Poll: 3 out of 4 Americans prefer paper books

[Tony1988]

Does it really matter though?? Maybe some people don't want to fuddle around with a device all day. I mean think about it. Except for the space an ereader may save you from storing books, is it really more practical in the long run?
Look at all the hours readers waste here talking about their ereaders, fooling around with the files and fonts, losing books, complaining about prices, worrying about the fact if they own the book or not, batteries dying, dropping and breaking the device, getting addicted to buying multiple readers, etc. etc. Can anyone really blame or be surprised that a good majority still do not want an ereader.

A paper book you go out and buy sit down and read. That's it.

Now I like ereaders but I can most definitely see why some people would not want to deal with the hassles that come with it or the obsessions over minutia that can result with owning one.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

And the US postal system is bankrupt due to lack of snail mail. It only holds together because Congress won't allow it to start shutting pieces of it down.

That's not true. The post office is quite efficient. The problem the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which requires the USPN to fund their pension plan 75 years in advance. This means the USPS is funding the pensions of people who aren't even born yet. UPS and FedEx don't have to do that.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by medard

Remember this thing called E-Mail? That's so much better than snail mail. It's totaly avant-garde. You need to have that. So cool, costs nothing. Just press "Send". Everybody will use this. This will change society.

20 Years later, E-Mails are just spam. Because of economics. Pressing "Send" doesn't cost anything, and nobody reads this stuff.

E-mail did change quite a lot, and no, e-mails are not "just spam". And people do in fact read e-mails.

If something is important, you send it via snail mail. If your thoughts are worth it, you'll spend some Cents for a stamp.

Perhaps you do, but you don't speak for everyone. It used to be that if you had important information, you sent it via telegram. It cost more than a letter, sure, but people weren't sending telegrams because paying more somehow made it more important. They used telegrams because it was fast: just like e-mail.

[medard]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Look at all the hours readers waste here talking about their ereaders, fooling around with the files and fonts, losing books, complaining about prices, worrying about the fact if they own the book or not, batteries dying, dropping and breaking the device, getting addicted to buying multiple readers, etc. etc. Can anyone really blame or be surprised that a good majority still do not want an ereader.

A paper book you go out and buy sit down and read. That's it.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by medard

If something is important, you send it via snail mail. If your thoughts are worth it, you'll spend some Cents for a stamp.

If it's really important, you pick up the phone or go in person.

It might be different in other countries but in the US the primary revenue source for the Postal Service is junk mail. Most operations (utilities, banks, etc) are moving to online billing and bill payment and many charge extra for paper-based billing. The most recent (and very welcome) development is companies that email you a copy of your purchase receipt in addition to the thermal paper, degradable and easy-to-lose purchase time receipts.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Does it really matter though?? Maybe some people don't want to fuddle around with a device all day. I mean think about it. Except for the space an ereader may save you from storing books, is it really more practical in the long run?
Look at all the hours readers waste here talking about their ereaders, fooling around with the files and fonts, losing books, complaining about prices, worrying about the fact if they own the book or not, batteries dying, dropping and breaking the device, getting addicted to buying multiple readers, etc. etc. Can anyone really blame or be surprised that a good majority still do not want an ereader.

This forum isn't exactly representative of readers as a whole. If you go to a car enthusiast forum, there are people who spend a lot of time talking about their cars and all the things you do with them. Most people just drive their car. Similarly, most people who have e-readers just use them. They aren't hard-core enthusiasts, just users.

[medard]

That's true, QuantumIguana.

And Digital Reading isn't that bad of course. If you're interested in classic literature it's a very convenient and pleasant way to build up a personal library. But this library is just virtual, it's only real for yourself.

For a small group of readers, Digital Reading is a nice, cheap and simple way to get your literature. But it's not the future of reading. If you're waiting for this, you'll post the same on MobileRead in 20 years. It won't happen. Printed books will always be the majority, at least for the next years.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Does it really matter though?? Maybe some people don't want to fuddle around with a device all day. I mean think about it. Except for the space an ereader may save you from storing books, is it really more practical in the long run?
Look at all the hours readers waste here talking about their ereaders, fooling around with the files and fonts, losing books, complaining about prices, worrying about the fact if they own the book or not, batteries dying, dropping and breaking the device, getting addicted to buying multiple readers, etc. etc. Can anyone really blame or be surprised that a good majority still do not want an ereader.

A paper book you go out and buy sit down and read. That's it.

Now I like ereaders but I can most definitely see why some people would not want to deal with the hassles that come with it or the obsessions over minutia that can result with owning one.

(Bolding mine)

An ebook, you sit down, buy, and read. That's it.

For many readers an ebook is less hassle than a print volume. The reader's both your bookshelf and your bookstore. You can buy a book and start reading in seconds without even having to get up.

As for hassles and obsessing over minutiae, there are people who obsess just as much over print as some do over ereaders.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

The only snail mail I've sent in the last 10 years have been legal documents. I still manage to stay in touch with family and friends and businesses with this dead end called email.

Same with me. If i need to correspond with someone, i use. It's been years since i've used snail mail.

[jersysman]

Originally Posted by medard

Remember this thing called E-Mail? That's so much better than snail mail. It's totaly avant-garde. You need to have that. So cool, costs nothing. Just press "Send". Everybody will use this. This will change society.

20 Years later, E-Mails are just spam. Because of economics. Pressing "Send" doesn't cost anything, and nobody reads this stuff.

And 20 years later almost nobody sends snail mail through the post office. Electronic mail has just drifted to other platforms (hello FB and Twitter).

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by medard

That's true, QuantumIguana.

And Digital Reading isn't that bad of course. If you're interested in classic literature it's a very convenient and pleasant way to build up a personal library. But this library is just virtual, it's only real for yourself.

For a small group of readers, Digital Reading is a nice, cheap and simple way to get your literature. But it's not the future of reading. If you're waiting for this, you'll post the same on MobileRead in 20 years. It won't happen. Printed books will always be the majority, at least for the next years.

Some people think that paper books are going to disappear, and do so fairly soon. I don't agree with that, I don't see paper books disappearing within the foreseeable future. However, it seems exceedingly unlikely that paper books will remain the majority within 20 years.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by medard

That's true, QuantumIguana.

And Digital Reading isn't that bad of course. If you're interested in classic literature it's a very convenient and pleasant way to build up a personal library. But this library is just virtual, it's only real for yourself.

For a small group of readers, Digital Reading is a nice, cheap and simple way to get your literature. But it's not the future of reading. If you're waiting for this, you'll post the same on MobileRead in 20 years. It won't happen. Printed books will always be the majority, at least for the next years.

You're right, but not necessarily in the way you mean.

Digital isn't the "future" of reading: it's the present.

The publishing industry has relied on multiple formats for decades. In North America we have mass-market paperbacks, trade paperbacks, trade hardcovers, library bindings, collectors hardcovers. Now we have ebooks as well as print.

I don't think anyone really expects digital to completely drive out print, but it's already making inroads and has become a permanent part of the market. We can already see what's happening as digital is taking over the disposable fiction part of the market that's been served by the mass market, but not so much hardcovers and trades.

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

(Bolding mine)

An ebook, you sit down, buy, and read. That's it.

For many readers an ebook is less hassle than a print volume. The reader's both your bookshelf and your bookstore. You can buy a book and start reading in seconds without even having to get up.

As for hassles and obsessing over minutiae, there are people who obsess just as much over print as some do over ereaders.

Look I like ereaders but it is still less time consuming to operate and maintain a paper book over the long term. Except for storage space I cannot see the advantage of having an ereader over a paper book for the general reader. Its probably also more expensive in the long run as well, at least for those readers who like to own the newest books.

[jmilica]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Look I like ereaders but it is still less time consuming to operate and maintain a paper book over the long term. Except for storage space I cannot see the advantage of having an ereader over a paper book for the general reader. Its probably also more expensive in the long run as well, at least for those readers who like to own the newest books.

It's easier to operate your paper book unless you have a flood/fire (I had one in my house and I was most concerned about dearly paid books and dictionaries and what not, and of course criticised by my friends for such "trivial worries")/run out of space to store books/come to a point where you have to shift to another country and decide which books you are taking with you (happened to me 4 times in last 10 years) and where and how will you store the books you are leaving/shop too many books and have to take them with you on the international flight paying exorbitant overweight charges/loose them after lending them to friends who don't return them for whatever reason.

And then of course, you cannot back up your paper books, and keep them in the cloud and various usb drives and extended memories, so that if anything of the above happens, you can have your valuable collection back in a matter of minutes or hours...

I will not even speak on certain sensitive countries where books might be forbidden or corrected according to censors - they will not check my ereader for the books they would be after.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Look I like ereaders but it is still less time consuming to operate and maintain a paper book over the long term. Except for storage space I cannot see the advantage of having an ereader over a paper book for the general reader. Its probably also more expensive in the long run as well, at least for those readers who like to own the newest books.

I disagree, paper books are more time-consuming. It's more time-consuming to buy paper books. With an e-book, I just click and order. With a paper book, I drive to the bookstore, which takes me about considerable time, and that's living in a city where there are bookstores. There are many places where the nearest bookstore is an hour or more away.

If you have paper books, you must shelve them, and this creates clutter that you must consume time to maintain. With e-books, I just delete it from the reader. If I want it again, I just download it again. Paper books are also heavier and bulkier.

The ability to have thousands of books at your fingertips is a huge advantage for e-books. The ability to change the font size is another advantage. You do have to pay the up-front cost of the device, but most e-books are cheaper than their paper counterpart, so it pays for itself.