Kindle 3 and Science Fiction Short Stories

My Kindle 3, the wi-fi model, arrived Friday, August 27th.  I had bought a Kindle 1 when they first came out, but sold it a few months later to a lady friend who reads and travels more than I do.  At the time I was mostly listening to books and discovered I didn’t read much with my eyes any more.  Well, this year I joined four online book clubs and I’m doing far more eye reading.  Many of the books we read are out of print, with no Kindle editions, but a few are, so I thought I’d try another Kindle.

After unpacking my new toy, I was immediately struck by the Kindle 3’s elegant design.  The Kindle 1 had been clunky to hold, and much bigger and heavier.

kindle

kindle2

The new Kindle 3 is very light.  I couldn’t tell the difference between it and the weight of two books I’m comparing it to above.  The Catcher in the Rye is a trade paperback on the small size, so the Kindle is just a tiny bit taller and wider than the mass market paperback on the right, but much thinner.

My main purpose for the Kindle 3 is to read free science fiction short stories, especially free ones off the internet.  The first short story I loaded was “The Island” by Peter Watts, which I found in .PDF format.  I plugged in the Kindle 3 and found the documents folder and dropped it in.  It appears very sharp on the Kindle 3, even though it had a very tiny font.  Readable, but not font resizable.  If you read it online, the text looks larger, maybe 10-11 pt, but on the Kindle 3 it looks like its 8-9 pt.  Of course on, my 22” monitor, the page is much bigger.

This brings up the whole problem of getting content on the Kindle.  Books bought at Amazon are breeze to load and read with all the options.  These books have a DRM that protects them.  DRM free ebooks in the .MOBI, .TXT and .AZW formats can be copied directly to the Kindle with the USB cable, or with networking via Amazon.  With .MOBI or .AZW all the reformatting features work, but not with .PDF.  You can magnify the page, but that’s not very reader friendly.

Most .PDF documents are formatted for 8.5 x 11 paper – but if people wanted to create .PDF files specifically for ebook readers they should create a custom page size to fit ebook readers.    The Kindle screen is roughly 3 and 5/8th by 4 and 3/4th inches, which explains why the words are so small when reading a normal .PDF.

So I will prefer to avoid PDF stories if I can unless they have larger typefaces.  There are converters for PDF to MOBI but I don’t want to mess with a converter if I don’t have to.  I’d like to plug in my Kindle and just do a Save As to its documents folder.  There are websites like ManyBooks and Feedbooks that offer a variety of ebook formats that are directly Kindle compatible.  That’s nice.  So the second short story I got, “The Altar at Midnight” by C. M. Kornbluth, in .AZW was font adjustable, unlike the .PDF story.

In my online book clubs we’ll discuss short stories in addition to the novel of the month if they are available online and free for anyone to read.   (It’s too much trouble for everyone to track down a paper copy.)  I wanted the Kindle so I could read these stories not at my desk, but in my reading chair.  Now that I have the Kindle, I’m trying to find the easiest way to get these stories off the computer and onto the Kindle.  If they are too much trouble I won’t get around to reading them.

It’s a shame there isn’t just one format that all ebook readers to use.  Amazon really should support the unencrypted .EPUB format.  That would save a tremendous amount of work for web sites putting free ebook content online.  .MOBI seems to be the go-to format for free Kindle ebooks and it’s easy to get novels that way, but free short stories online tend to be in .HTML or .PDF, which if I want resizable fonts would require going through a converter.

It’s going to be a while before there’s enough people with ebook readers before a popular format will emerge to replace .PDF online.  Sorry Adobe, but .PDF just isn’t ebook friendly.  I tend to think .EPUB will be that universal format, but we will need Amazon’s help.

Besides the free content, there is a wealth of science fiction short stories to buy for the Kindle.  My first purchase for my new Kindle was The Year’s Best Science Fiction: Twenty-Seventh Annual Collection edited by Gardner Dozois, which turns out to have “The Island” by Peter Watts.  The annual Hartwell collection is available for the Kindle, but not the Horton and Strahan, but I expect that to change.  Amazon offers several years of previous editions of these anthologies too, so my Kindle will become a short story reading machine.

I can also get Analog, Asimov’s, F&SF, Interzone and Lightspeed magazines for the Kindle through Fictionwise, and Analog, Asimov’s and Lightspeed through Amazon.

Finally, Amazon offers a many reprint, theme and original story anthologies for the Kindle too.  The Kindle 3 will hold 3,500 books, which could mean 40,000 short stories.  That’s pretty nifty, when you think about it.

JWH – 8/29/10

Update: The 2010 Rich Horton collection is available at Lightspeed Magazine Store for $7.95.  Unfortunately, I see no sign of what formats are available.

Special thanks to Ignacio, whose comment below convinced me to try Calibre.  It solved the PDF conversion problem.  This elegant program does wonders with dicing and slicing ebooks.  http://calibre-ebook.com/

Ebook Ethics

Everything we do in life has ethical considerations, even something simple as buying books.  Ebooks represent a change, and that change has good and bad consequences.

Bad

  • Ebooks will put a lot of people out of work.  Bookstores may disappear like record stores.  This is a horrible consequence in these bad economic times.  The digital world is just more efficient than the analog world and that kills jobs.
  • Ebooks will also kill competition, reducing the number of businesses in the marketplace.  Amazon and Apple could theoretically take over all the book and music business from tens of thousands of small businesses.
  • Ebooks are anti-social.  Instead of buying books at a bookstore and meeting other people you order books directly.  Instead of sharing books with friends, readers are locked into a closed world of DRM.
  • Ebooks could damage cultural heritage and history.  Printed books can last for hundreds of years, and people value them, but ebooks probably have no lasting power at all.
  • Bookstores might become extinct which would be a huge cultural loss.
  • Book ownership is probably a deceptive concept and sellers like Amazon shouldn’t describe their ebooks are “for sale.”  To be honest, sellers should claim they are long term rentals until DRM copy protection is removed.

Good

  • Ebooks are extremely environmental.  Wood pulp technology uses lots of water, energy and chemicals, and those chemicals get into the environment.  Printing takes both energy and chemicals.  Distributing books creates lots of carbon and other pollutants.  The carbon footprint of ebooks is almost zero.
  • Ebooks could mean more money for writers, editors and publishers because ebooks could do away with the used book market.  As long as DRM technology is successful, more readers would actually buy books, instead of borrowing them or buying used, which is more ethical for the writer and publisher.
  • Ebooks might encourage more reading and literacy because of their convenience and possibly make reading more appealing to young people because ebooks are available on smart phones, an essential device for kids.
  • Ebooks could enhance cultural heritage and history.  It’s quite easy to load up an ebook reader with the great books of the western world.  Every child or family could have their own library of thousands of free books.

Ethically, the primary conflict is jobs versus the environment.  But that will be true of all industries and businesses as time passes.  If all books, magazines and newspapers were read on digital readers it would have a positive impact on the environment, but at a terrible cost in jobs.

The secondary ethical concern is which format is better for promoting literacy, knowledge and culture?  This is much harder to judge until after ebooks have taken over.  We won’t know their full impact for a very long time.  But consider this:  What if you could hold a device that had every book you ever bought or read in your entire life with annotations, notes, and supplemental reference essays and reviews?  Would such a superbook library have a positive social impact?

I already miss record stores and LP album covers, but I don’t miss LPs.  I don’t even miss CDs, but I do miss shopping for music at record stores.  I have a subscription to Rhapsody Music and can listen to as many CDs as I can cram into my month for $9.99, but the fun of discovering new albums is gone.   From about 1965-1995 I bought 2-4 albums a week.  I loved going to record stores, but that activity is as ancient as horse and buggy rides. 

I’ve been going to bookstores 1-2 times a week since 1965.  It’s about the only shopping I still like to do recreationally.  I’ve bought far more books than I have ever read, or will ever have time to read.  I will truly miss bookstores if they disappear.

On the other hand, I discover all my books and music now from the Internet.  I’m in four online book clubs.  I’m far more involved with books, authors and readers then when I only shopped at bookstores.  Most of my friendships are based around talking about books or music.  I never really went to bookstores or record stores to socialize with the staff, or ask them for recommendations, although I’ve always liked meeting other book and music fans.

Amazon, with its supplemental content and customer reviews has been a quantum leap in helping me discover new books to read.  It’s far more social in helping me make book buying decisions than bookstores ever were.  Web 2.0 technology is a different kind of socializing.  It’s intellectual over physical. 

JWH 8/21/10

Freedom of Religion versus Freedom of Women

I want to be totally upfront and declare that I absolutely support the American ideal of freedom of religion.  I agree that mosques should be built wherever they want.  On the other hand, I wonder why I’m in the minority on this issue when so much of the country is consesvative and should be supporting this American ideal too.  Why aren’t they? 

In New York City people are fighting over building a mosque.  In Afghanistan Islamic people are stoning young people for being in love.  Is there a connection?  By the ideals of America,  citizens of the U.S. are free to pursue whatever religion they desire, so why not let mosques be built anywhere?  Or are the majority of Americans who are against mosque building really just anti-Islamic?  Who really wants to support a religion that treats its people as barbaric as the Taliban?  The Taliban is Old Testament thinking, and that’s troublesome at so many levels.

On the other hand, we’re trying to liberate Afghanistan from Taliban rule.  Now if we lived in the Star Trek universe, and Afghanistan was another planet, we’d be forbidden by Federation laws of interfering with a primitive society.  Is it even possible to modernize an Old Testament society like Afghanistan?  And if anyone wonders what Biblical times were like they only need to watch news reports about life under the Taliban.  We have had pretty good success in Iraq, but that society had already been modernized to a great degree.  Is it even possible to bring 7th century Afghanistan into the 21st century?

The Taliban recently killed humanitarian aid workers with the claim they were spreading Christianity.  We of course said, no, no, no, they were just giving medical treatment to the people.  But I don’t think Americans understand, our modern laws and government are shaped by two thousands years of Christianity, so just liberating Afghans politically is Christianizing them.  Now I know Christians will hate this, but to the Old Testament mind of the primitive culture of the Taliban, liberal philosophy and Christianity are one and the same.

I’m an atheist, so I don’t have a dog in this religious fight.  However, I’m a strong believer in American ideals, so I completely support freedom of religion.  I believe freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.  The ethical question here is:  Do we Americans have the right to force our freedoms on Afghanistan?  That’s too complicated an ethical question for me to grasp.

The Taliban is one aspect of the Islamic world, although it’s larger than it appears to be.  The leaders of Iran, and many other Muslim countries have the same mindset.  From my perspective, radical Islamic terrorists should be policed by Muslims who claim to know the true meaning of Islam, but that’s not happening at all.   The trouble is the Islamic world is openly or secretly supporting the radical Muslims.  Thus, I must assume the anti-mosque people of America are really responding to this kind of thinking and not necessarily a religion.  We don’t like Taliban Islam because it’s also an oppressive political system, and the Islamic people of the world has done a terrible job of selling the virtues of true Islam.

By the ideals of the American way of life, President Obama is right, any religion should be able to build houses of worship essentially anywhere.  We shouldn’t paint all Islamic people by comparing them to the Taliban.  What’s ironic is atheists and liberals are defending the rights of Islamic people in America, and it certainly would help mainstream Americans to be more liberal and American idealistic if mainstream Muslims were aggressively weeding our their radical elements.

The Islamic world needs to convince us the Taliban doesn’t equal Islam.  They need to do it damn fast.  And they need to prune their radicals, otherwise we will always think Taliban equals Islam, because that’s all we see of Islam.  And if the Taliban really equals Islam, even liberals like me will want to put a dog into the fight because they are making us choose between freedom of religion over freedom of individuals, especially women, and I’ll always choose freedom of individuals first.

What do we do?  What are the options?

  • Continue on the current path and hope to bring a western style government to Afghanistan
  • Leave Afghanistan and let the Muslim world do as it wants as long as it doesn’t attack the western world.  (Divided but equal cultures.)
  • Declare a modern crusade of liberalism and convince Muslims to modernize their religion

I was thinking we could succeed in Afghanistan like we did in Iraq.  Set up a police force and army – get a semblance of stability going and then leave.  But after reading “In Bold Display, Taliban Order Stoning Deaths” in the New York Times this morning, I’m changing my mind.  It’s either pull out and let those people alone, or declare a new crusade.  This is a hard issue to deal with, just read “Afghan Women and the Return of the Taliban” in Time.  Do we keep fighting to liberate the women?  Its freedom of religion versus freedom of individuals.

We are horrified by the primitive justice of the Taliban, even though they live exactly like people lived in the Old Testament, which is deemed holy by most Christians.  But remember Jesus and how he stopped the stoning of the woman?  We can’t ask the Taliban which of them is without sin.  That’s a pivotal moment in the origins of liberal thinking.  Conservatives might hate liberals, but we’re all flaming liberals compared to the Taliban.

Which is more important, personal freedom, or freedom of religion?  What would this woman say?

time_cover_0809

If we could poll all the women in Afghanistan and ask them if we should crush out the Taliban how would they vote?  And are we ready to spend the money on such a war?  I tend to believe Americans don’t care enough to spend the money, and if there wasn’t a terrorism threat, they’d be happy to ignore the Muslim world.  If there was no terrorism threat, they’d probably wouldn’t care how many mosques were built in our country.  But as long as Islam the religion looks exactly like the Islam of terrorism most Americans won’t be mosque friendly, and may even be willing to spend their tax dollars on a long term war.

We’re in a vicious cycle right now.  For every terrorist we kill, and especially for every innocent bystanders we kill, terrorist armies grow.  The larger their armies grow, the more we fill the skies of the Islamic world with drones and cruise missiles.  One side needs to break the cycle.  If we call off our crusade, will they call of their jihad?  I don’t know.  I don’t think we can convince them to pull back, but I wonder if mainstream Islam can?  Maybe the people wanting to build the mosque in New York City should consider building mosques in Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, Yemen or Iran and preach a better Islam.  If we allowed a mosque in New York City, would they try?  Or should we hold up the lease until we see change in the Islamic world?

I understand why the majority of Americans don’t want the mosques in New York City and elsewhere, they equate Islam to our enemy, and the mainstream Islamic world has done nothing to disprove that.  Why?  And are the Muslims coming to the western world fleeing Islamic oppression, like the Puritans on the Mayflower, seeking a new way of life, or are they bringing Old Testament thinking to the New World?

Like I said, I’m an atheist and firmly believe in America’s ideal of freedom of religion.  In America anyone can believe what they want, and it’s unethical and un-American to attack that ideal.  Christian theocracy is evil, but so is Islamic theocracy.  Unfortunately, the Islamic world has no sense of freedom of religion, and theocracy seems to be the only politics Islamic people want.

Building mosques in America is a very complicated philosophical issue.  I see both sides of the issue, but I’m no longer sure which one I’m on.  Obama is right, but I sympathize with the people who protest against him.  I think the liberals of all religions need to weed out their intolerant and xenophobic beliefs.    

JWH 8/17/10

Are We Living Through an Economic Paradigm Shift?

 

Because of the economic crisis of the last two years, people and businesses are cutting back on their spending.  Our economy is based on consumer spending and I’m now talking to a lot of people who have sworn off spending like the used to when they lived heavily in debt.  On the news there are reports of companies sitting on large cash reserves.  Some economists had hoped the economy would have already turned around but consumer spending and jobs don’t reflect that.  In Detroit, the Big Three automakers are out of the red ink and into the black  by being leaner and meaner.  They are making more money selling fewer cars.

The economic booms of the past twenty-five years all coincided with an overheated economy of people spending beyond their means and investors going crazy over unwise investments.  Could we be moving into an era of caution?  In previous busts we turned the economy around fast by going back to spending freely, but we don’t seem to be doing that this time.

I notice a lot of things that might point to different trends.  Something like 80 million baby boomers are approaching retirement and they are finally realizing it’s time to save and not spend.  I know that’s how I feel.  But also, after a big economic crisis people fear insecurity and want to hang onto their dollars.  Remember how the Depression era people lived for the rest of their lives?  That generation was shocked by the easy spending of the Baby Boom generation.

The younger generations out there now live a lot more frugally than the Baby Boomers.  They often live with their parents longer, and they learn to adapt to lower paying jobs.  And they are heavily into credit card and school loan debt, so they don’t have the resources to spend freely.

The rising cost of living have made the retired generations living on fixed incomes already cautious about spending, and now that they lost a lot of their retirement capital they have to make every dollar go twice as far.

But there are other clues lying around too.  When the economic crisis hit, television, newspapers and magazines were flooded with advice on how to live with less and I think a lot of people took up this advice and now like living with less.  The most popular story at the New York Times at the moment is “But Will It Make You Happy?” about people who have downsized their life to find more happiness.  Psychologists are telling people owning things won’t make you happy, it’s what you do that does.  If this modern Thoreau like philosophy catches on it will put a huge dent into the economy.

Logic tells us if everyone lived by the best popular advice, saving money, spending wisely, eating well, this would be a tremendous shock to the economy.  To have 5% unemployment our economy has to run hot with overspending.

And look what the Internet has done to the economy.  Before the Internet there were many music stores in every city selling CDs, now they are practically gone.  People use to spend hundreds of dollars each month on their cable bills and now people are happy with Netflix.  People use to spend big bucks on software and now they want free open source programs.  Amazon is putting local bookstores out of business by underselling them, and now with Kindle, they are putting an even bigger hurt on them.  I pay Rhapsody $9.99 a month to listen to all the music I want, where I used to spend $100-200 a month on CDs.

My wife and I have always bought new cars, but we’re thinking about buying used next time because the cost of an average new car has gotten so high.

We try to spend when we can because we know it helps the economy, but we want to spend wisely, like house renovations, and we also try to buy new products that are energy saving.  The whole ecological movement is also making people spend less.

In the news pundits talk about a “New Normal” for the economy because things are not turning around quickly like economists expected.  It’s pretty obvious if we want the “Old Normal” we need to act like we did then and we’re not.  Maybe young people will, but I’m getting too close to retirement to spend without caution.  My new normal is to hang onto every buck I can, and when I spend a buck make it count.

The only solution for the government to counter this new normal is to spend like crazy to put people to work.  The New York Times is also running a story, “Defying Others, Germany Finds Economic Success.”  Germany took a different route out of the economic crisis and it appears to have paid off.  Beside spending wisely, they think they found a solution for unemployment.

Government officials here are confident they found the right approach, including a better solution to unemployment. They extended the “Kurzarbeit” or “short work” program to encourage companies to furlough workers or give them fewer hours instead of firing them, making up lost wages out of a fund filled in good times through payroll deductions and company contributions.

In my naive way, I’ve always wondered in bad economic times that instead of laying off ten percent of the population, why not just cut everyone’s pay by ten percent.  Then in boom times, pay people more.  It sounds like Germany is trying something like that and its working.

I’m not an economist, nor do I like watching all the talking heads on TV talk about the economy.  But like Bob Dylan said, you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.  If we’re living in a new economic paradigm, then we might need to be patient.  Blaming the Democrats or the Republicans is pointless.  We need to break the old political and economic cycles.  The federal government should spend money on improving America.  That will create value worthy jobs. 

The improvements should be ones that the majority want.  What kind of infrastructure do we want?  We should reevaluate war spending.  Is there a cheaper way to fight terrorism?  Does illegal immigration help or hurt the economy?  I have no idea.  Does universal health care help or hurt the economy?  If we did away with Social Security and Medicare, millions would be put out of work, and most families would have to spend their savings taking care of their aging parents.  I think it’s pretty obvious that killing off these entitlement programs would devastate the economy and make everyone poorer.

We need to rethink common assumptions.  Is big government bad?   Would paying less taxes stimulate the economy?  I’m not so sure.  The federal government produces a lot of jobs, and those people who hold them spend a lot of money that create more jobs.  We know it’s impractical for everyone to work for the government.  We just need to know which jobs are best created from tax dollars and which jobs are best created from business dollars.

K-12 teachers, police, fire fighters and soldiers have traditionally come from tax dollars.  And it’s pretty obvious we have a lot more health care workers if they come from the tax dollar too.  Although it might be interesting to take a state, maybe Texas or Alaska, since they are so conservative, and do away with all civil servants and see what happens.  Would life be better if every road you drove was a toll road, and if you wanted teachers for your kids, you hired them yourself, and if you wanted protection from criminals you carried your own gun?

I’m just thinking out loud.  I’m predicting the economic recovery will take much longer than expected because new kinds of jobs need to be created.  I don’t think Republicans will bring about instant change in the new elections.  I’m guessing the economy will stay painful for a long time and that pain will shape a new economy.  Global warming started decades ago and it’s already shaping a new economy.  Over population started long ago too and the current illegal immigration patterns almost follow the laws of physics.  The same physical laws will explain the never ending melting pot of ethnic diversity.

The world’s population has doubled in my lifetime.  That’s bound to make a paradigm shift.  Too many conservatives want things the way they were when the population was half of what it is now.  That’s not possible.   We need to prepare for an economy with several billion more people, in an era of growing scarcity, and whacked out weather.  There’s no going backwards.  If we returned to the overheated economics of before we’ll never solve the global warming problem.  As it is, we’re like a bottle full of ants and mother nature is starting to shake that bottle vigorously.  It’s time to do everything we can to slow down and live cautiously.

JWH – 8/15/10

Ebook Economics

Big name authors are making ebook marketing deals like Open Road Integrated Media and Odyssey Editions, while Amazon claims they are selling more ebook titles than hardbacks.  Is there an ebook gold rush?  Is 2010 finally the year of the ebook?  I’m meeting more and more bookworms with Kindles and Nooks.  I ordered the new third generation Kindle the day it came out, and lucky for me, because it sold out in a matter of days.

If everyone reads on an ebook reader does that mean printed books will go extinct?

On several of my online book club groups we have been grumbling because of rising ebook prices.  Ebooks used to be like paperbacks – far less glamorous than hardback or trade editions.  After the Kindle came out, ebook editions started coming out concurrent with the hardback editions, but priced at $9.99.  Can you imagine in the old days if new books were published in hardback and mass market paperback on the same day?  Which would you have bought?

Are cheaper ebook editions published the same day as hardbacks too good to be true?

Publishers now want more money for ebooks because ebooks are replacing hardbacks, as well as trade and mass market editions.  It used to be you bought the expensive hardback because you wanted to be among the first to read a book.  Sure there are book collectors, but most people just give away their hardbacks when they finished them.  Publishers want the most money for a book when its new, even if its in a digital edition which has no collector value at all.

It’s now possible on Amazon to find Kindle editions more expensive than hardback editions?  WTF?  That doesn’t make sense, does it?  What will be the new cheap mass market paperback edition then?  If everyone reads ebooks will they slowly drop in price as their sales dwindle?  Instead of waiting for the paperback edition, people will wait for the $4.99 digital edition.

What does that mean for new book sales, used books and remaindered books?  It used to be if you waited a few months you could buy a new hardback marked down for a fraction of the original price.  $35 books would go for $7.99.  Or you could go to a used bookstore or a library book sale and get a copy even cheaper.

If a bestseller sells a millions digital copies, how many used and remaindered books will show up for sale?  Will physical books from before the ebook era become more valuable as less books are published on paper?  Or will people just prefer a Kindle edition?

I’m in four online book clubs and I try to read one or two each month.  Some books I can get at the library, but often I can’t.  My choice is to buy either new or used.  I can generally get used hardbacks cheaper than new mass market paperbacks.  But if I had a choice between a $5 used hardback and a $5 download I’m going to pick the download for the convenience.  However, if the choice is a $5 hardback or a $9.99 download my decision gets harder.  The idea of having a 3,500 book library on my Kindle is cool, but not when I think it will be $35,000.

I’ll never need 3,500 books on my Kindle.  I read about 50 books a year, and even if I live to be 90, that’s only about 1,600 books, but still $16,000 at $10 each.  I could save a lot of retirement money by going to the library or shopping for used editions.  But what if used editions disappear?

Here’s where the pricing of ebooks will effect me.  I want the latest yearly edition of The Year’s Best Science Fiction, edited by Gardner Dozois.  At Amazon, it’s $26.40 for the hardback, $14.95 for the trade paper, and $9.99 for the Kindle.  If I wait it should show up at Edward R. Hamilton for $2.95-4.95.  Amazon has for years stopped me from buying it from my local bookseller because of the huge discount.  The trade paper is $21.99 locally.  If I want this year’s edition now, the ebook is $9.99, which is $12 cheaper (not counting tax) locally, or $5 cheaper from Amazon. That’s a pretty good deal.

But book publishers are balking at selling new books for $9.99.  If the Kindle edition was the same as the trade edition, wouldn’t it be logical to get the paper edition?  I could give it to a friend when I’m through, or donate it to the library.  But would I pay the same just for the convenience of having it on my Kindle?

Authors are flocking to agents to get special deals for their back list of books.  Royalty rates are 25-70% for ebooks compared to 8-12% for printed editions.  I wonder if writers would prefer to sell a million digital editions or a million hardbacks if they ended up making more on the digital edition.  I’m sure hardbacks will always be the most prestigious format.  Or will it matter?  I’ve bought hundreds of hardbacks I no longer own, maybe even over a thousand.

I’m starting to meet people that didn’t buy books before that are buying ebooks because they can read them on their iPhone.  That might be a novelty thing, or it might be a trend.  You have to carry your phone everywhere, but carrying a book everywhere can be a pain.  And if you are in the mood for a book and don’t want to wait for Amazon to mail you one, or find it at a local bookstore, will you just take the easy way out and buy a digital copy?

But look what happened to audiobooks.  Years ago about the only kind of audiobook that were for sale were miserable 2 and 4 cassette abridged editions that went for $25-35.  If you wanted unabridged editions you had to pay $50-$150 from a specialty seller.  Or rent them for $20-30.  Now I get digital audiobooks, unabridged for $9.56 apiece.  That’s how digital audiobooks have changed the economics.  But I buy my audiobooks from Audible.com (owned by Amazon.com) in 24 credit packs.  If I got them one a month they would be $16.  Audible is forced to sell a few titles for 2 credits per book, but I won’t buy those books.

You have to be crazy to buy CD audiobooks nowadays.

I’m thinking ebooks will shake out the regular book business too.  Non-fiction might hang in there because beautiful picture books look horrible on ebook readers, even the iPad.  Bookstores might focus on non-fiction.  And non-fiction books are the kind I like to see before I buy too.  I’m more likely to buy non-fiction locally, rather than order from Amazon.  Unless it’s $50 locally, and $22 from Amazon.

There are several economic revolutions going on at once with books.  When they come out with a digital ebook reader that makes non-fiction books look better than paper, that will cause another revolution, especially with textbooks.

Amazon is making deals with writers to sell classic old books for $9.99 for the Kindle.  Here’s a list of some titles to consider.  These are famous literary titles like Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie or The Naked and the Dead by Norman Mailer.  $9.99 seems too high for these old titles.  But the cheapest paperback of the Mailer book is $12.24.  Amazon also sells used paper editions starting at $4.86, but most sellers want $3.99 shipping. 

Thus $9.99 becomes a very interesting price point.  It’s cheaper than new paper, but slightly more expensive than used paper, but it conveniently goes on the Kindle.   If I searched around at used bookstores I might find a copy for $2-3.  But if I buy the $9.99 copy, Mailer’s estate gets a royalty, and Amazon and the publisher make money.  It stimulates the economy.  Plus it will sit patiently in my Kindle library not taking up any shelf space, not requiring any effort to move if I move, so it’s sort of appealing at $9.99.

Will low price and convenience kill off printed fiction?  But then, with ebooks, fiction should never go out of print.  In the end I predict ebooks will kill off the mass market paperback, seriously hurt sales of the trade edition, and hardback sales will be geared towards book collectors and libraries.  Slowly, the used book trade will retool for selling to collectors.  I think new books will sell for more than $9.99, that books that were sold as trade editions will sell for $9.99, and that as sales fall off ebooks will migrated down in price to be lower than the average cost of today’s mass market book.  We’ll eventually see $.99 – $2.99 specials.

JWH – 8/10/10