Amazon's $399 folly book reader

Just a lot of Kindling


Reading has never been cheaper, and for most of us, requires no additional machinery - only the source material itself. So why do we need to pay the online retailer Amazon.com $399 to read books?

That's the cost of the company's Kindle, a gadget with an 800 x 600 E Ink screen. Apparently the company has been working on the device since 2004. It's priced at $100 more than Sony's E Ink-based reader, which has received rave reviews, and, like every electronic book-reading predecessor, has failed to set the world alight. Kindle, however, has a built-in Wi-Fi 3G connection - just what you always wanted from a book.

Amazon.com Kindle

Kindling

The Kindle weighs 284g (10oz) and Amazon claims the battery lasts 30 hours per charge.

Why Amazon embarked on this folly isn't clear from a hagiographic feature by Newsweek's Steven "Collective Intelligence" Levy - whose brain must have fallen out in the course of his genuflecting before Amazon boss and amateur spaceman Jeff Bezos.

Levy doesn't mention the long history of ebook failures - Gemstar/Rocket, anyone? - nor does he give any justification for the title: "Reinventing the book". Levy raves about the "killer user interface" - does it kill humans? Or flies? - without explaining why. In addition to delivering digital books, Amazon also hopes to drive print subscriptions from the major publishers: Time Warner and the New York Times are partners for the launch, just as they've been partners for every e-book reader launch we can remember.

Optimistic estimates put the current e-book market at around $25m a year. That's a rounding error for the publishing industry. And just to give you some perspective, ringtones - another digitally-delivered good - gross as much revenue as e-books do in a year... in 33 minutes.

"I'm rooting for Jeff and the Kindle," said Tim 2.0'Reilly, even more predictably.

Yet it's doubtful whether Amazon, or anyone else, could make a success of an e-book reader even if it gave them away for free.

You simply have to imagine history in reverse. If a new technology called PTech were invented today, and promised vastly improved flexibility, durability, convenience, and richness of browsing and reading - as well as ridding books from DRM - it would destroy the Digital Book market overnight. We have PTech today, of course - it's called paper, and it's simply a superior technology.

So an extra $399 for something you don't need - and that's more cumbersome and inconvenient than before? Arise, Sir Jeff.

Amazon has made some interesting technology bets recently, its S3 service being the most radical. This isn't one of them - and it's Bezos' lack of imagination (something he shares with his fellow "digital visionaries") that strikes one here. Their view of the world is so narrow, and so single-mindedly digital, that when they look into the future - that all they can see is their reflections. ®

Similar topics

Broader topics

Narrower topics


Other stories you might like

  • Amazon not happy with antitrust law targeting Amazon
    We assume the world's smallest violin is available right now on Prime

    Updated Amazon has blasted a proposed antitrust law that aims to clamp down on anti-competitive practices by Big Tech.

    The American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA) led by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and House Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) is a bipartisan bill, with Democrat and Republican support in the Senate and House. It is still making its way through Congress.

    The bill [PDF] prohibits certain "online platforms" from unfairly promoting their own products and services in a way that prevents or hampers third-party businesses in competing. Said platforms with 50 million-plus active monthly users in the US or 100,000-plus US business users, and either $550 billion-plus in annual sales or market cap or a billion-plus worldwide users, that act as a "critical trading partner" for suppliers would be affected. 

    Continue reading
  • Amazon accused of obstructing probe into deadly warehouse collapse
    House Dems demand documents from CEO on facility hit by tornado – or else

    Updated The US House Oversight Committee has told Amazon CEO Andy Jassy to turn over documents pertaining to the collapse of an Amazon warehouse – and if he doesn't, the lawmakers say they will be forced to "consider alternative measures."

    Penned by Oversight Committee members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Cori Bush (D-MO) and committee chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), the letter refers to the destruction of an Edwardsville, Illinois, Amazon fulfillment center in which six people were killed when a tornado hit. It was reported that the facility received two weather warnings about 20 minutes before the tornado struck at 8.27pm on December 10; most staff had headed to a shelter, some to an area where there were no windows but was hard hit by the storm.

    In late March, the Oversight Committee sent a letter to Jassy with a mid-April deadline to hand over a variety of documents, including disaster policies and procedures, communication between managers, employees and contractors, and internal discussion of the tornado and its aftermath.

    Continue reading
  • Engineer sues Amazon for not covering work-from-home internet, electricity bills
    And no, I'm not throwing out this lawsuit, says judge

    Amazon's attempt to dismiss a lawsuit, brought by one of its senior software engineers, asking it to reimburse workers for internet and electricity costs racked up while working from home in the pandemic, has been rejected by a California judge.

    David George Williams sued his employer for refusing to foot his monthly home office expenses, claiming Amazon is violating California's labor laws. The state's Labor Code section 2802 states: "An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer."

    Williams reckons Amazon should not only be paying for its techies' home internet and electricity, but also for any other expenses related to their ad-hoc home office space during the pandemic. Williams sued the cloud giant on behalf of himself and over 4,000 workers employed in California across 12 locations, arguing these costs will range from $50 to $100 per month during the time they were told to stay away from corporate campuses as the coronavirus spread.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022