4 ms·

> So why have eBooks failed so miserably, when other media such as movies and music now sell and rent so well online? Well let's look at the technology involve

> So why have eBooks failed so miserably, when other media such as movies and music now sell and rent so well online? Well let's look at the technology involved: Books have been around since writing and evolved from clay tablets which we can still "read" to this very day so long as the text is intact. Nothing other than your eyeballs and hands are needed to interface with a book. No batteries, headphones, passwords, or wires. Plus reading a book is quite a different experience as your mind is actively painting images and creating sounds. Video and audio can present some wonderful sensations but ultimately arent as personal as the creations of your minds eye (and ear). So books as they are work very well and do exactly what they were meant to do. Plus reading on a screen sucks and who wants to buy another electronic gizmo with a good screen like e ink which will become obsolete, fail, or have your book deleted after some DRM copyright spat? Please no. Video and Audio NEED electronics. They are already hamstrung with a technological need so consuming via digital means is much more practical. And as far as physical media goes nowadays, it's less convenient than streaming. Though Music still enjoys a strong association with the medium being an art so it goes hand in hand with physical collecting which is why you still see tapes and vinyl. Like a book, you want to be able to hold it and also enjoy the art work. Some artists even release ultra limited handcrafted cases to house said physical media adding a more personal touch.

fastball 7y ago
eReaders are amazing. I have 3 books that I am reading at the same time that I literally carry everywhere I go because it is so easy. I never did that with physical books. Additionally, my Kindle was $90. Between all the books I can get for free from Project Gutenberg and how ebooks are often cheaper than physical books (and should probably be even cheaper given their effectively $0 distribution costs), my kindle has already paid for itself and then some, so the fact that it will become obsolete isn't a big deal (I've had it for 5 years). I can buy a new one in a year or so (or tomorrow) and very easily it will pay for itself. We also have plenty of storage mediums for digital data that last much, much longer than a paper book, so ebooks win on the "surviving a mass extinction event" front too. Hell, every book published today is starting out as an "ebook" anyway, given that they're all written digitally. Given that, it's even easier to distribute it digitally than physically.
- ghaff 7y ago
  >should probably be even cheaper given their effectively $0 distribution costs Distribution costs are actually pretty trivial. Maybe $2/copy or so.
  - fastball 7y ago
    That is ignoring the cut mentioned in the article from middlemen and the like (and the environmental cost of transport). If a publisher wanted (and some already do), they could send me a copy to my email at fractions of a penny with no middlemen. Hell, they could use something like BitTorrent to make their costs of distribution literally zero if you consider the fact that any publisher has spare bandwidth and compute from a desktop or two sitting around in their office somewhere with which to start a BitTorrent pool.
- samatman 7y ago
  There are 49 remaining copies of the Gutenberg Bible, I'm not sure how you can claim with a straight face that digital media last "much, much longer" than an acid-free book.
  - falcolas 7y ago
    Reading devices aside, you can copy an e-book and have the exact same ebook. You can back it up across a variety of mediums, and keep doing it so long as we have access to digital devices. The ebook containers (epub and mobi) are also remarkably future proof, consisting mostly of HTML and CSS. I can also assure you that a lot of time, money and resources have gone into keeping the Gutenberg Bibles around; and it’s not as if your or I could pick one up and read it (unless it was copied into a digital format and distributed).
    - samatman 7y ago
      While all of what you say is true, and there are numerous additional advantages mentioned by GP, I am responding specifically to: > We also have plenty of storage mediums for digital data that last much, much longer than a paper book, so ebooks win on the "surviving a mass extinction event" front too. My assertion is simply that this isn't accurate. Digital is easy to copy exactly, but also easy to lose completely; I see the sibling comment about Github's archival storage, but most of us don't have a way to either print or read microfiche, and surely, this is less apocalypse-proof than plain old acid-free paper.

fastball 7y ago

eReaders are amazing. I have 3 books that I am reading at the same time that I literally carry everywhere I go because it is so easy. I never did that with physical books. Additionally, my Kindle was $90. Between all the books I can get for free from Project Gutenberg and how ebooks are often cheaper than physical books (and should probably be even cheaper given their effectively $0 distribution costs), my kindle has already paid for itself and then some, so the fact that it will become obsolete isn't a big deal (I've had it for 5 years). I can buy a new one in a year or so (or tomorrow) and very easily it will pay for itself. We also have plenty of storage mediums for digital data that last much, much longer than a paper book, so ebooks win on the "surviving a mass extinction event" front too. Hell, every book published today is starting out as an "ebook" anyway, given that they're all written digitally. Given that, it's even easier to distribute it digitally than physically.

ghaff 7y ago
>should probably be even cheaper given their effectively $0 distribution costs Distribution costs are actually pretty trivial. Maybe $2/copy or so.
- fastball 7y ago
  That is ignoring the cut mentioned in the article from middlemen and the like (and the environmental cost of transport). If a publisher wanted (and some already do), they could send me a copy to my email at fractions of a penny with no middlemen. Hell, they could use something like BitTorrent to make their costs of distribution literally zero if you consider the fact that any publisher has spare bandwidth and compute from a desktop or two sitting around in their office somewhere with which to start a BitTorrent pool.
samatman 7y ago
There are 49 remaining copies of the Gutenberg Bible, I'm not sure how you can claim with a straight face that digital media last "much, much longer" than an acid-free book.
- falcolas 7y ago
  Reading devices aside, you can copy an e-book and have the exact same ebook. You can back it up across a variety of mediums, and keep doing it so long as we have access to digital devices. The ebook containers (epub and mobi) are also remarkably future proof, consisting mostly of HTML and CSS. I can also assure you that a lot of time, money and resources have gone into keeping the Gutenberg Bibles around; and it’s not as if your or I could pick one up and read it (unless it was copied into a digital format and distributed).
  - samatman 7y ago
    While all of what you say is true, and there are numerous additional advantages mentioned by GP, I am responding specifically to: > We also have plenty of storage mediums for digital data that last much, much longer than a paper book, so ebooks win on the "surviving a mass extinction event" front too. My assertion is simply that this isn't accurate. Digital is easy to copy exactly, but also easy to lose completely; I see the sibling comment about Github's archival storage, but most of us don't have a way to either print or read microfiche, and surely, this is less apocalypse-proof than plain old acid-free paper.