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

[Apparition B5]

Originally Posted by rcentros

It seems to be the article writer's point of view that Apple's and the Big 5 Publishers' collusion "shunted" the eBook revolution. I think the real issue is that young people simply aren't reading many books any more. It's all blogs and social media. Personally I think selling eBooks for more than paper books is shortsighted and a missed opportunity. But I'm rehashing what I've said elsewhere.

It's both, IMO. I'm in my 40s, and most of my friends are in their 30s. Out of a group of a few dozen, I know of two others besides myself that read books.

[leebase]

I will admit to being one who thought ebooks were going to relegate paperbooks to niche status. Clearly, I ended up being in the minority of those who really like ebooks to pbooks. A big enough niche that I believe my needs will still be catered too...as in...I don't think there's going to be a stop in the publishing of ebooks.

I can't say that I'm sad that pbooks are not only surviving, but remaining the dominant format. To each their own. Glad book stores still exist.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

It's a shame we no longer get a year end break down from the Data Guy.

hear, hear!

[Nate the great]

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/



Before that time (according to Amazon) eBooks were outselling all print books (hardbacks and paperbacks) combined.

cheap Kindles came after Apple's collusion, and were one of the side effects

And it was Kobo that caused the price cut (B&N was merely responding to Kobo)

[leebase]

On pricing - I don't think it's ever been the issue that people have made it out to be. I find it ludicrous that people had no problem with $25 hard backs "on sale" for $20 but think $14.99 for an ebook is absurd.

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

Also, along with ebook has come the rise of the Indie author and REALLY CHEAP ebooks.

Not to mention all the free ebooks available.

You can pay far less than $10 for an ebook. But you can't get "newly released, best sellers for $10 anymore now that Amazon's "lose money to buy up market share" campaign has been stopped.

But just because a particular book costs $14.99 --- you have LOTS of cheaper options in ebooks.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by leebase

But you can't get "newly released, best sellers for $10 anymore now that Amazon's "lose money to buy up market share" campaign has been stopped.

Please, please, please stop suggesting that Amazon was losing any money whatsoever on their ebooks when they were their in "$9.99 for some bestsellers" phase. It's false, misleading and, quite frankly, ignorant.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by leebase

On pricing - I don't think it's ever been the issue that people have made it out to be. I find it ludicrous that people had no problem with $25 hard backs "on sale" for $20 but think $14.99 for an ebook is absurd.

I agree.

When I would complain about pricing, it would be something along the lines of 'the mass market paperback is $6.99 and the ebook is $9.99.' But that seems much less common now.

Also, along with ebook has come the rise of the Indie author and REALLY CHEAP ebooks.

And there's this as well. I haven't sat down to work it out on a spreadsheet, but since I started reading ebooks, I now buy more books than I used to and spend less overall.

For the occasional $14.99 I'll spend on a new Stephen King book, there's been several '$0.99 for the series' omnibuses (omnibi?).

[leebase]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Please, please, please stop suggesting that Amazon was losing any money whatsoever on their ebooks when they were their in "$9.99 for some bestsellers" phase. It's false, misleading and, quite frankly, ignorant.

It's neither of any of those things.

From the ruling: After some weeks, Apple and several publishers devised a new model fore-book distribution. Amazon had been paying a wholesale price for each e-book,and reselling (often at a loss) for a retail price of its choosing. Apple’sdistribution contracts would adopt an agency system: publishers would set theretail prices of e-books sold through Apple’s platform and Apple would take afixed-percent commission on each sale


https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-doc...24326/download

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by leebase

It's neither of any of those things.

From the ruling: After some weeks, Apple and several publishers devised a new model fore-book distribution. Amazon had been paying a wholesale price for each e-book,and reselling (often at a loss) for a retail price of its choosing. Apple’sdistribution contracts would adopt an agency system: publishers would set theretail prices of e-books sold through Apple’s platform and Apple would take afixed-percent commission on each sale


https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-doc...24326/download

So. Goal-post successfully moved right?
What does any of that have to do with your ridiculous statement of:

"Amazon's 'lose money to buy up market share' campaign." ?

I know that "make less profit now" doesn't really push your tired narrative as well as the completely misleading "Amazon's 'lose money to buy up market share' campaign" does, but c'mon; let's try to be just a little bit less disingenuous, huh? Amazon made profits on its ebook sales all along (even during the $9.99 bestseller days). They were never "taking a loss" on ebooks. Ever.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

So. Goal-post successfully moved right?
What does any of that have to do with your ridiculous statement of:

"Amazon's 'lose money to buy up market share' campaign." ?

I know that "make less profit now" doesn't really push your tired narrative as well as the completely misleading "Amazon's 'lose money to buy up market share' campaign" does, but c'mon; let's try to be just a little bit less disingenuous, huh? Amazon made profits on its ebook sales all along (even during the $9.99 bestseller days). They were never "taking a loss" on ebooks. Ever.

From the court document that Leebase linked
"...Rather than selling more expensive versions of these books upon initial release (as publishers encouraged by producing hardcover books before paperback copies), Amazon set the Kindle price at one, stable figure—$9.99. At this price, 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..."

Yea, selling something for less than you paid for it is defined as selling something for a loss. Amazon made a profit overall on ebooks because they only sold certain best sellers at a loss, not all ebooks. I don't see any goal post moving.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Amazon made a profit overall on ebooks because they only sold certain best sellers at a loss, not all ebooks.

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.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I don't see any goal post moving.

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.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by leebase

On pricing - I don't think it's ever been the issue that people have made it out to be. I find it ludicrous that people had no problem with $25 hard backs "on sale" for $20 but think $14.99 for an ebook is absurd.

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.

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).

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

Originally Posted by leebase

Also, along with ebook has come the rise of the Indie author and REALLY CHEAP ebooks.

Not to mention all the free ebooks available.

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.

Originally Posted by leebase

Not to mention all the free ebooks available.You can pay far less than $10 for an ebook. But you can't get "newly released, best sellers for $10 anymore now that Amazon's "lose money to buy up market share" campaign has been stopped.

But just because a particular book costs $14.99 --- you have LOTS of cheaper options in ebooks.

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.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Do you have proof that Amazon was "losing money" on $10 eBooks? Or is this an assumption?

Why let lack of evidence get in the way of a zombie meme?
If the DOJ saying Amazon never lost money selling ebooks pre-conspiracy won't kill that brain eating zombie, nothing will. Some myths are too comforting to give up. Amazon *has* to be evil because admitting competitors misunderstood the market is too upsetting.

The meme simply refuses to accept that losing a buck or less on one item, for a limited time, increases its visibility and results in more sales than squeezing every customer ever for every last penny. (Even though BAEN's Flint proved it to the extreme years before Kindle even came out.) Or that applying the tactic sequentially to different products (as supermarkets and dept stores have done since the early 20th century) returns a much bigger profit on the whole by enticing customers to buy more things, immediately or on a return trip, at larger margins.

Modern marketing is simply incomprehensible to some people in Manhattan Publishing.

Originally Posted by rcentros

My first choice "cheaper option" is now Overdrive — which is the topic of this thread. 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.

They would.
But their priority isn't maximizing total profit but rather maximizing Reader Spend™, demonstrated by them making less money from Agency (70% of $13 = $9.11 versus the > $10 price Amazon was supposed to be taking a loss on) than out of wholesaling the books and letting Amazon pay for the privilege of promoting their books and increasing sales. (Consistency isn't their strong suit.)

But in their 19th century mindset, reducing the book and the author's visibility by keeping it out of libraries will force you to pay $13 because in their eyes there is no such thing as price elasticity or losing interest because of unavailability. They are absolutely certain ever reader who might be interested and who might potentially buy a book will eventually give in and pay their danegeld instead of doing without.

(Shrug)

It's soon to be a moot point anyway.
The BPHs combined market power is declining as the market continues to grow outside their grasp. They used to be 65% of the ebook market in 2010. It's been going down steadily ever since Agency took hold. They're down to a quarter and dropping fast by the last publicly available unit data, after Agency Part Deux.

Libraries have other sources of books to offer patrons.
They'll move on and Overdrive will help them.
Again, KKR didn't dump a ton of money on Overdrive to see it wither and die.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

cheap Kindles came after Apple's collusion, and were one of the side effects

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.

[binaryhermit]

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.

If the used market counts... it's close-ish, at least to the cost of pre-Kindle hardcovers, weren't they frequently well over $20? You can get a kindle keyboard for $25-ish
(points at ebay auctions for used Kindle Keyboards)