The Future of The Written Word

Kinski wrote: »

They deleted illegal editions of 1984 which some customers had purchased. The people who produced that edition had no right to do so.

Though it is a bit like Fahrenheit 451: If Amazon discovers that you were unfortunate enough to buy an illegitimate e-edition of a text, they send a gleaming red firetruck round to your house, and the firemen then bust through your front door, snatch your Kindle and melt it with a flamethrower.

I think that Amazon have since said that they will never do that again.

Kinski wrote: »

[OT: I'd cite the post quoted above as yet another example of why that eye-rolling emoticon should be banned from Boards forever. I hate that damn eye-rolling thing

Adblock is the way to go; I've specifically blocked that image and it makes boards a much better place to read.

Nody

Eoin wrote: »

I think that Amazon have since said that they will never do that again.

And what would stop an legal requirement for them to stop a certain book? Court decision, president edict or what ever else? If it is printed then you keep a copy; e-version? Sorry, deleted of your eReader next time you connect.

syklops

Nody wrote: »

And what would stop an legal requirement for them to stop a certain book? Court decision, president edict or what ever else? If it is printed then you keep a copy; e-version? Sorry, deleted of your eReader next time you connect.

This is where your backup solution comes in to play

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

And yeah, I should have known that they wouldn't be detrimental to eyesight as I read recently that South Korea have plans to get rid of paper books altogether in their education system; by the year 2015 all books will be in the form of e-books! They'd hardly do that if they thought it would damage their childrens' eyes.

Not necessarily. The article you quote states that they are expecting the students to read the ebooks on tablets and computer screens, as well as (presumably) dedicated eReading devices. I foresee eyesight issues and eye strain down the line for some South Korean kids.

I don't know if they've managed to fix it, but there was an annoying glare off the touch screen sony eReaders which I didn't like, I think because they needed two screens to make it touch-compatible. The screens on the normal non-touch screens are just like a book, in my opinion, and don't hurt my eyes in the same way that this very computer does. However, the black blurb that happens when you 'turn' the page on an eReader (again, not sure if this is still the case) annoyed me when reading from a display unit.

DjFlin

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Not necessarily. The article you quote states that they are expecting the students to read the ebooks on tablets and computer screens, as well as (presumably) dedicated eReading devices. I foresee eyesight issues and eye strain down the line for some South Korean kids.

I don't know if they've managed to fix it, but there was an annoying glare off the touch screen sony eReaders which I didn't like, I think because they needed two screens to make it touch-compatible. The screens on the normal non-touch screens are just like a book, in my opinion, and don't hurt my eyes in the same way that this very computer does. However, the black blurb that happens when you 'turn' the page on an eReader (again, not sure if this is still the case) annoyed me when reading from a display unit.

I think if eReaders are to ever become the norm, people need to stop trying to implement touch screens into them. The Kindles buttons do the job fine. Touch Screens drive up prices, and drive down readability and battery life.

syklops

DjFlin wrote: »

I think if eReaders are to ever become the norm, people need to stop trying to implement touch screens into them. The Kindles buttons do the job fine. Touch Screens drive up prices, and drive down readability and battery life.

And stop making them mult-purpose devices. Even the addition of the music player which most have is unnecessary. Its an ebook reader. Its for reading. If you want to play Angry birds or check facebook, you need a tablet which is a very different device.

DjFlin wrote: »

I think if eReaders are to ever become the norm, people need to stop trying to implement touch screens into them. The Kindles buttons do the job fine. Touch Screens drive up prices, and drive down readability and battery life.

Driving up prices probably sounds pretty good to the companies manufacturing the devices. Constant running-down of battery life will probably mean you'll have to replace/repair the device quicker, so that'll be an added bonus for the company right there.

Kinski

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Driving up prices probably sounds pretty good to the companies manufacturing the devices. Constant running-down of battery life will probably mean you'll have to replace/repair the device quicker, so that'll be an added bonus for the company right there.

Not if there's a rival company producing a better alternative device.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ixoy

I know Amazon got some bad press over an incident with '1984' but that was unusual circumstances. There's been cases where a third party has illegally sold a book through Amazon who have then had to pull it.

It's not all bad though - recently they accidentally released the e-book edition of Neal Stephenson's "Reamde" a month early. I bought it in time. It's been pulled since but a nice slip of a database that worked in my favour

I read an interesting book called "The Shallows" by Nicholas Carr recently, (on real paper though! ).

Did reading it on "real paper" somehow make the story of better quality than if it were on an e-Reader? Did it change the words, add new secret content? Or was it actually the same story as people would read in an eBook edition?

Kinski wrote: »

Not if there's a rival company producing a better alternative device.

Yeah, but the rival companies often struggle to get a look in when up against the might of the big companies with really strong brand name. I know it happens sometimes but when I was working in a bookshop, people would bypass the cheaper, 'no-name' model of eReader for the big name brand nearly every time, despite them having exactly the same technology and in some cases (battery life and price) being far better value.

ixoy wrote: »

I know Amazon got some bad press over an incident with '1984' but that was unusual circumstances. There's been cases where a third party has illegally sold a book through Amazon who have then had to pull it.

I think Amazon get bad press for good reasons, normally. In addition to this, they're a huge company who are slowly gobbling up their competitors, which won't be good for price.

ixoy

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I know it happens sometimes, and I hope it happens in this case, but when I was working in a bookshop, people would bypass the cheaper, 'no-name' model of eReader for the big name brand nearly every time, despite them having exactly the same technology and in some cases (battery life and price) being far better value.

Isn't it also a case though that something like the Kindle has access to a huge library of books that other readers can't get to? Not everyone wants to read books from Project Guttenberg and most of the bigger sites use propriety formats. I know this helps create a monopoly but it's also quite probably the reasoning for picking that product

I think Amazon get bad press for good reasons, normally. In addition to this, they're a huge company who are slowly gobbling up their competitors, which won't be good for price.

Possibly - I think them investing in something like bookdepository is, despite their denials to the contrary, not good for consumers. They were right to withdraw "1984" from sale but wrong to withdraw it from customer's devices. Of all titles for them to withdraw, they did seem to chose one of the most ironic.

ixoy wrote: »

Isn't it also a case though that something like the Kindle has access to a huge library of books that other readers can't get to? Not everyone wants to read books from Project Guttenberg and most of the bigger sites use propriety formats. I know this helps create a monopoly but it's also quite probably the reasoning for picking that product

Yeah, I agree, and the Kindle seems like one of the best on the market (never actually seen one, though, as obviously in the bookshop I worked, we didn't sell Kindles) but I really don't like the idea of throwing in your lot with one company. I have heard that Amazon are a little better recently in terms of getting non-Amazon books on their device, which has to be good news.

ixoy wrote: »

Possibly - I think them investing in something like bookdepository is, despite their denials to the contrary, not good for consumers. They were right to withdraw "1984" from sale but wrong to withdraw it from customer's devices. Of all titles for them to withdraw, they did seem to chose one of the most ironic.

I was uneasy with Amazon owning abebooks, but them buying bookdepository was the final straw for me.

The stuff about 1984 was hilarious when it happened. I'm sure the people in Amazon who authorised what happened hadn't heard the book. If they had, there was no reason they'd have risked the inevitable bad publicity.

"They deleted illegal editions of 1984" that is precisely my point! there are many things which can be deemed illegal in different social or political climes (as they have been in the past) only in the future , if you are are a dissenter or a radical or whatever the state deems illegal, you are pretty much an open book (pardon the pun) when it comes to your reading materials. :eek:

DuPLeX wrote:

if you are are a dissenter or a radical or whatever the state deems illegal, you are pretty much an open book (pardon the pun) when it comes to your reading materials.

As you would be if you ordered a print version of the book online, or even googled whatever material you're looking for.

My eBook software does not allow files to be deleted by a 3rd party, so this is a complete and utter non-issue for me (aside from Amazon stating that they will not do this again).

In my mind, these are all no more than teething issues that will be overcome.

KnifeWRENCH wrote:

Well ok, that was just an assumption on my part. I haven't really looked into eReaders that much because I never had any interest in getting one, so I'm fully open to correction on any mistaken assumptions I may have about them.

It really feels completely different. I need glasses for using a computer screen, but not an eReader. eInk requires a far lower refresh rate, which is much easier on the eyes. I've read my eReader for hours on end without any problem. I tried it for about 40 minutes on my tablet, but couldn't do it - even on the lowest brightness setting. There's really no comparison.

Eoin wrote: »

As you would be if you ordered a print version of the book online, or even googled whatever material you're looking for.

I usually buy them in bookshops or borrow them from friends ,so I "wouldn't" be.
As for Amazon, I'm sure they wont do this again until they find it necessary to do so

OK, so you wouldn't be then. Anyone else who buys anything online would be, so I still don't think it's a very relevant point to make.

Kinski

DuPLeX wrote: »

"They deleted illegal editions of 1984" that is precisely my point! there are many things which can be deemed illegal in different social or political climes (as they have been in the past) only in the future , if you are are a dissenter or a radical or whatever the state deems illegal, you are pretty much an open book (pardon the pun) when it comes to your reading materials. :eek:

If I wake up one day and find myself living in a Foucauldian panopticist dystopia, I think I'm going to have much bigger things on my mind than "Oh no! Amazon can delete titles stored on my Kindle account! What will I do?!!"

Kinski wrote: »

If I wake up one day and find myself living in a Foucauldian panopticist dystopia, I think I'm going to have much bigger things on my mind than "Oh no! Amazon can delete titles stored on my Kindle account! What will I do?!!"

From what I've read from you here, I doubt very much that you will ! (impressive use of big words though

) .

Eoin wrote: »

OK, so you wouldn't be then. Anyone else who buys anything online would be, so I still don't think it's a very relevant point to make.

I thought we were discussing E readers not online shopping.
and my comment was about "connected" readers.
I am not a Luddite and I have a good comprehension of the technologies and their advantages.
My point was simply that every time a piece of technology gives you something, it also takes a little something away.
I am simply saying be mindful of the price.
Now you may not think it relevant, but I do .

DuPLeX wrote: »

I thought we were discussing E readers not online shopping.
and my comment was about "connected" readers.

You said: "if you are are a dissenter or a radical or whatever the state deems illegal, you are pretty much an open book (pardon the pun) when it comes to your reading materials."

I can't see how that's specific to connected eReaders, let alone eReaders at all. It just sounds like one should be careful about doing any sort of online interaction if you're worried about your reading materials landing you in Gitmo.

This is a really silly debate.