The Future of The Written Word

amacachi

Psychedelic wrote: »

Kind of confused by this, a good few posters are talking about when e-readers eventually catch on, yet those stats would suggest they are already now mainstream.

Sales have gone up amazingly quickly, I didn't see it coming and am dying to get a Kindle or similar. Another thing to bear in mind is online piracy, I'd love to see some stats for downloads of ebooks for the last 3-4 years. If Amazon's sales of non-physical files has gone up so quickly I can't imagine how much illegal downloads have increased.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Toby Take a Bow

At the moment, it's paper books all the way for me. I don't travel much, and can always find a paper book cheaper than a digital edition (although, not having an eReader I'm not always comparing the prices, so I may be behind on what the actual pricing is in this matter). What I like about paper books isn't really the point here. For me, the digital versions just don't offer enough benefits for me to switch. I don't travel much, I don't need constant access to more than one book at any one time, I can't afford to replace an eReader if it breaks and I have a whole pile of paper books to read. But I'm not saying I wouldn't switch if it becomes beneficial to do so (either if my habits change or if publishers and companies like Amazon force readers like myself to switch. It's obviously in their interest to get customers to buy new overpriced books when there are so many cheaper alternatives around in paper form).

The arguments for and against regarding sales and the like are continual. An interesting one was in the Guardian recently:

Ewan Morrison's initial argument and the rebuttal from Lloyd Shepherd.

I think ebooks are here to stay and are probably the future, primarily because it will mean more money for the companies involved in selling them (or at least that's what they're banking on). Was always the way.

KnifeWRENCH

I don't have an eReader and don't have any immediate plans to get one. I've no problem browsing through forums or articles online and reading short passages of text on a laptop screen but I can't imagine sitting down and actually staring at and absorbing an entire chapter of a book. I think it would make my eyes hurt.

Also I love actual books too much to ever abandon buying them completely.

Eoin

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

I don't have an eReader and don't have any immediate plans to get one. I've no problem browsing through forums or articles online and reading short passages of text on a laptop screen but I can't imagine sitting down and actually staring at and absorbing an entire chapter of a book. I think it would make my eyes hurt.

You just can't compare an eReader screen to a computer screen. They are completely different things.

KnifeWRENCH

Eoin wrote: »

You just can't compare an eReader screen to a computer screen. They are completely different things.

Well ok, that was just an assumption on my part. I haven't really looked into eReaders that much because I never had any interest in getting one, so I'm fully open to correction on any mistaken assumptions I may have about them.

And yeah, I should have known that they wouldn't be detrimental to eyesight as I read recently that South Korea have plans to get rid of paper books altogether in their education system; by the year 2015 all books will be in the form of e-books! They'd hardly do that if they thought it would damage their childrens' eyes.

I dunno, I guess it's just me but I personally find the concept of staring at any sort of screen for hours upon hours at a time a little bit tiring. And I just love hoarding stuff and having collections; I still buy CD's as opposed to downloading. I'm still probably gonna hold off on getting an eReader until it becomes absolutely necessary.

Kinski

The BBC are reporting that Waterstone's are set to release an ereader next year.

Also, a piece from The Economist. I agree with this:

[Publishers] act as the venture capitalists of the words business, advancing money to authors of worthwhile books that might not be written otherwise. And they are editors, picking good books and improving them. So it would be good, not just for their shareholders but also for intellectual life, if they survived. [...] f they are to distinguish their wares from self-published dross, they must get better at choosing books, honing ideas and polishing copy.

Self-published novels *shudder* As Christopher Hitchens responded to the old saying about everyone having a book inside them, "Yes, and for most people that is where it should stay."

DuPLeX

I read an interesting book called "The Shallows" by Nicholas Carr recently, (on real paper though! ).
I would never buy an i-reader or pringle or whatever :rolleyes:
I've heard that amazon reached into peoples readers and deleted books by George Orwell (Ironically). so these "books" are not your property ?
Kinda reminds me of the film Fahrenheit 451 .

Kinski

DuPLeX wrote: »

I would never buy an i-reader or pringle or whatever :rolleyes:
I've heard that amazon reached into peoples readers and deleted books by George Orwell (Ironically). so these "books" are not your property ?
Kinda reminds me of the film Fahrenheit 451 .

They deleted illegal editions of 1984 which some customers had purchased. The people who produced that edition had no right to do so.

Though it is a bit like Fahrenheit 451: If Amazon discovers that you were unfortunate enough to buy an illegitimate e-edition of a text, they send a gleaming red firetruck round to your house, and the firemen then bust through your front door, snatch your Kindle and melt it with a flamethrower.

[OT: I'd cite the post quoted above as yet another example of why that eye-rolling emoticon should be banned from Boards forever. I hate that damn eye-rolling thing::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:]

DjFlin

On a related note. The Father of the eBook died recently.

syklops

Eoin wrote: »

You just can't compare an eReader screen to a computer screen. They are completely different things.

Can we sticky this at the top of this thread. Its a misconception bandied about by people who have never seen eInk screens.

My mother said this for years and years "Cant read off a screen". I bought my Dad a kindle for his birthday last year, and now she wants one for Christmas.

If you have not read text off an ebook reader, please consider not posting your aspersions about them. The old adage of not judging a book by its cover comes into play here.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eoin

Kinski wrote: »

They deleted illegal editions of 1984 which some customers had purchased. The people who produced that edition had no right to do so.

Though it is a bit like Fahrenheit 451: If Amazon discovers that you were unfortunate enough to buy an illegitimate e-edition of a text, they send a gleaming red firetruck round to your house, and the firemen then bust through your front door, snatch your Kindle and melt it with a flamethrower.

I think that Amazon have since said that they will never do that again.

Kinski wrote: »

[OT: I'd cite the post quoted above as yet another example of why that eye-rolling emoticon should be banned from Boards forever. I hate that damn eye-rolling thing

Adblock is the way to go; I've specifically blocked that image and it makes boards a much better place to read.

Nody

Eoin wrote: »

I think that Amazon have since said that they will never do that again.

And what would stop an legal requirement for them to stop a certain book? Court decision, president edict or what ever else? If it is printed then you keep a copy; e-version? Sorry, deleted of your eReader next time you connect.

syklops

Nody wrote: »

And what would stop an legal requirement for them to stop a certain book? Court decision, president edict or what ever else? If it is printed then you keep a copy; e-version? Sorry, deleted of your eReader next time you connect.

This is where your backup solution comes in to play

Toby Take a Bow

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

And yeah, I should have known that they wouldn't be detrimental to eyesight as I read recently that South Korea have plans to get rid of paper books altogether in their education system; by the year 2015 all books will be in the form of e-books! They'd hardly do that if they thought it would damage their childrens' eyes.

Not necessarily. The article you quote states that they are expecting the students to read the ebooks on tablets and computer screens, as well as (presumably) dedicated eReading devices. I foresee eyesight issues and eye strain down the line for some South Korean kids.

I don't know if they've managed to fix it, but there was an annoying glare off the touch screen sony eReaders which I didn't like, I think because they needed two screens to make it touch-compatible. The screens on the normal non-touch screens are just like a book, in my opinion, and don't hurt my eyes in the same way that this very computer does. However, the black blurb that happens when you 'turn' the page on an eReader (again, not sure if this is still the case) annoyed me when reading from a display unit.

DjFlin

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Not necessarily. The article you quote states that they are expecting the students to read the ebooks on tablets and computer screens, as well as (presumably) dedicated eReading devices. I foresee eyesight issues and eye strain down the line for some South Korean kids.

I don't know if they've managed to fix it, but there was an annoying glare off the touch screen sony eReaders which I didn't like, I think because they needed two screens to make it touch-compatible. The screens on the normal non-touch screens are just like a book, in my opinion, and don't hurt my eyes in the same way that this very computer does. However, the black blurb that happens when you 'turn' the page on an eReader (again, not sure if this is still the case) annoyed me when reading from a display unit.

I think if eReaders are to ever become the norm, people need to stop trying to implement touch screens into them. The Kindles buttons do the job fine. Touch Screens drive up prices, and drive down readability and battery life.

syklops

DjFlin wrote: »

I think if eReaders are to ever become the norm, people need to stop trying to implement touch screens into them. The Kindles buttons do the job fine. Touch Screens drive up prices, and drive down readability and battery life.

And stop making them mult-purpose devices. Even the addition of the music player which most have is unnecessary. Its an ebook reader. Its for reading. If you want to play Angry birds or check facebook, you need a tablet which is a very different device.

Toby Take a Bow

DjFlin wrote: »

I think if eReaders are to ever become the norm, people need to stop trying to implement touch screens into them. The Kindles buttons do the job fine. Touch Screens drive up prices, and drive down readability and battery life.

Driving up prices probably sounds pretty good to the companies manufacturing the devices. Constant running-down of battery life will probably mean you'll have to replace/repair the device quicker, so that'll be an added bonus for the company right there.

Kinski

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Driving up prices probably sounds pretty good to the companies manufacturing the devices. Constant running-down of battery life will probably mean you'll have to replace/repair the device quicker, so that'll be an added bonus for the company right there.

Not if there's a rival company producing a better alternative device.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ixoy

I know Amazon got some bad press over an incident with '1984' but that was unusual circumstances. There's been cases where a third party has illegally sold a book through Amazon who have then had to pull it.

It's not all bad though - recently they accidentally released the e-book edition of Neal Stephenson's "Reamde" a month early. I bought it in time. It's been pulled since but a nice slip of a database that worked in my favour

I read an interesting book called "The Shallows" by Nicholas Carr recently, (on real paper though! ).

Did reading it on "real paper" somehow make the story of better quality than if it were on an e-Reader? Did it change the words, add new secret content? Or was it actually the same story as people would read in an eBook edition?

Toby Take a Bow

Kinski wrote: »

Not if there's a rival company producing a better alternative device.

Yeah, but the rival companies often struggle to get a look in when up against the might of the big companies with really strong brand name. I know it happens sometimes but when I was working in a bookshop, people would bypass the cheaper, 'no-name' model of eReader for the big name brand nearly every time, despite them having exactly the same technology and in some cases (battery life and price) being far better value.

ixoy wrote: »

I know Amazon got some bad press over an incident with '1984' but that was unusual circumstances. There's been cases where a third party has illegally sold a book through Amazon who have then had to pull it.

I think Amazon get bad press for good reasons, normally. In addition to this, they're a huge company who are slowly gobbling up their competitors, which won't be good for price.

ixoy

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I know it happens sometimes, and I hope it happens in this case, but when I was working in a bookshop, people would bypass the cheaper, 'no-name' model of eReader for the big name brand nearly every time, despite them having exactly the same technology and in some cases (battery life and price) being far better value.

Isn't it also a case though that something like the Kindle has access to a huge library of books that other readers can't get to? Not everyone wants to read books from Project Guttenberg and most of the bigger sites use propriety formats. I know this helps create a monopoly but it's also quite probably the reasoning for picking that product

I think Amazon get bad press for good reasons, normally. In addition to this, they're a huge company who are slowly gobbling up their competitors, which won't be good for price.

Possibly - I think them investing in something like bookdepository is, despite their denials to the contrary, not good for consumers. They were right to withdraw "1984" from sale but wrong to withdraw it from customer's devices. Of all titles for them to withdraw, they did seem to chose one of the most ironic.

Toby Take a Bow

ixoy wrote: »

Isn't it also a case though that something like the Kindle has access to a huge library of books that other readers can't get to? Not everyone wants to read books from Project Guttenberg and most of the bigger sites use propriety formats. I know this helps create a monopoly but it's also quite probably the reasoning for picking that product

Yeah, I agree, and the Kindle seems like one of the best on the market (never actually seen one, though, as obviously in the bookshop I worked, we didn't sell Kindles) but I really don't like the idea of throwing in your lot with one company. I have heard that Amazon are a little better recently in terms of getting non-Amazon books on their device, which has to be good news.

ixoy wrote: »

Possibly - I think them investing in something like bookdepository is, despite their denials to the contrary, not good for consumers. They were right to withdraw "1984" from sale but wrong to withdraw it from customer's devices. Of all titles for them to withdraw, they did seem to chose one of the most ironic.

I was uneasy with Amazon owning abebooks, but them buying bookdepository was the final straw for me.

The stuff about 1984 was hilarious when it happened. I'm sure the people in Amazon who authorised what happened hadn't heard the book. If they had, there was no reason they'd have risked the inevitable bad publicity.

DuPLeX

"They deleted illegal editions of 1984" that is precisely my point! there are many things which can be deemed illegal in different social or political climes (as they have been in the past) only in the future , if you are are a dissenter or a radical or whatever the state deems illegal, you are pretty much an open book (pardon the pun) when it comes to your reading materials. :eek:

Eoin

DuPLeX wrote:

if you are are a dissenter or a radical or whatever the state deems illegal, you are pretty much an open book (pardon the pun) when it comes to your reading materials.

As you would be if you ordered a print version of the book online, or even googled whatever material you're looking for.

My eBook software does not allow files to be deleted by a 3rd party, so this is a complete and utter non-issue for me (aside from Amazon stating that they will not do this again).

In my mind, these are all no more than teething issues that will be overcome.

KnifeWRENCH wrote:

Well ok, that was just an assumption on my part. I haven't really looked into eReaders that much because I never had any interest in getting one, so I'm fully open to correction on any mistaken assumptions I may have about them.

It really feels completely different. I need glasses for using a computer screen, but not an eReader. eInk requires a far lower refresh rate, which is much easier on the eyes. I've read my eReader for hours on end without any problem. I tried it for about 40 minutes on my tablet, but couldn't do it - even on the lowest brightness setting. There's really no comparison.

DuPLeX

Eoin wrote: »

As you would be if you ordered a print version of the book online, or even googled whatever material you're looking for.

I usually buy them in bookshops or borrow them from friends ,so I "wouldn't" be.
As for Amazon, I'm sure they wont do this again until they find it necessary to do so

Eoin

OK, so you wouldn't be then. Anyone else who buys anything online would be, so I still don't think it's a very relevant point to make.

Kinski

DuPLeX wrote: »

"They deleted illegal editions of 1984" that is precisely my point! there are many things which can be deemed illegal in different social or political climes (as they have been in the past) only in the future , if you are are a dissenter or a radical or whatever the state deems illegal, you are pretty much an open book (pardon the pun) when it comes to your reading materials. :eek:

If I wake up one day and find myself living in a Foucauldian panopticist dystopia, I think I'm going to have much bigger things on my mind than "Oh no! Amazon can delete titles stored on my Kindle account! What will I do?!!"

DuPLeX

Kinski wrote: »

If I wake up one day and find myself living in a Foucauldian panopticist dystopia, I think I'm going to have much bigger things on my mind than "Oh no! Amazon can delete titles stored on my Kindle account! What will I do?!!"

From what I've read from you here, I doubt very much that you will ! (impressive use of big words though ) .

DuPLeX

Eoin wrote: »

OK, so you wouldn't be then. Anyone else who buys anything online would be, so I still don't think it's a very relevant point to make.

I thought we were discussing E readers not online shopping.
and my comment was about "connected" readers.
I am not a Luddite and I have a good comprehension of the technologies and their advantages.
My point was simply that every time a piece of technology gives you something, it also takes a little something away.
I am simply saying be mindful of the price.
Now you may not think it relevant, but I do .

Eoin

DuPLeX wrote: »

I thought we were discussing E readers not online shopping.
and my comment was about "connected" readers.

You said: "if you are are a dissenter or a radical or whatever the state deems illegal, you are pretty much an open book (pardon the pun) when it comes to your reading materials."

I can't see how that's specific to connected eReaders, let alone eReaders at all. It just sounds like one should be careful about doing any sort of online interaction if you're worried about your reading materials landing you in Gitmo.

This is a really silly debate.

DuPLeX

Eoin wrote: »

You said: "if you are are a dissenter or a radical or whatever the state deems illegal, you are pretty much an open book (pardon the pun) when it comes to your reading materials."

I can't see how that's specific to connected eReaders, let alone eReaders at all. It just sounds like one should be careful about doing any sort of online interaction if you're worried about your reading materials landing you in Gitmo.

This is a really silly debate.

your right, its getting Pretty stupid