4 ms·

"... or pass on to my kids." and "... roughly 75% of the books I read I'll never read again." are mutually exclusive, no? I read a lot of objections to the Kin

"... or pass on to my kids." and "... roughly 75% of the books I read I'll never read again." are mutually exclusive, no? I read a lot of objections to the Kindle stating that you don't own the books. Personally I read a book once and I'm done with it (unless its a programming/reference book). I assume most people are the same way. So why hoard books if you're not going to read them? The other thing is that "buying" a book for the Kindle is more akin to "renting" the book. You don't own it, Amazon does. You don't own a DVD you're renting from Blockbuster, or Netflix, but I don't hear people complaining about wasting that money. I also think that if I'm going to read a book more than once, I'm going to buy a hardback version of it and keep it on my bookshelf. If not, then I'll buy/check-out a paperback book and donate/return it when I'm done reading it. I think there are really two distinct kinds of books, and critics often confuse the two. (I don't own a Kindle, but have given some thought to it and read up on people's objections)

mquander 17y ago
> I read a lot of objections to the Kindle stating that you don't own the books. Personally I read a book once and I'm done with it (unless its a programming/reference book). I assume most people are the same way. So why hoard books if you're not going to read them? I think that's a weird assumption. I read a book, maybe read it again in a year, maybe look at it sometime to remember some passage or some quote or some line of argument, and if it's any good, I'll almost always end up lending it to one or more friends. Many other people I know treat books similarly. I get equal or greater pleasure out of sharing good books as I do reading them myself, so not being able to do that really cuts down on the value of the book to me. I'm also not sure it's a good profit model. I frequently buy multiple copies -- 2 or 3 -- of good books to give them to friends who I know will appreciate them but probably wouldn't have the money or inclination to track down a copy on their own, and presumably, those friends might be more inclined to investigate those authors in the future. I'm not sure that Amazon wants us to think about the Kindle as "renting" books, because in America we have a huge, public-funded infrastructure of libraries dedicated to renting books for absolutely free; it's hard for the Kindle to compete with that. They usually (for most categories of books) have a better selection than the Kindle, too.
akmad 17y ago
""... or pass on to my kids." and "... roughly 75% of the books I read I'll never read again." are mutually exclusive, no?" Not in the least. I may not want to read them again but still consider them worth passing on. "..."buying" a book for the Kindle is more akin to "renting" the book" This is exactly why I love libraries. I specifically want to own (outright, no string attached) books that I will want to read again or have some other retaining value. The Kindle gives me all the negatives of the library system (no ownership) with all the negatives of the commercial system (expensive, wasted money). I wish the Kindle were more of a utility. Everyone buys one and it can be used to buy, loan, and trade books. Amazon would make money because the Kindle would be the TRUE iPod of the book world. However I'm not holding by breath for this to happen (at least with the Kindle); but I am hoping that someone else sees this opportunity and beats the Kindle into the ground.

mquander 17y ago

> I read a lot of objections to the Kindle stating that you don't own the books. Personally I read a book once and I'm done with it (unless its a programming/reference book). I assume most people are the same way. So why hoard books if you're not going to read them? I think that's a weird assumption. I read a book, maybe read it again in a year, maybe look at it sometime to remember some passage or some quote or some line of argument, and if it's any good, I'll almost always end up lending it to one or more friends. Many other people I know treat books similarly. I get equal or greater pleasure out of sharing good books as I do reading them myself, so not being able to do that really cuts down on the value of the book to me. I'm also not sure it's a good profit model. I frequently buy multiple copies -- 2 or 3 -- of good books to give them to friends who I know will appreciate them but probably wouldn't have the money or inclination to track down a copy on their own, and presumably, those friends might be more inclined to investigate those authors in the future. I'm not sure that Amazon wants us to think about the Kindle as "renting" books, because in America we have a huge, public-funded infrastructure of libraries dedicated to renting books for absolutely free; it's hard for the Kindle to compete with that. They usually (for most categories of books) have a better selection than the Kindle, too.

akmad 17y ago

""... or pass on to my kids." and "... roughly 75% of the books I read I'll never read again." are mutually exclusive, no?" Not in the least. I may not want to read them again but still consider them worth passing on. "..."buying" a book for the Kindle is more akin to "renting" the book" This is exactly why I love libraries. I specifically want to own (outright, no string attached) books that I will want to read again or have some other retaining value. The Kindle gives me all the negatives of the library system (no ownership) with all the negatives of the commercial system (expensive, wasted money). I wish the Kindle were more of a utility. Everyone buys one and it can be used to buy, loan, and trade books. Amazon would make money because the Kindle would be the TRUE iPod of the book world. However I'm not holding by breath for this to happen (at least with the Kindle); but I am hoping that someone else sees this opportunity and beats the Kindle into the ground.