$.99 eBook becomes biggest earner

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by rhadin

But even your editor friend would agree that although King's books are not grammatically perfect or necessarily developed the best they could be, they are eminently better edited than many other available books. I happen to agree with your editor friend as regards King, but I would never tell you not to buy his books because they are unreadable. And King does know the difference between there and their, seen and scene -- something many authors seem (seam -- ) not to.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Yet, Steve, at least one self-publisher proudly has proclaimed on his copyright page that he doesn't bother editing or proofreading because he is such a good writer (NOT!).

The problem is that the choices for readers on places like Smashwords are increasing daily exponentially, but there is no way to really tell beforehand that at least a modicum of editing and proofreading was done.

But possibly if a sample is available....not always....but possibly.

[Barty]

Interesting that amazon takes 65% on .99. A lot of apps in apple store are .99 and as far as I know apple still takes only 30% on those. Maybe it's true that apple is just breaking even on the app store. Not so evil as we've been led to believe.

Btw, even "expensive" apps from big names like EA will occasionally go on sale for .99, when they rocket up the sales chart. Unlike widgets and iThingies, it costs nothing to replicate an ebook or app once you've produced the first one, so you can't lose money on every sale unless you price it lower than your transaction cost.

[murraypaul]

According to this, Apple has paid out over $1Bn to app store developers, which would equate to a take of ~$430M for Apple. By comparison, in just Q4 of last year, they made $4.32Bn profit on $20.34Bn revenue. Of that $20Bn, ~$1Bn was iTunes store revenue.

This time last year, Apple were describing both the iTunes and app stores as at bit over break-even.

Apple views selling content primarily as a way of increasing hardware sales, the opposite of Amazon, who view selling Kindles primarily as way of increasing eBooks sales. (Hence both Apple and Amazon benefit by having a Kindle app on the iPad.)

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Barty

Interesting that amazon takes 65% on .99. A lot of apps in apple store are .99 and as far as I know apple still takes only 30% on those. Maybe it's true that apple is just breaking even on the app store. Not so evil as we've been led to believe.

Apple doesn't allow a developer any other option for getting an app on the device*, while an author can sell a Kindle-compatible ebook anywhere. He could market it on his own website and keep 100% if he chooses.

Apple also doesn't pay for the 3G to deliver the apps to any users.

ApK

*That's what I've been led to believe...you can't side-load apps to an iDevice, right?

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

According to this, Apple has paid out over $1Bn to app store developers, which would equate to a take of ~$430M for Apple. By comparison, in just Q4 of last year, they made $4.32Bn profit on $20.34Bn revenue. Of that $20Bn, ~$1Bn was iTunes store revenue.

This time last year, Apple were describing both the iTunes and app stores as at bit over break-even.

Apple views selling content primarily as a way of increasing hardware sales, the opposite of Amazon, who view selling Kindles primarily as way of increasing eBooks sales. (Hence both Apple and Amazon benefit by having a Kindle app on the iPad.)

That makes sense that Apple is actually still primarily a hardware provider. By restricting apps to their platform it will make the devices more attractive. But given the percentages they should be better off cutting developers a better deal in exchange for iOS exclusivity.

[AlexSno]

iOS exclusivity, now there is something i hear every day...

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by AlexSno

iOS exclusivity, now there is something i hear every day...

sorry I don't get your point on that comment? Help, I confuse easily these days.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

That makes sense that Apple is actually still primarily a hardware provider. By restricting apps to their platform it will make the devices more attractive. But given the percentages they should be better off cutting developers a better deal in exchange for iOS exclusivity.

At the moment there is no large-scale competition to the iOS platform. As Android tablets take a larger proportion of the market it wouldn't surprise me to see iOS exclusivity deals happening.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by ApK

...you can't side-load apps to an iDevice, right?

Your only other option to the App Store is to jailbreak your iOS device, which is legal but voids the warranty.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Apple views selling content primarily as a way of increasing hardware sales...

Yep... A nice visual as of last October:

Originally Posted by murraypaul

the opposite of Amazon, who view selling Kindles primarily as way of increasing eBooks sales....

Actually, I suspect that's only a short-term decision. Originally the plan was for both the hardware and content to separately earn profits. However, the price war over the devices may have temporarily suppressed their ability to profit off the 7" devices. I'm going to guess the DX is still earning a small profit, but could also be out there just to make the price of the 7" seem like a deal.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by ApK

Of course.
The implied insult would be that the work must not be any good, else it would have been traditionally published.

I don't think that's true.

I think it's true of 90% of self published books. And it's way too time-consuming to find the 10% or so that could have been traditionally published.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I think it's true of 90% of self published books. And it's way too time-consuming to find the 10% or so that could have been traditionally published.

I'd guess you are being far too optimistic in thinking that 10% of them are of publishable quality.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I think it's true of 90% of self published books. And it's way too time-consuming to find the 10% or so that could have been traditionally published.

If I knew I'd enjoy, oh, 75% of published books, that would be reasonable. Since I'm only interested in 10% or so of the stuff that's commercially published, looking for the 1% of the self-released stuff that interests me isn't much more of a hardship. It also includes the chance of running across gems that would never reach a mainstream publisher but are exactly in line with my specific interests.

[drachasor]

The use of the 35% royalty rate is interesting. Do $.99 books of his really sell more than 6 times as much as $2.99 books (which would net a 70% royalty)? The dynamics here are interesting.

Here's the royalty information for amazon if anyone is interested:

http://forums.kindledirectpublishing...externalID=393

and

http://forums.kindledirectpublishing...externalID=453

Edit: This is actually really tricky stuff to determine. Figuring out the elasticity of the market isn't easy and you can't directly compare this guy's books to books by others (not trivially anyhow). Heck, it is a bit questionable to compare one of his ebooks to another one.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If I knew I'd enjoy, oh, 75% of published books, that would be reasonable. Since I'm only interested in 10% or so of the stuff that's commercially published, looking for the 1% of the self-released stuff that interests me isn't much more of a hardship. It also includes the chance of running across gems that would never reach a mainstream publisher but are exactly in line with my specific interests.

I would imagine if a friend of yours highly recommended a work that was self-published, then you'd be far more likely to buy it. I think such works initially sell via marketing and people taking a chance, then, if they are good, word of mouth.