# I hate ebook readers.



## monkeyluis (Oct 17, 2010)

http://www.standard.net/topics/books/2010/11/15/book-lover-just-says-no-kindle

Well I don't but she does. Interesting article. Same old tired arguments. Bah.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

I used to feel the same way until I bought my own ereader.  Now I love ebooks and don't read much print anymore.  In my opinion, the medium isn't what matters.  A novel can exist in a book, on an ereader, as an audio file on your MP3 player, or scribbled onto a bunch of napkins.  It's still the same novel.  The words are what count, not how they're delivered.  My $0.02.


----------



## monkeyluis (Oct 17, 2010)

Daniel Arenson said:


> In my opinion, the medium isn't what matters. A novel can exist in a book, on an ereader, as an audio file on your MP3 player, or scribbled onto a bunch of napkins. It's still the same novel. The words are what count, not how they're delivered. My $0.02.


That's exactly right. Stories use to be handed down verbally long before the printed press. I just want a good darn novel.


----------



## Mark_A_Lopez (Oct 24, 2010)

I apply the same logic to books that I've applied to music: if I love a particular book, I'll spend the extra money and buy the print version, otherwise, I prefer the digital version. I simply don't have the space to pack away books that I rarely read more than once, so owning a print copy has become more of a premium for me.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

To each his own, but she doesn't make a very strong argument.  She is saying she dislikes e-readers because she likes the weight and smell of a DTB.  The weight of books can be simulated with an e-reader by using a good case.  The smell, well, that's something an e-reader may never be able to accomplish.  I like the smell of books too, but it's not a primary deciding factor in reading a book.

At one time in the past, I used to defending buying CDs v.s. MP3s.  I used the same arguments.  "I like the feel of opening a new CD, the new CD smell, having the booklet in front of me to turn the pages, and a physical product to sit on my shelves."

I haven't bought a CD in years, and virtually my entire collection of music is on ipods or computers.


----------



## LUW (Oct 30, 2010)

I bet she doesn't have a cell. Or a netbook. And I doubt she even knows what twitter is.
Yeah, technology is evil - it ruins all pleasures in life.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

I fought the move from vinyl to CDs for several years (yes, I am old . . . 40 yrs old) but then I actually heard a CD and my arguments went out the window… well all except that there is a tonal difference that vinyl has over CD, but then they stopped making vinyl records so the argument was moot.

I have been a reader since I was able to hold a book, I love books very much. I was a collector of very rare books, first editions and limited, then I was a book scout for collectors and finely I owned and ran a small press specializing in genre fiction. Then along came my wife and two children and my priority shifted from buying and making expensive books to providing for my family. I also noticed that my books have moved to a room rarely used and I no longer got the pleasure I once did by just looking at them on the shelves, so I made the decision to do what I did with all my other media. . . went digital. 

Of course this is a very personal decision, but now for me, it’s more about the words in a book over actually buying and storing the book. Also, I am in a very technical trade (software quality professional) so I need to haul around several reference books, text books, trade magazines and of course fiction . . . so the Kindle just made sense.
There may be a day when they stop making DTBs, but that won’t be for decades to come. This is not like vinyl vs. CD, or VHS vs. DvD. But I can tell you that here where I work (Microsoft) the ratio of e-readers and people hauling around DTBs seems to be about 50%. People are more gadget minded here than in average work places but still half of us prefer paper books for whatever reason.

Some folks are traditionalist, there’s nothing wrong with that as long as they don’t cross the line and become Neo-Luddites violently espousing there doubts as to whether new computer and internet based technology really brings benefits, or the belief that we were better off before its advent . . . and so on.

Anyway, I am at the point where I usually start rambling, or maybe I’ve already started . . . so I will stop now.


----------



## ZankerH (Oct 8, 2010)

It will take a while longer to dissociate literature from wood pulp. The people who "prefer 'real' books" (whatever that means) are the same kind of people who complained about the automobile industry making buggy whips obsolete and the electronic computers making human computers obsolete. Standing in the face of progress is like standing in front of a freight train, and accomplishes just about as much.


----------



## Gingy (Oct 15, 2010)

LUW said:


> I bet she doesn't have a cell. Or a netbook. And I doubt she even knows what twitter is.
> Yeah, technology is evil - it ruins all pleasures in life.


    Well put.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

I sympathize but disagree.  When I was a teenager I loved spending the weekend at the local record shop discovering new artists.  Now I don't even know where there is a music shop.

Same with books, I love shopping the local book stores and the thought of them becoming a relic of the past is sad.  But alas, I am heavily vested in the convenience of amazon.com.  My laziness wins out over my nostalgia.


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

She's young.  One day the joys of adjustable font size will win her over too.


----------



## amafan (Aug 11, 2010)

I'm not sure that its just a matter of low tech vs. High tech preference.  Reading is a sensual experience.  It motivates the areas of the brain that respond to touch, smell and taste.  That's why the smell of a book, or the weight, or even taste (read a recipe and tell me you can't taste the spices and goodies) are so important.  Your brain is more sensitive to these things so they seem amplified from our normal non-reading experience. I agree that digital music doesn't have the same fullness as my old vinal records; its just eaier and more convienient so I end up listening to more music as a result.  Live music is the epitome, but something that isn't easy or convienient.  Most of us will eventually migrate to digital books, but it doesn't mean we won't miss the pleasure of having and holding a really good book.  

I pity the really young people that will probably never have the opportunity to leaf through an excellent book.

That being said,  I love my Kindle and it has changed the way I consume ideas.


----------



## ZankerH (Oct 8, 2010)

Reading is about receiving information. Any other experience is the result of our being conditioned to reading from processed wood pulp. "Because that's how I'm used to it" is not an argument.


----------



## SneezyCharmed (Oct 13, 2010)

I used to be her....until I saw the ad campaign for the K3 before I was persuaded I didn't like the thought of not having something physical for my money - spending Â£6 or Â£7 on something that isn't "real" however my dad sent me the link and whilst it took a couple of weeks for me to come round I will be getting one for Christmas (I keep having a peek at it and am trying to pick which case I'm getting).

With CDs though I still buy physical - I know collections can be backed up but even backups can fail - I will pay more for that safety net - with amazon they have an archive which is another thing that swayed my decision....


----------



## Gingy (Oct 15, 2010)

It took me a while to come around too. I'm a book smeller, as is my dad. 

However the reasons _for_ having one began to outweigh the reasons I was against ereaders. I had to switch. All books I was willing to part with had been purged by my home, there isn't a book store w/in a 45 minute drive, and the library's selection is poor. I'm happy with my decision.


----------



## caracara (May 23, 2010)

It's the words that matter.

I'm sure people were upset by the printing press verse hand written copies.  Eventually they were silenced.
Plus it will take awhile to do away with books, if we ever do.  Used book stores and libraries will still exists.  Plus those first addition signed copies.  I just think the majority will shift from printed to digital.

And what about children s books? Will those ever go digital?  Not just because of color but because of the whack, throw, drool factor?


----------



## artsandhistoryfan (Feb 7, 2009)

Worse than one tied to old ways and feeling they are an intrinsically superior option, is an entire message thread with the most audacious misrepresentations of what a Kindle cannot do or what Amazon will do to you if you do one little thing wrong, etc.

http://www.twopeasinabucket.com/mb.asp?cmd=display&forum_id=15&thread_id=3041992

But they have some people with good sense chiming in lately, at least!

I've not seen people making things up about the Nook but I see a lot of Nook users enjoying doing that about the Kindle. It could be that they don't do much research before going for the Nook. I know I might have bought one had I not known about what the Kindle can do. BUT the Nook has it, on the ability to access library books (if they are ever available in your library without a several months wait).


----------



## ClickNextPage (Oct 15, 2009)

Did anyone notice the writer of that blog post is "a recent graduate of Roy High School"? It's way down at the bottom.

Who cares if anyone prefers a DTB to a Kindle? That doesn't spoil our enjoyment of our Kindles, nor are the hundreds of thousands of people who prefer DTBs going to stop the growth of e-books. Technology will move forward, and some people will be left behind.

As long as they don't come to my house and try to pry my K3 out of my hands, I could not care less.


----------



## Sandra Edwards (May 10, 2010)

If she likes the experience she gets from a DTB...more power to her. Me...? I'll pass on the weightiness of the DTB, having to hold the pages open, and squinting to read that very small print. I prefer to remedy all that with my K3


----------



## brainstorm (Dec 8, 2009)

> Did anyone notice the writer of that blog post is "a recent graduate of Roy High School"? It's way down at the bottom.


I was going to stated the same thing. This is someone who still probably dots her "i" with a heart, has pink bedroom, can't complete a sentence without saying "like", "actually", or "awesome", and buys all her clothes at Old Navy.


----------



## AmberLi (Sep 15, 2010)

artsandhistoryfan said:


> Worse than one tied to old ways and feeling they are an intrinsically superior option, is an entire message thread with _*the most audacious misrepresentations *_ of what a Kindle cannot do or what Amazon will do to you if you do one little thing wrong, etc.
> 
> http://www.twopeasinabucket.com/mb.asp?cmd=display&forum_id=15&thread_id=3041992
> 
> ...


I don't see it that way at all - they may slightly misunderstand the kindle, but mostly they are commenting on their own reasons for their choices. I don't think it's nearly as much of a competition as you imagine! 

And there are tons of books available at my libraries with little to no wait - I got GWB's _Decision Points_ today, no waiting at all (though I'm sure I got lucky there!) and last week I got two other recent releases with no waiting.  (and I've only had the nook for 6 days!)


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

artsandhistoryfan said:


> I've not seen people making things up about the Nook but I see a lot of Nook users enjoying doing that about the Kindle. It could be that they don't do much research before going for the Nook. I know I might have bought one had I not known about what the Kindle can do. BUT the Nook has it, on the ability to access library books (if they are ever available in your library without a several months wait).


It may be that they're repeating what the salespeople at B&N have told them - whether it's intentional or just ignorance is anyone's guess, but there've been quite a few reports here of Kindle misinformation being passed on at nook kiosks.

And maybe I've been lucky, but I've had my nook for 3 months and I've read 6 library books on it - of course it depends on what your reading tastes are, and I'm accessing 3 different libraries (none of them local). All were "next up" in series I'm reading except "Fall of Giants", even that was only a wait of a couple of weeks.

I wish Kindle would start allow access to library books, but I do see that it makes sense not to as a business model - I have yet to spend a dime for a book from B&N - and I've been downloading freebies from them for over a year (since the iPhone app came out in the summer of 2009.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

brainstorm said:


> I was going to stated the same thing. This is someone who still probably dots her "i" with a heart, has pink bedroom, can't complete a sentence without saying "like", "actually", or "awesome", and buys all her clothes at Old Navy.


At least she didn't stoop to ad hominem attacks on Kindle readers.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

ClickNextPage said:


> Did anyone notice the writer of that blog post is "a recent graduate of Roy High School"? It's way down at the bottom.


Aw, that's cute. I wonder if she did all of her research for school papers the old fashioned way: in the library with a dozen books and encyclopedias spread out in front of her. Or if she Googled. And then wrote her paper by hand. And then typed it on a typewriter where you cannot erase a mistake.


----------



## artsandhistoryfan (Feb 7, 2009)

AmberLi said:


> I don't see it that way at all - they may slightly misunderstand the kindle, but mostly they are commenting on their own reasons for their choices. I don't think it's nearly as much of a competition as you imagine!


 I "imagine" nothing there, though you might like to opine I did. It wasn't about 'competition' as about sheer ignorance and a rushing to display it.

1. "_The big thing to *remember* is that if you want to buy books from other places, you don't really have that option with the Kindle, unless you want to run a Python script on your Kindle after you buy your books._"

[ Emphasis mine: I get so tired of the canard spoken with such authority that you can't buy books from other places.]

[ Certainly, the Sony can't take the Nook books and read them. B&N made that one-way with their choice of DRM type.]

2. "_If you read the small print, Kindle has rules about where you download books. *If you don't follow all their little rules they can delete your books.*_"

[ That is just beyond idiotic. What 'fine print' was she reading? That was made up out of thin air, almost lovingly. ]

As I said, some with good sense joined later on to add some facts (re the Kindle) to the discussion.

This is just too typical of Nook-owner 'points' though. Most of it is caused by misleading B&N advertising in their alleged comparison sheets and the other is the incredibly poor training given their in-store staff whom I've heard say, with assurance, many things in error.

If B&N didn't concentrate on erroneous info against the Kindle, it wouldn't be so bad -- others just pick it up and believe it, including their in-store staff (nice as they are otherwise).

While I have a B&N card and empathize with their current situation and I want them to survive despite store-closings in my area, I want them to get more honest in their advertising and probably in their training re what to say.


----------



## Kimble (Oct 29, 2010)

The girl who posted the "I'll never have an ereader" blog might never want to read this, but here is a link to some very interesting thinking on the nature of reading and technology and how their shared future might work.

http://timothywstanley.com/blog/the-pen-gets-mightier.html

Timothy Stanley (originally from Seattle) is a lecturer in the department of theology of the university in my city, and was coincidentally one speaker at a conference I was at today. He has a very perceptive take on the difference of the reading experience between the kindle and the iPad, on the way the kindle reverts us back to the time before the bound book and into the scroll era, and lots of other ideas worth reading.

FYI - when he refers to the 'codex' in the first para he means the bound book with pages/covers etc as we know it.


----------



## Lambert (Nov 12, 2010)

I didn't think I would like e-readers either, but I do.

I do prefer a PDF file in some cases. If I need to make notes and references than I print it on my duplex printer and make a book with my spiral binder.  Then I can easily mark off things.  Kindle is too clumsy for making and finding notes easily and quickly.

I wish there were an easy way to print Kindle books for those rare instances.

Lambert


----------



## Xopher (May 14, 2009)

So, if they can bottle up the "new car smell", all we need is someone to bottle up the "new book smell" to spray into the ereader cover.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Meemo said:


> She's young. One day the joys of adjustable font size will win her over too.


LOL!

And I can honestly say that I never once have thought about the smell of a book UNTIL I bought a Kindle and people started lamenting the absence of the smell.... Reading has ALWAYS been about the words for me... I've not bought a paper novel for my own reading since I bought my Kindle. I've bought a couple of gift books, and I've bought a couple of quilting and birding books but everything else on the Kindle.

Betsy


----------



## CoffeeCat (Sep 13, 2010)

Daniel Arenson said:


> I used to feel the same way until I bought my own ereader. Now I love ebooks and don't read much print anymore. In my opinion, the medium isn't what matters. A novel can exist in a book, on an ereader, as an audio file on your MP3 player, or scribbled onto a bunch of napkins. It's still the same novel. The words are what count, not how they're delivered. My $0.02.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## monkeyluis (Oct 17, 2010)

It's the glue that smells so good!!

I have read more in the past month than I have in the last 5 years after getting my kindle. So it is the method by which I obtain books that encourages me to read.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

monkeyluis said:


> It's the glue that smells so good!!


Have you tried sharpies? Hmm.... 

Actually, what is it about the smell? And incidentally, if you took a book out of a library - what are you smelling? It's 100 previous owners half of whom were probably picking their noses while they were reading?


----------



## monkeyluis (Oct 17, 2010)

DYB said:


> Have you tried sharpies? Hmm....
> 
> Actually, what is it about the smell? And incidentally, if you took a book out of a library - what are you smelling? It's 100 previous owners half of whom were probably picking their noses while they were reading?


Now I know why I don't go to the library. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Don’t you think it would take something calamitous to stop DTBs from being printed . . . some kind of tree plaque or something?

Unless something like that happens, I don’t believe they will ever stop printing real books. The eBook is not the death knell people think it is.

As I have said before, books in general are leisure items purchased with those of us with disposable incomes, eBook readers even more so. DTBs can be purchased relatively cheap or donated to less affluent areas of the world and passed around for generations. 

It does not have to be only one or the other; both will cohabitate for a VERY long time . . . if not indefinitely.

People who say that eBooks are the ruination of DTBs are forgetting that the rest of the world is filled to the brim with people that cannot afford an e-reader.


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

> A book is defined as "a written or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers."


I think 'usually' is the key word here!


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

Auge, my humble opinion, it isn't a matter of either/or but one of availability and maximum profits.  Printed books will probably always be available, but what we will find is the high volume retailers selling the high volume books while our local book stores (where a much wider selection is available) will start to disappear.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

KindleChickie said:


> Auge, my humble opinion, it isn't a matter of either/or but one of availability and maximum profits. Printed books will probably always be available, but what we will find is the high volume retailers selling the high volume books while our local book stores (where a much wider selection is available) will start to disappear.


Start to disappear?
All my local book stores are pretty much gone, just like local privately owned music stores.
About all we have are the Borders and B&N, unless you go into the city (Seattle).


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

I hear ya, there use to be the best local book shop in Oakland when I lived there.  Last time I was in the area I wanted to stop in and it was gone.  But it is pretty much the way things are right now at this point in time.  When I moved back to this area 10 years ago we still had one locally owned grocer.  Now there is only the large chains and they all sell the same limited stuff.  Same with our local bank.  It had a small museum of Bonnie and Clyde because it had been robbed by them then it was bought out by a large bank and all the memorabilia is gone.  Just another marbled, generic lobby.

When one of my nieces comes to visit, she always wants to go to B&N.  Where she lives, they only "book seller" is Walmart.  And we all know about their selection.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

KindleChickie said:


> When one of my nieces comes to visit, she always wants to go to B&N. Where she lives, they only "book seller" is Walmart.


It is wonderful she wants to go shop for books. It is tragic that Barnes & Noble is the "good" bookstore.


----------



## kb7uen Gene (Mar 13, 2009)

Yeah, when I hear people complain that ebooks are going to push the big book stores out of business, I just say well they pushed the Mom and Pop book stores out of business and didn't loose any sleep at all in the process of doing it.

Corporations have become the biggest cry babies of the last 10 years while at the same time putting American workers out of work by outsourcing jobs around the world so they don't have to pay a competitive rage.

Gene


----------



## MulliganAl (Nov 11, 2010)

I think of all the landfills that someday won't contain tons and tons of discarded books.  When colleges begin to use eReaders instead of hardcover text books (which always seem to change from year to year even though the information is the same), think of all those text books that won't find their way into trash bins.  I think eReaders are amazing things; and I'm not even a tree hugger.  The people I know that have a Kindle have read far more books with the Kindle than they would have read without one.


----------



## Melkor (Jul 23, 2009)

It's possible to dislike e-readers for reasons that have nothing to do with sentiment. I abandoned my Kindle 2 a long time ago because:

1. Lots and lots of books I want just aren't available in digital format. (Still waiting on Fatherland by Robert Harris. I'm pretty sure I'll be waiting forever.)
2. There are numerous typos and formatting errors in digital books, more, it seems, than in printed books
3. Black and white image reproduction is ugly, illustrations and book covers simply don't look good on an e-reader
4. On the Kindle, the available reading space is tiny. The screen is nowhere near the size of the average paperback page and valuable space is wasted by that useless keyboard.
5. It's a pain to flip through a digital book. Trying to go back to a section you read a few chapters ago, or to move forward to another section requires using the search engine or memorizing "page locations" instead of page numbers.
6. That dreary gray screen actually became depressing after awhile. It doesn't simulate paper. It's much darker.
7. Drop the thing and you might be out two-hundred bucks or so. Drop a paperback and you're fine.
8. You don't actually own the books. Even worse, they're in a proprietary format that can only be read on the Kindle.

There are other reasons but you get the drift--I don't smell books, I don't groove to the sensuous feel of paper on my fingers--but for me an actual book is a superior reading experience to the Kindle.

By the way, regarding the pejorative term "DTB": yeah, okay, books are made from paper, and paper is made from trees. But e-readers are made from plastic that will pollute the planet for centuries, maybe millennia. The term "DTB" always strikes me as smug and condescending, especially in light of the fact that plastic is something we really need to be cutting down on, not paper. (Landfills may not contain paper books in a hypothetical digital future but they'll certainly contain lots of toxic, non biodegradable plastic. Which is worse for the planet?) And also in light of the fact that e-books only represent a fraction of books that people out there read. Digital music downloading is phasing out CD's because the music still sounds perfect. But e-readers aren't yet the perfect delivery system for words, and they won't be replacing books anytime soon.


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

Melkor said:


> By the way, regarding the pejorative term "DTB": yeah, okay, books are made from paper, and paper is made from trees. But e-readers are made from plastic that will pollute the planet for centuries, maybe millennia. The term "DTB" always strikes me as smug and condescending, especially in light of the fact that plastic is something we really need to be cutting down on, not paper. (Landfills may not contain paper books in a hypothetical digital future but they'll certainly contain lots of toxic, non biodegradable plastic. Which is worse for the planet?) And also in light of the fact that e-books only represent a fraction of books that people out there read. Digital music downloading is phasing out CD's because the music still sounds perfect. But e-readers aren't yet the perfect delivery system for words, and they won't be replacing books anytime soon.


Oh please - DTB is politically incorrect now? It's simple shorthand. What term would suit your sensibilities? PB? (To me that's peanut butter, but perhaps you'd find Paper Book less offensive.) RB? (To me, the books I read on Kindle ARE real books, so I could consider that a pejorative.)
I don't have an problem with the reasons you don't like your Kindle - I don't have those issues myself but there's no point in arguing your points, the fact that I don't have those issues doesn't invalidate the fact that they're issues for you. But DTB as a pejorative? Really?
And e-readers *have*, in fact, replaced books for some of us, including me. I just don't enjoy reading a paper book now. For *me*, a Kindle book is a superior reading experience to an "actual" (paper) book.


----------



## Melkor (Jul 23, 2009)

Meemo, how can referring to all paper books as "dead tree books" not be considered pejorative? 

And I didn't say politically incorrect. Just pejorative.


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

Melkor said:


> Meemo, how can referring to all paper books as "dead tree books" not be considered pejorative?
> 
> And I didn't say politically incorrect. Just pejorative.


Well, maybe because my intent when I use it isn't pejorative - it's just a way to differentiate between a paper book and a digital one. Maybe you don't consider "actual" book, your term, as a bit of a pejorative towards e-books, as though a book read on an e-reader isn't an actual book. Perhaps you mean literally, much like a DTB is literally made of dead trees. Well, some of them.


----------



## Melkor (Jul 23, 2009)

Well if you want to get into semantics...

A book is a specific physical object. A novel is something that can be printed in a book. So is a short story or a biography. However, if a novel was serialized in a magazine, that novel wouldn't be a "book". If you read a novel that was serialized in a magazine, you couldn't properly say you had read a book. Because "book" refers as much to the delivery system as to the content. (Think about coloring books for instance. They're just pages of illustrations, they aren't stories. But they're still called books, because of the delivery mechanism.) So, yes, an actual book is exactly that--a real, *actual* book. It isn't a perjorative term as far as Kindle content is concerned (though you might perceive it that way), because a Kindle "book" isn't actually a book. There isn't a precise term for what content read on the Kindle actually is, so I just call them Kindle books or e-books, neither of which is really accurate but they'll suffice. Fans of e-readers like to call the digital content they read on their devices "books" so they therefore need a term to differentiate real books from that content. So, "DTB" was invented by someone out there who apparently can't grasp the irony of championing non bio-degradable, toxic, polluting plastic over paper. The term exists only in communities of people who read e-books. To everyone else a book is a book.

By the way, I'm not hostile to e-readers as a concept. Not at all. I'd love to have one if they ever get their act together. Give me color reproduction of covers, perfect crisp reproduction of maps and illustrations, more reading space, a lot less formatting errors, and a lot more selection of titles, and I'll eventually pick one up because they're convenient. But that day isn't here yet.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Melkor said:


> ". . . non bio-degradable, toxic, polluting plastic over paper . . ."


Your personal choice argument is valid, won't argue with that.

However, your environmental argument is ill-informed and a bit silly. What's important is *impact * not *material*. I was a publisher and I can tell you that annually hundreds of thousands of pounds of unsold books have their covers ripped off and returned to the publishers to either be recycled or land filled.

Recycling books is expensive and America usually sells them to China, after the economy fell China is buying far less recyclables from us so we either dump them in the ground or ocean.

Kindles are not supposed to be nor are the expected to be just tossed out, we send all our broken devices back to Amazon and they refurbish or recycle the parts.

This year 10% of book sells are in digital format so no need to use paper and other chemicals to manufacture them, and nothing to toss out.

I am just one e-reader user and I have nearly 150 eBooks on my device (and several hundred I got from other sources) that will never be tossed out, I have three people on my account and we share the books, so that's three people on one device (they use there iPhones) . . . so if you add all the e-readers together along with all the future e-readers we are talking about a much smaller environmental impact.


----------



## Melkor (Jul 23, 2009)

> a much smaller environmental impact


And if paper books were eventually phased out? And everyone who bought books bought an e-reader instead? After all, the argument of the e-reader crowd is that their device is superior to an actual book. If books were done away with and everyone who buys books bought an e-reader we'd have a lot more plastic then, which can never be recycled, which never biodegrades, and which in the long run is far more dangerous for the environment than paper. Trees can be, and are, replanted to replace what's taken for lumber and paper. And wasted paper biodegrades. But plastic lasts forever.

But this side-argument has nothing to do with my main point anyway. I objected to the term "DTB" because it reeks of smugness. I also pointed out the fact that people who use e-readers and then revile books because they're made of paper sound rather nonsensical since they're actually championing something made from toxic chemicals, but that was simply an aside. My actual point was that it is very possible to not like e-readers while also not being misinformed as to their capabilities (or dotting your "i" with a heart. Speaking of smugness. Geez.) I own a Kindle 2, I know exactly what it is and isn't capable of. The rest of the crop is roughly similar. Formatting is still lousy, typos abound, the displays still can't reproduce maps or illustrations or tables, too many titles still aren't available, DRM--especially Amazon's onerous scheme--is a pain in the butt. (And yes, Amazon *can* delete your e-books by the way. They've already proved they have the capability of doing it. Just because they've publicly promised not to do it again doesn't mean they suddenly can't. The writer of the article this thread references wasn't "making it up out of thin air", Amazon has already deleted someone's book in the 1984 fiasco. Whether you agree with Amazon's reasons or not is ephemeral. The fact that they *can* access your Kindle and delete a book proves that Kindle readers don't actually own a thing on their Kindles. They're renting books from Amazon.) E-readers just aren't where they need to be yet. Obviously--since 90% of people who read books haven't bothered with them yet.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Ok, I prefere arguing with facts . . . so here are some, these are documented and you should look them up:

Tech products like Kindle can reduce the overall environmental impact of industries like publishing.

Amazon has set up a recycling program to recover batteries and other potentially harmful components after Kindle loses its final spark.

If Kindle becomes the dominant mass reading media, it will have vast environmental benefits. Removing paper from the reading equation saves billions in natural resources and environmental impact. Hard copy publications consume trees and cotton fiber for paper, soybeans for ink, fuel for shipping to retailers, and more fuel for taking back overstock. Pulping and recycling unwanted hard copies means using lots of electricity and, often, chlorine bleach. Books, magazines and newspapers that aren't recycled take up landfill space. If the landfills are uncapped, they're probably leaching old petroleum-based inks into water tables, and even soy inks in enough volume can probably damage ground water.



Melkor said:


> After all, the argument of the e-reader crowd is that their device is superior to an actual book.


Most if not all of us will tell you that this is our opinion and it only is true to the indevidual.



Melkor said:


> Amazon *can* delete your e-books by the way . . . Amazon has already deleted someone's book in the 1984 fiasco.


Most if not all of us have read the fine print and are fine with this, I was one of the people that had there copy of 1984 deleted . . . calling it a fiasco is a but extreme, it was not a nuisence in the least and they offerd me the option of a new copy or $30. They had to delete the books as the publisher did not have the copyright for the book . . . so a couple days after they deleted it they gave me a legal copy, they were protecting the legal copyright owner.



Melkor said:


> Obviously--since 90% of people who read books haven't bothered with them yet.


First of all, were did you get this number? Are you making stuff up?
Sure, I agree that most readers are happy with there paper books. But the move to digital is a VERY fast one. I doubt that eBooks will make the paper book obsolete unless something catastrophic happens (some sort of tree blight).

My problem with your posts have nothing to do with your choice to not use your device. I have a problem with you spreading missinformation and not even attempting to offer support for your arguments. Spouting off opinion and made up statistics are a very poor substatute for an argumnent.

Not to mention that you have less than 10 posts, which leads me to believe that you signed up on this board just to do the above . . . trolling and trying to stir the pot.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Melkor said:


> E-readers just aren't where they need to be yet. Obviously--since 90% of people who read books haven't bothered with them yet.


*Lots of people seem just fine with ereaders.*

From teleread.com
Publishers' book sales tracked by the Association of American Publishers (AAP) for the month of September decreased by 12.1 percent on the prior year to $1.1 billion and were up by 3.8 percent for the year to date.
The children's book category showed decreases over September of last year, with Hardcover Children's/YA sales down 17.4 percent for the month with sales of $76.6 million in September, and year-to-date sales are down by 15.1 percent. Children's/YA Paperback sales decreased 1.6 percent in September with sales totaling $53.3 million; sales fell 6.8 percent for the year to date.
The Adult Hardcover category was down 40.4 percent in September with sales of $180.3 million, and sales for the year-to-date down by 8.1 percent. Adult Paperback sales decreased 15.8 percent for the month ($111.5 million) but increased by 1.5 percent for the year so far. Adult Mass Market sales decreased 23.6 percent for September with sales totaling $67.8 million; sales were down by 15.7 percent year to date.
E-book sales continue to grow, with a 158.1 percent increase over September 2009 ($39.9 million); year-to-date E-book sales are up 188.4 percent. Downloaded Audio Books also saw an increase of 73.7 percent over last year, with sales of $7.7 million this September; and the category was also up 34.1 percent year-to-date. Physical Audio Book sales decreased 42.6 percent in September with sales totaling $11.6 million; sales for the year to date are down 12.6 percent.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

Melkor said:


> And if paper books were eventually phased out? And everyone who bought books bought an e-reader instead? After all, the argument of the e-reader crowd is that their device is superior to an actual book. If books were done away with and everyone who buys books bought an e-reader we'd have a lot more plastic then, which can never be recycled, which never biodegrades, and which in the long run is far more dangerous for the environment than paper. Trees can be, and are, replanted to replace what's taken for lumber and paper. And wasted paper biodegrades. But plastic lasts forever.


Okay. I was ignoring all your rants about environmentalism that were just plain wrong until now.

The biggest environmental issue with the book industry is not the paper - its the shipping. Shipping books that much has a huge impact on the environment, and when you look at it it takes about 50-100 books to make up for the cost of the ebook reader in the lack of paper, processing, all the dyes, all the water, and everything else. I don't know if that number includes shipping because all of the places citing that never mentioned whether they include shipping. But anyone who has an ebook reader will read more than 100 books on it over the lifespan of the ebook reader, and that's what it takes to environmentally break even.

Paper is only an absolutely tiny portion of the environmental impact of books. The ebook readers won't overcome the paper, but have already overcame the overall impact, for many of us multiple times over.

There are problems with ebook readers. You mentioned yours, but being environmentally friendly is very much not it. The amount of shipping it saves is immense when you're looking at the number of books readers like us go through.

I personally use "DTB" because its the only abbreviation that reasonably talks about paper books. I find it amusing and not at all us thinking we're better. It's not that we can't be killing trees, because that's not what the statement is about, its that they're different than the ebook readers and we need a way to specify the difference between a paper book and an ebook (whether or not you want to specify that its not a "book", it doesn't change that on these forums we default to thinking about an electronic copy). We're on the internet, people like to abbreviate. And if you take this much offense to the phrase "Dead Tree Book" then I'm worried about what you think about other parts of the internet, because we're very friendly to paper book readers here and other parts of the internet aren't as friendly about things in general.

You have problems with the kindles. I personally don't find them issues. Some of them I understand some of them I don't, but really that doesn't matter because when it comes down to it its each of our opinions. You can stick with your paper books and I can stick with my kindle that has made a significant improvement in my life despite me not being someone who wants to use larger fonts. I use the smallest font available and would use smaller, but still the kindle has allowed me to read when I otherwise would not be able to be. I have issues with migraines and chronic headaches and I get light sensitive enough that I can't read paper books while I'm having a bad headache. The darker screen that you complain about is to me part of the reason I can read while I'm having a bad headache. There's also that I can trust my kindle in a waterproof case in the bath a lot more than a paperbook, and that also helps with my headaches. I've gotten many times the $360 that my kindle 2 cost personally, some of it for reasons you find problems.

But that's part of what's good about this. We can each do what is best for ourselves and not have to think that we're better than each other for it. You're not better than me for preferring paper books and I'm not better than you for preferring my kindle for fiction.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Melkor said:


> It's possible to dislike e-readers for reasons that have nothing to do with sentiment.


You are brave - or stupid - posting this on this board. It's a little bit like pointing out the issues with Harley-Davidson motorcycles while visiting a Milwaukee biker bar.  (I'll never be old enough to either golf or own a Harley.)



> 1. Lots and lots of books I want just aren't available in digital format. (Still waiting on Fatherland by Robert Harris. I'm pretty sure I'll be waiting forever.)
> 2. There are numerous typos and formatting errors in digital books, more, it seems, than in printed books


I have found that at least with Sony an email often results in the book being released as an ebook. It may take a bit, but even more obscure books often appear. The click in link to request a book in Kindle format probably has an impact.

I have found your number two to be correct. I still don't understand why this would be the case for a book published in the last five years; it must have been digital before it was printed.



> The term "DTB" always strikes me as smug and condescending,


It strikes me the same way, although I understand why others object to the phrase "real books." I use the phrase "physical books." It is descriptive only with no pejorative meaning directed at either ebooks or the paper kind. No one has objected yet.


----------



## Bigal-sa (Mar 27, 2010)

Melkor said:


> And if paper books were eventually phased out? And everyone who bought books bought an e-reader instead? After all, the argument of the e-reader crowd is that their device is superior to an actual book. If books were done away with and everyone who buys books bought an e-reader we'd have a lot more plastic then, which can never be recycled, which never biodegrades, and which in the long run is far more dangerous for the environment than paper. Trees can be, and are, replanted to replace what's taken for lumber and paper. And wasted paper biodegrades. But plastic lasts forever.


You have evidently never been in the vicinity of a paper mill.










Further, the degradation of paper depends on the type of coating on the paper. Some glossy magazines have coatings designed to make them last for a very long time...


----------



## amafan (Aug 11, 2010)

The plastics used in Kindles can be recyled and turned into new products.  Modern elctronics are surprisingly recycleable, and more companies have programs for recycling old units.  they only end up in landfills if we put them there.


----------



## monkeyluis (Oct 17, 2010)

amafan said:


> The plastics used in Kindles can be recyled and turned into new products. Modern elctronics are surprisingly recycleable, and more companies have programs for recycling old units. they only end up in landfills if we put them there.


gazelle.com is a good option for this. you can sell your electronics, or they'll take it if it is not worth anything and recycle it.


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

Bigal-sa said:


> You have evidently never been in the vicinity of a paper mill.


Frank Zappa has a song with a line in it about an aroma in Tacoma.

And, having gone to college in Tacoma, I concur. And it's caused by a paper mill. When it's foggy, you can almost taste it.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Basilius said:


> Frank Zappa has a song with a line in it about an aroma in Tacoma.
> 
> And, having gone to college in Tacoma, I concur. And it's caused by a paper mill. When it's foggy, you can almost taste it.


I live between Tacoma and Seattle . . . they have added a better filter so it's not as bad, but back in the day it was TERRIBLE ! ! !


----------



## kb7uen Gene (Mar 13, 2009)

How toxic is the process of making the various types of paper and cardboard?

Gene


----------



## unknown2cherubim (Sep 10, 2010)

First, I too find the term DTB to be pejorative. I understand that most don't use it nor mean it that way, though. Dead Tree = killed tree = non-green = bad. At least that what I think when I see the term. My guess that it certainly began as dismissive.

Second, I remember Tacoma as a youngster and it truly is much better now. Tacoma itself is better now, IMO.



auge_28 said:


> Don't you think it would take something calamitous to stop DTBs from being printed . . . some kind of tree plaque or something?
> 
> Unless something like that happens, I don't believe they will ever stop printing real books. The eBook is not the death knell people think it is.
> 
> ...


Yeah, that. There are many people without that kind of disposable income. As long as there have been books, people with disposable incomes have bought them -- others have borrowed them or picked up a used copy cheap. I already killed a thread by saying that though.

Ereaders are pretty much urban, middle-class and up right now. Same as the iPads. The technology and the content have to be more affordable yet, especially current content. Yeah you can get .99 books and free out-of-copyright but you can't get new, popular mainstream books cheap enough IMO.

_ETA: And she kills another thread ..._


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

unknown2cherubim said:


> There are many people without that kind of disposable income. As long as there have been books, people with disposable incomes have bought them -- others have borrowed them or picked up a used copy cheap. I already killed a thread by saying that though.


This is one of the great things about public libraries; public access - as long as one can get to one.

I suspect there were no responses to your earlier similar post as the group likely wants to avoid the nasty political "discussion" that often develops when disparate income levels is addressed on a forum.

Fortunately the plastic v. paper discussion has been fairly respectful, albeit a tad hysterical on both sides.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

unknown2cherubim said:


> Yeah, that. There are many people without that kind of disposable income. As long as there have been books, people with disposable incomes have bought them -- others have borrowed them or picked up a used copy cheap. I already killed a thread by saying that though.
> 
> Ereaders are pretty much urban, middle-class and up right now. Same as the iPads. The technology and the content have to be more affordable yet, especially current content. Yeah you can get .99 books and free out-of-copyright but you can't get new, popular mainstream books cheap enough IMO.


The key word is *right now*, though. Eventually libraries will lend out ereaders, low income people will be given them through schools or reading programs, etc.


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

s0nicfreak said:


> The key word is *right now*, though. Eventually libraries will lend out ereaders, low income people will be given them through schools or reading programs, etc.


My husband and I are taking our Kindles, my nook and his iPad to a "Tech Petting Zoo" at a local library in a couple of weeks. I was picking up an account number to access library books with the nook, the librarian showed me the one they'd just picked up and after some discussion I told her that as long as we weren't with my daughter in the hospital awaiting our grandson's birth, we'd be there.

Paper books aren't going anywhere for a while, but I think the time has come - digital books are here to stay, even though there's room for improvement.


----------



## Stormy (May 24, 2010)

Honestly the only problem I've had with ebook formatting has been with books I've gotten in other formats and converted to be be read on my kindle and even that is minimal and can be prevented by the format it is in to start with. I will admit though I have yet to read any of the out of copyright public domain books and might find this more when I do.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I've written before about my decision not to use DTB or Dead Tree Book, instead referring to them as print books. I don't mind or take it as deliberately rude when others use the term though. Just a personal decision. 

Best way to recycle a reader is donating it to the troops -- or someone else in need.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

My Kindle has opened up a whole new world of Indy authors.  There are so many guys and gals I would have never known about or had access BK (before Kindle, sorta like AD after death  ).

And searching books?  Fantastic!  If I pick up a novel and cant recall who a character is, all I have to do is type it in the search and I am taken back to their first appearance.  With a paper book, I could be searching for several minutes to find them.

And the blogs?  Loooove them!! Cant say enough good things about them.  They are my quick pick me ups during the day.  I am an information gather by nature and they feed my disfunction.

Lastly, they have saved many a Sunday outfit from having to go to the cleaners due to dirty newspapers.  

But to each their own, I guess.  People hate for whatever personal issue they have in their lives.


----------



## Stormy (May 24, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> I've written before about my decision not to use DTB or Dead Tree Book, instead referring to them as print books. I don't mind or take it as deliberately rude when others use the term though. Just a personal decision.
> 
> Best way to recycle a reader is donating it to the troops -- or someone else in need.


I never thought of donating to the troops. Once everyone in my family has a kindle so we are actually getting rid of them instead of just handing them down that's definatly what I will be doing. My father in law has had 2 tours in Iraq and I am sure that would have made his reading experience much more enjoyable.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Stormy said:


> I never thought of donating to the troops. Once everyone in my family has a kindle so we are actually getting rid of them instead of just handing them down that's definatly what I will be doing. My father in law has had 2 tours in Iraq and I am sure that would have made his reading experience much more enjoyable.


http://ebooksfortroops.org/donate-a-kindle/

I know a few people here have done it. I was initially going to sell my K2 to a friend, but the silly thing bought a Nook, and so I did this instead.


----------

