) had something AFAIK nobody else did, cellular internet at no additional fee, so they had to pay for a cellular modem and presumably prepay (or at least budget) for the bandwidth over the life of the kindle

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

But the Kindle (back then) had something AFAIK nobody else did, cellular internet at no additional fee, so they had to pay for a cellular modem and presumably prepay (or at least budget) for the bandwidth over the life of the kindle

Amazon still offers cellular internet at no charge and still offers an international version. (I just grabbed the first links; there are other cellular and international Kindle variations offered at different prices.)

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You question why it's bad for a monopolistic company to gut it's suppliers' business model? Fortunately, at the end of the day, Amazon was unsuccessful and predicted demise of the traditional publishers was grossly exaggerated. Major authors haven't abandoned the traditional publishers for the Amazon's indie market as predicted by some here.

The bottom line is that while most here like eBooks, they never became mainstream for a number of reasons. Unless that happens, there is very little incentive for major authors to move to a mostly digital book (eBook and audiobook) business model.

So Amazon was "a monopolistic company" and the illegal publishing cartel members are just suppliers? Even if you were right about Amazon being a monopoly and a harmful one it did not give the cartel a license to break the law, as the Courts found. More efficient and innovative businesses gut the business models of their competitors and even suppliers all the time. It is called competition. In fact, one could argue that Apple and the Publishers sought to gut the business model of Amazon by price fixing, thereby eliminating competition at the retail level. That was an illegal price fixing conspiracy, not competition.

Traditional publishers are going to be with us for quite a while in some form or another, but they have already had to change and are experimenting with further change, in response to various factors including Amazon's Indie market.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by darryl

So Amazon was "a monopolistic company" and the illegal publishing cartel members are just suppliers? Even if you were right about Amazon being a monopoly and a harmful one it did not give the cartel a license to break the law, as the Courts found. More efficient and innovative businesses gut the business models of their competitors and even suppliers all the time. It is called competition. In fact, one could argue that Apple and the Publishers sought to gut the business model of Amazon by price fixing, thereby eliminating competition at the retail level. That was an illegal price fixing conspiracy, not competition.

Traditional publishers are going to be with us for quite a while in some form or another, but they have already had to change and are experimenting with further change, in response to various factors including Amazon's Indie market.

Amazon did not have a monopoly. Sony was also selling eInk Readers and eBooks.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

So Amazon was "a monopolistic company" and the illegal publishing cartel members are just suppliers? Even if you were right about Amazon being a monopoly and a harmful one it did not give the cartel a license to break the law, as the Courts found. More efficient and innovative businesses gut the business models of their competitors and even suppliers all the time. It is called competition. In fact, one could argue that Apple and the Publishers sought to gut the business model of Amazon by price fixing, thereby eliminating competition at the retail level. That was an illegal price fixing conspiracy, not competition.

Traditional publishers are going to be with us for quite a while in some form or another, but they have already had to change and are experimenting with further change, in response to various factors including Amazon's Indie market.

Once again, if you read the appellate court dissent, where is where the interesting stuff is discussed in the US (as opposed to say, the Australian) court system, you will find that one US district court judge disagrees with your view of US anti-trust law.

All companies have to change and adapt. The publishers have been changing and adapting for a hundred years. Today's business model is not the business model of 1950, when magazines ruled the genre world, or in 1900 when newspapers and penny dreadfulls where the primary place most people read stories.

Indies are not unique to Amazon. They are on Apple as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they are on other platforms.

[binaryhermit]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Amazon still offers cellular internet at no charge and still offers an international version. (I just grabbed the first links; there are other cellular and international Kindle variations offered at different prices.)

I meant that as a justification of a higher price.

And they've since crippled the heck out of that free cellular.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Amazon still offers cellular internet at no charge and still offers an international version. (I just grabbed the first links; there are other cellular and international Kindle variations offered at different prices.)

I often wonder why the "free" cellular internet involves a higher price. An extra $70 on a $170 device (Paperwhite 4 32gb Cdn dollars on amazon.ca) is not what I would call free. The 8GB Paperwhite 4 or Oasis 3 do not offer that option though for some odd reason, the Paperwhite page refers to WiFi and WAN while the Oasis 3 page refers to Wifi and WiFi + Free Cellular Connectivity.

Pricing (Cdn)    Wifi        Wifi+Cellular
Paperwhite 8GB   $139.99     not available
Paperwhite 32GB  $169.99     $239.99
Oasis 3 8GB      $329.99     not available
Oasis 3 32GB     $359.99     $429.99

[leebase]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Amazon did not have a monopoly. Sony was also selling eInk Readers and eBooks.

Sony did not have a huge share of the book selling business. In disputes against publishers, Amazon was known to pull ALL of a publisher's book from sale.

Monopoly isn't the useful term. Able to prevent free and fair competition - is a better concept.

Remember - a company isn't supposed to have to compete against itself. Amazon was using the publisher's products as loss leaders to launch its reading devices. Good for Amazon, bad for the publishers -- and frankly -- for the other book sellers who didn't have billions in VC money and inflated stock evaluations to run their businesses on.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

Sony did not have a huge share of the book selling business. In disputes against publishers, Amazon was known to pull ALL of a publisher's book from sale.

Monopoly isn't the useful term. Able to prevent free and fair competition - is a better concept.

Remember - a company isn't supposed to have to compete against itself. Amazon was using the publisher's products as loss leaders to launch its reading devices. Good for Amazon, bad for the publishers -- and frankly -- for the other book sellers who didn't have billions in VC money and inflated stock evaluations to run their businesses on.

For those of us who remember all the way back to the opening of the iTunes store, Apple's fight with the the record companies and the record companies coming to an agreement with Amazon as a group to not use DRM when they were trying to create competition to the iTunes store, none of what happened with Amazon, the publishers or Apple was new stuff or particularly shocking.

Apple used their control of the online music market to push the pricing model they wanted. The record companies hated it and went to Amazon to get them to provide Apple some competition. Some 10 to 15 years later, Amazon wanted to use their control of the eBook market (they controlled 90% of the market at the time) to set the prices for eBooks, the publishers hated it and went to Apple to provide some competition. Basically the same stuff.

Monopoly has a somewhat different threshold legally than the common usage of the word. A lot depends on how you define the market, who makes the calls for the government and what judge you get. It's a lot more complex that the rather simplistic chant "Amazon good, publishers and Apple bad".

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

I meant that as a justification of a higher price.

And they've since crippled the heck out of that free cellular.

The reason Amazon crippled the cell connection is because too many people hacked the Kindle to get free unlimited cell to do whatever it is they wanted.