So, according to this article, people aren't buying e-readers because of Honey Boo Boo?
I will just say what I have been saying for a long time: The majority of people, once they are out of school, don't read. And the people who DO read, read non-fiction.
Yes, there are exceptions, but on a general basis non-fiction outsells YA fiction and TA fiction outsells general fiction. It's one of the reasons that you see so many authors trotting out YA fiction over the last 5 - 7 years, their agents are telling them that YA fiction is where the money is.
When I was in high school, the best selling novel was routinely one that sold millions of copies and blasted that on its cover....by the end of the 80's, we had VCRs, many cable channels and the "million copy best seller" was rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Now, when a book sells a million copies, it's a HUGE deal and makes the news (like Harry Potter, 50 Shades of Gray and....well.....not much else, I guess).
My opinion was always that eReaders had a limited audience, and they have, for the most part, reached that audience.
Agree x 100. The assumption/hope that eReaders would bring in those adults who love to read but simply don't have the time to do so hasn't really panned out. It turns out they're too busy playing Angry Birds.
I never have wanted to get an e reader too much, but the new kindle with the white paper and backlight is really appealing. I still prefer having a physical book instead of a tablet though. If the prices for the books were dramatically lower I might but one, but I can generally get the same price for a physical copy as the digital version.
Wow. That's just about the most cynical piece of writing I've read in quite a while, and coming off of a particularly bitter election cycle, that's saying something. People prefer multifunction devices to dedicated e-readers, therefore everyone is the target Honey Boo Boo demographic? Jeez... hell of an intuitive leap there, don't you think? Hope this writer was working with a net.
It's also hard to deny the socio-cultural and market penetration of Apple products. Apple became the biggest company on the planet because they made products that people decided were cool, as important for status reasons as functional ones. If the iPad is outselling the Kindle Fire (which I think is the better device based on my own usage of both), then it's not just because people think it works better or more adequately serves their needs (which may also be factors), but because it is the sexier option.
It's also hard to deny the socio-cultural and market penetration of Apple products. Apple became the biggest company on the planet because they made products that people decided were cool, as important for status reasons as functional ones. If the iPad is outselling the Kindle Fire (which I think is the better device based on my own usage of both), then it's not just because people think it works better or more adequately serves their needs (which may also be factors), but because it is the sexier option.
I think there's definite truth to this statement. I had an Android OS when the first big smartphone push hit, and I rarely used it for anything other than a phone. Didn't care for the OS, I'd say was the main thing. Inherited my in-laws iPhone, and the damn thing can't leave my side. For some reason it clicked with me in the way the Android device simply didn't. Lest we think it's a status symbol thing, this is the 4 - it doesn't even have Suri on it. :) I just like how everything "works" with it.
As to a growing nation of anti-readers, I'm all for it. The dumber society gets, the more I'll succeed. :)
I love my Kindle. My enjoyment of novels was never as tactile as my enjoyment of comics. The amount of books I can hold, newspapers, I'm linked to my library. E-readers are brilliant.
I own and love my Kindle 3G. I didn't know if I'd be someone that could make the digital switch, but I embraced it pretty fully.
I picked the Kindle because of the e-ink. My eyes get tired reading off of a computer screen that is backlit, and the Kindle's paperback-gray background and clear e-ink won me over. And, not always having access to a wireless system, the 3G is great.
As a Kindle owner, though, I can say that the whole thing isn't as cut and dried as the article makes it out to be.
I read a lot, and so I was willing to plunk down the funds for a dedicated e-reader because of the advantages it offered. The thing is... it really is a basically one-function tool, which, despite how well it does that one thing, makes it less convenient.
I mean, I do have one of the *old* 3G Kindles, ones that can still connect to the internet via a browser... but that really isn't a great function. More like an emergency function, really.
I do see, though, the great advantage to a tablet or Ipad, with multi-function capabilities. Wanna read? You can do that. Wanna watch a movie? You can do that. Wanna play a game? You can do that. Wanna send an email? You can do that.
I would not trade my Kindle for a tablet, but I can absolutely see why others would.
(And, on a slightly related side note, partial responsibility for the "death" of the e-reader can be placed firmly on the heads of book publishers that don't understand that a lot of people aren't willing to pay the exact same amount for a digital copy as they do a physical copy. If I'm saving you production and distribution costs, then it better reflect in what I pay. Very often, I've passed on a book completely because I don't really want the physical copy, but I can't bring myself to pay the same price for the digital copy, reasoning that I might eventually just be able to pick it up for a quarter at a garage sale, and then give it away.)
I have a Kindle, but I seldom use it. I find it a handy and practical accessory for when I'm traveling, but otherwise just can't replace the feel of an honest-to-God paper book in my hands.
(And, on a slightly related side note, partial responsibility for the "death" of the e-reader can be placed firmly on the heads of book publishers that don't understand that a lot of people aren't willing to pay the exact same amount for a digital copy as they do a physical copy. If I'm saving you production and distribution costs, then it better reflect in what I pay. Very often, I've passed on a book completely because I don't really want the physical copy, but I can't bring myself to pay the same price for the digital copy, reasoning that I might eventually just be able to pick it up for a quarter at a garage sale, and then give it away.)
Full disclosure: I work in publishing, and while that may look as though I'm biased, it's more that it gives me some information which I know for a fact appears not to be general public knowledge.
With that caveat out of the way, it's a popular myth that the production and distribution costs make up the bulk of the cost of a book, but the reality is that these things all work on economies of scale. Paper price isn't negotiated for a single book, or even a print run of 10,000 units, but rather on the full output, which can be 10s and even 100s of titles in a year. As for distribution, again, the truck doesn't get sent out with one book on it.
It's a perception issue, and one that they've done a piss poor job of combatting, but the reality is that if they passed the FULL savings of production and distribution on to the consumer, that 24.99 book might drop to 24.79. With a book from a smaller publisher, it might go to 20.79. On a per unit basis, that stuff just doesn't cost that much.
Most of the cost of a book is in the development and writing of the book. Royalties, overhead, all that stuff.
In fact, most publishers make more on a print book than an ebook, so there's a whole different thing at work there.
Take that $24.99 list price. Let's say the e-book would have sold for $9.99 at Amazon in the old days but now the publisher charges the consumer $12.99:
Wholesale model e-book: Publisher: $12.50 (roughly 50 percent of $24.99 hardcover retail price) Amazon: - $2.50 (selling at $9.99)
Agency model e-book: Publisher: $9.09 (70 percent of $12.99) E-bookseller: $3.90 (30 percent of $12.99)
I'd say that it was more likely Amazon that killed the eReader, ironically. They were so eager to push Kindles out that they devalued the part that was supposed to be the moneymaker. You don't make money on razors, you make it on blades. Instead, they killed the margin on the product to gain that competitive advantage, and, like an incompetent burglar, blew up the safe. Once you ring the 9.99 bell, it can't be unrung. Instead of finding a reasonable price that the market would bear, they chose a Free Beer price, and like the crowd in that Michigan Frog cartoon, they all ran in. The problem is that, as you can see above, 9.99 isn't a sustainable business model, but once you've gone down that road it's hard to get people to come back.
I'm not sure they have any evidence to back up what they're saying. It makes sense that the tablets that do more than serve as eReaders would probably sell better. My mom reads every day, but she switched from a Kindle to a Kindle Fire because she wanted to do e-mail as well. By that author's reasoning, her purchase is one more indication of the dumbing down of society, when that's simply not the case.
Even the graph in the article shows 43% of people using their devices to read books at least once a week, which sounds higher than I would have expected. If anything, it sounds like maybe a few more people are reading more regularly because of the convenience.
I feel like they wanted to work in a lot of current cultural references to make their point, but it just seems strained.
I'm not sure they have any evidence to back up what they're saying. It makes sense that the tablets that do more than serve as eReaders would probably sell better. My mom reads every day, but she switched from a Kindle to a Kindle Fire because she wanted to do e-mail as well. By that author's reasoning, her purchase is one more indication of the dumbing down of society, when that's simply not the case.
Even the graph in the article shows 43% of people using their devices to read books at least once a week, which sounds higher than I would have expected. If anything, it sounds like maybe a few more people are reading more regularly because of the convenience.
I feel like they wanted to work in a lot of current cultural references to make their point, but it just seems strained.
Agreed. The author's premise is faulty because he assumes that Angry Birds is the only reason someone would want a tablet. It may be somewhere in the mix, but it's only one of many reasons someone would do so.
My wife read the heck out of her Kobo all of last year, but she took my old iPad when I upgraded because it was easier for her to borrow ebooks from the library. Otherwise she'd need to download it to her laptop, import it to a program, and then synch it to her reader. Now, she opens Overdrive, clicks on Add Book, and it downloads the book straight to her device. She's not reading any less, but the convenience for her was undeniable.
For me, when I used to travel on business, I'd break my back carrying my carryon bag, which contained a laptop and a bunch of books to last me through the trip. The last three years, it's contained my iPad and a sweater.
I'm not sure Amazon and B and N are crying themselves to sleep at night. It is their OWN devices that are cannibalizing sales from the kindle and nook... the Kindle Fire and Nook Color... not to mention there is such a thing as market saturation. Most people won't buy another ereader to replace the old one until the new one does something significantly different or better (see previous argument about Fire and Nook Color).
Plus...ALL sales were below expectations this year.. bad economy, remember?
I got a plain jane Kindle, with ads, for Christmas and it has hardly left my side... I have read more books than in the previous year, somehow. I love it, and I LOVE that it only does one thing, and does it excellently.
Over here in Switzerland the majority of bookstores are selling e-readers. The bigger bookstore chains even sell their own brand of e-reader. Amazon's Kindle arrived late on the Swiss market (and the new generation is only sold in the European Union - of which we are no part of...) Currently the most bought device is some Sony e-reader. In general: e-readers are known but not loved in Switzerland (yet?). Tablets are a huge success though.
I had my iPad before I had a Kindle. I read on it all the time. I liked it. But the battery only lasts 10 hours and while traveling, that's not quite enough.
So I got a Kindle. The cheapest, basic model they sell. And it's the greatest thing I own. I read way more now that I used to. Being able to read with one hand makes it so convenient. It's tiny and light. The battery lasts for a month. It's perfect.
If you are on the fence, buy one, you won't regret it. After seeing how I used mine, my wife bought one too, and she absolutely loves it. Now my sister-in-law has one as well. They are contagious.
..... Being able to read with one hand makes it so convenient. ......
maybe a reason why 50 Shades of Grey was huge on the Kindle :P
That @brydeemer is so happy with the "cheapest, basic model" is very intriguing. Now I just might get one. It's the only model they (for now) send to Switzerland anyways. Bry - thanks for the recommend.
I had my iPad before I had a Kindle. I read on it all the time. I liked it. But the battery only lasts 10 hours and while traveling, that's not quite enough.
So I got a Kindle. The cheapest, basic model they sell. And it's the greatest thing I own. I read way more now that I used to. Being able to read with one hand makes it so convenient. It's tiny and light. The battery lasts for a month. It's perfect.
If you are on the fence, buy one, you won't regret it. After seeing how I used mine, my wife bought one too, and she absolutely loves it. Now my sister-in-law has one as well. They are contagious.
Bry
My experience exactly. I am a notoriously slow reader, but have read 4 books since Christmas on my Kindle. It is the perfect reading machine.
I stare at a monitor all day, so I really appreciate the e-ink screen for books. Plus you can read it in daylight. E-readers have their own strengths over tablets.
As far as "best sellers" not selling as much, I think this could be because of the market. In the 80's a hit TV show got what would HUGE ratings by todays standards. Now there are many more channells and much more content.
I think in some ways this has happened with "reading material". People can get magazines in numerous forms, books in numerous forms, comics, newspapers, news sights. Hit authors churn out books. James Patterson when he first started had a couple books come out in a couple years. Now he has several per year. When Star Wars books first exploded on the scene with Zahn, it started with just those few. Now they publish what? Couple dozen a year, one or two of which are hardbacks? When Rush Limbaugh wrote his first book it was a huge hit, now political books are every freaking where.
I stare at a monitor all day, so I really appreciate the e-ink screen for books. Plus you can read it in daylight. E-readers have their own strengths over tablets.
As far as "best sellers" not selling as much, I think this could be because of the market. In the 80's a hit TV show got what would HUGE ratings by todays standards. Now there are many more channells and much more content.
I think in some ways this has happened with "reading material". People can get magazines in numerous forms, books in numerous forms, comics, newspapers, news sights. Hit authors churn out books. James Patterson when he first started had a couple books come out in a couple years. Now he has several per year. When Star Wars books first exploded on the scene with Zahn, it started with just those few. Now they publish what? Couple dozen a year, one or two of which are hardbacks? When Rush Limbaugh wrote his first book it was a huge hit, now political books are every freaking where.
Patterson does most of his books with co-authors, meaning that he likely blazes through an outline which the partner finishes to a polish. Limbaugh is hardly responsible for any interest in political books since they've been published ever since the country was founded; Bob Woodward, for one example, has been writing them regularly since All The President's Men. (I have about a dozen of his books on my shelves.) And didn't the Star Wars novels first explode on the scene with Alan Dean Foster's original novel, Splinter Of The Mind's Eye in 1978?
I know you're making a point in there, but I'm just not sure I'm getting it.
As far as "best sellers" not selling as much, I think this could be because of the market. In the 80's a hit TV show got what would HUGE ratings by todays standards. Now there are many more channells and much more content.
I think in some ways this has happened with "reading material". People can get magazines in numerous forms, books in numerous forms, comics, newspapers, news sights. Hit authors churn out books. James Patterson when he first started had a couple books come out in a couple years. Now he has several per year. When Star Wars books first exploded on the scene with Zahn, it started with just those few. Now they publish what? Couple dozen a year, one or two of which are hardbacks? When Rush Limbaugh wrote his first book it was a huge hit, now political books are every freaking where.
Patterson does most of his books with co-authors, meaning that he likely blazes through an outline which the partner finishes to a polish. Limbaugh is hardly responsible for any interest in political books since they've been published ever since the country was founded; Bob Woodward, for one example, has been writing them regularly since All The President's Men. (I have about a dozen of his books on my shelves.) And didn't the Star Wars novels first explode on the scene with Alan Dean Foster's original novel, Splinter Of The Mind's Eye in 1978?
I know you're making a point in there, but I'm just not sure I'm getting it.
According to a few authors I have talked to Patterson just hands over 1 or 2 paragraphs about the novel and the co-writer does everything else. I remember reading an article about this but no idea what the link to it is.
Was the Han Solo novels and Lando novels before or after Splinter of the Mind's eye? I know those 7 or so books were the only original Star Wars novels I knew of until the Zahn Thrawn trilogy came out.
Was the Han Solo novels and Lando novels before or after Splinter of the Mind's eye? I know those 7 or so books were the only original Star Wars novels I knew of until the Zahn Thrawn trilogy came out.
Yeah, from 1978 to 1991, there were only those seven original Star Wars novels. Splinter was first, then the Han Solo trilogy (1979-80), then the Lando trilogy (1983). I got Splinter and the Han Solos as they came out, and they were fun. Not great by any means, but I didn’t care. I didn't get the Landos, as my interest was waning by then.
And some may regard this as sacrilege, but I read the first Zahn novel when it came out because everyone was saying how great it was. I couldn’t even finish it. I got about two-thirds of the way through it and just had to put it down—and I’ve only done that four or five times in my life. It just didn’t work for me.
As far as "best sellers" not selling as much, I think this could be because of the market. In the 80's a hit TV show got what would HUGE ratings by todays standards. Now there are many more channells and much more content.
I think in some ways this has happened with "reading material". People can get magazines in numerous forms, books in numerous forms, comics, newspapers, news sights. Hit authors churn out books. James Patterson when he first started had a couple books come out in a couple years. Now he has several per year. When Star Wars books first exploded on the scene with Zahn, it started with just those few. Now they publish what? Couple dozen a year, one or two of which are hardbacks? When Rush Limbaugh wrote his first book it was a huge hit, now political books are every freaking where.
Patterson does most of his books with co-authors, meaning that he likely blazes through an outline which the partner finishes to a polish. Limbaugh is hardly responsible for any interest in political books since they've been published ever since the country was founded; Bob Woodward, for one example, has been writing them regularly since All The President's Men. (I have about a dozen of his books on my shelves.) And didn't the Star Wars novels first explode on the scene with Alan Dean Foster's original novel, Splinter Of The Mind's Eye in 1978?
I know you're making a point in there, but I'm just not sure I'm getting it.
The point is this: if your a fan of JP... You now have plenty pf chances to get him. Instead of waiting a year or two per book. Now he has several per year. So his market is flooded, so his sales per book might be lower, meaning his books arent blockbusters. Not sure how you can claim to know he only writes an outline just because he has a collaborator. But even if he does, my point is that people in the market for his books are flooded with them. So theres less of a chance that each one will be a huge hit. Like the CSi show. If there was only one show like that, it would probably do awesome. But there are 15 shows like that fighting for the same eyeballs. Woodward has been making books, but he also has more now than he did 20 years ago. Limbaighs first book was number 1 for over 20 weeks. That made people stand up and take notice. There are many, many, many more politcal books now and they are heavily marketed on TV news, talk shows and radio. So again, market flooded. Splinter of the Minds Eye was alone essentially. There was splinter, some han solo books and some Lando books. That was it for a decade. After Jedi came out there were no SW books, then Zahn came out. Thats when the explosion happened. So at first they sold huge, because people were hungry for them. Now, they are everywhere, market flooded... Less sales per book, less interest
And like I said, there are many more things that are vying for peoples reading time. Internet sites, stories on the internet, magazines that are accessible in more ways than they were 15 years ago, ebooks available for a couple dollars on amazon, people reading blogs, writing blogs, writing there own stories...
So, according to this article, people aren't buying e-readers because of Honey Boo Boo?
I will just say what I have been saying for a long time: The majority of people, once they are out of school, don't read. And the people who DO read, read non-fiction.
Yes, there are exceptions, but on a general basis non-fiction outsells YA fiction and TA fiction outsells general fiction. It's one of the reasons that you see so many authors trotting out YA fiction over the last 5 - 7 years, their agents are telling them that YA fiction is where the money is.
When I was in high school, the best selling novel was routinely one that sold millions of copies and blasted that on its cover....by the end of the 80's, we had VCRs, many cable channels and the "million copy best seller" was rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Now, when a book sells a million copies, it's a HUGE deal and makes the news (like Harry Potter, 50 Shades of Gray and....well.....not much else, I guess).
My opinion was always that eReaders had a limited audience, and they have, for the most part, reached that audience.
For me, it was my iPAD with the Kindle App that brought me back to reading books. It's nice having the luxury of being able to pick up my device at 10:30 at night and just buy a book and it's right there on my device. Not to mention, I am reading this thread on my iPAD. With that said though, I still go to my LCS and buy my physical books weekly. For some reason it just feels right to hold a comic in your hand and read it. Only digital comics I have are the ones that come with the Marvel bundle, which I wish they stop and sell the book for just $2.99.
RedRight88
Posts: 2,207
Comments
I will just say what I have been saying for a long time: The majority of people, once they are out of school, don't read. And the people who DO read, read non-fiction.
Yes, there are exceptions, but on a general basis non-fiction outsells YA fiction and TA fiction outsells general fiction. It's one of the reasons that you see so many authors trotting out YA fiction over the last 5 - 7 years, their agents are telling them that YA fiction is where the money is.
When I was in high school, the best selling novel was routinely one that sold millions of copies and blasted that on its cover....by the end of the 80's, we had VCRs, many cable channels and the "million copy best seller" was rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Now, when a book sells a million copies, it's a HUGE deal and makes the news (like Harry Potter, 50 Shades of Gray and....well.....not much else, I guess).
My opinion was always that eReaders had a limited audience, and they have, for the most part, reached that audience.
It's also hard to deny the socio-cultural and market penetration of Apple products. Apple became the biggest company on the planet because they made products that people decided were cool, as important for status reasons as functional ones. If the iPad is outselling the Kindle Fire (which I think is the better device based on my own usage of both), then it's not just because people think it works better or more adequately serves their needs (which may also be factors), but because it is the sexier option.
As to a growing nation of anti-readers, I'm all for it. The dumber society gets, the more I'll succeed. :)
I believe we have a entry for the best post of 2013, right there boys and girls
I picked the Kindle because of the e-ink. My eyes get tired reading off of a computer screen that is backlit, and the Kindle's paperback-gray background and clear e-ink won me over. And, not always having access to a wireless system, the 3G is great.
As a Kindle owner, though, I can say that the whole thing isn't as cut and dried as the article makes it out to be.
I read a lot, and so I was willing to plunk down the funds for a dedicated e-reader because of the advantages it offered. The thing is... it really is a basically one-function tool, which, despite how well it does that one thing, makes it less convenient.
I mean, I do have one of the *old* 3G Kindles, ones that can still connect to the internet via a browser... but that really isn't a great function. More like an emergency function, really.
I do see, though, the great advantage to a tablet or Ipad, with multi-function capabilities. Wanna read? You can do that. Wanna watch a movie? You can do that. Wanna play a game? You can do that. Wanna send an email? You can do that.
I would not trade my Kindle for a tablet, but I can absolutely see why others would.
(And, on a slightly related side note, partial responsibility for the "death" of the e-reader can be placed firmly on the heads of book publishers that don't understand that a lot of people aren't willing to pay the exact same amount for a digital copy as they do a physical copy. If I'm saving you production and distribution costs, then it better reflect in what I pay. Very often, I've passed on a book completely because I don't really want the physical copy, but I can't bring myself to pay the same price for the digital copy, reasoning that I might eventually just be able to pick it up for a quarter at a garage sale, and then give it away.)
With that caveat out of the way, it's a popular myth that the production and distribution costs make up the bulk of the cost of a book, but the reality is that these things all work on economies of scale. Paper price isn't negotiated for a single book, or even a print run of 10,000 units, but rather on the full output, which can be 10s and even 100s of titles in a year. As for distribution, again, the truck doesn't get sent out with one book on it.
It's a perception issue, and one that they've done a piss poor job of combatting, but the reality is that if they passed the FULL savings of production and distribution on to the consumer, that 24.99 book might drop to 24.79. With a book from a smaller publisher, it might go to 20.79. On a per unit basis, that stuff just doesn't cost that much.
Most of the cost of a book is in the development and writing of the book. Royalties, overhead, all that stuff.
In fact, most publishers make more on a print book than an ebook, so there's a whole different thing at work there.
Take that $24.99 list price. Let's say the e-book would have sold for $9.99 at Amazon in the old days but now the publisher charges the consumer $12.99:
Wholesale model e-book:
Publisher: $12.50 (roughly 50 percent of $24.99 hardcover retail price)
Amazon: - $2.50 (selling at $9.99)
Agency model e-book:
Publisher: $9.09 (70 percent of $12.99)
E-bookseller: $3.90 (30 percent of $12.99)
I'd say that it was more likely Amazon that killed the eReader, ironically. They were so eager to push Kindles out that they devalued the part that was supposed to be the moneymaker. You don't make money on razors, you make it on blades. Instead, they killed the margin on the product to gain that competitive advantage, and, like an incompetent burglar, blew up the safe. Once you ring the 9.99 bell, it can't be unrung. Instead of finding a reasonable price that the market would bear, they chose a Free Beer price, and like the crowd in that Michigan Frog cartoon, they all ran in. The problem is that, as you can see above, 9.99 isn't a sustainable business model, but once you've gone down that road it's hard to get people to come back.
Even the graph in the article shows 43% of people using their devices to read books at least once a week, which sounds higher than I would have expected. If anything, it sounds like maybe a few more people are reading more regularly because of the convenience.
I feel like they wanted to work in a lot of current cultural references to make their point, but it just seems strained.
My wife read the heck out of her Kobo all of last year, but she took my old iPad when I upgraded because it was easier for her to borrow ebooks from the library. Otherwise she'd need to download it to her laptop, import it to a program, and then synch it to her reader. Now, she opens Overdrive, clicks on Add Book, and it downloads the book straight to her device. She's not reading any less, but the convenience for her was undeniable.
For me, when I used to travel on business, I'd break my back carrying my carryon bag, which contained a laptop and a bunch of books to last me through the trip. The last three years, it's contained my iPad and a sweater.
Plus...ALL sales were below expectations this year.. bad economy, remember?
I got a plain jane Kindle, with ads, for Christmas and it has hardly left my side... I have read more books than in the previous year, somehow. I love it, and I LOVE that it only does one thing, and does it excellently.
So I got a Kindle. The cheapest, basic model they sell. And it's the greatest thing I own. I read way more now that I used to. Being able to read with one hand makes it so convenient. It's tiny and light. The battery lasts for a month. It's perfect.
If you are on the fence, buy one, you won't regret it. After seeing how I used mine, my wife bought one too, and she absolutely loves it. Now my sister-in-law has one as well. They are contagious.
Bry
That @brydeemer is so happy with the "cheapest, basic model" is very intriguing. Now I just might get one. It's the only model they (for now) send to Switzerland anyways. Bry - thanks for the recommend.
I think in some ways this has happened with "reading material". People can get magazines in numerous forms, books in numerous forms, comics, newspapers, news sights. Hit authors churn out books. James Patterson when he first started had a couple books come out in a couple years. Now he has several per year. When Star Wars books first exploded on the scene with Zahn, it started with just those few. Now they publish what? Couple dozen a year, one or two of which are hardbacks? When Rush Limbaugh wrote his first book it was a huge hit, now political books are every freaking where.
I know you're making a point in there, but I'm just not sure I'm getting it.
According to a few authors I have talked to Patterson just hands over 1 or 2 paragraphs about the novel and the co-writer does everything else. I remember reading an article about this but no idea what the link to it is.
Was the Han Solo novels and Lando novels before or after Splinter of the Mind's eye? I know those 7 or so books were the only original Star Wars novels I knew of until the Zahn Thrawn trilogy came out.
And some may regard this as sacrilege, but I read the first Zahn novel when it came out because everyone was saying how great it was. I couldn’t even finish it. I got about two-thirds of the way through it and just had to put it down—and I’ve only done that four or five times in my life. It just didn’t work for me.
And like I said, there are many more things that are vying for peoples reading time. Internet sites, stories on the internet, magazines that are accessible in more ways than they were 15 years ago, ebooks available for a couple dollars on amazon, people reading blogs, writing blogs, writing there own stories...
Interestinf article about books, publishing and more specifically James Patterson.
One part says a book use to be considered a hit if it sold a few hundred thousand, now they arent hits unless they sell a million.
@tankong