Grazza Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 I really want one, but I'm going to wait until they're as good as holding a magazine or a full-colour book with large pages, as I like that type of book more than novels. They're a great idea though, I'm all for them.
Goafer Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 I tend to be against digital copies of things, simply because what happens if the reader/iPod/other breaks? Technology just isn't made to last nowadays because manufacturers know that their current product will just be upgraded for a newer model in a year or so's time. If my iPod ever breaks, I'd lose half of my music because half of it was backed up on old/broken PCs. The only stuff I'd be able to get back would be the ones I didn't get from iTunes (CDs, obviously). That's why I'll always prefer hard copies, it's not putting all your eggs in one basket. Plus, I can see the appeal of cracking open a new book as opposed to just downloading a new text file. The feel of the pages/book can be part of the experience for some. It's neither right nor wrong, but for some people it just feels right. Some books are made with so much care and attention that it would be shame to reduce them to mere gadgetry. Sure that doesn't go for all books, but it's just like how some people go on about certain songs need to be experienced on vinyl. Certain things just need to be experienced the old fashioned way. That said, I don't read enough to care strongly either way, I just feel that there will always be a place for "the good old fashioned way". Slowly but surely, all the charm is being taken away from everything and being replaced with cheap plastic crap.
Cube Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 The only stuff I'd be able to get back would be the ones I didn't get from iTunes (CDs, obviously). Can't you just re-download the stuff you got from iTunes?
Sheikah Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 If my iPod ever breaks, I'd lose half of my music because half of it was backed up on old/broken PCs. The only stuff I'd be able to get back would be the ones I didn't get from iTunes (CDs, obviously). That's why I'll always prefer hard copies, it's not putting all your eggs in one basket. I usually find the reverse is true; physical CDs tend to get scratched up/lost, whereas storing things on an external hard drive as well as an MP3 player means you're unlikely to lose them. Plus at least on PS3, I can redownload any game I have previously purchased. You can't go and ask for another copy of a CD from a shop if you break/lose it.
Ashley Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 I fucking hate these things. The idea of reducing a collection of books to tect files on an ugly ass PDA is just awful. Where's a aesthetic pleasure? the sense of ownership? hell, where's the desire to not look at a goddamn screen for a while? Eurrgh. I don't know why'd you'd want thousands of books in one device anyway. It's not like thousands of songs that last 4 minutes and you pick from at random- books take weeks to read and you only read one at a time. Since when was owning books a waste of space? Fuck this. One very good use for this; long-term travelling. I considered it when I was considering a gap year. Hell even just going to Japan when I had three books with me it would have been far easier to carry this around. And I'm currently reading four books so screw your notion!
Goafer Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 Can't you just re-download the stuff you got from iTunes? I'm not sure to be honest. Don't think so though.
Cube Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 I'm not sure to be honest. Don't think so though. If you couldn't, then surely nobody would be using iTunes?
Ashley Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 If you couldn't, then surely nobody would be using iTunes? Nobody should be using iTunes anyway. (except to put music on an iPod, damn Apple!)
Daft Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 If you used Spotify all your music would be in the magical cloud. The cloud is the future.
Eenuh Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 I wouldn't really like this apart from reading just text books. But I'm currently all about picture books, which I just don't see working that well on a screen. It's just not the same. I love the feeling of a book, handling the pages, feeling the paper (especially if the book uses a different kind of paper), feeling the texture... There's something special about it. =) Plus a picture book looks so much nicer if you can actually hold it, feel it, smell it etc. When I made my own book, it just felt so nice to actually hold it in my hands and be able to flip through the pages. I had a digital copy as well, but it's just not the same heh.
Wesley Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 I'm with Daft in terms of getting rid of physical stuff. I use Spotify for music, Steam for PC gaming and now use my iPhone for magazines/newspapers. However, using Spotify for music doesn't change the experience of the music (for me), Steam actually improves the experience (for me) and my iPhone newspaper/magazine experience is largely the same (for me). Where as having an eReader (in their current form) would worsen my reading experience. I genuinely end up bending my books, sitting in odd positions in bed with the book slightly folded and for me the actual physical feel is quite important. I never buy hardbacks (unless it's the ONLY option) for this reason. So yeah... eReaders destroy the experience for me. EDIT: Just for the obvious question of, "Isn't that the same for magazines and newspapers?" I mostly read those on the toilet and at desks... where the feel and... "bendability" of it doesn't matter.
Daft Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 I wouldn't get one if it wasn't for the number of pdfs I read at university and the price is right for that now. I like highlighting and writing all over my books, though. Sony, I think, have a reader that allows you to write on pages so in time when it's all standard stuff I'll be completely sorted - as of now that one is really expensive. They're also developing bendy E-ink screens.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 I'm with most people in here. It's convenient and definitely has a market, but for now I prefer the feel of an actual book. I'm old-school like that.
Happenstance Posted March 9, 2017 Author Posted March 9, 2017 Bringing back this old thread as I have a new Kindle question. Does anyone know if it's worth shelling out the money for the more expensive Kindle Voyage or just getting the latest Paperwhite? My old Kindle got bricked when they did their update a few months ago. Totally my fault as I ignored the warnings but I'd like to move back from reading on my heavier iPad on the Kindle app back to a nice light device. I like the design of the Voyage more, especially the completely flat screen but it does cost more money.
bob Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Amazon basically nailed the Kindle about 4 or 5 iterations ago. Everything since has just added fluff. I'd go for the cheaper one personally.
Sheikah Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I have the Voyage. It's not actually that comfortable to hold and a bit heavy (although after looking it up, Paperwhite is even heavier). I got the official origami case thing for it. I'd probably go for the Paperwhite as I'm assuming the Voyage is still a lot more expensive.
Happenstance Posted March 9, 2017 Author Posted March 9, 2017 Yeah I ended up going with the Paperwhite. Losing the bezel would have been nice but not £50-60 nice.
Babooo Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 You made the right decision my friend. My brother has the Voyage and there really isn't much to it compared to my Paperwhite.
Charlie Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 I just have the basic one (not even PaperWhite) and think it's fantastic. Had it for years and have no reason to upgrade. When I eventually need to upgrade I'll go for a PaperWhite. There have been a few times, not many, where a backlight would have been useful but not enough to upgrade early.
MoogleViper Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 This bot is very confusing. Charlie isn't a bot, mate, he's been on the forum for years.
Charlie Posted March 17, 2017 Posted March 17, 2017 Charlie isn't a bot, mate, he's been on the forum for years. 14 and counting! How do we know for sure though? I'm playing the long con. I'm becoming more sentient with each passing moment.
Happenstance Posted March 17, 2017 Author Posted March 17, 2017 I'm playing the long con. I'm becoming more sentient with each passing moment. Is that why you changed your username? To make us feel like you were more human?
Charlie Posted March 17, 2017 Posted March 17, 2017 Is that why you changed your username? To make us feel like you were more human? Ahead of the curve. Anticipated that people would prefer human names like Alexa when they talk to their technology.
Recommended Posts