Will Digital readers replace books?

[CrimsonRyu17]

Well, hold up here. I think we're all differing on which degree of "replace" we're using. Do we mean "completely erase the existence of what was before" or "discontinue what was before"? I honestly don't think books will be completely gone ever but that doesn't mean they won't eventually be replaced in the future. Digital readers have only just recently come out, of course they're not quite advanced yet. But what if they reach a point in advancement of actually becoming more practical than an actual book?

I find one of the most interesting about the future is that you never truely know what can and will happen. I still hold my view of the possibility that it may or may not.

[ShiroiHikari]

The only advantages I can think of with CDs are sound quality and liner notes. The sound quality you can get from a digital file, it just makes the file bigger. The liner notes...I guess you can get those digitally too.

Also yes, used bookstores are wonderful.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Well and going back to something I said when comparing CDs/MP3s to Books/E-Readers is that there isn't really a giant "book piracy" thing going on. I mean, it happens but it isn't really in as many homes as pirated music is and has been in the past. MP3 players benefited greatly from people increasing their libraries in such ways, I suspect.

[blkmage]

I will say that the reason for me to acquire electronic books, even if I own the print edition already, is the ability to do full text searches. It's really super handy.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

I will say that the reason for me to acquire electronic books, even if I own the print edition already, is the ability to do full text searches. It's really super handy.

I have on many occasions wished I could Ctrl F during an open book quiz while in college...

Personally, I still think that'd be the perfect market. Just make sure incoming students purchase a Kindle (It'd make a great business plan for Amazon) and then have them purchase their textbooks at a reduced cost online.

[Nate]

I will say that the reason for me to acquire electronic books, even if I own the print edition already, is the ability to do full text searches. It's really super handy.

Good point. I suppose both formats have their advantages and disadvantages! This only further proves both have a spot in the market and neither will completely replace the other.

[armeck]

cd's have WAY better quality than music downloads, and i don't think they will be replaced completely, they will decline of course, but not completely, people still want them, yeah i sometimes buy cd's and i almost never use them i listen to music on my computer or zune, BUT i just like cd's that's all, and there are a lot of other people like me, who will always want to have cd's around to buy.

[Dante]

Never. Nor my sweet libraries .

[mkalv]

I hope not. I much prefer books to Kindle and such.

[ABlipinTime]

We need hard copy if the library of congress is going to buy one. Hehehe

But seriously, both books and digital texts will be around, especially since there are people who prefer one or the other.

For textbooks, I would rather have hard copy. Its far easier to reference, and I don't need batteries to read it (Not that batteries won't be available, but nevertheless, I don't have to worry about breaking my reader or losing its battery).

[Dante]

For textbooks, I would rather have hard copy. Its far easier to reference, and I don't need batteries to read it (Not that batteries won't be available, but nevertheless, I don't have to worry about breaking my reader or losing its battery).

I actually disagree on this matter (and I also think they would be useful in journal articles) for the reason of search functions. The one main advantage of a digital book is that it allows computer search features, allowing you to look for any given term in a book... rather useful for authors who are too lazy to provide a good index, or for those of us that have to look up lots of different things in the text.

I don't see portability as a plus however, unless they start to sell the things for less then $50 for a good sized one. After all, you don't want to bring something with you on a camping trip to read that could get wet/wrecked or stolen easily. Unfortunately, that's just what these things will lend themselves to on such trips.

They are also lacking in the ability to reproduce mathematical formulas with great reliability I've heard, so that makes them outright useless in the math and physics world.

[blkmage]

I don't know about readers, but about academic or technical electronic publishing, I've never actually read a physical journal before. Every paper I've read has been a PDF, whether it's a preprint on a prof's website or something from the ACM or IEEE digital library. I don't see why it would be difficult for there to be a reader that renders PDFs or LaTeX properly.

And yes, full text search on journals has already been super useful to me.

[Mr. Rogers]

I like to take a lot of notes when I read, so there needs to be a feature that will allow me to annotate. I would need to see my own writing on the digital page in order for me to completely replace books with digital editions.

[Bobtheduck]

I have on many occasions wished I could Ctrl F during an open book quiz while in college...

I know you're joking, but this would destroy the entire purpose of Open Book tests. I hated open book tests, because I always knew they'd be about 100x harder questions than normal tests. The point is that you are essentially restudying the material, only you're being guided.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

I actually disagree on this matter (and I also think they would be useful in journal articles) for the reason of search functions. The one main advantage of a digital book is that it allows computer search features, allowing you to look for any given term in a book... rather useful for authors who are too lazy to provide a good index, or for those of us that have to look up lots of different things in the text.

I don't see portability as a plus however, unless they start to sell the things for less then $50 for a good sized one. After all, you don't want to bring something with you on a camping trip to read that could get wet/wrecked or stolen easily. Unfortunately, that's just what these things will lend themselves to on such trips.

They are also lacking in the ability to reproduce mathematical formulas with great reliability I've heard, so that makes them outright useless in the math and physics world.

Well, there is one other advantage. Cost. Text books are a racket. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't had to purchase them with their own money. The markup is extreme, and there is a used market but it fades fast. Books for a single semester if you're buying for classes that only use standard textbooks can cost upwards of $300. E-Books often run 75% below hard copy costs. Now, would it be the same with textbooks? Not necessarily, but even a 50% or 30% reduction would be preferable.

[Rusty Claymore]

I can't stand reading long text digitally. But it would be fun to be one of the few people in the future with their own book library... but I don't read that much. o.O

[Mr. Rogers]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/2747728,CST-NWS-stein27.article

I found an interesting article in the newspaper the other day that relates to this topic. Give it a skim through and tell me what you think. This is the main idea of Neil Steinberg's article:

My friends sometimes talk about the tactile joy of reading an actual book vs. the chill of electronic devices, as if that matters. Illuminated manuscripts were more beautiful than printed books, but printed books won out because they were cheaper. Ditto for electronic books. They're cheaper, and cheaper always wins. Why pay $40 for a bound book when you can buy it electronically for 40 cents? And publishers never run out of electronic copies.

Think economics is the biggest factor in how this all develops?

[Etoh*the*Greato]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/2747728,CST-NWS-stein27.article

I found an interesting article in the newspaper the other day that relates to this topic. Give it a skim through and tell me what you think. This is the main idea of Neil Steinberg's article:



Think economics is the biggest factor in how this all develops?

I don't think it's a fair comparison. Illuminated manuscripts weren't simply more expensive, they were harder to produce. Print won out because it could be quickly and effectively be mass produced - IMs could not. They had to be pain stakingly hand-illuminated by a group of scholars taking months or even years.

[ShiroiHikari]

My friends sometimes talk about the tactile joy of reading an actual book vs. the chill of electronic devices, as if that matters. Illuminated manuscripts were more beautiful than printed books, but printed books won out because they were cheaper. Ditto for electronic books. They're cheaper, and cheaper always wins. Why pay $40 for a bound book when you can buy it electronically for 40 cents? And publishers never run out of electronic copies.

I don't think we're quite to that point yet, personally. Also what's an illuminated manuscript...? TO WIKIPEDIA!

[Etoh*the*Greato]

I don't think we're quite to that point yet, personally. Also what's an illuminated manuscript...? TO WIKIPEDIA!

BEHOLD WHAT WONDER ETOH HATH WROUGHT!

[ShiroiHikari]

Yeah I can see how that would be a little impractical.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Yeah I can see how that would be a little impractical.

Pain in the tuchus to recreate in print, too... Given tech at the time.

[Mr. Rogers]

I don't think it's a fair comparison. Illuminated manuscripts weren't simply more expensive, they were harder to produce. Print won out because it could be quickly and effectively be mass produced - IMs could not. They had to be pain stakingly hand-illuminated by a group of scholars taking months or even years.

I don't remember if he specifically said so, but I would assume ease of production would go along with price. He did say, "publishers never run out of digital copies".

[blkmage]

Yeah, a lot of the overhead costs associated with print disappear with digital: inventory, shipping, materials, or even the time and equipment needed to publish the stuff. It's the same reason that Valve can offer, say, Deus Ex for $2 for a day and expect to make money.

[mechana2015]

The digital copies being infinate is actually a big selling point at the bookstore I work at. We're never 'out' of a book so long as we can still sell access codes, and I've seen more than a few students get saved by that fact when they either lost or forgot to buy a book for a class.

[Dante]

If newspapers would be willing to advertise books NOT exclusively from publishers more often, it would DEFINITELY open the market to freelance authors admittedly. If I wrote a book and could publish it without paper -- why... that's PURE MONEY! I mean, you just write the book, put it on amazon for $20, give them $5 per purchase and you rake in $15 a book... if it flops, you don't loose a penny for overproduction. You copy ONLY as many books as people want to buy. That's not just monetarily good, that's GREAT.

But as this poll shows, people are loathe to take on that trend. One can dream though, no?

[Etoh*the*Greato]

I don't remember if he specifically said so, but I would assume ease of production would go along with price. He did say, "publishers never run out of digital copies".

Publishers will never run out of digital copies, but the market already exists, they already have the facilities, so they're not exactly going out of their way to make something people clearly want.

[Smile:)]

Now that Digital books are so popular, I'm going to give up on writing a real book and only write digital ones.

[CrimsonRyu17]

Now that Digital books are so popular, I'm going to give up on writing a real book and only write digital ones.

That's actually not a bad idea. At least then you wouldn't have to go through the complications of print publishing.

eBooks are becoming fairly popular anyway.

[Scarecrow]

I don't think it's a fair comparison. Illuminated manuscripts weren't simply more expensive, they were harder to produce. Print won out because it could be quickly and effectively be mass produced - IMs could not. They had to be pain stakingly hand-illuminated by a group of scholars taking months or even years.

Illuminated manuscripts weren't meant for the general public to buy though... Only the books that were considered the most important and such were chosen to be illuminated. And illuminated copies were placed at places like a church or something. They weren't something anyone was going out and buying. Just to make a nice "authentic" illuminated copy today would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Maybe even a few million if you did like the bible or something.

Illumination is an art form and saying print won out against that is like saying photographs won out against oil paintings.