Agreed on all the points in his list except "readable with any form of light." Books lose to my cell phone in darkness or very dim light. My book reading is r

Agreed on all the points in his list except "readable with any form of light." Books lose to my cell phone in darkness or very dim light. My book reading is roughly split into two categories. First, the books that I read straight through and can get in and out of very quickly, reading in bursts whenever it's convenient. I read these while I'm eating, while I'm waiting in line, while I'm on the toilet, whenever I arrive to meet someone and they aren't there yet. These simply must be e-books; I can't go back to the days of trying to carry a book everything yet so often being stuck without one. Second, the books that I immerse myself in for periods of time, because they're more difficult or because I'm reading them specifically for the sake of that immersive, relaxed experience. These I prefer to be physical books, and the arguments in the article weigh very heavily against e-books. It would be a great loss to me if physical books disappeared before e-books improved their navigation and their navigational cues dramatically. I could imagine e-books eventually overtaking physical books for navigation and note-taking. Personally, I write slowly, hate my own handwriting, and do not like marking up books, so note-taking is a chore for me even with physical books, but e-books are just pathetic. Even for me, physical books beat them simply by virtue of their ability to hold different colors and shapes of sticky notes and because I can look at them and see where I've dog-eared pages and stuck in sticky notes and other bookmarks. There are a few more categories, such as cookbooks and reference books (both of which I prefer to be physical) but the first two comprise 90% of my reading and purchasing. (EDIT: To clarify, I think many reference works that were formerly structured as books should not be books at all in the digital age.)