http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/technology/companies/04reader.html?_r=1
The piece deals with e-readers like the Kindle, where people (commuters especially) can access books on a larger digital device. I don't own one, but I'm skeptical about what they mean for newspapers. I can see the benefit of getting a digital copy of a magazine, laid out with large "print," and being able to archive it all on one device. But reading a newspaper on a digital platform seems like as much a hassle as, well, newspapers.
In terms of commuting I like to toss my quarters into a change cup next to the register at a train station and be on my way. The paper has a shelf life of an hour and when I no longer want to carry it, I don't have to. The e-reader is portable, but bigger. It offers a better quality 'print' than say, a smaller device like an iPhone. But isn't the rub with the iPhone that, in addition to being multipurpose, it's smaller?
Smaller used to be a good thing as a matter of convenience, but now bigger is better for reading. Is bigger THAT much better for print that we need an electronic device for internet/phone/music/video and a separate one for reading? at that point we're carrying as much as we did when we had a brick Motorola cell and a Wall Street Journal.
Thoughts?
I don't really see a point to the Kindle. I like the look and feel of an actual BOOK.
ReplyDeleteNewspapers I think are a hassle to read because they're too wide to read comfortably on a train and you have to fold them to read continuations of stories on new pages.
But books are portable. So are magazines. And and I like them. The end.