Kindle...spare me

[dave lackey]

As if this friggin computer screen and keyboard isn't enough, now the masses are "flocking" like the herd they are to Kindle books. Spare me.😡

I place this rant on the RFF forum because there are so many of us who actually prefer the "analog" equivalent of life's tools. Like film cameras. Manual wind watches. Printed photographs in lieu of on-screen images.

Is it really so difficult to carry a book? The whole experience of a hard-bound book is cheapened with a paperback version but to go to a screen to read... it will be a cold day in hell before I go that route. Rant off.

🙄

 

[LeicaFan]

The Kindle is actually a good idea. Let's face it - the Kindle is practical. You can store thousands of books into one small package.

 

[dave lackey]

Ah, but I read only one book at a time. I can carry one book with me, it is not a chore. Why is it a problem to carry a single book? BTW, I never read except at home or when on vacation so why is carrying thousands of books along with you is important? Who cares?

My main issue still, is reading from a friggin screen! I hate that. Give me a nice hard bound book, a couch in front of the fireplace with my favorite beverage and music, and I am quite happy, thank you.

I will leave the new tech screen reading to my students if that is what they like. Not for me.

 

[LeicaFan]

I agree, but I think that the Kindle is best for hardcore readers, not casual readers. Some people want to store hundreds (maybe even thousands) of books in their kindle because they don't want to take up too much space in their home.

 

[funkpilz]

God damn it, people. Y'all need to get your heads out of your @sses and use Wikipedia.
The Kindle does NOT use a screen. It's called e-ink or electronic paper, and it is NOTHING like a screen. It is exactly like paper in every aspect of usage. Just pick up a Kindle or Nook or one of those Sony things and you will realize in a split second that you're holding a book.
I'm sorry if I'm being rude about this, but the screen argument is reeaally getting on my nerves.

Personally, since I have slight back problems, I welcome the idea of not having to carry around even one book. The books that I tend to read can be quite heavy, and since I already carry around a camera all the time, I can't really afford to add to the strain that's put on my back.

 

[shadowfox]

My wife and I tried Nook color recently at our friend's house. I have to say reading full-color Nat. Geo on that thing is quite pleasant.

What I like is the search, bookmarking, and wi-fi internet connection built in. So I can research what I read.

But we finally decided to wait for the next generation which should flood the market as early as first quarter next year.

 

[jky]

I agree, but I think that the Kindle is best for hardcore readers, not casual readers. Some people want to store hundreds (maybe even thousands) of books in their kindle because they don't want to take up too much space in their home.

My wife has a Sony e-reader w/ approx 40 books on it. It comes in handy as she reads a few books at a time especially when we're traveling.
We have a rule that if it doesn't fit in a diaper bag, it stays home... this way we can "bring" 2-3 books while accommodating my camera gear (+diapers, snacks, extra pants if my daughter has an accident 🙂 )

Since getting the e-reader a few years ago, the only thing I miss is the decor aspect of having a wall full of paperbacks/hardcovers 🙂

 

[JoeV]

You are required to use the Nook-E reader for browsing erotic literature. 😉

~Joe

 

[whatever]

Send a letter.

Send a letter.

I always find it amusing when a anti techie uses the digital cyber space to rant about digital technology. Why don’t you send us all a letter? Bill

 

[unixrevolution]

Ah, but I read only one book at a time. I can carry one book with me, it is not a chore. Why is it a problem to carry a single book? BTW, I never read except at home or when on vacation so why is carrying thousands of books along with you is important? Who cares?

My main issue still, is reading from a friggin screen! I hate that. Give me a nice hard bound book, a couch in front of the fireplace with my favorite beverage and music, and I am quite happy, thank you.

I will leave the new tech screen reading to my students if that is what they like. Not for me.

Just because it is not useful to you doesn't mean it is not useful to someone.

Personally, I like the Kindle. I kind of have one foot in each of two worlds. Right now I have a Yashica 635 on the desk, an iPhone in my pocket, and a Bulova self-winding clockwork watch on my wrist.

The Kindle's "screen" is so close to paper that I could barely tell any difference. I was amazed when I saw it, even after the hype. that, and the Kindle can hold a ton of information including updating itself with new stuff like newspapers and magazines on the fly, no newsstand required. That, and I find holding a paperback book open to read it uncomfortable. The Kindle has no such problem.

 

[ethics_gradient]

Ah, but I read only one book at a time. I can carry one book with me, it is not a chore. Why is it a problem to carry a single book? BTW, I never read except at home or when on vacation so why is carrying thousands of books along with you is important? Who cares?

My main issue still, is reading from a friggin screen! I hate that. Give me a nice hard bound book, a couch in front of the fireplace with my favorite beverage and music, and I am quite happy, thank you.

Believe it or not, Amazon doesn't need to submit their products for your approval before releasing them!

I read print books almost exclusively because I've got access to two excellent library systems (university + county), but my Kindle is great for reading stuff otherwise only available online for me. I use Calibre to download, format, and export a Thai-language newspaper to my Kindle to read, and download electronic copies of The Economist through my university to read as well. The 3G is also useful; the web browser isn't really suitable for general use, but it does work with Gmail and a few other common sites I use, so I do use the Kindle for internet from time to time since my phone doesn't have those capabilities.

I'm not really sold on buying eBooks myself; I understand the issues with royalties, rights etc that makes them cost as much (or more!) than a printed copy, but as long as that's the case I'll buy the physical book and have something tangible to keep (or re-sell).

 

[Stravinsky]

I must admit I love my Kindle!

First of all the portability and the convenience of downloading new books/magazines wherever I am. But in addition to that I appreciate the embedded dictionary: for a non-mother tongue like me it's a valuable asset!

 

[Ducky]

You are required to use the Nook-E reader for browsing erotic literature. 😉

~Joe

One of the worst puns of the year, congrats.

 

[flip]

I think everyone prefers reading books to e-books. It feels like a rip-off to buy electrons instead of paper - particularly at compatible prices. Then again, we also like trees and the natural ecology, which are actually the beneficiaries of such technology. If it allows more people to read without cutting trees, I say go for it.

 

[LeicaFan]

My wife has a Sony e-reader w/ approx 40 books on it. It comes in handy as she reads a few books at a time especially when we're traveling.
We have a rule that if it doesn't fit in a diaper bag, it stays home... this way we can "bring" 2-3 books while accommodating my camera gear (+diapers, snacks, extra pants if my daughter has an accident 🙂 )

Since getting the e-reader a few years ago, the only thing I miss is the decor aspect of having a wall full of paperbacks/hardcovers 🙂

Yea, exactly. E-readers are convenient and practical.

Having actual books is obviously nice, but e-readers are pretty cool, too! 🙂

 

[whatever]

Trees are good for the economy.

Trees are good for the economy.

I think everyone prefers reading books to e-books. It feels like a rip-off to buy electrons instead of paper - particularly at compatible prices. Then again, we also like trees and the natural ecology, which are actually the beneficiaries of such technology. If it allows more people to read without cutting trees, I say go for it.

Bingo, I was wondering when a tree huger would get in. You do realize the lumber industry replaces the trees they cut for paper, times two. Don't forget with global warming they ( the trees ) are growing even faster. Printed books are actually a better deal for our economy, and recycling is the icing on the cake. It's all good.

 

[flip]

Bingo, I was wondering when a tree huger would get in. You do realize the lumber industry replaces the trees they cut for paper, times two. Don't forget with global warming they ( the trees ) are growing even faster. Printed books are actually a better deal for our economy, and recycling is the icing on the cake. It's all good.

That's 'hugger.' Actually, I don't use an e-reader.

I pay to have books shipped overseas. Personally, I think that trees blight the industrial landscape, but cutting them is incredibly tedious. And global warming has done great things for CA. Anything I can do to increase forest fires, I strive for. :angel: Like Smokey the Bear says - we all have to do our part!

 

[antiquark]

Are e-books archival in any way? If I bought one today, will I be able to read it in, say, 30 years?

Given the history of digital storage, I doubt an e-book of today will be readable by something in the future. That's assuming the media itself hasn't corroded by then.

In comparison, paper is forever!

 

[flip]

Are e-books archival in any way? If I bought one today, will I be able to read it in, say, 30 years?

Given the history of digital storage, I doubt an e-book of today will be readable by something in the future. That's assuming the media itself hasn't corroded by then.

In comparison, paper is forever!

Absolutely analogous to film.

 

[serpia]

I have to come down on the side of Kindle on this one. I have used my Kindle DX to read the New York Times in various places in Europe, and the US. I was able to do that, and no trees had to die, and no paper had to be transported across an ocean or the plains of the midwest to support my reading. I also was able to get the NY Times version of the news without the delay of transporting paper across the ocean.
If you have books you intend to read today, and again in thirtey years then by all means buy the paper version. Much of the stuff we read is ephemeral. I recently visited relatives during this Christmas season, and I carried my bag into the guest room with no problem, I realized late at night, as I did some reading that if I had carried paper copies of the stuff I had on the kindle that my bag would have weighed about 50 Lbs more.

It's kind of nice to have the materials available without the weight of paper. Kindle is a gadget, but I am liking mine more every day.