Will Paper books fade away?

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by primbs

Looks like some things stick around.
"Having just gone through the process of mastering our new album for digital and for vinyl, I can say it is completely amazing how different they really sound," said lead singer and guitarist Joshua Babcock in an e-mail interview. "The way the vinyl is so much better and warmer and more interesting to listen to is a wonder."
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/m...eningpost_1029

please don't start this argument here.. The reason for the renewed interest in vynil are terrible. Watch:

Portability is no longer any reason to stick with CDs, and neither is audio quality. Although vinyl purists are ripe for parody, they're right about one thing: Records can sound better than CDs.

note the can in can sound better. If you screw up the CD mastering entirely, the vinyl medium will not allow you to master it as badly, and as such keeps the mastering engineer from doing so. The glaring omission is that the engineer could just as well have chosen to master the CD properly, thus removing the "need" for a remaster (on a different medium). Note that if you master (compress the digital range of) the original tape, rather than a copy, there is no way to get a "better" sounding vynil recording out of it. (mind you, this has already happened a number of times)

Although CDs have a wider dynamic range, mastering houses are often encouraged to compress the audio on CDs to make it as loud as possible: It's the so-called loudness war. Since the audio on vinyl can't be compressed to such extremes, records generally offer a more nuanced sound.

If you combine the information given in this bit with your example of the "artists who are happy with their superior vynil mastering", it should make you wonder.
As stated CDs when mastered properly are (far) superior. However, for some reason the band (or their mastering engineers) were either not allowed to do so (by their publishers), or just didn't want to do so, for fear of "losing" the loudness race; so they also release a different mastering on vynil. If they had released the same mastering on CD the CD would sound better.

So: "vynil" is a total and utter hype, which has come into existence because of lousy mastering practices, which cannot be pursued on vynil (as it will saturate more quickly). The "more nuanced sound" is a choice record companies are explicitly not making, it's not a feature of vynil.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Yeah, you still lose the ability to have multiple documents scattered around the desk to compare findings etc.

And I forgot to mention that it had to be affordable. I wouldn't pay more than $150-200 for something like that since I don't mind at all working with print outs. I generally don't do that kind of work outside the office so portability isn't an issue.

Otherwise I'm just stuck in my ways and for my academic documents and books I like just having a print out or paper book that I can easily write on, easily flip through, etc. etc.

Well, the thing my iLiad comes in handiest for is for putting papers on it.. If i see the 30-40cm stacks of printed papers that some people have lying around in their offices, having them all in PDF form would make that stack a lot more searchable.
That said, searching/switching/flipping between or through them will only really become feasible once opening times reach 1-3 seconds, and page flips+loads take <.5s (we aren't quite there yet).
Currently I search the PDF versions of papers/books for words/phrases, and then start reading the actual text or whatever on my iLiad, which works OK but is still far from perfect (for my use).

Anyway, I'm sure technology will make a fan of you yet, in another 5 years or so.

[pdurrant]

The security problem with DRM isn't a matter of the strength of the encryption. The problem is that the end user has the decryption key. This is probably why Amazon are trying to hid the PIDs they give to Kindles and iPhone/iTouch.

Originally Posted by cerement

I wonder why more publishers haven't looked at public-key encryption (like PGP or GPG) for their DRM needs. Open source, provides strong encryption, AND serves as a means of identification through digital signatures.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Yeah, you still lose the ability to have multiple documents scattered around the desk to compare findings etc.

And I forgot to mention that it had to be affordable. I wouldn't pay more than $150-200 for something like that since I don't mind at all working with print outs. I generally don't do that kind of work outside the office so portability isn't an issue.

Once more and more people will adopt e-ink, the prices will go down. It's only recently entering the lives of non-gadget people. I think, after some time has passed, and the technology is cheaper and expanded, the situation like they have in Star Trek will come to pass. You will have access to several devices (PADDS!) all based on some sort of e-ink technology. And they won't be as expensive as they are now.

By that time, paper books won't be sold that much anymore, but I think they will always be there, though they will probably go up in price.

[Format C:]

OK, we had a few debates here...

- Film vs Digital Photography
- PC vs Mac
- iPod vs Rest of the World
- LP vs CD
- Audio vs print
- Cars vs Horses

So I'd say: the difference between p-books and e-books is exactly like the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

And now, I get my chips and I enjoy the show....

[CTH]

Replacing books seems a bit far away but taking a big chunk of the newspappermarket is not that far away I belive and hope. Well it wont replace it totaly because way more people read newspapers than those who will buy a ebook reader.

It is a question about advantages between a e-thing and a "real"-thing (yes digital things are real too but I think that you know what I mean) that concludes if the e-thing will take over totaly or if they will live in harmony.

The advantage that ebooks has over paperbooks is right now more or less just wieght, when price is starting to be a advantage also it will be more intresting. You could argue about the accesabillity (kindle, internet vs bookstore) but you dont buy a book that often that it really is a issue.

A newspaper on the other hand, there you just want to have the news and you want them often and fast. And the price for the e-newspapers will probobly go down much faster than the ebook prices because you already getting the news for free on the internet.

So my guess is, newspapers will lose to the ebooks and paperbooks will lose some marketshares to ebooks but will prob be around for a very long time.

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by Format C:

OK, we had a few debates here...

- Film vs Digital Photography
- PC vs Mac
- iPod vs Rest of the World
- LP vs CD
- Audio vs print
- Cars vs Horses

So I'd say: the difference between p-books and e-books is exactly like the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

And now, I get my chips and I enjoy the show....

There's also another debate going on which is the way we interact with material objects versus virtual environments. I've been talking all along about how difficult it is to simply do one's reading (reading includes marking up and interacting with the text using a writing instrument) just on the screen if the reading is more than just for leisure.

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by CTH

It is a question about advantages between a e-thing and a "real"-thing (yes digital things are real too but I think that you know what I mean) that concludes if the e-thing will take over totaly or if they will live in harmony.

You could call it virtual versus physical. Or you could call it digital versus printed. That way, we can move beyond real/authentic which are not helpful because both, as you say, are real things.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

There's also another debate going on which is the way we interact with material objects versus virtual environments. I've been talking all along about how difficult it is to simply do one's reading (reading includes marking up and interacting with the text using a writing instrument) just on the screen if the reading is more than just for leisure.

Yeah, I've hit on this a few times already.

But again, to expand more, I have little interest in readers for my work documents (do research and teaching) as it's just easier to mark up printed out PDFs of scholarly articles or books, have several scattered around the desk to grab and flip through, or two put a couple tables from different studies side by side etc.

No electronic device can ever have that level of ease. But I do see the appeal for taking a bunch of articles on a trip or something. But working in my office (where I do the vast majority of my work) I'll always prefer hard copies as they're just quicker and easier to mark up and flip through and always will be. And I doubt I'll change my tune on that.

But I love ereaders for leisure reading.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Well, the thing my iLiad comes in handiest for is for putting papers on it.. If i see the 30-40cm stacks of printed papers that some people have lying around in their offices, having them all in PDF form would make that stack a lot more searchable.

Can't speak for all academics, but I have good memory and my small stack of papers is stuff very related to my research so I know it pretty much inside out (since I work in a fairly small niche within my field).

So I only have to pull out an article when I want to grab a quote and reference a specific quantitative finding, or see how to spell a name etc.

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

We don't have to think of ebooks and paper books as an either/or proposition but rather as a both-and possibility.

I see no reason to ever be such a fanatic about dumping one technology (paper, in this case) when using both kinds of technologies (paper and digital ebooks) can be productive.

I'm a both-and person :-)

Same here. Like I said, I love ebooks for leisure reading. I'm not marking it up and I'll never read it again so there's no reason to have a physical book.

But for work I prefer physical books and documents, and always will unless something vastly different than our current conception of ereaders comes out.

The other factor is that storage space isn't much of a barrier as I have plenty of filing cabinets and bookshelves in my office (perk of working in academia). Where as at home it's tough to find space for books when so much is already taken up with my DVD/Blu Ray and CD collections.

If that wasn't an issue then I'd honestly never buy an ereader as I do prefer reading a physical book, but the convenience of not buying a copy of something I'll read once or not hassling with the library sold me. That having books when traveling without having to lug them around.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

So many comments... I could've sworn I was just here! Anyway, just this one point:

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

We don't have to think of ebooks and paper books as an either/or proposition but rather as a both-and possibility.

I see no reason to ever be such a fanatic about dumping one technology (paper, in this case) when using both kinds of technologies (paper and digital ebooks) can be productive.

Don't forget, some of the reasons for replacing paper with e-books concern the incredible environmental damage and pollution caused by producing, shipping and storing all that paper, damage that can now be significantly mitigated by switching to electronic readers. It's not only an aesthetic discussion, it is an environmental issue, as well.

BTW, for the record I still read business texts as well as literature. When I can (and I usually can), I arrange to get an electronic version of the document and input it into my PC and my PDA to store and to read. Ah, the looks I get in business meetings!

[dmaul1114]

The environmental thing is there, but I don't worry about it too much. I recycle everything I can, including articles I print out and don't need anymore, ink jet cartridges etc. and trees are a renewable resource.

I try to be environmentally friendly, but there are some things I'm not willing to give up for that sake. I love my physical copies for work, so I'm going to keep them. I hate being hot or cold, so I'm going to keep my thermostat where I'm comfortable etc.

But I'll do other things such as recycle, not buy bottled water, changed to totally CFL light bulbs, drive fuel efficient cars.

Everyone should care, but everyone has limits on what they're willing to give up for the environment's sake, and I do better than most.

[cerement]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

But again, to expand more, I have little interest in readers for my work documents (do research and teaching) as it's just easier to mark up printed out PDFs of scholarly articles or books, have several scattered around the desk to grab and flip through, or two put a couple tables from different studies side by side etc.
...
But I love ereaders for leisure reading.

I definitely think that regardless of when electronic readers "take over the world", companies should be thinking now about the vast array of different needs of readers.

The comfortable paperback-sized multi-format reader I want for leisure reading is going to be vastly different from the letter/A4-sized color reader with markup/highlight/annotate that you want for academic/corporate work which, in turn, is going to be vastly different from the cheap disposable flimsy readers that newspapers and supermarket rags will be distributed on.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

e-books concern the incredible environmental damage and pollution caused by producing, shipping and storing all that paper, damage that can now be significantly mitigated by switching to electronic readers. It's not only an aesthetic discussion, it is an environmental issue, as well.

I do not believe this. Flatly.

I think electronics do much, much more damage to the environment than paper and the constant churning of devices ( pda's, smartphones, pc's/laptops/netbooks, dedicated reading devices, iPods, ...) in search of the shiniest, newest, brightest puts a burden on the environment of orders of magnitude higher than the renewable resource that are trees and paper. I would contend that at least for books - maybe less for disposable items like newspapers and magazines - paper is the environmentally friendly way.

When/if e becomes an extension of the body and is not dis-intermediated through a device, I will change my opinion.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

The environmental thing is there, but I don't worry about it too much..... Everyone should care, but everyone has limits on what they're willing to give up for the environment's sake, and I do better than most.

<RANT>I'm not sure "I'm better than most" is saying much. When you add up all the "I do this, so I don't have to do that" comments, you're left with a lot of areas that could be done much, much better. It's the reason most of us use to refuse to do everything we can, and likely the reason that all of our pro-environmental efforts will ultimately be failures.

I mean, how hard is it to turn down the temp a few degrees, and put on a sweater?

We all need to worry about "the environmental thing" a whole hell of a lot, before we're all worried about dropping our e-book readers into the water around our knees...

But I'm just sayin'.

</RANT>

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

I do not believe this. Flatly.

I think electronics do much, much more damage to the environment than paper and the constant churning of devices ( pda's, smartphones, pc's/laptops/netbooks, dedicated reading devices, iPods, ...) in search of the shiniest, newest, brightest puts a burden on the environment of orders of magnitude higher than the renewable resource that are trees and paper. I would contend that at least for books - maybe less for disposable items like newspapers and magazines - paper is the environmentally friendly way.

You might want to do a bit of research into the amount of pollution, chemical runoff and waste that goes into producing paper... it's much, much more than most people have any idea of. Also, consider the fact that it is people's wasteful nature with electronic products (one of the single largest product categories where people throw away perfectly workable devices when they simply get tired of them, and thereby causing unnecessary landfill pollution), not the wasteful nature of the electronics themselves, that are the concern here.

<MORERANT>But as I said before, people don't want to do what they have to do to be efficient, whether it's paper or electronics, so we're likely damned either way. (And I guess that's an opening to say "Well, as long as I'm damned, I'll just be damned with paper...)</MORERANT>

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

... I have little interest in readers for my work documents (do research and teaching) as it's just easier to mark up printed out PDFs....

...No electronic device can ever have that level of ease....

... If that wasn't an issue then I'd honestly never buy an ereader as I do prefer reading a physical book....

To each his own, but there a lot of generalizations here, all deriving from "I".

I don't know what your field is, or what your age is, but my "I" moved to mostly online research in grad school in the '90s. And most people I know, do most of their research online.

The benefits are enormous:

lightning fast searches;
the information is more current;
availability of materials which would be prohibitive to acquire, or house locally;
instant sharing with colleagues;
considerably reduced costs; and yes,
considerably reduced environmental impact.

You keep bringing up "cheap" as a requirement of your "perfect" e-reader, but the cost of your practices annually, is likely much higher than the cost of an iRex tablet (with annotation abilities.)

Someone has to pay for the paper and its delivery, someone has to pay for the printing equipment, its supplies and maintenance, then someone has to pay for the disposal of your discarded reading. Then someone has to pay for that ample storage space you apparently use in "academia," including having to build it, heat it or cool it, and maintain it.

Add to this all the stuff involved in production and transportation, from the chopped trees, to the paper-mill's toxic chemicals, to the gas and pollution required for transportation, and your footprint gets to be quite a large one, both in terms of costs and ecological damage.

There are so many reasons why e-technology should, and will, displace most p-materials. But for some it takes a generation. Hey, some still insist on using a typewriter.