var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 3:06 AM

Moderate | Flag for review

Just make it so that you can only 'lend' a book to one person at a time and can't read it on your own reader while it's being 'lent'. That satisfies the sellers and provides pretty much the same situation as reality. Only one 'copy' of the book is in use at any time.

Oh, wait, throwing out the term 'piracy' is free pass to screw your customers. I forgot.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 12:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Sheogorath: That's alrady part of the policy, so they've got that covered.

$\"user-pic\"$

FigNinja

October 23, 2009 6:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: Yep. I think what they're afraid of is the fact that you can lend books much more easily with this system than you can with paper books. Physical book lending limits itself pretty naturally so it was never a huge threat.

When you lend a physical book, you often don't get it back for a long time. You have to do the physical exchange which takes time and effort. You will unlikely be able to arrange to have that book always lent out to a new person every two weeks. Some of your friends will end up buying copies rather than waiting especially since they have no idea when your other friend is going to return the book. Also, you only have so many friends locally that want to borrow it. If you could send it to anyone for free, instantaneously, that would help you lend even more often. With an ebook, I could join an online community for sharing books and do this easily without having to break the law by stripping the DRM off and sharing the file. It wouldn't be limited to my own circle of friends.

Personally I think they need to be more generous if they don't want people to just strip off the DRM.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 12:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: I love that I emphasized my spelling mistake. *sigh*

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 3:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: It's ok, coffee will help!

$\"user-pic\"$

sleze69

October 23, 2009 12:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Sheogorath: That is definitely the best solution.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Hate_Brian_Club_I'mNotOnlyThePresidentI'mAClient

October 23, 2009 3:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The last eight years, every year in late and frequently humid summers I've moved and along with me a growing pile of books. Currently I'm at about 50 feet stacked end to end; who knows how much they weigh. At no point on my trip up and down the stairs and fire escapes of various cities have I wished for an ebook reader.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

bravo369

October 23, 2009 2:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Hate_Brian_Club_I'mNotOnlyThePresidentI'mAClient: i enjoy the paper copies as well however i get rid of my books. I simply cannot re-read books so i get rid of them once i finish. I have tried to re-read books but once i get a few chapters in, i remember what happens and I lose interest.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 3:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@bravo369: Yea I find this to sometimes be a problem as well. There are a few books I don't mind re-reading but most of the time once I remember all the plot twists I quickly lose interest.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 1:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Hate_Brian_Club_I'mNotOnlyThePresidentI'mAClient: Actually, I'm thinking of getting an ereader simply to avoid having to move so many darn books in the future....

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 3:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Hate_Brian_Club_I'mNotOnlyThePresidentI'mAClient:
This too. When it comes to large amounts of reading, give me a paper copy. I hate reading huge amounts in electronic format. Something about it just bugs me.

$\"user-pic\"$

blueneon

October 23, 2009 12:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Sheogorath: There's nothing like the smell of an actual book. It's a beautiful thing.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 12:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@blueneon: All readers now come with Book scented air freshners.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Matt

October 23, 2009 3:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Question about the lending - When one lends a book out does it take that book off their (awfully named) device, essentially transferring the book to that person?

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 1:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Matt: I believe you get to read the book still during that 14 day period on your own reader - that is what makes this different than the Kindle where you can authorize a book on a different reader but only one reader can be accessing it at any time. However, I could be wrong.

$\"user-pic\"$

FigNinja

October 23, 2009 6:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@tasselhoff76: With the Kindle, you can register multiple devices to your account and download the same book to them. When you do this, the devices permanently have the license and they all can read the book at the same time. However, most books have only six licenses. Some have fewer. If you deregister a device, it retains the license for the book. It does not revert to you. So you can share books but you might use up your licenses. If you want to read on your Kindle and your phone, or you have multiple Kindles in your family the licenses can get eaten up quickly.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 3:27 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Matt: I don't know if it removes the file from your device, but you cannot read the book while it is on loan.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 23, 2009 12:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: I took it to meant that when the 14-day window ends and the person you lent the ebook to has to return it, you get the book back since you paid for it.

In this area, it's much better than real books since I rarely receive my actual books back from people. I have to hound them incessantly. This is why I no longer lend out books.

$\"user-pic\"$

kexline

October 23, 2009 4:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: There are still some folks I'll lend books to, but there are more who simply can't be trusted -- either they don't return books (MOM) or they damage them. If I *really* want one of the latter set to read a certain book, I check the sale racks or wait for the mass market paperback. I don't mind buying extra copies half as much as I mind losing my hardcovers.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 3:08 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Why are they so afraid of letting digital books mimic real books?

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 11:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy: Because real books can be resold as used books, and they don't get a cut.

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

October 23, 2009 3:46 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy: If you can make more money off a digital book than a real book, why not do it?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 3:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

As much as the idea of an eBook reader sounds convenient, libraries and used book stores are just too much fun.

I know publishers think that getting rid of such things will make them more money, but did they ever stop to think that people who don't want to spend (or spend a lot of) money on something will continue to refrain from doing so?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Areia

October 23, 2009 2:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@superberg: It doesn't have to be an either/or situation though. My husband and I each own a Sony Reader, but we also own somewhere around 1000 paper books. Sometimes I want to curl up in front of the fireplace with a big paper book, but when I'm on my daily train ride to work I like putting several hundred books in my work bag while only adding 9 ounces of extra weight. It means I can change my mind about what I want to read, and when I get near the end of a book, I don't have to carry two in case I finish in mid-commute.

We still spend far too much time and money in used book stores, and get library books when we can't find electronic copies. For that matter, the Chicago public library is slowly building a pretty respectable collection of ebooks to check out through their website.

I love my Reader, and I love my books - I wouldn't want to give up either, and I don't have to.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

chiieddy

October 23, 2009 3:23 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I think this is really silly. I can understand only being allowed to loan it to the same person once, but only once to ANYONE? Seems ridiculous.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Eldritch

October 23, 2009 3:51 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Just imagine if Apple said you could only let a friend listen to a song just once? It's a stupid policy. This is what bothers me about e-readers. Books are so versitile, you can write in them and lend them, you can do anything with them because you own the paper copy. I don't feel like you have real ownership of the material with an e-reader. Amazon deleted that version of 1984 without a peep, and now this?

As someone who works in books and has books in every nook and cranny in my house, I can't imagine using an e-reader. I know people make the analogy of CDs falling by the wayside for iPods and mp3 players, but it's a totally different thing with books. I really truly believe that nothing can replace the smell and feel of a real paper book. This just further proves how abhorant e-readers are to me. Only one loan per book? Unspeakable. Books are meant to be read!

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Daveinva

October 23, 2009 2:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eldritch: \"Just imagine if Apple said you could only let a friend listen to a song just once?\"

Ummm, Apple doesn't let your friend listen to a song *at all*, seeing as you can't email your purchased & licensed songs to anyone else to listen to.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 6:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Daveinva: All music from any store worth downloading from is now DRM free. I can send my music to as many friends as I want.

$\"user-pic\"$

sqlrob

October 23, 2009 3:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Daveinva:
What was that apple ad campaign?

Oh yea...

Rip.
Burn.

$\"user-pic\"$

K-Bo

October 23, 2009 12:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eldritch: Although I agree about missing the smell and feel of a real book, I read so much more when reading on an e reader, because I can read hands free while I do other things. Also, it fits in all but my smallest purses, so I take it everywhere with me, and catch a chapter or 2 any time I have to wait somewhere. I still read paper books, but also having an e-reader has really upped the number of books I read a month. I love it for vacations. I used to pack 6+ books, taking up all kinds of space in my suitcase. Now I just pack the ereader. It's not a perfect reading solution, and it may never be, but it's a nice companion to books.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 6:02 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eldritch: Agreed. I DO think that instead of books, that these readers would be great for newspapers. Getting them zapped to you every day, at a lower cost suscription rate, would save on paper, gas for the delivery people, gas for moving heavily-laden trucks around a city, recycling issues, etc. This is where I view the full potential to be. Not books.

$\"user-pic\"$

wrjohnston91283

October 23, 2009 11:47 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@webweazel:
But they won't be able to cram the reader full of full color ads, which is where the majority of the money is.

$\"user-pic\"$

Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh

October 23, 2009 3:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@wrjohnston91283: Actually, on the \"Nook\" from BN, they could cram in color ads.. because this device is in color.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 6:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - No Stars Upon Thars: Not exactly. The device has a 6-inch e-ink screen and a (3-inch?) color touchscreen. The touchscreen is designed mostly as a user interface. While color ads could possibly be displayed (it may not be supported now, but could probably be added in software at a later date), they still wouldn't command the price of a full-page color ad.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 3:53 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy: Because it's orders of magnitude easier to copy a digital book?

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 4:42 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ZekeSulastin: so make it so that a loaned book can't be read by the person who bought it, just like a real book. Yes, it's an artificial restriction, but at least it's a balance between the rights of all parties.

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

October 23, 2009 12:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania: All they needed to do was make it so the book could only be in the possession of one person at a time. You lend it to another person, you can't read it or lend it to someone else until you get it back. It solves the problem.

Some companies appear to stupid to live. Hulu charging for ad laden content, Amazon's screwed up management of books on the kindle and this.

$\"user-pic\"$

P=mv

October 23, 2009 2:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: As soon as Hulu starts charging, I'll go elsewhere.

And this gives me one more reason not to waste $$ on an ereader.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 4:19 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ZekeSulastin:
I'm pretty sure it takes less than 14 days to copy a 5mb Ebook.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

October 23, 2009 3:53 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Hard backed book - $26

Paper backed book - $15

E-book - $10

Library - priceless

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

FormerlyAnonymous

October 23, 2009 5:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: Not to rain on the MasterCard parody parade here but libraries are not free.

Our library system (King County Library System) spent $79,122,962 in 2008. That's with a popluation of 1,875,519 people, or an average of $42.19 per person that year. That may still be a bargain. Depends on the person. I know I haven't checked out a book from the library in over 15 years. As a kid I was bad about getting the books back in time to avoid a fine, and that has tainted my thoughts of libraries (unfortunately and unfairly to the library system).

$\"user-pic\"$

FormerlyAnonymous

October 24, 2009 5:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@FormerlyAnonymous: I made a mistake in my calculation. Seattle has its own library system, and is about 600,000 people. Plus, kids don't pay taxes. So it's probably more like $80-100/tax payer.

Still, what FigNinja says is right. We're already paying for the books. Might as well use 'em.

$\"user-pic\"$

FigNinja

October 23, 2009 6:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@FormerlyAnonymous: The way I got my husband interested in going to the library regularly is by referring to it as the \"building full of books we've already paid for.\" Luckily my library has ebooks, too. The selection isn't as great as paper but it's a nice supplement.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 3:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@cknight: Still cheaper than an audiobook. The 2nd newest Tamora Pierce book (out in paperback) is $37 on itunes.

$\"user-pic\"$

K-Bo

October 23, 2009 12:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: I only have one paid e-book on my reader. I have over 200 books that were free on amazon or other legal creative commons sites. I've loved every one I've read so far. I've never been one to read best sellers the day they come out, I tend more towards historical novels, but for me, tons of free books!

$\"user-pic\"$

cknight

October 23, 2009 4:17 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: Not always. Go to Barnes & Noble's website. Search for Jhegaala. The eBook version is more expensive than the paperback. I notified them of this two and a half months ago, and the price is still wacked. eBooks _should_ be less expensive; and yet in this case you pay more to not have to kill a tree.

$\"user-pic\"$

nstonep

October 23, 2009 11:12 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

It's funny that so many people read books and they're still completely ignorant. @cknight: There is an environmental cost for electronic devices as well. Killing a tree probably has less of an environmental aspect but it's not always that easy to measure.

It's the whole \"trees can grow back, genetically altered frogs that are both sexes do not\" (or something like that). Eventually electrical wastewater and it's side effects will find it's way into the food chain if it hasn't already. Then Meg won't need an actual sex change to be Ron.

$\"user-pic\"$

K-Bo

October 23, 2009 12:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nstonep: There is also a pretty bad waste water effect from the bleaching of the wood pulp to make paper. I used to live 30+ mins from a paper mill, and some days you could smell the chemicals everywhere in my town. That can't be good for the environment.

$\"user-pic\"$

wrjohnston91283

October 23, 2009 11:49 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wouldn't a frog of both sexes be able to repoduce asexually and grow back faster than the tree?

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 3:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@wrjohnston91283: Also I recall that there really are frogs that can change their sexual organs to better match their surrounding environment/ratio of males to females. I remember this being discussed in the Jurassic Park book and dismissed it as non-sense but then had both a biology professor and anthropology professor give examples of this happening.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 3:56 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion:
You forgot something:
E-Book Reader ~$200

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 4:09 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Oh, and I'd been so excited about the Nook. Way to spoil my gadget lust, Consumerist!

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Applekid

October 23, 2009 4:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Darklighter: Just look at it this way: you just told your friend about a hot date you've got with the girl from the bagel shop downstairs, only to have the friend tell you to be careful and double up on those condoms because she's a human STD culture petri dish.

It's for your own good. I just got talked out of Nook too. Thanks for keeping me from taking one for the team!

$\"user-pic\"$

Gideon

October 23, 2009 4:40 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Darklighter: Isn't it better to know the truth, though?

I just hope this gets out more. This indigenous advertising crap really ticks me off..

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 4:35 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Darklighter: Yeah... this article pretty much dashes ANY chances of me getting an ebook reader in the near future.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 8:31 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Honestly, I'm not that disappointed that the feature sucks. I saw a lot of potential in it, but for me the strongest selling points are still the design and the native PDF support, which might be enough for me to overlook this underhanded move (yes, I know that makes me a bad consumerist). I'm still optimistic that the publishing industry will learn what the music industry did about DRM.

$\"user-pic\"$

FigNinja

October 23, 2009 7:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Darklighter: PDF on a 6\" screen is pretty painful unless it's just reflowable text and simple graphics.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 4:45 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania: I assume it does prevent you from reading it while it is loaned out. These things are drm'ed so it can be restricted so one person can view it at a time. That means there is no reason to restrict the amount of times it could be borrowed.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 5:37 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'd say it's about content control. It's infinitely easier to copy and ebook and send it to hundred people than to do the same with a physical book. Folks who wouldn't ever bother doing lending out a physical book to people might think nothing of e-lending a bunch of copies of the newest bestseller if it were quick a painless.

One of the biggest lessons of the internet is: It's hard to get people to pay for it when they can easily find it for free.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 8:27 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: And yet the music industry has managed to move to a DRM-free digital marketplace. It just seems nobody in the publishing industry was paying attention.

$\"user-pic\"$

treimel

October 23, 2009 1:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Darklighter:
yeah, and the music industry's in great shape--definitely want to copy them!

$\"user-pic\"$

jaymec

October 23, 2009 10:16 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Darklighter: The music industry compensates for loss of sales in records by massive concerts where they make the majority of their money. Authors don't really have that option.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 1:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@jaymec: Authors have speaking fees, licensing, options for television and film (and theater, I would imagine), audiobook rights, and who knows what other ancillary markets. Rowling's fortune was made from licensing. And it's pessimistic to think that there will be no innovation in content channels in the coming years, which may bring in new sources of revenue.

I almost sympathize with authors who rely solely on royalties from their books to survive. But do those authors even exist? I mean other than the blockbuster authors, and they will continue to make boatloads of money I'm sure. Midlisters never lived off of royalties, so to pretend a shake-up in the industry will financially ruin them is kind of overly dramatic.

I just don't buy this new counter-argument (your mention of it is the second time I've seen it pop up in print) that because writers are not musicians, a DRM-free model won't work. Both groups are creative types, both produce original content for consumption that can be easily distributed digitally.

$\"user-pic\"$

treimel

October 23, 2009 1:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters:

I can see you don't know anybody in the publishing industry. I do, and the fact is, they *are* authors who have never sniffed the best-sellers list (and never will) who make their living through their writing. In point of fact, that describes *most* authors at mid-size imprints.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 2:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@treimel: I always assumed the bestseller list was really tough to crack.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

ageshin

October 23, 2009 5:23 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The answer to the questions about e-books is to not to use them. From what I can see one does not buy an e-book but kind of lease them. Now I have bought e-books for my computer, and I get a text file that I can read and make copies of, and give to my friends, or move to trash as I see fit. I can't read these books while sitting in my bath tub, with out the risk of electrocution. So the best solution is to buy the old fashioned book, used or new.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

jaymec

October 23, 2009 10:22 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ageshin: Actually I find them easier to read in the tub. I'm still super careful, but they sell waterproofing plastic bags for electronic devices that work quite well.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 8:33 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ageshin: I never understood this whole reading in the tub thing. Beyond my glasses fogging up, I find wet paper just as unpleasant as wet electronics.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 5:56 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ageshin: Agreed. I don't think you'll get electrocuted, but that expensioso device might not work so well after being used as a submarine. Yeah, if a bound book goes swimming, you might be out a few bucks to get a used replacement, rather than hundreds.

$\"user-pic\"$

ChemicallyInert

October 23, 2009 8:14 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@webweazel: Having dropped one or two books in the tub, I can say that if you pull it out quickly enough (and you will) you're not even going to be out the cost of the book. Shake it out and then close it and squeeze it while shut wrapped in a towel using your body weight. Then open it and shake it a little while fanning the pages. Then leave it to dry with the pages fanned out. It will be damaged with a wavyness to the pages, but it will still be quite readable- possibly a little easier since you don't worry so much anymore about breaking the spine to lay it flat.

On the other hand they may soon have a waterproof casing for an ebook while the same for a regular book is problematic. Still not buying one so long as they have control over my library. Especially after the \"1984\" debacle.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

thisistobehelpful

October 23, 2009 10:16 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I hope I never live to see print die. It would really break my heart.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

jaymec

October 23, 2009 10:21 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'll stick with my kindle. The one person I want to loan to is my husband, and he's on my account and so can download the books to his kindle (up to 5 devices on most books) for an unlimited period of time.

","","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

robocop is bleeding

October 23, 2009 12:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

...and that kills my desire for a Nook.

I'm a librarian who is running a Kindle lending program here at my library. It's been really successful. Lots of people who borrow a Kindle later go on to buy one. I was interested in the Nook mainly because of its lending features - if the library could easily lend ebooks via the Nook, we would encourage our students and faculty to purchase Nooks of their own rather than Kindles.

But a single loan? Not so much.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

FigNinja

October 23, 2009 7:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@robocop is bleeding: Overdrive already has a lending system for libraries. My library uses it. You don't need a nook specifically for that.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 1:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@robocop is bleeding: Yeah, I am disappointed by this one time lending only policy. The 14 day restriction doesn't bother me so much but the one time only feels a little weird.

$\"user-pic\"$

robocop is bleeding

October 23, 2009 2:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@tasselhoff76: Imagine the pressure on the poor sap who 'borrows' and eBook.

\"Look, I'll loan this eBook to you, but you must promise to read it as I can only loan it once. If you don't finish it in 14 days, I'll never speak to you again.\"

\"Er, maybe I'll give it a pass...\"

$\"user-pic\"$

K-Bo

October 23, 2009 1:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@robocop is bleeding: one of the upcoming e-readers ( I can't remember if it's sony's or plastic logic's) will actually have an agreement with libraries so they can buy distribution copies, that can only be loaned out once at a time, but can be loaned repeatedly. I plan to sell my Kindle and get one if they pull it off without adding all kinds of overly restrictive crap to it.

$\"user-pic\"$

robocop is bleeding

October 23, 2009 2:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@K-Bo: Thanks, that's good to know.

The deciding factor behind eReaders comes down to a mix of technology, functionality, and depth of catalog. Even if a new reader has library-friendly lending rules built in to it, we still might have to give it a miss if the available books for download are slim.

One thing I noted about the B&N offerings was that they currently are pretty limited, once you get past all the free stuff one could get from Project Gutenberg. I hope their selection is a bit more robust at Nook launch.

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 1:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Better still...just don't buy a friggin' e-book reader.

Paper is your friend.

If you accidentally leave it on the plane, no big loss, especially if it's your average paperback edition.

If you're reading on the beach and a wave accidentally catches it...again, no big loss. Lay it out on the windowsill to dry. My wife and I have done this numerous times.

You can loan it to as many friends as you want, as many times as you want.

You can re-sell it to a used-book store if you want.

I repeat...Paper is your friend.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Applekid

October 23, 2009 4:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@flugennock: Maybe paper is YOUR friend. Paper hates me and cuts me all the time. I'd file a restraining order but even the order itself is in league with PAPER.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 23, 2009 2:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@flugennock: Honestly, if you're so careless as to leave a $250 eBook reader on a plane - you probably should be sticking to paper anyway.

But when I went on vacation, I blew through five books in five days. I wish I had an eBook reader because then I wouldn't be carrying eight books in one trip.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 6:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Same here - I always finish books quickly, so I end up having to pack 5-10 books on long trips. Even with smaller paperbacks, that's a good bit of space and weight. Plus, if I read through them, I'm stuck shopping at an airport bookstore to find something new - and given that their selection is pretty limited to popular books and bestsellers, I never find anything I'm interested in.

$\"user-pic\"$

FigNinja

October 23, 2009 7:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@OrtizDupri: Yep. And if you run out while out of the country, it can be really hard to find a good selection depending on where you are and what languages you read. I didn't buy a reader because it made tons of financial sense. I bought it for my own convenience.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

sumocat

October 23, 2009 2:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"Paper is your friend\" -- Unless you are a tree or rely on trees to sustain your life by providing oxygen.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

AllanG54

October 23, 2009 5:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Enough with this save the trees crap. Don't you realize that the paper companies plant new trees after they cut down the other ones. The forests would have been used up two hundred years ago. I can't figure out people not understanding this.
By the way...it takes more energy to make recycled paper than new and that's why it costs more.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Cant_stop_the_rock

October 23, 2009 2:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this \"policy\" is so nonsensical that it is almost surely a case of a single employee misinterpreting the policy and passing it along to the customer. The customer obviously understands that there are two possible interpretations - one that makes sense, and the other that makes no sense. I'm not sure that the CSR understood that there were two possible interpretations, and that the one she chose makes no sense.

I hope.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

FigNinja

October 23, 2009 7:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: The guy at MobileRead who did the legwork on this went on to B&N's forum and asked several times. He made it painfully clear that he was asking if they really meant you could only lend a book once, ever. He got replies from two different B&N reps saying that was the case. If they misunderstood or mis-spoke after as much questioning as he gave them, they should be fired and sent to a basic reading comprehension class.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Daveinva

October 23, 2009 3:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, a lot of Luddites on this board.

Damn radio will eliminate live performances in your home!

Stupid talkies are ruining movies!

VCRs will kill the film industry!

Who needs 500 cable channels when you've got the networks?

Who needs a chunky phone the size of a brick in their car, let alone on their person? Use a payphone.

That iPod thing will never catch on. Who is going to *pay* for music they can't share?

Etc., etc., etc.

Look, I love books. Who doesn't? They're great.

And believe me, until I got the GF a Kindle that she asked for, I didn't think too highly of e-readers either. Who reads books on computers? They kill your eyes, you can't curl up with them, etc.

After having used the Kindle, with e-ink. . . I'm a total convert to its convenience.

Is it \"better\" than a real book? No. But I don't have to wait 2-4 days for shipping, or schlep in a car to the store. I hear about a book, I see a review, a couple minutes later, I'm enjoying it. AND in a format with a device that is truly not as awful as people who've only read-- or tried to read-- books on an LCD screen seem to think it is. It's pretty far from awful, in fact.

Is the technology imperfect? Yes, it is. Remember the first mp3 players? They all sucked. Even the early iPods. But we went through them, and the manufacturers learned what worked and what didn't, and now, they're pretty damn impressive.

Again, think back to 1999. Ten years ago. Look at the gadgets you have now, and how absolutely different-- and now, indispensable-- many of them are.

Will e-books replace real books? No, just like mp3s won't replace live concerts. But you can't carry a concert around with you all the time.

Convenience, that's all this is. But really, that's all that it needs to be.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 3:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

To be completely frank, a netbook (and even some low-end laptops) cost about this much. With a computer you can read books and do any number of other things, and you can do it without the arbitrary restrictions that electronic readers seem to be inundated with.

I've been adamant about talking my friends and family out of getting readers after the Amazon debacle a few months ago. I find that people tend to grow a bit less enthusiastic about readers once they're informed about the muddy \"ownership\" of eBooks. I feel like something should belong to me if I pay for it, at least in the sense that a company can't push a button and delete it, and others tend to feel the same in my experience.

It's sad, too. Readers are a fantastic concept and I think they should become standard, but not with the kind of moneygrubbing nonsense policies that are currently chaining them down.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 23, 2009 3:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

My biggest deterrent from buying an e-reader is the cost of each book. I read at least 3 to 4 books per week, and I can't afford to spend $150 to $200 a month on books at $10 a pop. I know that there are plenty of ebooks out there for free, but unfortunately they aren't the books I want to read. Right now I use the local library, which I love, but if I want to take more than one book with me on my commute, my bag gets ridiculously heavy. Plus, I have to wait in the hold queue forever for any popular books, and there's the cost of gas and time to get to and from the library (which is a half hour from my home).

I would buy an e-reader instantly from the company (Amazon, B&N, whoever) who came out with a Netflix-like rental program for ebooks. Pay somewhere around $10 to $20 a month, depending on the number of books you have \"checked out\" at a time, and electronically return a book when you're done, getting a new only when the current one is off your device.

Why doesn't anyone do this? I would think it would be a smart, lucrative move. They would get my money for the device itself, plus the cost of about two books per month, which is probably a typical amount spent for a lot of current users.

Would anyone else be swayed to buy an e-reader if something like this was available?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

FigNinja

October 23, 2009 7:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@PickyPatron: The publishers would have to really lower their list prices and the only way I see the big guys doing that is when print goes by the wayside and their overall operating costs get much lower. Those $10 ebooks that are out at the same time as the $15-$20 hardback are being sold at a loss. Amazon has to pay the publishers and the publishers set the price. The ebook list price and the hardback list price on a new release are pretty much the same. Amazon can try to negotiate but they can't force them to accept a lower figure.

From the point of view of the publishers, ebooks cannibalize print sales. Less of a big deal when the book is in paperback. People are usually willing to pay paperback prices for ebooks. When the book is first out in hardback, that's when the publishers are trying to make their high margin sales. The hardback doesn't cost substantially more to print. From what I've read, we're talking $1-$2 per unit. Yet they charge twice as much if not more than a paperback. Why? Because they know a certain number of people will pay a lot more to get it now rather than wait. The author is out on the signing and interview circuit. The book gets a prime location in book stores. If they lowered the margins on new release ebooks and you had a choice of the $15-$20 hardback and a $5 ebook, even more people would go that way and there goes the high-margin sales. The only way out of this is to completely re-work the business model. That's hard to do while supporting the infrastructure of the physical print enterprise and that's not going away over night.

","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

roanoke

October 23, 2009 6:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Why does everyone assume that books and ereaders are mutually exclusive? I for one will be buying an ereader later this year (probably the nook), but I still appreciate the feel, smell and look of paper books. Why can't I buy both?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

teke367

October 23, 2009 6:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I don't see the need for eReaders for most people, and with each new article, I'm even less compelled to even buy one.

","","","","","","","","","","");