Pew Research Center survey on American reading habits

[DiapDealer]

My local news had a short piece that was bent on declaring ebooks a fad that is on the decline. Viewers were tweeting/emailing their preferences to the station all morning.

What I found particularly telling (and quite humorous) were the scads of people claiming that while they saw advantages to both, they preferred the physical book experience. When asked how they'd read their last book, however, the vast majority of those pbook-preferring-readers-who-own-ereaders responded "ebook".

So it would seem that many who claim to prefer pbooks over ebooks, don't always prefer them enough to eschew the convenience of ebooks when it boils right down to it.

Polls about ebooks vs pbooks (or ereaders vs tablets) are meaningless--not because of the poll (although I'm sure that plays a part as well)--but because many readers simply aren't aswering the questions honestly. They're too concerned with saying the "right" thing, or toeing a line they very publically drew in the sand in the past.

Now I'm sure everyone here has been utterly straightforward and honest one-hundred percent of the time, but there's a hell of a lot of people voluntarily buying/reading ebooks that are saying they "prefer" pbooks. I've a sneaky feeling there's a fair number of people who say they prefer dedicated, eink ereaders who find themselves using them less and less, too.

The future will wonder why there was such a stink at all.

[barryem]

I much prefer ebooks. I haven't read a paper book in years. When I was reading paper books it was always paperbacks because they were so much more convient.

I can relate to people saying they love the smell and feel of a book. I always did too. But I love reading more and reading on my Voyage is just better than reading on paper.

I suspect that over the years ebooks will become more and more popular, whether e-ink or in other technology. I doubt if books will ever go away. At the very least they'll be around because people like them. And until the ebook technology improves there are things paper is probably better for. I'm thinking particularly of textbooks. But other things as well, the large bible or other book open on the coffee table comes to mind.

Personally I don't care. It's not a contest. Ebooks are popular enough now that we have good tech to use with them and beyond that I really don't care. More and more older books are becoming available as ebooks. I like older books. To me ebook reading makes more sense. To others it doesn't. It's not a problem.

Barry

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

My local news had a short piece that was bent on declaring ebooks a fad that is on the decline. Viewers were tweeting/emailing their preferences to the station all morning.

What I found particularly telling (and quite humorous) were the scads of people claiming that while they saw advantages to both, they preferred the physical book experience. When asked how they'd read their last book, however, the vast majority of those pbook-preferring-readers-who-own-ereaders responded "ebook".

So it would seem that many who claim to prefer pbooks over ebooks, don't always prefer them enough to eschew the convenience of ebooks when it boils right down to it.

Polls about ebooks vs pbooks (or ereaders vs tablets) are meaningless--not because of the poll (although I'm sure that plays a part as well)--but because many readers simply aren't aswering the questions honestly. They're too concerned with saying the "right" thing, or toeing a line they very publically drew in the sand in the past.

Now I'm sure everyone here has been utterly straightforward and honest one-hundred percent of the time, but there's a hell of a lot of people voluntarily buying/reading ebooks that are saying they "prefer" pbooks. I've a sneaky feeling there's a fair number of people who say they prefer dedicated, eink ereaders who find themselves using them less and less, too.

The future will wonder why there was such a stink at all.

The other thing one sees in polls and surveys is that people answer the question asked, which may mean different things to different people. For example, I might say I prefer a paper book, but I use ebooks because I don't want to use reading glasses all the time. Or I prefer paper books, but I buy ebooks because I can download and read the book in the time it would take to have the book shipped to me. So prefer and do could very easily be two different things. (note, those are examples rather than my actual preferences).

[DiapDealer]

Oh, I agree. And like I said, I think (and hope that) future readers will wonder why anyone ever cared how literary content got consumed. Paper's not going anywhere, and neither are ebooks. It's high time readers, publishers, authors, and the media stopped pitting them against each other. The same way that dedicated eink reader lovers need to stop worrying that increasing tablet/phone reading spells the death of their preferred devices.

[QuantumIguana]

It doesn't talk about how many books people read. 68% may have read at least one book a year, but if you only read a couple books a year, e-books may not make much sense.

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

It doesn't talk about how many books people read. 68% may have read at least one book a year, but if you only read a couple books a year, e-books may not make much sense.

Have to do another investigation or survey on how many people have a device on which they could read ebooks (even if they don't).

So if they have a tablet, PC, smart phone, iXXX, Kindle they are IN.

For the record, I have bought a number of pbooks this year (all used, unavailable or more expensive as ebooks) and just got League of Dragons (The Temeraire Series, Book 9) 14 Jun 2016 by Naomi Novik from Surrey public library as a pb because I don't want to pay £6.00 for a read-once and it's not in their e-book collection

[Lemurion]

I have two tablets, a Paperwhite, and a phablet. My favorite device for reading fiction is the Paperwhite, the one I use most is the phablet. I use the big tablet (12") mostly for comics and magazines, and the smaller tablet (8.9") mostly for writing.

As for print books, I enjoy them as objects, but I haven't been able to read a paperback for years. I do occasionally read hardcovers, but I'd rather read ebooks.

There's no way you could get my reading preferences from that poll.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And like I said, I think (and hope that) future readers will wonder why anyone ever cared how literary content got consumed.

Anyone thinking of becoming a historian of libraries -- or of reading -- take note. Your career is toast

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Paper's not going anywhere, and neither are ebooks.

That does seem an obvious conclusion to be drawn from comparing earlier and later Pew studies.

But maybe eBook reading is just pausing temporarily. Consider:

Michael J. Klingensmith, the publisher and vice chairman of the forthcoming News Media Alliance, told the Times he estimates Sunday newspapers will be around "at least another 20 years" but "he wasn’t sure he could say the same for the rest of the week."

My guess is that paper books won't go the way of newspapers -- until eReader prices plummet world-wide.

The basic Kindle eReader is today US$79.99. This price is, I believe, ten dollars more than it was in 2013. And the functionality has AFAIK not improved. This may, by itself, explain why Pew finds eBook penetration to be stagnant. At some point (when eInk patents expire?), I expect reader prices to plummet to where it would make sense to buy an single-title eReader, and then throw it away (or recycle it). That could be the point where paper novels go the way of paper newspapers.

[DiapDealer]

I find ereader prices/sales to be a very insufficient metric for gauging ebook reading popularity (or un-) right now. Ebook downloads--the only numbers we have no reliable access to--is the only thing I would place much stock in. It would surprise me very much if every smartphone- and or tablet-toting, casual reader out there didn't have at least one reading app installed on their device(s).

I think the dedicated eink reader market is a very niche (but solid) market that has reached its saturation point. But I just don't think it's a very good indicator of how many ebooks are being bought, borrowed and read any more.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I find ereader prices/sales to be a very insufficient metric for gauging ebook reading popularity (or un-) right now. Ebook downloads--the only numbers we have no reliable access to--is the only thing I would place much stock in. It would surprise me very much if every smartphone- and or tablet-toting, casual reader out there didn't have at least one reading app installed on their device(s).

I think the dedicated eink reader market is a very niche (but solid) market that has reached its saturation point. But I just don't think it's a very good indicator of how many ebooks are being bought, borrowed and read any more.

I totally agree.

I don't forsee myself buying another eink device, but then my PRS-T1 is holding up just fine.

This survey is useless. Between having machines that last for years, and willfully ignoring that the name of the game is portability, and trying to base a decision for the whole population based on what a few hundred people say is absolutely asinine.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I find ereader prices/sales to be a very insufficient metric for gauging ebook reading popularity (or un-) right now. Ebook downloads--the only numbers we have no reliable access to--is the only thing I would place much stock in. It would surprise me very much if every smartphone- and or tablet-toting, casual reader out there didn't have at least one reading app installed on their device(s).

I think the dedicated eink reader market is a very niche (but solid) market that has reached its saturation point. But I just don't think it's a very good indicator of how many ebooks are being bought, borrowed and read any more.

I am still using the basic Kindle with buttons. No need for a new one.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

This survey is useless. Between having machines that last for years, and willfully ignoring that the name of the game is portability, and trying to base a decision for the whole population based on what a few hundred people say is absolutely asinine.

I disagree with your implication that portability is a priority to the majority of readers. For the ones that read above average, of course, it is a priority to have books easily portable. Being among avid readers, like most that are here on MR are to varying degrees, it is easy to assume that we are a relatively large group. Large maybe, but minority still. We are by far too small a group to decide what the whole population should think - we are the mere hundreds you mention above.

[DiapDealer]

I don't think the portability factor is limited to avid readers (like those who frequent Mobileread) at all. I would think not having to lug a physical book around with you would appeal to many, many readers, regardless of the volume they read in a year. Portability doesn't have to mean "an entire library at your fingertips." It can simply mean, "I already have to carry my phone, why carry a physical book as well?" The desire to not be weighed down with physical books is quite "avidness agnostic" in my opinion.

[pwalker8]

When we are talking about portability, are we talking about being able to carry the library on a small device, or are we talking about being able to move an ebook from one device to another?

[DiapDealer]

I'm talking about not having to lug a book around when I'm talking about portability. A phone, a coffee, and a book; or just a phone and a coffee. You don't have to be a heavy reader to see the advantage in that. If you read your ebooks on a phone, an ebook is inherently more portable. No matter how many you read in a year.