Still, what FigNinja says is right. We're already paying for the books. Might as well use 'em.

From the point of view of the publishers, ebooks cannibalize print sales. Less of a big deal when the book is in paperback. People are usually willing to pay paperback prices for ebooks. When the book is first out in hardback, that's when the publishers are trying to make their high margin sales. The hardback doesn't cost substantially more to print. From what I've read, we're talking $1-$2 per unit. Yet they charge twice as much if not more than a paperback. Why? Because they know a certain number of people will pay a lot more to get it now rather than wait. The author is out on the signing and interview circuit. The book gets a prime location in book stores. If they lowered the margins on new release ebooks and you had a choice of the $15-$20 hardback and a $5 ebook, even more people would go that way and there goes the high-margin sales. The only way out of this is to completely re-work the business model. That's hard to do while supporting the infrastructure of the physical print enterprise and that's not going away over night.

When you lend a physical book, you often don't get it back for a long time. You have to do the physical exchange which takes time and effort. You will unlikely be able to arrange to have that book always lent out to a new person every two weeks. Some of your friends will end up buying copies rather than waiting especially since they have no idea when your other friend is going to return the book. Also, you only have so many friends locally that want to borrow it. If you could send it to anyone for free, instantaneously, that would help you lend even more often. With an ebook, I could join an online community for sharing books and do this easily without having to break the law by stripping the DRM off and sharing the file. It wouldn't be limited to my own circle of friends.

Personally I think they need to be more generous if they don't want people to just strip off the DRM.

I don't see the need for eReaders for most people, and with each new article, I'm even less compelled to even buy one.

Why does everyone assume that books and ereaders are mutually exclusive? I for one will be buying an ereader later this year (probably the nook), but I still appreciate the feel, smell and look of paper books. Why can't I buy both?

Our library system (King County Library System) spent $79,122,962 in 2008. That's with a popluation of 1,875,519 people, or an average of $42.19 per person that year. That may still be a bargain. Depends on the person. I know I haven't checked out a book from the library in over 15 years. As a kid I was bad about getting the books back in time to avoid a fine, and that has tainted my thoughts of libraries (unfortunately and unfairly to the library system).

It's for your own good. I just got talked out of Nook too. Thanks for keeping me from taking one for the team!

@wrjohnston91283: Also I recall that there really are frogs that can change their sexual organs to better match their surrounding environment/ratio of males to females. I remember this being discussed in the Jurassic Park book and dismissed it as non-sense but then had both a biology professor and anthropology professor give examples of this happening.

@bravo369: Yea I find this to sometimes be a problem as well. There are a few books I don't mind re-reading but most of the time once I remember all the plot twists I quickly lose interest.

Oh yea...

Rip.
Burn.

@Chris Walters: It's ok, coffee will help!

@wrjohnston91283: Actually, on the "Nook" from BN, they could cram in color ads.. because this device is in color.

My biggest deterrent from buying an e-reader is the cost of each book. I read at least 3 to 4 books per week, and I can't afford to spend $150 to $200 a month on books at $10 a pop. I know that there are plenty of ebooks out there for free, but unfortunately they aren't the books I want to read. Right now I use the local library, which I love, but if I want to take more than one book with me on my commute, my bag gets ridiculously heavy. Plus, I have to wait in the hold queue forever for any popular books, and there's the cost of gas and time to get to and from the library (which is a half hour from my home).

I would buy an e-reader instantly from the company (Amazon, B&N, whoever) who came out with a Netflix-like rental program for ebooks. Pay somewhere around $10 to $20 a month, depending on the number of books you have "checked out" at a time, and electronically return a book when you're done, getting a new only when the current one is off your device.

Why doesn't anyone do this? I would think it would be a smart, lucrative move. They would get my money for the device itself, plus the cost of about two books per month, which is probably a typical amount spent for a lot of current users.

Would anyone else be swayed to buy an e-reader if something like this was available?

I've been adamant about talking my friends and family out of getting readers after the Amazon debacle a few months ago. I find that people tend to grow a bit less enthusiastic about readers once they're informed about the muddy "ownership" of eBooks. I feel like something should belong to me if I pay for it, at least in the sense that a company can't push a button and delete it, and others tend to feel the same in my experience.

It's sad, too. Readers are a fantastic concept and I think they should become standard, but not with the kind of moneygrubbing nonsense policies that are currently chaining them down.

Damn radio will eliminate live performances in your home!

Stupid talkies are ruining movies!

VCRs will kill the film industry!

Who needs 500 cable channels when you've got the networks?

Who needs a chunky phone the size of a brick in their car, let alone on their person? Use a payphone.

That iPod thing will never catch on. Who is going to *pay* for music they can't share?

Etc., etc., etc.

Look, I love books. Who doesn't? They're great.

And believe me, until I got the GF a Kindle that she asked for, I didn't think too highly of e-readers either. Who reads books on computers? They kill your eyes, you can't curl up with them, etc.

After having used the Kindle, with e-ink. . . I'm a total convert to its convenience.

Is it "better" than a real book? No. But I don't have to wait 2-4 days for shipping, or schlep in a car to the store. I hear about a book, I see a review, a couple minutes later, I'm enjoying it. AND in a format with a device that is truly not as awful as people who've only read-- or tried to read-- books on an LCD screen seem to think it is. It's pretty far from awful, in fact.

Is the technology imperfect? Yes, it is. Remember the first mp3 players? They all sucked. Even the early iPods. But we went through them, and the manufacturers learned what worked and what didn't, and now, they're pretty damn impressive.

Again, think back to 1999. Ten years ago. Look at the gadgets you have now, and how absolutely different-- and now, indispensable-- many of them are.

Will e-books replace real books? No, just like mp3s won't replace live concerts. But you can't carry a concert around with you all the time.

Convenience, that's all this is. But really, that's all that it needs to be.

I hope.

Ummm, Apple doesn't let your friend listen to a song *at all*, seeing as you can't email your purchased & licensed songs to anyone else to listen to.

And this gives me one more reason not to waste $$ on an ereader.

We still spend far too much time and money in used book stores, and get library books when we can't find electronic copies. For that matter, the Chicago public library is slowly building a pretty respectable collection of ebooks to check out through their website.

I love my Reader, and I love my books - I wouldn't want to give up either, and I don't have to.

"Look, I'll loan this eBook to you, but you must promise to read it as I can only loan it once. If you don't finish it in 14 days, I'll never speak to you again."

"Er, maybe I'll give it a pass..."

The deciding factor behind eReaders comes down to a mix of technology, functionality, and depth of catalog. Even if a new reader has library-friendly lending rules built in to it, we still might have to give it a miss if the available books for download are slim.

One thing I noted about the B&N offerings was that they currently are pretty limited, once you get past all the free stuff one could get from Project Gutenberg. I hope their selection is a bit more robust at Nook launch.

@flugennock: Honestly, if you're so careless as to leave a $250 eBook reader on a plane - you probably should be sticking to paper anyway.

But when I went on vacation, I blew through five books in five days. I wish I had an eBook reader because then I wouldn't be carrying eight books in one trip.

@Hate_Brian_Club_I'mNotOnlyThePresidentI'mAClient: i enjoy the paper copies as well however i get rid of my books. I simply cannot re-read books so i get rid of them once i finish. I have tried to re-read books but once i get a few chapters in, i remember what happens and I lose interest.

Paper is your friend.

If you accidentally leave it on the plane, no big loss, especially if it's your average paperback edition.

If you're reading on the beach and a wave accidentally catches it...again, no big loss. Lay it out on the windowsill to dry. My wife and I have done this numerous times.

You can loan it to as many friends as you want, as many times as you want.

You can re-sell it to a used-book store if you want.

I repeat...Paper is your friend.

@Hate_Brian_Club_I'mNotOnlyThePresidentI'mAClient: Actually, I'm thinking of getting an ereader simply to avoid having to move so many darn books in the future....

@robocop is bleeding: Yeah, I am disappointed by this one time lending only policy. The 14 day restriction doesn't bother me so much but the one time only feels a little weird.

@Matt: I believe you get to read the book still during that 14 day period on your own reader - that is what makes this different than the Kindle where you can authorize a book on a different reader but only one reader can be accessing it at any time. However, I could be wrong.

@Chris Walters:

I can see you don't know anybody in the publishing industry. I do, and the fact is, they *are* authors who have never sniffed the best-sellers list (and never will) who make their living through their writing. In point of fact, that describes *most* authors at mid-size imprints.

@Darklighter:
yeah, and the music industry's in great shape--definitely want to copy them!

I almost sympathize with authors who rely solely on royalties from their books to survive. But do those authors even exist? I mean other than the blockbuster authors, and they will continue to make boatloads of money I'm sure. Midlisters never lived off of royalties, so to pretend a shake-up in the industry will financially ruin them is kind of overly dramatic.

I just don't buy this new counter-argument (your mention of it is the second time I've seen it pop up in print) that because writers are not musicians, a DRM-free model won't work. Both groups are creative types, both produce original content for consumption that can be easily distributed digitally.

I'm a librarian who is running a Kindle lending program here at my library. It's been really successful. Lots of people who borrow a Kindle later go on to buy one. I was interested in the Nook mainly because of its lending features - if the library could easily lend ebooks via the Nook, we would encourage our students and faculty to purchase Nooks of their own rather than Kindles.

But a single loan? Not so much.

@Sheogorath: That is definitely the best solution.

Some companies appear to stupid to live. Hulu charging for ad laden content, Amazon's screwed up management of books on the kindle and this.

@Chris Walters: I took it to meant that when the 14-day window ends and the person you lent the ebook to has to return it, you get the book back since you paid for it.

In this area, it's much better than real books since I rarely receive my actual books back from people. I have to hound them incessantly. This is why I no longer lend out books.

@nstonep:

Wouldn't a frog of both sexes be able to repoduce asexually and grow back faster than the tree?

@webweazel:
But they won't be able to cram the reader full of full color ads, which is where the majority of the money is.

It's the whole "trees can grow back, genetically altered frogs that are both sexes do not" (or something like that). Eventually electrical wastewater and it's side effects will find it's way into the food chain if it hasn't already. Then Meg won't need an actual sex change to be Ron.

@ageshin: Actually I find them easier to read in the tub. I'm still super careful, but they sell waterproofing plastic bags for electronic devices that work quite well.

I'll stick with my kindle. The one person I want to loan to is my husband, and he's on my account and so can download the books to his kindle (up to 5 devices on most books) for an unlimited period of time.

@Darklighter: The music industry compensates for loss of sales in records by massive concerts where they make the majority of their money. Authors don't really have that option.

On the other hand they may soon have a waterproof casing for an ebook while the same for a regular book is problematic. Still not buying one so long as they have control over my library. Especially after the "1984" debacle.

@Eldritch: Agreed. I DO think that instead of books, that these readers would be great for newspapers. Getting them zapped to you every day, at a lower cost suscription rate, would save on paper, gas for the delivery people, gas for moving heavily-laden trucks around a city, recycling issues, etc. This is where I view the full potential to be. Not books.

@ageshin: Agreed. I don't think you'll get electrocuted, but that expensioso device might not work so well after being used as a submarine. Yeah, if a bound book goes swimming, you might be out a few bucks to get a used replacement, rather than hundreds.

One of the biggest lessons of the internet is: It's hard to get people to pay for it when they can easily find it for free.

I just hope this gets out more. This indigenous advertising crap really ticks me off..

Paper backed book - $15

E-book - $10

Library - priceless

As someone who works in books and has books in every nook and cranny in my house, I can't imagine using an e-reader. I know people make the analogy of CDs falling by the wayside for iPods and mp3 players, but it's a totally different thing with books. I really truly believe that nothing can replace the smell and feel of a real paper book. This just further proves how abhorant e-readers are to me. Only one loan per book? Unspeakable. Books are meant to be read!

I know publishers think that getting rid of such things will make them more money, but did they ever stop to think that people who don't want to spend (or spend a lot of) money on something will continue to refrain from doing so?

Oh, wait, throwing out the term 'piracy' is free pass to screw your customers. I forgot.