[QuantumIguana]

What exception? What rule is there that says that new technology always totally replaces previous technology. Film has advantages over digital in only a few specialized uses. In most cases, digital is clearly advantageous over film, you can take as many pictures as you want, you can see the results instantly. There ARE advantages to paper books. They require no technology to read them. They require no electricity to use. It does offer an experience that differs from e-books. Many people do prefer paper over e-books. That difference is greater than that between digital music and vinyl. Any situation where you want someone to read a book is one where paper books are advantageous, as it is easier to hand someone a paper book than it is to get them to put a book on their reader. Bibles and hymnals alone will keep the presses running. Another advantage is that if the book is damaged, you aren't out the cost of a reader. Children's are hard on books, this is one area where paper books have an advantage. It might be a better idea to let prisoners have paper books than handing them e-readers.

The electric guitar hasn't replaced the accoustic guitar. Synthesizers aren't likely to replace actual instruments, so it appears there really is no such rule. Previous technology only faces total replacement when the newer technology has overwhelming advantages. Recorded music and radio didn't replace live music. Movies didn't replace live theater. TV didn't replace movies. The VCR didn't replace movie theaters. Live music, live theater, movie theaters have advantages that keep them viable despite competition from newer technology.