posted
Have you heard about the "Kindle" that Amazon.com's come up with? It's a book reader that links wirelessly to Amazon and Wikipedia and other stuff (at no charge - via Sprint cell phone technology) and has a non-glare, non-backlit screen you can read even in sunlight, if James Patterson is to be believed. I saw it on ABC-TV's "Good Morning America" this morning and went to www.amazon.com to look it up, and it was the front page of the site. It looks like a nifty, fun gadget for those who like them, but what I'm wondering about is what impact such things will have on book sales in the "real" world. Being able to buy a book that's normall $18 (or so) for $9.99 (for instance) is a big plus, I think. The reader will hold 200 books, and you can bookmark things, make notes, etc. I'm intrigued, but as a writer, I'm wondering whether publishers are going to need to include ebook format as one of their publishing things with each book or what?
I'm just tossing this out there for discussion. Thoughts?
posted
Well, if it does what you are predicting it could be good or bad, for us I mean. Certainly it will be a net benefit to society, or else it will be ignored and go out of business. So, let's take this from a more selfish and subjective point of view, ours, the writers'.
Making it cheaper/easier-to-access will increase the quantity demanded. And it will be cheaper for publishers (theoretically) to publish and it may increase the number of published/publishable writers.
The potential downside is ... it might encourage more competition, more books to compete with, more writers given a chance. So, bad for published writers good for would-be writers.
Who knows, maybe this innovation will increase demand in general, and then it's a good thing overall.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited November 19, 2007).]
posted
Assuming $10 per book compared to $18 per print version, and $400 for the reader, you have to buy 50 books to break even. For me that's somewhere between one and two year's worth of books -- by which time the device will be out of date.
And they won't ship it outside America because, I'm guessing, it needs the Sprint network to connect to the internet.
posted
Oh, and in response to "I'm wondering whether publishers are going to need to include ebook format as one of their publishing things with each book or what?"
I think this will be a no-brainer.
Amazon have already gotten a goodly proportion of the NYT best sellers. Given that typesetting is electronic these days it should be a simple matter to automatically convert files designed for regular printing into whatever format Kindle needs, at very low cost. That will mean that publishers can -- will -- do it if Amazon create enough market demand.
And of course, as with all new technology, the price of the reader will go down, rapidly, until it's akin to "give away the razor, sell the blades."
posted
I think this is a small move toward ebooks, but the big thing that keeps ebooks from becoming the "wave of the future" is that people still like to buy their books where they can pick them up and look at them. Most books are still sold in brick and mortar stores, not on-line. At some point I do expect that to change but it's not gonna be this week. Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To add to talespinner's comment, I strongly prefer reading paper over reading something electronic. i don't know if it's just softer on my eyes or what, but I would pay 3 times as much to have something on paper than something on computer.
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, having a total nerd field day here. This thing, though complicated and iffy, is definitely going to usher in the new era of reading things off of "data-pads" and other previously science fiction stuff. I mean, once the costs drop, I'd definitely prefer this to conventional textbooks. And from there it's just a step to storing regular novels on it!
Personally, as a writer who's been almost totally online (and as part of the "screen generation"), I think this is an exciting opportunity for writers. Sure this will allow more writers access to the field and might potentially dilute or poison the market, but if these writers still have to go through major publishers, the publishers will also kick up their quality control to make sure nothing detrimental to their name gets through.
Self-publishing will be easier, of course, but that will just help effectively "cordon off" that part of the market: if people download based on publisher, then those who don't recognize small-time publishing names might not be interested.
However, I think this is, by and large, a good thing. It'll cut back the costs of self-publishing and, conversely, either weaken or completely neutralize the print-on-demand controversy. That or just create a rift in the market to which publishers will either have to pick one or cater to both.
Still, this is just plain cool. If we can get those flying cars, we'll be in the future.
posted
By the way, the right to make a book available to something like the kindle is included in the "electronic rights" publishers have been insisting on including in contracts for several years now.
That right is one of the reasons why we insist that people only post 13 lines of their work here on Hatrack, so that if they sell the story, they will not have used up any electronic rights.
Editors, knowing that stories now have the potential of being purchased for kindles and such, will not be interested in stories that do not have electronic rights available.
posted
Anything that gets people reading more...ANYTHING, is good for us writers.
Yeah, I want one too. I'm LOL at your comment, SaucyJim, about having a total nerd field day. That is so accurate! (I recently had a similar one w/the One Laptop Per Child website - seen it? Coolest concept I've seen/heard of in forever. Awesome.)
Oh, and for the comments re. the feel/look of paper versus the look of a screen, one of the supposed (I haven't seen the device but I believe the hype because I know the technology capability is there) breakthrough technologies used in the Kindle is the electronic paper technology. It's a new kind of screen, unlike other screens you are accustomed to seeing.
But back to my original statement - ANYTHING that gets people reading more is good for us. Anyone heard about the latest NEA research on reading rates? Down. Again. In all categories, from what I understand.
posted
That sounds so awesome. Imagine having 200 books at your fingertips, to take anywhere. I want one.
Posts: 141 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just got my Newsweek magazine today and the front cover is about the Kindle. I ripped it open and read the story. As I read, I kept battling dueling emotions. On the one hand, I am a romantic and I buck at the idea of everything being an ecrypted code swirling around in cyberspace. Why do we insist on replacing THINGS for codes? I personally, love owning books. My husband and I display our bookshelf prominantly in our front room, because it is one of our only possesions that we have real pride in. You can't share a book with someone or give it as a gift when it is a swirling code. And besides, the book doesn't need improvement. It is perfect as it is, and one of the few things that takes us away from our endless illuminated screens. That said, IF it gets more people reading, and more people purchasing books then it's a good thing.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only downside I can think of as a reader is that, much like digital music, digital movies, etc, I would be righteously upset if I were to buy a book for $9.99 and then a few years later be unable to read it because the format is out of date. At least with physical books, you've got a few hundred years before you expect it to deteriorate beyond usefulness.
As long as the formats stay consistent, I'm all for it.
[This message has been edited by Hariolor (edited November 20, 2007).]
You know if you open it on the side opposite of the staples you don't have to rip it.
Kidding aside, I'd have to actually get a look at the thing in real life to decide if it's worth it. And then I agree that code fades long before books do. (I mean I've been reading a 1913 publication, but I can't use a program from the early 90s.)
posted
For writers there's another aspect to this, I think.
While $10 for a book on Kindle sounds good compared to $18 for the print version, it's a lot of money for what Wrenbird so aptly describes as "swirling code".
Almost all the costs of paper books have been eliminated with Kindle - no paper or ink, no presses to roll, no trucks, no warehouses, no unwanted books to pulp. Those costs that are left, of transposing the book from one electronic format to another, storing it on Amazon servers and delivering it over Sprint's network, are surely minimal compared to $10.
So the question is, where's the $10 going? Some to Amazon, some to the publisher, some to Sprint and some to the author, one assumes. And as an auditor told me a while ago, one should never assume!
Since, if it takes off (quite likely to judge by reactions here) it will erode paper book sales, authors will surely want to sell electronic rights with this in mind -- in other words, at a royalty per copy commensurate with (or bearing in mind the better margins achievable with Kindle, higher than) print rights. Right?
I hope we're not headed towards a fiasco similar to the film industry and its scriptwriters where, it seems to me, corporate greed is taking precedence over fair and equitable distribution of revenues.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
