[LINK] The once and future e-book: on reading in the digital age

[Craig Sanders]

an interesting and insightful article. 

i agree with pretty nearly everything in the article about the
advantages of e-books. but they're still not good enough. i'm looking
forward to the day that they are.

i also agree with his argument that the prime reason for the failure of
e-books so far is DRM and control. even if the reader technology were
good enough, DRM is sufficient reason to just ignore them. in fact, DRM
limitations are most of the reason why current readers aren't good
enough. it cripples the devices and prevents them from being what they
need to be to have even a chance at being successful..




On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 03:04:47PM +0100, Kim Holburn wrote:
> An interesting view.
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/02/the-once-and-future-e-book.ars
> 
> A couple of choice quotes that caught my eye:
> 
> > "I can't read an entire novel off a screen!" "I'll stick to paper  
> > with its vastly superior contrast ratio." "Eye strain! Eye strain!"  
> > "Yawn. Wake me up when we have 1200dpi displays."
> 
> > The amount of time people in the industrialized world spend reading  
> > text off a screen has long since nullified this complaint. Literally  
> > billions of people have proven that they're willing and able to read  
> > huge volumes of text off absolutely horrible screens. Think of text  
> > messaging on pagers and early cell phones, for example. 

yes, you can read on a screen. but it's difficult to relax in a chair or
lie in bed to read a screen, and e-book readers are still much clumsier
than a paper book.

there's also the fact that the smell and feel and look of a printed book
is far more pleasant than that of plastic and metal.

eventually, e-books will be as convenient and pleasant to use as a
printed book or at least be a tolerable substitute, but they're not now.

even when they are, they still won't take off until they're dirt cheap
and there's no DRM and you don't have to care which brand of e-book you
buy because they all use the same open-standard file formats (i.e. no
lock-in), and when the design emphasis is on utility and convenience for
the user rather than control for the publisher.

i *want* e-books to be as good as paper books. i'd love to be able to
store and transport my entire library in a single device (and be able to
access/transfer it to from ALL reader devices i happen to own), rather
than taking up several bookshelves in every room of the house. but
they're a long way from that.

and i want to be able to back it all up in a manner that suits me, that
doesn't require me to use some crappy proprietary application on an even
crappier proprietary operating system.

> > Text messages are short, you say? I'm willing to bet that the
> > average American will read substantially more text off his or her
> > cell phone screen this year than from a book.

it really doesn't matter if they read lots of SMSes. or emails. they're
nothing like books. the average american, like the average australian,
doesn't read books and doesn't WANT to read books. at all. they are
deliberately almost illiterate and proud of it. they aren't now, and
probably never will be part of the market for books. or e-books, either.
they're certainly not going to pay hundreds of dollars for an e-book
reader that they'll hardly ever use and have no real interest in using.

but for me, and presumably for many other people who actually read
books, the show-stopper is not price (i spend hundreds of dollars on
books every month), it's convenience, usability, and especially control.
I'm not going to buy a reader device or an e-book that restricts how and
when and where i can use it, or what i can read on it, or which subjects
me to spam or spies on me (i absolutely loathe and despise companies who
assume that because you bought something from them once, that entitles
them to build a "profile" on you and/or pester you into buying more.
it's a sure way to get on my boycott list).

and even though price isn't the show-stopping factor, i'd still expect
e-books to be significantly cheaper than printed books. if they're
going to eliminate the costs of printing, binding, transport, storage
and several layers of middle-men, and more from the equation, then I
*expect* to get the benefit of that, not just pay the same or nearly
the same price per book. i.e. e-books should cost no more than the
publisher's reasonable profit, the author royalties, and the actual
costs of production - artwork, electronic distribution, even some
marketing, etc. i.e. well under 5 dollars per book rather than $20+.

i'd still buy as many books(*) and the publisher and author would
receive as much profit. i don't mind paying a fair price based on the
actual cost of getting the book into my hands, but being ripped off by
absurd inflated prices is just offensive.

(*) actually, i'd buy a lot more because it's much easier to impulse buy
a <$5 book than a $20+ book - eg it would be convenient to just be able
to buy and download a new book before i leave the house to get on the
tram in the morning. that would easily beat going to a bookshop every
few weeks to buy a couple of hundred dollars worth of books and then
have to cart them home.

> > In short, the terms (of e-publishing) are *unbelievably favorable*
> > for publishers. It essentially moves them from print publishing
> > margins to software publishing margins: pay once for the creation
> > of the content, sell an infinite number of times with no additional
> > per- unit cost.

an ironic point he's making there - considering it's published on a site
that doesn't have a "view as one page" button, and has split up the
article into 7 pages, forcing you to click through the Next button 6
times to read the entire article. even the "Print this article" button
only prints the current page that you're viewing.  presumably each of
those seven pages are full of advertising and click-tracing and web bugs
etc if you're viewing them in a browser without ad blocking.


craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>