B&N should raise prices of Nooks [ Edited ]

[DeanGibson Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

AlanNJ wrote:

The reason they represent so very little income to B&N (in my opinion) is because they are such a tiny percentage of Nook owners.  

---

You are missing my point:  They represent ON A PER UNIT BASIS, very little income to B&N.

Last fall, when the Kindle Fire was released, someone analyzed the cost of parts for the Kindle Fire, and it came to $202.xx.  We don't know how accurate that was, but that cost was parts only, and didn't include R&D, inventory space, shipping costs advertising, customer support, etc.  If the estimate is anywhere near the actual number, Amazon is losing money on each one shipped.

We have no real numbers for the Nooks, but clearly the profit is very small.  It may even be NEGATIVE, in which case it would be stupid to not try to lock down the Nooks.

Now, you and I may like to see the Nooks more open.  It's quite a stretch from that desire of ours, to then think it's a sound business practice for B&N to open up the Nooks.  The only way it makes financial sense, is for B&N to RAISE PRICES of Nooks.

Consider the ink-jet printer market.  It has long been the case that ink-jet printers are sold way below cost, in order to hook the customer on replacement ink supplies (see http://www.theamericanconsumer.org/2007/11/19/inkjet-prices-printing-costs-and-consumer-welfare/ ).  Of course, whenever a manufacturer does that, it opens the door to competitors to offer 3rd-party solutions, and 3rd-party ink sources abound.  The printer manufacturer counts on most customers buying replacement ink from them, but the risk is there:  They may have to adjust printer prices if the 3rd-party sources get a real foothold in the marketplace.

Can you see that encouraging B&N to open up the Nooks, is tantamount to the same thing?

[keriflur]

If the sales of nooks lead to an overall increase in sales of ebooks, does it really matter if some of the nooks do not result in ebook sales?

[AlanNJ Inspired Bibliophile]

---

DeanGibson wrote:

---

AlanNJ wrote:

The reason they represent so very little income to B&N (in my opinion) is because they are such a tiny percentage of Nook owners.  

---

You are missing my point:  They represent ON A PER UNIT BASIS, very little income to B&N.

Last fall, when the Kindle Fire was released, someone analyzed the cost of parts for the Kindle Fire, and it came to $202.xx.  We don't know how accurate that was, but that cost was parts only, and didn't include R&D, inventory space, shipping costs advertising, customer support, etc.  If the estimate is anywhere near the actual number, Amazon is losing money on each one shipped.

We have no real numbers for the Nooks, but clearly the profit is very small.  It may even be NEGATIVE, in which case it would be stupid to not try to lock down the Nooks.

Now, you and I may like to see the Nooks more open.  It's quite a stretch from that desire of ours, to then think it's a sound business practice for B&N to open up the Nooks.  The only way it makes financial sense, is for B&N to RAISE PRICES of Nooks.

Consider the ink-jet printer market.  It has long been the case that ink-jet printers are sold way below cost, in order to hook the customer on replacement ink supplies (see http://www.theamericanconsumer.org/2007/11/19/inkjet-prices-printing-costs-and-consumer-welfare/ ).  Of course, whenever a manufacturer does that, it opens the door to competitors to offer 3rd-party solutions, and 3rd-party ink sources abound.  The printer manufacturer counts on most customers buying replacement ink from them, but the risk is there:  They may have to adjust printer prices if the 3rd-party sources get a real foothold in the marketplace.

Can you see that encouraging B&N to open up the Nooks, is tantamount to the same thing?

---

I honestly think you're over-rating the importance of the hacking community to the Nook Simple Touch / e-ink  bottom line.  We ARE still limiting ourselves to the Nook Simple Touch and all its variants aren't we?  In my opinion the hacking community in this area is so miniscule compared to overall ownership that B&N has absolutely no need to react to it.   In fact I would go so far as to say that if B&N made any reactive changes due to the hacking community then they are over-reacting.

Do I think that they should remove DRM from e-books?  Absolutely.  Do I think that B&N and/or Amazon will do that?  Nope, not without a struggle.  They would be giving up their respective captive audience.  

I've stated many times before in this forum that I have absolutely no loyalty to B&N.  When I bought DTB's I went to Borders.  I do LOVE my Nooks though.  If Amazon came out with a viable product that I liked more (which they currently have not) I would switch in a minute if the difference was worth it.

I'm actually of the opinion that e-readers will ultimately be giveaways just to get people hooked on the convenience of e-books.   So, no, I do not agree that they should raise the price of Nooks to make up for the so-called hacking community.  The majority of people, in my opinion, purchase the Nook and then by B&N books without thinking twice about it.

[DeanGibson Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

keriflur wrote:

If the sales of nooks lead to an overall increase in sales of ebooks, does it really matter if some of the nooks do not result in ebook sales?

---

If the cost of manufacture, sales, and support of those Nooks cost more money than is made on the sale, well then, yes, it does matter.  That's my whole point !!!

Why does everyone think that B&N goes to some effort to block "non-approved" activities on the Nooks?  In the case of the Nook Tablet, it could be the contract with NetFlix, but on the Nook Touches, where there are no contractural (eg, 3G) costs, why does everyone think that B&N REMOVED in a subsequent release, the "hidden" way to use the browser???  Does anyone believe that was an accident???

One can argue that perhaps the browser wasn't made easily available initially, was due to projected support costs.

However, removing the "hole" (via the search capabiltiy) via an update, seems to me to say that B&N really wants to restrict use of the device.

Is it because B&N just wants to be mean/controlling/evil/whatever???

Is it because B&N doesn't know nearly enough about marketing as many of the people here on the forums (I have yet to see any of the critics of B&N, claim a distinguishing career in marketing)???

Or is it because B&N has a reason related to profits?

I'm certainly willing to listen to rational reasons why B&N discourages non-reader activity on the Nook Touches, if they are making any profit on the sale of devices.

[DeanGibson Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

AlanNJ wrote:

I honestly think you're over-rating the importance of the hacking community to the Nook Simple Touch / e-ink  bottom line.  We ARE still limiting ourselves to the Nook Simple Touch and all its variants aren't we?  In my opinion the hacking community in this area is so miniscule compared to overall ownership that B&N has absolutely no need to react to it.   In fact I would go so far as to say that if B&N made any reactive changes due to the hacking community then they are over-reacting.

---

OK, why do you think B&N removed (via an update) access to the Nook Touch browser???

It's not like they don't have a couple years of experience as to how customers are using their Nooks (reading and otherwise).  Why go to the effort?

[keriflur]

---

DeanGibson wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

If the sales of nooks lead to an overall increase in sales of ebooks, does it really matter if some of the nooks do not result in ebook sales?

---

If the cost of manufacture, sales, and support of those Nooks cost more money than is made on the sale, well then, yes, it does matter.  That's my whole point !!!

---

I'm sorry, I assumed the word "net" was implied.  Let me revise:

If the sales of nooks lead to an overall NET increase in sales of ebooks, does it really matter if some of the nooks do not result in ebook sales?

---

DeanGibson wrote:

Why does everyone think that B&N goes to some effort to block "non-approved" activities on the Nooks?

---

I don't think they do on the e-ink nooks.  I can't comment on the backlit nooks, but this is the Nook Simple Touch forum, so really, they're irrelevant here.

As for the browser, I believe it was blocked because it doesn't work properly (and if you've used it, you know what I mean) and they didn't want to go through the effort of making it work properly with the overlaid nook-specific code, as they didn't see it as a feature they wanted to offer with the device, probably because web browsing on e-ink devices is pretty darn awful.  I do not think they did this to prevent users from buying books from other vendors.  If they wanted to do that they could sell their books in a proprietary format and not allow the primary other format on the device (see kindle).

[DeanGibson Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

keriflur wrote:

..  Let me revise:

If the sales of nooks lead to an overall NET increase in sales of ebooks, does it really matter if some of the nooks do not result in ebook sales?

---

I assume by the 2nd "sales" you really meant "profits".  In that case, it doesn't matter.  However, that's hypothetical, and B&N has a much more informed picture than we do, and has made an informed decision based on that picture.

---

keriflur wrote:

I don't think they do on the e-ink nooks.  I can't comment on the backlit nooks, but this is the Nook Simple Touch forum, so really, they're irrelevant here.

As for the browser, I believe it was blocked because it doesn't work properly (and if you've used it, you know what I mean) and they didn't want to go through the effort of making it work properly with the overlaid nook-specific code, as they didn't see it as a feature they wanted to offer with the device, probably because web browsing on e-ink devices is pretty darn awful.

---

Remember, the Nook 1st edition ran Android 1.5 (and its browser) or some such;  the Nook Touch is running Android 2.1 (and its browser), and they obviously have access to the entire Android 2.2 framework for the Nook Touch.  So, if they had any interest in supporting a browser (which a lot of users would like), they could have done it easily.  And as for problems with the browser on the Nook Touch, it can't be as bad as that on the Nook 1st edition.

However, regardless of the original reason to hide the browser in the Nook Touch, what about the Nook Touch update that blocked the "hole" that allowed access to the browser?  Why do you think B&N blocked that?  Users already knew the browser was unsupported.

[AlanNJ Inspired Bibliophile]

---

DeanGibson wrote:

---

AlanNJ wrote:

I honestly think you're over-rating the importance of the hacking community to the Nook Simple Touch / e-ink  bottom line.  We ARE still limiting ourselves to the Nook Simple Touch and all its variants aren't we?  In my opinion the hacking community in this area is so miniscule compared to overall ownership that B&N has absolutely no need to react to it.   In fact I would go so far as to say that if B&N made any reactive changes due to the hacking community then they are over-reacting.

---

OK, why do you think B&N removed (via an update) access to the Nook Touch browser???

It's not like they don't have a couple years of experience as to how customers are using their Nooks (reading and otherwise).  Why go to the effort?

---

Because it's not what people wanted.  The whole point of releasing the Simple Touch was that it is a READER ONLY.  The N2E is designed for people that want a device to READ on.  Period.  If they want more than that then they need to buy a different device.  It's really quite simple.

As a former Nook 1st Edition reader I was thrilled when they came out with the N2E and I still am.  I have an Android smartphone and a full-size Android tablet (Samsung Galaxy 10.1).  I don't need full functionality on every device I own.  

[keriflur]

---

DeanGibson wrote: 

However, regardless of the original reason to hide the browser in the Nook Touch, what about the Nook Touch update that blocked the "hole" that allowed access to the browser?  Why do you think B&N blocked that?  Users already knew the browser was unsupported.

---

If you built a product and users were accessing a half-baked feature that you didn't want to support, wouldn't you want to block it also?

[Byteguy]

---

DeanGibson wrote:

...However, regardless of the original reason to hide the browser in the Nook Touch, what about the Nook Touch update that blocked the "hole" that allowed access to the browser?  Why do you think B&N blocked that?  Users already knew the browser was unsupported.

---

They probably blocked it because people kept coming here and calling them to complain that the browser was terrible and didn't work on all the pages they wanted it to work on.  Every call sucked all their profit out of that sale (and who knows how many other sales)

I tried it a couple of times just for fun.  It wasn't fun.  At all.

I think their original purpose was to give a way for people to accept terms-of-service for wi-fi.  Places that used AT&T (like McDonald's) required you to launch the browser and agree before they would let the Nook talk to B&N to browse and buy books.

[AlanNJ Inspired Bibliophile]

---

Byteguy wrote:

---

DeanGibson wrote:

...However, regardless of the original reason to hide the browser in the Nook Touch, what about the Nook Touch update that blocked the "hole" that allowed access to the browser?  Why do you think B&N blocked that?  Users already knew the browser was unsupported.

---

They probably blocked it because people kept coming here and calling them to complain that the browser was terrible and didn't work on all the pages they wanted it to work on.  Every call sucked all their profit out of that sale (and who knows how many other sales)

I tried it a couple of times just for fun.  It wasn't fun.  At all.

I think their original purpose was to give a way for people to accept terms-of-service for wi-fi.  Places that used AT&T (like McDonald's) required you to launch the browser and agree before they would let the Nook talk to B&N to browse and buy books.

---

I BELIEVE that functionality is still there.  It is supposed to work in hotels, etc.

[AlanNJ Inspired Bibliophile]

---

keriflur wrote:

---

DeanGibson wrote: 

However, regardless of the original reason to hide the browser in the Nook Touch, what about the Nook Touch update that blocked the "hole" that allowed access to the browser?  Why do you think B&N blocked that?  Users already knew the browser was unsupported.

---

If you built a product and users were accessing a half-baked feature that you didn't want to support, wouldn't you want to block it also?

---

Why should B&N EVER have to support an undocumented "feature"?

[Sun_Cat]

---

AlanNJ wrote:

---

Byteguy wrote:

---

DeanGibson wrote:

...However, regardless of the original reason to hide the browser in the Nook Touch, what about the Nook Touch update that blocked the "hole" that allowed access to the browser?  Why do you think B&N blocked that?  Users already knew the browser was unsupported.

---

They probably blocked it because people kept coming here and calling them to complain that the browser was terrible and didn't work on all the pages they wanted it to work on.  Every call sucked all their profit out of that sale (and who knows how many other sales)

I tried it a couple of times just for fun.  It wasn't fun.  At all.

I think their original purpose was to give a way for people to accept terms-of-service for wi-fi.  Places that used AT&T (like McDonald's) required you to launch the browser and agree before they would let the Nook talk to B&N to browse and buy books.

---

I BELIEVE that functionality is still there.  It is supposed to work in hotels, etc.

---

Yes, that functionality is still there. And there's also still a workaround that lets you get to the browser via the Facebook sharing function (I'm too lazy to search here for the detailed instructions). But browser access appears to be limited to following a handful of links, after which it freezes.

[DeanGibson Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

AlanNJ wrote:

---

DeanGibson wrote:

---

OK, why do you think B&N removed (via an update) access to the Nook Touch browser???

It's not like they don't have a couple years of experience as to how customers are using their Nooks (reading and otherwise).  Why go to the effort?

---

Because it's not what people wanted.

---

Alan, either you are not reading what I'm writing, or you just want to argue.

I didn't ask why B&N didn't include a browser originally in the Touch.  I asked why they removed access to it (in an update) via a non-obvious use of the search function.

In either case, I'm done with you on this subject.

[DeanGibson Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

keriflur wrote:

---

DeanGibson wrote: 

However, regardless of the original reason to hide the browser in the Nook Touch, what about the Nook Touch update that blocked the "hole" that allowed access to the browser?  Why do you think B&N blocked that?  Users already knew the browser was unsupported.

---

If you built a product and users were accessing a half-baked feature that you didn't want to support, wouldn't you want to block it also?

---

Since I (as B&N) would have a perfectly good browser "on the shelf" from Android 2.2, I'd replace the browser with one that works.  After all, the big problem (for me) with the browser in the Nook 1st edition (that was a much older browser), was using the separate touch screen.

I find it amusing that every possible reason (except the obvious one, at least to me), is dredged up to explain the locked-down nature of the Nook Touches.

In a separate thread about a week ago, I asked about the reliability of the B&N browser, if I added the usual Android Market and a launcher to my rooted Nook Touch.  I was told (by roustabout and others) that it's not all that bad.

So, I think I'm going to spend some time tomorrow and complete that process on one of my Touches.  Then I will see if the browser is so bad that B&N needed to protect users (or, more accurately, B&N customer support) from it.

[AlanNJ Inspired Bibliophile]

---

DeanGibson wrote:

---

AlanNJ wrote:

---

DeanGibson wrote:

---

OK, why do you think B&N removed (via an update) access to the Nook Touch browser???

It's not like they don't have a couple years of experience as to how customers are using their Nooks (reading and otherwise).  Why go to the effort?

---

Because it's not what people wanted.

---

Alan, either you are not reading what I'm writing, or you just want to argue.

I didn't ask why B&N didn't include a browser originally in the Touch.  I asked why they removed access to it (in an update) via a non-obvious use of the search function.

In either case, I'm done with you on this subject.

---

If I'm not answering the way you want then possibly you're not phrasing your questions correctly.  I'm answering from my POV as clearly as succinctly as possible.  I agree though.  This topic is DONE.

[keriflur]

---

DeanGibson wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

DeanGibson wrote: 

However, regardless of the original reason to hide the browser in the Nook Touch, what about the Nook Touch update that blocked the "hole" that allowed access to the browser?  Why do you think B&N blocked that?  Users already knew the browser was unsupported.

---

If you built a product and users were accessing a half-baked feature that you didn't want to support, wouldn't you want to block it also?

---

Since I (as B&N) would have a perfectly good browser "on the shelf" from Android 2.2, I'd replace the browser with one that works.  After all, the big problem (for me) with the browser in the Nook 1st edition (that was a much older browser), was using the separate touch screen.

I find it amusing that every possible reason (except the obvious one, at least to me), is dredged up to explain the locked-down nature of the Nook Touches.

In a separate thread about a week ago, I asked about the reliability of the B&N browser, if I added the usual Android Market and a launcher to my rooted Nook Touch.  I was told (by roustabout and others) that it's not all that bad.

So, I think I'm going to spend some time tomorrow and complete that process on one of my Touches.  Then I will see if the browser is so bad that B&N needed to protect users (or, more accurately, B&N customer support) from it.

---

It seems you are not answering *my* question.  I didn't ask what you thought of the browser.

[DeanGibson Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

keriflur wrote:

---

DeanGibson wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

If you built a product and users were accessing a half-baked feature that you didn't want to support, wouldn't you want to block it also?

---

Since I (as B&N) would have a perfectly good browser "on the shelf" from Android 2.2, I'd replace the browser with one that works.  ..

---

It seems you are not answering *my* question.  I didn't ask what you thought of the browser.

---

I thought my first sentence answered it, but here goes:

Blocking would be a last resort for me;  there are other, better choices in my opinion, and one would be replacing the "half-baked feature" with one that worked.

[Ya_Ya]

---

DeanGibson wrote:

Blocking would be a last resort for me;  there are other, better choices in my opinion, and one would be replacing the "half-baked feature" with one that worked.

---

Except, they intentionally sold the device with no browser, from the beginning.  Or they tried to.  They meant to.

Given that, it's entirely reasonable that they keep blocking the workarounds. 

(I'm not making any judgments about whether or not there should be a browser.)

[DeanGibson Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

Ya_Ya wrote:

---

DeanGibson wrote:

Blocking would be a last resort for me;  there are other, better choices in my opinion, and one would be replacing the "half-baked feature" with one that worked.

---

Except, they intentionally sold the device with no browser, from the beginning.  Or they tried to.  They meant to.

Given that, it's entirely reasonable that they keep blocking the workarounds. 

(I'm not making any judgments about whether or not there should be a browser.)

---

Technically, they meant to include a crippled, hidden browser in order to respond to WiFi authorizations via a web page pop-up (which doesn't work as well as it should).

Customers being what they are, they have (repeatedly) found work-arounds.

I agree with you that the repeated blocking attempts are perfectly consistent with B&N's original intent to restrict usage of the Nook Touches to reading only.