The only books that are investments are the ones that are 30 years or more old. That said I still feel like I am getting ripped off by paying $2.99 for a digital book.
The only books that are investments are the ones that are 30 years or more old. That said I still feel like I am getting ripped off by paying $2.99 for a digital book.
Last edited by Phantom309; 11-04-2012 at 01:19 PM.
Decent points, but I'll still never ever go back to paper. Ever. So inconvenient.
Number 2 seems to be a point *for* the iPad, not against. I can read digital versions of paper magazines on my iPad plus also read up to date news from websites (such as this one). So the iPad is at least as good as paper.
As for number 3, I've just come back from holiday and read stuff on my tablet at the beach and by the side of the pool. I guess I could also read stuff on the tablet at a footie match. The main problem I find are those 20mins taking off and landing on a plane. I'm still not entirely sure why I can't read a book on a tablet but I can read a paperback book during this time...?
Battery life is a problem, yes. So is the general reading experience - I still find it easier to read books and magazines on paper rather than a computer screen. Cost is a factor - not only do you have to pay a hundred (or more) pounds for the device, some books are also more expensive bought digitally (which is just crazy). Same goes for some films and music albums.
The main thing is though that a paper magazine, newspaper or comic book is just so much more portable. I can roll up a magazine and stick it into my pocket. It weighs a fraction of that of an iPad. And I can flick through it much easier, glancing at each page in a fraction of a second to find something that takes my fancy, something that isn't quite possible (yet) with the digital versions.
I'm a fan of both mediums and read stuff on both tablets and paper. This doesn't have to be an either/or thing.
If you read paper magazines/comics in the bath you can definitely read an iPad or tablet in there as well. There's a great photo somewhere of Dalton Trumbo writing in the bath. Baths are ace.
Honestly, I'm attached to reading on paper because I find it more relaxing and it has a very real but nostalgic appeal for me. There are times when it would be easier to read my titles digitally, and it would certainly give me a hell of a lot more space in my house.
But give it a couple of generations, and there will be people who have been brought up reading both, and won't have that same attachment to paper. To books as objects of art certainly, so the deluxe collected editions will be safe (just as hardback books are currently getting more and more luxurious to justify the price and ensnare those tempted by a gorgeous object), but at this point I don't think the collector's market profits outweigh the inconvenience of masses of bits of paper everywhere.
At a slight tangent, but in the book store I work in, the majority of my customers that have switched to digital (they still come back for the occasional or frequent paper book) are older readers with not so great eye sight. Being able to bump up the font size is a complete revelation for many.