NationStates Jolt Archive

I just read an article about the Frankurt Book Fair which was mentioning the fact that off all the articles exhibited this year, only 43% were actually books.
Audiovisual media made for 30%, it's been a growing market segmet for a long time now.

But what really triggered this question are the e-book readers presented by Sony and Amazon.
I recently saw an ad for I think it was Blockbuster, offering the Sony Reader for a mere 900 Euros or so. That had me wondering ... 900 Euros? Sure, you can then download all the books you want (although legally you'd still have to pay for them), but wouldn't that be an awful lot of books until you break even? Though I guess the price might start dropping soon enough, if this proves to be popular.
I guess an advantage of those readers would be that you can just download whatever you want to read, and then take it with you. It won't take up as much space as a book.
But then again, I love having my books around, being able to read them again, even just passages, and at the end of the day they are decorative.
Or am I just being nostalgic?

I think it was Umberto Eco who once said "A book is like a hammer and nail. You can't improve it any further."

Mind you, I love the new media, but the thought of a world without books, without the smell of old dusty paper when you go into a used book shop, without shelves on the wall stacked with books... it's not a nice thought to me. :(

Books are wonderful when the power goes out.

Books are wonderful when the power goes out.

They can be a bit difficult to read by candlelight, though. ;)

But true, they waste less energy.

Also, you can smack people with books without concern for damaging fragile and expensive electronics. *nod*

Also, you can smack people with books without concern for damaging fragile and expensive electronics. *nod*

*smacks LG with Gutenberg Bible*

but wouldn't that be an awful lot of books until you break even?
45?

45?

That would average at 495 Euros...

And I honestly doubt that a large part of the population would actually read that many books within, say, 5 years or so. By which time your average electronic gadget is obsolete and you need a new one.

That would average at 495 Euros...

And I honestly doubt that a large part of the population would actually read that many books within, say, 5 years or so. By which time your average electronic gadget is obsolete and you need a new one.
Wait, what?

Average at 495? Please explain that to a silly Dutch person.

Wait, what?

Average at 495? Please explain that to a silly Dutch person.

Iiiiiiinflaaaaaaaaatiiiiiieeeee... :p

*smacks LG with Gutenberg Bible*

Ahhh! It burns! It burns!!! *leaps into mud*

Wait, what?

Average at 495? Please explain that to a silly Dutch person.

Well, the average book costs 11 Euros... so times 45, that's 495, right?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ

Subtitled, but funny! ;)

Electronic typewriters were supposed to make pens and pencils obsolete. We still use them.

The personal computer and internet were supposed to make paper and printing obsolete. We are still consuming massive amounts of ink and paper daily in saving hard copies of documents.

Books will not become obsolete because hard copy is just a more durable way to store data.

And because of something the e-book people are not considering: the retail price of ink and paper. In the entire history of printing since Gutenberg, the most expensive part of producing written material has been the ink, and the second most expensive is the paper. Despite the near universal and ever increasing demand for these materials, their rank in the price scale has never gone down. There is no reason for it to do so now.

Have you folks bought ink/toner for your printers lately? The retail price of ink (as well as paper) is so high (compared to wholesale) that, if people want to save copies of books they download, printing them will end up being a higher cost to each consumer than buying commercially printed books, where the cost is lower due to wholesale pricing -- especially if books are bought remaindered or used, where the discount brings the price much closer to cost.

If e-books can be downloaded as audio files, that would be a significant savings for consumers, though it would be bad for general literacy. But download-to-print books, though much easier for the sellers, will not turn out to be cost effective for consumers in the long run.

Have you tried burning an e-book...
Actually I quite like the new e-book readers but I still enjoy the tactile pleasure of owning real books. As a librarian I can see a lot of potential, particularly being able to carry round a whole reference section. I t will come down to formats though and people tried to maximise profit.

Well, the average book costs 11 Euros... so times 45, that's 495, right?
11?

The books I buy for my mon are 20 euros and are all priced that everywhere in Holland. Either Ireland is cheap(er) or we're talking about different books.

11?

The books I buy for my mon are 20 euros and are all priced that everywhere in Holland. Either Ireland is cheap(er) or we're talking about different books.

For 20 Euros you would get hardback books here. I was talking paperback.

Also, I was talking novels. Scientific books can cost several times that, I didn't consider that...

Books are an easy and failsafe way to record information. Their very low-techness is what makes them so useful.

You will never have a Boy Scouts Interactive DVD completely eclipsing the quintessential handbook, or a surveyors PDA replacing their waterproof sketchbooks.

Drop a book in the mud and you can still access the information. Drop a e-book reader in the mud and you're done.

To me, books aren't obsolete. Why? There's nothing better than to browse through the aisles of a book store or a library and picking those little treasures I adore so much. Then, opening the books and breathing in that musty smell from the pages... I adore that! Nothing can beat it.

Besides, books make me think of Antiquity, of old libraries in Middle Aged castles or distant monasteries. I see those monks, bent over their books, painstakingly writing on the parchment or velum. It makes me love those bound volumes even more.

For 20 Euros you would get hardback books here. I was talking paperback.

Also, I was talking novels. Scientific books can cost several times that, I didn't consider that...Ah, paperbacks, I meant hardback books.:tongue: But I did mean novels too.

I just read an article about the Frankurt Book Fair which was mentioning the fact that off all the articles exhibited this year, only 43% were actually books.
Audiovisual media made for 30%, it's been a growing market segmet for a long time now.

But what really triggered this question are the e-book readers presented by Sony and Amazon.
I recently saw an ad for I think it was Blockbuster, offering the Sony Reader for a mere 900 Euros or so. That had me wondering ... 900 Euros? Sure, you can then download all the books you want (although legally you'd still have to pay for them), but wouldn't that be an awful lot of books until you break even? Though I guess the price might start dropping soon enough, if this proves to be popular.
I guess an advantage of those readers would be that you can just download whatever you want to read, and then take it with you. It won't take up as much space as a book.
But then again, I love having my books around, being able to read them again, even just passages, and at the end of the day they are decorative.
Or am I just being nostalgic?

I think it was Umberto Eco who once said "A book is like a hammer and nail. You can't improve it any further."

Mind you, I love the new media, but the thought of a world without books, without the smell of old dusty paper when you go into a used book shop, without shelves on the wall stacked with books... it's not a nice thought to me. :(

I guess the trees will feel a bit safer. We will lull them into a false sense of security, only to strike again when books become a nostalgia item.

I like books. It's a lot easier to read a book than a computer screen for a long period of time. e-books are expensive and any electronic device is at risk of failure.

To me, books aren't obsolete. Why? There's nothing better than to browse through the aisles of a book store or a library and picking those little treasures I adore so much. Then, opening the books and breathing in that musty smell from the pages... I adore that! Nothing can beat it.

Besides, books make me think of Antiquity, of old libraries in Middle Aged castles or distant monasteries. I see those monks, bent over their books, painstakingly writing on the parchment or velum. It makes me love those bound volumes even more.
I love books so much that I make them as art objects -- the books themselves are art, and so is their content, all meant to be read and handled just like a "regular" book.

I can envision a future in which most books are "published" online and people download them as audio -- leading possibly to a lowering of literacy in the general population, which would be very bad, socially, imo -- and print those they want to keep forever as manuscripts (loose pages).

For books they really want to preserve, people might order a properly bound copy, which would likely be more handmade than books are now.

And I can also envision an enterprising publisher who knows what they are doing undercutting the download-to-print market by producing relatively less expensive printed and bound volumes for retail sale.

There is also the need to pay for power right?

I guess the trees will feel a bit safer. We will lull them into a false sense of security, only to strike again when books become a nostalgia item.

No, trees are to smart to fall for that (they do fall (be)for(e) other human inventions though).

They know they're always the pine-ut, but I'm afraid that joke only works for an English speaking Dutchie... ;)

No, trees are to smart to fall for that (they do fall (be)for(e) other human inventions though).

They know they're always the pine-ut, but I'm afraid that joke only works for an English speaking Dutchie... ;)

We treedom fighters are much too wily to let the enemy become aware of our symbolic strike upon them.

900 euros? They go for less than $400 in the US.

I love books so much that I make them as art objects -- the books themselves are art, and so is their content, all meant to be read and handled just like a "regular" book.

Yes, books are art objects, meant to be cherished and handled with care and love. A world without books, without the actual object, without the turning of pages long into the wintry night, would be such an empty world.

I love books, actual paper books, my fond dream is to one day have a private library in my house, with books on every wall and even above doors and windows. And a fireplace.

Seriously though, books arent going out of fashion, although they might get a bit less popular.

We treedom fighters are much too wily to let the enemy become aware of our symbolic strike upon them.

But with trees as enemies, the term "they're on to us" gets a rather more pressing meaning! :D

They may be log, but their stem will be heard for miles around... Oops, another Englutch-only construction... :p

But with trees as enemies, the term "they're on to us" gets a rather more pressing meaning! :D

They may be log, but their stem will be heard for miles around... Oops, another Englutch-only construction... :p

The bark of the trees is worse than their bite. Don't expect us to be trembling in our clogs.

There is also the need to pay for power right?
There's that, too. You need power for every aspect of e-books -- writing, uploading, advertising, viewing, downloading, getting in and out of data storage, and printing.

Paper books can be produced entirely mechanically or by hand with no power usage at all -- if one should ever need to. This includes every single aspect of them including the production of the physical parts of the book and the shipping to market.

I love books, actual paper books, my fond dream is to one day have a private library in my house, with books on every wall and even above doors and windows. And a fireplace.

Seriously though, books arent going out of fashion, although they might get a bit less popular.
What's stopping you? I was raised in a book-loving family. In my world a house is not a home unless it is filled with books and contains at least one cat. I have books tucked away in every corner of my apartment, in nearly every room. I have hundreds of books, and it was a dark day that I had to purge some when I moved from one state to another ten years ago, because I had nowhere to store them. I'm still, ten years later, trying to figure out which ones I got rid of that I shouldn't have and how to replace them (if they are out of print).

The bark of the trees is worse than their bite. Don't expect us to be trembling in our clogs.
*beats HotRodia with a stout oaken bough and then gives him multiple paper cuts as punishment for that godawful pun*

Have definitely not gotten into the whole electronic reading thing. For one, it hurts my eyes after a while in ways books never have. I find scrolling to be extremely tedious compared to page turning.

And call me paranoid, but electronic material is way too easy to edit or change to make it say what you want it to say. I guess 1984 stuck a little in my mind.

The bark of the trees is worse than their bite. Don't expect us to be trembling in our clogs.

Well, fir sure they can seem quite quiet, but you better leaf them alone, because they are the root of all evil, so you better do tremble in your trunks!

Have definitely not gotten into the whole electronic reading thing. For one, it hurts my eyes after a while in ways books never have. I find scrolling to be extremely tedious compared to page turning.

Then don't scroll ;) Pageturning can be done electronically as well.

I like both ebooks and normal books. EBooks have the huge advantage of fitting on my pda/netbook; so that I do not have to carry a library with me.

Then don't scroll ;) Pageturning can be done electronically as well.
Staring at a screen for long periods of time is bad for your eyes and causes general fatigue. Staring at print on paper for long periods of time is better -- less damaging.

Then don't scroll ;) Pageturning can be done electronically as well.

I like both ebooks and normal books. EBooks have the huge advantage of fitting on my pda/netbook; so that I do not have to carry a library with me.
I think they are a great tool for researchers, students, and some professions, where immediate access on short notice to lots and lots of information is needed.

Then don't scroll ;) Pageturning can be done electronically as well.

I like both ebooks and normal books. EBooks have the huge advantage of fitting on my pda/netbook; so that I do not have to carry a library with me.

The problem of E-books (which also happens with audio books) is that, often times, their abridged and eliminate some pivotal points that the printed edition contains.

I hate the Kindle thing, or whatever it's called. There will never, in my mind, be a substitute of equal quality to books.

I did my part this weekend buying up books at the city library sale. :D

I just read an article about the Frankurt Book Fair which was mentioning the fact that off all the articles exhibited this year, only 43% were actually books.
Audiovisual media made for 30%, it's been a growing market segmet for a long time now.

But what really triggered this question are the e-book readers presented by Sony and Amazon.
I recently saw an ad for I think it was Blockbuster, offering the Sony Reader for a mere 900 Euros or so. That had me wondering ... 900 Euros? Sure, you can then download all the books you want (although legally you'd still have to pay for them), but wouldn't that be an awful lot of books until you break even? Though I guess the price might start dropping soon enough, if this proves to be popular.
I guess an advantage of those readers would be that you can just download whatever you want to read, and then take it with you. It won't take up as much space as a book.
But then again, I love having my books around, being able to read them again, even just passages, and at the end of the day they are decorative.
Or am I just being nostalgic?

I think it was Umberto Eco who once said "A book is like a hammer and nail. You can't improve it any further."

Mind you, I love the new media, but the thought of a world without books, without the smell of old dusty paper when you go into a used book shop, without shelves on the wall stacked with books... it's not a nice thought to me. :(


Yep eventualy books will be obsolete, ormad collector items. It's a shame really as you can normaly tell a fair bit about somebody by looking at their book case.

Yep eventualy books will be obsolete, ormad collector items. It's a shame really as you can normaly tell a fair bit about somebody by looking at their book case.
Will they go obsolete before or after the pencil does?

What's stopping you? I was raised in a book-loving family. In my world a house is not a home unless it is filled with books and contains at least one cat. I have books tucked away in every corner of my apartment, in nearly every room. I have hundreds of books, and it was a dark day that I had to purge some when I moved from one state to another ten years ago, because I had nowhere to store them. I'm still, ten years later, trying to figure out which ones I got rid of that I shouldn't have and how to replace them (if they are out of print).

Most of my books are in boxes in storage or in boxes under the house, because we were going to sell our house (twice--we're very indecisive). It makes me a sad sad panda. When the real estate agent staged our house, he made my mom's old office into a library (there were already six bookcases in it)--then made us take OUT a bookcase and remove 50% of the books, because we had "too many". They all fit on the shelves, they weren't in piles or anything, but apparently a bookcase actually FILLED with books is gauche.

I prefer physical books...I need to underline and highlight and write notes in the margins. Can't quite do that as well using an e-book. Atleast not in the same way.

Most of my books are in boxes in storage or in boxes under the house, because we were going to sell our house (twice--we're very indecisive). It makes me a sad sad panda. When the real estate agent staged our house, he made my mom's old office into a library (there were already six bookcases in it)--then made us take OUT a bookcase and remove 50% of the books, because we had "too many". They all fit on the shelves, they weren't in piles or anything, but apparently a bookcase actually FILLED with books is gauche.
Haha, I've seen stuff like that on those house-staging, let's-sell-this-dump tv shows.

On the one hand, I understand the concept of stripping away as much of the seller's signs of ownership as possible. You want to make the house look generic, with just enough decoration to (a) hide flaws and (b) suggest uses for rooms, but still be blank enough for buyers to imagine their own stuff in it, not be distracted by yours. Do you want them reading your books, or buying your house, after all?

On the other hand, I do find it odd that so many stagers want bookcases in a room but want them empty of books. Not really sure what marketing message that is supposed to send.

EDIT: Just thought of something: Maybe it's because, if they get distracted into looking at your books instead of the room, and they don't like your reading tastes, it will prejudice them against buying a house from you -- as if it catches your pulp fiction cooties or something.

Will they go obsolete before or after the pencil does?

Heh good question. I dunno, I should imagine after yeah?

Heh good question. I dunno, I should imagine after yeah?
Then I'm gonna bet books will be around a long time yet. ;)

.....as if it catches your pulp fiction cooties or something.

This is actualy true, I caught it from a freind of mine.

I was reading a review of the Kindle just the other day, and the reviewer came to pretty much the same conclusion I guessed - he said that he liked it more than he expected he would (apparently it has a new sort of screen that you can actually look at for extended periods of time without getting achy eyes, which is nice), and that he could absolutely see it replacing newspapers, and possibly even books to take on vacation...but not books in general, because the experience of reading an actual physical book is just nicer.

Then I'm gonna bet books will be around a long time yet. ;)

Ahhh you have to realise of course when I say eventualy I'm talking in the scale of hundreds of years, not say 20 or 30.

EDIT: Just thought of something: Maybe it's because, if they get distracted into looking at your books instead of the room, and they don't like your reading tastes, it will prejudice them against buying a house from you -- as if it catches your pulp fiction cooties or something.

I could actually sort of buy this, given that the bookshelves are the very first things I look at when I visit anyone's home, and if I see terrible books on them, my opinion of their owner really does go down a notch. And I know I'm not alone in this, as I've discussed this phenomenon with many of my friends (and I've also seen many of us offer unprovoked "I only got the Da Vinci Code to make fun of it, I swear!"-style disclaimers as soon as people walk in). :tongue:

Ahhh you have to realise of course when I say eventualy I'm talking in the scale of hundreds of years, not say 20 or 30.
Fair enough, though considering how long we have been using writing (not just print) to store and share information, and thinking in terms of historical time, I can easily imagine books persisting, in some form, for another thousand years. Unless some really radically new technology comes along.

Fair enough, though considering how long we have been using writing (not just print) to store and share information, and thinking in terms of historical time, I can easily imagine books persisting, in some form, for another thousand years. Unless some really radically new technology comes along.

I see what you mean, and I truely wish that woud be the case, but I fear that it will not be.

Let me explain. With each new generation being used to the devices of their own era, and the older generation dying out, then the much loved tech of yesterday, and today will just fade from use, exceptions of course exist.

Take for example VHS, or vynil recordings. How many of use still use walkmans, or portable CD players as opposed to MP3 players?

The mobile phone has virtualy wiped out the CB radio craze of the 80's.

My mother no longer uses the mangle to dry her cloths, and when she and her generation have gone, in as little as say 70 years, then only collectors, antiuqe dealers, and maybe the last long lived of my generation will know what a mangle is.

There is something about the smell of paper that just...gets me. For that reason alone I can't see me ever giving up the physical joy of a book. Who knows what my kids will be into though.

I see what you mean, and I truely wish that woud be the case, but I fear that it will not be.

Let me explain. With each new generation being used to the devices of their own era, and the older generation dying out, then the much loved tech of yesterday, and today will just fade from use, exceptions of course exist.

Take for example VHS, or vynil recordings. How many of use still use walkmans, or portable CD players as opposed to MP3 players?

The mobile phone has virtualy wiped out the CB radio craze of the 80's.

My mother no longer uses the mangle to dry her cloths, and when she and her generation have gone, in as little as say 70 years, then only collectors, antiuqe dealers, and maybe the last long lived of my generation will know what a mangle is.


I read an article on e-books recently, and the author made a very good statement.
He (or she, I don't really know) said that people were right from the begining used to the notion that you need a mechanical or electical gadget in order to reproduce music anytime you want. Starting with grammophones and radio, the fact that the medium will need some sort of power module was always there. And that is why we willingly swapped vinyl for CDs and discmen for MP3 Players.
However, this acceptance is not there for books. Books as we know them can be read anytime, anywhere, without requiring an electrical facilitator. So it's somewhat less likely that people will take the the electronic variants as much as they did in the field of music.

I see what you mean, and I truely wish that woud be the case, but I fear that it will not be.

Let me explain. With each new generation being used to the devices of their own era, and the older generation dying out, then the much loved tech of yesterday, and today will just fade from use, exceptions of course exist.

Take for example VHS, or vynil recordings. How many of use still use walkmans, or portable CD players as opposed to MP3 players?

The mobile phone has virtualy wiped out the CB radio craze of the 80's.

My mother no longer uses the mangle to dry her cloths, and when she and her generation have gone, in as little as say 70 years, then only collectors, antiuqe dealers, and maybe the last long lived of my generation will know what a mangle is.
Take also, for example, the pencil.

Oh, wait.

Just because not every tool stands the test of time, that does not mean that ALL tools are going to be replaced in the same way. Tools get replaced when a new tool does a BETTER job of what the old tool does.

So far, nothing has done a better job for long term data storage than ink on paper. Current modes of electronic storage/sharing certainly have not. And, so far, I have not seen any development of them along any lines that seems to address that issue directly. Then, just looking at past patterns, I am guessing that this particular old tool has a lot of mileage left in it UNLESS some new technology that is currently not on the horizon appears to do an actually better job.

I read an article on e-books recently, and the author made a very good statement.
He (or she, I don't really know) said that people were right from the begining used to the notion that you need a mechanical or electical gadget in order to reproduce music anytime you want. Starting with grammophones and radio, the fact that the medium will need some sort of power module was always there. And that is why we willingly swapped vinyl for CDs and discmen for MP3 Players.
However, this acceptance is not there for books. Books as we know them can be read anytime, anywhere, without requiring an electrical facilitator. So it's somewhat less likely that people will take the the electronic variants as much as they did in the field of music.


Okay then how do you explain the example of the mangle? Or for that matter any mechanical device now made obsoleat by it's electronic counterpart?

Take also, for example, the pencil.

Oh, wait.

Just because not every tool stands the test of time, that does not mean that ALL tools are going to be replaced in the same way. Tools get replaced when a new tool does a BETTER job of what the old tool does.

So far, nothing has done a better job for long term data storage than ink on paper. Current modes of electronic storage/sharing certainly have not. And, so far, I have not seen any development of them along any lines that seems to address that issue directly. Then, just looking at past patterns, I am guessing that this particular old tool has a lot of mileage left in it UNLESS some new technology that is currently not on the horizon appears to do an actually better job.

Heh you'll remember that I gave a timeline of hundreds of years?

Now how many modern clay tablets do we see, or papyrus scrolls, or goose feather pens, or flint muskets, or flint axes, or... well you get the point here.

As to new technology. Shit we already have made great advances in plastics that can be used and reused as electronic paper, and I think within the next 20 years we'll see more.

I don't see books becomeing obsolete within my lifetime nor my childrens nor my grand childrens, nor even my great grand childrens, but I do think that eventualy yes they will be.

Okay then how do you explain the example of the mangle? Or for that matter any mechanical device now made obsoleat by it's electronic counterpart?
Have you ever used a mangle? Do you know why it's called a mangle? Because it will mangle you, if you're not careful. One of history's long line of hand crushers.

Remember what I said about the new tech needing to do a BETTER job than the old tech in order to effect a permanent replacement? A machine that can get excess water out of your clothes without the risk of crushing your hand does do a better job than the old machine.

Machines that simply complicate a process, or increase its cost without significantly improving getting to the result, or do not effectively replace results that the old machine/tool/process still carry out satisfactorily, do not do a better job and may exist as substitutes for the old way, or enhancements to the old way, but they do not replace it.

Heh you'll remember that I gave a timeline of hundreds of years?

Now how many modern clay tablets do we see, or papyrus scrolls, or goose feather pens, or flint muskets, or flint axes, or... well you get the point here.

As to new technology. Shit we already have made great advances in plastics that can be used and reused as electronic paper, and I think within the next 20 years we'll see more.

I don't see books becomeing obsolete within my lifetime nor my childrens nor my grand childrens, nor even my great grand childrens, but I do think that eventualy yes they will be.
I'm not saying they won't. I'm just saying that I don't currently see any technology that will lead to their obsolescence.

*beats HotRodia with a stout oaken bough and then gives him multiple paper cuts as punishment for that godawful pun*

Well, fir sure they can seem quite quiet, but you better leaf them alone, because they are the root of all evil, so you better do tremble in your trunks!

Ah, this is why I miss General. :)

Have you ever used a mangle? Do you know why it's called a mangle? Because it will mangle you, if you're not careful. One of history's long line of hand crushers.

Remember what I said about the new tech needing to do a BETTER job than the old tech in order to effect a permanent replacement? A machine that can get excess water out of your clothes without the risk of crushing your hand does do a better job than the old machine.

Machines that simply complicate a process, or increase its cost without significantly improving getting to the result, or do not effectively replace results that the old machine/tool/process still carry out satisfactorily, do not do a better job and may exist as substitutes for the old way, or enhancements to the old way, but they do not replace it.

Yeah I know exactly what a mangle is, haveing used one in my childhood.

I have also in my time used both a hand driven metal pressing/cutting/stamping machine(a fly press) and it's electronic counter part. In both cases the risk of injury remains, I mean both do exactly the same job.

Okay then lets take into account the cost of printing and publising in paper as opposed to electronicly. Also the ease of purchase, download vs going to the shop, or awaiting delivery.

Really I think if you deny that books will eventualy become obsolete or pushedinto the realm of the choosen few or dealers in antiuqity's then you are hopeing, rather than being realistic.

I'm not saying they won't. I'm just saying that I don't currently see any technology that will lead to their obsolescence.

Meh and I daresay that stone age man could not see the advance of the computer age.

Yeah I know exactly what a mangle is, haveing used one in my childhood.

I have also in my time used both a hand driven metal pressing/cutting/stamping machine(a fly press) and it's electronic counter part. In both cases the risk of injury remains, I mean both do exactly the same job.

Okay then lets take into account the cost of printing and publising in paper as opposed to electronicly. Also the ease of purchase, download vs going to the shop, or awaiting delivery.

Really I think if you deny that books will eventualy become obsolete or pushedinto the realm of the choosen few or dealers in antiuqity's then you are hopeing, rather than being realistic.
I already addressed that in an earlier post, in explaining why download-to-print books will not replace pre-printed books due to lack of cost-effectiveness for the retail consumer.

NO, I don't see books becoming obsolete.

I, too, far prefer the feel and smell of a book while reading or shopping, like the look of my shelves packed with friends.

I think the technology is great, but also feel that just for "feel" and permanence and feelings of usefulness and practicality, comfort, I would far rather have a book. And it doesn't take a lot of money or power (especially in the daytime) to be able to be entertained or taught by a book. And the convenience.

Old fashioned? Maybe. But that is one old-fashioned thing that I hope stays around for decades to come.

Meh and I daresay that stone age man could not see the advance of the computer age.
Well, if you're going to insist on claiming that you're right and I'm wrong about something that you cannot possibly hope to see come to fruitition -- especially when I am only differing with you on how the change will come, not whether it will come -- then you, my respected friend, are just being stubborn.

I notice, btw, in your other post to me, that you persist in acting as if I am saying that books will never be replaced, ever, despite the fact that I have said very clearly several times that I just do not believe books will be replaced by the kind of electronic media we currently see.

But that's okay, you keep misrepresenting my argument, if you think it will let you get the last word on this.

I already addressed that in an earlier post, in explaining why download-to-print books will not replace pre-printed books due to lack of cost-effectiveness for the retail consumer.

Ahh but download electronic books is what I'm talking about.

I just read an article about the Frankurt Book Fair which was mentioning the fact that off all the articles exhibited this year, only 43% were actually books.
This shows that they are indeed not obsolete.

Ahh but download electronic books is what I'm talking about.
Then you are wrong. :D

NO, I don't see books becoming obsolete.

I, too, far prefer the feel and smell of a book while reading or shopping, like the look of my shelves packed with friends.

I think the technology is great, but also feel that just for "feel" and permanence and feelings of usefulness and practicality, comfort, I would far rather have a book. And it doesn't take a lot of money or power (especially in the daytime) to be able to be entertained or taught by a book. And the convenience.

Old fashioned? Maybe. But that is one old-fashioned thing that I hope stays around for decades to come.

Sure for decades and even hundreds of years to come. what about say in 500 years? You'll be dead so your preferance will mean nowt.

Sure for decades and even hundreds of years to come. what about say in 500 years? You'll be dead so your preferance will mean nowt.
Same for yours. *poke*

Well, if you're going to insist on claiming that you're right and I'm wrong about something that you cannot possibly hope to see come to fruitition -- especially when I am only differing with you on how the change will come, not whether it will come -- then you, my respected friend, are just being stubborn.

I notice, btw, in your other post to me, that you persist in acting as if I am saying that books will never be replaced, ever, despite the fact that I have said very clearly several times that I just do not believe books will be replaced by the kind of electronic media we currently see.

But that's okay, you keep misrepresenting my argument, if you think it will let you get the last word on this.

Man don't get uptight about it, I thought that we were having a freindly disagreement? Don't feel that I have misrepresented your point, I don't think that I have and if I have it is due perhaps to my poor choice of words; for which I say sorry to ye.

As to claiming that I'm right and you are wrong, surly you are doing the same thing. Really the point 'm making is that eventualy books in the paper form will no longer be with us. Now wether this take 500 or 5000 years, I really don't know, but can you say for sure that it wont happen?

Man don't get uptight about it, I thought that we were having a freindly disagreement? Don't feel that I have misrepresented your point, I don't think that I have and if I have it is due perhaps to my poor choice of words; for which I say sorry to ye.

As to claiming that I'm right and you are wrong, surly you are doing the same thing. Really the point 'm making is that eventualy books in the paper form will no longer be with us. Now wether this take 500 or 5000 years, I really don't know, but can you say for sure that it wont happen?
Did I ever suggest that I could, would, or wanted to?

Why no, actually, I said the exact opposite, didn't I?

*reads thread, which is only 5 fucking pages long, for fuck's sake*

Yep, indeed, I was right. I specifically stated the exact opposite of saying "for sure that it wont [sic] happen."

(FYI, friendly conversations get unfriendly real fast with me, when the person I'm talking with starts ignoring what I actually say to them.)

Then you are wrong. :D

Nu-uh!:p

Nu-uh!:p
THAT TEARS IT!! *throws down hat, gloves, bunch of other stuff*

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/117741625470.gif

Did I ever suggest that I could, would, or wanted to?

Why no, actually, I said the exact opposite, didn't I?

*reads thread, which is only 5 fucking pages long, for fuck's sake*

Yep, indeed, I was right. I specifically stated the exact opposite of saying "for sure that it wont [sic] happen."

(FYI, friendly conversations get unfriendly real fast with me, when the person I'm talking with starts ignoring what I actually say to them.)


Dude notice that little squiggly line at the end of my sentance? Yeah there it is again. That my freind is a question mark and means I was asking a question, not making a statement.

I often do this to assertain what the hell people mean.

FYI, I was not ignoring what you where saying. What we have here is a failure to communicate.


As it stands, from my end I thought we were having a freindly talk about why you belive that books will not be obsolete and why I think the opposite. I took notice of your points, and just disagree with them and outlined my own pionts.

Now thats fine isn't it, we can do that shit here yeah?

THAT TEARS IT!! *throws down hat, gloves, bunch of other stuff*

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/117741625470.gif

NSGers fight!! :eek2:
Who'll win? Place your bets here. :D

THAT TEARS IT!! *throws down hat, gloves, bunch of other stuff*

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/117741625470.gif

Hahahah man I'm a lover not a fighter. Umm that is I used to be, my wife wont let me anymore!

Hahahah man I'm a lover not a fighter. Umm that is I used to be, my wife wont let me anymore!
Good, then it will be that much easier to kick your ass and then write a book about it and offer it both online and in print. :tongue:

Good, then it will be that much easier to kick your ass and then write a book about it and offer it both online and in print. :tongue:

Ohhh is it! but a man can only take so much! I'm a lover coz I really don't like hurting people and as 7 foot gorila I can easyly do that.(See me gorila, that explains my tenuas grip on speiling):D

Electronic paper (or something, I remember the article was related to this, but I forget what it was exactly about) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7670371.stm)

Electronic paper (or something, I remember the article was related to this, but I forget what it was exactly about) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7670371.stm)

Yeah this is the very thing I was on about when I talked about plastic re-useable paper.

I just read an article about the Frankurt Book Fair which was mentioning the fact that off all the articles exhibited this year, only 43% were actually books.
Audiovisual media made for 30%, it's been a growing market segmet for a long time now.
But what really triggered this question are the e-book readers presented by Sony and Amazon.
I recently saw an ad for I think it was Blockbuster, offering the Sony Reader for a mere 900 Euros or so. That had me wondering ... 900 Euros? Sure, you can then download all the books you want (although legally you'd still have to pay for them), but wouldn't that be an awful lot of books until you break even? Though I guess the price might start dropping soon enough, if this proves to be popular.
I guess an advantage of those readers would be that you can just download whatever you want to read, and then take it with you. It won't take up as much space as a book.
But then again, I love having my books around, being able to read them again, even just passages, and at the end of the day they are decorative.
Or am I just being nostalgic?
I think it was Umberto Eco who once said "A book is like a hammer and nail. You can't improve it any further."
Mind you, I love the new media, but the thought of a world without books, without the smell of old dusty paper when you go into a used book shop, without shelves on the wall stacked with books... it's not a nice thought to me. :(
o.o Even if books become obsolete, I think that if there's other people with your same "nostalgia" to your physical senses' response to a used book shop there'd probably be a market for making places that look and/or smell like them.

As for the subject itself, of books being obsolete... what Muravyets said. (Well, maybe except for the notion of audio books being bad for literacy.) Just because we find new technology doesn't mean we abandon old technology. Old technology might be used less, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd like to think it'd counteract such medium favoritism as the idea that books are somehow inherently more intellectual than other mediums.

I remember back in middle school they had this "read for [year number] seconds" day, not sure how many there were when I was there, (I think it was just once or twice) and it didn't matter what you were reading other than that it was a text novel without pictures. I recall even bringing the novel adaptation of the movie Cats and Dogs. I sometimes wonder, what exactly is it about books in and of themselves, that makes the education system try to promote them over all other mediums? One argument I've heard is that if you're reading something you imagine the settings for the scenarios in your own mind, and that the benefit to this is that it triggers creativity. But who's to say video games don't trigger creativity? I remember one article from an issue of Time Magazine (here's a link to it: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1056290-1,00.html) where some of the arguments made (especially the one that used games like Zelda and Sim City as examples to challenge the notion that video games are passive entertainment) were quite appealing to me.

But that's off topic. The reason I'm trying to tie this into what I call medium favoritism is that if the same thing can be communicated in one medium as another they should go for it. I tend to find text on paper a bit more tedious of a medium than video and audio, and for reasons more so about the mediums themselves than about arbitrarily associating certain styles with them. Video, because for whatever reason I find it easier to keep my attention focused on that than on text. Audio, because there are things you can do while listening to something that you probably couldn't while reading or watching something.

So while I doubt that books will be obsolete, I also doubt that reading less and using audio and/or video more would necessarily be a bad thing.

But that's off topic. The reason I'm trying to tie this into what I call medium favoritism is that if the same thing can be communicated in one medium as another they should go for it. I tend to find text on paper a bit more tedious of a medium than video and audio, and for reasons more so about the mediums themselves than about arbitrarily associating certain styles with them. Video, because for whatever reason I find it easier to keep my attention focused on that than on text. Audio, because there are things you can do while listening to something that you probably couldn't while reading or watching something.

Marshall McLuhan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message) and a rather large number of neuroscientists would disagree with your premise that you can communicate the same thing using different media.

I prefer physical books...I need to underline and highlight and write notes in the margins. Can't quite do that as well using an e-book. Atleast not in the same way.
This is the point of physical books for me. When I'm done reading a book, it will be filled with underlined parts, comments to myself, relevant page references, and sometimes I'll even use the blank pages at the back or front to write out the beginnings of an essay or story I thought of.
Book are also easier to replace, and less likely to be stolen. If someone nabs my copy of The Island of Doctor Moreau (which is not at all likely to happen), I'll be pissed off that I lost all my margin notes, but I can still replace the lost book for a $1 or so at a used book store. If someone stole a $200+ book reader from me (which would be more likely, given the resale value), I'd be pretty fucked.

I could actually sort of buy this, given that the bookshelves are the very first things I look at when I visit anyone's home, and if I see terrible books on them, my opinion of their owner really does go down a notch. And I know I'm not alone in this, as I've discussed this phenomenon with many of my friends (and I've also seen many of us offer unprovoked "I only got the Da Vinci Code to make fun of it, I swear!"-style disclaimers as soon as people walk in). :tongue:

Other folk have mentioned this as well, but I think this lack of social function is a major drawback to both of the e-readers currently on the market. How are you supposed to communicate how erudite you are if nobody on the subway can see what you're reading? How are you supposed to pick a stockbroker if you can't see what's on his bookshelf?

Most importantly, how is the girl you brought home last night supposed to figure out whether you're worth a second date if she can't scan your bookshelf while you're in the shower? Faced with the prospect of actually having to engage you in conversation/hack your Windows password in order to figure you out, she'll just take off, and what if she was the best you ever had? Then you're a sad sack eating oatmeal all alone in your stupid bookless apartment, all because you thought the Kindle was a good idea.

God, it's like people never think of these things beforehand.

That would average at 495 Euros...

And I honestly doubt that a large part of the population would actually read that many books within, say, 5 years or so. By which time your average electronic gadget is obsolete and you need a new one.

Well, the future will be a mix of reasons why book ownership or simple book use will decline
Some will be because books are too annoying to carry individually, whilst electronic media can hold hundreds of books - the basic laptop could hold a section of a library
However, with the sadly growing cancer of the hip-hop theme across the world, a large number of those who shy away from books (or at least intelligent books - the only reading material ive ever seen gangstas with usually involves cars, porn, drugs and stories about hip-hop) but all in all, as their lifestyle is too shallow for reading real books that dont include pictures, they cause a major decline on books

But, for those of us who live in reality, at the end of the day, when electronic media fails us - as all electronic media will eventually die (and at a very basic level, as all things that we use will have problems, we all cannot fix electronic media when it dies, but anyone can grab tape to fix a damaged book) and even when all forms of electronic technology fail, as long as we have a source of light (and are not blind) a book will not fail us

Books have been around for CENTURIES!!!, i do not see such a fundamental element simply being wiped away
Everyone who knows the basics about electronic media should agree that its best to keep a hard copy of anything 'just in case'
For the guys - there is still the rumor about being around PC's too much causes your manhood to shrink, books dont do that, so read books

Books are the past, the present, and will be in the future

- - - - -
but maybe Lunatic Goofballs will have problems, books and Pc's dont like being in mud:D

Marshall McLuhan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message) and a rather large number of neuroscientists would disagree with your premise that you can communicate the same thing using different media.
Neuroscientists? Really? Well, I'll ask my professor from first-semester psychology about that one when I get around to it.

As for Marshall McLuhan, I'm not particularily inclined to read up on him right now, but I've heard of a couple statements he's made that I disagree with, this isn't the only one. The library I'm typing this post from right now has his "global village" quote on one of its pillars... while some online communities do have a sense of community comparable to that of small towns, I'd think that the communication with people from all around the world if anything helps to remind us just how vast our planet is.

As for the medium statement itself, I do agree that the medium might AFFECT the message, but I still don't believe in associating an inherent message with the medium. If the medium is the message, then how do you explain TV documentaries like "Does TV Kill"?

Neuroscientists? Really? Well, I'll ask my professor from first-semester psychology about that one when I get around to it.

Sure, though I think it's a fairly simple concept: when you see the word "cats" your brain is doing a different sort of processing than when you see http://www.pusscats.com/Cat_Breeders-Cat_Breeds_1__th.jpg and while those two inputs may end up both being connected to some ur-concept of "cats" stored in your brain, they are nevertheless different.

As for the medium statement itself, I do agree that the medium might AFFECT the message, but I still don't believe in associating an inherent message with the medium. If the medium is the message, then how do you explain TV documentaries like "Does TV Kill"?

McLuhan was perhaps a bad example as he's so easily misinterpreted. Read this (http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm) if you care.

Cabra, where did you get the 900 euro figure. According to Sony uk the Reader eBook + 100 titles costs 199 pounds.
You can also read most e-books on any palmtop PDA mounting MS Reader or Acrobat Reader. On ebay I found some at around 40US$. Conversion utilityes from doc to lit format are widely available on the net, most are freeware.
And for books... You can access free resources as Project Gutemberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page).

The only reason why I still have paper books around is "paper feticism" ;)

Cabra, where did you get the 900 euro figure. According to Sony uk the Reader eBook + 100 titles costs 199 pounds.
You can also read most e-books on any palmtop PDA mounting MS Reader or Acrobat Reader. On ebay I found some at around 40US$. Conversion utilityes from doc to lit format are widely available on the net, most are freeware.
And for books... You can access free resources as Project Gutemberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page).

The only reason why I still have paper books around is "paper feticism" ;)

But their use for general portable reading material, if they don't have E-ink screens, is crap.

I have a subnotebook, with a few dozen books on it. I even read onscreen on occasion, mostly to save finding a paper copy. But when I can, I still get the paper. It's just more tangible, readable, usable, for shoving in a bag and carrying with me.

Are books obsolete? No.

No!?

Just asking the question makes me feel dead inside.

When I have children, they will read books. And when they have children, I will make them read books, too. And by then they'll have like doubled the human life span so I'll get to make my great grandchildren and possibly their children, too.

I have always read, and I will continue to read.

Yes, but not for the reason you suggest. Who really wants to read a book when there are soap operas, reality and talent shows to watch on SO MANY CHANNELS!!! Only snobby elitist philosopher types read books, and they don't count as people because they don't have proper jobs.

Yes, but not for the reason you suggest. Who really wants to read a book when there are soap operas, reality and talent shows to watch on SO MANY CHANNELS!!! Only snobby elitist philosopher types read books, and they don't count as people because they don't have proper jobs.

Don't forget reality TV. Nothing kills brain cells better than reality TV.

Don't forget reality TV. Nothing kills brain cells better than reality TV.
What specifically do you mean by "reality TV"? While I'm not sure, I'm inclined to guess you're referring to stuff like Jerry Springer. In any case, though, stuff like Carl Sagan's cosmos could in a way be considered "reality TV" since it's about reality and is (or at least was) on TV; stuff like that is why I don't like when people think of a whole medium as anti-intellectual. It's like when people say that rap isn't music not because it's spoken instead of sung but because it "promotes violence and objectifies women"; something tells me that the people who claim this haven't heard Tupac Shakur's "Keep Ya Head Up" or Immortal Technique's "You Never Know" and that's only a couple examples, there's plenty more. I've seen some people on some sites list dozens of examples from dozens of different artists, only for the examples to be dismissed as "exceptions to a rule"; but who says it's a rule that a certain genre has to have a certain message?

Yes, but not for the reason you suggest. Who really wants to read a book when there are soap operas, reality and talent shows to watch on SO MANY CHANNELS!!! Only snobby elitist philosopher types read books, and they don't count as people because they don't have proper jobs.
I don't particularily like to read either, but do you have to be so insulting towards those who do? That sounds like an absurd generalization, to say that "only snobby elitist philosopher types" prefer books as a medium; are you suggesting that reading a book in and of itself makes you that, or that only people who are like that would read books? I rembember a friend of mine from high school said she used to read lots of books, but she doesn't seem snobby or elitist to me. And as for the part about "proper jobs" what are you basing this on? Are you suggesting that being a philosophy professor is a bad job? And in any case, how does this justify not thinking of them as people?

I don't particularily like to read either, but do you have to be so insulting towards those who do? That sounds like an absurd generalization, to say that "only snobby elitist philosopher types" prefer books as a medium; are you suggesting that reading a book in and of itself makes you that, or that only people who are like that would read books? I rembember a friend of mine from high school said she used to read lots of books, but she doesn't seem snobby or elitist to me. And as for the part about "proper jobs" what are you basing this on? Are you suggesting that being a philosophy professor is a bad job? And in any case, how does this justify not thinking of them as people?
Doctor, this person needs a sense of humor injection, STAT!

Yes, but not for the reason you suggest. Who really wants to read a book when there are soap operas, reality and talent shows to watch on SO MANY CHANNELS!!! Only snobby elitist philosopher types read books, and they don't count as people because they don't have proper jobs.
*tear*
*goes to read book in corner*
*puts down book*
"jerk!"
*picks up book*
*continues to read*

Doctor, this person needs a sense of humor injection, STAT!

*starcraft voice*
"I'm all over it!"

*starcraft voice*
"I'm all over it!"

Not enough mineral.

What specifically do you mean by "reality TV"? While I'm not sure, I'm inclined to guess you're referring to stuff like Jerry Springer. In any case, though, stuff like Carl Sagan's cosmos could in a way be considered "reality TV" since it's about reality and is (or at least was) on TV; stuff like that is why I don't like when people think of a whole medium as anti-intellectual. It's like when people say that rap isn't music not because it's spoken instead of sung but because it "promotes violence and objectifies women"; something tells me that the people who claim this haven't heard Tupac Shakur's "Keep Ya Head Up" or Immortal Technique's "You Never Know" and that's only a couple examples, there's plenty more. I've seen some people on some sites list dozens of examples from dozens of different artists, only for the examples to be dismissed as "exceptions to a rule"; but who says it's a rule that a certain genre has to have a certain message?

Name a single reality TV show that is clearly defined as such that isn't inane and unintellectual.

If you can, I submit that it is the exception that proves the rule.

Not enough mineral.

Kekekekeke.

I'm still pissed that scrolls disappeared, just roll em down and read them, none of this fancy page turning.

Sure books will disappear, aside from museums, nothing wrong with it either aside from indignant traditionalism.

Not enough mineral.

*dmnit! stupid APCs! ARGH! Knew I shoulda been Toss! oh god oh god oh god Ling rush Nooooooooo!*
*death*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLdeic7RUaw

This is amusingly relevant to all those who decry the move to electronic format: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3sNGxGekY_I

Name a single reality TV show that is clearly defined as such that isn't inane and unintellectual.

If you can, I submit that it is the exception that proves the rule.
So just to make it clear, what are you calling "defined as such"?

Books will never be obselete to me. Electronic and audio texts will never replace the feeling I get when I prop myself up in an old recliner with one of my many beaten and battered paperbacks.

Books will never be obselete to me. Electronic and audio texts will never replace the feeling I get when I prop myself up in an old recliner with one of my many beaten and battered paperbacks.

The day will come when you are obsolete to books though.

So just to make it clear, what are you calling "defined as such"?

The definition is a lot more broad than I thought (as I look through Wikipedia to find examples). I consider Jerry Springer to be a talk show, not reality TV. A trashy talk show, sure, but still. Similarly, there was a documentaryish, realityish show called "Black. White." which involved two families switching race for a while (it was only 6 eps long), which, technically, could be called a reality show but I call it a documentary.

I suppose the whole point is moot because the definition is too broad and subjective, at least, in my opinion.

I could see books being almost replaced by either something like the PADD in star trek (a lightweight, durable, cheap little computer screen just big enough for a one hand sized touch keyboard and a book page sized screen, to which you can download whatever you need.) or an augmented reality overlay on your actual vision like you can do in shadowrun.

Irregardless, books will still exist as a popular medium, even if only for us artsy or philosophical types.

Now newspapers, those only have another decade or two to live.

The day will come when you are obsolete to books though.

How so??

There is something about the smell of paper that just...gets me. For that reason alone I can't see me ever giving up the physical joy of a book. Who knows what my kids will be into though.

I have been described as having my face "light up" or being "transfixed with ecstasy" upon entering a book store. I will spend hours and hours in one if you let me, just wandering, breathing in the smell, touching the spines, reading the jackets. I went to one of my favorite book stores a few months ago (so many are gone now :() and actually started to cry standing in front of the poetry. I can't see that happening when I download And Her Soul Out of Nothing onto my handheld screen.

When they can make an e-book smell and feel like a real one, the books may become obsolete.

Oh, and can you read an e-book in the bath? If not, then that's another hurdle.

Books will never be obsolete! Just like the hammers and nails someone mentioned earlier. They will always be loved and needed.

No. As someone who is prone to migraines. Staring at a screen is not a solution for my reading.

I also like to say books will be around until they can have a computer reader a woman can use while soaking in a tub.

You can't build a tower out of e-books
therefore they suck
Real books will never go out of style
Well they may in America, beceause we already are a bunch of vidiots

But their use for general portable reading material, if they don't have E-ink screens, is crap.

I have a subnotebook, with a few dozen books on it. I even read onscreen on occasion, mostly to save finding a paper copy. But when I can, I still get the paper. It's just more tangible, readable, usable, for shoving in a bag and carrying with me.

Untrue, I know a number of peoples (including me) that have started reading even more since they bought a PDA. Expecially the availability of free books has been a boon for them. Another reason is that sometimes it's difficult to find material published in the original language and then downloading Frankenstein or Les fleurs du mal or Il Milione or R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) is faster and easier than searching those books in an online store and buying them.

Notice that all these titles are available on project gutemberg in the original language. I know. I downloaded them. I read them.

You can't build a tower out of e-books
therefore they suck
Real books will never go out of style
Well they may in America, beceause we already are a bunch of vidiots

They better fucking not...

Books will never be obsolete! Just like the hammers and nails someone mentioned earlier. They will always be loved and needed.

Heh are you sure? What about in 2000 years?

Heh are you sure? What about in 2000 years?

The hammer and nail have already lasted about that long.

Untrue, I know a number of peoples (including me) that have started reading even more since they bought a PDA. Expecially the availability of free books has been a boon for them. Another reason is that sometimes it's difficult to find material published in the original language and then downloading Frankenstein or Les fleurs du mal or Il Milione or R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) is faster and easier than searching those books in an online store and buying them.

Notice that all these titles are available on project gutemberg in the original language. I know. I downloaded them. I read them.

Yes, you'll note I mentioned that I also do similar things on occasion. I've read several volumes by Cory Doctorow, and various bits of older SF, onscreen.

But I haven't yet seen any devices which have a screen I'd actually enjoy doing lots of reading on. That's the biggest draw of something like E-ink, but the Kindle isn't the nicest in several other ways.

And so as it stands a book still isn't obsolete. For a start, I don't get compatibility problems with books. There's no DRM on them. They're a lot more pleasant to read, especially in bright light or for long stretches.

Slightly strange for someone as geeky as me, maybe, but I prefer both reading and writing on paper. Just more focused and comfortable in some way.

what keeps print from becoming obsolete is its nonrequirement for ever evolving and obsoleting tecnology, to read them back.

although i think the net, as a shared repository of accumulated knowledge and experience is a very good thing too. the net will be a much better thing, as it started out to be, if it ever stops being invaded by fanatical bizdroidism, trying to turn what is otherwise the worlds greatest public library, into just another damd shopping mall, full of the same trite, predigested crap, we are pused by corporate media.

books have certain disadvantages of course, long lead time, and the infuence of symbolic value on what does and does not get published, but a book in your hands, untill the paper turns to dust and the ink fades and falls off, you will always be able to read, when today's disk drives, to read back todays media, are no longer available, because everyone has gone to the advantages of even denser, yet to be devised, media, and the tecnologies to support THEM.

I'm a Historian... Books are still a dire necessity for my craft.

The hammer and nail have already lasted about that long.

Yeah but that makes as much sense as saying the the clay tablet has not.

The point being that nails and hammers have not yet had a viable replacement. Paper book will certianly one day be replaced by electronic books. Either with PDA style books for which you can download whatever you want, or perhaps with the emrging res-useable plastic paper.

I also belive that hammer and nails could also one day be replaced by self addisive materials. In fact nano tubes may well provide the salution to that.

Because some thing IS for thousands of years is no garentee that it will always be.

What of the 7 wonders of the ancient world, for example?

... Paper book will certianly one day be replaced by electronic books...

only if their tecnology becomes frozen from continuing to evolve, or at least backward compatability becoming seen as the word and will of god. something that remains unlikely under the makiavellianism of symbolic value.

(money/symbolic value, on the other hand, very likely WILL be replaced, by creative skill with tecnology, just as money repalaced land, land nomadic herding, and nomadic hearding skill at the hunt, as a measure of prestege and wealth)

The real problem with an electronic book is that in a hundred years time we will be using different file formats, will not have the equipment to read it, so for archive purposes a book has a lot of advantages. If kept in the right conditions a book is still a damn good storage medium. I have disks that I just cannot even read anymore after just a couple of years.

No. The tactile experiance offered by a book transcends the conveniance of an e-book; an equivalent would be the failure of online newspapers to impinge on sales of "real" papers.

From an academic perspective, the expediency of accessing Jstor et al. at will is welcome, however, there is no equivalent for genuinely reading, in the traditional sense, either a book or article. The experiance, and knowledge gained, is far from equal.

If they aren't written in Newspeak books soon will be obsolete. I for one eagerly await the day NSG becomes goodthinkful.

What'll probably happen is people will initially read a book online. If they want to reread it a bunch, they'll buy a paper copy. About reading in general, there's only been a short time in history when its been widespread. It may become less common, but it will always have a certain eliteness about it. In fact, it might become a rich people thing to do, like going to fancy restaurants.

For me, reading is also a sensory occupation.

I want to hold the book, flick through the pages. Smell the paper. I love the smell of paper. Smells of knowledge, that's why I like libraries so much. But I digress...

No, I have discovered a long time ago that when I want to read something, enjoy it, and enjoy reading something, it's got to be on paper.

A book is something real, something to (be)hold. I don't like reading on a computer screen all that much, and I cannot fathom reading a whole novel on a screen. Nuh-uh.

Part of reading is actually moving through the book. So no, books ain't obsolete, and hopefully never will be.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/MULE.gif
25 years