Is the e-reader on its way out?

Predictions that the e-reader is done seem to be everywhere. What do those forecasts really mean for the publishing industry?

Brian Snyder/Reuters
A commuter reads on his e-reader in Cambridge, Mass.

The e-reader is dead.

At least, that’s according to the blogosphere, where analysts are predicting the death of the device that was supposed to save the publishing industry.

“The e-reader death watch begins,” proclaimed Slate.

“Why e-readers are the next iPods,” taunted Mashable.

“Here’s what the future of reading looks like,” offered New York Magazine, featuring a picture of a man reading a book not on an e-reader, but on a cell phone. 

What’s behind the dire proclamations? 

Analysts are citing recent moves by industry giants Amazon and Barnes & Noble as evidence of e-readers’ demise. 

Amazon just launched its first smartphone, a sign that the company recognizes that more people are reading books on their phone now, not e-readers like the Kindle. 

Barnes & Noble just announced that it’s spinning off its Nook division after revenues for the e-reader business fell 22 percent in the most recent quarter and 35 percent in the fiscal year.

And then there’s the industry watchers' predictions.

Forrester predicts e-reader sales will fall to only 7 million units in the US by 2017, compared to 25 million units sold in 2012. Ditto IHS iSuppli, which predicts US e-reader sales to plummet to 7.8 million by 2015. Meanwhile, IDC predicts the global tablet market will grow only about 12 percent this year compared to almost 52 percent last year. 

Since e-books account for so much reading and sales – the typical e-reader owner purchases and reads an average of 24 books a year compared to 15 books for a non-e-reader, according to a 2012 Pew report – could this spell disaster for the industry? 

Not so fast. Spinning "sky-is-falling" predictions are practically a sport in the publishing world. (See: death of the novel; death of the publishing industry.)

And while it is true e-reader sales are dropping off sharply, it’s not necessarily reason for alarm.

For starters, consumers may not be buying more e-readers because they bought them back in 2007 or 2008 when e-readers were hot and “e-reader models don’t really evolve, so there’s no need to upgrade,” as Mashable mused.

As the website pointed out, e-readers still have a niche market. “Like iPods, they're great gifts for kids too young to be trolling the Internet. Battery life also makes them attractive…making them attractive for long plane trips.”

Perhaps more importantly, however, is this point: cell phones and tablets are overtaking e-readers as the preferred e-book-reading platform of choice. 

“Increasingly, when people read e-books, they're doing it on their existing tablets and smartphones, not on devices built expressly for reading,” writes New York Magazine.

Adds Vox News, “Today 90% of Americans own a cellphone, 32% own an e-reader, and 42% own a tablet. This is important because most e-book consumption happens on those two devices. More than 50% of readers said that they read e-books on tablets or e-readers.”

That’s not fantastic news for readers, as New York Magazine points out: “If you've ever tried to read a book on your phone, you'll know why. Reading on an original Kindle or a Nook is an immersive experience. There are no push notifications from other apps to distract you from your novel, no calendar reminders or texts popping up to demand your immediate attention.”

But it’s not necessarily bad for the industry. Folks are still reading e-books, they’re just reading them on different devices.

Considering the fact that many more Americans own cell phones and tablets than e-readers, this trend may even increase the potential audience for e-books.

As Slate put it, “Devices come. Devices go.” To which we’d add: But reading will always endure.

Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.