The Atlantic: Ebooks Are an Abomination

[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.

Or sticking with 167 dpi (600 x 800?) for the Kindle Basic.
All 6"
2007: Kindle 1, 167 dpi (600 x 800) only 4 shades and greyish.
2010: KK3, 167 dpi (600 x 800) but nearly as bright as current screens and 16 levels (The DXG was DX upgraded to have a better screen).
2011: Kindle Touch 167 dpi (600 x 800), basically similar screen to KK3.
2012: PW 1, 212 dpi (758×1024)
2012: Kindle 5, 167 dpi (600 x 800), no touch screen.
2013: PW 2. Same screen as PW1
2014: Kindle 7 167 dpi (600 x 800). Updated Kindle Touch as Basic model.
2014: Voyage 1, 300 dpi (1072 x1448)
2015: PW 3, 300 dpi (1072 x 1448)
2016: Oasis 1. 300 dpi also 6" (it's the 2017 Oasis 2 that's 300 dpi & 7", like a Kobo Libra)
2018: PW 4, 300 dpi (1072 x 1448), but with a flush bezel.
2019: Basic, 167 dpi, gets front lights.

So after 9 years of a better than 167 dpi Kindle, it's time they stopped selling the awful Basic? A front light is lipstick on a pig.

2010: Sony PRS650, a 6" touch, was only 167 dpi (600 x 800). The PRS350 had same 600 x 800 but on 5".

2011: Kobo Touch, 167 dpi (600 x 800) and 6".

2012: Nook Simple Touch, 167 dpi (600 x 800) and 6".


So basically the current Kindle Basic is not much better than 11 and 10 year old models from the competition, then.

It would only be more exploitive if the Basic was free. With or without adverts, frontlight on or off, it's a poor reading experience.

[Calenorn]

Thank you @ AngryD.

I'll just add one thing: there is no college student in the universe that longs to lug fifty pounds of paper books, instead of accessing them all via laptop / chromebook / tablet. None. Zero.

[salamanderjuice]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

Thank you @ AngryD.

I'll just add one thing: there is no college student in the universe that longs to lug fifty pounds of paper books, instead of accessing them all via laptop / chromebook / tablet. None. Zero.

That really depends on the quality and format of digital textbooks I think. If it's a high quality PDF scan or a well formatted ePub that works for the content I'll take that. If it's some horrid thing that requires I be online, logged into a specific website (some of the textbook publishers really do this) to read I'll take the paper books.

ebooks as a concept are far better but in practice they often aren't because publishers are too afraid of piracy or cutting into paper sales to put out quality product.

[binaryhermit]

Nevermind that book piracy predates ebooks by centuries and the lack of an ebook is unlikely to deter motivated digital pirates.

I mean, wasn't there a digital copy of one of the Harry Potter books before the text's official release date via someone getting their hands on a paper copy, taking a picture of every page, uploading the pictures to the internet, and the internet doing their thing?

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

I mean, wasn't there a digital copy of one of the Harry Potter books before the text's official release date via someone getting their hands on a paper copy, taking a picture of every page, uploading the pictures to the internet, and the internet doing their thing?

Yes. Possibly one book even from a proof copy!

Very many pirate ebooks are from paper ARCs (Advance Review Copies). Just as HDCP on HDMI and DRM on DVD & BD is wasting consumer money.
Point camera at a decent TV in a dark room. But many pirate videos before decent flat screen TVs and cheap 4K cameras were pirated from the actual studio or in a projection booth in a cinema.

You can pirate a book by industrial cut off binding and ADF. Or automated page turning on a Kindle PW3 (cheap robot finger out of Lego) and a phone camera. Then OCR. Though some just publish the image based PDF. Used to be rife on Google Playstore. But plenty of "free" sites too.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by Quoth

The App shouldn't be called Kindle either, but the Amazon ereader app.

But then they would also change the books they sell from Kindle Edition to Amazon Ereader Edition.

[John F]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

That really depends on the quality and format of digital textbooks I think. If it's a high quality PDF scan or a well formatted ePub that works for the content I'll take that. ...

I would avoid a PDF scan. I prefer a PDF to paper, but a scan wouldn't be my first choice, especially if it isn't searchable, no table of contents, ...

[Sarmat89]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Win 1.0 to Win 3.x, Win9x & Win ME were not even OSes, just shells.

Windows 2/x86, 3.0, 3.1, WWG, and Windows 9x were 32-bit operating systems (with exception of 2/286, obviously). Only Windows 1.x were a DOS shell (unless a supported EMS card was installed, then it become an OS too.)

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

Windows 2/x86, 3.0, 3.1, WWG, and Windows 9x were 32-bit operating systems (with exception of 2/286, obviously).

No, they were not! They did use some 32 bit drivers and needed a 386 to address memory. They all used DOS to load, all ran 16 bit code natively and much of Windows was still 16 bit. The Pentium pro had no simple way of switching back to 16 bit x86 mode from 386, so it ran like a pig on Win9x. The Pentium Pro with NT outperformed the Pentium II and was massively faster than Win9x on it*. The NT family was a true 32 bit os and the default console was 32 bit. The Win9x ONLY had a DOS console. NT was entirely 32 bit and if an application was 16 bit it translated 16 bit WIN API to 32 bit calls and ran application code other than WinAPI on NTVDM, a virtual Machine. Hence the Alpha, MIPS and Power PC needed their version of 32 bit applications but could run some Win9x applications that were purely 16 bit, and DOS applications.
Win9x ran 16 bit Win API calls natively and ran DOS applications natively. It had the OPTIONAL Win32s that win 3.x had, built-in with a few extra APIs which is why Win NT 3.50 to NT 3.51 upgrade when Win95 came out was free.
Office 95 was still mostly 16 bit and would not run on NT3.5 or the Win3.x + Win32s, because they added a few extra API calls. Hence NT 3.51.

Win9x and Win ME were no more an OS or 32 bits than Win3.1 + 32 bit drivers + 32 bit TCP/IP + Win32S (all options on Win 3.1 / WFWG 3.1).

MS even released an Explorer Desktop for NT 3.51 as a tech preview after Win95 and before NT4.0.

If Win9x had been a real OS and also entirely 32 bit there would have been no need to develop NT3.5x to NT 4.0 -> Win 2K (NT 5.0) -> XP (NT 5.1). Server 2003 was was maybe NT 5.2. Vista and Win7 where actually NT5.x versions.

(* I installed NT4.0 Enterprise Cluster on a pair of Pentium Pros for 450 NT 4.0 workstations, which I also set up with the help of a team and MS -SMS in about 1998 or 1999)

[Sarmat89]

Originally Posted by Quoth

They did use some 32 bit drivers and needed a 386 to address memory. ... the default console was 32 bit. ... If Win9x had been a real OS and also entirely 32 bit there would have been no need to develop NT3.5x

That's basically what an OS is. It does not use DOS services to access hardware or manage processes or memory, so it cannot be 'a shell' for a real-mode DOS. If by "console" you mean the command interpreter, as the console subsystem itself is 32-bit, it is not a DOS application either, as it can deal transparently with DOS, Win16 and Win32 executables.
Windows NT was a product of a different price range and requirements, yet it doesn't make Win9x not-OS just because its kernel is different.

[DiapDealer]

Ahhh.. devolving into the ol' "I know Windows better than you know Windows" nonsense already? How boring (as well as unfortunate and offtopic).

[AngryD]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

Thank you @ AngryD.

I'll just add one thing: there is no college student in the universe that longs to lug fifty pounds of paper books, instead of accessing them all via laptop / chromebook / tablet. None. Zero.

Agreed. When I was working on my master's I had a lengthy paper to write for my Homeland Security Policy course. I was forced to hump a netbook laptop, and a copy of The Homeland Security Handbook in my backpack all the way to Europe for a trip I went on with my mom.

That book, alone was 1476 pages before the abridged version came out at 972-- and I did not have the abridged version. (Ironically, I was going to work on the paper on the flights, but wasn't aware that international flights at the time didn't have internet, so I couldn't do most of the research I needed to do since I couldn't access my university library or LexisNexis. So I trudged that f*ckin' book four thousand miles and through nine airports for nothing!)

I also want to point out that one of the errors of the previous link was left unsaid in my rebuttal: It's not a matter of polling , because polling will always be inaccurate for a variety of reasons including the wording of the questions. Every person in this forum read something in the last year that was written on paper, so asking "Do you exclusively read eBooks?" is futile.

A much more accurate way of determining whether digital media use is rising is to look at sales. Two factors are driving e-book sales higher, despite a slight lull during the summer months, when all book sales drop slightly, before going back to school. (Fall book sales are not yet reported, but my gut feeling is that they'll bump up like they did last year as kids in school are exposed to new authors and genres they want to try.)

First, the physical cost of books is rising due to a lumber shortage. The Covid nonsense has interfered with supply chains for every conceivable physical product from beef to baskets. (I can't wait for us to look back in 50 years and realize how damnfool stupid we were to overreact to a rather mild virus.)

Second, market share of e-books is rising because the low cost is allowing us to take chances on authors we normally wouldn't risk. I won't drop $45 on a hardback for an author of which I've never heard, but I'll shell out $1 to try the first book in his series. I joke all the time that Amazon knows how to market to me: they take an independent author and give me his first book for 99 cents. Then the next four in the series are full price. That's how I discovered NPCs by Drew Hayes. A truly phenomenal series and the first book is absolutely free.

E-Book market share is growing and will continue to grow as we continue to raise children with iPads and cell phones:

Ebook market share 2021
Ebooks make up 21% of total book sales
In August 2021 the American Association of Publishers, which represents mostly mainstream consumer book publishers, reported that among their members ebook sales accounted for 13.7% of sales revenue. Bear in mind that this figure relates to revenue from the sale of popular, consumer ebooks by established trade publishers. It largely excludes sales of educational and technical titles, and sales through self-publishing platforms. And those categories typically comprise a much higher percentage of digital sales. But if you’re curious about the books you see in your local bookstore, then 13.7% is a useful data point.

A market share of 21% of all book sales is neither insignificant nor indicative of something that "sucks," and it definitely indicates that a large portion of the population, certainly more than the 1400 people who were sampled in the previous link, think that eBooks have considerable value. 2021 was a benchmark year for eBook sales and I think 2022 will go even higher.

One thing I should point out, though, is that what annoys me about the original article is what always annoys me about the buffoons who write for The Atlantic. Who friggin' cares about their opinion?

Read what you want to read and read it how you want to read it.The dipsh*t who wrote that poorly researched Atlantic article, Ian Bogost, is quick to pretentiously mention all the highbrow artsy-fartsy crap he reads. Bully for him. I'm glad he gets so much joy out of looking at pictures, but I read largely for entertainment, and none of his ephemeral declarations changes how I consume literature and art. This is the sort of person who also claims that Science Fiction and Fantasy are not "really" literature because reasons. (JK Rowling, Tolkien, and CS Lewis would argue with you. And so would literally every Greek author of antiquity.)

It irritates me to have some pedantic twit tell me I shouldn't like something because he doesn't like it. Like his feelings are not valid unless he somehow persuades me to feel the exact same way. This is an intellectually dishonest debate tactic called "Appeal to the Masses."

I don't like Disney's take on the Star Wars universe and won't buy anything from them as long as they own the intellectual property. I don't care that you like it. I hope you do like it. I hope you get joy from it. I don't need to persuade you that the movies are terrible, objectively and subjectively (although I adore MauLer's critiques because they make me a better writer).

There is far too little joy in this world as it is. We don't need some pretentious clowneass educated far beyond his intelligence to tell us we're not liking books the right way. I'm annoyed by the fact that this 'professor of film and literary studies' can't fathom the difference between his opinion and a fact. (Perhaps he should watch MauLer's videos. He spoke for 45 minutes on that topic alone.)

My only real skin in the game of proving that eBooks are valid sellers is that I want publishers and authors to continue using that medium so that more books are available for me to purchase and enjoy. If we start reinforcing the original publisher falsehood that "People really don't like eBooks," then they are going to stop selling them and then we have a problem when the books we want to have as eBooks are no longer available.

If you prefer paper, buy paper. You'll spend more and that means you'll be able to buy fewer books. They take up more space and therefore you won't have physical room to keep as many as you'd probably like. They weigh more, so you can't carry as many with you as you most likely would prefer, but if that is what you want to read and how you want to read it: Go to town!

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by AngryD

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?

See Slide 5 here:

Interestingly, and surprisingly to most students, the sample size we really care about is n [the sample size]. As long as N [the size of the sample universe] is much larger, that is as long as n<<N, then it doesn’t matter how big N is. The sample size of our sample, n, is what determines the standard errors of our means, and the power of our tests.

This is how I was taught and what I believe. Standard statistical tests assume a near-infinte N to n ratio because anything else would add complexity without real-world significance.

However, it's undeniable that a locality sample size of 1,500 gives more accuracy in a town of 1,505 people than it does in a town of 5,000 people. So there must be some statistical power relationship as the N to n ratio approaches 1. I just looked for it on the internet and did not find it. Can anyone who went further than I did in statistics quantify this?

It could make a good term paper topic in a liberal artsy statistical methods class. No need to credit me

[kandwo]

Too bad that the argument for physical paper books was butchered in such a fashion. I think there's much to be said for reading paper books, especially concerning memory (I remember reading some studies proving that people remembered/recalled information read on paper much better than on screens (not e-ink, so could be irrelevant for e-readers)).

I would prefer reading only paper books, but the constraints of real life have me doing pretty much the opposite. There are some significant advantages to ebooks that are hard to ignore.

1. They are free! (Most of my reading is PD and the rest I can get from the library. I refuse to buy ebooks. They are too expensive for me; and I would never buy anything with DRM.)
2. I can carry my whole library in my pocket and switch books whenever I feel like it. (I have a Hisense A5 Pro that I use as my main phone, audio player, book reader, etc.)
3. Foreign language reading. (This is probably the main reason. I read in several languages and the physical books I want are simply not available.)
4. Dictionary. (Definitely helps when reading in other languages. Tap a word, get a definition instantly. I don't mind browsing a dictionary manually, but not having to lug a 2kg dictionary with me for every book I read is a huge plus.)

Many of the PDFs I read would also be nicer on an e-ink screen, if I just had one big enough.

The paper books I read are such that I find at second hand stores. Only titles that are in good condition with fonts and design I like. And I make sure not to buy too many since I move a lot and don't want to carry too many books with me.

[Calenorn]

Thanks @ kandwo.

One other thing I love about ebooks: there is a whole WORLD of literature that is not only public domain but also out of print in paper. Ebooks make all those works accessible. An ereader is like a library time machine.