[Web4lib] Amazon's Kindle e-book reader

[Richard Wiggins]

Wow, OK, so somehow I've gotten Roy Tennant to lead with a rebuttal to my
postscript remark that Jeff Bezos is a nice guy, and now I've gotten Dan
Lester to belittle my postscript reference to an unredacted photo album by
telling me he's taught his wife to edit her raw photos better than I do.

Can I possibly hit a postscript rebuttal trifecta here?

Someday within the next year or 5 or 10, we'll see ultralight tablet devices
with hours or days of battery life and a readable screen and millions of
pages of readable text.  I don't know if the Kindle is it.  I don't know if
it has to be full color to satisfy.  But I have no doubt, it's on its way.

/rich

PS -- ....

On Nov 26, 2007 3:57 PM, Dan Lester <dan at riverofdata.com> wrote:

> Hello Richard,
>
> A few days belated, but was off meeting new (now 3 week old) grandson
> in Albuquerque.
>
> Tuesday, November 20, 2007, 8:17:39 PM, you wrote:
>
>
> > Levy made a simple point.  Computers are 50 years old.  They used to
> fill
> > rooms (and I add, they didn't have GUIs).  Within 50 years, e-books will
> be
> > a dominant form of reading books.  Whether that's embodied in a
> specialized
> > device or a tablet PC of some sort, isn't the point.  The only question
> is
> > when, not whether.
>
> Agree with the when, not whether.
>
> > Levy pointed out that as an author of 6 books, he wants his readers'
> > undivided attention.  But whether he achieves that depends on his words,
> not
> > on the medium.
>
> Also correct, but putting hyperlinks and such in it would allow the
> reader to wander more easily, as we all know from our own web
> browsing.  Of course if the author is in control of that part of the
> production, as well as the words, then he need not worry.
>
> > As for Leo's argument as to whether special-purpose devices have a place
> in
> > this world, good grief, isn't that settled by now?  This year I bought a
> > combo blender / food processor.  It's a competent blender and weak as
> food
> > processor.  Multi-purpose devices are seldom the choice for all
> purposes.
> > Cell phone cameras serve social networking needs, not fine photography
> > desires.
>
> Yes and no.  But having just read one of those crazy "lots of junk you
> can buy" catalogs in the airline seatback pocket, and having seen
> things like a "s'mores maker" and a "hot dog and bun cooker" and other
> such frippery, it reminds me of other single use "tools" that just
> aren't really needed.  A "Swiss Army Knife" isn't the universal tool
> for all of us, but neither is a steak knife or a skinning knife.
>
> It just might be that the coming laptops that are very light weight,
> have a very readable screen, can be read like a book or a tablet, and
> so forth, just might take over for a separate reader.  Remember that
> most of us are READERS and might expect a dedicated and professional tool,
> but for many casual users a more "universal tool" might be just great.
> The cell phone camera might be a relevant example.  So might your
> blender and food processor.  Our kitchen has one of each, but doubt
> they have been used more than once a year each.  Same for the toaster
> and the toaster oven.  Of course if we were dedicated, much less
> professional, cooks, that would be a different story.
>
> > Guess what?  I didn't use the cell camera, because the results are too
> low
> > quality.  I left the SLR in the hotel safe, because it's too big to
> carry
> > around.  I took over 500 photos with the pocket camera, which has the
> same
> > image processor as its cousin D-SLR, and good enough glass for the
> purpose.
> > If the device serves a purpose, people will adopt it, and they will use
> it.
>
> Yes, I understand.  I still have a full set of Minolta equipment, with
> lenses from 20mm to 300mm, but haven't touched them much in several
> years.  My Sony 8mp camera does all that I need, and has all the
> features of the film equipment except for true wide angle.  My father,
> a professional photographer, taught me "shoot lots of pictures, film
> is cheap".  Of course the electrons are even cheaper now.
>
> > PS -- Roy, my photos from Barcelona are at:
> > http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2086582725
>
> Lots of interesting shots, but I'll admit I'd have looked at more of
> them, rather than browsing down the list, if there had been a bit of
> editing instead of just "dumping".  I had to teach my wife that some
> 15 years ago when she started putting ALL of the prints in an album,
> even if they were out of focus, poorly exposed, had people with their
> fingers up their noses, or whatever.  She's learned well to edit, both
> in print, and digitally.
>
> > This is the soon to be late and lamented Sony Imagestation site,
> shutting
> > down in 73 days due to lack of a business model.  Please feel free to
> rebut
> > my arguments, or my photos, as you wish.  :-)
>
> And despite this failure, I'll bet that many of the others will
> survive.  I just hope more people do more editing.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  Dan                            mailto:dan at riverofdata.com
>
>