Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« It's That Time of the Year Aga... | Sorry, No HIV Vaccine »

Monday, November 19, 2007

Burning Kindles

posted by on November 19 at 11:54 AM

So Amazon just unveiled their reader, called a Kindle. I know that the conventional wisdom holds that ‘people will never be able to stop reading books and screens will never replace the tactile pleasure of paper and blah blah blah,’ but that’s bullshit, really. I think that within the next ten years, a significant portion of America will do their reading on some sort of an e-book reading device. Whether that device is the Kindle remains to be seen—it’s surely not going to be the Sony Reader, at least in its current incarnation—but the Kindle is maybe the first device that appears to do the important things that an e-reader will need to do. With newspaper, blog, and magazine subscriptions, and the ability to get books no matter where you are, it looks like it’s got the kind of functions that could make the Kindle the iPod of readers.

There are problems, of course: unlike iPods, there’s no way to download the books that you already own. The library will always be a competitor, too, and it appears that, with Kindle, there’s no way to get free books, though documents can be uploaded via e-mail for a fee. Still, this is the first e-reader that a lot of people, not just Segway-happy tech freaks, will use. Once Amazon allows the (public domain) classics to be freely downloaded to the Kindle, and once they lower the price (four hundred bucks!), the Kindle could become that kind of catchy device that borders on the ubiquitous.

RSS icon Comments

1

Can you read it in the bath?

The notion that a technological book reader will ever "catch on" -- leaving aside the idiotic idea that books are not technology -- is proven wrong simply by looking at the history of tech. Who is going to pay $400 for a thing that will be obsolete in a year, and permanently broken within four? You can buy a mini laptop for that.

Posted by Fnarf | November 19, 2007 12:09 PM
2

I don't know Fnarf... I think it's cute. I'd be interested to see it in action. So much action...

Posted by Amelia | November 19, 2007 12:12 PM
3

My problem with readers has always been that, sooner or later, the pixelization of the text starts to bother my eyes in a way that printed text doesn't. It's fine for the internet, where I rarely read more than 1,000 words at a time, but for an entire book I need the smooth lines of printed text. Before I'd be willing to buy something like this, I'd have to see it. And that's where Amazon has a problem, because they don't have anyplace I can get a real look at one of these beasties.

Posted by Judah | November 19, 2007 12:13 PM
4

What I don't understand is why they think this will work, when the Sony hasn't been a success. The Sony will let you read basically and text, PDF or Word Document. The Kindle is DRM encumbered. So far no device with really restrictive DRM has been accepted by consumers.

Posted by Andrew | November 19, 2007 12:16 PM
5

I don't see myself transitioning to electronic books anytime soon. I read a lot, and I find print text easier on the eyes -- and more aesthetically pleasing. I also like to highlight passages and scribble notes in the margins, and somehow the paper-based system works better for me than doing it all with a stylus. Yes, to some extent it's a subjective emotional preference, but I think there will always be room for print media. I hope so, anyay.

Posted by seattleeco | November 19, 2007 12:16 PM
6

For me, nothing will replace yellowing pages and the musty smell of Trollope's Palliser Series that I bought at Powell's in Portland.

And it's not that I don't love technology -- I use a macbook, an ipod, and am hinting broadly for an iphone for x-mas, but when I get into bed at night for that precious hour of reading before sleep, I want an actual book in my hands.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | November 19, 2007 12:17 PM
7

I've read on e-book readers before and they read much easier than a computer screen. I don't see my self buying one anytime soon, as I like having my books on display. Showing off what books and how many books I've read makes me feel better than those who have a smaller library.

Posted by ryan red | November 19, 2007 12:17 PM
8

I have to say that as a fast reader and frequent traveler, I'd love to use a reader to cut down on the bulk in my bags...

Posted by overflowing back pack | November 19, 2007 12:20 PM
9

@1: Have you ever tried reading an ebook on a laptop? It doesn't work very well. The screen format is all wrong, for one thing -- landscape instead of portrait, so you can't see a whole page at once. Start-up time is too long for casual reading, and power consumption is too high -- largely because of the demands of backlit color displays.

I think a cheap dedicated device that started instantly and had a high-contrast display that didn't require backlighting might find a market. The Kindle isn't cheap, though.

Posted by Orv | November 19, 2007 12:23 PM
10

Can you read it on the beach? How does it fare in bad light (too bright, too dim)? What's the battery life? Will replacement batteries be available in a year, two years (that's the #1 laptop killer, no batteries available). Will anything besides public domain classics be available for free (PD classics are not popular)? Will you have to pay to get content that's otherwise free on the internet (newspapers, magazines, blogs)? Is the "get books anywhere you are" feature free, or do you have to pay Verizon $40 a month? Will books be priced significantly lower (25%) of their paper price? Is there any history that suggests people like to pay for electronic books? Can you load your already-purchased e-books for other devices on it? How easy is it to hold your finger in the index while you look entries up in the body? Is that a keyboard I see in the picture? Does the keyboard suck ass? Can it print? If so, how much more paper will it waste than book printing -- ten times, a hundred times? What happens to it when better screen technology is invented six months from now? How can reading the NYT on that tiny screen with four-level gray scale compare with a full sheet?

I have more.

Posted by Fnarf | November 19, 2007 12:27 PM
11

why is it called "kindle?"

Posted by jz | November 19, 2007 12:30 PM
12

Let's talk about global warming. Electronic device, made with tons of hazardous chemicals, uses electricity, short lifespan, not really recyclable. If it prints there will be no paper saving.

Posted by Fnarf | November 19, 2007 12:30 PM
13

& it's butt ugly... I think I smell kickback.

Posted by come again? | November 19, 2007 12:32 PM
14

@12: If it means fewer trucks shipping books around, it's probably a net savings. Moving heavy physical objects in trucks versus moving bits on the Internet.

Posted by ORV | November 19, 2007 12:33 PM
15

The type of wireless used restricts it to use in the US and Canada only. DRM will kill it. And there's apparently NO SEARCH CAPABILITY, which is the ONE thing that electronic texts do outstandingly better than paper.

Posted by Fnarf | November 19, 2007 12:36 PM
16

You all are old. It doesn't matter if they can convert you to an e-reader, it's if they can convert Amelia and her young friends. The kids that grow up knowing HTML by heart, the kids that don't read books very often anyway. I'm not saying these describe you Amelia, just those in your age range. Heck you might be too old already.

Posted by PdxRitchie | November 19, 2007 12:37 PM
17

I like the idea of an e-reader, but I wouldn't pay more than 50 dollars for one at most. On top of that, book publishers will have to go through the same bullshit the music industry is going through, and they're going to be just as unwilling to change. eBooks couldn't be priced more than 5 dollars even for new books, and older books would probably drop even farther.

However, I think most of the problems that Fnarf mentioned(battery life, screen quality) would be easily surmountable with time. I'd still give it 25 years before anything will be available that might be considered mainstream.

Someone needs to design one of these with a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy motif. I'd buy that, regardless of whether or not it caught on.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | November 19, 2007 12:41 PM
18

Well, I'm not that old, and I think the Kindle idea is WRETCHED. My books are my friends AND my main interior decorating element. I like their color, their feel, their easy portability; I like that they get me off the computer. There's just no way I'd end up using this thing. How would I upload all of my current books onto it, anyway? How would I search through the books on there? My eyes need a break from screens!!

Posted by Katelyn | November 19, 2007 12:43 PM
19

Bigger screen, less keyboard.

Learn from the iPod designers.

Posted by MHD | November 19, 2007 12:43 PM
20

$400? So that I can keep giving Amazon more money for uploads?? That's ridiculous. They need to give these things away, or at least sell them at cost.

Posted by Todd | November 19, 2007 12:44 PM
21

OK, it's not a "screen". It's e-paper, which is different, because it reflects light like paper does.

Posted by MHD | November 19, 2007 12:45 PM
22

Yes, Chris in Tampa: "surmountable with time". But where does that leave the giant pile of these first generation ones? At what point in time does the technology become good enough to to be FIXED, finished, here it is, the final e-reader you'll never need to upgrade? Feel free to illustrate your answer with examples from the personal computer world.

Orv: these things aren't "heavy physical objects moved around in trucks"? Sure, they hold the equivalent of 300 books. But they have to be replaced every year, leaving a vast heap of obsolete electro-junk. Books are, or can be, forever; I have books that are hundreds of years old. They still work perfectly.

Posted by Fnarf | November 19, 2007 12:45 PM
23

Hahaha, Ritchie, you're probably too old too. Don't you know that no kids these days no HTML by heart, or even have a passing knowledge of it? The MySpace age is dominated by people stealing(borrowing) source code from sites that give them everything in neat little templates.

In my day, we had to code our little shitty Geocities sites all in notepad, but kids these days just don't know anything.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | November 19, 2007 12:46 PM
24

Oh, I don't support this model at all, and I don't think they should be producing them until they've gotten all the kinks worked out. But our society just loves producing things that are going to be worthless in two years, without regards for the consequences.

In any case, I think you're right that these won't catch on, so I don't think we'll have the problem of landfills full to the brim of broken, useless, first generation eReaders.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | November 19, 2007 12:54 PM
25

@22: It probably doesn't even weigh what one hardcover book does. And I'm not sure it'll have to be replaced every year; I certainly don't buy a new iPod or cell phone every year, so I see no reason why this device would be different.

Personally, I struggle with the environmental impact of the reading I do -- especially my newspaper subscription. The wastefulness involved in shipping tons of paper around, most of which will be thrown out within a day, is rather striking.

There are books I wouldn't want an e-reader to replace. But for newspapers, for books I'm likely to only want to read once, and for technology reference books that are going to become obsolete and be landfilled within a couple years, it makes some sense.

Posted by Orv | November 19, 2007 12:56 PM
26

Orv, most people DO buy a new cellie every year. And they are piling up in ridiculous quantities, almost all of them still perfectly functional. They're basically impossible to recycle, too. And even the people who don't buy one every year do buy a new one every four years. How long HAVE you owned your Ipod? Do you replace all the books on your shelf every four years?

And seeing as this thing uses brand new screen technology, it's even more likely to have significant improvements very quickly. Significant improvements, especially in a cutting-edge tech gadget area, mean very quick user turnover.

Compare this to the amount of fuel used to transport a book -- essentially zero -- and it's no comparison.

For tech books? Fine. Add a search function and it's worthwhile. But for actual readers, bleh.

Posted by Fnarf | November 19, 2007 1:04 PM
27

I download free e-books to my cell phone all the time. Right now I am reading "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."

I use a $30 program called RepliGo Reader that renders all Word or .pdf into easily readable type for the PDA screen. You can adjust the size of the type, and there is NO HORIZONTAL SCROLLING.

I use the HP IPAQ 6515, which comes with full Windows capability. So I can listen to Miles Davis while I am reading Gibbon.

Up yours, Apple. Up yours, Amazon. Up yours, all DRM.

Posted by ivan | November 19, 2007 1:08 PM
28

I call bullshit about the age thing. I'm 28, very tech savvy and tech hungry, and e-readers just aren't going to fly unless a few things happen, particularly things that will satisfy heavy readers like myself. Number one is the file format. Unless everyone in the publishing and e-reader industry agrees to a standardized and universal format, no one's gonna wanna go near any reader, particularly people who think for two seconds about the Blu Ray/HD DVD war or it's historical analogue, BetaMax. If Amazon, B&N, Powell's, and ten start ups all lock up different catalogs and have different formats, it's dead before it gets started. People realize that a paper book is a format that's survived millennia, and that just because the written word moved from scroll to books, didn't mean you couldn't still read your old scrolls. The rapid multiple changes in digital format over the last half century have rendered huge amounts of even NASA's data inaccessible.

Second is doing away with DRM. I'd be pissed enough if a book I bought couldn't be loaned to a friend, but I've heard nightmare scenarios of publishers making you buy the book again after you've read it four times. Just this last month, Major League Baseball changed formats for their DRM protected, downloadable rebroadcasts of games, and people who had bought them now must buy them again, since they shut their DRM server down. Amazon's Unboxed movies allow Amazon to simply reach into your computer and delete everything and you have no recourse. For hardcore bibliophiles such as myself, it makes me stroke the spines of my many books with affection and fear for the future.

Next is cost. If they try and get hardcover prices for digital downloads, they're fucked. I'd rather have the actual book for that price, and the price of entry is ridiculous at $400, though really, it'd have to be in the $20 range for me to even consider it.

Finally, I don't think it'll fly for exactly the reason you dismiss. People like their books. The people the publishing industry is dependent on, people like me who buy and read three or more books a month, like the physical experience of walking through bookstores, browsing, touching, and letting serendipity guide us to our next choice. We like the feel of paper in our hands, and we like looking at our overstuffed bookshelves with affection.

Anyone who reads three books a year isn't going to wanna plunk down the cash to buy an expensive or really any non-free reader, and the people who buy books to look impressive but don't read them aren't going to think a download makes as good an impression since they can't display the unbroken spines of the great works to the people who enter their homes. Until you sell people like me, you're not selling anyone.

Posted by Gitai | November 19, 2007 1:10 PM
29

@26: I've owned my iPod at least four years at this point. It still works fine.

The kind of person who would throw an e-reader out every year probably throws books out when they're done reading them, too. It's not like they're worth much on the used market, and recyclers rarely want anything that isn't newsprint or office paper.

I also have a hard time believing that shipping the tons upon tons of books Amazon must sell every year uses no fuel. Books are dense. And remember, they have to get shipped from the printing plant in China or Malaysia or wherever they print books these days, to Amazon, then from Amazon to the consumer.

I'm not sure this particular device is a particularly good implementation, but I think in general we have to get away from the idea that we have to ship heavy physical objects around to transmit information -- whether it be novels, phone books, DVDs, or software CDs.

Posted by Orv | November 19, 2007 1:16 PM
30

You're trying to compare one item to many items. A single book requires virtually no fuel to ship. Most books sold in the US are in fact printed in the US, as well.

There are obviously reasons why data supercedes physical objects in many cases but the environmental cost is not one of them. Computers and networks and other technology are a HUGE source of enviro grief, from the electricity used to power them to the mining needed to produce their exotic materials, to the cost of discarding or recycling them. Information technology today hits the environment many, many times harder than it did, say, 50 or 100 years ago. The trend is not going down, either.

Your argument somewhat resembles the "paperless office" one that was trendy thirty years ago. As we all know, the advent of computers, copiers, and laser printers has in fact increased the use of paper a hundredfold or more, and the rate of increase continues to grow -- not just increase but RATE of increase.

Four years is frankly a pathetic lifespan to brag about for an expensive object in any field EXCEPT technology. If you are positing that your Ipod will still be playing mp3s in, say, 2107 -- or that mp3s will even be playable then -- you are going against everything that we have seen in the constant upgradeitis of the last 30 years. High-tech doesn't last, it never has.

Posted by Fnarf | November 19, 2007 1:32 PM
31

@30: What makes you think most of your books will last until 2107? Paper and bindings aren't what they used to be. I have book that are less than 20 years old that are already crumbling into dust.

Posted by Orv | November 19, 2007 1:38 PM
32

The general concept is sound, and will work some day. But the "Kindle" is a piece of shit, and it will flop horribly.

First, the text in most books is printed at 300 dpi (dots per inch). The Kindle is slightly more than half of that, at 167 dpi. So the text will be noticeably fuzzier than on a printed page. For a few paragraphs, that's no big deal. But for a 500+ page book, no way.

But it is technically possible to manufacture a high resolution screen that is every bit as sharp as a printed book. It would be ridiculously expensive today, but maybe in 5 or 10 years, they'll be able to manufacture very high resolution screens cheap enough to make it viable.

Second, the price needs to come way down. At $400, only the wealthiest gadget junkies will buy it. It needs to be under $100 for it to make a deep enough impact. And the downloads need to be cheap and easy. If it costs less to simply buy a paperback book, then who the hell is going to pay $400 for a reader, plus the download fees?

I actually do see the day when an electronic reader of some sort could replace a large number of book, magazine, and newspaper hard copy. But the Kindle is a long way from that. Not even close.

Posted by SDA in SEA | November 19, 2007 1:38 PM
33

But suppose you find yourself in a freezing garret apartment in Paris with your new girlfriend dying of consumption: in spite of it's name you will not be able to burn the kindle for warmth. It's also not very useful for pressing the water out of tofu - a function that Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality performs admirably. Finally when your obese neighbors are have loud drunk (presumably necessarily so) sex on the other side of your paper thin walls, you can't very well throw the kindle at the wall to take a stab at preventing those wretched genes from reproducing.

Posted by kinaidos | November 19, 2007 1:48 PM
34

I certainly would like a nice reader for my Iphone. I had one on my Palm and would keep a couple of books on there that I loved.
I like the concept for vacations but sure would feel weird reading one almost anywhere.

Posted by Tim | November 19, 2007 1:55 PM
35

If it becomes cheaper and, as mentioned, eventually able to transfer the books I have, I'd want one. I have some large books I've never finished because I can't carry them around like I do all my other books. If I could get my giant history of the British Isles on there, and a bunch of other books besides, the way an iPod works, I'd love it. But the problem is the transfer. It's by far cheaper to go to a used bookstore and pick something up, and will probably always be. But I'd admittedly love to have something for books like I have an iPod for my music- the ability to carry around my collection anywhere, listen to whatever I want to, all in a size that doesn't break my back.

Posted by Abby | November 19, 2007 1:58 PM
36

I give it 10 years before readers are quite common.

But, I think it's going to have to start with the kids and their text books. I would have loved to have something like this when I was in highschool with homework in 5 subjects with what felt like billion pound text books in my backpack...

PLUS if you have a reader, the person sitting next to you on the subway won't know you're reading Lady Chatterley's Lover.

Posted by katy | November 19, 2007 2:05 PM
37

One can't lend it, give a stack of old ones to shut-ins or swap it with friends. It is just an attempt to destroy the multiple lives of books.

Posted by inkweary | November 19, 2007 2:11 PM
38

@31: what, do you leave them outside? No properly stored book from 20 years ago is degrading now. The serious acid-paper problem mostly ended fifty years ago, and even that is hugely overstated. Newsprint, the most acidic and prone to damage paper there is, is still white and flexible after a hundred years of proper storage -- check any landfill, where fifty-year-old newspapers can be dug up that look like yesterday. It's about light and heat -- avoid them. I have stacks of books from the acid paper era that are in fine shape, maybe a little brittle in spots, but perfectly functional. To put it bluntly: I don't believe you.

Posted by Fnarf | November 19, 2007 2:12 PM
39

@33: You make some good points. I imagine it's not very effective at propping up broken sofa legs, either.

Posted by Orv | November 19, 2007 2:18 PM
40

@30: "There are obviously reasons why data supercedes physical objects in many cases but the environmental cost is not one of them. Computers and networks and other technology are a HUGE source of enviro grief, from the electricity used to power them to the mining needed to produce their exotic materials, to the cost of discarding or recycling them."

Been thinking about this one. I don't think it holds, and I'll tell you why. The Internet is going to be there whether we download books and movies from it or not, because it has other uses. So the incremental cost of doing those things online, instead of with physical media, is not that high.

It's like getting drinking water from the tap versus trucking drinking water in bottles to everyone's house. Is there an environmental cost to building and operating a water system? Yes, a big one. But we need it anyway, so we might as well get our drinking water from it and eliminate all those trucks and bottles.

Posted by Orv | November 19, 2007 2:51 PM
41

It apparently has a USB cable so you can get your free books on there that way.

It's novel but I'm still not going to buy it until it's cheaper.

Posted by Aexia | November 19, 2007 3:01 PM
42

kinaidos at #33: you're awesome.

Posted by Coco | November 19, 2007 3:03 PM
43

But the internet is NOT going to "be there" unless its component parts are continually replaced at enormous cost, and then only at the cost of spectacular energy use. Some companies spend something like 30% of their electrical use keeping their networks running (the single biggest factor is cooling, in the server room).

It also doesn't make sense to say "the internet would still be there except for X", because it's ALL X. If it's not movies or books, it's music. It's all data. The network doesn't care what kind of data it is.

If we were all still using VT100 terminals, maybe. But what you're saying is essentially "the things that are causing the increase in use aren't causing the increase in use".

I love Inkweary's "multiple lives of books".

Posted by Fnarf | November 19, 2007 3:12 PM
44

@43: Yes, and the municipal water system needs constant replacement and upgrading, too. And all those pumps consume a lot of energy. But that doesn't mean it'd be cheaper and more environmentally friendly to truck water to everyone's house individually.

Posted by Orv | November 19, 2007 3:44 PM
45

www.bookcrossing.com

Posted by tinydoc | November 19, 2007 4:11 PM
46

Feh, my Zire 71 already has a decent (not great, but decent version of Adobe Reader for Palm OS, plus a version of Palm Reader, PLUS QuickWord, so technically, I can read pretty much any kind of electronic wp format - why would I need yet another proprietary, stand-alone device tied to a specific platform?

In fact, if the damned thing had a cellphone built into it (yeah, I'll get a Treo or Crackberry one of these days), and a decent video app, like a newer version of Kinoma, then basically, I'd have an all-in-one kitchen-sink media device, which in the end is what people really want.

People don't really want to have to lug around a separate device for each function; that's pretty much been born out already by the convergence of PDA and cellphone technology. So, the only reason I can see for companies to continue attempt to churn out stand-alone devices is in order to capture market share, but iPod's aside, that tactic seems to be failing pretty miserably.

Posted by COMTE | November 19, 2007 5:02 PM
47

fnarf, a lot of your technical questions about the kindle are answered on its amazon link.

i don't understand the appeal of an electronic reader over an audiobook. audiobooks aren't super expensive and people can use their existing mp3 players to listen to them while they travel and commute. it doesn't sound like most of the people replying to this thread use electronic readers, though, so i guess i'd have to address that question to those who do...

Posted by kimberley d | November 19, 2007 5:24 PM
48

Audio books are ridiculously expensive. At least, the physical ones that exist on CD or cassette. I suppose there are probably download versions available for cheaper, but all of the other ones are 60 dollars a piece wherever I see them.

In addition, I don't know the exact ratio of books that actually have audio formats to those that don't, but I'm pretty sure it's rather low. That could change in the next few years, but I doubt it.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | November 19, 2007 5:43 PM
49

I don't think those devices will ever succeed. People will read stuff on their iPhones or laptops rather than carrying another THING around, and paper will still be around for awhile. It's cheap, user-friendly, and durable.

Posted by violet_dagrinder | November 19, 2007 5:59 PM
50

One more person chiming in on the age thing: I'm 26 and pretty tech-savvy, but my favorite thing to do in my free hours is wander through a bookstore to discover new reads. Some of my favorite tomes have real emotional weight, like the weathered copy of All the Pretty Horses which has accompanied me through all of my adult life. When I see that book on my shelf, I think of high school, college, meeting my partner, moving to England. I can't imagine any scenario in which I'd trade my books for a device like this. If it inspires people to read, great -- but I'd rather carry the weight of a book in my bag.

Posted by seattleeco | November 19, 2007 8:47 PM
51
Posted by qaejh | November 21, 2007 2:08 AM
52
Posted by qaejh | November 21, 2007 2:08 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).