The Atlantic: Ebooks Are an Abomination

[hollowpoint]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

Baloney.

Baloney to your baloney. Read the research: every poll, every study I've seen, and my kids themselves including my daughter who just graduated from college, say that they, and their friends they hang out with, prefer paper books to ebooks. It's truth.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...to-audiobooks/

ETA: to be clear, all things considered I still prefer ebooks for MOST types of reading I do. But I get the reasons why it seems most people still prefer print books. They are valid reasons. And it's why I've been acquiring some more print books for pleasure reading again, lately.

[Calenorn]

Come on, man. The article you posted is about audio books.

Please.

[hollowpoint]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

Come on, man. The article you posted is about audio books.

Please.

Read beyond the headline, please. The whole article goes into great depth about the different media people read on, and reading by age and demographic group. It makes it pretty clear that younger readers prefer print.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by hollowpoint

It makes it pretty clear that younger readers prefer print.

They'll grow out of it.

[Quoth]

Most people think ebooks are for reading on tablets or phones, which is where most people read them.

Or they are only casual readers of supermarket stock, not interested in the 60,000 PD free ebooks on Gutenberg.

But when people are demoed a decent ereader (later ones with better than 167 dpi) they are amazed. Most people have never seen such a thing in real life.

Or if they are interested in older books out of print but on Gutenberg they are certainly interested in ebooks.

But why should they prefer something similarly priced to paper that they think only Amazon sells and that they'd only read on a phone?

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Most people think ebooks are for reading on tablets or phones, which is where most people read them.

Or they are only casual readers of supermarket stock, not interested in the 60,000 PD free ebooks on Gutenberg.

But when people are demoed a decent ereader (later ones with better than 167 dpi) they are amazed. Most people have never seen such a thing in real life.

Or if they are interested in older books out of print but on Gutenberg they are certainly interested in ebooks.

But why should they prefer something similarly priced to paper that they think only Amazon sells and that they'd only read on a phone?

Exactly. Most people who say they prefer paper have never seen an ereader. They think it's the same as a tablet or a phone. I'd suffer from screen fatigue too if I had to read ebooks on LCD. (Yes, yes, not everyone suffers from screen fatigue; many can and do happily read books on tablets/phones/laptops etc. But screen fatigue and eyestrain are real issues for many others.)

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

They'll grow out of it.

Yeah. We all did.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by hollowpoint

ETA: to be clear, all things considered I still prefer ebooks for MOST types of reading I do. But I get the reasons why it seems most people still prefer print books. They are valid reasons. And it's why I've been acquiring some more print books for pleasure reading again, lately.

They are valid for some people, but not for others. I haven't felt the slightest urge to read paper books in the last 10 years. So no, the author is not correct to say ebooks are worse than paper for everyone.

And as has been already said, most people have never seen an ereader. Of course they say they prefer paper. I would too, if eink didn't exist.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by hollowpoint

When I want to read, I want to pick up the damned book and start reading.

Except you left out the parts about driving to the bookstore, seeing if it’s in stock, making do with something else if it’s not, and all the time it takes to do this. And if it’s a library book, factoring in the return trip, also.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Exactly. Most people who say they prefer paper have never seen an ereader. They think it's the same as a tablet or a phone. I'd suffer from screen fatigue too if I had to read ebooks on LCD. (Yes, yes, not everyone suffers from screen fatigue; many can and do happily read books on tablets/phones/laptops etc. But screen fatigue and eyestrain are real issues for many others.)

That was me, until a family member demonstrated his e-ink ereader. I went out and bought my first ereader not long after that.

[hollowpoint]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Most people think ebooks are for reading on tablets or phones, which is where most people read them.

Or they are only casual readers of supermarket stock, not interested in the 60,000 PD free ebooks on Gutenberg.

But when people are demoed a decent ereader (later ones with better than 167 dpi) they are amazed. Most people have never seen such a thing in real life.

An interesting and valid point. It would make a poll or study more useful, when it asks do you prefer print/ebook/audiobook/etc, if it also asks if you've TRIED each of those. Or if you've tried reading on e-ink devices.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Most people think ebooks are for reading on tablets or phones, which is where most people read them...

But when people are demoed a decent ereader (later ones with better than 167 dpi) they are amazed. Most people have never seen such a thing in real life.

I think Amazon did e-ink no favors when they named their tablets Kindle Fire. They just muddied the waters and many think Kindles are tablets.

[AngryD]

Originally Posted by hollowpoint

Read beyond the headline, please. The whole article goes into great depth about the different media people read on, and reading by age and demographic group. It makes it pretty clear that younger readers prefer print.

I did read beyond the headline. It actually does not go into much more depth. In fact, the word "e-book" is only listed three times on the page. The most pertinent paragraph is this one:

"Despite some growth in certain digital formats, it remains the case that relatively few Americans only consume digital books (which include audiobooks and e-books) to the exclusion of print. Some 37% of Americans say they read only print books, while 28% read in these digital formats and also read print books. Just 7% of Americans say they only read books in digital formats and have not read any print books in the past 12 months. (About a quarter of Americans haven’t read a book in any format in the past year.)"

(Emphasis mine.)

To translate this, audio books are rising, which this former teacher can tell you is indicative of the "always has to be listening to something" culture we have created in modern children who now cannot study or concentrate on anything without headphones in. Digital print copies are only down 3% in the last eight years, while the study referenced does not provide either a margin of error or a methodology for their data collection. You have to dig into the article for those and you discover... --Shock!--

They only asked 1500 Americans.

Let's do some math. America has 331 million people in it.

They polled 0.000453172205438% of the population. From that you draw your conclusions? Well, I just flew cross country and on six flights across three days I saw exactly one person reading a paper novel on the planes. I saw over three dozen reading on various electronic devices, from iPads to Kindles to laptops. (I saw a lot more watching movies on various screens.) So is my anecdotal evidence more or less valid than a sample of a statistically insignificant size?

Further, there is no description of the questions asked even in the amplification of the poll. They could conceivably have asked. "Have you read an e-Book this year?" Not, "Would you prefer to read a digital book or a paper one?"

No distinction is made for fiction vs nonfiction. I'm an avid fiction reader and read 81 novels last year on my Kindle-- but only three nonfiction books because fewer of them are available and I also prefer to read those in paper for note taking ease. (Although reading more on my iPad I can take better notes than on the Kindle's crappy on-screen keyboard.)

Let's put this in perspective. I'm an electronics technician with a master's degree in Counterterrorism Studies, two published nonfiction books, and over 100 different articles of my own. I consider myself well-read and well-written.

Some of the books I read are not available in digital format, so despite my personal desire to purchase and read only books in digital format, I am unable to do so.

Which category should I be in? Bunker et al chose not to release a digital copy of Counterterrorism: Bridging Operations and Theory. I did not read the paper copy because I chose to, but because I had to do so.

Technical manuals for the gear I operate and maintain are largely not released in digital format, either.

This article you referenced has major flaws. It does not describe the polling methodology. It does not provide the list of questions that were asked. It does not include a margin of error. It does not query a large enough representative sample, and, most damning, it does not say what you think it does.

"It remains the case that relatively few Americans only consume digital books (which include audiobooks and e-books) to the exclusion of print." (Emphasis mine) This is a conclusion that cannot be drawn from the sample size provided, and definitely without knowing the polling questions that were asked.

This is a fun discussion, but the reality is that we're here because we love digital books. This culture is growing. Publishers are losing their stranglehold on publishing because excellent authors like John Conroe are discovering that they don't need to genuflect to publishers any more. Hell, even Piers Anthony, one of the most prolific authors of the last forty years, has written a scathing indictment of modern publishing as long as ten years ago, and published his most recent books digitally himself.

This discussion explains why publishers are freaking out over digital releases and how it represents their lack of control. Traditional publishers did everything they could to sabotage digital formats for literally years. At one point I was furious because Del Rey had released the David Eddings series The Belgariad books three, four, and five as e-books-- but not the first two in the friggin' series!

Then they had the audacity to point to that series and say, "See? No one bought it. Obviously readers don't want ebooks!" Aspect Publishing did something similar with Chris Bunch's Seer King series. They released the first and the third and decided not to release a digital format of the second, "to keep people from pirating the series." Then they wonder why their e-book sales are cratered.

Let me sum up what I doubt you'll be reading anyway, as you've already stated that you don't like to read digital formats:

e-Books do not suck. That is your opinion. It is not a valid opinion because you cannot speak for anyone else on this planet when you present it. It is your opinion and it is based on a flawed premise, which invalidates it. e-Books may suck for certain people, or perhaps for certain activities, but I am fairly certain that for every point you have why they do suck (for you and for you alone) I can come up with an alternate reason as to why they are absolutely awesome for me.

Here are just five reasons why e-books are better than paper.

1. Go ahead and carry every book in the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan on your next trip to Europe.

2. When your eyes get tired reading on an e-book, you can increase the print size. Can't do that on paper.

3. With Calibre, you can loan a book you are currently reading to a friend or family member just by copying the file. (Disclaimer: You have the right to loan your own property to friends and family. They should delete it when they are done or buy their own copy of it.)

4. There is a typographical error on page 154 of David Eddings's Pawn of Prophecy. It bothered me for 25 years until I was able to get the e-Book and correct the typo with Calibre. When was the last time you corrected a typo on a paper book?

5. While reading on most electronic devices, if you need to look up a word, or even a reference, you can usually just click on it. Charles Stross references a number of real things in his Cthulu-mythos-style Laundry Files, including the attempt of the Glomar Explorer to recover a sunken Russian submarine in 1972. (Now imagine that a Deep One snatched the sub back and that's why the mission failed. That's the start of Stross's story.) With e-Books, you can more easily read the history behind the events your favorite authors reference.

Oh, and let's add one more for luck: e-Books are generally cheaper to buy because, even though most of the cost of publishing is in the editing and layout areas, taking actual book manufacture out of the picture saves about a third of the cost of a book, so that $29.99 hardback can be sold as a $19.99 ebook. That means people who don't have a lot of money can still get new books more easily. (And this isn't even counting the fact that some classics are free as an e-book but cost regular price if you buy the physical copy.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I think Amazon did e-ink no favors when they named their tablets Kindle Fire. They just muddied the waters and many think Kindles are tablets.

They did belatedly drop the Kindle prefix. The App shouldn't be called Kindle either, but the Amazon ereader app.

MS did the same stupidity calling EVERY OS they produced ‘Windows’ which was a pretty poor name anyway as several Windows, Icon, Mouse and Pointer (WIMP) desktops existed and Win 1.0 to Win 3.x, Win9x & Win ME were not even OSes, just shells. Win CE, Win NT (From 3.1 to Win 11 today) were/are OSes. But CE, Phone and Desktop are different systems.

Apple at least called the phone & tablet one iOS. But Mac OS9 and Mac OSX (=10) are actually unrelated and they liked the X so much that although quite a few updates since approximately 2002 Mac OS X (=10) should have been 11, 12 etc they are not.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Quoth

...

MS did the same stupidity calling EVERY OS they produced ‘Windows’ ...

Except for Xenix?