Yesterday’s Boston Globe looks at the current generation of eBook readers. Now the e-book may have a second shot. Sony has shown geeks its forthcoming Reader , which looks a lot like the old SoftBook but supposedly uses improved, Reader-friendly “e-ink,” developed by Cambridge’s E Ink Corp . In a grandiose public relations flourish, e-book e-vangelists Project Gutenberg and World eBook Fair plan to “publish,” or make available for download, 300,000 free e-books starting July 4.
Flannery calls herself “a big fan of the printed book” who now does more “reading” of audio books on her iPod than between hard covers. “I am part of a transitional generation,” she says. What about digital books? “I would think the reference collections would be target number one for being replaced by electronic sources. We are prepared to reduce their shelf space accordingly.”
Second chance? Maybe tenth chance
Actually a pretty good article. I particularly liked the exchange with Michael Hart: Exclaim over the success of a phenomenon, but offer no evidence to actually quantify that success.
But the Sony reader isn’t the second chance for ebooks; they’ve been surefire successes in the next couple of years for at least 15 years now…
cjovalle
I also remain skeptical about the mass appeal of E-readers, but I actually do like the E-ink technology. I’ve been using an imported Sony Librie for a bit now, which uses that same technology, and it’s been a fairly decent experience. Page turning is a bit slower than I’d like, but I don’t have other complaints about the actual reading experience. I haven’t bought any of their crushing DRM, but I have downloaded books from Project Gutenberg and a few other places. That being said, when I had both a paper copy and an electronic copy of the same book available, I read the paper copy. ^_-
Re:Second chance? Maybe tenth chance
http://www.ereader.com/ is a site that does nothing but sell boks for people to read on their Palm. Site has been around for years. They must have enough people to stay in business. They aren’t just offering Gutenberg books but all kinds of bestsellers and other current books.
Re:Second chance? Maybe tenth chance
It’s not that there is no ebook business; there is. It’s that it’s so small…and that dedicated ebook readers have so far been busts. (How small? The international organization devoted to ebooks says less than $13 million worldwide last year; the AAP, which must use a different definition, says about $170 million U.S. last year. Either one is considerably less than 1% of U.S. book sales. But even $12 million is enough to support several small web-based businesses.)
Re:Second chance? Maybe tenth chance
You said Either one is considerably less than 1% of U.S. book sales. But even $12 million is enough to support several small web-based businesses.
Which is why I think that this line in the article is such a cheap shot:
“You wouldn’t believe how many people read books on their PDAs [personal digital assistants],” says Gutenberg founder Michael Hart. OK, how many? He has no idea.
Hart was pointing out that even with the limits of a small small screen there are a whole group of people that are willing to read on the small small screen because it works for them. If they always have their PDA with them then they always have a book with them. People find themselves in a waiting room or in a line and they have their cell hpone or PDA and they are able to work on a book intead of just staring at the ceiling. I estimate that at least 30,000 people use PDAs or cell phones to read. Nothing compared to people using paper books but enough that Hart should not be getting grief from the author of the article. I personally have downloaded and read a Gutenberg text on my PDA and I know several others that have done the same. Just because Hart doesn’t know the exact number doesn’t change the inherent truth of his statement `You wouldn’t believe how many people read books on their PDAs [personal digital assistants],” It ain’t ten people reading on their PDA it is like 30,000 to 50,000 or more.
Walt, I don’t really disagree with anything you said except that I think that the on line in the article was a cheap shot and not a good point.
Re:Second chance? Maybe tenth chance
I’d have to say that anyone who’s dealt with Michael Hart’s ego and sense of numbers might be awfully tempted to take such a cheap shot. What amazed me was that Hart didn’t just pull a number out of his hat. (You may have missed the days of Hart as “Dr. Internet,” where his “facts” were so bad that Tom Dowling started a series of corrections.) Sorry, but when it comes to Hart I have precious little sympathy to offer.
Re:Second chance? Maybe tenth chance
Walt
I agree that Hart can be a dork. This article is one that convinced me of that fact. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.10/lessig_pr .html
Hart had a chance to be part of the lawsuit to try and defeat the copyright extension but he refused because of his ego.
From the article mentioned above:
On why Hart was not used as one of the parties for the lawsuit:
The obvious choice was Michael Hart, founder of the Project Gutenberg. For years, Hart had been posting text files of public-domain books on the Internet; his online library was approaching 6,000 titles. When Lessig and his colleagues flew to Hart’s hometown of Urbana, Illinois, to explain the case, though, Hart was adamant that the Berkman team’s briefs integrate his manifestos attacking the greed of copyright holders. Anything less, he felt, would make him a mere “figurehead.” Lessig wouldn’t compromise: “Our view was that populist appeals are great, but you’ve got to frame a constitutional argument.” Finally, Hart said, “Enough — you can’t use my name.”
So I agree about Hart; but a cheap shot is a cheap shot. Especially when not only is the cheap shot directed at Hart but at reading on a small screen.
Re:Second chance? Maybe tenth chance
I don’t disagree. A cheap shot is a cheap shot.