There's two major oversights in all the arguments like this: 1. Books are more analogous to vinyl than they are to CD's. People think they're cool, they like h

There's two major oversights in all the arguments like this: 1. Books are more analogous to vinyl than they are to CD's. People think they're cool, they like having bookshelves. In the age of screens, having something physical that you can set on a coffee table is refreshing. Print might be more niche, but it will no go anywhere in our lifetimes. 2. It assumes that digital reading experiences are inherently the way we see them right now. I can't for the life of me read anything lengthy on my phone, but I'll tear through thick old books on Kindle. A big part of that is the kindle screen will show almost the same number of words as a printed page. My iPhone shows less than half of that. Paragraphs that read smoothly in print or E-ink devices don't even fit on the screen. Social posts and tiny snippets fit well. Throw in some notifications and why would anyone be able to stay undistracted while using a phone? The more I look at these things the less it looks like something inherent to print and digital and more like a collection of design decisions and consequences on what happens in the screens, not the screen themselves.