3 ms·

Halfway through and still not a single useful insight. It's just the same cloying nostalgia that caused "bibliophiles" to panic when the Kindle first hit the s

by zzalpha 12y ago

Halfway through and still not a single useful insight. It's just the same cloying nostalgia that caused "bibliophiles" to panic when the Kindle first hit the streets, and apparently still causes them immense anxiety today. This despite the fact that the Kindle has caused more new people to read, and more new people to write, than any technology since, not to be hyperbolic, but... perhaps the printing press? Now, if you want to talk real issues, let's talk about the challenges of archival, or the danger of making the written word inaccessible to the poor, or the fact that you can't give away or resell an eBook, or lend it to a friend. Those are genuine concerns we should all be thinking about as more and more data goes digital. But, of course, none of that seems to matter to folks like this... they're far more focused on what's happening to them, personally. It's a surprisingly egocentric perspective. As a random aside, I have little interest in someone who owns many books. Now, someone who's read many books... those folks are worth talking to.

cafard 12y ago
Upvoted for the owned/read distinction.
harshreality 12y ago
I'm not sure about the archival issue. The only problem with archival that would make physical books superior is after civilization collapse that destroys the supply chain for computing devices. Assuming DRM can be stripped, which it can be for most of the major ebook sellers including Amazon, ebooks can then be converted to epub which are just dialects of html with some xml metadata. Even if html becomes deprecated in the future, there will be converters for html to new better formats. Unencrypted ebooks can be backed up off-site, to cloud storage, to m-disc dvds or blu-rays stored in safe deposit boxes. Physical libraries can be destroyed in fire or natural disaster almost as easily as an ebook collection on a computer. Physical books take up space and cost more, and cannot be cheaply backed up. There's a conflict between securing physical books against wear & tear and destruction, and allowing access to them. It's worth distinguishing the sharing/lending issue as a legal problem, not an inherent deficiency of ebooks. Ebooks are better for sharing/lending in many ways... there's no need to spend time or money physically transporting them, and no need to worry about a friend accidentally spilling coffee on your favorite book.
- teacup50 12y ago
  A book stored on a shelf in a relatively temperate climate can last hundreds of years without issue. For an optical disc to last that long and still be readable, you'll need: 1) Archival-quality discs (e.g. http://www.mdisc.com http://www.mdisc.com). Normal writable discs will delaminate. 2) A drive capable of reading the disc, and capable of interfacing with your computer. Optical drives have a limited lifespan -- the drives used in Sega's Dreamcast, for example, are beginning to fail. Likewise, interconnection standards have a limited lifespan. 3) A file format that can still be read using existing technology. Will converters be likely in 50 years? Maybe. 100? Less likely. 200? Extremely unlikely. That's just optical discs. You're also talking about live archival, for example, to "cloud storage" -- this costs a lot more money than a book sitting on a shelf, uses a lot more power, is locked to a specific set of authentication credentials, must be paid for if the data is not to be lost. That's before factoring in DRM and advances therein. Sure, you can strip Kindle DRM, with extra effort, but how many people will do so and then accidentally store the result in a place where it will keep for 50 years? What about when DRM gets better? Ultimately, we suck at digital archival, and ultimately, there's only so much we can do with a medium that requires a great deal of complexity just to extract any amount of meaningful data whatsoever. There is a huge archival and preservation advantage to simple mechanisms that have fewer failure points.
  - ralmidani 12y ago
    Does the archive have to remain frozen in time? When the storage medium gets older, the files can be written to newer, cheaper, faster, denser devices. If a standard becomes old, convert to its successor while converters still exist.
    - teacup50 12y ago
      That requires an attentive, active, and costly effort to maintain an archive, as opposed to a medium that survives even when forgotten.
      - ralmidani 12y ago
teacup50 12y ago
I think it's unfortunate that this article was written by a collector, and that this collector equates himself with "bibliophiles". I like to read. I have filled my house with books not because I fetishize books, but because I've read them, find value in continuing to consult them, and plan for our children to have access to a well curated library of books that I've loved -- without them having to rent access or my having to maintain digital copies forever. I also like ebooks, and have a Kindle, but there are usability problems that real books solve very well, and digital books not at all -- and vis versa.
- zzalpha 12y ago
  Yeah, totally agreed there. The reality is I still take pleasure in browsing and I still occasionally buy physical books. There's enjoyment in that discovery process, particularly in those old, unique bookstores that are so few and far between these days. But I find the digital reading experience, with a good epaper reader, infinitely superior... resizable text, built in lighting, far lighter and more portable... for me, personally, there's really no comparison. To me, and I've said this since the Kindle first hit the street, the perfect compromise would be if I could buy physical books and get a free digital copy as part of the deal. But, of course, that's anathema to the publisher view that I should pay for every medium in which I consume their content.
  - tjl 12y ago
    I don't have built-in lighting, but I bought my e-reader before that was a common feature. I'd like to buy a physical book and get the e-book as part of the deal. This was something that Baen did, but I'm not sure if they still do. As things stand, I now usually buy the e-book (or audiobook) and if I love the book, I'll buy the physical book. The only physical books I buy are for series where I've already been buying them as physical books before I got my e-reader (and cookbooks). The most recent physical books I've bought are Jo Walton's Among Others and Nicole Krauss' The History of Love. I'm planning to pick up The Rook at some point too (although I think it's best as an audiobook).
cartoonfoxes 12y ago
> Halfway through and still not a single useful insight. It's just the same cloying nostalgia that caused "bibliophiles" to panic when the Kindle first hit the streets, and apparently still causes them immense anxiety today. This was my reaction as well. "The Myth of the Paperless Office" (https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/myth-paperless-office https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/myth-paperless-office) is a much better treatise on the utility and relevance of treeware.

by zzalpha 12y ago

cafard 12y ago

Upvoted for the owned/read distinction.

harshreality 12y ago

I'm not sure about the archival issue. The only problem with archival that would make physical books superior is after civilization collapse that destroys the supply chain for computing devices. Assuming DRM can be stripped, which it can be for most of the major ebook sellers including Amazon, ebooks can then be converted to epub which are just dialects of html with some xml metadata. Even if html becomes deprecated in the future, there will be converters for html to new better formats. Unencrypted ebooks can be backed up off-site, to cloud storage, to m-disc dvds or blu-rays stored in safe deposit boxes. Physical libraries can be destroyed in fire or natural disaster almost as easily as an ebook collection on a computer. Physical books take up space and cost more, and cannot be cheaply backed up. There's a conflict between securing physical books against wear & tear and destruction, and allowing access to them. It's worth distinguishing the sharing/lending issue as a legal problem, not an inherent deficiency of ebooks. Ebooks are better for sharing/lending in many ways... there's no need to spend time or money physically transporting them, and no need to worry about a friend accidentally spilling coffee on your favorite book.

teacup50 12y ago
A book stored on a shelf in a relatively temperate climate can last hundreds of years without issue. For an optical disc to last that long and still be readable, you'll need: 1) Archival-quality discs (e.g. http://www.mdisc.com http://www.mdisc.com). Normal writable discs will delaminate. 2) A drive capable of reading the disc, and capable of interfacing with your computer. Optical drives have a limited lifespan -- the drives used in Sega's Dreamcast, for example, are beginning to fail. Likewise, interconnection standards have a limited lifespan. 3) A file format that can still be read using existing technology. Will converters be likely in 50 years? Maybe. 100? Less likely. 200? Extremely unlikely. That's just optical discs. You're also talking about live archival, for example, to "cloud storage" -- this costs a lot more money than a book sitting on a shelf, uses a lot more power, is locked to a specific set of authentication credentials, must be paid for if the data is not to be lost. That's before factoring in DRM and advances therein. Sure, you can strip Kindle DRM, with extra effort, but how many people will do so and then accidentally store the result in a place where it will keep for 50 years? What about when DRM gets better? Ultimately, we suck at digital archival, and ultimately, there's only so much we can do with a medium that requires a great deal of complexity just to extract any amount of meaningful data whatsoever. There is a huge archival and preservation advantage to simple mechanisms that have fewer failure points.
- ralmidani 12y ago
  Does the archive have to remain frozen in time? When the storage medium gets older, the files can be written to newer, cheaper, faster, denser devices. If a standard becomes old, convert to its successor while converters still exist.
  - teacup50 12y ago
    That requires an attentive, active, and costly effort to maintain an archive, as opposed to a medium that survives even when forgotten.
    - ralmidani 12y ago

teacup50 12y ago

I think it's unfortunate that this article was written by a collector, and that this collector equates himself with "bibliophiles". I like to read. I have filled my house with books not because I fetishize books, but because I've read them, find value in continuing to consult them, and plan for our children to have access to a well curated library of books that I've loved -- without them having to rent access or my having to maintain digital copies forever. I also like ebooks, and have a Kindle, but there are usability problems that real books solve very well, and digital books not at all -- and vis versa.

zzalpha 12y ago
Yeah, totally agreed there. The reality is I still take pleasure in browsing and I still occasionally buy physical books. There's enjoyment in that discovery process, particularly in those old, unique bookstores that are so few and far between these days. But I find the digital reading experience, with a good epaper reader, infinitely superior... resizable text, built in lighting, far lighter and more portable... for me, personally, there's really no comparison. To me, and I've said this since the Kindle first hit the street, the perfect compromise would be if I could buy physical books and get a free digital copy as part of the deal. But, of course, that's anathema to the publisher view that I should pay for every medium in which I consume their content.
- tjl 12y ago
  I don't have built-in lighting, but I bought my e-reader before that was a common feature. I'd like to buy a physical book and get the e-book as part of the deal. This was something that Baen did, but I'm not sure if they still do. As things stand, I now usually buy the e-book (or audiobook) and if I love the book, I'll buy the physical book. The only physical books I buy are for series where I've already been buying them as physical books before I got my e-reader (and cookbooks). The most recent physical books I've bought are Jo Walton's Among Others and Nicole Krauss' The History of Love. I'm planning to pick up The Rook at some point too (although I think it's best as an audiobook).

cartoonfoxes 12y ago

> Halfway through and still not a single useful insight. It's just the same cloying nostalgia that caused "bibliophiles" to panic when the Kindle first hit the streets, and apparently still causes them immense anxiety today. This was my reaction as well. "The Myth of the Paperless Office" (https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/myth-paperless-office https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/myth-paperless-office) is a much better treatise on the utility and relevance of treeware.