Why Amazon’s Kindle Will Eventually Win the e-Book Wars | Hacker News Reader

Why Amazon’s Kindle Will Eventually Win the e-Book Wars

gigaom.com

28 pointsgojomo25 comments

"If Amazon wants to keep the device around, it will have to transform it from a mere e-book reader to a content consumption device that matches the iPad in its capabilities. Otherwise, like the Nook, it’s already dated."

Well, another avenue would be to keep it as a book reader but make the hardware so simple that it can be given away free with, say, a Amazon Prime membership.

Note that the title is a bit misleading, what he's saying is no that that the kindle device will necessarily win the war, the Kindle store will (because of superior experience and the fact that it's platform agnostic).

As he points out, Amazon's web site is its biggest asset. Even when I buy books from other retailers (I feel bad for Borders) I still first go to Amazon to read the reviews. If Amazon can somehow bring its formidable database of comments more into the picture (or add additional functionality, like ability to place a comment on a certain page) it will be even more unstoppable.

IIRC there was an analysis done by the New York Times which showed that it was much, much cheaper for them to ship a free Kindle to subscribers than to print and ship them the physical paper for 6 months. Unfortunately the experience of reading a newspaper on the Kindle pretty much sucks.

I disagree that the Kindle has to become a general content consumption device. I'd be very happy if it did its one thing well. What it's really missing (which the iPad provides) is a much higher level of interactivity - the eInk refresh kills it. I'm excited for the Notion Ink Adam just for this reason.

"Buy it once, read it anywhere."

No.

Read it anywhere there's a Kindle app. Maybe. For a while. Note that invisible string attached. And the key that you don't control that is required to give you access to what you've already paid for.

I have no intention of every buying a _book_ with DRM. I have books, that I bought myself, that are 45 years old. I can read them just as well today as then, failing eyesight notwithstanding. I'm not going to invest money into a book that can suddenly disappear, not because of fire or damage, but because of obsolescence or malice on a venders part. No "reads for shure" for me...

There's a perfectly fine, improvable but fine, open e-book format with lots of titles, both legitimate and informal.

Ah, but a Kindle book doesn't require shelf space or storage. It's not a lump of matter you have ship when moving. You can take a pile when traveling without dislocating a shoulder. Those benefits are real; for me, storage cost overwhelms the actual price of a book very quickly, at which point the DRM is a non-issue.

Of course, I'd prefer unencumbered PDF or Mobi, but a with-DRM e-book beats a physical book for me. Part of this is that I'm an urban apartment-dweller with limited shelf space. My book-buying is limited, not by the price of the book, but by not wanting to have to deal with the object.

Sure if you are talking about a few dozen books. But over the years I have collected, shall we say _dozens_ of books that are keepers. To have them suddenly, without warning evaporate for no good reason is simply an untenable situation. Especially since, as digital files they should be disaster proof, unlike several boxes I lost a while back due to water damage.

But even more to the point. Books, the written word in general are important. Very important. Do we really want to encourage the development of a system that effectively puts a "kill switch" on knowledge?

Exactly. For me, the saving grace of Amazon's mobi format is that it's easy to strip the DRM off. I would never buy so many ebooks were that not the case. I generally immediately return Topaz books if I slip up and actually buy one.

For me, the saving grace of Amazon's mobi format is that it's easy to strip the DRM off.

You're not alone; I asked the same question in this poll (http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87089), and that was the overwhelming response.

1. Buy once, read anywhere

3. It’s always about the software

This is it. If a device is compelling, Amazon will make a Kindle app for it. If the device maker tries to keep off competing apps, especially from a major competitor like Amazon, the device will have a hard time becoming popular. (Even Apple had to welcome Kindle, a competitor, onto the iPad.) To me, Amazon feels like the good guys. They make an e-reader, but if I don't like their product, no problem! They'll help me read their books on a competing device. Awesome. They go out of their way to make their DRM a non-issue for me (Joe Consumer.) When I buy a book, I get to read it wherever and whenever I want. PC, iPhone, iPad, Android, they're on it. They're making money from me by doing what I want, and that's the way it's supposed to be.

Barnes and Noble isn't doomed, though. They have their own advantages, and to exploit them, they need to play me-too and copy what Amazon is doing in software. They should combine Amazon's strategy of ubiquitous software with e-book stations in their stores where you can search for title or just scan the bar code from a book you found on the shelf, and voila, you're downloading the book to your reader. Browsing physical books before you buy is not dead. It's the best way to gauge the quality of a book before you buy, and it's the best way to choose between several similar books. Also, people just enjoy going to the bookstore. People looking to buy e-books are just as likely to go to the bookstore as people looking to buy physical books. If you can shop for either online, or shop for either in person, some people will prefer the latter. They will go to a bricks-and-mortar bookstore to buy an e-book.

To me, Amazon feels like a competitor, onto the iPad.) To me, Amazon feels like the good guys. They make an e-reader, but if I don't ike their product, no problem! They'll help me read their books on a competing device. Awesome. They go(Joe Consumer.) When I buy a book, I get to read it wherever and whenever I want. PC, iPhone, iPad Android, they're on it. They're making money from m by doing what I want, and that's the way it's supposed by doing what I want, and that's the way it's supposed to be

Amazon with Kindle and Valve with Steam have a lot in common concerning their pro-consumer use of DRM.

Malik writes: In fact, the reading experience on the iPad is so superior to that of the Kindle I often find myself staying up later than usual reading a book.

Or it might be the brighter screen delaying normal sleepiness!

In response to that quote, I'm sure the iPad is in many respects a great eBook reader. But I like to read on the go, particularly outside in the sun, so for me the iPad can't compare to my Kindle's battery life and e-ink display, not to mention its free 3G access for those few times that I need it.

But I know not everyone's use is the same, and the iPad must rock for books with pictures and maps and such.

>But I know not everyone's use is the same, and the iPad must rock for books with pictures and maps and such.

There's more to it than that. PDF reading (99% of my books) is worlds better on the ipad, & the speed makes it better for any book that requires lots of flipping around. Battery life isn't an issue; I plug it in when i'm going to sleep, & it's usually only down to 50%.

I realize the iPad is great for PDFs -- in fact I recommended it to my sister over the Kindle for that very purpose. But this isn't really relevant to whether the Kindle or the iPad is the better device for reading eBooks from the Kindle book store...

I too like to read outdoors. How does the iPad do in this situation?

I would love the Kindle to be a little zippier but that's about my only complaint with the device. Considering a *pad like device (waiting for the android models so I can play my media on it).

> I too like to read outdoors. How does the iPad do in this situation?

I love my iPad, but it is basically unviewable in sunlight (or bright indoor lighting) due to the glare. This is one reason I've hung on to my Kindle, which I had thought I'd get rid of once I got the iPad.

> In fact, the reading experience on the iPad is so superior to that of the Kindle I often find myself staying up later than usual reading a book.

Been there, done that w/ my Kindle.

Computers => ~2am sleep time

Kindle + good book => ~8am sleep time

^ perhaps you can detect why I have limited my reading recently

I own a Kindle and I find that I still prefer it over iPad for reading books. This talk of all-in-one and multi-function devices has always been perpetuated by vendors marketing their next crop of gadgets and claiming to finally rid the consumer of another single-purpose device.

Take Apple who first told us that iPhone was also a music player (it's not) and now tells us that iPad is an e-book reader (it's not). I, for one, end up owning a music player, an e-book reader, an iPad and whatever else that comes along, and that's perfectly fine.

It's no surprise that consumers are enticed by the vision of universal personal communication device, but I don't think anyone seriously believes that such a device can be created or that it can stand up to the tide of innovation.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it's not about Kindle or iPad hardware, which is subject to turning obsolete the minute it ships, but about distribution channels and consumer freedom, i.e. the ease of decoupling the content that you rightfully own from a particular platform. Here, I feel, Amazon and to some extent Apple has done a good job.

I agree with the article in general, but I don't think Amazon should rethink Kindle to make it something more than it already is.

I don't understand: The Kindle store is the point, not the actual kindle.

I read kindle books on my PC, iPad and iPhone, and have no issue keeping them all synced. While the device itself looks like it might be nice, in my opinion, Amazon has already "won" the eBook wars.

While the e-Ink display may help get people to sleep, so does turning the brightness way down on an iPad (although they are right about readability, I can only use the iPad for 5-6 hours straight without some eyestrain).

The device is there for people who don't have something equivalent. I mean, if I hadn't shelled out for an iPad due to work, I might think about a 189 dollar kindle

You can also invert screen colors. Look in Settings / General / Accessibility --> White on Black

This is actually how I read everything.

One of the other reasons they'll win is they respect their customers.

I installed the B&N app on my iPad. First it came with a lot of samples I didn't want (Sarah Palin, really) and the only way I found to delete them from the device was buried in my account options on the B&N web site.

More over while I've had an amazon account for years I've never had a B&N account. I signed up and bought a book, only it wouldn't buy it just gave me an error repeatedly, and then sent me an email saying I had cancelled my purchase.

I just opened the Kindle store and bought it on there instead.

Why Sony's Walkman will Eventually Win the players Wars...

The article is biased by the current level of technology and while Sony's device was revolutionary, it didn't win that era's wars (well, maybe the first).

I find it interesting that people argue FOR convergence devices being the death knell for digital cameras and mp3 players but argue AGAINST them being the death knell for book reading. If people "want to have one device", it ain't going to be a book reader.

I still prefer a book to an e-book, as they're more robust, durable, lack DRM, are easy to resell and are readable in a wider range of locations. I can easily see the value in e-books for technical materials and other such time-duration or non-recreational reading, so there will be widespread usage.

Absolutely, making any prediction of this nature is opening oneself up to ridicule when future breakthroughs render it obsolete. But the comparison isn't with the hardware technology of the Kindle, as with the Walkman, but the benefits of transferability, ease of use, and brand trust. All are less vulnerable (especially the last one) to a competitor's breakthrough.

The kindle's transferability, ease of use, and Amazon's brand trust are almost compelling.

But what about openness? http://news.cnet.com/o-reilly-amazon-must-open-the-kindle/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com