[ScottAS]

The concept of “the library” is one that holds deep emotional attachment for many people. The nostalgia of book smells, the exhibitionism of reading “cool” physical books in public, the idea of being physically connected to “the community”.

The core function of a library, storing physical books, makes little sense anymore. Digital books are far superior in cost and functionality. But those emotionally attached will claim “they’re not the same”.

Our province in Canada has a population of 500,000 and has over 100 libraries. Each of those libraries needs to carry multiple copies of important literature. Many of these libraries go unused. It’s a big waste of money yet people can’t move on because of emotional attachment and emotional reasoning.

I do believe in the reinvisioning of libraries as a more digital space, a place to work, and a place for the public to learn.

But let’s stop the emotional reasoning and use pure logic. “Civil society” is more alive than ever, on the internet.

[SolaceQuantum]

I’m unsure how you got the idea that libraries are only places to read books. Every library I’ve ever been to also provided a variety of other services: access to computers, various workshops and free classes, a place to host clubs and other community meetings, and also a workspace for students and adults. Even in the most rural libraries I’ve been to I’ve been able to grab a flyer or brochure of multiple events occurring that month in the library- everything from the local crochet club to child-oriented book clubs to free classes on basic internet research.

[stale2002]

Sure, that stuff you mentioned is useful.

And the obvious solution to reconcile these two arguments is to still have libraries but get rid of the books! Sacrilege, I know.

[arandr0x]

I understand the argument and I agree that digital books are the future, however, they are so inferior in discoverability that if my library ever moves all-digital I will replace it with one of my 10 local used bookstores. I need to browse books to find some I like and am not interested in letting algorithms or Internet echo chambers do so for me.

My own library also has copies of e.g. sheet music... I agree that those could be digital but it's more practical to stick a giant piece of paper on my keyboard vs a tablet (would be afraid the tablet could fall, also don't own a tablet). And the library is often one of few places these days that young children see physical books in large numbers... won't it be bad for their eyes to do all that reading digitally?

[sampl]

Agreed, the UX of paper is still so much better than kindle. Nicer to read, no lag, easier to organize and share, nicer taking notes in margins. I bought a kindle and went back to paper.

[pbhjpbhj]

One of the main benefits of ebooks is cost of production, surely. There is a massive cost saving (and impact on jobs etc.) but it seems the producers have managed to keep all of that benefit to themselves?

[BuildTheRobots]

It's more than just production, let me highlight storage and transport costs too (having just moved house with tonnes of books it's very much on my mind).

There's also longevity, which ties in with search-ability. Modern paper even under the best of conditions only has a century of shelf-life, where as digital data should persist for forever. Also as it's digital we get the benefits of flowing text, searching/indexing and easily converting to new formats and even languages - and the ability to easily update these conversions as technology progresses.

Theoretically (on paper?) digital books have all the benefits in the world. As a book lover I still can't quite get on with them in all but the trashiest of uses.

[3rdAccount]

Exactly. An eBook costs nothing to churn out an incremental copy, but often ends up being as expensive as a hardback by the time the publisher and distributor and platform get a crack at the profits.

[int_19h]

And if you want to find some phrase, you have to flip through the pages till your eye spots it. Ditto for your notes.

[boomboomsubban]

What method do you use to browse books? Library sorting is already basically an algorithm that seems fairly easy to set up digitally. The only obvious difference I see is a larger pool of books to draw from.

[mattkrause]

Our local library has “displays”, somewhat like the endcaps at a book store. Sometimes they are seasonal or on a particular theme. Other times they say, “If you liked A, you might also like B, C, D, or ....” The librarians sometimes have good suggestions too.

Beyond that, I love walking through the stacks and looking to see what catches my eye. This is literally my favorite thing about working at a university. Paging through Amazons recommendations (new editions of a text book you bought in 2008, books 2 and 4 of some series, and a few best-sellers) is not even close.

[arandr0x]

It's not the method (my method is pick a shelf and look at titles, and yes, it's doable online), it's that:

1) online there's just too much stuff. Libraries culling a ton of inventory serves the purpose of the really bad books being off the (real) shelf in relatively short order. Dig through Amazon's Kindle ebooks store to have an idea how much all-digital suffers from lack of this. As well as

2) I have developed, from years of reading, the ability to look at a shelf with the full aperture of my vision, and in that single glance, pick patterns of letters on the book spines such that I can identify interesting titles at a rate of maybe 200 books per minute. I understand non-readers and people who buy books off of somebody else's review list don't have that ability, but I don't see why I should be deprived of something that literally saves me 30 minutes a week to cater to, well, people who don't actually like books.

3) Some of the best books I have read at used bookstores and librairies simply don't have a digital form. They're locally published books from decades past that probably sold in the 1000 to 10000 copies range. Newer books in that space always have a digital edition, but there is a ton to learn from the past, and I often read because I am tired of existing within my own time/space bound, hearing about the same concerns. If I want to know what my contemporaries think, I can have a conversation. To learn how people I will never have the chance to meet think, I read books. (To learn how people I will never have the chance to meet really think, I read novels.)

Now 1) could be solved by an algorithm, but I write algorithms for a living and I don't trust them. 2) is trickier. 3) is definitely solvable but the economic incentives don't align, and I trust the markets even less than the algorithms.

[int_19h]

> Libraries culling a ton of inventory serves the purpose of the really bad books being off the (real) shelf in relatively short order. Dig through Amazon's Kindle ebooks store to have an idea how much all-digital suffers from lack of this.

Sounds like an unintended but desirable effect. Why not make it intended, and design for it directly? Libraries could have a curated collection that they promote, and archives of all the other stuff.

> I have developed, from years of reading, the ability to look at a shelf with the full aperture of my vision, and in that single glance, pick patterns of letters on the book spines such that I can identify interesting titles at a rate of maybe 200 books per minute. I understand non-readers and people who buy books off of somebody else's review list don't have that ability, but I don't see why I should be deprived of something that literally saves me 30 minutes a week to cater to, well, people who don't actually like books.

For starters, that's a very offensive assumption you're making here - that people who don't have that skill "don't actually like books". Have you considered that they might be reading several books every month, just not paper books like you?

But also, that skill you describe is equally applicable to all kinds of lists. If you can do that with books on the shelf, you can learn to do that with a screen. I mean, do we really need to subsidize shelves full of paper books solely to avoid making a few people's skills obsolete and require them to relearn if they want to remain as efficient as they were before?

Of course, digital makes things fundamentally different, anyway. Why browse long shelves, when you can do fuzzy contextual search?

[boomboomsubban]

> 1) could be solved by an algorithm, but I write algorithms for a living and I don't trust them.

Seems like one that needs a largely random algorithm with some additional weight for recent and popular works. Amazon has a separate goal to a library, using their stores isn't a fair comparison.

2 requires pictures or facsimiles of book spines, not particularly tricky. This entire process is ridiculous though. The only way you can spot anywhere near 200 interesting books in a minute is if every book is interesting, what you're actually judging is likely a marketing decision, and you have no reason to expect your picks were particularly good.

3 is a copyright issue. Google books already has a surprising number of those books archived, and your chance of reading them would be far greater if they just required one random person to find the book and upload it. Even still, in 20 years the digital libraries will be overflowing with people you can't meet talking about experiences you can't encounter.

[arandr0x]

Yes, I think all three issues won't be issues in 20 or 30 years. I fully expect my children to grow up being able to "spot" digital titles the way I do with spines, and looking at the physical books roughly the way I looked at my grandma's physical ledger-book. (Edited: Although I think you misunderstood me on 3. I am willing to pay for those books, provided the price is sustainable considering the quantity I am consuming, and they are not in English, which may qualify what I meant when I say they largely don't exist digitally currently.)

I meant I can classify 200 books as interesting or not in a minute, obviously not find 200 interesting ones. It takes me 15 minutes to find 4 or 5 books I actually want to read.

One unfortunate side effects of books moving to digital (although, to be clear, books moving to digital is not remotely a bad thing in itself) is that they are getting longer. There is fewer and fewer pressure on authors to limit the length of newer books that are unproven, with the result that people who don't know how to speed read are seeing reading novels as more and more of a daunting thing, which I think is sad.

[OliverJones]

In my part of the US (Northeast Massachusetts) libraries address the cost of duplicate items by joining into consortia. I can, from the online catalog, "place a hold" on any book in any member library. A daily courier makes the rounds and picks up the held books from the owning library and brings them to my library. They then send me a text saying "pick up your book."

The post office also transports books library-to-llibrary at a very favorable rate if need be.

It's a great way to measure demand for books, and buy what's needed where needed. It also allows library patrons access to a much larger collection than an individual town library could.

[3rdAccount]

I prefer paper books to digital books due to the way digital books are administered. When the library only has 2 Harry Potter and the Sorcerers' Stone digital books and they are DRM'd, it kills the experience.

[Eridrus]

As a child, I used the library quite often - I had no other choice, but I would often find the books I wanted to read on loan to others, and it was particularly bad if you wanted to read a series of books, inevitably one of them would be on loan to someone who had forgotten about them for months.

I was so happy when I got a job and could just go to Borders to buy the books I wanted.

And now I have a Kindle and can get books at a moments notice.

But without disposable income, the library is the only real option. But I guess these days I would have probably been more interested in my phone than books, so maybe the times really have moved on.

[jumelles]

> Digital books are far superior in cost and functionality.

Paper books can't be deleted, don't need power, and have no DRM. Once you get beyond just text and start including diagrams, illustrations, or photos, e-ink doesn't hold up.

[int_19h]

Paper books are fairly easy to spoil even inadvertently (just spill some crap on it - a cup of coffee that a laptop or a tablet will likely survive fine can easily ruin a paperback).

You can get digital books without DRM. And if we don't pass laws like DMCA that conscript the entire power of the state to enforce that DRM, it wouldn't be viable anyway. Indeed, anyone who has seen #bookz knows that technical viability is lacking already, and it's only the legal regime that keeps things the way they are

e-ink is just one technology among many available options for reading digital books. The beauty of a digital book is that it's not tied to any particular device, so you can pick whatever tool is most comfortable for you to read that particular book in the appropriate context.

And we have so many other things that need power already (including, say, lighting, so that you could read those paper books whenever you want) that it's kinda strange for that to be more than a very minor point.