When do real books beat e-books?

Of late I have become a fan of e-books, being able to read a few pages on my mobile phone while waiting in a queue or travelling on the tube without needing to carry the whole book with x-hundred pages of type.

The advantages for learning are obvious too - instant search to find the paragraph needed for that essential quote being the most important, though not having to carry several kilos of books to class is also important.

Where e-books fail, however, is in the 'feel'.  With services like Amazon's 'Look inside' feature and 'Search inside' one can get a good feel for what the content of a book is, how it is laid out and so on.  But it still is not the same as actually going to a bookshop, picking up the x-hundred pages of type and flicking through it.  Does it have (in the case of text books) the right kind of pictures, headings and sub-headings? Are there summaries at the end of a chapter?  Are there footnotes, chapternotes or other aids for further reading?

Of course one can find all these things through Amazon's service (and others) but, maybe this is a generational thing, I still feel the need to physically hold the book and, in the case of text books, physically own it.

This is paradoxical as it is precisely text books where e-books are able to truly innovate, showing videos, dynamic interactive charts and have lots of links between sections throughout the book in question.  Many of the big textbook publishers have all manner of online tools for students to test their comprehension after a given chapter.

In short, e-books are best. But choosing a book to recommend as an e-book? I need paper. Hence needing to make a special trip to the largest academic bookstore in Europe (apparently) and make a final decision on the books I'll be recommending on the Masters in Digital Marketing programme I will soon be teaching on.

The students will have iPads and will be encouraged to use e-books...so my task is two-fold. Find paper-format books that I'm happy with that have e-book equivalents for the students.

Yes...I can smell the irony too...

What is the future of E-Books?

Matt Eaton recently wrote in the Bodhi Tree Blog how the next revolution in publishing will be driven by children's books and not adult literature. See Matt's blog post here.

The revolution is beginning, I'll grant you that - but I fear it may be a very long, slow, drawn out revolution. Many revolutionaries will die in the process, and some of the old-guard will manage to maintain control of their own little domain.

I wrote about e-books a couple of months back and think that there are two important issues here:

a. the digital divide is growing ever wider. As some are only just beginning to get online, others are streaking ahead with multiple portable devices, such as iSmartPhones and so on and all the interactivity that they can bring. Consequently, it is easy to go months and never see an e-book reader (include iPads in that) - simply by being in non-techie crowds.

b. for the revolution to truly take hold, formats need to be homogenised. At present we can all buy a print book and know that it will be compatible for both our eyes and hands and those, for example, of our children. The multitude of conflicting formats, however, makes me think that e-books for entertainment, business and education will only truly take-off when there is consensus on formats such that all readers will be able to access them. I think Google's project to scan all known books sets them apart as a likely source of dominant formats in the future, but it's too early to tell yet.

Enough already with the competiton! Work together and everyone wins...

Marshall Kirkpatrick wrote on ReadWriteWeb how Microsoft seem to have created a virtual skateboard-view to scroll through maps. They call it, apparently, "Street Slide".
As Marshall says, it seems to knock the pretty multi-coloured socks off Google's StreetView version that first allowed us to see the streets before we got to them by following the map.

Many is the time I've found the name of a business I know to exist on 'X' street, by checking on StreetView and then searching for their details online.

So Microsoft have shown they don't just to Office software...but can do fun stuff too.  Check the video here:




The problem that I have is, once again, there is TOO MUCH CHOICE!

I personally prefer Google Maps and Google StreetView to other systems in the UK, such as MultiMap, or StreetMap.

And whilst I like the ethos behind the Open Source version: OpenStreetMap, where generous, earnest people give of their time to help create a publicly owned (that is, license-free) detailed set of maps, I find that I still rely on Google.

Why?

Because it's all there. It's all connected. I can go from a Google Search to local map view to a company's website more or less seamlessly.  Now the other maps can and probably do a lot of that.

My problem?

Too much choice.  Why can't they all get to together, have one big happy love-in, and create one map.

One map to rule them all.

One map to do everything, from geo-location services, to hyper-local advertising and community features, to feature-rich 3D views of the places in question.

Competition is not good. Competition just confuses the issue. Most people do not go for the 'best' option available. They go with what they know.  Most people use what they have already installed on their mobile. They use what's easiest to find on the Internet - and, curiously, a Google search on 'Online Map' produces not Google Maps as the first link, but MultiMap. Google is only fourth on its own system!  This could, arguably, be to show how it is not indulging in anti-trust (or monopolistic) practices.  It could also be that the right hand of Larry Page doesn't know what the left-hand of Sergei Brin is up to.

In fact, I realise that this is beginning to become a theme.  I've discussed too much choice in software for Office functions, too much choice in online dynamic display systems (i.e. Flash vs Silverlight), and too much choice in E-Book formats.

Whilst I commend inventive minds with entrepreneurial spirits for trying to make the world a better place, I can't see how having a myriad of competing systems helps anyone.  They all have their pluses - and their minuses.  They all appeal to a core set of users, and then to the rest of the world according to the almost random process of innovation diffusion.  One system is adopted by Apple, and becomes almost defacto on mobiles. Another is adopted by Google, and becomes the dominant one on the internet. 

What we need, of course, is a benevolent dictatorship to force the geniuses in all these companies to work together, to ensure that there is only one system and it is the best and it incorporates the best features of all the other systems and everyone's happy and everyone knows where they are.

And while we're about it - I put myself forward for the job...or will there be too many dictators all patronising their preferred system....?

Books are like vinyl - nice for geeks but most prefer the technology

In The Guardian newspaper on Saturday, Marcus Du Sautoy wrote an article called "Liked the book? Try the app" and said:

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.

The Future of E-Books is Mobile...not E-Book Readers

Over the past few months there has been much talk of e-book readers from the likes of Amazon (the Kindle) and Sony and a host of others.  Apple are launching their new iPad around now, HP have the 'Slate' coming out soon, and the mini-tablet laptop that is portable enough to be used on the move means that people are suddenly, seriously, talking about e-book readers as the future.

They are wrong.

The tablet products from Apple and HP are going to be best used in the home.  They will allow one to access multimedia at the dinner table, in bed or in the garden, without a spaghetti junction of cables or heated and flattened thighs to worry about from traditional laptops.

However, for people on the move, the iPad type products, and I will include the Kindle and other E-Book Readers here, are inappropriate.  Purely and simply, do they fit neatly in a jacket pocket?

No - only if you are wearing a large suit jacket.  Women may choose to carry them in their handbag, and many businessmen will use their briefcases for that too... but for universal acceptance of the medium, it will have to become far more portable.

Two weeks ago I finished reading my first Sherlock Holmes book (it was free, being out of copyright, and so a good way to test e-books)... but read it entirely on my mobile phone.  I don't have an all-singing and all-dancing iPhone or Nexus1 either (nor any other type of touch-screen)...but a relatively small-screened Blackberry clone from Nokia, the E61.

Why did I go with Nokia?  It's very simple.

I'm cheap and it was free.

My mobile company wanted me to renew my contract and begged me to take one of these Qwerty keyboard mini-computers at no extra cost.  I said 'Thanks'.  If they want to offer me a Nexus 1, I'll say 'Thank you'.

Anyway, I downloaded the ebook of Sherlock Holmes: "The Valley of Fear" from the Libris app on the Nokia Apps store... the app was free.  I've since also tried 'Wattpad' from the same app store...but this is not about comparing apps.

This is about the ease of use, or usability if you will, of having your e-book in your mobile handset.  It meant I always had reading material with me. I didn't have to check if I had space in my pocket for an oversized e-book reader.  I didn't have to worry about switching a Kindle or Sony reader on, booting up etc. to start reading.

I didn't, very importantly, have to worry about holding the still-heavy e-book readers in one hand while standing on the tube, or waiting in line.  Whilst my partner was in the changing rooms in a clothes shop, I was able to battle the potential boredom by instantly whipping out the mobile and continuing with my e-book.  For those who like to read in the toilet (not that I would ever suggest such a thing) it is easy to use the mobile handset (as many already do for calls and texting)...less so with a bulky e-book reader.

My mobile - as with all smartphones - is also able to hold my music and podcasts. It's my portable camera.  I can browse the web (albeit in an unsatisfying way with such a small screen), email and, of course, even use it for phonecalls (remember those?).

In short, Sony, Amazon, the Cool-er, Elonex, Barnes & Noble, Apple, HP and probably a number of other manufacturers hoping to tap into the e-book market should think carefully about who is going to use the machines.  They absolutely do have a market - I'd love to be able to buy one reader with all my study-books pre-loaded (including the online extra information that some text book publishers provide).

But they will never reach the ubiquitousness of the mp3 player and iPhone if they can't become truly portable.

We need one machine to rule the world ... not a dozen of bulky single-use gadgets that will break, get stolen or be too impractical to use.

E-Book readers: it's Betamax vs. VHS all over again

I like gadgets. I'm male, of a certain age, living in the UK. Demographically speaking, I'm a core target for manufacturers of gadgets, widgets, gizmos and, as I like to call them, 'kerchunks' (the sound that a good gadget should make when opening and closing).

However, long before I could afford to buy gadgets of any quality, I had to be very careful where I spent my money. I would wait and see if the prices came down (which, according to Moore's Law, they always did). In some cases, (such as a decent Digital SLR camera), I've postponed the purchase so long I'm not sure when I will finally buy... but I'll obviously get far more megapixels for my money than I would have 2 or 3 years ago.

Back in the eighties (showing my age) I couldn't afford a Walkman (or a clone) until I was 16... no one bought one for me (we lived in a cardboard box in't' middle of road), and I had to save up to pay for one. And when the time came, I looked at Which? Magazine to compare the models available at that time, and traipsed up and down Tottenham Court Road in central London going into every electronics shop to compare prices and haggle with the shopkeepers until I found the bestest one that fit my budget.

It was an easy choice, all of the players played cassettes. CDs didn't exist then, but the same search would have been undertaken just a few years later for a CD player, or stereo. For TVs - again - the same kind of search. You can decide on CRT or flat-screen, Plasma or LCD, but they all need to show broadcast content.

When mp3 players came along, the choice was equally easy, until Apple reared it's over-styled head with the iPod, which was unable to play the 25GB of mp3s I'd accumulated by digitising my entire CD collection...without me going to the hassle of reformatting my entire collection. Disc space on my computer at that time meant that that was not going to happen easily, and anyway, why should I? The other mp3 players were cheaper, had more capacity and had built-in FM radios and voice recorders as standard. But to the great unwashed masses, they weren't as 'cool' as Apple.

Apple, to give them their due, did a good job of tying people in to their brand with the vertical integration of their iTunes store with the iPod players. So why did the iPod win over the other mp3 players to become the defacto player? Could it be that by providing legitimate, (i.e. 'legal') downloads for the hairy hoards, that is that by providing the content, they were guaranteeing the success of the player?

And not for the first time has this happened. When video cassette recorders (VCR) came along at the end of the seventies and early eighties, the decision was between two rival formats. The superior format, superior in quality of image and fidelity of recording and playback, was Betamax... the choice for professionals before and since. The popular format, however, was VHS. Why? There has been lots of debate as to the reasons, but I'm going to add my tuppence-worth to that debate, for our household pondered the same question at that time, three decades ago. Ultimately, we wanted content. We wanted to be able to rent any film (well, to have a selection of hundreds rather than dozens)... and the local videostores all had huge selections of VHS films and one tiny shelf of Betamax. Simple. We went with VHS... as did most people... with Betamax dying an unhappy death as a consumer product.

What is irritating is that the issues of the Betamax vs VHS debate repeat themselves. We do not learn from history (or do we?). Betamax was the superior product, but VHS won out. Everyone who bought a Betamax player ended up storing it on the attic for another 20 years, unable to throw away such an underused piece of equipment, and fuming that they'd wasted hundreds of pounds, backing the wrong proverbial horse in the format wars.

So now to the latest gadget. The e-Book reader. With the recent launch of the Amazon Kindle in the UK, there have been lots of articles telling the world how wonderful they are... but ignoring the same problem we saw with mp3 players and video recorders. Format.

So, the ones that are on my radar now are the Amazon Kindle, the Sony Reader Touch Edition, the Cool-er, the Elonex eReader; and the Nook from Barnes & Noble, the US book shop chain. Will I buy one? Not yet.

I've tried the Amazon Kindle. After hearing so much noise about e-Ink (or is it e-Paper?) I am quite disappointed to find the dull screen that has all the lack-lustre of paper with none of the comforting texture of it. I'm also surprised at how heavy it is. It's a small gadget, thin, not much bigger on the front than a typical paper-back. But it can't comfortably be held in one hand for any length of time, as a paperback can. You'd need to rest it on your knee or a table... although for that, why not use a laptop? And no touch-screen? Where have they been hiding for the past 3 years? It took me a while to realise that they expected me to use buttons to turn pages rather than swiping the screen.

The Sony Reader has a similar screen size, looks cleaner, and the leather-pouch makes it easier to hold (like real books) than the Amazon version.

But I fear that ultimately, it's going to come down to content again. Amazon is the online bookstore of choice, but since Google announced last week that they were going to start selling e-books themselves (and remember that they've been scanning all known books over the past few years - including hundreds of thousands of orphan books), one has to assume that content is going to win again... and the reader that wins will be the one that has the biggest catalogue of books available to download.

But... but... what if... what if Google's Eric Schmidt, Sony's Howard Stringer and Amazon's Jeff Bezos sat down together and came to a deal? What if they decided to not follow the Apple model of tying people into one particular format, but allowed all Google books, and all Amazon books, to be downloadable on all readers, be they from Sony, Amazon, Elonex or whoever?

They'd still make their money from the downloads.

They'd have a wider potential audience by not restricting themselves to owners of one particular reader.

They'd drive the uptake of e-book readers as the public would no longer hold off to see which kerchunk wins.

Everyone talks about 'collaboration' and 'Web 2.0' and 'Social' until they talk about business... then it's back to the same old cut-throat winner-takes-all mentality of decades ago.