This is an excellent article. Much of the discussion about digital vs. dead-tree books is similar to Stallman's "Right to Read" essay [1], which was published 22 years ago in 1997. As a graduate teaching assistant who has taught several introductory physics courses in an American university, I've noticed that book publishers like Pearson and MacMillan have been pushing students to buy/subscribe digital versions of their textbooks. Professors also increasingly assign homeworks online rather than make students do it on paper. This is really sad because it's really difficult to learn physics without actually doing pen-and-paper calculations. As an example, in a particular homework on vector addition, students were asked to draw the resultant vectors on some poorly-written JS based web notebook, and the students spent more time getting the thing to work instead of learning vector addition.<p>I can also understand why publishers push for digital subscriptions. Introductory physics textbooks have hardly changed in the past 30-40 years (I would even say they were less distracting and had better problems 30 years ago than now), and it should be obvious for the execs at Pearson and MacMillan that their business model is not going to survive unless they introduce subscription based textbooks. You really don't need anything more than an old (SI-units based) copy of Halliday & Resnick to learn introductory physics.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html</a>
> Make note: Design and contract parameters go hand in hand. When the front page is the only entry point, only a single page of the publication requires hyperbole to convert passers-by to readers. Online, every article becomes a potential entry point. And so there is an incentive for pervasive hyperbole in order to “convert” eyeballs in service to ads and the consumption of more attention.<p>Good point.
I love the immediacy of buying an e-book and reading it seconds later. I also love that I can carry multiple books on my phone and Paperwhite in my bag.
But now, after a few years of buying and reading e-books, I'm sad to see empty spaces on my bookshelf where my previously-read-books should be displayed. I _really_ wish that publishers would let me buy the paper version and upsell me the digital for $2 more. (or Vice versa). I'd do that all day long. But I don't think that's gonna happen. I can't be alone in this. Maybe I just need to switch back to paper books. That's the most obvious answer, but it's also the least convenient. Does anyone else here solve this in a clever way?
Interesting observation on "the contract" but I think it's narrow-minded in terms of why books haven't died.<p>When I hold a paper book, feel the pages, see the ink, it's just a superior experience. They spent money on the ink. Craft went into the model of a book that's been around for a long time. It imparts a sense of importance.<p>It's easier on the eyes. Writing in the margins is a more educational experience than clicking, highlighting, or saving. It's powerfully personal. Once it's written in ink, Bezos can't change it in real-time before your eyes.<p>It's a much richer experience.<p>As a side note, am I the only one who doesn't watch Netflix?<p>Sometimes I find a show I want to watch that's on Netflix, but then I go stream it elsewhere. Netflix is slow lol.
"If you read a novel in more than two weeks you don’t read the novel really."<p>Then who but academics--or maybe graduate students--can read <i>War and Peace</i>, <i>The Man Without Qualities</i>, <i>In Search of Lost Time</i> (or really, most of its constituent books), <i>Moby Dick</i>, etc.?<p>And I can imagine being "partial" to calling myself a reader, but "amicable" seems the wrong word.
> The best way to guarantee success is by preemptively engineering systems to reduce friction for positive habits, and increase friction for negative ones.<p>This is good advice for any self behavior change, not just reading. Can you excercise at home? Can you practice programming on your phone?
Regarding attention monsters, I didn't found mention in the article about the effort required to maintain a certain level of attention (over time). Please point it out if I missed it.<p>Reading a book and dealing with abstract thinking clearly requires more effort than loosely scrolling Instagram. It costs less and the (lower or higher) gratification is immediate.<p>On the other side, Instagram and games have a bidirectional interaction. Receiving a <i>like</i> or <i>upvotes</i>, prices and lootboxes make the <i>attention grabber</i> even more <i>grabbing</i>.
My reading-related startup did a study recently and found that — even among our relatively techie users – there is still a strong preference for paper books over ebooks. We were really surprised at the magnitude of this preference, given how tech-savvy the respondents were.<p><a href="https://medium.com/@BeeLineReader/even-for-ebook-readers-the-preference-for-paper-remains-strong-3fc5cd0d6245" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/@BeeLineReader/even-for-ebook-readers-the...</a>
A compromise I’ve made is a giant ereader/digital notebook. No internet browser. No eye strain. And no carrying around 40 lbs of textbooks. That being said, I lately found myself switching back to a pen and scratch pad since the stylus isn’t that good.<p>I’m a really big fan, even though build quality is sadly lacking.
Okay, great read. But here's my take on it.<p>Knowledge =/=> Books<p>Teaching =/=> Understanding<p>Money =/=> Education<p>Monetization =/=> Engagement<p>Wish more people thought about it that way. Especially in the publishing industry.
> The contract a reader enters with The Information is very clear: We pay, they write. Enough of us pay so they can keep writing. They write in a way that provides value via knowledge (ostensibly leading to smarter business decisions or investments on the part of the reader; i.e., extremely clear value proposition), not shock. Their model is not contingent on us looking at their writing from morning until night. Once a day is more than enough. Entry points are limited. It’s a healthy model for all parties.<p>It's certainly a personal choice, but this is NOT the contract I want with investigative journalism. I <i>want</i> the model to be "I support you however I can, you change the freaking world." IIRC I've seen The Information put quality investigative articles behind a paywall, and I was struck by how inefficient this would lead to change: I can't share this with others, the nuance of the article isn't visible if someone Googles the subject, the <i>punchline</i> may enter the zeitgeist but the nuance will not. I think that's dangerous, and if The Information were instead to suggest a contract "we show ads to everybody, track everybody, clickbait everybody, and therefore you can share this with everybody" I would prefer that instead.<p>Certainly they're entirely within their rights to NOT want to be in that business. Fully support anyone who does. But the ad-driven bait-driven model does have its uses, and we shouldn't throw it out with the bathwater.
The physicality of a book is something that can't be totally replaced on a kindle or an iPad. I feel the bulk of the push to pure digital is coming from publishers trying to lower costs. Which you can't blame them for that.
There ain’t no one reading “in search of lost time“ in less than two weeks<p>And no, reading does not burn calories<p>This is totally nuts, the whole article
Unless it's for reference purposes, i think reading is a waste of time. I stopped reading after college after it was no longer mandatory. same for movies and tv. Don't have the time for it but also the information can be stale. This is specially so for making money online. Bill gates' wealth and success and his love of reading are independent events but are often mistakenly assumed to be causal. Reading is just another form of entertainment. it is not going to unlock any magic or hidden doors to success as much as pundits like to extol the virtues of it .