Kindlenomics — Amazon vs. Sony vs. Dead Trees

This time last year, I was trying to decide whether I wanted an Amazon Kindle or a Sony Digital Book Reader. Each had its advantages. The Kindle has immediate download and doesn’t require connecting to a computer to purchase books. The Sony is cheaper. The Kindle had a better selection of books. Sony e-books cost less. Kindle has newspaper and blog downloads, and Wikipedia access. Sony allows you to read .pdf files.

A year later, and I’m still on the fence. Two main concerns have stopped me from purchasing either device. The first is being unsure about giving up my paper books altogether. I can’t really pinpoint why it bothers me, although those who know me understand that I have a bit of a problem with books. I’ve lost track of how many I own — EAToo tried to make a spreadsheet once, and gave up. I currently have five full-sized bookcases that are all overstuffed and overflowing, in addition to a few random, overlarge piles of books in closets and such. And that doesn’t even count my pre-high-school collection, which I’ve completely lost track of, except for a few special volumes.

I know I have a problem. I also still have every college textbook I ever owned. And two copies of each Harry Potter book, hardcover and paperback. (Three if you count audiobooks.) And I probably shouldn’t even go into the fact that I subconsciously don’t even crack the spines of paperbacks I read — something I wasn’t even aware of until EAToo pointed it out to me.

But nostalgia for “dead trees” aside, I’m also held back by the economic side of the equation. The Amazon Kindle, originally $400, has only dropped to $360 over the course of a year. The Sony Reader is $270. And I’ve never been sure that the convenience factor would be worth that kind of money. I’m also not sure if “convenience” is a good thing in this situation — I love bookstores, and while being able to buy a book within seconds would be nice, I can’t imagine not hanging out at Barnes & Noble (or “the mothership”, as I have come to think of it).

It turns out, I’m right to be worried about that. According to this blog article on ZDnet.com, an analysis of “Kindlenomics” shows that for the average reader, you must download and purchase at least six books per month, or 72 per year, in order to save enough just to cover the cost of the Kindle itself. The analysis is a bit more advantageous if you are a college student (a literature student in particular), although that logic falls through a bit considering that a lot of college textbooks aren’t yet available in digital form.

I keep coming up with “ifs” — a digital reader would be great if I went back to school... if I found another job that would require me to keep my documents portable... if I traveled more. But for where I am right now, it seems like it’s more economically advantageous to keep killing trees. Physically, I could certainly read six books per month (being something of a natural speed reader anyway), but my schedule doesn’t ordinarily permit me enough time to do so. Plus, I’m not sure I want that kind of pressure, constantly worrying if I had wasted money on a digital reader.

According to the ZDnet article, the current price point to make the purchase of a digital reader reasonable if you read one or two books per month is $125 – $150. If you assume three or four books per month, an appropriate price point is about $200. (Here’s the actual math.) While I’m sort of leaning toward the Kindle over the Sony, I’m positive of one thing — it will make a lot more sense to buy a digital reader when (or if) the current prices drop by about half.