Nick Hornby is not an e-book fan

[DiapDealer]

edit to add: whoa! Just noticed this thread is from 2008. Wonder if he'd like to update his viewpoint now?

Wow... you're right! That's some serious thread-mining.

[radiohead]

Originally Posted by MV64

I guess I don't understand why critics think if you read an e-book, you're shunning paperback books and will never buy another one. They're not mutually exclusive.

I think that's a really important point and one that would stiop lots of Publishers being scared if they took it on board.

S

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by radiohead

I think that's a really important point and one that would stiop lots of Publishers being scared if they took it on board.

For some folks, they are mutually exclusive. There are folks on MR who simply won't buy a book if it's not available in an electronic edition.

I'm not one of them. There are whole classes of books that are not well suited for ebook versions, like fine art, design, and photography volumes. They need color support and a larger screen size than anything normally used as an ebook reader to be displayed effectively.

But if you buy the book as an ebook, for that particular book, it probably is mutually exclusive. You aren't likely to buy both versions.

What is likely to happen is that ebooks will take over from mass market paperbacks, and those will gradually cease to exist as sales drop to the point where it's no longer economic to produce them.

That is a concern for publishers, as they try to figure out how to navigate the transition and make money on the ebook editions.
______
Dennis

[Ken Irving]

Though this is an old thread, and I would hope Hornsby has changed his mind, I still hear points similar to his made, so here is my response:

1) I’m a book reader, and I love books. About three feet away from me is the first book I remember reading, a pocket Webster’s my mother gave me when I was maybe 5. It means something to me that no e-book ever could. Between my book-lover wife and myself we have more books than shelves to put them on, if only because keeping up with the shelving would be a major expense. So we manage. But I do have an e-reader, which I bought in large part to learn and understand the technology. Through it have I been doing more reading (outside of what I must read as an editor, writer, and publisher) in the last three months than I have for many years. I have an inexpensive library I can take with me anywhere, and I can add to it very cheaply, in less than a minute, as long as I have a wifi signal. So I love my e-reader and the books on it as well.

2) I’ve never owned an mp3 player, and use flac files on my hard drive, but yes, they are converted from CDs I own. However, I’ve also got a box full of vinyl that has music I can’t listen to and don’t have the money to buy in CD format (when they are even available). So I don’t think his point about us already owning music as opposed to books we can convert to an e-format is entirely true.

3) I haven’t bought many books in recent years because of a) the expense of the books themselves, and b) the shelving problem mentioned above. Being able to have at hand “vast numbers of books,” which are often cheaper than paper books, does in fact interest me for just those two reasons. I think this is also of interest to the average book buyer considering an e-reader.

4) If there’s a hang-up among avid book readers about adopting or even trying e-reading technology it is not so much the love of books in print as it is the expense and the confusing variety of the reading devices. These two factors are not the only problems someone thinking of adapting to e-reading has to face, but I think they’re the main ones. If someone came up with a cheap fold-it-up-and-put-in-your-pocket color reader (and the technology for that is on its way), the print market wouldn’t disappear, but it would very likely shrink (and quickly) down to a size something like the vinyl LP market because the barrier to entry into the world of e-reading would have been removed. I don’t say that with any joy, as I still love print books, and I work for print publications, but there it is.

5) Re reading as a substitute for no television in public places. Watching TV or movies on an iPod attracts lookie-loos viewing over your shoulder, and I’ve noticed in doctors’ offices where they have a TV going that people are still reading or doing crossword puzzles. Everyone in the room doesn’t necessarily like what’s on. Reading something on paper or an e-reader is private, so the one isn’t as much of a replacement for the other as he seems to think. People can read on iPods too, which takes us back to e-books.

Re people not reading: His glass is 1/3 empty (34% don’t read books); mine is 2/3 full (66% do). Removing the barrier to entry I mentioned in point 4 would throw numbers like this into a cocked hat. Some in the 66% might resist e-books to their dying breath, while some in the 34% who don’t read because of the bulk and the “where do you put them” aspect of books might actually start reading e-books if they were both portable and cheap. Shuffle the two numbers around with these thoughts in mind and you could very well end up with more readers, not less, though for that we’ll have to wait and see.

[radiohead]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

But if you buy the book as an ebook, for that particular book, it probably is mutually exclusive. You aren't likely to buy both versions.

What is likely to happen is that ebooks will take over from mass market paperbacks, and those will gradually cease to exist as sales drop to the point where it's no longer economic to produce them.

That is a concern for publishers, as they try to figure out how to navigate the transition and make money on the ebook editions.
______
Dennis

you make vaild points--but don't you think Kindle could re-ignite a new generation of readers?--especially the under 25s who have left books behind.

If you think publishers aren't working stuff out --Hornby's books all cost more in the UK on kindle than they do PBack
Navigation is always difficult in periods of transition--books are going through a massive change
those publishers that embrace the winds of change willingly and quickly, will likely do best.
If your money was on Ebooks and Kindle at this moment my bet was that it would be very safe

but we'll see.

S

[SlowRain]

I remember reading about Hornby's comments back when he first published them. He was narrow-minded about e-books back then. I was actually surprised because he actually seems to be one of the more open-minded writers out there. I still like him as a writer, but I lost a lot of respect for him as a thinker at that time. I, too, would like to know what he thinks now.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by SlowRain

I remember reading about Hornby's comments back when he first published them. He was narrow-minded about e-books back then. I was actually surprised because he actually seems to be one of the more open-minded writers out there. I still like him as a writer, but I lost a lot of respect for him as a thinker at that time. I, too, would like to know what he thinks now.

I think you have to consider his words in light of the options available at the time. If the eInk readers had stayed in the $400 and above price range -- I really doubt that they would have taken off.

I'm not sure if Amazon had started their $10 for new ebook subsidy program when he wrote that. Still, the original selling point of the kindle was that you could save money on books. A $400 device and THEN you have to pay full price for books? Yeah, that's a tough sell.

Fast forward three years. Amazon successfully subsidized the ebook era. They had enough time with the ebook subsidies to sell the kindle when it was still ridiculously expensive. By the time ebook sales really started to take off, and the publishers started to see true cannibalization of their hard cover sales -- the price of the eInk devices could fall enough that you no longer HAD to subsidize ebooks to sell the devices.

Now we have $139 (and some cheaper than $100) -- and that's a LOT easier of a sale. Throw in the iPad and all the smart phones, who add ebooks as just another thing they can do -- and you have a pretty good explosion in ebook sales.

That all this wasn't obvious in 2008 -- I can't really fault him for that. Anyone who would should consider that ebooks had been tried and failed before.

Lee

[SlowRain]

Lee, I was reading e-books in 2008, and I disagreed with him back then. He was biased and wrong back then because he was close-minded. Anyone with any understanding of humanity and technology could see that--even in 2008. He simply didn't know what he was talking about.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by SlowRain

Lee, I was reading e-books in 2008, and I disagreed with him back then. He was biased and wrong back then because he was close-minded. Anyone with any understanding of humanity and technology could see that--even in 2008. He simply didn't know what he was talking about.

I don't think everyone "gets" the speed of technological innovation. Still, ebooks were poised to take over the world a couple times before and flamed out each time before. There was no guarantee that Amazon would succeed this time.

Given the pricing and technology state that he mentioned in his article, _I_, don't personally fault his conclusion. He would have been wiser to throw in a caveat that "should the devices fall to xyz" or something to that effect.

I've only been interested in ereading since the summer of 2009. I can attest that a LOT of folks interested in reading (they participated on internet forums) -- felt the same way towards the whole concept of ebooks. In that year and a half since then, I have noticed there are fewer people who think the whole idea is just stupid, even if they themselves don't yet read ebooks.

Judging a 2008 post by 2010 realities....well, lets just put me in the column of those who don't think that's fair.

Lee

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by radiohead

you make valid points--but don't you think Kindle could re-ignite a new generation of readers?--especially the under 25s who have left books behind.

The question is why they left. I doubt it has anything to do with technology.

There are a couple of problems I can see in the US, though things might differ elsewhere. One is that an awful lot of folks never learned to view reading as pleasure. It's a chore, done because you have to, and not something you do for fun.

Even if folks do read for fun, what they read may have shifted. How many folks read an enormous amount on the Internet, but the majority of it is short pieces, read in a few minutes, and off they go the the next? Reading a book is an immersive experience, and an investment of time and concentration. Some folks aren't willing to make the investment. Some folks lack the attention span. Some folks just don't see a need for books, as they get information and entertainment elsewhere.

Simply making a book electronic, viewed via a device, will not magically make it palatable to those with no interest to begin with.
______
Dennis

[Kali Yuga]

Egads, how do threads like this get randomly raised from the dead?



By the way, it looks like a batch of Hornby's works are available as ebooks. I'm gonna guess he got over it. Have you?

[SlowRain]

Actually, I think his books were available as e-books when he made those comments, but I think that was a Penguin decision, not a Hornby decision.

Lee, I'm not judging a 2008 thread by 2010 standards. I read my first e-book in 2002, but didn't make a more dedicated effort until around 2005 or 2006. Even back then it was obvious the way things would go, it just wasn't going to happen anytime soon. Had Hornby been more aware of the history of technology and human nature, he would have seen that instead of letting his bias dominate his thinking. Based on the way people have reacted to almost every technological advancement throughout our history, it was inevitable even back then that e-books were the way society would go. There's a lot of hoopla right now about e-books, but it'll still be the next generation that completes the transition, not this one.

Also, devices may be cheaper now, but e-books were much cheaper back then.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by SlowRain

Actually, I think his books were available as e-books when he made those comments, but I think that was a Penguin decision, not a Hornby decision.

Depends on his contract. Looks like at least some of his ebooks go back a ways (1996), so it is possible that electronic rights weren't included in his contract.

Originally Posted by SlowRain

Also, devices may be cheaper now, but e-books were much cheaper back then.

Not necessarily. It was only Amazon that was pushing $10 as a broad price point, and even they didn't always hit that price point. Most of Hornby's ebooks are between $10 and $13, which may mean minimal price inflation.

So far I haven't seen any studies that indicate (let alone definitively prove) that ebooks have dramatically inflated in price since agency pricing kicked in.

[SlowRain]

Hornby's books always were a lot more expensive than average, even back when I first started reading e-books. Back when the movie for The Constant Gardener came out, I think the e-book was priced around $6. A couple of le Carre's others, along with a few by Martin Cruz Smith, were around $7 or $8.

[radiohead]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

The question is why they left. I doubt it has anything to do with technology.

There are a couple of problems I can see in the US, though things might differ elsewhere. One is that an awful lot of folks never learned to view reading as pleasure. It's a chore, done because you have to, and not something you do for fun.

______
Dennis

I disagree--The Harry Potter series showed that if you can put out a product that ingnites young people they will read. Kindle is cool at the moment--as wii was and PS2--My niece is getting one and all her friends (they are 10), why because her friends are--there's a real opportunity to get young people back into reading here.

s