When I'm wrong about something, I'll admit it. I called Amazon's Kindle e-book reader a loser
last year -- not because I don't believe in e-books, but because the device is too expensive and too big. Amazon has refused to release sales figures for the Kindle (which would seem like further evidence that it's not taking off with consumers) but now TechCrunch is reporting that they've sold 240,000 units
(based on information from "a source close to Amazon with direct knowledge of the numbers").
If 240,000 units have really sold, then I am flat out wrong. Nobody, not even me, can argue with $75 million in revenue for an innovative tech product's first year. I do find this figure slightly incredible (especially since I live in New York City and have never yet seen anybody walking around with a Kindle), but I also believe TechCrunch to be a reputable source of information, so I'm not sure what to think. Many other industry observers are similarly pondering what this all might mean; Chad Post's roundup
of recent Kindle buzz is a good starting point for the ongoing discussion.
Wrong is wrong, and if TechCrunch's reported numbers are right then the Kindle is a big winner and my prediction was wrong. I still say that it's crucial for the electronic book industry to make e-books affordable for readers in all income segments, and a format that requires a $360 initial outlay goes against the grain of everything I believe
about the importance of reasonable pricing for books, electronic or otherwise. Still, if 240,000 Kindles have sold than I clearly missed this call.
On a completely different front: I had never heard of historian Niall Ferguson four months ago when I lost my temper
after reading his cover article about terrorism and global politics in the New York Times Book Review. I felt that Ferguson's article offered Bush-worthy cliches about terrorism and Al Qaeda, and I mocked his puffy academic credentials as harshly as I could.
I still can't explain what went wrong with this terrible NYTBR article. However, I recently noticed Ferguson's name on a TV listing for a public television history series called The War of the World: A New History of the 20th Century
and tuned in to see what my nemesis had to say. I was surprised to discover in Niall Ferguson an aggressively original thinker with a valuable theory about the primacy of ethnic tension in the sad history of 20th Century international politics. I watched every episode of this series
, and after it was over I bought a Niall Ferguson book called The Pity of War: Explaining World War I
The Pity of War
turns out to be a smart and important book designed to challenge long-settled notions about the Great War. Ferguson, who is Scottish, comes down particularly hard on Great Britain's role in escalating the conflict, and concludes that much of the misery that resulted could have been easily avoided. Like Nicholson Baker's Human Smoke
or David Andelman's A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today
, this book urges readers towards a wider understanding of the two world wars that still so haunt our world today. In complete contradiction to my original statements about Niall Ferguson, I am happy to say that I now consider him one of my favorite contemporary historians. I am certainly going to read more of his books (probably this one
Wrong is wrong, and I now freely concede that I was definitely wrong about Niall Ferguson, and was probably wrong (we still do not have solid information here) about the Kindle as well.
If I'm ever wrong a third time, I'll let you know then too.