Publishers Pushing Paper

A recent New York Times article, Selling Books by Their Gilded Covers, describes how publishers are fancifying their print books with artsy covers and nifty end papers and whatnot.  This is done, apparently, to bring people back to print. Of an especially nice looking edition of Stephen King's "11/22/63", a publisher is quoted as saying "We hoped that a handsome object would slow the migration to e-book."

It's interesting, and it's expected.  Books are not going to disappear.  There's way too much history wrapped up in them. (Hell, vinyl hasn't even disappeared.)  But, with a few exceptions, such as the picture book which still doesn't have a decent electronic equivalent (it's awkward to read an iPad app alloud to a classroom), paper and ink books will, more and more, become collector's items, rather than practical reading material.

But what I have to wonder is why are publishers clinging to paper? It's the same publisher handling both formats.  Why do they continue see the eBook as a threat? With eBook pricing locked at $15 for new releases, they have to be getting better margins on electronic copies than on the print ones.  In fact, most of publishers' griping about eBooks is that they can't figure out how their print book sales will be effected.  But if nearly everyone goes electronic, that problem disappears. Print sales won't matter because there will hardly be any. Encouraging sales of a dying media seems to just extend the period of confusion.  Why aren't publishers encouraging eBook sales, pushing customers to convert?  Do they like paying for printing, shipping, warehousing, and disposal of remainders? Is it all just nostalgia? Seriously, can someone explain this to me?  I really want to know.