Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No one buys books

elysian.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 752 posts

Re: No one buys books

#441

Post by stubish »

paulpauper wrote: post #280
bachmeier wrote: post #193

The headline isn't accurate. "No One Buys Most Books" maybe, but the article talks about books that sell more than 300,000 copies in a year. 90% of books sell fewer than 2000 copies in a year, but 2000 is actually a decent number, especially considering it will be a lot more than 2000 over the lifetime of the book. There's more to this as well. You have to factor in that a lot of people write books because they want…

Also, the author conflates fiction with non-fiction. No kidding, if you include science books , guides, how-to books, etc. most books do not sell many copies, but they are not expected or intended to. It's not like the market for calculus books is that big. Fiction books by major publishing houses for a general audience still sell a lot.

Fiction only sells a lot if you hit the best seller lists. Most books do not, and it has been this way since at least 2000. For most fiction authors, you would make more money at a minimum wage job. You know, all the ones you haven't heard off because they didn't hit the best seller lists.

Re: No one buys books

#442

Post by grepLeigh »

nox101 wrote: post #423
j45 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limiting or undermining literacy remains important to those who benefit from it.

what logic leads to this conclusion? I tend to lean to the rising tide lifts all boats. who benefits from illiteracy?

UNESCO published a report on the beneficiaries of illiteracy at global, national, and regional levels (1989):

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000085962

Re: No one buys books

#443

Post by ginko »

bombcar wrote: post #25

The entire book industry rides on the backs of bibles, hobbits, and extremely ravenous caterpillars. Seems almost poetic, somehow.

> The entire book industry rides on the backs of bibles, hobbits, and extremely ravenous caterpillars.

Have to say I'm kind of surprised about the bibles part. Aren't those usually printed by smaller church-associated publishers?

Re: No one buys books

#444

Post by yunohn »

nox101 wrote: post #423
j45 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limiting or undermining literacy remains important to those who benefit from it.

what logic leads to this conclusion? I tend to lean to the rising tide lifts all boats. who benefits from illiteracy?

Elites are always worried about the labor crisis - “nobody wants to work”. Usually this is about blue collar work, and their desire to underpay and overwork service/laborers.

Globally, this class of people definitely wants to reduce literacy to keep a stream of manual labor inflowing.

Re: No one buys books

#445

Post by dredmorbius »

rockemsockem wrote: post #415
initplus wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not disruption to make me wait 5 weeks to read a digital file through my local library's Libby service. It's an outdated business model using artificial scarcity that isn't effective at getting books onto readers devices. Spotify doesn't make me take out a hold on the artist I want to listen to. Netflix doesn't make me queue to watch the latest release.

I don't think it's fair to compare Netflix and Spotify to libraries; you pay for the first two. I agree that it's artificial scarcity and it's hard to feel bad for the publishing companies

Public libraries are paid for through public taxation.

Which suggests a possible solution the the greater problem.

Re: No one buys books

#446

Post by yunohn »

devjab wrote: post #406
paxys wrote: post #101

Can't help but feel for the publishing industry considering how shafted they got by tech. You distribute books all over the country? Amazon can do it better and cheaper. You print books? Well we have e-books now. You have a massive back catalog? Google just scanned all of it. You do marketing? Authors now have their own followings on social media and can reach them directly. You give cash advances? Fans on Kickstarte…

I can. Book publishers are terrible and they always have been. At least that is the case here in Denmark. They game our library system, so that books they know won’t sell well but will be lent a lot at the libraries, like a lot of children books are priced ridiculously. These books are never actually put in stores, because why bother? But our libraries, have, to buy them and then pay fees to the publishing houses bas…

> I guess part of the blame goes to our politicians though.

There is no universe in which public funds are leeched without political complicity and corruption. Most likely the publishers benefitted are either related to or provided kickbacks to the influential parties.

Re: No one buys books

#447

Post by stubish »

pm90 wrote: post #266

Theres something rather magical about reading books. Or perhaps Im just an old fart that grew up without the internet. The article is fascinating but worrying. I do hope the industry survives in some form. I love the experience of reading books. It would be a shame if everything was digital although it seems like an inescapable conclusion after looking at the data in the article…

Nothing is going to go all digital, except maybe sales. Print-on-demand means that every ebook can also be a physical trade paperback, if the publisher chooses. Amazon even have a button you can click to give a free copy of the ebook to everyone who buys the printed version (not sure if this encourages printed sales, or more to expose people to the dark side).

Re: No one buys books

#448

Post by The_Colonel »

kstrauser wrote: post #357
Brajeshwar wrote: post #306

I used to buy and read a lot of physical books. Around 2013-204, I started moving to eBooks, and Amazon Kindle played a significant role in my journey. But a couple of years later, I had an epiphany while discussing books with my daughter, “I never see you read books. You are just reading on your computer (kindle) or the phone and are not reading.” Since then, I have returned to reading physical books with an approxi…

> They are less distracting and help the kids focus. That’s such an incredibly personal preference though. It’s far easier for me to read with an ereader when I don’t have to have 2 hands holding a heavier hunk of paper wants to close itself if I let go for a moment. I have a huge book collection but I’ve switched almost entirely to ebooks because I find the ergonomics so much better. Physically fighting with dead tr…

It happened to me multiple times that I bought a real paper book, but the ergonomics was so bad, I've pirated the book and read it on my kindle instead (since I bought it I feel entitled to get the e-variant). Especially paperbacks are bad - tiny letters, yellow low-contrast paper, difficult to hold open.

Reading good night stories to children is even more challenging, since it's usually dark. Bringing some extra light is annoying and distracting for the child.

Re: No one buys books

#450

Post by grepLeigh »

initplus wrote: post #371
grepLeigh wrote: post #332

From the article: >>> "Wouldn’t it be great if you could pay $9.99 a month and read all of the books you want?" I sincerely hope nothing "disrupts" public libraries in my lifetime. As a California resident, I can walk into ANY public library in the state and get a free library card with access to physical books, audiobooks, ebooks. Some branches have laptops, hotspots, tablets, e-readers available to borrow. My local…

It's not disruption to make me wait 5 weeks to read a digital file through my local library's Libby service. It's an outdated business model using artificial scarcity that isn't effective at getting books onto readers devices. Spotify doesn't make me take out a hold on the artist I want to listen to. Netflix doesn't make me queue to watch the latest release.

Netflix has licensing restrictions too, but the limitation is time/exclusivity (rather than number of copies). You can only watch whatever Netflix owns distribution rights to. Although Netflix does charge more per device, so that's a bit like charging per "copy" of their service on top of the limited distribution.

I'm wondering if you'd really prefer a library system where you could get some titles instantly, but the majority of content is unavailable because some other digital service provider owns distribution in your region for the next 12-16 months. I'd hate that, personally.

Post reply on HN