Non-fiction is different again. What is a footnote, after all, but an attempt to break out of the linear structure of a book? How reference books could change can now begin to be imagined, but I'm particularly interested in apps for non-fiction that are not designed to break up a narrative in a radical way, but rather to augment a storyline – for me, non-fiction works best when it tries to emulate the narrative that drives a reader to the end of a novel.
As many comments on the page have mentioned, it reminds one of the concern regarding CD-Roms. But to me, it sound exactly the kind of non-linear arguments that might be possible if people were able to link to more information on sub-topics or include richer content, such as images or video.
Like the internet does?
So in short, the only new issue here is the ability of the portable devices such as the iPad, iPod and, please do not forget, the dozens of Android portable devices (and others besides) - it isn't just Apple - to provide the interactivity of the internet on, well, a portable device.
As Du Sautoy says, there is an issue with batteries dying on you. And one can't show off one's intellectual snobbery with an iPad, only one's wealth and willingness to buy overpriced new technology.
Of course handheld devices are the future. Far better to carry your access to the internet in your hand, rather than in your backpack or leave it on your desk.
Once battery life, 'ruggedness' and screen resolution make iPad type devices suitable for long stretches on the beach, by a pool or ten hour flights, they will become more ubiquitous than they already appear to be.
So will they surpass the book one day?
Let's look at another industry: music.
Napster - where art thou?
Was I the only person to have an Archos mp3 player before Apple created the iPod?
The iPod was not the first mp3 player. It wasn't the first portable music device. It wasn't suitable in many contexts and situations. Battery life was far worse than for many competitors. But Apple's genius was in tying the content to the device...making iTunes the distribution network of choice and with easy integration to the player.
The iPod device hasn't killed music. It hasn't killed live performances...if anything, concert attendance is up compared to a decade ago. But fewer and fewer people buy CDs. Vinyl consumption is up, thanks to lots of collectors and music geeks wanting some 'old-skool' physicality.
But it has radically changed the music industry and who it is that makes money from the new distribution platform.
The same, to a large extent, will undoubtedly happen with the publishing industry.
Once enough people have a portable device, smartphone, tablet computer, iPad etc. and are able to store their entire book collections, study materials and have access to the internet, their photos and their music, in one place, with them, wherever they are... people will stop buying printed books.
Of course books will continue to exist. Some with linear plotlines and arguments, as currently exist. Some exploring the new possibilities where every reader can experience the book in a new way. But there will be far fewer books made out of paper and cardboard.
Some hardcore readers will continue to seek out real books, paper books. Books you can touch and feel and smell...just as the hardcore music fans will seek out vinyl records and even wax cylinders and like to listen to whole albums, with the good tracks and the bad tracks in the order the artist decided, rather than cherry picking the good stuff and mixing it with completely different sounds as most now do with digital music.
Books are lovely, but those of us who think they cannot be surpassed by technology are living in a fantasy.
I'm not sure you've thought through the argument completely. What about the different usage of books and music? After all, you can't simply generalise from one physical to digital transition to another. It's a bit like arguing that rather than decorating our physical houses, we'll all shift to decorating virtual houses in second life, simply because it's digital and takes up less space etc.
ReplyDeleteThink about how we read books vs how we listen to music. Most people will listen to an album, or flip between tracks on their mp3 players, in the same way as people made compilation tapes. Mp3 makes compilation tapes much easier.
Books, on the other hand, are different. People rarely have more than two or three on the go at once. I don't *need* to flip between books on a digital book reader.
Also, consider comfort of use. There's no difference between listening to an mp3 and listening to a tape. You plug your headphones into something slightly smaller than a Sony Cassette Walkman and press play. Ebook readers are still less comfortable to read than physical books, and stylistically different. I've read two books in their entirety on a smartphone and it's not a comfortable experience. Considerably less comfortable than carting around a hardback book, in fact.
I think in the long term, you may be right, and people may well switch to ebooks, but for different reasons. Once the iPad and its clones come down in price; once Amazon brings Kindle store to Europe, and once ebook prices come down. When, eventually, ebook format becomes friendlier, and displays become easier on the eye. And a load of other reasons. But I don't think it's inevitable simply because ebooks exist that they will replace normal books.
Thanks John....your last paragraph was in fact what I was referring to. This, I think, will definitely happen...but it's difficult to say when. The technology needs to improve to make the e-book readers (iPad, smartphones etc.) more portable, more rugged (so they don't get sand in them when you're on the beach) and with longer battery-life.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I will often have several books on the go at the same time, and crucially, when travelling will want to take three or more books with me.
At present, for example, I am studying for a masters, so there are lots of books I need for that. I also read newspapers and journals to keep up with 'new technology' (such as Wired). I read books for work. I read books for pleasure. It would be nice to have everything with me at any time so I can quickly access anything I want...without having to carry lots of books with me.
More people listen to music than read books, so in that respect I agree that the e-book reader will never be as ubiquitous as the mp3 player. However, Amazon have proved that there is a huge appetite for books in the world, and obscure books that only appeal to the long tail.
The e-book reader, by allowing zero print and distribution costs of obscure or old books (through digital downloads), would stretch the long tail that Amazon has discovered to its absolute maximum. Every book available in every language, at a click.
It might not happen next year, but it will happen.
Good thoughts - and don't forget the environmental impact either. Despite having to power the units, I'm sure that iPads are greener than printing a whole raft of books. I saw a research piece from IDC a while back which said that even if you burnt a CD straight after buying an mp3, it was still much, much greener than buying a CD from a store.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in the different experiences of reading in print and on an ebook reader though. I'm currently re-reading a book in print which I first read on a smartphone, and it's much, much more immersive and feels 'deeper'. I've never used a kindle and haven't spent much time using an iPad, but I'd be intrigued to repeat the test using one and see how the experience changes.
Now that is an interesting area to explore.
ReplyDeleteAt present, objects such as the iPad are not very environmentally friendly, despite Apple claiming that they are arsenic-free, mercury-free, BFR-free and PVC-free. As with all electronics (and, in fact, just about all consumer goods) the production processes involved in mining elements, transporting components to factories, creating the various chips, screens and casings - mean that they have a huge carbon footprint before they're even boxed and shipped to the retail outlets.
See the blog on grist.org for more on this:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-01-27-apples-new-ipad-is-deep-green-but-a-planet-saver-nope/
And despite the fragile nature of paper (easy to burn, susceptible to moisture, tearing, fading), it is worth remembering how books have endured in libraries for centuries, whilst most electronic formats (5.25 inch discs anyone?) are obsolete within a decade.
So whilst my heart is with old fashioned books, my head knows that the electronic versions will win in the end.
I, too, have read books on my smartphone (which is not a fancy-schmancy touchscreen iPhone or Android clone). The big advantage I found was that I always had it ready to hand...so whenever I found myself unexpectedly in a queue, waiting for a train or with some idle time, I could read a couple of pages. That's why I'm not convinced that large objects such as the iPad are ideal, the Dell tablet (with a five inch screen) seems more realistic, or, as you say, reading on an attractive smartphone).