E-readers have a higher cost efficiency

The argument

This argument compares an e-reader with printed books as an investment rather than as a reading experience, and holds that the device wins on cost over the life of a reader's library. The purchase is a single one. The price of an e-reader offers great flexibility, customisation and storage, and because of the device's durability that single purchase can last you for a long, long time. A reader therefore pays the hardware cost once and spreads it across every book subsequently read on it, so the cost per book falls the more the device is used. The recurring cost then favours the device as well. Regular e-books are generally cheaper than printed books, and e-books can also be downloaded for free from the internet, so the cost of buying books decreases after the switch. That is what makes an e-reader even more worth investing in: the saving is not a one-off discount but applies to every title acquired thereafter, and at a sufficient number of books it exceeds the price of the device itself. The comparison is then drawn against what a printed book delivers for its price. Comparatively, a printed book is meant to serve just one purpose — to be read — and it serves that purpose for one title only. Each additional book is a fresh purchase at full price, with no accumulated advantage. The argument extends the point to multi-purpose hardware. If you choose to purchase a smartphone, tablet or laptop, the variety of uses of the device increases, and more use can be obtained from it aside from reading books, spreading the same outlay across more functions. Overall, then, you save more money by investing in an e-reader: the same money buys more reading, which is why the argument concludes that e-readers have a higher cost efficiency and are better than printed books.

Premises

Counter-arguments

More often than not, readers tend to gravitate towards the best-sellers put forward by top publishing houses, which are not cheap. These books are not offered at reduced prices, and thus the individual ends up spending not just for the books, but for the device itself. Moreover, e-readers function on electricity and their constant use require them to be charged more frequently, thus resulting in an increased electricity bill. Reading books on e-readers also puts a strain on the eyes, which in serious cases may cause discomfort to the individual, forcing him/her to visit the doctor. On the whole, e-readers prove to be more expensive than physical books.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise omits the up-front cost that has to be recovered before any saving begins, and the discount on new titles from major publishers is small — so the break-even point depends on how much a person reads, which the argument treats as settled; free downloads are also either out-of-copyright works, equally free in print through libraries, or unlawful copies, which is not a property of the device. [Rejecting P2] Serving one purpose is not a cost, and the comparison quietly changes the subject when it moves to phones and tablets, since a device bought for other reasons is not evidence about e-readers; a printed book also needs no power, no replacement when the battery fails and no account to keep access to what was bought, all of which are recurring costs on the other side of the ledger.