"Friction" is why e-books adoption is slow

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by HarryT

People who want to run Windows software, obviously . As I say, I have both a Mac and PCs. Which one I use depends on the task I'm doing at the time. Both have their strengths and weaknesses - it's not "one size fits all". As a practical matter, if I want to get a job done and the software I want to use runs on Windows (eg, creating eBooks with "Book Designer"), I use a PC. It seems to me to be rather a case of "cutting off your nose to spite your face" not to use a particular system if that system is the one which supports the software you need to use to get the job done.

And everyone has the spare money to have both devices and the the spare time/desire to learn to use both. Right.

What do you dislike about Vista, by the way? People moaned about XP having security weaknesses, and Vista addressed that very issue. It's an extremely secure and robust operating system.

I run XP Pro SP2. I have it decently secured, thank you. Vista offers nothing that tempts me to upgrade, and I have no plans to do so.

(About 80% of the security concerns with any version of Windows can be addressed very simply: don't use Internet Explorer as your browser.)
______
Dennis

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What do you dislike about Vista, by the way? People moaned about XP having security weaknesses, and Vista addressed that very issue. It's an extremely secure and robust operating system.

This is the issue I have with Vista (read all of it):

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...html#footnotes

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

A similar idea popped up when the new "3D" bar codes were developed. Those are the ones that use a square array of "bars" and a cash register style gun. Apparently, those can store information in a surprisingly dense manner.

I remember this, and again, I was surprised it didn't take off. Of course, at the time files were growing in size, and people were more concerned about more permanent storage solutions. But in the rush to develop larger and larger solid state flash cards like SD, no one thought about individual documents or books, which need only 1-10MB of storage.

Any flash drive scaled down to that size would be pointless... it's like using a car to drive across the street. But a paper card with 3D-bar codes could be scanned (by specially-made slide-readers, or by a standard hand or flatbed scanner with conversion SW) and saved, resold, or discarded (just like paper books!).

You could also sell books like that in supermarket endcaps, right next to the gift cards.

[NatCh]

Or you could just slide it into a slot on a reader and start reading. I do think they ought to be a material that's a bit more robust than paper, though. The paper in books is protected by the fact that there are a bunch of pages and a cover, but we're essentially talking about something more like a single index card here, so making it out of say, vellum or a tough plastic might be more in order (dimensional stability would be an important factor too, I'd think). Why, you could still have a blurb on the back and cover art with this approach!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

And everyone has the spare money to have both devices and the the spare time/desire to learn to use both. Right.

No, I disagee - I don't think that everybody does.

However, most people buy a computer to run software on, rather than vice versa, so they presumably choose their hardware platform and operating system to match whatever their software requirements are. If graphic design is your main priority, a Mac is clearly the right choice. If playing games is, a PC (or dedicated games console) is the right choice. All I'm saying is that if eBooks are important in your computing life, a PC is currently a better choice than a Mac. One may wish that it were otherwise, but that's the way the world currently is.

I run XP Pro SP2. I have it decently secured, thank you. Vista offers nothing that tempts me to upgrade, and I have no plans to do so.

Same here. I recently bought a new top-end Dell machine specifically because I wanted a high-spec XP machine while it was still possible to buy one. Much of the software I want to run doesn't currently run on Vista, but that's not Vista's fault, but sloppy programming. The software that I wrote 10 years ago runs just fine on Vista.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

(Suppose a card held a book, and could be read on a device it was inserted into, but not copied? Even publishers could get behind that, because it would prevent most copy-theft. That's something that could catch on.)

I think immediately of the little, colorful blocks from the original Star Trek series. The consumer market is still adjusting to the concept of intangible content. Giving them something to put on the shelf would probably speed adoption.

It's a shame you can't turn out cheap RFIDs with a 1MB capacity. That would handle most e-books. You could stock them and print them like Starbuck's gift cards--cover art on the front, "other titles by..." on the back. Slip the little puppy into a clear sleeve on the back of the reader (so other people can see what you're reading) and off you go. No new storage standard. No new interface. Put minimal storage on the device, maybe just enough to cache the text between RFID pings.

[nekokami]

I'd still say stiff paper would be better than plastic, though. Plastic is more durable, sure, but not biodegradable. Anyone remember the litter of AOL CDs everywhere?

Maybe if they were made of one of the regularly recycled plastics, like HDPE.

With regards to the Harry Potter ebooks, I haven't seen an actual quote by Rowling that she nixed the idea. As far as I've been able to tell, it was her publishers who didn't want to do it.

Liviu_5, we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. In my opinion, the transition to digital music was made with the CD, and that was the springboard the MP3 players depended on. But music has always depended on some kind of technological encoding requiring equipment to decode (unless you want to count sheet music), whereas books have existed for a long time as a standalone technology. This is relevant because it means people have always had to purchase some kind of device to play musical recordings (for as long as musical recordings have been available). The MP3 player was yet another in a series of devices people had already gotten used to. There is no precedent like this for ebooks, unless you want to count computers themselves, as used to read web pages and other online content.

My conclusions about the primary barriers to ebook readers being the lack of interest in purchasing a dedicated device are based on a very limited survey of people I know who are heavy readers (multiple books per month, sometimes per week), but are not interested in ebooks. I asked why. The reasons I gave above are the reasons they gave. They were completely unaware of whether the books they would want are available as ebooks or not-- they haven't even checked.

I do believe that availability of titles is a critical factor, I just don't believe it's the one currently holding ebooks back. I have not yet met a single person who has told me "I considered getting an ebook reader (or reading on a PDA, etc), but most of the books I want aren't available" or similar.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I disagee - I don't think that everybody does.

It was a casual enough suggestion to seem so.

However, most people buy a computer to run software on, rather than vice versa, so they presumably choose their hardware platform and operating system to match whatever their software requirements are. If graphic design is your main priority, a Mac is clearly the right choice. If playing games is, a PC (or dedicated games console) is the right choice. All I'm saying is that if eBooks are important in your computing life, a PC is currently a better choice than a Mac. One may wish that it were otherwise, but that's the way the world currently is.

It would be nice if the decision were that rational, but I doubt it normally is.

For general computing, Macs and PCs are roughly equivalent. It's only when you get to special purpose stuff that you start seeing clear superiority of one over the other.

The decision to run a Mac seems based on either perceived ease-of-use over other choices, perceived better stability/security, or perceived status/coolness of doing so. Macs are good machines, and OS/X is very sweet, but people normally choose to run a Mac because it's a Mac, and not because of the software that will run on it.

I do graphic design on a PC. If I were doing video editing, I probably would get a Mac.

Same here. I recently bought a new top-end Dell machine specifically because I wanted a high-spec XP machine while it was still possible to buy one. Much of the software I want to run doesn't currently run on Vista, but that's not Vista's fault, but sloppy programming. The software that I wrote 10 years ago runs just fine on Vista.

My machine is a home-built that has been continually upgraded in place. The only original component still in use is the case.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

It's a shame you can't turn out cheap RFIDs with a 1MB capacity... Slip the little puppy into a clear sleeve on the back of the reader (so other people can see what you're reading) and off you go.

Nice marketing idea, there!

Embedding RFIDs on a coated paper card is an idea, as long as there's a way to recover those RFIDs instead of landfilling them. From what I've been reading up on, plastic conductors may eventually allow for storage devices with no metal elements. That could mean a coated paper and (biodegradable?) plastic card with a few MB of storage... enough for a book in multiple formats, or at least 1 standard format that any reader can convert (like ePub).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nekokami

My conclusions about the primary barriers to ebook readers being the lack of interest in purchasing a dedicated device are based on a very limited survey of people I know who are heavy readers (multiple books per month, sometimes per week), but are not interested in ebooks. I asked why. The reasons I gave above are the reasons they gave. They were completely unaware of whether the books they would want are available as ebooks or not-- they haven't even checked.

Without a serious marketing effort on the part of e-book and reader sellers, the general public will not be aware of any compelling reasons to buy an e-reader or e-book. Advertising bestsellers and popular magazines... price deals... hardware features... book club deals... any of these things could alert people to a great new way to enjoy reading. Without them, people will continue to be oblivious to the advantages (or the very existence) of e-books.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I'd still say stiff paper would be better than plastic, though. Plastic is more durable, sure, but not biodegradable.

I see where you're coming from, nekokami, and I don't disagree, however, I view books as things I don't want to biodegrade.

Originally Posted by nekokami

With regards to the Harry Potter ebooks, I haven't seen an actual quote by Rowling that she nixed the idea. As far as I've been able to tell, it was her publishers who didn't want to do it.

I haven't seen any such quote either, but I have seen e-books by Scholastic ... is that not the publisher? Perhaps they're just an affiliate or something?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by NatCh

I haven't seen any such quote either, but I have seen e-books by Scholastic ... is that not the publisher? Perhaps they're just an affiliate or something?

Scholastic is the publisher, in the US. They aren't an affiliate of anyone -- they are an independent publishing house.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by NatCh

I see where you're coming from, nekokami, and I don't disagree, however, I view books as things I don't want to biodegrade.

Right, but they're digital files... so whether you keep the cards or not, you can still store the file!

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Without a serious marketing effort on the part of e-book and reader sellers, the general public will not be aware of any compelling reasons to buy an e-reader or e-book. Advertising bestsellers and popular magazines... price deals... hardware features... book club deals... any of these things could alert people to a great new way to enjoy reading. Without them, people will continue to be oblivious to the advantages (or the very existence) of e-books.

So what are the compelling reasons to buy an ebook reader and ebooks?

I like having a library in my pocket, and have several thousand ebooks on my PDA, but I don't consider myself typical.

I have no interest in a dedicated ebook reader, because I have enough electronic devices, thank you. I need a device that does other things besides display ebooks, hence the PDA.

For most folks, an ebook and ebook reader is a solution to a problem they don't have, and paper editions do fine.
______
Dennis

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

It was a casual enough suggestion to seem so.

Most of us in the forum are, I'd guess, either professionally involved with computers, or at least computer enthusiasts. For such people, I honestly don't see anything particularly out of the ordinary in the suggestion that one should have both a PC and a Mac; in that sense, it was indeed a casual suggestion.

To me, a computer - whether it be a PC or a Mac - is just a tool to get a job done, and having more than one tool in one's toolkit often makes jobs rather easier.

For anyone with an Intel-based Mac with Bootcamp, it's perhaps worth noting that one can generally pick up a respectable 2nd hand XP machine for significantly less than it costs to buy a full copy of XP new to install on one's Mac.