I really like the article, but I have a different point of view when it comes to the ideal "future book". They seem to carry on the assumption that a book didn

I really like the article, but I have a different point of view when it comes to the ideal "future book". They seem to carry on the assumption that a book didn't already exist in an ideal format. I'd posit that what we've learned is too many features is actually a bug. Reading can be a silent, remote activity that coerces you into reflection without the distraction of immediately commenting and joining a community to battle out barely-set thoughts. A younger me might have said "well a future book according to this person is a web page—capable of almost anything". Now, however, I think a plain transmission in static form (whether read or dictated) is an ideal form unto itself. Such a static transmission must be worked on, edited, scrutinized. If it isn't, it won't be well-regarded and it can't just go away. I really like having my collection of paper books. I also really like my Kindle (and I'm so glad there's no community or comment option). Just to stamp some book-nerd credentials on the end of this—I'm currently working on software in publishing, took a "Book History" course at U of T (Why?), and I'm rarely gifted things, but my sister bought me a first edition of 1984 for a birthday and for some reason my girlfriend decided to buy me an old box set of Azimov's Foundation series (well, the first three) just last week. So there!