The eBook, Mark 2

Selanit writes "David Pogue recently published a review of the Sony Reader, under the title Trying Again to Make Books Obsolete. Though he likes the device in general, he concludes that it's not destined to replace the book any time soon. Well worth a read."

Comments

Just one question:

[Woldry]

From TFA: "One charge is good for 7,500 page turns. That's enough power to get you through "The Da Vinci Code" 16 times (electrical power, anyway)."

So my question is: Why would you want to?

Re:Just one question:

[illegalcortex]

You do realize the quote you are including already made this joke, only much more subtly, right? Right?

Re:Just one question:

[Bender0x7D1]

Although I think that's a little unbelievable.

You didn't RTFA.

If you had, you would find out it only consumes power when you have to redraw a page.

You would also have discovered that there is a prototype that has been displaying the same page for 3 years.

Sure, batteries slowly leak power. However, have you noticed that watch batteries can last for years - even with a constant power drain? As long as you don't need to provide huge bursts of energy, like those needed by a digital camera, you can design the battery to be more efficient in the long term.

Pun

[From A Far Away Land]

"Well worth a read."

Was that some pun humour in the summary?

Anyway, I'd not trust Sony to make an eBook reader that wouldn't install a rootkit anyway. Installing Sony software is about as good an idea as installing sofware from MyWebSearch. They messed up Audio CDROMs for cripes sake, now we want them to control a book format too?

Re:the one advantage

[kfg]

pulp books do not need electricity. . .

Why yes, I do live in a basement, you insensitive clod.

KFG

We've heard this before...

[Woldry]

The paper book will be obsolete at around the same time as existing technology succeeds in supplanting other more-or-less longstanding mainstays like the pocket knife, the pencil, the match, the internal combustion engine, corrective lenses, transparent glass windows, tumbler locks, zippers, analog clocks, shoes with laces, the wheel -- well, I think you get the idea.

Re:We've heard this before...

[CastrTroy]

Here we go Pocket Knife -> Leatherman/Multitool Pencil -> PDA with note pad The Match -> Lighter (I don't know anyone who regularly uses matches over a lighter Internal Combustion Engine -> Hybrid engine cars. (Yeah I know there's still an Internal Combustion Engine) Corrective Lenses -> Laser Eye Surgery Transpaent glass windows -> What, you wnat them replaced with opaque brick? Tumbler locks -> Many locks are now electrical and based on RFIDs. Zippers -> Buttons work so much better, I hate how zippers always fall down, If you want a constant barrier use velcro. Analog clocks -> Digital clocks Shoes with laces -> Velcro, or shoes with elastics so there's not tightening required. Anyway, although i know that none (save for the lighter) has come close to replacing the others, There are alternatives, and I believe that in the future, many of these things will be replaced, once the cost comes down. If it's $200 every couple of years for glasses, and laser eye surgery only costs $500, doesn't have to be redone, and is risk free, then I think may people will opt for that instead of glasses. If you still think glasses look good, well then get laser surgery and wear window glasses.

Re:We've heard this before...

[Woldry]

See my reply below to another poster.

My point, which I apparently failed to convey, is that alternative technology exists to accomplish the most common uses of all of the things I mentioned -- and in some cases, has existed for quite some time -- without "replacing" those things in any meaningful sense of the word. Yes, the new technology infringes on the size of the market for those things, and yes, some people will opt to use the newer technologies exclusively. But the older technologies have their advantages, too -- whether it be cost, safety, ease of use, familiarity, or simple idiosyncratic aesthetic appeal. As a result, I think that the use of the older technologies is far more likely to last than most of us neophile technogeeks seem to think.

(My mention of transparent glass windows was in reference to a trend some years back, now thankfully largely reversed, toward replacing clear glass in schools and office buildings with, yes, opaque brick, or else opaque glass, in the interest of "reducing distractions" in schools and "increasing productivity" in businesses -- till studies began to show that the end result tended to be exactly the opposite. Most people apparently need distraction occasionally to function at their best.)

Magazines and the Web

[Anonymous Coward]

The Web has certainly replaced magazines for the most part, and is even starting to replace academic journals.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that textbook sales are decreasing in real terms since the introduction of easily found information suitable for helping out with a lot of university work.

And there are already exact replacements for some book content.

Just look at what porn is doing - are porn mags still used as much as they were? Nope, it's on the 'net. The web is the main component of a book replacement and once you can get paper like displays which don't need any bulky electronics another feature of books will be replicated in modern technology.

Blogs have replaced journals, and TV guides are now transmitted over the air and published on the net too. All paper based content moved to "book" replacements.

Re:Magazines and the Web

[Woldry]

The Web has certainly replaced magazines for the most part

This is true only if by "replace" you mean "infringe somewhat upon the use of". While web sites have begun to take on some of the uses to which people put magazines, and while many people now forego printed magazines in favor of the Web, magazine sales are still strong enough to keep the industry going. I've worked in public libraries for nearly 20 years now, and the magazine reading room is always full of people browsing the shelves or using the magazines for school research. The usage is declining, but far too slowly to say that the Web has "replaced magazines".

New technology rarely completely replaces old. There is a period of adjustment during which a new technology will show rapid adoption, and then a new equilibrium is reached, in which users have expanded technological options, which they select on costs, relative merits and individual tastes. Radio exists happily alongside hardcopy recorded music and online music and live music. The arrival of cars did not "replace" the use of bicycles, horses, trains, or shank's mare. Chlorinated swimming pools have not replaced recreational swimming in oceans, lakes, rivers, and ponds. People still pay vast amounts of money for actual, as opposed to virtual, chessboards. Mass production of candles, soap, paper, and even vegetables have not replaced the older means of producing such goods; strong markets still exist for the handmade (or hand-raised) versions of these.

Re:Magazines and the Web

[CastrTroy]

Unfortunately, we won't replace the text book until our professors stop telling us that we have to do questions 1 through 47 on page 394 of the book that comes out with a new edition every other year. I know a few people who bought very few textbooks in university. Many courses are easy to get through without them. Some courses it's impossible without it. Making that decision is quite hard. I know my professors often told us which ones we would need, and which we could do without. Although some of my professors said, "this book is extremely good, and it costs $150, so I'm not going to base the course on it, so don't buy it if you don't have the money, or buy it later after you graduate and have a job".

Re:Magazines and the Web

[The Second Horseman]

Honestly, the primary uses of Wikipedia by folks in higher ed (faculty, students and staff) are probably 1) settling pop culture arguments that can't be settled via IMDB and 2) doing research about things like Wikipedia. Sorry, but they still haven't figured out a good way to deal with the kooks. Anyone who actually knows something is always going to give up before the kooks, because they almost certainly have better things to do in "real life". The great thing about the internet, of course, is it gives the kooks a sense of community - it's an echo chamber. You see the same thing with the neocons in the Bush administration, talk radio, and here on Slashdot, where a lot of folks are convinced that Linux must count for a third of the desktops out there, and it'll overtake Windows any day now.

iRex is better

[network23]

The iRex Illiad is a better choice.

- - -

Online education? http://online.edu.org/

Re:the one advantage

[zoeblade]

pulp books do not need electricity

That's the only advantage you can think of for traditional books? They also have no DRM; they have to be treated pretty badly before they stop working; they contain both the data and everything necessary to read it.

I have a fifty odd year old book I bought second hand recently. It has one or two holes in it where it got torn up pretty badly. However, I can still read it. I probably couldn't say the same thing about a fifty year old computer text file, as it would pre-date ASCII and likely be written on some old format like a punch card, so I'd probably need to buy some specialist hardware like a punch card reader, then write a program to translate the data into a modern format.

Of course, digitised books have advantages too, such as not taking up space, and being easily searchable. It seems like an ideal format for non-fiction reference books such as encyclopedias and guides, but not very good for fiction.

The marketing problem: A book is portable

[toby]

I guess I'm not the first to figure out that maybe e-books have an uphill battle to market, because a book or two is already portable. Which means that maybe the marketing effort should focus on commercial users of piles of books -- mechanics, doctors, computer technicians, etc. (When I had a service call from Sun recently, the technician was lugging around a laptop to read service manuals.)

Re:Things need for ebook success

[bcrowell]

In addition to your list

• resolution
• ease of use
• DRM

there are at least three more things that are big issues, IMO:

• cost of readers -- They cost hundreds of dollars.
• expected obsolescence of readers -- probably 2 years until the reader you paid hundreds of dollars for is obsolete
• cost of books -- Most publishers have been selling e-books for the same price as printed books, which is nuts.

The way that e-books have really taken off is in the world of free books -- see my sig.

Re:Direct link

[Anne_Nonymous]

Link to printable version

:)

Re:ebook reading

[godIsaDJ]

Mobipocket is available for all Symbian phones (e.g. Sony Ericsson P900, Nokia N80, etc) I use my smartphone to read books and have done so for the past 2 years! It's great and such a space saver!

Re:Obsolence.

[heptapod]

It's important to keep a book dry and out of the reach of insects but today books are being printed on paper which is highly acidic. When you find a book with yellowed pages, that's from the acid taking its toll on the paper fibers.
The reason why really old books from the Renaissance and earlier have survived to this day is because they are printed on rag not pulp! In 500 years even a carefully preserved hardcover book will be extraordinarily fragile.

Re:the one advantage

[kfg]

I have a fifty odd year old book. . .

i.e., a fairly new book (about half of my thousands of books and magazines are between 50 and 100 years old, a few rather older); whereas the standard eternity for computerized gear is three years.

I probably couldn't say the same thing about a fifty year old computer text file, as it would pre-date ASCII

Of course ASCII is moving in on 39 years old and is fairly stable. With a bit of work it's even human translatable, even from certain kinds of computer storage media.

Of course, digitised books have advantages too, such as not taking up space, and being easily searchable. . .

And being considerably easier to move. Trust me on this one. Did I mention that I have thousands of books and magazines? I also have thousands of ebooks/documents. They slip into my pocket.

KFG

KFG

Re:the one advantage

[eneville]

I have a fifty odd year old book I bought second hand recently. It has one or two holes in it where it got torn up pretty badly. However, I can still read it. I probably couldn't say the same thing about a fifty year old computer text file, as it would pre-date ASCII and likely be written on some old format like a punch card, so I'd probably need to buy some specialist hardware like a punch card reader, then write a program to translate the data into a modern format.

I know some 50 year olds who could read that punchcard for you...

DIY

[Hahnsoo]

If you don't like either Sony's reader or the iLiad (my personal e-Ink favorite) you can make your own!

Awesome.

They do too have DRM!

[m_hemaly]

Pulp books stricly forbid copying & pasting (though there is a hack going around called a scanner + OCR, but it's pretty expensive, hard to use and worst of all: requires you to get off your computer!). They cannot be emailed. You can't even link to them from a blog. And without the aforementioned hack, you can't transfer them among your various devices, even though you legally purchased them.
PS: I'm going back to reading His Dark Materials in this evil format now.

Re:Things need for ebook success

[jp10558]

I've always felt that the RCA e-book reader had a lot right, especially for the technology at the time. The interface is intuiative - you load a book, top button under your thumb goes forward one page, bottom one back one page.

What was bad was the low resolution.

I personally want something with a similar interface to the RCA e-book reader, better screen and better importers. I really like the backlight myself - and having a battery that can last "only" ~20 hours seems fine to me - hell, we live with cellphones and mp3 players that get significantly less always on battery life. I mean, is it that hard to plug it in at night?

That's not to say longer battery life is bad, but I really think backlights are a great benefit to e-books, and should not be discarded for an "authentic" experiance. If I wanted a paperback experiance, I'd buy a paperback!

Finally, am I the only one who thinks content industries in general just don't get it? I mean, why would I pay the price of a hardcover book for a DRMed computer file? For that matter, why would I even pay the price of a paperback for that? I would pay $2-$3 for that though, if it's something I'm going to read once or twice...

It needs to be cheaper than Amazon's used books are or I'll just buy a real book.

Re:the one advantage

[eck011219]

>> pulp books do not need electricity

Unless it's dark. And where I live, it's dark about half the time. Farther north, planetary motion is even less compliant with readers' needs. Fix that, and you've got something!

I happen to split my time between web development and book design and typesetting, and I can't imagine that the old, er, analog format can't live in harmony with the new digital formats. I prefer to read print on paper, but I do keep several reference and classic books on my PDA. I don't find them as easy on the eyes, but that's details -- the fact is, I have more data than I could ever carry in print form in a little box the size of my wallet, and I can refer to it when the chips are down (the U.S. Constitution is getting quite a workout these days, for example). And if I have something digitally that I'm reading at home on paper, I can wait out a dentist or something and just move my physical bookmark when I get home. Moreover, you can't run a global search on a hardcover from the library. But you can hold it and smell it and enjoy all the tactile magnificence of a well-manufactured book.

Working in publishing, I hear a lot of either/or -- people strongly believe that the advent of eBooks spells the end of print books. They can live together and compliment each other, as long as the proponents of each don't think the other is a mortal threat to their bottom line. No different from a lot of other digital-vs-analog arguments, really. People freak out far too easily when they think something that will compliment their industry will actually replace it. Whereas the smart people (read: the ones who will still be there at the end) get involved in both.

Re:the one advantage

[gilgongo]

pulp books do not need electricity

True, but how much is "enough"? I have a electric quartz watch that I have had for about 10 years and have changed the batteries twice. I would regard that as maintenance to the point of it being negligible.

The Sony Reader has an eInk display. Charged plates underneath capsules arranged in a fine grid push either dark or light ink into view. The resulting display is basically the same as ink on paper and needs no back light in the same way as conventional paper doesn't need them either. And crucially, there is no power required other than to change the display. I fully expect that in a few years, eInk will require about as much power as a quartz watch and will have as long a life without a change of batteries.

The Sony Reader isn't going to "replace" books or magazines any more than dishwashers "replaced" washing the dishes, or the car "replaced" the train. It's going to simply find a niche to co-exist with paper. All this huff-puffing about how you need batteries and can't swat flies with an eBook is hokum. DRM is going to be the biggest problem - by far - with this technology. Luckily, Sony haven't carried that particular innovation through with the Reader it seems.

PS: Here's a review of the Reader published on our company blog, which concludes that's it not too bad. Has a video of it in operation too (the Reader's screen refresh is rather slow, apparently), which is more than the NYT can manage.

Re:the one advantage

[Richard_at_work]

While books have many advantages, ebooks can have some advantages over them. For example, you list 'they contain both the data and everything necessary to read it' as an advantage, but they dont include light - an ebook reader can (not sure if this one does, but my PDA sure does) which means I can read an ebook in many more places. An Ebook reader allows you to carry hundreds with you, take your entire library on holiday and not have to worry about planning the third book you will read by the pool.

Dont get me wrong, I still read normal books but my preference is these days to get an ebook, and no the DRM aspect doesnt bother me in the slightest.

Re:the one advantage

[paulkoan]

Paper books have a pretty solid copyright protection built in, which is circumventable only through extensive effort and then the copied result is generally of much lower quality than the original.

If you give a paper book to someone, you no longer have it.

Re:the one advantage

[beamdriver]

Very few books these days are printed on acid-free paper. In fact, the quality of books being printed today is pretty abyssmal. The odds that they'll last fifty years in a readable condition are not good.