amazon sells more ebooks than hardcovers

[wetair]

So I just read this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/techn ... .html?_r=1

It says that amazon says they sold more ebooks than hardcovers. I am amazed.

[steve]

I'm amazed too, and glad it happened.

Anything that hastens the end of hardcover books is fine by me.

I understand the economics behind the hardback/paperback publishing cycle, but as it only benefits publishing companies and not readers, its time has come.

[Down the well]

Ha! Wetair, I was going to post this same thing today, lol.

I have such mixed feelings about e-books. I'm not opposed to them, I just like paper books better. I've downloaded two books to my iphone, but I haven't read either one. In this case it is probably the size of the reader making it difficult. However, there's something else that bothers me. It's the distance. I don't get the same intimate connection with e-books that I feel holding a book in my hand. I know it's about the words, but for me the format is a problem.

I'm curious how authors feel about this, though. A sale is a sale, right? Except from what I've read authors are getting screwed on e-book royalties. I'm a little nervous about the future, to be honest.

[Margo]

I understand the economics behind the hardback/paperback publishing cycle, but as it only benefits publishing companies and not readers, it's time has come.

I'm not as optimistic about this, as a reader or a writer. I vaguely recall a Greek myth about a tree of burdens. People could go to the tree and hang their troubles there and then survey the other bundles of troubles for another burden to take up. Seeing what other people's troubles looked like, everyone always chose their own bundle to take up again.

In other words, the grass is always greener.

In other other words, exchanging one set of troubles for another just leaves you with a new set of troubles you might not like better.

I was not impressed with Amazon's power play, at the expense of the writers as well as the publishing houses, I might add. I'm not impressed with Amazon's own foray into publishing with the 'quantity over quality' approach. I suspect our savior might bring the city down on our heads. Or I am just grim today.

[wetair]

It has just occurred to me that amazon's press release probably does not include number of hardcovers sold through third party bestsellers, whose books are usually cheaper (and new sometimes too!), so if you wanted a hardcover you would probably buy through the third part seller, not through amazon.

[Margo]

It has just occurred to me that amazon's press release probably does not include number of hardcovers sold through third party bestsellers, whose books are usually cheaper (and new sometimes too!), so if you wanted a hardcover you would probably buy through the third part seller, not through amazon.

There are a few questions one could ask about their stats. What's the saying? Lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's all about what you leave out and how you phrase what you put in.

It would benefit Amazon seriously to convince people that paper books are on life support and we must all buy Kindles now now now!

Gotta love the sensational first line in the article.

[steve]

I understand the economics behind the hardback/paperback publishing cycle, but as it only benefits publishing companies and not readers, it's time has come.

I'm not as optimistic about this, as a reader or a writer. I vaguely recall a Greek myth about a tree of burdens. People could go to the tree and hang their troubles there and then survey the other bundles of troubles for another burden to take up. Seeing what other people's troubles looked like, everyone always chose their own bundle to take up again.

In other words, the grass is always greener.

In other other words, exchanging one set of troubles for another just leaves you with a new set of troubles you might not like better.

I was not impressed with Amazon's power play, at the expense of the writers as well as the publishing houses, I might add. I'm not impressed with Amazon's own foray into publishing with the 'quantity over quality' approach. I suspect our savior might bring the city down on our heads. Or I am just grim today.

I think you're a bit grim. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The hardcover book is a relic; most countries with a strong literary culture don't have them. The reason they exist here has nothing to do with fostering a strong literary culture.

Franzen's new book "Freedom" comes out next month. I will buy it for $25 at my local shop, knowing full well the paperback will be available a year later for $15, and six months after that the hardcover will be on the remainder table for $8, and six months after that, the paperback remainders for $5.

Insane economics; no benefit to me, unless I'm patient.

Amazon's power play is giving people new books at fair prices. Writers will be fine. The publishing houses will suffer, and they deserve to for not offering new books at fair prices.

And in thirty years the local bookstore will be a vending machine.

[Quill]

I'm going to be sad to see my local Barnes & Noble go, just like I was sad to see the Mom & Pops suffer at the hands of B & N. I don't think B & N can make it on auxiliary items like diary notebooks and Godiva chocolate, though they are trying. Probably their online store will continue to compete with Amazon, but the brick and mortar is going through some heavy changes and it's not just books. Magazines themselves are getting smaller. Music CDs aren't selling like they used to just five short years ago (for one thing, how can they when you can get them much cheaper from the same store online)? A few areas seem to be holding their own: Middle grade and Children's fiction is still well-stocked, and DVDs are still expanding.

I inquired there about the very well reviewed novel "Rock Paper Tiger" by one of Nathan's clients, on the day it was released, and was told it could be ordered but was not in stock at the store and that the store had no plans to bring any in. The big displays of new fiction just inside the entry doors contain surprisingly few novels compared to what is being released. The local book mega-store is no longer the best place to buy, or even browse, for books anymore. It no longer represents the market.

Yep, it's time to start seeing the writing on the wall. Or, should I say on the screen?

[AnimaDictio]

E-books? Bah! Humbug! Give me a device that feels more cuddly, more intimate, less delicate. Maybe then I'll love e-books.

[Mark]

There are a few questions one could ask about their stats. What's the saying? Lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's all about what you leave out and how you phrase what you put in.

Agreed. It's not like Amazon hasn't had issues with contentious e-book statistics in the past.

[Ishta]

Yes, I agree with Mark. The article states that they sold more e-books than hardcovers, but mentions nothing about paperbacks or print books as a whole. And we all know that hardcovers represent a fairly small share of the print market anyway, since they're so much more expensive. More people will buy paperbacks and second-hand books.

Shame on Amazon for manipulating their statistics so, and shame on the New York Times for reporting it this way.