Are you seriously paying more than $10 for an e-book?

[boboratory]

If you have an e-book reader, one of the great promises of the e-book revolution was that it would reduce costs associated with printing physical books, and those costs would be passed on to the reader.

As I look at new releases in the Kindle lists, they are creeping towards $15 each. How is that passing the savings on to the consumer, to you, the reader? With the list price on paperbacks ranging between $9-$30- are you paying for an antiquated book industry infrastructure?

Surely the larger publishers haven't changed how they pay their writers (which perhaps if any of you have experience in that matter you can add your voice).

As a small, unknown publisher, the most I would expect to charge for a title at this time would be $4. Granted, author "Brand" value plays a huge part in pricing, but apparently people are willing to pay $15 for an e-book version that they could get in hard cover for $18.

Thoughts?

[Steerpike]

No, I will not pay that much for them. When the price of the eBook exceeds that of the physical book, I still just buy the physical book.

[Devor]

That's because pricing is controlled largely by the Publishers, and Amazon's role in the matter is relatively small. Rather than buy the product themselves and resell it at a markup, they simply charge a percentage of whatever price the ebook is sold.

While publishing on an ereader may have fewer costs, the ebook industry at large is a threat to the current role of publishing. And Brick-and-Mortor companies have been known to threaten to stop carrying products by companies who sell things cheaper online, although I've no knowledge of that happening to Publishers specifically. The point I mean to make is, there's a lot of pressures on the Publishers to not pass along the full effects of cost advantage into a price advantage, and it may have little or nothing to do with price gouging in and of itself. Typically price gougers end up getting undercut by their competitors, so I think it's mostly about the many pressures which apply to the entire publishing industry.

Meanwhile, paperbacks are often sold at a lower price because too many were printed to begin with. On top of that, the price is often set at a markup by the retailer, who can sell below the "recommended retail price" because they actually bought the book first, especially if it's sat too long on the shelf. Also paperbacks don't really cost that much to make to begin with.

It doesn't matter to me if I have the hard copy or a soft copy. But I want to make a statement with the books on my bookshelf, and I won't keep everything I've ever read.

[Shadoe]

I usually don't pay that much for an e-book. (Unless I really, really gotta have the book.) I've found that publishers like to charge the same price as the most recent release of the book. So if the hardback version is just released, they'll charge the hardback price. When the paperback version is released, they charge the paperback price. Logically, the price of the e-book should be much less than the paperback, just as paperbacks cost less than hardbacks, simply because the production costs are less. One excuse the publishers use to explain the higher cost for e-books is that they have to sell more to make the same money because of piracy. I figure, once they've sold ten copies, they've made up their costs and the rest is pure profit.

[danr62]

I will, if it's an author I already know and like and I really want the book.

[Stranger]

So I have a "pirate friend", let's call him "Bob", who gets all his books from the internet. In Bob's defence, he is a poor college student with like $3 in his bank account.

The costs for ebooks are ridiculous considering there's absolutely no cost to print them. If they made it so that each book cost $1 or so, I'm sure Bob would actually buy them. Or at least three of them.

[Steerpike]

I don't have enough money in my account for some things I'd like to have (maybe a nice Bugatti). Those manufacturers should lower their prices to something I can afford, or I'm justified in using other means to obtain the items!

[Stranger]

I don't have enough money in my account for some things I'd like to have (maybe a nice Bugatti). Those manufacturers should lower their prices to something I can afford, or I'm justified in using other means to obtain the items!

Bob the Bad Pirate says: "Ah, ye olde "you wouldn't download a car" argument. I would if I could! Also, if cheese makers decided cheese costs $8,000,000, would it be your fault you can't afford cheese?"

[Devor]

So I have a "pirate friend", let's call him "Bob", who gets all his books from the internet. In Bob's defence, he is a poor college student with like $3 in his bank account.

The costs for ebooks are ridiculous considering there's absolutely no cost to print them. If they made it so that each book cost $1 or so, I'm sure Bob would actually buy them. Or at least three of them.

Fixed Cost Contribution Margin. The technical term.

People don't realize, but before the iPod piracy was such a problem in music that the labels were no longer taking risks by investing in new talent. It's true that some unknown bands can find fame without the labels, but by and large the entire music industry was on its way into the dumps. But piracy has really lessened since iTunes so the arguments don't matter as much anymore.

[Steerpike]

There are food items I do not buy because I do not want to pay the asking price (including some cheeses). If all the food in the world were priced outside of one's budget, I suppose you'd have argument