I thought I would take this opportunity to support many forum posts of the past that I wrote, much to the consternation of the technodazzled hereabouts, and say, "I Told You So."
Shameless of me, isn't it? And yes, I'm gloating.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/books-ebook-publishers-paper?CMP=share_btn_tw
Thank you for sharing... I do not buy paper books anymore myself, but I will admit there are great advantages to them. Ease of lending. Ease of selling or giving away. For me my iPad will likely always be my key reading technology. It is easy on my eyes it is light and allows me to carry around my library. I will never get rid of my core paper library but I also will not stop reading buying ebooks. I have been an avid ebook fan from days before i have a palm pilot but the PDF based ebooks reading on the computer were a poor replacement for a real book. However once i had a handheld device it was wonderful... Once I had an iPad there was no turning back in my mind of the superiority for me of ebooks.
-dan
PS:My kindle account saves me money, when there is a book that looks interesting to me rather than purchase and hope to get around to reading it later I download a sample and when I am ready to start reading that ebook I can buy it later having the sample for me is a great way to add a place for it in my Library when the time is right. Over the years I cannot tell you the number of books I bought because they were there and wanted them before it went out of print. Having sometimes taking years to track down some out of print works. I realize it is always possible a digital book could get pulled before i get a chance to buy it but I think that is a remote possibility compared to a paper book being out of print.
I know its gotta be only a semi-gloat, as U are still, to at least some extent, with us in Logos land.
Books will always be amoung us as e-formats are not available in all cases.
2nd hand books are sometimes too expensive, so one needs to go electronic.
Like an umbrella in the trunk on a sunny day, wisdom suggests flexibility.
I am glad U posted this, B.
Thank you Doc B
I prefer print books to ebooks any day of the week. But I do think that you need both is this day and age of technology.
I have also bought brand new print books, commentaries, etc. at far cheaper prices than they are here on LOGOS. Some of the the prices here so exorbitant on LOGOS it is just absurd. And before anyone says anything, there is no need to go into the tagging bit - have heard it all before many times - tired of that one.
I am very grateful and thankful to FAITHLIFE, and I think they do a marvelous job here at LOGOS.
Like I have already stated, we need print books and ebooks. Me personally, I will read a print book before I read an ebook.
I know lot of people who love physical books, and they will eventually die off. [:P] I think the discussion is a lot more nuanced than most people make it. If you look at the best seller lists on Amazon for 2016, you'll notice some interesting things.
Here's the physical book list: http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2016/books/
And here's the ebook list: http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2016/digital-text/154606011/
The physical book list has almost no novels: 3 in the top 20, 6 in the top 40. It's all adult coloring books, cookbooks, children's picture books, gift books, and self-help books---books that don't work well on a Kindle. However the ebook list is ALL novels (I scanned through the top 60).
Now I'm sure this is a non-scientific comparison (we're not comparing actual sales numbers), but I think it's significant that the physical book sales numbers are propped up by books people don't spend much time reading.
I think we should all embrace the New Technology. Lets face it eBooks are ancient history. Paper books are the future![;)][:P]
O NO! I think I have just committed Logos Heresy. Is this the unforgivable sin?[;)][:P]
Oh Faithlife please forgive me.[;)][:P]
P A [:D]
I agree with Todd. Check the data.
First, reading what. And then gender/age.
For me, hardcopy as a last resort, unless sewing, quilting or cooking. Everything else better be digital ... tools, manuals, novels, and religious.
Plus the author quoted revenue, not units. Yesterday I wanted a geology book discussing gneis. Basically $70 and up, unless I went hardcopy. I went hardcopy.
[Y] Paper books are far nicer to handle and read from BUT take up far too much room. Sorry but paper books are not on my buying lists unless both essential and not available in e format. Oh and neither are paper magazines welcome unless delivered free in my letter box
One thing I can say for sure, I will never give up my paper Bible.
this message brought to you by the makers of cardboard boxes. the very ones used by seminary students to cart around their research books from school to home and back again, but slowly becoming extinct with the advent of digital books.
(btw, I LOVE Simon Jenkins. AND I love LPs, which are also making a comeback.)
"...publishers blindly followed suit"? What planet is he on? Publishers went kicking and screaming into ebooks.
I still think we are in a weird place right now. The people who buy books aren't as tech savvy as the generations coming up. I think there was a novelty for a while, which has faded. However, as new generations rise, there will be greater and greater acceptance and desire for ebooks.
FWIW - I am not a hyper-environmentalist, but I consider myself a conservationist. I am glad that my 6,000+ Logos books and 1,000+ Kindle books didn't require any trees to be cut down for me to read. I can appreciate those who have a strong connection to a print book (I have a little of that), but the advantages far outweigh the drawbacks... even though there are some significant drawbacks.
One big advantage of ebooks: when I am old... well older... and my chillun put me in a nursing home, I am taking my whole cotton pickin' library with me - every book - on my Surface Pro 12.
I truly love paper books - a new book is still one of the very best gifts I can receive. Over the last few years I've found myself buying many fewer paper books, though. There are two reasons. The first is travel. I have to travel a fair bit for my job, and for years I would pack two (or sometimes three) books to carry with me for even relatively short trips (I hate to run out of things to read). Then I broke down and bought a book reader to use when I travel - and found that I could take hundreds of books with me on the plane in a form that was smaller and lighter than a single hardcover novel (or even some paperback novels). It made travel much more pleasant - I never ran out of books to read on the road. The second is my daily commute. A couple of years ago I bought a tablet and put Logos on it so I could study on the subway. Again, I can have my English Bible, a Greek Bible, a commentary and a lexicon all at my fingertips at one time - or all of the texts for a class. I'm now making much better use of the time I spend commuting.
I hope that I will always have paper books to enjoy - and I'm purely incapable of really reading a book on a traditional computer. The format is just too different from a real book. But the power and convenience of electronic books on a tablet or e-reader is hard to beat when you're on the go.
After years of giving it a go, I have to agree: Paper books are superior, if only for the experience alone. I love the functionality ebooks bring to the table, but their slightly gnostic-like experience always leave me wanting more. There's nothing like a roomful of books, and having your children explore your bookshelves is no match to them scrolling down a list of pictures.
In an age becoming more and more abstract, theres nothing like something as ancient and practical as a physical book to bring you back to reality.
And I say this after literally just packing and moving 180 feet of books to a new house too!
as new generations rise, there will be greater and greater acceptance and desire for ebooks.
Everyone in this thread who has expressed a preference for paper are much younger than I am—some decades younger. I personally prefer ebooks, and if everything that interested me was available digitally, I would never purchase another paper book.
BTW—My next birth anniversary will be fourscore.
I'm not quite in your age bracket but moving in that direction quickly. I too have no desire to purchase another paper book and much prefer ebooks - especially in Logos format. [:)]
Everyone in this thread who has expressed a preference for paper are much younger than I am—some decades younger.
Yes, but you are an "early adopter."
I never make it through more than a couple of sittings with a traditional book. I either worry about it getting scuffed if I take it out and about, or I leave it at home where I rarely read for long - I prefer sitting in the park I walk through on my way to and from work.
Plus I do lots of my reading in small snippets - if I'm walking on my own, while I'm on hold, waiting in queues, etc. That and the lack of features, the faff of finding my place, following endnotes, making notes etc all incline me towards ebooks/software.
This year, I've read 29 pages on paper and roughly 7,000 pages via Logos/Kindle (or "pages", if you prefer).
For me almost any time I leave the house, I have my backpack with my MacBook Pro, Tablet. I love being able to carry my Library with me. I use the Tablet for lite reading or for my students to use, most don't have a tablet or computer so this is a blessing.
I do have some paper books My KJV from high school, HCSB & NKJV and about 10 other books a few novels and apologetics books.
Ebook is the way of the future.. but I must have my paper Bible.
FWIW - I am not a hyper-environmentalist, but I consider myself a conservationist. I am glad that my 6,000+ Logos books and 1,000+ Kindle books didn't require any trees to be cut down for me to read.
While that may or may not be true, the production of ebooks is not necessarily environmentally friendly.
I do still have one print bible: Biblia Sacra Utriusque Testamenti which has the Hebrew text on one side and the Greek on the other. It's good for taking to church if they don't happen to have a pew bible since I WILL NOT use electronic media in church.
the production of ebooks is not necessarily environmentally friendly.
How so? Were electronic trees cut down in the process? [;)]
If you are simply talking about electricity, that is a non-starter imho. The cost to power my eInk kindle is negligible, and certainly much less than the power to light the lamp to read a paper book. [;)]
Do you know the process used in producing ebooks? Is every step of that process environmentally friendly? It is funny that you mentioned electricity. Electricity is a much cleaner power source than burning coal; however, much of the electricity produced in this country is produced by burning coal.
I'm not talking about the power needed to use an ebook, I'm talking about the presumption that the process of producing ebooks is more environmentally friendly than the process of producing paper books.
I'm talking about the presumption that the process of producing ebooks is more environmentally friendly than the process of producing paper books.
You still haven't answered my question. [;)]
I did. You just didn't like the answer. [8-|]
Your argument is circular: eBooks aren't as environmentally friendly as you think because eBooks aren't as environmentally as you think! What <specifically> isn't environmentally friendly "in the process"?
Remember also: most of the "process" to create the eBook is also needed to create the print book.
I suggest you read the following articles:
The Myth:Electronic Communication is More Environmentally Friendly Than Print and Paper found at twosomes.info
Going Paperless Not as Green as You May Think| GreenBiz blog
Is Digital Media Worse for the Environment Than Print? at media shift.org
I suggest you read the following articles: The Myth:Electronic Communication is More Environmentally Friendly Than Print and Paper found at twosomes.info Going Paperless Not as Green as You May Think| GreenBiz blog Is Digital Media Worse for the Environment Than Print? at media shift.org
Randall, put a space after links in order to activate them.
... I WILL NOT use electronic media in church.
I prefer not to as well. It would be too easy for me to become distracted and lose myself in a sea of electronic resources, rather than fully participate in communal worship.
Thanks, Jack. I didn't copy them as links but I probably should have.
Here are the links to the articles mentioned above.
https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/04/14/going-paperless-not-green-and-tree-friendly-you-think
http://www.twosides.info/Digital-media-also-has-environmental-impacts
http://mediashift.org/2010/03/is-digital-media-worse-for-the-environment-than-print090/
... I WILL NOT use electronic media in church. I prefer not to as well. It would be too easy for me to become distracted and lose myself in a sea of electronic resources, rather than fully participate in communal worship.
Odd I have never had an issue with this at all... however my spouse will occasionally play solitaire but so easily distracted...
-Dan
Paper vs digital?
Most paper (unsupported assertion) comes from southern tree plantations. Which in turn enhance the atmosphere, while waiting to die.
But cutting has much smoke and waste, plus chemicals to produce paper, ship, store, etc.
On the other hand, paper books, once produced, can go through multiple uses, and be re-cycled easily.
Digital (Kindle, Mac, etc) is pure pollution until the use point. But what is the life? 2-3 years before disposal?
I've not seen a head-to-head comparison.
Same with washing cars. We use less water than our dishwasher to wash our cars. But the city demands a carwash, which spews water everywhere and uses chemicals to reclaim the water. Head to head comparison?
I actually prefer people to use the Bible they will use. Anything that gets people into the Bible, I am for.
One good EMP strike will solve this issue- do not get rid of your paper material
Did you actually take time to read the articles? If you had, perhaps you would have noticed that two were the same article, by the same author. [:P]
From the Don Carli (2010) article:
This article does not make a case that print is categorically preferable to digital media. Rather, it presents evidence that our digital media choices can have significant unintended environmental consequences.
Don's article isn't "paper is better." He is an environmentalist with an agenda. His target audience are other environmentalists. He is trying to convince them that they need to be just as upset about other environmental issues... not just about paper.
The other article is from a paper lobby. Hmm. I wonder what they think about the issue. [;)]
If you find a reputable author from a reputable source claiming "eBooks are worse than paper," let me know and I'll take a read.
The other article is from a paper lobby. Hmm. I wonder what they think about the issue.
You didn't by any chance mean "I wonder what they think about the tissue," did you? [;)] [:D]
Here are the links to the articles mentioned above. Did you actually take time to read the articles? If you had, perhaps you would have noticed that two were the same article, by the same author. From the Don Carli (2010) article: This article does not make a case that print is categorically preferable to digital media. Rather, it presents evidence that our digital media choices can have significant unintended environmental consequences. Don's article isn't "paper is better." He is an environmentalist with an agenda. His target audience are other environmentalists. He is trying to convince them that they need to be just as upset about other environmental issues... not just about paper. The other article is from a paper lobby. Hmm. I wonder what they think about the issue. If you find a reputable author from a reputable source claiming "eBooks are worse than paper," let me know and I'll take a read.
Did you actually take time to read the articles? If you had, perhaps you would have noticed that two were the same article, by the same author.
Yes I did read them and others as well. I mistakenly used the same article twice. Also, I never claimed that eBooks were worse than paper. What I stated was that ebooks may not be as eco friendly as you think.
You certainly do NOT have to use electronic books in Church. But I pastor a church in heart of the Bible belt in a small southern county seat town. We are about as traditional as they come. And almost all my young adults, most of my members under 40, use electronic Bibles either on cell phones or tablets in church and at home. Not all, mind you, but most. And a significant number of my members over 60 do so. If that is true here, then I think you fighting a losing battle. I actually prefer people to use the Bible they will use.
You certainly do NOT have to use electronic books in Church. But I pastor a church in heart of the Bible belt in a small southern county seat town. We are about as traditional as they come. And almost all my young adults, most of my members under 40, use electronic Bibles either on cell phones or tablets in church and at home. Not all, mind you, but most. And a significant number of my members over 60 do so. If that is true here, then I think you fighting a losing battle.
I actually prefer people to use the Bible they will use.
The only advantage I see to a dead tree book is that it doesn't run out of batteries, but then again, if the lights go out and you don't have a flashlight a book is useless too. Other than that an ebook is better and lasts longer in the long run. Better note taking and highlights; which you can edit as you please go green and save a tree...buy an ebook!
DAL
You didn't by any chance mean "I wonder what they think about the tissue," did you?
I did. It was a typo. [:)]
But wait, there's more...(or should I say, 'Moore')?
http://www.russellmoore.com/2016/07/15/signposts-prefer-books-e-readers/
I would have skimmed an article, but I'm not going to take the time to listen. Care to give the highlights?
I did think this was humorous:
Recently I read that sales of e-readers like the Kindle had slowed, and that sales of physical books had risen. This made sense to me, since over the past couple of years I’ve realized that I almost totally prefer bound books to digital versions.
What "makes sense" to him, is fallacious two ways:
I have three children (27 to 22). The oldest is the most likely to use e-books. The youngest firmly prefers print books. He has avoided whenever possible e-books at college. I have read in the past that there is a return to print books in the millennial age bracket.
A couple of data points:
1. Major publishers have raised ebook prices to match physical books. This has had an easily anticipated effect of reducing ebook sales.
2. The primary reporters of this data is... the major publishers. Who have no incentive to report in ways favorable to their preferred business model, right? [H]
There are some books I want in paper, though most of those I would like an electronic copy, too, for reading.
One example is the new critical edition of Wesley's Works. As released I am buying copies in hardback format, but I also bought Abingdon's terrible electronic format. If Logos ever publishes it, I will buy the Logos version, too.
There are hardback books that I am sentimental about, even though I no longer use them. These are books that I literally bought with blood - well plasma. While in seminary over 40 years ago I sold plasma to buy special books that I could not afford any other way. These books include my set of Kittel's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" and Moulton and Geden's Greek Concordance. If you buy a book with blood, it will always be special to you. They will always have a proud place on my bookshelves.
There are many nonreligious books that I prefer in paper. I collect old copies (some 90 years old) by Edgar Rice Burroughs. I collect some of the classics, and some not so classic books. I collect old children's books written from 1900 through the 1930's. I collect books of folktales - especially those by Joel Chandler Harris. I collect books about history and biography.
But my Bible library and related books I prefer in Logos!
