I'm sure when paper was first introduced many, many, moons ago, it wasn't exactly the cheapest thing around as it probably wasn't mass produced like it is now. I'd like to see him compare the cost of an 'original' paper book, adjusted for inflation, and see if he still complains about the Reader in the historical context of things.
Anyone else find it just a little bit ironic that the writer mentions "1984", which is included with the Reader, in the article?
