Is Amazon Harming the E-reader Category? (teleread.com)

An anonymous reader sends a story from TeleRead which argues that Amazon doing harm to the e-reader category of devices it helped create. The company has been aggressively pushing adoption of its Kindle Fire brand of tablets, dropping the price for the cheapest model down to $50. Compare that to the basic version of the e-ink Kindle: $80 if you don't want it cluttered with "special offers." If you care enough about an e-ink screen, you might still buy it, but most of those people probably already have e-readers. The general populace, when looking at the tablet's color screen, app ecosystem, and access to forms of entertainment beyond books, will probably consider the tablet a no-brainer.

This is in Amazon's best interest; if you buy an e-reader, you're only going to be buying books for it. If you buy a tablet, they can sell you videos and software, too. Amazon has succeeded in pushing several competing e-readers out of the market. They also refuse to experiment or innovate on the design; there have been no significant changes since the Paperwhite's backlighting technology in 2012. Given that ebook sales are no longer growing explosively, this could be a sign that the e-reader category of devices is stagnating.

Comments

Dead tree books

[Jhon]

I've never been fond of e-readers. I like the feel of the book in my hand. I've tried a few (starting with the Sony way-back-when) and moved to a kindle. I ended up still buying paper-books.

Maybe it's my age (upper 40's), maybe it's nostalgia or maybe it's something else entirely but I ENJOY it more when I'm really flipping pages.

My kids on the other hand have no trouble. My son likes paper books more but has no issue reading from his kindle-fire.

Note: I've over 3000 books dating from the 1930s to present. And that's after donating about 1000 to the local book-bank for hospitals. Oh how I miss hitting the many used book shops that used to exist.

It's the Ownership Stupid

[transfire]

While Amazon is on the right track, in that the device should be a very inexpensive commodity. But the fact the Amazon owns the content I "purchase", keeps me from ever buying in. On top of this, eBooks are way overpriced. I've wondered if both these issues could be solved by selling content on a per-device basis instead of per-user. As long as the devices have long lifetimes (40+ years), then it seems a reasonable business model. Content once installed on a device would be permanent and not transferable to any other device, in return the content could be (I estimate) a quarter the current costs.

Re:It's the Ownership Stupid

[Chacharoo]

This, a million times this. Please upmod the parent post. If Amazon, B&N and (name your favorite other reader) had all standardized on a single format, without the DRM, I would be glad to have an eReader device surgically grafted to the end of my arm. But the books I buy in "book" format stay on my shelves, regardless of whose stock is up or down, while the proprietary readers and single-company DRM schemes could all evaporate in a minute. I just ordered a new set of hardwood shelves, to clean up the gigantic pile of "books" near my bed. It's being delivered next week.

Re:It's the Ownership Stupid

[_UnderTow_]

I see people make this complaint a lot, that they want to 'own' the things they buy. But you're ignoring all of the other huge benefits you get from non-physical media. Ebooks take up no physical space, cannot be lost or left behind. Can be read by multiple people at the same time if they're sharing a Kindle account. For example, I have four children and they were all working their way through Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series at the same time. There was no fighting over who had which copy, or where a copy had been left when one of them finished it. I don't have to store 14 large books on a shelf now when they've finished the series, or go looking for them in a few years if I feel like re-reading. And other people have already made comments about search functions, easy text highlighting, bookmarks, etc that ebooks do really well. It's a different experience than buying and reading physical books. I avoid buying physical books whenever possible

It's like you think that once you buy a physical copy of some media, you have an indestructible copy of it that will last you the rest of your life. I have no problem buying books or music or movies from iTunes or Amazon's stores. I've bought multiple copies of the same CD or DVD in the , only to have to get another one when the copy I was using got scratched by kids, pets or mishandling or just plain lost or stolen. I buy digital versions of all of music and movies now, and I don't even care that I don't 'own' the media. To me, the benefits vastly outweigh any perceived drawbacks.

Also, as someone else already noted, many (most?) ebooks from Amazon 'ship' with no DRM, and can be loaded into Calibre and changed to different formats and device fairly easily.

Opposing preference—

[aussersterne]

I am also in my 40s and have a huge library of books (including a roomful of books on shelves from my Ph.D. years). And at this point, I can't *stand* paper books. They're heavy, have slow page turns, are not searchable, can only be carried in small numbers, are difficult to use (no changeable font, low contrast, drop it and you've lost your page), take FOREVER to find (Not at the bookstore? And let's face it, what's at the bookstore any longer? Then you'll have to wait days for the book to arrive in the mail, no impulse buying/reading), use up space in your house, and so on.

I am basically ebooks only these days. I buy and read probably 3-6 ebooks a week. If it's not available electronically? I've probably bought four paper books over the past year, if that. I have to really, really want it to put up with paper and the inconveniences of buying/reading paper.

Re:Amazon App tablets let you app apps!

[fyngyrz]

Actually, yes. e-readers are limited functionality devices that take up the same amount of space as a tablet that can serve as a reader, and much more. Unless the e-reader offers something unique (e-ink...) that the tablet cannot (an e-ink tablet would be pretty crippled in the color display space, at least, commercially available e-ink as I have known about it thus far.)

OTOH, if the tablet can't do what the user needs -- for example, present a readable page in full sunlight -- then the tablet isn't impinging on a putative e-reader's earned-by-actual-capabilities market share, is it?

And if something can't survive in the market, it's now a question of do we have to have it? Because if it can't survive on its own, and we don't have to have what it offers, then who is going to step up and make the things? It becomes a buggy whip. Rightfully so.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.