[anta40]

Nowadays most people (including myself) prefer the convenience of digital books (EPUB, PDF, etc).

I still do buy and read physical books, but then again I can easily put dozens or even hundreds of digital books on my iPad for reading while travelling.

Can't do the same thing with physical books :(

[jpatokal]

No, most people prefer the convenience of digital text that isn't packaged into books.

The demographics of e-books are kind of shocking: the average reader is over 40. Most younger people only read what they can find for free online.

Some more on the topic:

http://gyrovague.com/2012/04/30/why-e-books-will-soon-be-obs...

[minthd]

No. The article was written ~3.5 years ago, and it's predictions doesn't seem to hold true. Ebook readers still use the same formats, the same distribution, etc.

[bobadams5]

One advantage to physical books is their lack of sleep-altering screen time. The blue light from screens is supposedly bad for sleep patterns (Recent freakonomics podcast: http://freakonomics.com/2015/07/06/the-economics-of-sleep-pa... )

That being said I still am a supporter of digital technical books. The information goes out of date too quickly for a physical book to be useful. However, if you want to read Homer's The Iliad, it may be better to have a physical copy you can read before bed and retain on your shelves for easy access.

[icebraining]

F.lux, redshift and similar software is supposed to help with the blue light problem, though I don't know if it's scientifically sound. I use them because I find it more pleasant, but I can't say I had trouble sleeping before.

[camdenre]

Not for devices with e-ink.

[witty_username]

What I've noticed is that so many people don't reduce their brightness. I usually always have my monitor at lowest brightness. Also adjusting the brightness with software (xgamma) can make monitors somewhat close to an experience like a newspaper with a lamp nearby.

[devnonymous]

You could easily put dozens or even hundreds of digital book on your iPad ...but do you really read them ? Personally, I have completed reading more dead-tree books than ebooks. I don't really know why, maybe it's just the habit and the 'feel' of actually 'moving' through the book. I used to be a huge proponent of ebooks and I still maintain a digital copy, if possible, of all the dead-tree books I own and have read but I now prefer doing my 'primary' serious reading on dead-tree.

[jane_is_here]

To a serious reader, the physical manifestation of the book melts away, leaving only the communion between the mind and the abstract book.

If you like books for the"feel", you are missing the point of reading.

[kagamine]

Poppycock. Your experience doesn't define me. Just as the author's tools for writing don't define my interpretation of the narrative.

[yitchelle]

To some extent, that is true for me. However, for technical books or travel books, nothing beats having a physical copy in your hands, and reading it on paper.

[icebraining]

Why?

[xhedley]

For technical books that I am reading for understanding I prefer paper books. My memory filing system for things I have read sometimes uses tactile, visual and physical clues which exist for paper books but not for ebooks. The vague memory of a concept from a book may come back to me with a sense of the size, shape, colour of the book, which page the passage was on, whether it was 25% or 50% through the book and so on. These physical memories help put me back in the "moment of comprehension when I was reading" so I can recall the details.

Evidence that paper is better for reading comprehension http://sciencenordic.com/paper-beats-computer-screens "... when you read a text on paper your understanding is deeper and longer lasting than if you read that same text on a computer [...] if you read the text on a screen you can probably recount what you read. But you cannot as readily make use of the content in other contexts. You haven’t comprehended it as deeply and assimilated it as substantially."

[yitchelle]

Just an emotive connection. Familiarity, comfort comes to mind.

[sevensor]

What about marginalia? Paper books let me have a conversation with the text --- and with whoever owned (and marked) the book before me. Not every book needs or deserves this sort of attention, but for those that do, paper is irreplacable.

[nathan_f77]

The kindle has a touch screen so that you can save highlights, and write notes. It also has a feature where you can see which passages have been highlighted by the hundreds of readers before you, and share your notes publicly.

[DanBC]

I'm kind of surprised ebook devices haven't got builtin crowd-sourced proof reading.

I see quite a few spelling errors in ebooks. It'd be nice if I could highlight these for potential correction.

[witty_username]

This is so pretentious nostalgia. The "conversation" is really the smell of whatever food/water spilled on the book and the tears and folds of the book.

[devnonymous]

  > If you like books for the"feel", you are missing the point of reading. 

Heh, you made me smile :-) ..like a big wide grin. I'm missing the ^point^ of reading ?? Because, I like to hold the book as I read it ? Seriously ?

Nobody told me there was a point to it, I always thought reading is its own joy. To feel the flavor of the words and to hear the rhythm of the sentence was supposed to be point, if there was one.

The 'feel' of flipping pages is just a nostalgia worth holding onto, for me. Especially so when the words are actually typeset in a manner where page breaks provide transition. You know what else I like besides holding the book and flipping the pages ? I like bookmarks. I enjoy placing them and taking the time to pause, to enjoy. I like the smell of fresh print. I like leather bound, hardcover and paperback in that order. Is all of that missing the point of reading as well ? Am I not a ^serious reader^ because I cling to the physical manifestation ? Poor me, the amateur reader.

[egil]

I concur. I was quite late to jump on the e-book wagon (mostly due to DRM), but I am quite happy "renting" books on my Kindle, being aware of its limitations. When I read, I don't feel the pages turn, either with a dead tree book or e-book. I simply read the streams of characters, and my hand does some sort of strictly irrelevant gesture to move the stream ahead.

From a more practical standpoint, the possibility of storing loads of books on my Kindle is greatly appreciated. I recently spent a week at a hospital, and the Kindle entertained me through days of idle time.

[ersii]

How do you know most people prefer digital books over printed books?

I certainly don't prefer digital books over printed books. Although that said, I'm not arguing that I am like most people and that I'm included in the above statement.

I'm asking as you stated it matter of fact, so I assume you have some kind of source. I'm genuinely curious and this is a serious question.

[jane_is_here]

I read many hundreds of books a year. The vast majority are ebooks.

In the last 10 years, I have bought less than 10 dead tree books. That makes it a ratio of around 5000 ebooks to 10 ( at the most ) physical books.

[Paul_S]

That is more than a book a day. Unless you work as a editor or not work at all I can't see how that's possible but I have no reason not to believe you so what's your secret?

[iamcurious]

What kind of books do you read? I can't imagine reading a technical book in less than a week.

[sanoli]

You read an average of one book a day? That's impressive.