More on TechnologyTell: Gadget News | Apple News
Smartphones popular for e-book reading, NY Times says
November 18, 2009 | 4:29 pm
|
By Chris Meadows
There are some articles whose subject matter is far from new, but which are still interesting because they show more people are taking notice. One of these is the piece the New York Times is currently running on the popularity of reading e-books on smartphones.
We’ve known for a long time that a lot more people read e-books on multi-purpose than dedicated devices—they’re cheaper, they do more, they’re easier to pocket.
And more people have them. It is estimated 1.7 million people own a dedicated e-reader, and that number may rise to 4 million by the end of the holidays. But Apple has sold over 50 million iPhones and iPod Touches.
“The iPod Touch is always at hand,” Shannon Stacey, who has written several romance e-novels, said. “It’s my calendar, it’s my everything, so my books are always with me.” Ms. Stacey, who also owns an early Sony Reader model, said she had now bought twice as many e-books for her iPod Touch as for her Sony.
But others are still dubious:
“The Kindle is for people who love to read,” [Ian Freed, vice president for the Kindle division at Amazon] said. “People use phones for lots of things. Most often they use them to make phone calls. Second most often, they use them to send text messages or e-mail. Way down on the list, there’s reading.”
Of course, we know that people who read e-books have been in love with their small screens for more than ten years. E-books were one of the first big “killer app” uses for the Palm, and e-book vendors eReader and Fictionwise have been in business ever since.
Some have even gone so far as to predict “the end of single-purpose devices,” but that is probably still premature.
|
Previous
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
Comments:
That second quote is hilarious to me as for me… well I carry a cell phone for the cases where it’s absolutely needed. I carry an iPhone because I actually WANT a good PDA-like device on hand at all times. I do NOT want both a cell phone and PDA separately.
Frankly my “phone” is used for phone calls less than any other task I ever use it for. Period. And hours be counted, I read on it more than I game even, and that’s saying something because I’m not a big reader but I am a big gamer.
Fact is, to me this is a portable computer, and reading text on it seems quite naturally an expected fit. To think people won’t use these devices for electronic reading is quite ignorant indeed. I guarantee people are buying iphones and other smartphones for one huge reason: READING THINGS. Maybe not books? I don’t care. People read web pages, facebook updates, tweets, news articles, email, etc. Reading is clearly the point. If they really aren’t reading eBooks then that’s because they don’t read books or at least don’t read them electronically. That’s, imho, a failing of the eBook marketers. You’re an idiot to push eBooks and not try to include every possible venue that anyone might wish to tolerate.
Frustrating! I shouldn’t let myself get so worked up over idiotic statements.
Ian Freed is talking out of his proverbial. I am reading a book a week on my iphone and have no intention of buying a dedicated device. I suspect I am one of a large group. The Lucy Knisley comic strip linked in a post lower down perfectly expresses my reading experience.
Freed, like so many people at Amazon and so many of their customers, speak as if e-books were invented when the Kindle came out. Those of us who have been reading on PDAs for the past decade know better. And those in places like Japan, where they read on phones in larger numbers than any e-book readers in the U.S., also know better.
If Freed likes the Kindle, fine. But he needs to stop thinking he speaks for the rest of the world… he certainly does not.
Yes, if one thing came out loud and clear from that Rich and Stone piece in the Times it is what some said above in comments: people have been reading on apps for much longer than when the Kindle came out as a dedicated reader, and as Steve says: “Freed, like so many people at Amazon and so many of their customers, speak as if e-books were invented when the Kindle came out. Those of us who have been reading on PDAs for the past decade know better.”
It turns out that the apps might be what people end up reading on screens in the future, after the Kindles and nooks and SONY Readers fade away. The reporters never came out and said this, but if you read between the lines, it does appear that the apps have it.
As Whisky above said too: “I am reading a book a week on my iphone and have no intention of buying a dedicated device.”
this is key here: “We’ve known for a long time that a lot more people read e-books on multi-purpose than dedicated devices—they’re cheaper, they do more, they’re easier to pocket.”
Still, for the life of me (not that I’ve got that much left now, but it’s still better than the alternative; thanks you Mr Stent!), for the life of me, I wanted to tell Motoko and Brad, the photo in the Times with their article of the Dad reading to his little girl: THAT is not “READING”. We need a new word for this kind of screen-reading, not a prioro to say it is better or worse than real reading on paper surfaces, but reading on screens is looking more and more like a horse of a completely different color. It’s still a kind of reading, and it’s still cool and useful and it works, but it does not seem like reading to me. I wonder when a new word for this new kind of reading on screens will enter common usage? Ten more years? 2015? The more I read about e-readers and apps for small screens, the more I am convinced A NEW WORD is coming. I just don’t know what that new word will be. Nobody does. I might be something simple like “e-reading”. It might also be something simple like “screening”. But it will come to use unannounced, by complete surprise. Just like listening to an audiobook is NOT reading a book, screen-reading a book on a screen is NOT reading a book. It’s a new human experience. Needs a new word to better frame it. Food for thought, if nothing else. We don’t NEED a new word. But I am pretty sure it will happen. Certainly not in my lifetime. I got one foot in the grave already. SIGH.
And of course I might be wrong about any need or benefit for a new word for reading on screens. I don’t mind being wrong about this, and let the future prove me wrong. I am okay with that.
Among the 133 comments on the Times piece, comments closed now however, someone from NC writes:
“Then there’s the minor, unreported problem that reading from a screen has been shown to be “dumber” reading. From published, peer-reviewed academic research:
“…strong results imply that there is a difference between the printed page and the screen that should not be ignored, and it makes a difference, at minimum, to memory for information… Print is consistently better for recall than screen…”
“These findings suggest that even though youth may report a greater preference for interactive digital media, traditional printed formats may provide a more effective environment for learning and persuasion.”
There’s lots more of this…”
He says. But I have no idea where this research comes from as there are no refs given. We will know more about this next year when a major national magazine does a cover story about the neuroscience of reading on paper and reading screens, and my sources inside the publishing industry tell me that the cover story has already been assigned an editor and team of staff writers is working on it right now: might me Time magazine, might be Newsweek magazine, might be the NY Times Sunday Magazine, might be the Boston Globe Sunday magazine, might be WIRED, but I am positive one of those magazines is working on this story right now. From a neuroscience view point. When the results are published, it will make a great read, online or on paper, but I don’t think it will change anything at all. The digital revolution is here to stay and it’s not over for another 500 years…
And Umberto in the comments said: “Wow. How pathetic that the father in the photo is reading a story to his daughter from a cell phone, rather than giving her the rich experience of a real book with pictures, letters big enough to recognize and identify, the drama of the turning page, and something she can call her own.”
But there are many other comments that tell a completely different story, both pro and con, the e-reading experiencee, mostly pro. Go look!
And kcomess from
washington says
November 18th, 2009
5:19 pm
“I am genuinely saddened that e-books have gained purchase (no pun intended)in the reading world, but I am not surprised. There are obvious financial incentives for the companies that purvey electronic “books” including money earned from sales and re-sales of devices; additional funds generated from the need to purchase more than one “copy” in order to share with another reader; the inability of the original purchaser to pass along a copy gratis to a friend, thereby generating another purchase; fixed prices; fewer sources so less competition: I am sure there are others, as well. Rarely considered is the economic impact on used bookstores (can’t sell a “used” e-book!) and libraries (can’t loan electronic copies and e-readers in the present structure).
There are intangibles that must be considered: How does the electronic reader compensate for the absence of tactile and visual pleasure experienced when opening a new or (better still) very old volume? How to compensate for the sterility of the reading experience as one endures these machines? What about the missing sense of peace and contentment that comes from sitting in a quiet room whose walls are covered with booklined shelves?
I can only conclude that, since there was nothing clearly “wrong” with the original print medium and since the many, many advantages of books as they currently exist are patently obvious, the impetus for the e-book was pecuniary interest by publishing houses and major corporate business interests, rather than being an expression of a genuine need.”
Just food for thought. I can see both sides now. I support ebooks. I support p-books. Treebooks, Ebooks. But the debate rages on….
The other side, Carolyn of
Brooklyn says on
November 18th, 2009
9:20 am
“I, too, love the convenience if reading on my iPhone. Nothing beats the heft and the smells and the feel of a good hardcover book, but standing on the subway for 20 minutes is the true test and iphone is a great way to read. “
“Man cannot breathe air moving at speeds greater than 30MPH.”
“It’ll never fly, Orville.”
“Why do movies need to talk?”
“People will never use those small computer keyboards/those smaller PDA keyboards/those microscopic Blackberry keyboards.”
“Who needs a cellphone? There are phones everywhere.”
“Who needs books? What’s wrong with this scroll?”
Sometimes I think to myself: If only the people who were so passionate about paper would apply their passion to something that mattered…
At any rate, time will tell the tale. Books are on the way to being curios and boutique gifts. The vast majority of lit will be electronic, for practicality’s sake alone.
I greatly enjoy Mobipocket on my AT&T Tilt and my brand new Tilt 2 is waiting for me at home tonight and will be an even better device. In my free time waiting in lines and such in the past 2 weeks I have finished the first two books in the Hawklan series.
“Others are still dubious” …followed by a quote from the executive in charge of the Kindle? Come on, Teleread, keep up the critical perspective a little, please.
Steve, when you say: “At any rate, time will tell the tale. Books are on the way to being curios and boutique gifts. The vast majority of lit will be electronic, for practicality’s sake alone…..”
You are right. I know that.
Btw, way, Steve…..re: SNAIL MAIL…. the word itself, how old traditional normal mail was given the NEW slang name of SNAIL MAIL, and it’s cute and funny and makes sense, even though the mail does NOT move at a snail’s pace exactly, it just seems that way compared to e-mail. My point? Well, just as the culture invented this word SNAIL MAIL, to compare it with E Mail, it is quite possible that one day too the culture will come up with a NEW slang word for reading on paper, the old traditional way of reading, I have no idea what it might be, “snail-reading” or “curio-reading” or “p-reading”…..in order to differentiate it from the new reading we do on screens, which is the REAL reading of today’s new world. So if mail could branch out to form two words, snail mail and email, it is also possible that someday “READING” could branch out to form two words, one for paper reading, one for e-reading. We just don’t know what those words will be yet. The NEW word might be for the old kind of reading on paper, or for the NEW kind of reading on screens. As Steve likes to say: time will tell the tale.