Could a device that isn't for reading ebooks make people read ebooks?

Like many authors I have mixed feelings about ebooks. It is always great to have people reading your books, and ebooks get to places that other books can't... but on the other hand it's rather like Aston Martin producing a competitor to a Ford Fiesta. For all their hi-tech, ebooks are rather crude because they lack the careful page layout that goes into a 'real' book, so inevitably they feel like they've been designed by a ten-year-old.

Even so, there is no doubt that some people will buy an ebook version of a title they wouldn't bother to buy in paper form. (Especially when there's a sale on like the one Amazon has at the moment, with Inflight Science currently at the bargain price of £2.49 at Amazon.co.uk or $4 at Amazon.com. There are other goodies too. I'd recommend taking a look at Manjit Kumar's chunky Quantum. As you'll see from my review I've mixed feelings about the book, but at this price, who can complain? This fat tome is £6.15 in paper form, but currently 99p at Amazon.co.uk or $1.60 at Amazon.com.)

The difficulty, though, is getting people to dip a toe into the ebook market. Why would you buy a Kindle unless you wanted to read ebooks? But many people still they are quite satisfied with paper, thank you. To quote one writer, Jean Hedelstein, 'I have never found reading books to be a problem, so I’ve equally never felt the need to own a device that mitigates the non-problem of having books to read.'

It's here that I think that universal tablets like the iPad will help the digital market. Lots of people buy iPads with no particular intention of reading ebooks. But you can download ebook readers like Apple's iBooks and Kindle for free. With a few free titles to try out. And the ability to download free samples of most current ebooks. Once you get to that stage, it's no longer an abstract concept, but something real that you have done. I have only bought one ebook so far (and, yes, downloaded quite a few free ones), and I will mostly stick to paper. But there are times when the convenience of getting hold of an ebook will win through. And those cheapo offers on Amazon are sorely tempting. Increasingly, I feel, ebooks will sneak onto my iPad until I am at least partly converted.

So, bizarrely, I think a device that isn't particularly designed for reading ebooks is going to be more influential in converting the 'don't knows' to ebooks than dedicated readers like the Kindle. And tablets aren't going away. Rumour has it that Amazon is bringing out its own universal tablet this year, while ASDA is already selling a sub-£100 tablet. Interesting times indeed...

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