Hacker News Reader

Comment by ilamont | Hacker News Reader

Amazon’s Kindle and other methods of online reading have revolutionized how Americans consume text. Fifteen years ago, people typically owned the books and magazines they were reading. Much less so now.

The statements about books are not accurate. Ebook sales are still just a fraction of print sales in many genres - NPD data indicates ebooks are less than 20% of total unit sales for nonfiction, children, and young adult titles (self-published ebooks excluded). Total ebook unit sales were 162 million in 2017 from the 450 publishers tracked by NPD, down from 180 million units in 2016.

Source: Publishers Weekly, "Ebook sales fell 10% in 2017" https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content...

View on HN

Anecdotal, but every reader I know (including me) flirted with ebooks and then switched back to paper.

For me, it’s less strain on my eyes, it always works even without electricity, I can lend it out to friends easily, and I like to expand the aesthetic of my bookshelf. I’m also more likely to reread all or part of a physical book. Ebooks are simply inferior.

As long as it's mostly just flowing text, I much prefer ebooks. A lot of my long form reading happens when I travel and a tablet or a Kindle Paperwhite works much better than a book in poorly-lit planes or hotel rooms.

Sure, there's an aesthetic to certain books but that doesn't apply to the random paperback or even popular hardcover novel. And I appreciate the decrease in clutter. I recently donated a bunch of older "classic" paperbacks that are works I can download for free or near-free anytime I want.

Counter-anecdata: I have purchased and read far more ebooks than I have paper books in the last decade. I currently use a Kindle Paperwhite at a somewhat large type size which has completely relieved my eye strain.

Also after having moved my books between four apartments and our current house, the next time we move I’m prepared to just toss the lot of them.

Opposite for me (for fiction). I started reading ebooks with the original Kindle keyboard and never looked back. I always felt that books were cluttering everything up (I read 20-60 per year), I enjoy not having my arms hurt from holding books in an awkward position and I feel that the eInk display is just as good as books, but it's better for reading in some light conditions.

I still buy books once in a while, but those are either non-fiction or I want them for the pictures (e.g. a book by Brom whom I knew through his art on MtG cards)

Same here - I tend toward military sci-fi (most of it is very bad) and so disposability is key to not building up a huge collection of junk. The few physical books I own now are tabletop RPG manuals, because they are needed as reference during games when batteries running down would be inconvenient.

Certain reference manuals (The O'Reilly Zoo, for example) are more useful as physical books, as well.

Besides, if I got hit by a bus tomorrow (not planning on it today), it's not there's anyone to inherit my stuff.

> Same here - I tend toward military sci-fi (most of it is very bad)

As a reader of many many Kindle unlimited military sci-fi books I sympathize and recommend the "Nameless War" ( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12356877-the-nameless-wa... ) trilogy as the rose in the manure of books I have read of this genre in the last few years.

There are occasional spelling mistakes etc but the story itself is fantastic and the military scenario believable.

I'm of the opposite opinion. While I enjoy the look and feel of a book, I'm tired of carrying them around when I travel and moving them when I, well, move. Best of all I can sit on my couch, wine glass in hand, and seconds after reading a book review in the Times I've got that very book in my hands.

I personally try to read all of my books on Kindle. I take a lot of notes and highlights in my books, and with Kindle I can export those and keep them forever (and also have it be searchable), whereas a book it takes up a ton of space and is much less accessible.

Ebooks solve specific problems that paper simply cannot, the biggest being that you can carry an entire library in a package smaller than a typical paper book. Beyond that, ebooks can be acquired immediately, and many vendors allow you to sample the book prior to reading.

All that said, I've also returned to paper for essentially anything I anticipate wanting to take more than a few notes in, or really referring back to at all.

Adding to my prior comment - I agree that the actual experience of reading a paper book hasn't been matched too closely by ebooks (yet, to be fair). However, there are two things that ebooks do wildly improve - long books are not any heavier, and footnotes/endnotes are just way, way more consumable on a Kindle than a physical book.

I've returned to paper because they're mostly priced chepaer than the ebook equivalent

I read all my books on kindle normally, with the exception of textbooks and things that are more dense or books that require large paper sizes.

Ebooks are easier to carry.

You can use one to take your entire library on vacation instead of just a few books.

Some of them have lights built in for reading in dark environments.

They're much easier to use one-handed than most paper books.

Some of them are waterproof and will survive being dropped in the bathtub better than a paper book.

You can change the font and text size to suit your preferences.

You can instantly download a new book when you want to read it instead of waiting for it to arrive in the mail or going to a bookstore or library.

They are not "simply inferior" as you put it, even if you happen to prefer paper books.

There are many things I like about Ebooks, but until I can lend it to a friend or sell it when I'm done with it, I'm done with them.

I can buy a used (and sometimes new) paper copy cheaper than an Ebook and when I'm done I can decided if I want to keep it sell it or give it away.

Ebooks have too many advantages that I can't give them up. For example, I can make the text as large as I need and for many of us, that's a killer feature.

I am sympathetic to the argument against DRM though. It seems criminal that I can't leave my ebook collection to somebody after I die.

> It seems criminal that I can't leave my ebook collection to somebody after I die.

It's a bummer for sure, but this is probably overkill. I think the main issue is that the price doesn't necessarily reflect this limitation. For many books, it probably wouldn't affect people's willingness to pay that much, but for books that they'd like to be able to give away or bequeath, it could matter a bit.

>It seems criminal that I can't leave my ebook collection to somebody after I die.

Technically, you could, but doing that would be.... criminal.

You can lend many Kindle books (source: I do it semi-regularly). Many public libraries also offer ebooks.

Your point about paper copies often being cheaper is definitely true, and for books I plan to re-read, refer to, etc., I now default to this. But one of the reasons I like my Kindle is that I can take an entire library with me on a month long trip, change my mind about what I want to read, buy a new book if it comes out while I'm gone, and sample things I'd otherwise need to go into a bookstore to find.

My reading-related startup is in the middle of conducting a poll on ebook usage.

So far, the data is showing that most people still prefer reading on paper versus on screen, by a decent margin (only 14% prefer screen). However, people still read more ebooks than paper books, likely due to the convenience factor. This can be squared with the NPD data because library ebooks are included in our poll, not just purchased ebooks.

I've been surprised at what small percentage of people use a monochrome Kindle (less than 25%), and the lack of a dominant platform (Amazon — 35%, OverDrive — 19%, Apple — 11%, Nook — 8%, Other — 27%). I guess it's good for consumers that there isn't one big leader here.

Doubt you would have this data but in case you do...

I wonder what the numbers are for people who read books to completion on ebook or paper formats. Or how far into the different formats people choose to read.

I know that most of the time when I read any ebooks, I end up never finishing the book. When it's paper, I usually finish the book.

I think it's mainly because with a paper book it's harder to get distracted than when I'm looking at ebooks. If it's a topic I'm studying, or need / really want to know then I'll get the paper version.

I had the exact same thought. I might add this question in, or add it to a later survey (we're doing a bunch of surveys on paper versus screen for ebooks, news, PDFs, etc.).

I have the same behavior pattern you mentioned, though it's hard to know whether this is strictly a bad thing. If word-search-ability means I can get all the relevant stuff out of a book, then perhaps that's more efficient than reading the whole thing.

Let's assume ebooks are 20% (I know that's the upper bound you're positing, but let's start with that). If my salary were reduced by 20%, I would definitely say that I was making "much less". Would I say the same if my salary were reduced by, say, 10% rather than 20%? Maybe, maybe not, but I doubt I'd go so far as to say that characterization was simply "not accurate".

I think it's fair to say that eBooks haven't revolutionized the way the majority of people read books to anything like the degree that was expected (or has happened with music and video).

While ebooks are somewhat similar to the shift to streaming in music and video, the actual experience of watching a streamed show or listening to streamed music is essentially the same as it was when you owned a movie on DVD/VHS or had an album/CD (Play-Stop-Pause-Rewind-Fast Forward). It's the discovery process that's been revolutionized). With an ebook, the experience is fundamentally different - the concept of "pages" essentially disappears or is redefined substantially, the physical act of reading is different, and the relative standardization of displays and ability of the user to customize fonts and sizes limits some of the options available to physical books (that said, ebooks have wildly improved the footnote experience). I imagine that this is a big reason the ebooks haven't taken off in the same way.

As an example - while my grandfather may have a bit of trouble figuring out how to get started on Netflix, once he's chosen something to watch, he won't really notice a difference from when he watched things on VHS in terms of how to navigate. The same is not true for giving him a book on a Kindle.

>ebooks have wildly improved the footnote experience

I actually disagree with that one--at least for certain types of footnotes. When I was an IT industry analyst I got into the habit of using footnotes at the bottom of the page to provide parenthetical detail, substantiation, caveats, etc. that I thought might be useful but which would break up the flow of the writing. On the page, this works well because you can just glance down. On an ereader, it's often more distracting than just putting it inline would be.

For just references that you'll only sometimes want to look at, it's fine but for the way I often use them, I liked the old way better.

I mostly agree with your broader point. The fact that used books are often cheaper and you can't typically lend your ebook when you're done probably also contribute.

Probably true about types of footnotes. If it's just citing sources, doesn't improve. But if the footnotes add additional detail, I find it much better. More than anything, it improves the endnote experience.

I know that I have started to borrow more ebooks rather than buying now that my Kindle is finally compatible. Also prices on a lot of books are kind of high compared to new paper books, like a lot of times the price difference is $1-2. For things that I can wait on, I've switched back to buying used books and waiting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com