Books vs. documents: what's wrong with so-called "ebooks"

Sorry Bezos, but I know a book when I see one, and Kindle ain't it. Neither are its E-Ink-based cousins, and that's a shame, because with a few tweaks they could actually replace dead tree.<BR><BR>Read More

 

[roryok]

I'm not sure if I agree about the first point, about the dual screen format - the majority of books only use a two page format because it'd be criminal not to print on the back of a page aswell. we only read one page at a time. However, there is, or shortly will be, a dual screen reader on the market in the form of the iRiver eBook (an here's hoping they come up with a more original name). as for underlining and making notes, honestly it would be a nice feature, but I can't remember the last time I wrote anything on any book of mine - it only damages them for a temporary payoff. obviously digital underlining would be different though. in fact, it could cater for all sorts of digital extensions of note taking, such as searching through notes, or extracting them and relative passages into a separate file for later perusing. <BR><BR>I agree overall, that ebooks are a long way off from being a true replacement to books, but I have my own reasons. <BR><BR>1. Price. I haven't seen one for less than $280, for which I could buy an 80Gb ipod and still have change left over for a box full of second hand books. <BR><BR>2. Format support. Its a difficult one to get right, but none of the ebooks so far have done PDF support right. This is mainly due to the low resolution of most of the units (800x600 average) which also makes the text less sharp than a book.<BR><BR>3. Style. The sony reader is ugly. as is iliad. and the bookeen. and don't even get me started on the kindle. The iriver one is the only stylish looking one so far. <BR><BR>Lastly, a bit of common sense. Here are a few things that wouldn't go astray on an ebook: <BR><BR>Add Basic Internet Support: <BR>reading rss feeds or emails that don't need to by 'synchronised' from my pc 'converted' by a third party. Amazon wants me to pay them for content that someone else provides for free. if my phone can handle the web, this thing surely can. <BR><BR>Add a few other apps: <BR>a calender or personal organiser would be nice. these started out as paper based systems. why not digital paper?<BR><BR>Stick a solar panel on the back:<BR>we're all trying to save the planet, right? aside from the dead trees involved, books don't use any energy themselves. And i'd be willing to bet the energy used to manufacture an eBook is an order of magnitude larger than that used to produce the average paperback. They say the batteries last for days on some models. So a trickle charge from even a small photoelectric cell could turn that into weeks, months or even years right?

 

[bizzybody]

I bought a used Handspring Visor Platinum in 2004 and used it primarily as a book reader until early 2007 when I replaced it with a used Palm Tungsten E2.<BR><BR>My primary reading apps are TealDoc 5.56 and Plucker. I tried a newer version of TealDoc because it had editing capability, but it was a completely separate program rather than simply allowing on the fly corrections while reading. The newer version also made opening, moving, deleting etc more complicated than the easy and simple version 5.56.<BR><BR>Plucker is open source freeware from www.plkr.org It was originally designed to capture (or "pluck") pages off the WWW and convert them into a PDA useable format, but it also works with plain text. Gutenberg.org has a "live" Plucker conversion on the site where you can download any of their text files in Plucker format. They're converted on demand so the Plucker files don't use space on their servers.<BR><BR>For the SciFi and Fantasy fans here, have you heard of the Baen Free Library? www.baen.com/library All the books there are 100% free, in several formats (though not Plucker or TealDoc, goldarnit!) and NO DRM. You're allowed to do anything you want with those e-books except sell them. Want more? There's The Fifth Imperium where you can legally download whole CD-ROM images of Baen books from some of their best selling authors. The same non-restrictions apply as with the Free Library e-books. http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/<BR><BR>Jim Baen (R.I.P.) was initially resistant to Eric Flint's idea to give away e-books without DRM or other restrictions, but once the sales of their "dead tree" books increased, they developed the "Webscriptions" service to sell e-books, also without DRM and in several formats.<BR><BR>No other book publisher has adopted anywhere near this kind of open policy in electronic publishing. Baen leaves it to the authors to decide if they want their books released in electronic form and the authors choose which, if any, of their e-books are in the free library.<BR><BR>Baen has found that giving stuff away is the best hook there is to get people interested in the rest of an author's work.

 

[DrPizza]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">. Brightness, contrast and color make a big difference (that's why newspaper isn't bright white). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Newsprint isn't bright white because it's cheap as shit, bleached as little as they can get away with, with a high proportion of recycled fibres. Not because it's better or more readable. It's as bad as they can get away with. If people would put up with it being even greyer, the newspapers would make it even less white.<BR><BR>Cheap paperbacks are a bit whiter than newspapers, good paperbacks whiter still, and high-quality hardbacks are bright white (and sometimes have a slight gloss). Copier paper (even the cheap stuff) is also bright white.

 

[drac]

<B>Lord Evermore:</B><BR><BR>I should note that landscape format e-readers would need to use multiple columns, as seen in the screenshots that I linked.<BR><BR>If a landscape reader is light and well-balanced enough, one-handed reading should be no problem.<BR><BR>My comments were based on my understanding of the website redesign studies that you cite.<BR><BR>I'm also a lover and collector of books.

 

[robotic_tourist]

I remember having ideas for textbook reader devices back in school. When I was in 1st year of secondary school we had 14 subjects and our bags were heavy. A couple of years later when we realised electronic displays were the future (c 1995) my friends and I envisioned a dual-screen display that could fold flat or close up and use a stylus. Preferably there would be options for free-form notes as well as margin notes. In fact it would be similar to some of the ideas posited in these forums for the the MacBook thin.<BR><BR>But back a little closer to Jon's article. I would say facing pages are a physical consideration that layout people have worked around for a long time and have got good at working with this format, not that the format is better. There are probably better solutions for automotive power than reciprocating pistons fueled by petrol, but car engine designers are good at the current tech and keep making it better and more efficient. In the same way drivers are used to driving with certain control mechanisms and to driving in a style that suits petrol-driven piston-engined cars (although I do wonder about many drivers).<BR><BR>A 17" MacBook Pro may seem expensive for reading books, but I like my MacBook's screen for reading, so the MBP probably can't be worse. The 17" MBP has a huge screen with high DPI so it can show loads at once with reasonable clarity. Leopard Preview also has some annotation features, but I haven't used it myself yet. All it lacks is very long battery life and a stylus for adding adding notes. The current crop of e-readers are relatively expensive for reading what would be throwaway paperbacks, but that's what they're designed for. Even when the price comes down you'll need to pay a lot more for the type of scholarly features Jon wants.<BR><BR>Finally, e-readers could do with Opera's ability to switch between the author's stylesheet and your own choice of stylesheet (and with an easier way of making stylesheets than hacking CSS). A designer's layout is important, but sometimes changing the font characteristics is more important for ease of reading.

 

[.劉煒]

I, for one, am more concerned about DRM and those sorts of issues wrt to 'ebooks' than the ability to markup, etc.

 

[komadori]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by .milFox:<BR>I, for one, am more concerned about DRM and those sorts of issues wrt to 'ebooks' than the ability to markup, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I might pay a little extra to have DRMed version with the purchase of a physical book, but I wouldn't buy a DRMed e-book outright.

 

[.劉煒]

Exactly. One reason why I get most of my ebooks from Baen these days.

 

[D Fluke]

Being able to handle it with one hand an read it in the dark with backlight are the main reason I prefer my PDA to regular paperbacks. <BR>If an ebook device had two screens and no backlight/light, then I'd consider those negatives for sure. <BR><BR>What is worrying is that more feature-full devices in terms of format support and "openness" have been around for years, but none of them ever took off (they were all regular LCD's though). Of all the current epaper-type devices I'd probably pick the illiad if I had to right now, but simply by the amount of support that seems to be behind the Kindle I'm thinking that'll be the most popular one in general.<BR><BR>Good times for fans ebooks regardless!

 

[Kressilac]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lord Evermore:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1) Provide a two page interface. Two screens representing each page so that when I am reading an eBook, my peripheral vision is mostly cut off. Believe it or not distractions rip someone out of a story and the physical design of a Book actually helps to minimize distractions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>So the larger the book, the better? Just make them wider and wider so that you can't possibly be distracted? What about when you're reading text along the edges of the book, your peripheral vision then can see past the pages and you might get distracted. Maybe 6 inch blank borders? I think for most of us, the risk of being distracted because our book doesn't cut off our vision enough is an acceptable one.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2) Provide a significantly higher resolution screen with 300 or so dpi. It's bad enough that the light emitted from an eBook is direct light to the eyes is more fatiguing(sp?) than the reflected/softer light from a Book. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Light is light. A different form of lighting for a display could do just as well to relieve the eye-strain. Brightness, contrast and color make a big difference (that's why newspaper isn't bright white). Higher resolution would be nice, as long as it means smoother text rather than just smaller text, but I don't think it needs to get too much higher to be okay, to fit about the same amount of text in each line as a paper book, with similar font sizes, and still keep the text smooth.<BR><BR>As for spilling a Coke: at least with an e-book, you could slurp the soda off the display. If they make them sealed around the display area at least, then you wouldn't even need to buy another drink. Preferably they could be made somewhat rugged by sealing them entirely (perhaps with a door with a sealing ring for a memory card) and using heatsinks/pipes and a heatsinked casing. I can't see them producing all that much heat. Integrate a hard cover to protect the screen and it becomes almost as safe to toss around as a book, albeit more expensive if you go past the threshold. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>An eBook with two pages has to weigh and balance like a good hard bound 300 - 400 page book. Anything more than that is unwieldy. Don't mock the minor pieces of the book experience. It's the sum of all the little things that a book offers that makes it an intimate reading experience versus the cold "nothin' but the facts" reality that is the eBook. Two pages provide a better level of isolation for the reader. They also protect the books content from other's wandering eyes. A book in that light is a far more personal experience. Hell a book even fits more naturally into one hand to hold it up and read it. I'm not saying that these are deal breakers but the book has had quite a few years head start to get entrenched in our culture and everyday habits. In order to unseat it with the eBook, the eBook has to do all these little things and improve upon the book. After that, it has to come down in price and then you'll see books become less important.

 

[Jon Stokes]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> For one, Stokes misses the difference between medium and message. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I think it's you who've missed something important, namely, the last 30+ years of media studies.<BR><BR>And speaking of missing things, I think a lot of people in this thread missed my point. The Kindle deliberately styles itself as something of a "Book 2.0," and my point is that it isn't, because it doesn't have proper legacy support for existing formats and features. It's just Kindle 1.0, whatever that is. <BR><BR>And it's fine for it to be a totally new thing--a portable document reader with a reflective screen. But this article wasn't as much about what Kindle is as about what it isn't.

 

[batrastard]

One entire genre that nobody's been discussing: periodicals, particular long-form weeklies and monthlies.<BR><BR>I currently get 3-4 of these, but I very rarely get to read even 10% of the content in them. I'm not willing to carry them around with me all of the time, so I never have them when I have a few minutes to kill. They also add a ton of clutter, and I feel bad throwing them away without having read them.<BR><BR>I'm looking forward to transferring these dead-tree subscriptions over to wireless delivery and always having half a dozen issues or so available. DRM isn't an issue for me for this type of content, and if there was a specific article I wanted to save, I'd go to the publication's web site and save/print from there (or I'd buy a copy at the newsstand). Of course, there are some publications that this isn't currently suited for (National Geographic style magazines with a ton of photography and illustrations), but over time this will improve, and I'd keep the print subscriptions to the coffee-table magazines anyway.<BR><BR>Frankly, I prefer reading the text-only versions with no advertising, and I'm willing to pay for that by itself.

 

[batrastard]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hannibal:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> For one, Stokes misses the difference between medium and message. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I think it's you who've missed something important, namely, the last 30+ years of media studies.<BR><BR>And speaking of missing things, I think a lot of people in this thread missed my point. The Kindle deliberately styles itself as something of a "Book 2.0," and my point is that it isn't, because it doesn't have proper legacy support for existing formats and features. It's just Kindle 1.0, whatever that is. <BR><BR>And it's fine for it to be a totally new thing--a portable document reader with a reflective screen. But this article wasn't as much about what Kindle is as about what it isn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'd have to disagree here - most of what I hear out of Amazon is summed up in the Michael Lewis quote they stick at the top of their product page: "This is the future of book reading. It will be everywhere." It happens to be that a lot of people have read the claim as "This is the future of books", which allows lazy argumentation precisely because it allows you to focus on the easy question "Kindle isn't a book" by listing features that it doesn't have rather than "how do people want to read book-length text", which requires thinking about how and why people read.<BR><BR>In particular, I expect better out of Ars because it is obvious to me that at some point years ago, someone smart asked "What is the future of technology journalism" instead of saying "This is how Ars Technica isn't as good as a print magazine".<BR><BR>By the way, I very much like the experience of reading the Ars "blog" on the Kindle, and I hope you guys are making good money from the subscriptions.

 

[Jon Stokes]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Did "calligraphers and typographers" really design "books to be read in facing-page format"? Or did they just make the most of what was the easiest(?) way to build and bind books? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would say facing pages are a physical consideration that layout people have worked around for a long time and have got good at working with this format, not that the format is better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And just go along with the point articulated in these two quotes, I'd like to offer this:<BR><BR>View image: http://images.art.com/images/products/small/10282000/10282676.jpg <BR><BR>...as an example of a man working around the limitations of pigments and canvas to produce something that is merely the primitive predecessor to our modern photograph. Clearly he was constrained by the crudeness of his tools in his quaint attempts to produce a perfect, photographic likeness of his subject. I would say that he got good at working with this format, but clearly what he wanted (but didn't know it) was a camera.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The paper book, for example, was not a better version of the handwritten manuscript. It lacked color, illustrations, cursive text. When Gutenberg published his Bible, he went to great lengths to imitate the previous technology... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, I know all this, and I cover much of this history in the talk linked at the bottom of the article. And I even agree with your main point, but I don't think this point has much relevance to the article. We already have a new medium with its own new possibilities, etc. It's called the Web, and at this point it's pretty thoroughly divorced from most bookish paradigms, having its own visual idioms, usage practices, etc.<BR><BR>But this article wasn't about the Web, or about some unspecified post-book reading technology that is coming into its own and shedding book-centric notions that constrain it from reaching its full, transformative potential, and so on. Rather, it was about a device termed an "ebook reader," and it discussed a particular "ebook reader" that is sold by a book company as a new way of reading books. That is what the article was about.

 

[Jon Stokes]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "This is the future of book reading. It will be everywhere." It happens to be that a lot of people have read the claim as "This is the future of books", which allows lazy argumentation precisely because it allows you to focus on the easy question "Kindle isn't a book" by listing features that it doesn't have rather than "how do people want to read book-length text", which requires thinking about how and why people read. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Why did he say "this is the future of <I>book</I> reading," or "this is the future of reading book-length texts," if the point isn't that Kindle is somehow a /book/ replacement? Why not just claim that it's "the future of reading," and leave books out of it?<BR><BR>Anyway, I've thought quite a bit about how and why people read, and so have typographers and book designers and historians of the book for the past few hundred years. You should read some of their work. I can give you a bibliography. But I'll tell you who I firmly believe has not thought nearly hard enough about how and why people read: Jeff Bezos, and the folks at Amazon. And it shows in their work.

 

[brentK]

A separate comment on each point:<BR><BR>1. I have never considered the facing-page format to be an advantage, considering it to be a geometric necessity of the easiest way to store text in an accessible format--ie. on the spatial manifold we live on, which is locally 3d and Cartesian, a page has two sides. Note that this condition is broken by having a single-sided display, and random access of data opens up other topological possibilities. While most possibilities would be difficult to conceptualize and not well-suited to sequential reading, the web has grown-up as an example of how the flexibility of an arbitrary topology has both advantages and needs for organizing principles. <BR><BR>I have never really considered that there would be advantages to having a two-paged book, but it makes sense that people would adapt their art to the medium available. So I will have to watch Hannibal's talk when I get the time to fully evaluate this first point.<BR><BR>I often read PDFs of scientific papers that are in two-column format on my computer. These PDFs reproduce the page of the printed journal, but I find that on screen the two columns are obnoxious more often than not.<BR><BR>My preliminary conclusion on this point is that the lack of the two-sided format is not a deal-killer for most books, and will be less-so as publishers adjust to eBooks. <BR><BR><BR><BR>2. I use a table PC, and almost daily I read and annotate text on it. Yest it's considerably more expensive than an eBook reader, and it's too big to stick in my pocket, and takes time to pull-out and use, but it works well for times when I will be sitting in one place for a while.<BR><BR>For a tablet PC the biggest problem is the file format, as has been discussed by others already. MS Word 2003 works pretty well for annotating, writing-on, etc., and I use it any time I can get a document in a format that I can paste into a word document (eg. plain text or html). Note that I hardly use Word for anything else, as for my own personal writing I do almost everything in plain text, latex or Windows Journal.<BR><BR>In this context I prefer the ability to change the format of the page, as this allows me to make more room for annotations where needed, and to adjust the columns for maximum readability.<BR><BR>Adobe seems to have decided not to invest in the Tablet API, so PDFs are a pain to write-on, but are fine for highlighting. I wish Adobe would change this, and imagine they will if Tablets really take off. (Oh well, there's always hope in XPS.)<BR><BR>I don't personally find eye-strain reading on the tablet to be a problem, but lighting can be. These factors are strongly influenced by the fact that I often use the tablet on the bus while commuting, so I don't have much control over the lighting, and I need to periodically look away from the screen to keep myself from getting car sick. But even when I'm at home I don't find eyestrain to be a problem.<BR><BR><BR>In conclusion, I tentatively disagree with Hannibal's first point, and whole-heartedly agree with his second. I really like the flexibility of annotating text on my tablet, and I like extending the flexibility of the page format to work for me. <BR><BR>I don't have a strong affinity for the physical book as a work of art, nor do I share the feelings with those who need a physical book to feel it is ``real"; I am much more interested in the book's content. I agree that it is nice to flip through a book at times when searching for something, but textual searching and multiple book marks more than make-up for a poor index, and this is one place I think interfaces will improve. For me, an eBook reader would enhance what I can get from a book, by giving more flexibility (*cough* DRM *cough* page-formatted PDFs *cough*) for interaction.<BR><BR>For those of you who are looking for annotation, consider the fact that right now the cost of an eBook reader would go a long way toward the difference in price between a regular laptop and a tablet.

 

[brentK]

I see Hannibal has responded to some of the comments while I was writing mine. And I still disagree a little bit, although I see that Hannibal has thought a lot more about this than I have (and I will watch the talk).<BR><BR>Is a book a physical object, or is it a self-contained, linear statement of ideas or a story? Most of what I read is not affected by the format it is printed in. Some of what I read is, though, and I can see why they should try to preserve this formatting when it would enhance the experience.

 

[batrastard]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hannibal:<BR>Why did he say "this is the future of <I>book</I> reading," or "this is the future of reading book-length texts," if the point isn't that Kindle is somehow a /book/ replacement? Why not just claim that it's "the future of reading," and leave books out of it?<BR><BR>Anyway, I've thought quite a bit about how and why people read, and so have typographers and book designers and historians of the book for the past few hundred years. You should read some of their work. I can give you a bibliography. But I'll tell you who I firmly believe has not thought nearly hard enough about how and why people read: Jeff Bezos, and the folks at Amazon. And it shows in their work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It's a lot easier to say "book reading" than "long-form immersive text reading". Yes, "book" is an overloaded term with a lot of different meanings, but I don't think there's any better term that describes the concept. I do think Amazon could explain the concept better, but their target audience (as I see it) seems to understand. Nobody that I've shown it to says "but it's not as good as a book - where is the picture of the author on the back cover?" And nobody says "oh, it reads magazines and newspapers too? Those aren't books!"<BR><BR>And it's important to distinguish between long-form reading and short-form reading because the user experience is so different. When looking through an RSS feed or looking through message board threads, navigation and response time are very important (I much prefer my desktop machine for that purpose), but when reading books and long articles, display quality, simple navigation, and "holdability" are key.<BR><BR>I actually am very interested in the history of print and books, so I'd love a bibliography. But book designers are just like any other human profession - they are very good at rationalizing the things that they do, and rarely have a chance to start from scratch in their thinking. This doesn't mean that there aren't valuable lessons learned, it's just that concert hall architects aren't necessarily the best people to go to when designing a MP3 player.

 

[drac]

As a fan of multiple columns, I would like to interject that onscreen PDF's are generally the most horrendous example of such formatting imaginable.<BR><BR>Please don't take them as being representative.

 

[grimbeaver]

Biggest problem I see with eBooks is simply price. You shell out several hundred for the device and then get very little savings out of buying the eBook over the real book.<BR><BR>On the front page of the Sony Connect site is "A Thousand Splendid Suns" by Khaled Hosseini:<BR>eBook Price : $12.99<BR>Hardcover from Amazon : $14.27<BR><BR>Where's the savings?

 

[batrastard]

That's really up to the publishers isn't it? In fact, Amazon has a clause in their publisher contract stating that they can sell subsidized books for less than the eBook "list" price. That's why "A Thousand Splendid Suns" sells at the Kindle store for $9.99.<BR><BR>Or you could load up all the free MobiPocket books you want and enjoy the free wireless internet access.<BR><BR>BTW I fully expect that within 5 years, these will be sold for $199 including a $99 online book-buying credit. Maybe given away as part of Amazon Prime or some other promotion.

 

[Greasy Breakfast]

The format is PDF, the device is a 10" iPod Touch style tablet.<BR><BR>Done and done.

 

[mwdavis]

Things wrong with so-called e-books<BR><BR>- unlike printed books, "e-books" do not stand alone. They are dependent on storage, transmission, power, and specialized access devices for use. Not useful in multi-day disasters (power was out for 2 weeks at our house a few years back due to a big snowstorm), collapse of civilization, 900 years from now, etc. That is, the book (or the printed word) has been an ideal mechanism of cultural transmission for thousands of years. If the Ancient Greeks used an analogous-to-ebook technology, would we know about Plato?<BR><BR>- DRM.<BR>A single book can be read by hundreds. And doesn't need batteries, licensing or the exchange of digital signatures.

 

[Ermenwyr]

One thing that's becoming obvious is that almost every book lover has his or her own set of reasons why the current generation of ebook readers can't replace physical books. Personally, I'm not that concerned with formatting, as long as it doesn't make the text too difficult to read. For me, there are four major problems with the current ebooks and readers: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>The readers are too expensive - a device for reading text does not need to cost $300. Ideally, ebook readers should cost no more than a couple of hardback novels.<BR><LI>The ebooks are too expensive - an ebook should cost, at most, as much as a mass market paperback.<BR><LI>Selection - every book I want to read should be available as an ebook that works with my reader as soon as the dead tree version is released.<BR><LI>DRM - as others have already mentioned, DRM means that your entire library could evaporate if your device stops working and the DRM provider is no longer around.</UL> None of these four problems alone is a deal-killer for me, but a company would have to fix at least three out of these four issues before I would even consider their product. But the more important point is that while this is my list, you probably have a different list. The only way ebook readers will ever take off is if the publishing industry can agree on a common, open (and preferably DRM-free) standard for ebooks, so that tech companies can produce a variety of ebook readers to satisfy the diverse population of book buyers.

 

[dmccarty]

++Monty Manley<BR>++Geof<BR>--Hannibal<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To display a book like Gutenberg's first Bible by offering the viewer only one page at a time is like displaying the Mona Lisa by showing the top half first, then the bottom half. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There's nothing beautiful in itself about the way that book pages face each other. It's even a detriment in some books, where the suspense is rising to a crescendo but you inadvertently see something on the facing page that gives the plot away. Facing pages in books are merely the side effect of a cost-effective and efficient binding process, the same way that easily being able to seal messages with wax was a nice side effect of using scrolls, or that knowing some magic tags lets me <B>highlight</B> certain parts of my message with this silly BBCode stuff we use, or that writing a message that lasts for 3,000 years is a nice side effect of writing on stone.<BR><BR>I've read both Hannibal's article and his subsequent comments, and the comments reflect a position that wasn't very well stated in the article.<BR><BR>Anyone who thinks the primary purpose of ebooks will be to display, in full original format, old books like Gutenberg's Bible, is as misplaced today as the people who told Gutenberg (maybe it was Gutenberg himself) that his book needed illuminations because it didn't look enough like a manuscript. Gutenberg didn't get it; the success in his format was in its availability and scale, not in its imitability to the manuscript it was about to replace.<BR><BR>Four hundred years later this article doesn't get it, either. Ebooks will ultimately succeed in some form because of just one killer feature: portability. My library numbers perhaps 500 books, which I can read only when I'm at my house, or take with me one or two at a time. The idea of having all of the books you love with you on some device is too powerful to ignore.<BR><BR>(It doesn't necessarily mean that one will come at the expense of the other, but the rise in ebooks and digital content will probably be mirrored by some sort of decline in printed copies of the same content. Personally, I think ebooks will explode in popularity once we reach a financial settling point on ownership of content--i.e., limited or no DRM--between writers and readers.)<BR><BR>Others have noted this point, but it bears repeating: most books can separate their content from their medium. The primary purpose of today's "book" is to convey a story or idea. If the author's intent can be as easily conveyed by a different medium then has the process of transmission actually changed?<BR><BR>Others authors, like your Bringhurst and my Tufte, for example, need absolute control over their content <B>and</B> their printed form, like using 6-color presses, acid-free paper and hand-sewn binding. These books will be remembered for what they were: the pinnacle of achievement in printed material. But the digital age is upon us and the times have already changed. Now we're just waiting for the available technology to catch up to the size of our wallets and our expectations.

 

[chady]

I have been buying and collecting books for as long as I have had the ability to read it seems. However the problem with keeping a collection of books is the ability to read them whenever I want to on the road or away from the books themselves. However the simple problem with ebooks is that I cannot transfer all the books without repurchasing them. Give me that ability and I would could start from there expanding my ebook library, but until then it will be paper back for me

 

[dmccarty]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mwdavis:<BR>If the Ancient Greeks used an analogous-to-ebook technology, would we know about Plato? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Linear B?!

 

[tadams]

The Kindle is close to what I want from an eBook. It gets a lot right, mainly the improvements on portability and convenience. The only thing lacking is the ability to annotate but eventually I see the eBook being much better for this than Paper Books. When the technology gets there, you'll be able to manipulate not only what you write, but the existing text as well. Need more room for notes after a passage? Just move the proceeding passage. It will end up being much more versatile and limitless. <BR><BR>So right now, it wouldn't be able to replace everything for me, but it'd definitely be able to replace the leisure books and magazines in my life. Now to get the price down to about 200.00 and we're there.

 

[Julio Inglesias]

This is what I'd love to see:<BR><BR>A simple reader for the hundreds of .PDF and HTML manuals and technical documents that I currently have.<BR><BR>I don't need Wi-Fi, I don't need MP3 capability, I don't need a phone built into it and I don't need to buy books online. All I need is access to a vast amount of pertinent job-related information whenever I need it.<BR><BR>To put it bluntly, I need it to be a tool not a piece of consumer electronics.<BR><BR>Maybe there's something like this out there already but I haven't been able to find it. I can't be the only on who would love something like this.<BR><BR>Make it $100 - $200 and we're in business. I think it would be great for IT pros, doctors, students and tons of other professions (lawyers??). Basically anyone who needs lots of information at their fingertips.<BR><BR>P.S. a tablet PC would be total overkill for what I'm proposing

 

[batrastard]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Julio Inglesias:<BR>This is what I'd love to see:<BR><BR>A simple reader for the hundreds of .PDF and HTML manuals and technical documents that I currently have.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It exists, except for the $100-$200 part:<BR><BR>https://www.irexshop.com/product_info.php?cPath=22&prod...c9246a4bf8b977926719<BR><BR>Considering that the display itself is rumored to cost about $300, you probably won't see a $150 version for a while. You're more likely to find a cheap tablet PC.

 

[jeamland]

I have to agree on principle with the complaints about the kindle, but with some personal differences:<BR><BR>1 - My main issue with "e-ink" is, and will be for quite some time as no other models appear to be forthcoming, is the complete lack of a light. I love the look of the "e-ink" displays from sony, even though they are slow to draw, but I refuse to spend that much money on a product that requires an external light source.<BR><BR>2 - As someone mentioned previously, the rocket/gemstar/ebookwise product has done a great job for a decade now: sure it's bigger and heavier, but it works very well indeed.<BR><BR>3 - A PDA IS NOT AN "e-book" READER. Neither is an iPhone/iPod Touch. They have screens that are MUCH too small: it's not really a comparison at all.<BR><BR>I like the idea of a dual page reader, but I'd be happy with a sony reader with a backlight.

 

[Julio Inglesias]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It exists, except for the $100-$200 part:<BR><BR>https://www.irexshop.com/product_info.php?cPath=22∏...c9246a4bf8b977926719<BR><BR>Considering that the display itself is rumored to cost about $300, you probably won't see a $150 version for a while. You're more likely to find a cheap tablet PC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Thanks for the info.<BR><BR>I've had a look at this before and it seems like a nice piece of hardware. I just can't justify the cost of it. To me, it's massively overpriced. I can buy a pretty decent laptop for that much.<BR><BR>I'd almost be tempted to get an eeePC when they come out with the version with the 10" screen.<BR><BR>I'd love to know what the markup on the iLiad is. Apart for the writing capability, it's just a bigger version of the Sony 505 for $300 more.

 

[Tekzel]

I am pretty sure there isn't a single point in the article I agree with. I mean, beyond the "collectible book" genre. Useful, functional, books cry out for an e-book format. I can't wait. I am cheap though, so the reader must be sub $100, and the books have GOT to be less than paper books. I will not accept anything else. Also, there must not be any DRM. I do not do DRM in any form willingly. The wireless thing is cool, but I doubt it will fit in my $100 requirement, so it must most likely go. I think the Kindle is close, if they can get that price down, and increase its format flexibility I think it might be a winner.

 

[Penforhire]

I can understand these complaints. I believe they will be overcome in the near future. The two-page thing only affects certain types of books, as does limited graphic capability.<BR><BR>Dial the usage back to "fiction" and they serve the purpose today. At least I hope so since I bought a Sony reader for my wife for Xmas present.<BR><BR>I think you missed the strongest argument against e-readers ever being full replacements for books. Digital formats have always been temporary. A real book lasts long after your Kindle device dies and cannot be replaced, or your digital file format is obsoleted.<BR><BR>Some will argue that you should convert your digital library every time the format or device changes. Or they will "always" be converters for old formats. The first is not a convenient response and the second is false (there are 'lost' file formats today).<BR><BR>The paper book didn't need conversion. You can still read Shakespeare's original printed pages. With archival construction and storage a printed book will last many centuries (stone tablets anyone?).<BR><BR>Having said all that, I'm all for e-books for my personal consumption.

 

[SunRaven01]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jeamland:<BR>3 - A PDA IS NOT AN "e-book" READER. Neither is an iPhone/iPod Touch. They have screens that are MUCH too small: it's not really a comparison at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I disagree. I have a small ebook library that I purchased for reading on my Palm, and I found the format adequate for the task.<BR><BR>I guess I go the opposite route from most people: I don't want an ebook reader device. I want ebooks that I can read on my pc, print off if I so desire, or read from the digital devices I already own (like my iPhone). I want to take the books I already own and convert them (or be provided conversions for them). I can already take my entire music collection with me if I so desire; why can I not do the same with my books?

 

[Irda Ranger]

Jon: when the automobile was first invented they called it "the horseless carriage." That's not because anyone actually thought it was a carriage; that was just a helpful analogy to help people grasp what general need it was supposed to fill.<BR><BR>Your complaints sound a bit like "That Model-T should never be called a 'horseless carriage', it's got no poop-scoop, and what's a carriage without one of those?"

 

[detour]

Cory Doctorow gave a good speech almost 4 years ago now called, "Ebooks: Neither E, Nor Books." A lot of it focuses on DRM, for sure, but he also goes through the reasons why eBooks are in some cases better than paper books and in some cases worse. eBooks aren't meant to be a direct replacement of paper books, especially the edge cases that Mr. Stokes outlines in his article. But for a whole host of reasons, they will be more successful at transmitting ideas and stories, just like "Gutenberg's sexy xerox machine."

 

[detour]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Penforhire:<BR>I think you missed the strongest argument against e-readers ever being full replacements for books. Digital formats have always been temporary. A real book lasts long after your Kindle device dies and cannot be replaced, or your digital file format is obsoleted.<BR><BR>Some will argue that you should convert your digital library every time the format or device changes. Or they will "always" be converters for old formats. The first is not a convenient response and the second is false (there are 'lost' file formats today).<BR><BR>The paper book didn't need conversion. You can still read Shakespeare's original printed pages. With archival construction and storage a printed book will last many centuries (stone tablets anyone?). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is a good point, but paper books still suffer from catastrophic loss of archives as well: witness the Library of Alexandria. Or to use your example, we know from written documents around Shakespeare's time that he wrote other plays of which no printed copy exists. Are digital files more or less robust for archival purposes? We won't really know the answer until we have as much history and experience with them as we have with the printed word. I suspect they are neither more nor less archivable, though.

 

[Julio Inglesias]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is a good point, but paper books still suffer from catastrophic loss of archives as well: witness the Library of Alexandria. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Witness the BBC Domesday project:<BR><BR>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Domesday_Project<BR><BR>Mind you, they did eventually figure out how to read it.<BR><BR>Alexandria was lost due to violence or natural disaster, today it's planned obsolescence.<BR>A book can last for a thousand years if it's taken care of. That DVD you have might not be accessible in two years because someone wants you to buy a new format of storage, Blue-Ray, HD-DVD etc. etc.<BR><BR>My tinfoil hat tells me that maybe there's more to this whole ebook thing than convenience for the consumer...

 

[batrastard]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Julio Inglesias:<BR><BR>Witness the BBC Domesday project:<BR><BR>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Domesday_Project<BR><BR>Mind you, they did eventually figure out how to read it.<BR><BR>Alexandria was lost due to violence or natural disaster, today it's planned obsolescence.<BR>A book can last for a thousand years if it's taken care of. That DVD you have might not be accessible in two years because someone wants you to buy a new format of storage, Blue-Ray, HD-DVD etc. etc.<BR><BR>My tinfoil hat tells me that maybe there's more to this whole ebook thing than convenience for the consumer... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Why, do you think the publishing industry wants to eliminate printed books? What's your reasoning?