The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet [LWN.net]

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 4:01 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

borrow an e-ink reader some time. It's a difference you don't realize until you experience it.

It's about the same as when monitors started going to higher refresh rates, many people reported that they had no problems with the 30Hz refresh monitors, but once they experienced the difference for a while they wold then notice the difference when moving back.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 4:03 UTC (Wed) by geofft (subscriber, #59789) [Link]

Well, then, isn't that reason _not_ to try an e-ink reader? :-)

I'll ask a friend to try it for a while, I guess. I was never particularly impressed with how dark the non-backlit ones were when I was looking at them in the store (and I think I was also unhappy with resolution and the funky refresh-blinking behavior).

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 8:21 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

borrow an e-ink reader some time. It's a difference you don't realize until you experience it.

If it's "a difference you don't realize until you experience it" then e-ink is already dead as I've explained before. The writing is one the wall. Two years ago I've seen a lot of guys with e-ink devices when I've travelled by bus. Today a see more iPads then Android and more Android then einks. This means public have voted. With their feet. Few years from now e-ink will either be moved to China (with accompanying loss of quality) and will be closed altogether. If first scenario will happen then it'll be produced for a few more years till LCD/OLED/etc tablets will finally reach the quality of e-ink. Note: they may never reach the quality of today's E Ink Pearl, but they will reach and surpass the reduced quality of bargain model.

It's about the same as when monitors started going to higher refresh rates, many people reported that they had no problems with the 30Hz refresh monitors, but once they experienced the difference for a while they wold then notice the difference when moving back.

Good example. 120-150Mhz CRTs were great. In fact they are still great (I own one), but… try to find one in a shop. E-ink will follow the same pattern. It's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when".

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 10:20 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

There are three factors here: one, that eInk readers are cheaper; two, they are REALLY better; three, the battery lasts A MONTH... now, a tablet can't compete with that. I have two Kindles, an Android Tablet, and an iPad. And I am also weird, because it does not hurt me so much reading on the iPad (or even in the laptop). But I will buy one or two more kindle/nooks this year BECAUSE it is so awesome to read on them. And because they are really good to take on a long trip, even if I am going to the farm. And because they are no-distractions readers (when I am reading on the iPad, either I have to turn off wireless/3g beforehand or I get email/social notifications from time to time....)

So, no, $200 tablets will not take the place of $70 eInk readers so soon.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 10:39 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

You message read like eerie echo of bazillion articles written ten years ago about CRT. People also explained that "CRT is here to stay" and that "LCD is just to expensive and has a lot of artificats", etc. Major manufacturers started discontinuing CRT monitors 2-3 years after that point and today CRT is dead. Even if LCD is still not as nice as good CRT by some measures.

So, no, $200 tablets will not take the place of $70 eInk readers so soon.

Hmm... $800 LCD was easily able to replace $300 CRT but $200 tablets will not be able to kill $70 e-ink readers? Why? Or have you already forgotten price difference of the time when LCD really started eating CRTs?

While difference was 10x or more (1990th) LCD stayed confined to some niche applications, when difference dropped below 3x - CRT started disappearing. For tablets this moment is about now.

As for "battery which lasts A MONTH"… how about a battery which lasts a week as a reason to not use smartphone? It's quite valid reason yet in some countries smartphones are dominating already and others will undoubtedly follow.

You seems not to grasp the notion of "good enough"—but this is what sells and kills platforms!

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 11:32 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

eInk readers are not competing with tablets. They compete with paper books. If kindles get cheap enough to manufacture, 5 to 10 years from now, Amazon will send you one for free whenever you want. Hell, they'll send it to you even if you don't want it, AOL-style. Because the content is king -- it will be the really expensive part. And when your iPadXV have two weeks battery time, kindle equivalent will just stay charged forever.

Don't get me wrong. I HATED CRTs and LOVED LCDs since day one. But for reading 5-10 hours in a row, eInks are really better than LCDs/OLEDs and for that reason, and for the facts that they are cheaper, that readers extremely dislike not knowing how the book ends [and having nothing to read] during a long trip, I think the eInk product is here to stay, with a different market from LCDs/OLEDs, sure.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 12:54 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

eInk readers are not competing with tablets.

Why not?

They compete with paper books.

Sure. But all these devices compete with TV/VCR combo for the user's time. And TV/VCR reduced books market quite severely even if it was not actually possible to buy and read books with TV/VCR. Today tablets offer one outlet which can deliver video, audio and textual content. I don't see how dedicated book readers can survive in this context, sorry.

If kindles get cheap enough to manufacture, 5 to 10 years from now, Amazon will send you one for free whenever you want.

Kindles are cheap to manufacture only when they are popular. When volume goes down virtuous cycle becomes vicious cycle and pretty soon it becomes more expensive to manufacture e-ink based tablet then equivalent LCD/OLED based one. eInk is probably not yet passed it's peak, but it's pretty close to it. But in the future… 10 years from now e-ink will be in the same position as HP-48GX is today: it still will be popular among some people and you'll be able to easily find one on eBay, but they will not be manufactured anymore.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 18:02 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]

You do realize how terrible the comparison is with LCD/CRT to LCD/eInk right?

CRT's were heavy, power hungry (energy inefficient) and massive objects. A 22" CRT would have been more than 100lbs and around 2 feet deep. A single CRT occupied almost half a standard desk, and consumed about 70 watts of power which was almost entirely converted to heat. (In my experience when the LCD transition happened office spaces often had fluctuating temperature levels because the HVAC systems were designed to compensate for the daily CRT heat load, so after the transition you ended up with rapidly cycling temperatures all day long until they came in and re-tuned it all for the reduced heat load.)

A equivalent 22" LCD is about 7-10lbs, 7 inches deep and uses around 20-30watts of power. On top of those <sarcasm>minor improvements</sarcasm> you also have in general better resolutions, better refresh rates (less eye strain), less heat output, better color reproduction, digital image transfer and about a dozen other improvements over CRTs. In fact about the only area where CRTs were even better than LCDs was the ability to do multiple resolutions (only the best CRTs can still compete) and better blacks.

LCD's displaced CRTs because they were better in almost every aspect, as soon as prices came within reason they began to dominate almost immediately. In my experience everyone wanted LCD's just to get back all the desk space they lost to the CRTs. I can remember all the exclamations on the returned desk space vividly.

I think that comparing the CRT/LCD transition to LCD/eInk isn't even in the same ballpark. Ask an voracious reader that's tried both which they prefer to read on and I've yet to hear a single one say they prefer the LCD. I agree that ultimately most devices will be LCD, but eInk will likely remain around until they develop a technology that matches the advantages of eInk (ultra long battery life, eye strain, weight and price). eInk has serious advantages for a specific market segment and as speculated by others if they get the price down to where the things are damn near disposable you will see them everywhere.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 2, 2012 20:20 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

On top of those <sarcasm>minor improvements</sarcasm> you also have in general better resolutions,

I had 21" CRT monitor which was quite usable in 1600x1200 @100Hz mode (and maximum resolution was 1800x1440 @73Hz, thank you very much) back in 2000 (ViewSonic P810, to be exact). When LCDs with comparable resolution arrived?

better refresh rates (less eye strain)

Today… may be. but even today most LCDs still use 60Hz - and I had 100Hz twelve years ago! Avid games preferred CRT for years for that reason. Yes, 200Hz and 240Hz are becoming mainstream (mostly for 3D), but this happened years after death of CRT!

better color reproduction

Nope. Still not there. Best of the best come close to what CRT offered ten years ago for cheap. And still fail for darker scenes.

digital image transfer

Try again, please. CRT had digital image transfer three decades ago (and modern CRTs had modern interfaces like DVI, too).

In fact about the only area where CRTs were even better than LCDs was the ability to do multiple resolutions (only the best CRTs can still compete) and better blacks.

No, the only advantage LCD had was space saving. This is significant (rent is quite substantial item of expenses in any office and home space is also not limitless) but everything else, literally everything else was worse when CRT went to the dustbin of history.

Years later LCD got most advantages back—yet even today it's still worse by some measures.

LCD's displaced CRTs because they were better in almost every aspect

Sorry, but this is revisionism. You are comparing today's LCD models with years old CRTs. And even in this comparison CRT often comes first! If you'll compare contemporary models from ten years ago (when LCD started pushing CRTs) you'll find out that virtually everything was worse on LCD - with only two exceptions: geometrical size and power consumption. And this was critical for success.

Similarly today general purpose tablets give you one—yet critical feature: support for color movies (you can count this advantage as two if you wish).

as soon as prices came within reason they began to dominate almost immediately

Right. And they did that long before LCDs achieved parity (let alone superiority!) in many aspects! All the “advantages” you cite above as a reason to buy LCD were in fact reasons to prefer CRT! And a lot of peoples did! Just not enough to keep CRTs around. When CRT was finally dead LCDs continued to develop and years later they finally achieved more-or-less parity.

eInk has serious advantages for a specific market segment and as speculated by others if they get the price down to where the things are damn near disposable you will see them everywhere.

Except they can't ultimately LCD and eInk have comparable production costs (comparable, not identical: yes, eInk is simpler, but this difference is constant, it does not change over time). And when they'll loose economy of scale battle (they are more-or-less there already) eInk will be dead.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 3, 2012 16:26 UTC (Fri) by jackb (subscriber, #41909) [Link]

I had 21" CRT monitor which was quite usable in 1600x1200 @100Hz mode (and maximum resolution was 1800x1440 @73Hz, thank you very much) back in 2000 (ViewSonic P810, to be exact). When LCDs with comparable resolution arrived?

I blame the rise of HDTV for the seemingly permanent regression in monitor resolutions. 1080 interlaced vertical lines was "high" definition when compared to analog TV but is pathetic compared to the PC displays available at the end of the last century.

I finally have a LCD with a higher resolution (2560x1440) than the last CRT I bought over 12 years ago, but the price was rediculous.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 4, 2012 9:30 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I blame the rise of HDTV for the seemingly permanent regression in monitor resolutions. 1080 interlaced vertical lines was "high" definition when compared to analog TV but is pathetic compared to the PC displays available at the end of the last century.

Evidence does not point in this direction. CRT swang songs had even higher resolutions than what I cited above which were higher than HDTV! ViewSonic G225fB supported 2048x1536@80Hz! This was in 2005 when most LCDs had much less then HDTV resolution.

No, both CRTs and LCDs show typical parallel trajectories till the moment where CRT is dead. Yes, HDTV worked as a speed bump: it pushed jump to 1920x1200 (and then shrinkage to 1920x1080 to save money), but I don't think it was responsible for the fact that MacBook Pro with retina was only released this year. It just took time to reach these high resolution again after disruptive CRT-to-LCD switch.

What HDTV did (and what I really dislike) is sudden fascination with 16:9 aspect ratio monitors. These are now dominating even 4:3 monitors are obviously better for real work. But again: HDTV was a pretext, real difference was a drive to save money and HDTV only gave good excuse. Think about it: 16:9 monitors made no sense in CRT era (it's easier to make good CRT when aspect ration is closer to 1:1), but LCD have no such limitations and 16:9 are cheaper ! Only by about 10% (for the same diagonal), but if you'll recall how low margins for LCD producers are now…

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 15:03 UTC (Wed) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

eInk readers are not competing with tablets.

Of course they are. They may not be perfect substitutes, but there's a huge amount of overlap. If nothing else, they're competing for space in people's bags, since most people aren't going to want to carry both a tablet and an eInk reader with them regularly. Since the tablet does better as a replacement for the eInk reader than the eInk reader does as a replacement for the tablet, the desire for simplicity will select for the tablet. Unless eInk can advance to the point that it's a practical replacement for LCD and OLED screens, eInk devices are going to wind up as niche items.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 13:52 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

You are talking about a time when CRTs were a mature technology while LCD monitors were relatively new. As LCD technology and manufacturing process improved, and they were produced in greater and greater numbers, the price fell and LCD killed off CRT even in price-sensitive applications.

Here, E-ink is also a new technology. There is no reason the price of an E-ink reader might not fall from $70 to $7 even as the price of LCD devices falls too. Indeed, your argument could equally well be applied to show that LCDs are inevitably on the way out to be replaced by E-ink displays; people are saying that "LCD is here to stay" and that "E-ink has inferior refresh rate and colour", but that is just the same things they said about CRTs, and E-ink is good enough and cheaper... Even if you accept that only one of the two technologies can exist in the long run, you cannot arbitrarily decide which of the two is the new VHS and which the new Betamax.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 4, 2012 9:54 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

There is no reason the price of an E-ink reader might not fall from $70 to $7 even as the price of LCD devices falls too.

Yes, there is. Even if price of eink display will go to zero you'll still need CPU, battery, plastic case, buttons, etc. Remember "10 dollar computer" fiasco? You forget that any such device combines some new-and-comping-technologies (which price tends to go down fast) and old-and-polished technologies. And when price of new-and-comping-components go down price of old technologies starts to dominate. Take a look on calculator prices some time. Large ones (which include similar amount of plastic as e-ink reader) are stuck at $30-$40 price point for decades (you can buy them cheaper if they are sold from closeout bins, but their titular price stays the same).

eInk devices have not [yet] reached the bottom, but they are pretty close to this point, they will never go down to $7.

Indeed, your argument could equally well be applied to show that LCDs are inevitably on the way out to be replaced by E-ink displays; people are saying that "LCD is here to stay" and that "E-ink has inferior refresh rate and colour", but that is just the same things they said about CRTs, and E-ink is good enough and cheaper...

Nope. They are not good enough. You can use LCD to do things which you can do with eInk (take a look on this thread: quite a few people actually prefer LCD to eInk), but you can not watch video on eInk device. Period. Full stop. These technologies have run out of time: when they were introduced it was impossible to watch video on a tablet anyway (2-4lbs ones with Intel CPU were too unwieldy to actually use and thin and light ARM-based lacked power to easily show video). Today - this is basic requirement. There was some hope but it's now squashed. This is the end of the line for eInk-like devices. Years from now we may debate pluses and minuses of the world where LCD/OLED lost and technologies like eInk/Mirasol/etc won but it'll not be our world.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 4, 2012 11:45 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Until you can show that books are doomed and have not sold since the 1950s owing to their inability to show TV channels I will assume your reasoning faulty.

Yes, TV has *dominated* -- but that does *not* mean that books have been extinguished, because people still exist who buy them in large numbers. The booksellers don't care that most people hardly buy any -- what matters is that some people buy lots. The same dedicated crew, who include people like me and very probably you as well, will trigger continued production of e-readers: because there is a market. It's not as *big* as the market for tablets, but it's *not the same market*. Both can coexist side by side.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 4, 2012 19:39 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

You can't use TVs to read books, especially on old CRT-based TV-sets. So no, TVs can't replace books. Books can't be used to watch TV as well.

So the situation is not the same.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 16:26 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]

People have a real tendency to hyperventilate about computer devices converging. Years ago I was reading about the glorious future when TVs would have converged with gaming consoles, laptops, desktop computers, and DVD players. Ten years later, and we still have separate boxes for all those things. Why? Because CPUs are cheap, and each of those devices appeals to a different market.

Nowadays, the iPad is the thing which everything "obviously" has to converge with. However, the reality is, people like their separate boxes. Tablets don't have a one-month battery life. They aren't as easy to read as eInk displays. A software update will not fix these issues.

Someday, some physicist will invent a screen that looks as good as eInk, but can play movies. At that point, eInk readers will die, and the tablets will take over. Until then, talk about convergence is just more hot air in an industry that already has several hot air balloon's worth.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 2, 2012 20:34 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Years ago I was reading about the glorious future when TVs would have converged with gaming consoles, laptops, desktop computers, and DVD players. Ten years later, and we still have separate boxes for all those things. Why? Because CPUs are cheap, and each of those devices appeals to a different market.

You forgot the important detail: space near the TV is quite cheap. Space in your pocket is not. Note that this convergence with TV is still happening—albeit not as fast as a lot of guys are expecting.

But WRT devices in your pocket. Most popular camera today? iPhone (and Androids are more popular then most dedicated devices). Most popular camcoder? iPhone, again (the same not about Android). Dictating machines, pagers, etc—they all are replaced by mobile (which is used today as camera more often then it's used as phone!). But some things can not be stuffed in the mobile because it must fit in your pocket. For these there are tablet - and I don't think there are space in your backpack for two such devices (well, some people carry around Kindle and iPad, but most prefer one or another and increasingly it's not Kindle).

Nowadays, the iPad is the thing which everything "obviously" has to converge with. However, the reality is, people like their separate boxes.

In their pockets and backpacks? No, they don't. Not how failed convergence attempts mostly come from stationary devices while mobile devices exhibit totally different pattern.

And I'm not saying everything will be sucked unto iPad: backpacks are larger then pockets, there are space for couple of devices (or may be even more). But to have separate eInk reader and color movie capable general purpose tablet? No, most people will choose just one—and it'll not be Kindle.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 5, 2012 11:22 UTC (Sun) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link]

> And I'm not saying everything will be sucked unto iPad: backpacks are larger then pockets, there are space for couple of devices (or may be even more). But to have separate eInk reader and color movie capable general purpose tablet? No, most people will choose just one—and it'll not be Kindle.

(I can only speak for myself and for the folks in my immediate social circle.) From my perspective people take books and e-readers with them when on vacation, not video players or video games. I guess it all depends on the demographics.

My take is that most people (the non computer enthusiast type) will just ditch the laptop and get a tablet. People that read lots will continue to buy whatever suits them best, and right now that seems to be the Kindle e-ink. (I do reckon that the geek toy enthusiasts who bought Kindles due to hype will migrate to the ipad).

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 14:42 UTC (Wed) by Tara_Li (subscriber, #26706) [Link]

Oddly enough - I used to get a month on a pair of AA batteries on my Palm III with an LCD screen (though using the backlight a lot would reduce that to a couple of weeks). More efficient processors, lighting, and display tech (OLEDs, I'm waiting!) will fix a lot of things. We'll probably get to the point of at least a week, maybe two, for standard machines.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 16:24 UTC (Wed) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link]

I doubt we ever see energy efficency like the Palm again. Backlights suck power. WiFi sucks power. 3G sucks power. Java combined with the modern attitude of 'ram and cycles are cheap', which one would have thought would have been revisited by mobile but obviously wasn't, sucks power. People want to watch video. Video sucks power. Typical games on the modern handheld device with 3D, everything animated and playing sounds, GPUs blazing, suck power.

Palm games tended toward static playfields where the CPU spent most of the time sleeping and apps were oriented to 'little black book' sort of data retrieval. When Palm devices moved to color screens and Internet through phone or WiFi the AAA batteries were a distant memory, even without the additional weight of Java.

Barring the introduction of some wonderful game changing battery tech I just can't see battery life getting back to even a week. Any improvement in power consumption is instantly plowed into faster, not put into run time because the #1 complaint is still 'too slugish' and not 'doesn't run all day' because people simply adapted to carrying power cables. And to get to a week you would need to see several of those power drains drasticaly reduced, as no single one would do the trick.

Or we would need a factor of ten or more improvement in battery capacity per unit of volume. With that much extra power available they couldn't just clock everything faster to burn off the power for glitz because the device would actually burn people.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 2, 2012 14:12 UTC (Thu) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

That's one reason I still use my Handspring Visor. That, and when I'm in Lower Slobbovia and run out of juice, I just pull out a couple of AAAs and keep going. I can't afford to lose my data just because I'm not within reach of a power receptacle.

Also, it doesn't hurt that it's not a phone. You don't worry about someone hacking your device when they can't get to it.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 14:19 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Few years from now e-ink will either be moved to China (with accompanying loss of quality) and will be closed altogether.

As opposed to now, where e-ink is being manufactured in, IIRC, South Korea and China and is extremely closed, patented and NDAed up the wazoo?

I conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 10:58 UTC (Wed) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569) [Link]

Sorry, I just don't agree with your blanket statement, I'm fine with accepting that for most people it's like you say but definitely not for all because I find reading on certain e-readers unpleasant. To me it's like reading those paperback that use recycled paper that is SO gray that it loses the contrast with the black text. So it depends a bit on which brand of e-ink display is being used.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 1, 2012 11:54 UTC (Wed) by liw (subscriber, #6379) [Link]

All generalisations are wrong, unless backed by scientifically valid research.

I read fairly much and frequently on my Kindle, on the order of 20 thousand pages this first year. I also read a lot on my phone, and on my laptop, using both the laptop's own screen and an external monitor. I don't find the Kindle's e-ink screen to be significantly better than the other screens for reading. I don't have a problem with my eyes getting tired with any of the screens more than the others.

The e-ink screens seem to be better for some people's reading, and they may be better for most people, but I don't think they're universally better for everyone. The lower contrast of the Kindle screen is certainly not endearing it to me, compared to LCDs, but it's not usually a problem; similarly, LCDs are no good in sufficiently bright sunlight. I pick my reading screen depending on the circumstance and environment.

The Kindle has other benefits, though.

The Nexus 7: Google ships a tablet

Posted Aug 3, 2012 21:27 UTC (Fri) by daniel (subscriber, #3181) [Link]

Apparently, iOS doesn't do font hinting. (Why they didn't is a complete, unfathomable mystery - any insight on that?) So even the slightly higher resolution displays on recent Apple models won't be a crisp as what you see on the Nexus 7 and recent Android phones.

Reader devices

Posted Aug 1, 2012 18:12 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]

For the most part I agree completely. Given the choice most users will the multi-use android/ios tablet over the specialized e-reader. I have both and generally prefer the android to eInk because its a more flexible device and I just don't read enough outside road trips to justify anything but the tablet.

But personally I believe that barring some technical innovation e-Ink will continue to dominate as a dedicated device for voracious readers and heavy travelers. Most people just can read for multiple hours on LCD screens without eye strain and the headaches they cause. That and combined with the amazing battery life and significantly reduced weight will keep dedicated readers around.

Reader devices

Posted Aug 1, 2012 22:53 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

It depends what you mean by 'shoved aside'. I think we will eventually get to a situation where most people have tablets and not e-readers, because most people aren't heavy readers -- but those who *are* heavy readers hugely dominate the purchase market for books, and e-readers make purchasing easier so purchases (from the e-reader vendor's walled garden) go up. So, in practice, as long as an e-reader sale boosts the purchase of books by perhaps as few as four to ten over the lifetime of the device on average, it is in the vendor's financial interest to *give* them away.

Reader devices

Posted Aug 2, 2012 0:31 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

The savings to the publisher in not having to print, store, ship physical books will eventually make a significant difference to the price of e-books vs paper books. At that point it will cost less to give someone a free reader if they buy X books than to print the paper books.

most publishers are making record profits from e-books because they have far lower costs, but they still charge more for the e-book than the paper book. Baen books is the most prominent publisher that I know of that's bucking this trend.

I don't expect that situation to last.

Reader devices

Posted Aug 2, 2012 7:37 UTC (Thu) by madhatter (subscriber, #4665) [Link]

The situation is complicated in some jurisdictions (such as the UK, and I suspect the rest of the EU but don't know for sure) because paper books attract no sales tax while e-books do. That gives the poor e-book an instant 20% markup over its paper cousin here, or to put it another way, the first 17% of savings you make on an e-book are promptly eaten up by the Exchequer.

I happily stipulate that I know of no rational argument whatsoever why that should be the case; but it is.

Reader devices

Posted Aug 2, 2012 8:04 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

currently many of the publishers think that they should be able to charge more for the e-book than for the paper book, their stated theory is that the e-book is 'more convenient' and therefor worth more to the purchaser

Reader devices

Posted Aug 2, 2012 20:49 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

IOW they trying to have theirs's cake and eat it too. They play “market” games with this approach which nullifies their initial bargain. At this point we suddenly get another choice: free PDFs and MKVs found on the internet. Convenience drives prices up but wider availability drives them down. I don't think the prices they try to demand will stay.

Reader devices

Posted Aug 2, 2012 16:57 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

Here in Germany, e-books are taxed at the standard rate of 19%, while paper books qualify for a reduced rate of 7%. In principle, the rationale behind the reduced rate is to make it easier for the poor to afford the basic prerequisites for civilised life; apparently anyone who can afford a PC, tablet computer, or dedicated e-book reader does not require that sort of assistance.

On the other hand, some of the 7% exceptions are really weird; donkeys are taxed at 19% but mules, like horses, at 7%. Donkey meat as a food item, on the other hand, is taxed at 7%, too. Tomato juice is taxed at 7% but tomato ketchup and tomato sauce at 19%. The junior partner in the German coalition government, the Liberal party (FDP), recently made itself quite unpopular by arranging for the tax on hotel accommodation to be lowered to 7%, in a move that was widely considered catering to minority interests.

Reader devices

Posted Aug 9, 2012 21:05 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

Not sure why e-books (and books with CDs) attract VAT, but it's an unfortunate fact that once VAT has been imposed it can't be removed. But I suspect it's a hangover from the old "VAT is charged on luxury items, not essentials", and when they first came out CDs and e-books were classed as luxuries.

That's why VAT is now 5% on gas and electric - once UK law put it on, European law prevented it being taken off.

Cheers,
Wol

Reader devices

Posted Aug 10, 2012 16:22 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Well, that's a classic example of the UK's tendency to over-implement EU directives far more officiously than anyone else. Other EU nations have occasionally removed VAT on existing things, EU directives be damned -- and the directive in question does not prevent you from making anything be VAT-rated at 0% (which is not technically the same as making it VAT-exempt but has the same effect).

Reader devices

Posted Aug 2, 2012 22:18 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

The savings to the publisher in not having to print, store, ship physical books will eventually make a significant difference to the price of e-books vs paper books.

All of those costs come to less than 15% of the price of a paperback. The majority of the cost to the publisher is editing, proofing, and advances, all of which are committed before the book hits the shelves and none of which are affected by e-books (modulo the regrettable tendency for e-books to be 'published' with no editing at all).

Reader devices

Posted Aug 2, 2012 22:30 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

> All of those costs come to less than 15% of the price of a paperback

Bzzz, the retail markup itself is normally around 50% of the cover price of the book. These other costs may be 'only' 15% of the cover price, but that would mean that a direct-from-publisher e-book has avoided almost 65% of the costs for that copy.

but even if you were right, that's still not an excuse for the e-books costing MORE than the paper versions.

Reader devices

Posted Aug 4, 2012 11:40 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Bzzz, the retail markup itself is normally around 50% of the cover price of the book.

The figures I've seen suggest 30% each for distributor and retailer.

but even if you were right, that's still not an excuse for the e-books costing MORE than the paper versions.

True enough -- at least if by 'the paper version' you mean the hardback. Not all books sell well enough to come out in paperback: the publisher relies on the high price of the hardbacks to make back their costs (at least UK publishers do and I can't imagine it's significantly different in the US). Small- or slow-selling books, including a lot of technical works, can be expected to remain quite costly even in ebook form.

Reader devices

Posted Aug 4, 2012 22:03 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

I'm not saying that all e-books should sell for $6 or something like that. I've happily paid $70 for a technical e-book where the paper copy was $100.

But when the e-book costs more than the hardcover (when it's released) and more than the paperback (when it's released), the publisher is just gouging the purchaser.

> The figures I've seen suggest 30% each for distributor and retailer.

If you have publisher, distributor and retailer that's actually worse than the 50% I was thinking.

something to keep in mind, When Amazon started selling e-books they were paying the person who listed the book 35% of the purchase price (i.e. Amazon was keeping 65% of the purchase price) and nobody was screaming about Amazon gouging the publishers, it was in the range they expected. It was big news when Amazon started offering an option to give the person who listed the book 70% of the purchase price.

Note that when publishers list books for $12.99 or $14.99 they (and therefor the author) get paid significantly less than if they listed the book for $9.99, but many of them insist on continuing to do so.

Any publisher could start selling e-books directly from their own website, and the costs of doing so would be significantly lower than the cost of selling through Amazon. This works even for customers with Kindles or Nooks. Baen books does this, others could as well.

Apple forbids the publisher from doing this inside apps for their products, but I'll bet publishers could get convince them to alter their policies if they really wanted to.