Slashdot Mirror
Poll Shows That 75% Prefer Printed Books To eBooks
Attila Dimedici writes "In a new Rasmussen poll, 75% of American adults would rather read a book in traditional print format than in an ebook format. Only 15% prefer the ebook format (the other 10% are undecided). The latter is a drop from the 23% that preferred the ebook format in Rasmussen's 2011 poll. In addition, more say they buy their books from a brick and mortar store than say they buy books online (35% from brick and mortar, 27% online). I suspect that the 27% who buy online buy more books, but these results are interesting and suggest that the brick and mortar bookstore is not necessarily doomed."
For casual reading, e-books are fine but for technical materials I prefer hard copy that way there's no fear that the distributor won't change their TOS and I wind up losing a ton of C++ reference material or my favorite books on Roman History.
Spoiler alert: If you're wondering about the Roman History part, the empire collapsed.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
I'd be interested to see the answers broken down by age. It may well be that most of the people who love paper books will be dead in 20 years.
I suspect there's also a "fake good" effect, in that people feel they ought to be supporting their local bookshop and therefore say that they do, even if, in fact, they buy a book a year in an airport and every other book on Amazon.
Personally, I really like paper, even for technical books, but all my colleagues look at me like I'm wearing sabre-toothed tiger skins and wielding a club.
Virtually serving coffee
Maybe things are different now, maybe not.
Reading and Writing with Computers: A Framework for Explaining Differences in Performance
Most studies have found that reading from paper is faster than reading from computer screens. Muter, et al. [1982] showed that reading from TV screens took 25% longer than from paper, but produced roughly equal comprehension scores. Wright and Lickorish [1983] also found that paper was faster. Gould and Grischkowsky [1984] studied subjects performing an eight hour proof reading task. They found that work was more rapid on paper, with slightly higher quality than on personal computers. Our own experiments verified these results and extended them to positional memory and various alternate computer conditions.
(I was actually looking for something else this morning and stumbled across this, and the topic came up on Slashdot. Synchronicity?)
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I've read lots and lots of books over time, and most of them have been paper format. I'm 35 and was a book worm for about the age of 8 until close to my 30's when I just got plowed over with responsibility. I'm picking up the habit again.
I prefer ebooks.
Unlike cheap paperbacks if I fail to hold the thing open right it doesn't snap shut and cause me to completely lose my place. I can buy all the ebooks I want, and when it comes time to move I don't have to give myself a hernia moving the collection. As I continue to collect ebooks I don't have to find more space on the book shelf for them, and I can keep them forever without just giving up my investment if I want to re-read it.
My house has been robbed (by a deputy sheriff no less) and flooded by the storm surge of Hurricane Ike. Yes I had books stolen when I was robbed and after the hurricane I literally used a shovel to move the pulpy volumes into the trash bags. Even if both of my competing supplier ebook readers get burned up as my home catches fire all of my ebooks will be back in my hands as soon as I buy new later model readers to replace my old ones.
I still do occasionally buy dead-tree books. Watchmen for obvious reasons, I have the Dark Tower series, both the hard back and Marvel versions for art reasons. I collected comics as a kid, but other than a few adult targeted ones like I just mentioned I'm not into that anymore, still I do look forward to color e-ink, even if it's only 16 color or something crappy like that for comic reasons.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I like both printed books and ebooks. They both have strengths and weaknesses, they complement each other rather than replace either in my view.
I like to have heavy to carry around technical books (DRM free) and vendor documentation on ebook reader. eBook also more convenient not causing problems to breathe compared to a 3000+ large page monster on you chest when you lay on couch, hammock or bed while reading. But then often reading experience on table or while sitting on good armchair with good lighting etc. often nothing comes near real printed book.
IMHO, eBook is great especially for short lived stuff, manuals that are updated few times a year with the product they describe and of course magazines, but printed books anything I expect to have more value over let's say 5 years.
Several years ago I purchased a hard copy of the Doris Kerns Goodwin book, "Team of Rivals", which is about Abraham Lincoln's cabinet. An extraordinary work, but it's HUGE! I tried taking it with me during my work commute, but it was a real pain to stand on the bus and try to read. So it just sat on the shelf.
I purchased an e-copy of the book from Amazon. I have a kindle reader on my Android phone that allows me to pull it out and read a few pages whenever I have dead time and now I'm finally getting a chance to read it.
We own a 92 year old, 1100 sq ft bungalow in California and there really isn't all that much room to store books. I've also pitched out about 2/3rds of my music collection due to lack of space. I'm down to about 600 records and about 600 CDs. I've ripped all of the CDs to digital and now listen to them off of a music server. The records will take a LOT longer.
Hard copy books are cool, but after a time, stuff you collect is just stuff...
That being said, I totally agree that tech books have to be hard copy. Can't work with that off of an e-reader.
I have books on my book shelves that are over 50 years old, and I can still read them fine. Can the same be said about eBooks 50 years from now?
I doubt it. Your eyesight will probably be considerably worse by then.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
They really should have asked the population whether they actually own an e-book reader. Lots of people don't, and would never buy one because they prefer print books. The thing is, I was in that same category myself, before I bought a Nook. I bought it for other things, not to read books on, but after I had it, I did some reading on it, and I was soon hooked. I really do like reading books on the e-reader instead, it's just more convenient.
Now, I'm a bibliophile and always will be. I won't give up my books, and I still buy paper books when I know it's something I want to keep, or I can get a good deal on the hard cover. What would be really nice if, when I plunk down $25 - $35 for a hardcover book, to have free access to the e-reader version, too. They do this now with music, why not books? Often I would rather read the book on my e-reader, but still have the hardcover for my library, but I don't want to pay an extra $10 for that privilege. I think they would sell a lot more books (and e-readers) if they did that.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia