Does e-reading axe the printed genre?

[blazeofglory]

Fortunately or unfortunately I take a fancy to e-reading for it is easy and simple. I can carry a whole library, for the idea of library is not a physical one. It is virtual, abstract. Books are not just visual, it is audio. Supersonic. I have a number of audio books, though I am increasingly becoming nostalgic about reading books in print.
The future of books is likely to be paperless, and it is eco-books too we must look to since environment is and should be our great concern if we want to sustain our planetary greeneries.
Let us discuss e-literature.

[cafolini]

I agree. And it cuts the cost of shipping to a minimun, not to speak of how much it economizes and makes more Charming available. Paperless is the way of the future, no doubt.

[Calidore]

E-readers do have obvious storage-space advantages, but are limited by document format and require power, plus the models are constantly upgraded, plus (at least the Kindle) allow the seller to intrude and even delete outright content you've stored. Physical books last as long as the paper does and can be recycled and passed around freely, and language is the only encryption used. Also, nobody's ever been mugged in the subway for their paperback.

[Paulclem]

With the Kindle, your books are stored on an account, so damage, theft, and lending are no problem. Also libraries are beginning to lend e-books. There is a cost involved of course if your kindle is stolen, but you might have insurance to cover like a phone.

I really like my Kindle - it's just fantastic. I still read books though. Also, one effect has been for the booksellers to counter with really nicely designed book covers with thick paper on the inside in the old style. There'll be overlapping for a good while I think.

[Charles Darnay]

With the Kindle, your books are stored on an account, so damage, theft, and lending are no problem.

Except that Kindle has the right to delete/block your entire library whenever it wants. Unless you copy your books into epub form on your computer, you are really just renting books from Kindle/Google/Apple/&c. It is not like owning a collection.

Of course the eBooks have advantages - which have been discussed extensively here. I have several eBooks and quite like them. As I have mentioned elsewhere, they do not yet to a good job of reproducing certain formats - particularly poetry.

Also, Umberto Eco made a good point. If you want to read a file that you have stored on a floppy disk, you have to dig out a computer that was made at least ten years ago now (probably more). There will come a time when Kindles will become obsolete. Books have never been like video formats (where you end up buying multiples to keep up with technologies) but that is now what will happen.

[Paulclem]

Except that Kindle has the right to delete/block your entire library whenever it wants. Unless you copy your books into epub form on your computer, you are really just renting books from Kindle/Google/Apple/&c. It is not like owning a collection.

Of course the eBooks have advantages - which have been discussed extensively here. I have several eBooks and quite like them. As I have mentioned elsewhere, they do not yet to a good job of reproducing certain formats - particularly poetry.

Also, Umberto Eco made a good point. If you want to read a file that you have stored on a floppy disk, you have to dig out a computer that was made at least ten years ago now (probably more). There will come a time when Kindles will become obsolete. Books have never been like video formats (where you end up buying multiples to keep up with technologies) but that is now what will happen.

Except that Kindle has the right to delete/block your entire library whenever it wants.

But why would it? We entrust our money, savings and investments with large companies, so I don't see a problem.

you are really just renting books from Kindle/Google/Apple

Why is that? I don't expect to be giving them the e-books back, which is an odd thought anyway seeing as it's just a copy of what they have.

I take your point about the ever changing tech, and that my current kindle may not be the one i want in future. I don't see storage as a problem though, as it is held in account I can download from.

I also save about 40% of the top price, though there are outlets that will sell cheaper, and so the saving is less. When I consider that I can finish one book and download another straight away without the need to browse for what I want, then I think it's just brilliant - and it doesn't preclude me from browsing as well we I go up town.

[Charles Darnay]

http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/10/is-amazon-playing-fair/index.htm

[Paulclem]

Ok - I don't like companies that don't pay tax, but it looks like they - and others have been rumbled. Good.

As for the woman's experience with the deletion of her account - I've had problems with both BT and Virgin Media, and it seems to be a symptom of large companies that their customer srvice on the complaints sie of things is sadly lacking - of course.
I know i could have problems with Amazon given unfortunate circumstances, but that is true of other large companies i deal with.

As for the random deletion of books - well again why would they? Also, once i've read a book i give it away to a charity shop. I rarely re-read anything except the very best, so I don't have a problem with my Kindle. If I want to possess the body of a book - sounds a bit creepy now i re-read it - then I'll buy it and stick it on the shelf. The Kindle serves my purposes as the repository of the everyday books i decide to read, but probably won't revisit.

[Jack of Hearts]

Here's the truth lads. Ain't nothin' like holdin' a fine book twixt your fingers- c'est similiar comme prendre une belle femme in your bras. But books are friggin' heavy. Aesthetically, the romance of the papier is winner, but practically it's all about the e-reader. Dem paper books are a luxury item.







J


EDIT: That is to say that portability and minimalism win out, practically speaking.

[prendrelemick]

I luurve my Kindle, for all the reasons mentioned above.

I am also coming to believe you get a purer reading experience with a Kindle than with a book. It's all about the words rather than the feel and typeset. Because of the machine's inflexability compared with the book I find I am reading "better"- to go and check something a couple of chapters back is difficult, so you need to absorb it in one take. I found this the greatest problem at first, but my brain is becoming trained and honed ( it's like a steel trap now.)

The only paper books I read are with my Book Club and I don't find them any more enjoyable because of the paper of media.

[xtianfriborg13]

I don't think that e-reading axe the printed genre. There are still a lot of people who still feel it's nicer to read books the old-fashion way

[tonywalt]

Regarding deletions. I have thousands of ebooks on my hard drive which were gifted to me. Many that i changed to the .mobi format and transferred to Kindle were deleted by Kindle during a software upgrade by Kindle.

[Paulclem]

I don't think that e-reading axe the printed genre. There are still a lot of people who still feel it's nicer to read books the old-fashion way

They do, but it is merely a habit formed by years of reading. It is not inherent to the reading experience. What will happen in future is that people who read screens and e-readers will not like the feel of a book by comparison due to their personal experience.It's just a habit. Most people will become comfortable with both.


Regarding deletions. I have thousands of ebooks on my hard drive which were gifted to me. Many that i changed to the .mobi format and transferred to Kindle were deleted by Kindle during a software upgrade by Kindle.

Are you going to follow it up?

[tonywalt]

Are you going to follow it up?

I think they are trying to crack down File Sharing (which is more and more prevalent), so it's a pointless effort.

[Joreads]

http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/10/is-amazon-playing-fair/index.htm

Wow thanks for this. I have a Kindle and I love it. I had never thought about what would happen if Amazon decided to close my account.

[caddy_caddy]

Not at all, nothing could be compared to a printed book. A book is not sth abstract. I like the smell of paper, to touch it, to embrace it . When I was a young I used to treat any book as a lover. IT'S MINE. No one is allowed to touch it cz I feel jealous.
If my sister wanted to read one of my books , I sit and read it to her aloud , but never allowed her to touch it .

[ralfyman]

There are various articles that discuss the differences in environmental impact of e-readers and books. For example:

http://theconversation.edu.au/weighing-the-environmental-costs-buy-an-ereader-or-a-shelf-of-books-8331

http://www.zdnet.com/are-e-readers-or-books-better-for-the-environment-7000001689/

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/are-e-readers-greener-than-books/

Thus, e-readers have higher impacts on the environment given production, but this is offset by the fact that they can store lots of books.

There is one catch that hasn't been mentioned, though, and it's the point that e-readers don't last very long. After a few years, they malfunction or stop working and need to be replaced. Books last much longer.

Another is that they require various resources that might not be readily available in the long run, including rare-earth elements.

Third, they require much more infrastructure to be maintained, from computers and storage devices (and even networks) needed to back up or access information to electricity. (This is critical if the e-reader stops working or is lost and data must be recovered from back up sources.) Books, on the other hand, have been made for centuries, before the use of electricity, and do not require a lot of infrastructure.

Given the threat of a resource crunch (warnings from the IEA, Morgan Stanley, Lloyd's of London, the U.S. and German military forces, etc., of peak oil), environmental damage, and continuous economic problems due to increasing debt, rising food and oil prices, and unemployment, books will become more important. And with a lack of paper, only the works that are considered more important will be preserved.

With that, e-readers will be helpful only as backups or for convenience (e.g., something to read while one travels, something used to read works that are not that relevant, used to search for phrases in text quickly), but even then smaller computer notebooks will be much more helpful as they contain additional features, such as word processing, spread sheets, etc. They will not be able to replace books.

[ennison]

I doubt if paper will be in short supply in the foreseeable future.

[blazeofglory]

From the ecological point of view it is better to read ebooks. Today technology is advancing in fact galloping and Kindle is a better choice and i do equally enjoy reading ebooks. It is not an inconvenient read at all. People do not welcome change and it takes a lot of time for acclimatization. There are endless possibilities through ebooks and of course we can have an access to big libraries and it is only through virtual libraries we can gratify some of our deep passions

[Paulclem]

There are various articles that discuss the differences in environmental impact of e-readers and books. For example:

http://theconversation.edu.au/weighing-the-environmental-costs-buy-an-ereader-or-a-shelf-of-books-8331

http://www.zdnet.com/are-e-readers-or-books-better-for-the-environment-7000001689/

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/are-e-readers-greener-than-books/

Thus, e-readers have higher impacts on the environment given production, but this is offset by the fact that they can store lots of books.

There is one catch that hasn't been mentioned, though, and it's the point that e-readers don't last very long. After a few years, they malfunction or stop working and need to be replaced. Books last much longer.

Another is that they require various resources that might not be readily available in the long run, including rare-earth elements.

Third, they require much more infrastructure to be maintained, from computers and storage devices (and even networks) needed to back up or access information to electricity. (This is critical if the e-reader stops working or is lost and data must be recovered from back up sources.) Books, on the other hand, have been made for centuries, before the use of electricity, and do not require a lot of infrastructure.

Given the threat of a resource crunch (warnings from the IEA, Morgan Stanley, Lloyd's of London, the U.S. and German military forces, etc., of peak oil), environmental damage, and continuous economic problems due to increasing debt, rising food and oil prices, and unemployment, books will become more important. And with a lack of paper, only the works that are considered more important will be preserved.

With that, e-readers will be helpful only as backups or for convenience (e.g., something to read while one travels, something used to read works that are not that relevant, used to search for phrases in text quickly), but even then smaller computer notebooks will be much more helpful as they contain additional features, such as word processing, spread sheets, etc. They will not be able to replace books.

I read the articles and they didn't seem to come down on either side, and one stressed the significant positive ecological difference that an e-reader can have, the more books you use on it.

I don't know how you can say that e-readers don't last long yet. How do you know? There's been no significant news about that despite loads being sold.

It's true that e-readers require infrastructure for a protracted time, but can't you envision having solar energy to charge up the e-reader, which lasts a good time, when you have previously loaded however many books you want on it?

It is true that books would last longer, but they last longer taking up space on your bookshelves. I've long since given up trying to have a library - my house is far too small. the e-reader is perfect, and it is for this reason that my wife bought it for me.

I think a more significant question is will the e-reader form last? I have an android phone, and it is perfectly cofortable for reading books. In fact I am reading Vanity Fair on mine when there is no alternative. The new Kindle Fire is a kind of tablet, and the tablet market is probably the one which will make or break dedicated e-readers. It is going to be interesting to see what happens with them.

As for financial apocalypse - well the e-reader debate will be that last on my list of concerns, and things i want to change, if it goes belly up.

[Joreads]

I really like my Kindle - it's just fantastic. I still read books though. Also, one effect has been for the booksellers to counter with really nicely designed book covers with thick paper on the inside in the old style. There'll be overlapping for a good while I think.

One more benefit with a Kindle is that the size of the book does not matter all you have to worry about is holding your Kindle. Ken Follett is a great example of this. For some people (me included) that fact alone makes the Kindle gold.

[ralfyman]

I read the articles and they didn't seem to come down on either side, and one stressed the significant positive ecological difference that an e-reader can have, the more books you use on it.

They do. You have to read them carefully.




I don't know how you can say that e-readers don't last long yet. How do you know? There's been no significant news about that despite loads being sold.



E-readers are like cell phones and other computer hand-held devices. They don't last very long, with screens, data storage components, IC chips, etc., failing only after a few years. The same goes for computers.




It's true that e-readers require infrastructure for a protracted time, but can't you envision having solar energy to charge up the e-reader, which lasts a good time, when you have previously loaded however many books you want on it?



You're missing the infrastructure needed to manufacture e-readers. Significant quantities of oil are needed for energy to obtain and process other resources plus petrochemicals. These devices are not supposed to last very long due to the idea of "planned obsolescence." They become obsolete or no longer work after a limited period of time (usually, a few years) after which they are thrown away (although some parts may still be recycled) and new units mass-produced.




It is true that books would last longer, but they last longer taking up space on your bookshelves. I've long since given up trying to have a library - my house is far too small. the e-reader is perfect, and it is for this reason that my wife bought it for me.



Definitely much longer, and they do take up space. But given issues such as resource shortages, I think the more complex products will not be available much earlier than those that require lower levels of technology.




I think a more significant question is will the e-reader form last? I have an android phone, and it is perfectly cofortable for reading books. In fact I am reading Vanity Fair on mine when there is no alternative. The new Kindle Fire is a kind of tablet, and the tablet market is probably the one which will make or break dedicated e-readers. It is going to be interesting to see what happens with them.



None of these devices will last given peak oil and generally a resource shortage. That is why I see them only as alternatives.




As for financial apocalypse - well the e-reader debate will be that last on my list of concerns, and things i want to change, if it goes belly up.

Definitely, but books were around even before the industrial age.

[Paulclem]

They do. You have to read them carefully.



E-readers are like cell phones and other computer hand-held devices. They don't last very long, with screens, data storage components, IC chips, etc., failing only after a few years. The same goes for computers.



You're missing the infrastructure needed to manufacture e-readers. Significant quantities of oil are needed for energy to obtain and process other resources plus petrochemicals. These devices are not supposed to last very long due to the idea of "planned obsolescence." They become obsolete or no longer work after a limited period of time (usually, a few years) after which they are thrown away (although some parts may still be recycled) and new units mass-produced.



Definitely much longer, and they do take up space. But given issues such as resource shortages, I think the more complex products will not be available much earlier than those that require lower levels of technology.



None of these devices will last given peak oil and generally a resource shortage. That is why I see them only as alternatives.



Definitely, but books were around even before the industrial age.

First article

Trying to environmentally promote or denigrate – depending on your point of view – one form of reading over another is inevitably controversial, and perhaps futile. It is not just about numbers, such as tonnes of CO₂, raw materials and waste, but also about human behaviour and interpretation of the impacts.

The future will have both eReaders and paper publications. Rather than comparing one with the other for the “best” environmental credentials, it would be better to aim at improving the environmental performance of each.

Second article is the first one

Third Article

“The new study finds that e-readers could have a major impact on improving the sustainability and environmental impact on the publishing industry, one of the world’s most polluting sectors,” a statement at Cleantech’s Web site states. “In 2008, the U.S. book and newspaper industries combined resulted in the harvesting of 125 million trees, not to mention wastewater that was produced or its massive carbon footprint.”

The report asserts that printed books have the highest per-unit carbon footprint — which includes its raw materials, paper production, printing, shipping, and disposal — in the publishing sector. “In the case of a book bought at a bookstore,” Ms. Ritch said, Cleantech’s measurement “takes into account the fossil fuels necessary to deliver to the bookstore and the fact that 25-36 percent of those books are then returned to the publisher, burning more fossil fuels.”

After that, Ms. Ritch said, there are three common next steps: “The publisher then incinerates, throws away or recycles them,” she said.

Right now, e-books are having effectively no positive impact on the environment,” she said, nor will they “unless publishers print fewer books in anticipation of e-book sales.”

The Cleantech study concluded that purchasing three e-books per month for four years produces roughly 168 kilograms of CO2 throughout the Kindle’s lifecycle, compared to the estimated 1,074 kilograms of CO2 produced by the same number of printed books.

Of course, none of this means that e-readers are without environmental impact. Consumer electronics, after all, are notorious for containing a variety of toxic materials among their circuitry. Valerie Motis, a Sony spokeswoman, said in an e-mail message that the company’s e-reader products are free of toxic materials, including polyvinyl chloride, or PVC — a particular bugaboo among environmental groups.

I took your advice and re-read the articles, and you were right. One of them seems to come down on the side of the e-reader, though there are question marks about negative content inKindles. (Last quote) The other - article one - advocates better environmental practice from e-reader producers and book producers.

Your second article is the first one.

The third article ends with a question about the e-readers environmental impact, but clearly indicates how they compare in terms of emissions:

purchasing three e-books per month for four years produces roughly 168 kilograms of CO2 throughout the Kindle’s lifecycle, compared to the estimated 1,074 kilograms of CO2 produced by the same number of printed books

As for how long they last, we haven't seen how long they last yet and saying they are like phones is unsatisfactory. Phons are used on a minute by minute basis, whereas e-readers are less likely to have such heavy use. Anyway, we've still got spare phones from 7 or 8 years ago.

These devices are not supposed to last very long due to the idea of "planned obsolescence." They become obsolete or no longer work after a limited period of time (usually, a few years) after which they are thrown away (although some parts may still be recycled) and new units mass-produced.

I'm glad you explained obsolescence to me. See above.

Anyway. there is an infrastructure needed to manufacture and transport books. Have a look at article two quoted above about the CO2 emissions.( I read it carefully as you suggested)

books were around even before the industrial age

And no doubt they will persist into the information age, but so will e-readers, or what they evolve into.

[ralfyman]

My understanding is that the components for e-readers are similar to those of other hand-held computers, including tablets, smart phones, etc. In which case, the batteries, screen, integrated chips, etc., are not supposed to last very long. I am also not sure if we can assume that they will not involve heavy use if more books and even other reading materials are stored in them.

This is the reason why I see books as my primary storage and an e-reader a supplement.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

My e-reader (Nook) will NOT axe Keats !
I commented on Neely's Keats thread that I plan to introduce myself to the young bard, so I decided to hold off until Christmas and put Keats on Santas list.
However, Santa must know that I firmly believe Keats is to be on paper and hardbound.
Prendrelemick sold me on Plutarch's Lives a while back, they reside in my Nook. (Just scratched the surface by the way -reading, not the Nook)
I tend to mix it up; paper and e-reader.
As for the future, I believe the printed book will endure at least for those books one feels must be read on paper (Keats), presentation "coffee table" books as an example.