Will ebook readers go the way of the PDA?

Now, listen and attend, for this is an important lesson. Once upon a time there was something called a PDA, a TLA (three letter acronym) for the rather pompous 'Personal Digital Assistant.' It was, in essence, an electronic Filofax. Somewhere to keep your diary, address book, notes and the like. As in reality it was a pocket computer (as sung of by Blondie), it could also do snazzy things like display photos (though not take them), play music, record a voice and, with suitable add-on hardware, provide satellite navigation.

Now the PDA is no more, thanks to the smart phone. A Blackberry, an iPhone, or one of the alternatives does pretty well everything a PDA could, some things it couldn't (take pictures, make phone calls) and often has hardware built in for GPS and more. Why would you possibly want a PDA? Okay, it was a little bit better at some of its functions because the screen might have been a bit bigger. But you wanted a phone as well, so why carry two bits of hardware?

When smartphones first came out, I argued they were too big - but by the time the iPhone arrived, the form factor was perfectly acceptable. We've moved on.

Now I'd suggest the same thing is happening to the dedicated ebook reader. The iPad and a host of other tablets that will come out over the next few years will kill the dedicated reader. I'm not saying at this stage that the iPad itself will be the killer in the same way the Blackberry and iPhone were for the PDA (though it may be) - but the type of device will make the e-reader redundant.

'But, no!' scream the e-reader fans. "Ebooks are much better on e-readers. The screens work just as well in sunlight. The contrast ratio is more natural, more like paper. They don't use power when you aren't turning the page. They MUST survive.' Piffle, I say. This is the argument for Betamax over VHS (do we remember video recorders?) - it was technically superior in one respect, but that wasn't enough to make it survive.

The fact is, I'd rather read an e-book on my iPhone than an ebook reader. Page turning is much more natural, and the screen is fine in the places I'm likely to use it. (Not an a beach, I admit, but I don't use it on a beach.) And I have it ready, for instant use, wherever I am. The iPad or equivalent carries this forward. Okay, it's not pocketable, but I'm more likely to have it with me for its other features. It's not the best screen to read ebooks on, but I will balance that negative with all the other positives it gives me over those frankly clunky, black and white, slow to refresh, limited in facilities ebook readers. They don't stand a chance.

Image from Wikipedia

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog