When you can get more movies and television than you could ever consume for only $8/mo and ten million songs for only $5/mo, it's hard to argue. I mean, would you rather pay $30 for a Bluray that you'll watch once (twice, to be generous) or spend that $30 on almost four months of on-demand content? Spend $15 for a CD or spend the same for three months access to an enormous catalog of music?
In a world where you not only need serials and registration to play multi-player games, but many single player games, it's becoming difficult to even argue against digital download game services, like Steam (on which I currently have 400+ games). Hell, you don't even have to concern yourself with shelf space, theft, loss, or damage anymore.
The problem is that you also have to accept several negatives. Like DRM or the inability to resell a purchased book, album, movie, or game.
The problem is that you have to make several leaps of faith, too. Faith that the source of your content will still be around for the length of time that you'd own the physical version (several generations, in the case of books). Faith that their DRM won't bite you in the ass. Faith that something won't happen to your account which restricts your access to your content and that if it does, their customer services is accessible and responsive. Faith that they won't suddenly yank content you've already paid. Faith that they won't do any dirty aggregation or data mining as you use content that you own.
I'm all for digital, but I think we need some serious commitment from publishers and distributors and content warehouses before we continue making huge investments into what is essentially a collection of content licenses. An industry-enforced sort of "bill of digital content consumer rights" wouldn't be unreasonable.
I'm all for digital, but I think we need some serious commitment from publishers and distributors and content warehouses before we continue making huge investments into what is essentially a collection of content licenses.
This seems a lot of work in a world where most content, and most popular content, is disposable by design.
All good points. The issue we're facing with DRM, upgradability etc is similar to that faced with moving from LPs to Cassettes to CDs to MP3s to...
Books decay. Digital files get corrupted. Companies rise and fall. I know I'll end up buying things more than once, just like I did with my Depeche Mode collection - at least three times.
> Spend $15 for a CD or spend the same for three months access to an enormous catalog of music?
I'm picky about my music, so I don't buy new CDs that often, but when I do, it's usually for an artist I really like. When I have the opportunity, it's at a show for that artist, which hopefully means that they're getting a larger chunk of that $15 than it would if I buy it elsewhere.
Music and books are, of the media you listed, the ones where you could conceivably have a dinner party with all of the creative folks involved.
This is an interesting standpoint, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. Ebooks have made vast strides recently, but there's just something about leafing through a book that they just can't seem to match. Perhaps it's the nostalgia talking, but reading a novel on a Kindle just seems a whole lot more sterile than an actual paperback.
Even for reference materials, ebooks still seem like the bastard child of a reference textbook and a proper hyperlinked manual.
I used to think this until I got a Kindle - I was almost determined that it wouldn't be as good as paper - but I now find it infuriating when I can't get something as an eBook.
For novels the difference (for me at least) is that the Kindle makes it easier to focus on actually reading.
I was surprised by this but turning a page is a small nudge of the thumb and your focus remains on the text, the device is light enough that holding it in the same position for an extended period or getting comfortable in bed or in a chair is far easier than for a book (even a paperback - and the difference between the Kindle and a hardback or trade paperback isn't even funny). Small barriers that you weren't even really aware of that are either taken away or noticeably reduced.
Of course there's all the additional stuff - buying books instantly nearly anywhere, carrying a whole library in your pocket and so on - but they turn out to be bells and whistles. The real difference is that it's just a better device for consuming text.
For reference books (at least large ones) the Kindle isn't there yet (layout, searching, colour and a few other key things) but without having hands on experience I can see the iPad could well remove most of those issues at which point searching and electronic notes, combined with reduced bulk (the iPad is heavy but not next to a 500 page programming book) likely give it an edge over paper.
I'm afraid it's the nostalgia talking, and we are dinosaurs. I do find interesting that very little people feel attached to tape/VHS/CDROM/DVDs though, while there are plenty who will swear that books in dead tree form are better than digital media.
Then again, I don't know how to write a love note on the front page of ebooks I'm giving as gift, and they are still not bathtub-compliant :)
The argument could similarly be made for watching feature films on a TV set with surround sound versus a theater. Ebooks aren't as beautiful (yet) as their hardback cousins, but they are instant, portable, and greener to boot!
Everything else was/is indeed destined to move to its digital form sooner or later no matter how much the physical good producer regrets it; but you cannot take it away from physical books. Ebooks are handy. They are portable, safe from wear and tear, cheap and what not. But what about those moments when you really need to take your eyes away off the screen but still want to be productive or have some quality time reading.
This might be just a personal POV, but over the time looking at screen becomes so usual that you need an extra physical thing to get that kick. In my case it's physical books.
I can imagine reading a linear text is quite unobtrusive on a Kindle. I got one for my mother and she loves it. The display on it is really crisp, it's light, and she has access to a vast library of books.
I still cannot fathom owning one.
Digital media has a lot of social issues to work out. A book doesn't come with a TOS or EULA. The media the story comes on doesn't require a special licensed reader from the book store. It doesn't come crippled with DRM and anti-circumvention laws.
(And as far as books are concerned, e-readers are crap for anything but linear text as far as I'm concerned.)
That being said, the majority of my media is digital these days. I even buy pure digital copies of my console games. It's very convenient, but as an investment it's practically worthless. The formats for this stuff are not universal and require special hardware to use them. I've bought Super Mario Bros. 3 at least 4 or 5 times in my life. I still have my copy of the Lord of the Rings that I've read 4 or 5 times in my life and it required no special hardware or work arounds. I wouldn't have to have bought that game so many times if emulators and backups were fully legal.
The technology is awesome. We're just not ready as a society yet to commit to it.
Ive been loving people and libraries going digital. I snagged several physical books that were out of print in the last year at prices I never imagined a couple of years back. examples - etudes for programmers, introduction to functional programming etc for < 20$'s. On Lisp for < 30 bucks still eludes me though.
Digital stuff is still fairly new - most people, at least until recently, preferred real world stuff.
So it makes sense that digital is cheaper. But relying on its cheapness doesn't make sense since there is no guarantee that digital will stay cheaper once more people switch.
What service fills the void that refusing to buy Blu-Rays opens? Saying "DVD quality is good enough" and using a streaming service is in the same line as "Paper books are good enough".
[+] [-] pstack|15 years ago|reply
In a world where you not only need serials and registration to play multi-player games, but many single player games, it's becoming difficult to even argue against digital download game services, like Steam (on which I currently have 400+ games). Hell, you don't even have to concern yourself with shelf space, theft, loss, or damage anymore.
The problem is that you also have to accept several negatives. Like DRM or the inability to resell a purchased book, album, movie, or game.
The problem is that you have to make several leaps of faith, too. Faith that the source of your content will still be around for the length of time that you'd own the physical version (several generations, in the case of books). Faith that their DRM won't bite you in the ass. Faith that something won't happen to your account which restricts your access to your content and that if it does, their customer services is accessible and responsive. Faith that they won't suddenly yank content you've already paid. Faith that they won't do any dirty aggregation or data mining as you use content that you own.
I'm all for digital, but I think we need some serious commitment from publishers and distributors and content warehouses before we continue making huge investments into what is essentially a collection of content licenses. An industry-enforced sort of "bill of digital content consumer rights" wouldn't be unreasonable.
[+] [-] patio11|15 years ago|reply
This seems a lot of work in a world where most content, and most popular content, is disposable by design.
[+] [-] louismg|15 years ago|reply
Books decay. Digital files get corrupted. Companies rise and fall. I know I'll end up buying things more than once, just like I did with my Depeche Mode collection - at least three times.
[+] [-] rflrob|15 years ago|reply
I'm picky about my music, so I don't buy new CDs that often, but when I do, it's usually for an artist I really like. When I have the opportunity, it's at a show for that artist, which hopefully means that they're getting a larger chunk of that $15 than it would if I buy it elsewhere.
Music and books are, of the media you listed, the ones where you could conceivably have a dinner party with all of the creative folks involved.
[+] [-] jbri|15 years ago|reply
Even for reference materials, ebooks still seem like the bastard child of a reference textbook and a proper hyperlinked manual.
[+] [-] Tyrannosaurs|15 years ago|reply
For novels the difference (for me at least) is that the Kindle makes it easier to focus on actually reading.
I was surprised by this but turning a page is a small nudge of the thumb and your focus remains on the text, the device is light enough that holding it in the same position for an extended period or getting comfortable in bed or in a chair is far easier than for a book (even a paperback - and the difference between the Kindle and a hardback or trade paperback isn't even funny). Small barriers that you weren't even really aware of that are either taken away or noticeably reduced.
Of course there's all the additional stuff - buying books instantly nearly anywhere, carrying a whole library in your pocket and so on - but they turn out to be bells and whistles. The real difference is that it's just a better device for consuming text.
For reference books (at least large ones) the Kindle isn't there yet (layout, searching, colour and a few other key things) but without having hands on experience I can see the iPad could well remove most of those issues at which point searching and electronic notes, combined with reduced bulk (the iPad is heavy but not next to a 500 page programming book) likely give it an edge over paper.
[+] [-] riffraff|15 years ago|reply
Then again, I don't know how to write a love note on the front page of ebooks I'm giving as gift, and they are still not bathtub-compliant :)
[+] [-] louismg|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmc|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wladimir|15 years ago|reply
It doesn't really have to OCR, but should allow for tagging and searching.
I would really like to get rid of my stacks of old (administrative) paper, and the ones that I still receive through snailmail.
DVDs/CDs/books don't bother me as much, as they look nice, but those binders with crappy old paper I can't wait to throw it out.
[+] [-] viraptor|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uast23|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agentultra|15 years ago|reply
I still cannot fathom owning one.
Digital media has a lot of social issues to work out. A book doesn't come with a TOS or EULA. The media the story comes on doesn't require a special licensed reader from the book store. It doesn't come crippled with DRM and anti-circumvention laws.
(And as far as books are concerned, e-readers are crap for anything but linear text as far as I'm concerned.)
That being said, the majority of my media is digital these days. I even buy pure digital copies of my console games. It's very convenient, but as an investment it's practically worthless. The formats for this stuff are not universal and require special hardware to use them. I've bought Super Mario Bros. 3 at least 4 or 5 times in my life. I still have my copy of the Lord of the Rings that I've read 4 or 5 times in my life and it required no special hardware or work arounds. I wouldn't have to have bought that game so many times if emulators and backups were fully legal.
The technology is awesome. We're just not ready as a society yet to commit to it.
[+] [-] dman|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nodata|15 years ago|reply
So it makes sense that digital is cheaper. But relying on its cheapness doesn't make sense since there is no guarantee that digital will stay cheaper once more people switch.
[+] [-] stef25|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grinich|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] louismg|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jabbles|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cabalamat|15 years ago|reply