Author Nick Hornby not feeling the fever pitch over e-books
This won't come as a massive surprise to most, but author Nick Hornby isn't so into e-books. After walking into a British Borders book store to find the £399 ($790) Iliad for sale next to some £4 paperbacks, he poo-poo'd the platform in a guest column on the Penguin Blog. So here we have a book author blogging on a book publisher's site about the downfalls of a technology that could supplant his industry. To be fair, he does make some salient points about the unlikelihood that e-books will replace print in the same way iPods have undermined CD sales. He points out that people, on average, only buy seven books a year compared to the number of CDs they used to buy. In addition, book readers just like books and tend to be suspicious of new technology. Finally, he goes back to the iPod: the popularity of portable entertainment devices, what with their TV shows, games, movies, and other fancy schmancy doohickeys will continue to make the notion of reading a book -- even in electronic format -- not so tempting.
[Via Shiny Shiny]
[Via Shiny Shiny]












Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
DYLAN C @ Jul 5th 2008 10:14PM
Ebooks = fail. Staring at a screen hurts ye olde eyes!
Paper!
(Oh yah, first, losers!)
deyanimay @ Jul 5th 2008 10:24PM
your asking for an a$$ whooping.
derX @ Jul 5th 2008 10:41PM
I am the only person that sees the irony in a person lambasting staring at a screen while posting on an online blog?
Maybe it's just me.
Artie Lange @ Jul 5th 2008 11:11PM
Yes, you are, because there is no irony present. He is pointing out the fact that, when given the choice, he'd rather read from paper, not an LCD. Using one device to express one's displeasure with another device is not ironic just because they both have similar forms. If he were to have lambasted ebooks, then settled in for a night's reading of a freshly downloaded "Moby Dick" on his Kindle, then that would have been "ironic".
I agree with the original post; ebooks have not and will not develop a following. Not only are they harder on the eyes, there are a host of other tactile experiences and form factors present in books that are not in ebook devices.
Derek @ Jul 5th 2008 11:20PM
Have you ever seen an E-Ink display? It is almost like paper, and does not hurt your eyes. Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean you should speak bad of a technology.
paul34 @ Jul 5th 2008 11:33PM
Artie, this article is about reading from an e-ink ebook reader device such as the Kindle.
It has nothing to do with reading ebooks on an LCD screen like a LCD computer monitor.
Artie Lange @ Jul 5th 2008 11:49PM
I made no comparison between an LCD and an E-ink display, only that many still find E-ink harder on the eyes than paper (me included). Further, books are more portable, don't need to be charged, are cheaper, can be handled with impunity and without regard for their durability, and allow for display (many people like to collect and display the books they've read).
I can see e-readers working for periodicals. The nature in which periodicals are used (briefly), and their transient nature (both in content and possession) lend themselves to the e-reader form. But then again, for that particular application, how would it be better than an Iphone or other UMPC/UMID?
In the end, these are simply solutions without a problem. They may maintain a niche following, but they'll never gain popular adoption
JohnTitor @ Jul 6th 2008 12:04AM
I bet these guys look at the kindle pics on their LCD/CRT and think they know what it's like to look at e-ink
DYLAN C @ Jul 6th 2008 1:27AM
The author also talked about iPod displays. A friend of mine has the sony ebook ready and i liked it. It was do-able...just no color. Not great for "how-to" ebooks.
I KNOW WHAT AN E-INK DISPLAY LOOKS LIKE. I AM REFERRING TO READING AN EBOOK ON A LCD DISPLAY (PHONE, LAPTOP, iPOD [AS THE AUTHOR TALKED ABOUT])
LEARN TO READ! DAMN!
Ryan @ Jul 6th 2008 7:30PM
"books are more portable" ... huh? My kids board books are more portable, but any substantial book is not more portable than the typical book reader ... further 1 book = about the same portability as the eBook reader ... but try carrying 1000's of books.
eBooks ... definitions of unknown words with the click of a button, Tagging/sending interesting bits of text, your entire library searchable ... it just makes sense.
mike @ Jul 6th 2008 3:54AM
actually, staring at anything a couple feet from your face will destroy your eyes. they are straining to focus on up close detail, while your eyes are meant for far distance viewing (eg. think caveman times)
don't believe me, as 'blind as a bat' stephen king.
Azayzel @ Jul 6th 2008 3:58AM
You guys always trying to get first on posts usually have no idea what you're talking about - as expressed by this post and your buddy Artie. Obviously neither of you have used an e-Ink device or you wouldn't even be using the word in the same sentence as LCD. There is no comparison at all. For that matter, e-Ink displays are almost identical to paper when light is present, even more so under sunlight (you do read with lights on, don't you?) Not sure where you got your statistics regarding people complaining about e-Ink hurting their eyes, but this is the first I've heard and my wife and I have owned Readers for two years now.
Regarding the lambasting the article writer gave, I would probably attribute that to the excessive price on the Iliad. Why spend that much on an eReader when you can buy a more capable laptop for the same or less. Once eReaders drop to the $100 or less point, they'll be as quickly adopted as any other technology that has proven it's usefulness. Oh yeah, publishers will also need to understand they won't be able to continue to sell books for hard-back prices either, otherwise they'll be pirated before they make the shelf.
Wwhat @ Jul 6th 2008 7:33AM
I don't have one but I think e-books are a good way to read manuals/technical/teaching books more than novels, since reading PDFs on a computerscreen is just a pain I find, and for novels I think I'd prefer the paper version.
guyanonymous @ Jul 6th 2008 1:35PM
I -used to- believe that I'd never give up a paper book.
I was given a punk-ass Franklin ebook reader my mother bought in bargain bin for $20 while visiting the states. It sucked - BUT - after harvesting Project Gutenberg, and the odd other place, I realized just how convenient it was.
I'm not ready to pay $300+ for a book reader yet, though. I have however, fallen in love with the cheap Ebookwise (dot com) device, formerly sold by RCA.
The Ebookwise is $150 with memory enough (65mb Smarmedia card, to show you how technology age) for 100+ books. It has an adjustable backlight (from perfect for zero lights to use-it-as-an-emergency flashlight brightness) and is readable in all light. Sure, I have to angle it in the bright sun, but it's never bothered me. The rechargeable batteries last between 15+ hours and take less than an hour to recharge to 80% of that or so. The $20 software they sell to convert from other formats (html, doc, rtf, txt, rb, etc) is great. I have to fiddle now and then - but as there is software to convert from every other format out there to something this will handle, I don't worry about it. You also, if memory serves, can just upload a book to their site and have it converted for you, though I've never bothered, so this may have changed.
Do I still read paper books? Yes.
Why? I can't find them in a convertable form for this, or they are visual heavy.
99% of my paperbacks, though, are read on here. And I tell you, being able to take this around with me, always having a book handy, is a godsend for someone who goes through a pocket book every couple days. Airplane trips and camping - it is awesome.
And for those paranoid about reading on a screen - with the adjustable contrast, there is not an issue of it being hard on the eyes. It's NOT like reading a PDA screen or something.
I'd not spend $300 on an ebook reader yet either. Especially without a backlight. I did spend $120 (Sale) on the ebookwise twice (I dropped it in the tub once..grr....and had to replace the first after 3 years with it). It still works, though, the battery just won't hold a charge, so I have to use it plugged in. It'll find a home in my future classroom, though, filled with classics and kids books though.
My only complaint - being LCD tech, the contrast changes in the heat of direct sun, so you may have to pump up the contrast on the screen to compensate. Easy, but does shorten battery life slightly.
So for those, "I'd never give up a book" folks, suck it up and try some of the alternatives. The SCREEN is not an issue for eye comfort - though, I agree, the price is.
Think of it this way for you avid readers:
1) Will you read at least 20 of the books on Project Gutenburg (free)? Well, since they'd cost you $7.50 each (or so), bingo, you win.
2) Do you read a lot on the go - as in carrying a backup pocket book is a pain in the ass - bingo you win. I love being able to switch between books on the fly.
3) Do you use usenet. Undernet specifically. You win! But I won't say more.
I'm still not happy with the pricing of ebooks, in general. Old books are often very well priced - just a few dollars. BUT...best sellers, and newish books are often priced the same as the paper-version (soft or hard cover), which is obscene. But hey, I don't let that bother me.
So you naysayers who've never even tried a REAL ebookreader, stop bitching, and go talk about something you have experience with. Personally, I recommend not switching from a record player to CD/anything newer. You'll keep the strength of having something not portable, and that has that old-fashioned sound.
guyanonymous @ Jul 6th 2008 2:24PM
I'd put money on the fact that you have NEVER actually sat down and read through a single book on an e-ink or ebookwise (which is LCD based) device. Any experience you've had has likely been on a) a PDA or b) your computer screen.
Jeff @ Jul 7th 2008 7:52AM
Picking fights on forums again, aren't you, Dylan C who used to be a C9 member?
Jason @ Jul 7th 2008 2:17PM
I would add that, as someone who's read a few books on a mobile device, I rather like the idea, but I think the technology and user interface are still too primitive. It's like the early PDAs: bulky, overpriced, awkward, etc. One more generation of something like the iTouch (or the N800) and people might give up laptops for browsing the web most of the time. It's reached the pinnacle of form + function.
Just because the early eBook devices are kludges that make us wince inwardly at (though some of us can deal with the problem and love it despite its major flaws) does not mean that someday we will not have a paradigm shift in design that makes it an awesomely 'in' thing.
There are many possibilities. One might be something very sleek and wafer thin that has an additional text->speech system good enough to fool you into thinking it's some famous character reading the book to you. Something with tactile response or even optional accelerometer use to allow you to flip page(s) with a simple tilt of the device.
For me, while I love paper books, I look forward to the day when a device exists that is good enough for me to not have to carry them all around with me. (Speaking as someone who just biked into work with 10lbs of books in his backpack.) That day has not arrived. But it doesn't mean that it won't.
you @ Jul 5th 2008 10:24PM
you don't get eye strain from e-book readers like the kindle because it uses e-ink.
Hawkman @ Jul 5th 2008 10:52PM
It still doesn't feel right, to me at least. Ok for a while, but I can't imagine reading on one for long periods... Plus, an ebook reader would look rubbish on my book shelves.
paul34 @ Jul 5th 2008 11:33PM
I'm sure someone said the same thing when they went from scrolls to those darn bound pages the kids call BOOKS
gad get @ Jul 6th 2008 12:29AM
@ Hawkman
Yes, and my mp3 player looks terrible inserted into the old CD rack.
Bob Smith @ Jul 5th 2008 10:30PM
E-books or rather e-ink will take off when they are in color and we can all easily download our periodical content to them. No more newspapers, magazines, comic books, or whatever will need to be printed.
We'll wake up in the morning with the Wall Street Journal ready to go.
derX @ Jul 5th 2008 10:47PM
Urgh, I was going to rant but I'll say this succintly:
WE ARE NEVER GETTING RID OF PRINT MEDIA.
And for good reason. I know (most) everyone will be able to relate to this. Remember when your computer died on you when you had just finished or made a dent into that paper? Did you not wish you had written it down first? Technology is awesome. Print is practical thus eternal.
ajfarson @ Jul 5th 2008 11:16PM
OR they will take off when all the trees are dead... 5 years?
Aguiluz @ Jul 6th 2008 12:07AM
"Print is practical thus eternal."
Wait 'till I use them as toilet paper!
Twitchy @ Jul 6th 2008 1:36AM
"Urgh, I was going to rant but I'll say this succintly:
WE ARE NEVER GETTING RID OF PRINT MEDIA."
@derX: Bob Smith said nothing about eliminating printed media, but intended to bring across the point that when said media is simultaneously available digitally many subscribers would be very interested. Better than schlepping a cumbersome newspaper or a stack of magazines onto a crowded bus on the way to work in the morning.
derX @ Jul 6th 2008 3:29AM
"No more newspapers, magazines, comic books, or whatever will need to be printed."
I'm pretty sure the "or whatever" part includes and print media not mentioned. It's pretty clear he has written that nothing else "will need to be printed"
Twitchy @ Jul 6th 2008 6:52AM
It won't need to be printed because it could be replaced by e-Paper. I know that the bulk of my subscriptions such as newspapers and periodicals which are not very picture/graphic heavy (in particular scientific periodicals) will no longer be delivered in my letter box.
But just because one could eliminate printed media at some stage doesn't meant that there won't be a demand for hard copies, and as such printing shall continue. I love the smell of a fresh 'Der Spiegel' or 'Stern' (there must be something that Axel Springer mixes into the ink, I dunno?!?).
r3loaded @ Jul 6th 2008 7:06AM
Correct. We aren't completely getting rid of print media. However, e-ink will take over certain niches of the print media market where it will be more useful. I expect the two will co-exist in the the market in the future.
Bob Smith @ Jul 6th 2008 2:42PM
Wow!
I never post. I'm reminded why.
I'll restate my point. The e-ink devices will take off when I can have color pictures rather than just black printed text.
The average person may only read 7 books a year, but there is way more color printed media that is consumed by the populace. The connected web as consumed color media has grown faster than anything in prior history.
What is needed is an easy way to download one's desired content - web pages, news"papers", "magazines", comic "books", whatever, and display it in a simple light form factor that is easy on the eyes - e-ink, and voila!
There will be no NEED for printed media. It will exist until I can page through my e-ink half-newspaper-page sized display as easily while in coach.
My points were of timing and inevitability.
Read my mind!
JohnPombrio @ Jul 6th 2008 6:14PM
Right you are. I have the SONY Reader and love it. I have read literally dozens of books on it. In perspective, I PREFER it over a paperback for readability but not as good as a hardcover.
It is terrible for PDF's of magazines or textbooks as it is just too small to read and has no color.
For complete acceptance, we will need two readers, one a little larger for plain text books. Another at the size of a sheet of paper and in color for magazines and textbooks.
As for the price of books, there are converters out there that changes e-book formats and there will soon be ways to crack the DRM. That will make them easily swapped and available. Libraries will be able to download them to your reader for free.
It is INEVITABLE that, like music now, like TV is going, books will eventually move to completely digital. A library full of books on a hard drive. Think of it.
PS Don't take the 7 books a year too seriously. over half of people NEver read a book per year. The rest make up for it big time!
bogdatov @ Jul 5th 2008 10:34PM
Yes, iRex Iliad IS VERY expensive. But you can buy Sony Reader PRS-505 for $280 or so. Staring at eInk screen is not any worse then staring at paper book. eInk uses reflective light, it is not like you are looking at LCD monitor.
Also you can have ALL your books (thousands of them) in ONE 9oz device. Save some trees too (not that many people care anyway). Not to mention SPACE savings - somehow you have to have place to put all those paper books. Backing up your entire collection of favorite books is much easier too.
Bottomline ... it is similar to what digital photography did to old prints. Yes, we DO prints. But we have much more photos in digital format - easier to store, share, backup, etc. Same with books. Downside - no smell of freshly published story :)
I'm big fan of eBooks. I use old RCA REB 1100 which has backlit. Best $80 I EVER spent. Once you get used to eBooks you never go back. Well ... may be you buy colorful books for small children but thats about it.
Donald Dorson @ Jul 5th 2008 10:35PM
I think once they figure out how to make full color e-ink displays look as good as LCDs do now (or better, go nuts industry!) things like the iPhone will probably have robust eBook support. Stand alone readers are doomed as they're just one more gadget you'd have to carry. I've read a few books on my jail broken iPhone and the size of the screen really doesn't bother me, but reading on an LCD is not pleasant. It's like staring into a light.
Ryan @ Jul 6th 2008 7:30PM
"Just one more thing to carry" ... I would rather carry my additional kindle than my additional book. Yes, one device would be better, I agree on that point.
bogdatov @ Jul 5th 2008 10:36PM
Yes, iRex Iliad IS VERY expensive. But you can buy Sony Reader
PRS-505 for $280 or so. Staring at eInk screen is not any worse then
staring at paper book. eInk uses reflective light, it is not like you
are looking at LCD monitor.
Also you can have ALL your books (thousands of them) in ONE 9oz
device. Save some trees too (not that many people care anyway). Not
to mention SPACE savings - somehow you have to have place to put all
those paper books. Backing up your entire collection of favorite
books is much easier too.
Bottomline ... it is similar to what digital photography did to old
prints. Yes, we DO prints. But we have much more photos in digital
format - easier to store, share, backup, etc. Same with books.
Downside - no smell of freshly published story :)
I'm big fan of eBooks. I use old RCA REB 1100 which has backlit. Best
$80 I EVER spent. Once you get used to eBooks you never go back. Well
... may be you buy colorful books for small children but thats about
it.
gad get @ Jul 6th 2008 12:34AM
Decided it would look better in poem form?
Slkatz @ Jul 5th 2008 10:39PM
I love my kindle. Just not enough content yet. I read over 100 books a year. Ebooks are easier to handle and store.
cnycompguy @ Jul 5th 2008 10:45PM
I have muscular dystrophy and using my UMPC I can carry far more books with me, both for entertainment as well as reference works, than I ever could with paper books.
Poo-poo ebooks all you want, I'll never stop using them, I routinely carry over 2000 books with me everywhere I go.
le Chen @ Jul 5th 2008 10:47PM
i would like to a ebook
but thing is why the f*cuking ebook are same $$$$ as the paper one.
this is the sucks part.
and still it's too big
ScooterDe @ Jul 6th 2008 4:48PM
because the production costs are very similar. Aside from print costs, both digital and paper books have author advances/royalties, proofreading, editing, layout, design, marketing, retailing and distribution costs (digital having its own set of costs comparable to paper). That leaves very little margin to share with the consumer.
Just because it is distributed digitally does not make a book suddenly cheaper to produce.
Thunderbuck @ Jul 6th 2008 9:49PM
Not so much that the costs are similar, but that the major book retailers still have enough sway with the publishers that they can still demand comparable pricing.
Since it's still a new market for e-books, and nobody is yet sure how this will shake out, the book retailers don't want to go the way of the record shops.
The profit margins for e-books are actually quite handsome for the publishers.
^ @ Jul 5th 2008 10:58PM
Fugly
Darak @ Jul 5th 2008 11:00PM
eBooks in terms of novels and the like are not the way that the technology will become popular. For someone to pay several hundred dollars to get the equivalent of a 4$ item is nuts.
The prevalence of the eBook needs to start in the education sector. Textbooks are many times the size, weight, and cost of an ordinary book. Add to the fact that a student has several at a time and you've got the perfect sector for the eBook: carry multiple large items with you in one small lightweight unit.
Unfortunately, for it to become prominent, if one was going to spend several hundred on a reader, they would want the costs associated with the books to be significantly lower. Publishers could cut the material costs out of the price, but would probably have to add in some costs for digital distribution and the inevitable piracy. Furthermore, it would require them to undergo an infrastructure change from mass producing print media to some sort of mass production of digital hard copy (if that is such a thing?)
But, since eBooks aren't popular, most publishers don't provide them for textbooks, so they won't become popular. Isn't it amazing how chicken/egg always shows up in unpopular technologies?
anakin78z @ Jul 5th 2008 11:30PM
Meh. Think about how many people spend THOUSANDS on computers that do nothing but play computer games and surf the web, when really they could just buy a video game system and an uber cheap computer to do pretty much the same thing.
Ebook readers are way more convenient, and thus you pay for them. And actually, the books are cheaper (usually somewhere around 30 to 50%, I find). Not to mention that you can get a lot of books free. No, it's not going to make up for the price of the reader, but again, you pay what you get for.
I don't think textbooks would actually be that great on the current gen of e-readers... the small format and the fact that you can't flip through pages super fast could become a problem, I imagine.
But, I use this thing to read novels, so that really doesn't affect me. Novels are really the thing that these readers are best for.
Ray @ Jul 5th 2008 11:02PM
Does the ebook revolution mean that my college text books will be cheaper?
meh @ Jul 5th 2008 11:16PM
Only if you pirate them..
weg @ Jul 6th 2008 1:14PM
Springer sells eBooks, each chapter for the price of the whole book as paperback. Well, I'm just an engineer, I don't understand the clever ways of the marketing guys. I'm sure they have a greater plan how to sell these eBooks...
guyanonymous @ Jul 6th 2008 2:24PM
It could if your professors would select free, open-source textbooks.
As long as they buy into the current text-book system as it is, you're fucked.
john @ Jul 5th 2008 11:07PM
Umm, publishing is not 'his industry'. The man's an author. He's not the one with a vested interest in the means of production.
sinjinn @ Jul 6th 2008 2:35AM
maybe they were refffering to his friend . unlikely , but possible in the same way as zion was actually a program created to deal with the anomoly. think about it , neo has special powers in zion , he stops sentinals by the power o thought and can see when he is blind . so maybe zion was just another form of control and no-one actually woke up , they just moved from one program in to another.