Comments on: Free e-book reader from Ray Kurzweil to offer text to speech and handle ePub, PDF, other formats: November U.S. launch

By: Jim Lester

Jim Lester — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:40:14 +0000

I had written a lengthy response, but I’ll let it rest since this is getting off topic of a really good industry trend, which is the development of eReaders targeted for people with needs that the current eReaders don’t address, regardless of the environmental impact.

(Now if David or Paul want to start up new article on eReader vs P, as opposed just e vs P which is covered here: http://www.teleread.com/2009/09/28/ebooks-save-millions-of-trees/ or here:
http://www.teleread.com/2008/08/31/books-vs-eebooks-which-are-greener/ then I’m more than game to continue the discussion )

By: Canada Guy

Canada Guy — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:58:30 +0000

Jim, we can’t know the future for sure, but for everyone to start using ereaders, that would require a massive use of resources to build a billion ereaders (yes, I know, it would not happen all at once.) We already know (and I pointed out) several ways to decrease the waste and inefficiencies in book publishing.

Also, would you disagree with my argument that books use a sustainable resource (especially if we get rid of the wastefulness), whereas ereaders don’t? What happens were certain metals becore too rare or expensive? What about oil?

By: Jim Lester

Jim Lester — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:26:00 +0000

Ahh, I missed the link the first time. However my original point still stands. While you have pointed out potential weaknesses in the quoted study (checking beyond just carbon emissions), you haven’t come up with any quantifiable data to evaluate your claim that p is better than e for the environment, so I have no reason to believe your statement.

By: Canada Guy

Canada Guy — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:56:29 +0000

Jim, I actually linked to that study in my article and commented on it.

By: Jim Lester

Jim Lester — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:40:57 +0000

@Canada Guy. When actual studies have been done, eReaders come out as being more environmentally friendly.
For example CleanTech:

http://cleantech.com/news/4867/cleantech-group-finds-positive-envi

claims that eReaders (Amazon Kindle in this case) have
“significant environmental advantages compared to the publishing of books, magazines and newspapers”.

I tend to believe people that have actually tried to measure things, over someone just posting his opinion on his blog

By: Canada Guy

Canada Guy — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:29:48 +0000

Reading ebooks on a computer is great, but before bying an ereader, please consider that paper books are more sustainable and better for the environment:

http://selfdestructivebastards.blogspot.com/2009/10/ebooks-versus-paper.html

By: Brad Vertrees

Brad Vertrees — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:18:23 +0000

Good for Kurzweil and the blind-advocacy organization. I’ve read Kurzweil’s book about the ‘singularity’ where humans and technology will merge. Very interesting stuff. So it makes a lot of sense he’s interested in digital reading.

I wonder what the ADA would have to say about publishers who deny use of TTS. Has a complaint ever been filed with them?