|
Though this is an old thread, and I would hope Hornsby has changed his mind, I still hear points similar to his made, so here is my response:
1) I’m a book reader, and I love books. About three feet away from me is the first book I remember reading, a pocket Webster’s my mother gave me when I was maybe 5. It means something to me that no e-book ever could. Between my book-lover wife and myself we have more books than shelves to put them on, if only because keeping up with the shelving would be a major expense. So we manage. But I do have an e-reader, which I bought in large part to learn and understand the technology. Through it have I been doing more reading (outside of what I must read as an editor, writer, and publisher) in the last three months than I have for many years. I have an inexpensive library I can take with me anywhere, and I can add to it very cheaply, in less than a minute, as long as I have a wifi signal. So I love my e-reader and the books on it as well.
2) I’ve never owned an mp3 player, and use flac files on my hard drive, but yes, they are converted from CDs I own. However, I’ve also got a box full of vinyl that has music I can’t listen to and don’t have the money to buy in CD format (when they are even available). So I don’t think his point about us already owning music as opposed to books we can convert to an e-format is entirely true.
3) I haven’t bought many books in recent years because of a) the expense of the books themselves, and b) the shelving problem mentioned above. Being able to have at hand “vast numbers of books,” which are often cheaper than paper books, does in fact interest me for just those two reasons. I think this is also of interest to the average book buyer considering an e-reader.
4) If there’s a hang-up among avid book readers about adopting or even trying e-reading technology it is not so much the love of books in print as it is the expense and the confusing variety of the reading devices. These two factors are not the only problems someone thinking of adapting to e-reading has to face, but I think they’re the main ones. If someone came up with a cheap fold-it-up-and-put-in-your-pocket color reader (and the technology for that is on its way), the print market wouldn’t disappear, but it would very likely shrink (and quickly) down to a size something like the vinyl LP market because the barrier to entry into the world of e-reading would have been removed. I don’t say that with any joy, as I still love print books, and I work for print publications, but there it is.
5) Re reading as a substitute for no television in public places. Watching TV or movies on an iPod attracts lookie-loos viewing over your shoulder, and I’ve noticed in doctors’ offices where they have a TV going that people are still reading or doing crossword puzzles. Everyone in the room doesn’t necessarily like what’s on. Reading something on paper or an e-reader is private, so the one isn’t as much of a replacement for the other as he seems to think. People can read on iPods too, which takes us back to e-books.
Re people not reading: His glass is 1/3 empty (34% don’t read books); mine is 2/3 full (66% do). Removing the barrier to entry I mentioned in point 4 would throw numbers like this into a cocked hat. Some in the 66% might resist e-books to their dying breath, while some in the 34% who don’t read because of the bulk and the “where do you put them” aspect of books might actually start reading e-books if they were both portable and cheap. Shuffle the two numbers around with these thoughts in mind and you could very well end up with more readers, not less, though for that we’ll have to wait and see.
|