4 ms·

> It's amusing when I say that 'I hate books'. But usually I read more (books) than my peers, I just don't like the form factor of the book. It's heavy, making

> It's amusing when I say that 'I hate books'. But usually I read more (books) than my peers, I just don't like the form factor of the book. It's heavy, making notes is clunky compared to Kindle or any other ereader. I don't care about all that fluff and 'smell of paper'. Paper books are a very different form factor, with some definite UI benefits over ebooks—though how important those are depends on the book, and what the reader's doing with it. The size & weight cost of paper books is, undeniably, huge, though. (also, they're impossible to pirate in bulk at ~zero cost...) Put it this way: if ebook readers—the devices themselves—cost the same as paper books, but each one could only hold one book, and that one book couldn't be replaced, I don't think many people would choose them over paper books. The size and weight factors are a huge benefit, but they're also nearly all of the benefit, so if that's much reduced, there's not a lot left to recommend ebooks over paper books. Whatever's left of their advantages wouldn't have been anywhere near enough to create a market for them. Paper book UI is really good—but damn, are they heavy and bulky.

bluquark 5y ago
> Put it this way: if ebook readers—the devices themselves—cost the same as paper books, but each one could only hold one book, and that one book couldn't be replaced, I don't think many people would choose them over paper books. The first commercially successful category of e-book was the e-dictionary, in the early 2000s. Being able to carry in your pocket the equivalent of a 2000-page tome and search it instantly was a gamechanger for language learners and translators, so people were willing to pay $200-$400 for it.
- handrous 5y ago
  Sure, dictionary databases replace the primary reference-focused use case of huge—the really good ones are multi-volume, and cost a lot more than $400—dictionaries, much as desktop reference books of facts & figures, books of field-specific tables, et c., are all but entirely replaced by Google or other, more specialized databases. This is the same dynamic that saw filing cabinets and card catalogs replaced with computer systems—I'm not sure it applies to books, broadly, but certain types of reference books, so far as their primary role as on-demand lookup systems, are generally much inferior to searchable digital databases, that's clear.

bluquark 5y ago

> Put it this way: if ebook readers—the devices themselves—cost the same as paper books, but each one could only hold one book, and that one book couldn't be replaced, I don't think many people would choose them over paper books. The first commercially successful category of e-book was the e-dictionary, in the early 2000s. Being able to carry in your pocket the equivalent of a 2000-page tome and search it instantly was a gamechanger for language learners and translators, so people were willing to pay $200-$400 for it.

handrous 5y ago
Sure, dictionary databases replace the primary reference-focused use case of huge—the really good ones are multi-volume, and cost a lot more than $400—dictionaries, much as desktop reference books of facts & figures, books of field-specific tables, et c., are all but entirely replaced by Google or other, more specialized databases. This is the same dynamic that saw filing cabinets and card catalogs replaced with computer systems—I'm not sure it applies to books, broadly, but certain types of reference books, so far as their primary role as on-demand lookup systems, are generally much inferior to searchable digital databases, that's clear.