Please Tell Me I&#x27;m Not The Only One Who Hates Kindles?!

Ugh, hate them too. Does technology really have to invade everything?

Reply 45

Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons

Ugh, hate them too. Does technology really have to invade everything?

People probably used to say that when the printing press first began, and had to start reading mass produced books rather than original handwritten manuscripts. But no doubt, when that technology "invaded", it changed our lives for the better. It would go on to be considered one of the most influential inventions of all time, and make us wonder how we ever lived without it.

I don't see why the situation is any different with Kindles, or any of the other technology you might be referring to.

Reply 46

Original post by tazarooni89

People probably used to say that when the printing press first began, and had to start reading mass produced books rather than original handwritten manuscripts. But no doubt, when that technology "invaded", it changed our lives for the better. It would go on to be considered one of the most influential inventions of all time, and make us wonder how we ever lived without it.

I don't see why the situation is any different with Kindles, or any of the other technology you might be referring to.

Simply because Kindles aren't changing anything huge. They're not a huge improvement.

Reply 47

Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons

Simply because Kindles aren't changing anything huge. They're not a huge improvement.

How big does it need to be before you'd consider it a "huge" improvement?

The fact that I can buy a book without having to leave my chair, not need to waste trees every time I buy them, can carry thousands of them around with me in my coat pocket, have access to a wider selection than any library could possibly provide, and the fact that new authors can get their books out to a wide readership more easily and faster than they ever could before - I'd say that's pretty huge.

Kindle vs book seems to me like a similar battle as iPod vs record player, email vs feather quill letter writing, taking a photo of someone rather than painting a portrait of them etc.. Sure, there'll be people feeling nostalgic about the happy memories they had using outdated equipment. But it's going to be difficult to put forward the case that the world is better off without the new equipment, given the significant extra effort they have to go to when restricted to the alternatives.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 48

Original post by tazarooni89

How big does it need to be before you'd consider it a "huge" improvement?

The fact that I can buy a book without having to leave my chair, not need to waste trees every time I buy them, can carry thousands of them around with me in my coat pocket, have access to a wider selection than any library could possibly provide, and the fact that new authors can get their books out to a wide readership more easily and faster than they ever could before - I'd say that's pretty huge.

Kindle vs book seems to me like a similar battle as iPod vs record player, email vs feather quill letter writing, taking a photo of someone rather than painting a portrait of them etc.. Sure, there'll be people feeling nostalgic about the happy memories they had using outdated equipment. But it's going to be difficult to put forward the case that the world is better off without the new equipment, given the significant extra effort they have to go to when restricted to the alternatives.

How often do you need to carry around thousands of books? You're using electricity to charge your Kindle. Eco friendly doesn't work as an argument. Plus, my dad's broke after about a week - I'd like to see a book just give up the ghost for no reason.

This is an opinion - you don't have to agree. I don't see why it bothers you anyway - be happy with your choice and I'll be happy with mine.

Reply 49

Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons

How often do you need to carry around thousands of books?

A simple example would be, if I'm going on holiday, and don't know which book I'll feel like reading when I get there. I'm never going to think "Oh, I can't read that one, because I left it at home".

You're using electricity to charge your Kindle. Eco friendly doesn't work as an argument.

How much electricity do you think it takes to charge a Kindle?
If we're comparing, for example, the environmental effect of producing half a billion Harry Potter books against charging all of those people's Kindle's, there's really no comparison.

Plus, my dad's broke after about a week - I'd like to see a book just give up the ghost for no reason.

Given that most people's would last far longer than a week, and given the amount of money a person saves purchasing ebooks rather than physical books, I'd say it's no big deal to just get a new one if it breaks.

This is an opinion - you don't have to agree. I don't see why it bothers you anyway - be happy with your choice and I'll be happy with mine.

I think a comment like "Ugh, I hate Kindles - Does technology have to invade everything?" gives off less of an impression of "I happen to prefer physical books myself" and more of an impression of "I disapprove of people using this kind of technology".

Reply 50

Original post by tazarooni89

A simple example would be, if I'm going on holiday, and don't know which book I'll feel like reading when I get there. I'm never going to think "Oh, I can't read that one, because I left it at home".

How much electricity do you think it takes to charge a Kindle?
If we're comparing, for example, the environmental effect of producing half a billion Harry Potter books against charging all of those people's Kindle's, there's really no comparison.

Given that most people's would last far longer than a week, and given the amount of money a person saves purchasing ebooks rather than physical books, I'd say it's no big deal to just get a new one if it breaks.

I think a comment like "Ugh, I hate Kindles - Does technology have to invade everything?" gives off less of an impression of "I happen to prefer physical books myself" and more of an impression of "I disapprove of people using this kind of technology".

As someone who's constantly reading, I have literally never had this problem. Ever. I just pack a couple and go, it's not a huge dilemma.

Making a book will cost more, short term. However, once a book is made, that's it. Done. I have books that are over a hundred years old, and I still read them. No electricity necessary. Whereas Kindles have to be charged.

They have a theoretical lifetime of 10 years before they need replacing - yeah, right.
But even then, take them at their word - that's ten Kindles you need to buy to live for the same time as one actual book. At least.

Kindles and E-books need replacing, charging and maintenance. A book is simply paid for once and left alone.
Also, ebooks aren't cheap. At all.
Five out of six of the biggest publishers charge $12.99 to $14.99.
So £8.21 to £9.47 per book. For something that then requires extra money in electricity, replacements and any necessary repairs.

Reply 51

Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons

As someone who's constantly reading, I have literally never had this problem. Ever. I just pack a couple and go, it's not a huge dilemma.

I'm not saying the inability to do this is a huge problem of some sort. It's just an example of a useful capability to have. It wouldn't be a huge problem to me if I didn't have a telephone either. After all, once upon a time, nobody had them and got on with life just fine. But that doesn't mean it's a bad thing that we have them now. We can do more with them than we could without them.

Making a book will cost more, short term. However, once a book is made, that's it. Done. I have books that are over a hundred years old, and I still read them. No electricity necessary. Whereas Kindles have to be charged.

You could charge your Kindle every time it runs out of battery for your whole lifetime and it still wouldn't be as environmentally unfriendly as the amount of paper required for an equivalent number of physical books. This is why I asked "How much electricity do you think it takes to charge a Kindle?" You seem to be severely overestimating it. It is not just in the short term that this kind of technology is environmentally preferable.

They have a theoretical lifetime of 10 years before they need replacing - yeah, right.
But even then, take them at their word - that's ten Kindles you need to buy to live for the same time as one actual book. At least.

Kindles and E-books need replacing, charging and maintenance. A book is simply paid for once and left alone.
Also, ebooks aren't cheap. At all.
Five out of six of the biggest publishers charge $12.99 to $14.99.
So £8.21 to £9.47 per book. For something that then requires extra money in electricity, replacements and any necessary repairs.

If you only plan to read like one or two books in your lifetime, then I agree that this is a valid point.

Reply 52

Original post by tazarooni89

I'm not saying the inability to do this is a huge problem of some sort. It's just an example of a useful capability to have. It wouldn't be a huge problem to me if I didn't have a telephone either. After all, once upon a time, nobody had them and got on with life just fine. But that doesn't mean it's a bad thing that we have them now. We can do more with them than we could without them.

You could charge your Kindle every time it runs out of battery for your whole lifetime and it still wouldn't be as environmentally unfriendly as the amount of paper required for an equivalent number of physical books. This is why I asked "How much electricity do you think it takes to charge a Kindle?" You seem to be severely overestimating it. It is not just in the short term that this kind of technology is environmentally preferable.

If you only plan to read like one or two books in your lifetime, then I agree that this is a valid point.

While it is useful to be able to have a lot of books at once, they're still not cheap.

At the end of the day, it comes down to pure preference.

Reply 53

Izzyeviel

19

Real books FTW. Especially when you're studying it and someone has highlighted all the important bits. You can't get that on a Kindle.

Reply 54

Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons

At the end of the day, it comes down to pure preference.

Yes I agree. I just don't see why, if you happen to prefer one thing, it makes it bad for the other thing to exist, to gain a market share, or to "invade" as you put it.

Reply 55

Original post by tazarooni89

Yes I agree. I just don't see why, if you happen to prefer one thing, it makes it bad for the other thing to exist, to gain a market share, or to "invade" as you put it.

... Logic.

I like Object A.
Object B is a different version of Object A.
Many people prefer Object B.
Object A is sold less and eventually replaced.
I no longer have Object A.

There you go.

Reply 56

Curzon

10

I have a kindle. I agree with you, a real book is so much better.

Reply 57

navyspaces

Original post by xelarose

I just think books are so much better and will never be out-shined by Kindles. The feel, smell, touch of a book can't be replaced and shouldn't be! I know I'm a minority in thinking this, but please, is there somebody out there who feels the same?!

This is such a Kindle virgin comment! When you're reading a book, do you sit there fondling the pages, slowly drawing in the scent and savouring every page turn whilst breathing heavily? Or do you read the story and get lost in it? :wink:

A Kindle might not 'outshine' a book on the 'bookiness' front (obviously...) but as a tool for reading, it's unbeatable. Lightweight, easy to use, easy to store, all your books in one place, economical, read in the dark, free books, saves trees etc etc etc... the pros do outweight the cons, but that's only something you can find out if you get one :tongue:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 58