Read the article. Took issue with a lot of it.
"The Kindle is not going to make a reader out of a nonreader. Few will say, 'Gee, reading books and magazines was prohibitively difficult before, but now that there's a $359 electronic reader available, I'm going to start!'"
I was one of those types that used to read a lot. However, because it was difficult for me to bring along a good sized book with me everywhere I went, I fell out of the habit. If I took one book with me as much as possible, then I would finish it in the first 30 minutes of my plane flight, and I would then either have to lug around a finished book with me for the remainder of my trip, or leave it lying around for someone else. At $30 for most of the hardbacks ... that's a lot of money to just toss away every few weeks.
What the Kindle did for me was kickstart an otherwise moribund reading habit. Now, it is always with me, and that means I always have a new book to start when I finish the current one ... and no dead weight to carry around on trips.
I also take issue with his cut off of $100,000 in income before someone will spend $360 on a ebook reader. So, that would mean that all those teenagers sporting iPods are making at least $50,000 a year?? Sure ... sure .... sure.
I know a number of people (and I am one of them) who love books enough that they would spend almost every penny they earned on them. I would rather read a book than go to a movie. Let's see ... with popcorn and a soda ... it's at least $20 to go to the movie theater. If I went to the movies as often as I read a book, I would be spending roughly $1000 a year going to the movies. Since I prefer to read ... I'm saving money already ... even considering the cost of the Kindle.
The author is yet another one of those writers who only takes his analysis as far as needed to make his point. Never mind that on further reflection his analysis just doesn't make sense.
