Kindle users give 1 star rating to book with delayed ebook release

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

P.S. If the author had input on the decision to delay, and voted for a delayed delivery of the eBook, he/she deserves the negative feedback, it was earned.

Well, you see, most likely the author did not have this say. And before everyone comes in a says 'stupid author, your fault for negotiating a crap contract, blah blah blah,' again, consider that this issue of delay was simply not around a few months ago. The paperback has always been released later than the hardcover. Did people winge and not buy the book when the paperback came out? No, they simply waited for the paperback. But as I said before, I am not one of the 'must have it right now or I will die' brigade.

Hell, how long has the kindle been around? Less than 2 years? And while everyone on this forum knows about them, in the real world, the numbers are still not there. I think people are simply blaming the author for themselves doing something that is unethical. And using the internet as a means of venting their anger and impatience. One of the downsides of the internet.

And Like JS Wolf, silly me for thinking a book review was all about the value of reading the book.

Anyway I am done with this thread. Maybe some of you might have been given a window into some of the issues other than the reader's interests. Life isnt black and white but a series of greys. Something I have appreciated more as I got older.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Pushka

Anyway I am done with this thread. Maybe some of you might have been given a window into some of the issues other than the reader's interests.

Yes indeed, your posts in this thread have been very enlightening, and provided a much-needed fresh perspective.

Pushka.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Pushka

The paperback has always been released later than the hardcover. Did people winge and not buy the book when the paperback came out? No, they simply waited for the paperback.

They also expected to pay less for the paperback. If publishers were setting ebooks at paperback prices, this outcry wouldn't exist.

Of course, if they were setting ebooks at paperback prices, they wouldn't have any interest in protesting Amazon's $10 cap on bestsellers.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

They also expected to pay less for the paperback. If publishers were setting ebooks at paperback prices, this outcry wouldn't exist.

Of course, if they were setting ebooks at paperback prices, they wouldn't have any interest in protesting Amazon's $10 cap on bestsellers.

My last post I promise.

In Australia, the cheapest paperback is $24 AUD which is around $20USD, and most new releases are $32 AUD

Compare that with $9.99 US for ebooks. Hardbacks? Around $40 AUD. I dont know who buys them.

Ebooks are very very cheap to most countries. And worth waiting for methinks.

[Daithi]

Delayed release of paperbacks and delayed release of ebooks are not equivalent. Delaying ebooks is closer in equivalence to record producers releasing downloadable music months after releasing the CD.

The only difference between a hardcover and a paperback is the quality of the printed book. An ebook on the other hand is not just a cheap hardcover. An ebook is a completely different media.

Likewise CDs are completely different media from downloadable music. I don't want CDs. I prefer carrying around my music collection on my phone. Similarly, I don't want paper based books -- hardcover or paperback. I prefer carrying my library around on my Kindle.

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by Pushka

My last post I promise.

In Australia, the cheapest paperback is $24 AUD which is around $20USD, and most new releases are $32 AUD

Compare that with $9.99 US for ebooks. Hardbacks? Around $40 AUD. I dont know who buys them.

Ebooks are very very cheap to most countries. And worth waiting for methinks.

Hardbacks more like $50+

The only people who buy them are libraries, basically.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Delayed release of paperbacks and delayed release of ebooks are not equivalent. Delaying ebooks is closer in equivalence to record producers releasing downloadable music months after releasing the CD.

The only difference between a hardcover and a paperback is the quality of the printed book. An ebook on the other hand is not just a cheap hardcover. An ebook is a completely different media.

Likewise CDs are completely different media from downloadable music. I don't want CDs. I prefer carrying around my music collection on my phone. Similarly, I don't want paper based books -- hardcover or paperback. I prefer carrying my library around on my Kindle.

I think you have put your finger on something that is not being articulated, but underlies this outrage at the delay in the release of ebooks:

Hardbacks/paperbacks are essentially the same thing. But pbooks/ebooks are not.

If the publishers would release the hardback and an ebook version at the same time, at the same price, there would be little basis for complaint. Oh, some people would moan that the ebook should be cheaper because there aren't any printing costs, but in the general sense, it would be fair enough to issue pversion (ahem!) and eversion at the same time & price.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, I'm calling you a troll because your data actually completely agreed with me (Ebooks are not new, and books come to market in a fraction of the period ebooks have been rising in importance) while you tried to make out that it didn't. And since you have no fear of blacklisting, you won't mind providing the name then.

I appreciate that you're angry that your Husband failed to negotiate a decent contract and has been shafted by his publisher, but lashing out at others doesn't help.

I might point out that when negotiating a contract for delivery a significant time in the future, one of the first things a negotiator should be doing is figuring out what will be important in the future. And what you should really be looking at is not the conditions that will prevail when distribution starts, but what will prevail over the 'life' of your book sales. (I'll guess at a year, average. Some books remain popular for several years, but most seem to 'flash' and disappear. So I'll guess at an average of a year.)

So, if the contract is negotiated a year before the book is distributed, the negotiator should be looking at market changes that might occur during the next two years. Is that a significant period of time? IMO, yes-but opinions do differ, you know.

Even so there was reference to a book being part of a series (I believe that was what justified the long lead time on the contract). In a case like that then the negotiator should be looking at the life of the series-not just of the individual book. That, IMO, would certainly be a significant period of time.

So, I think I agree with you on this one, Dawn. About negotiating a poor contract that is-not sure about calling people trolls, though. Not really all that polite even if it is *sometimes* justified.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Pushka

But at this very moment, it is the author who is wearing all this orchestrated and damaging revolt, not the publisher!

Are they? I haven't found any of these 1-star reviews yet, but then I don't buy either new books nor ebooks from Amazon (at least not very often) so I probably wouldn't see them. From the comments in this thread though, the reviews apparently specify that this the publishers who are being castigated-not the authors.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the reviewers are blaming the authors for the delay. Or maybe the problem is that authors are seeing the 1-star review & not reading the comments.

It's doubtful, IMO, that these 1-star ratings are hurting sales so they really aren't hurting the authors-who can't make the sale anyway because of their publisher's policies. (If anybody's hurting the authors in that case it's the publisher.) Of course that assumes that most people do as I do with Amazon reviews, i.e. read the comments first & then decide whether or not the rating has relevance to me. If I were considering purchasing a new pbook then a low rating caused by it not being available as an ebook simply wouldn't be relevant to me. But maybe you're assuming that people don't actually read the reviews. If that's true then I'd have to agree that these ratings are hurting sales-the question then is how *else* can pressure be applied to the publishers?

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by Harmon

If the publishers would release the hardback and an ebook version at the same time, at the same price, there would be little basis for complaint. Oh, some people would moan that the ebook should be cheaper because there aren't any printing costs, but in the general sense, it would be fair enough to issue pversion (ahem!) and eversion at the same time & price.

That is exactly what would shut us all up. Of course, I remember some 1 star reviews for books that were over $9.99, but that was just wrong, IMHO.

I would have paid the hardcover price for Under the Dome. Instead, I downloaded it off the darknet. I think that is what will happen. In the case of Under the Dome, I did buy the ebook version when it came out, but I feel no obligation to do that in the future.

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

Pick Ford or Suarez if you just want one.

Someone has gone one better for the latter. His second book just showed up on the darknet.

Lol.

[Seli]

In a related issue, the reaction of Cherie Priest on a bad review as a result of Amazon/publishers geo-restrictions, pointing out what writers can and cannot be blamed for. (by way of scalzi)

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by Harmon

If the publishers would release the hardback and an ebook version at the same time, at the same price, there would be little basis for complaint. Oh, some people would moan that the ebook should be cheaper because there aren't any printing costs, but in the general sense, it would be fair enough to issue pversion (ahem!) and eversion at the same time & price.

I'd be one of those people moaning that ebooks should be cheaper than pbooks (I would go back to the music CD analogy). However, let's assume that the publisher was in fact paid the same amount for ebooks as they were for pbooks. Then surely they would offer both versions at the same time, right? Well, in fact, Amazon is paying them the same amount for the pbook as the ebook.

Amazon is the one selling the two versions at a different price, and only Amazon is being affected by the different sales prices. The publishers and authors are paid the same amount regardless of the version sold. It is only Amazon that makes a different profit on each type of book.

Why should the publishers dictate to Amazon the price at which Amazon sells the ebooks? Amazon is trying to establish an ebook industry, and if Amazon is willing to sell books for a lower profit margin (or even a loss) then why should the publisher be able to dictate to Amazon that they can't do this? The publishers are afraid of what is going to happen in the future, but I don't think sabotaging the burgeoning ebook industry is going to be as helpful as they seem to think.

[CyGuy]

I think they fail to realize something very fundamental: People who are now used to reading on an electronic reader are much less likely to purchase a paper book. I personally will not go back to paper books, I love eReading. So this idea that selling an eBook for cheap equals one lost paper book sale is incorrect. Selling an eBook for cheap means you just made another sale, period.

[dioib]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

...So this idea that selling an eBook for cheap equals one lost paper book sale is incorrect. Selling an eBook for cheap means you just made another sale, period.

AND save some trees (taking they care about it).