Why do people assume that technology will take over?

cokewithvanilla

cnh wrote: »

It would be like asking a painter to give up his/her canvas, brush and oils, and only paint using an app on an ipad?

cnh

while I do see what you are saying, I think that comparison is a bit off. When you watch a movie, do you notice what media it is on? If you have BD50 stored on your HD or BD50 on a disc, what's the difference you notice? Well, with the disc you have to put it in, with out the disc, you don't. With ebooks, what is the difference? You read the same book either way. Now with painting, what's the difference? well, with paints you have the option of many different types of paints, you have to mix your own colors, hell, I don't paint, I don't know.. but there are tons of variables that make it different from painting on a computer. I am not saying an artist, a movie maker, a song writer will write stuff directly from an Ipad and produce it in his basement. I am saying that the FINAL MEDIA will be in a different form. When I browse my media library on my media center, I have a far better experience than pulling out dvds. I sit there from my couch and flip from title to title with backdrops and information about the movie, actor, imdb ratings, ect. I click play and I don't get any advertising for different movies, or piracy information... just the movie.

Now, you might have a preference for digging through cabinets to find the movie you want to see, that's your thing. I'm saying that it makes sense for that to go away and people will get used to it.

I am arguing that for certain things (books, music, movies), you can have a better experience from using different medias. I am also arguing that it is more cost effective. I am not, however, saying that we will get rid of our art galleries in favor of cell phone pics.

sucks2beme

Jstas wrote: »

See, now that is an excellent use for an eBook because textbooks go outdated very quickly. .

Quickly? My school had the same grade school books for 20 years.
Same for high school. The only think that goes out of date are college
books. It's ok to change them every semester as long as the students
have to pay for them! Sad thing is, there isn't much of a discount for
the online stuff. Same thing for downloading albums.
Given what happens with kids, I can see them getting busted or stolen
at a high rate. Why take their lunch money when you can swipe their
electronics. Sorry teacher, my IPAD crashed and I lost my homework.

cokewithvanilla

sucks2beme wrote: »

Sorry teacher, my IPAD crashed and I lost my homework.

Online data storage? USB Drive? don't use a crappy ipad

Sure, technology has it's issues. I accidentally deleted my school folder last week while I was downloading 50 gigs of crap. I was unable to recover the files no matter how hard I tried. However, I have lost far more paper than I have ever lost files on a computer. At least if you delete files or your computer "crashes" you usually can recover them as long as you stop using the device immediately. Can't say that for paper.

exalted512

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

Everything has it's purpose. If you do a whole lot of reading, a kindle will have an advantage over any tablet. Mainly battery life, size, weight, screen type. I have my iphone, which is a media player, a 32 gig one at that...but I still have 2 others for various purposes. If I use my iphone to listen to music, I can expect that it will last maybe 6 hours... MAYBE. For that reason alone I have a dedicated player.

Also, keep in mind when you say the kindle isn't revolutionary... if a book takes 10 hours to read, and back in the day when kindles were developed... a tablet weighed a crap ton and battery life was around 3 hours (not to mention the cost)... that wasn't a solution for reading books. The kindle literally allowed you to throw out books. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean something didn't change the way people do things. Right now, I can DO a lot with a bucket of computer parts and some wires... but when you make it so the average individual can do all that with the press of a button... then you've changed things.

I'm not saying its not useful. I'm saying its not revolutionary.
-Cody

cokewithvanilla

exalted512 wrote: »

I'm not saying its not useful. I'm saying its not revolutionary.
-Cody

In terms of books, I think it is. Before the kindle, even with ebooks, could you have reliably and easily eliminated books? You could, as you have said, use a laptop or a tablet.. but did that allow you to take it with you for a 10 hour reading session on battery (or even take it with you on a week long hike), or allow you to hold it in one hand while you're laying in bed on your side? or hold it at arms length with one hand above you while you read? Basically, did that allow you the convenience that a book offers?

I think the kindle allowed book people, that is, people who like reading books (not listening or whatever), to replace that book with a device roughly the same size that could provide the same experience (arguably better, no problem with losing the page, or having to push against the binding to see words close to the binding). I argue that a laptop or tablet couldn't, and probably still can't do that.

cfrizz

This doesn't have to be an either or situation. I love my Sony reader. It has allowed me to get back into reading books again without cluttering up my apartment. It also allows me to adjust the font so that I can read comfortably again.

When they finally put out a tablet with an OS that is made for a tablet rather than a phone, I plan to get one of those as well. I think it will happen sometime this year.

I have 159 books on my reader, and 234 books on my pc. This has truly been a revolution for me, and I'm having a ball reading again.

As a matter of fact, I put some of my work for a test today on my reader so that I could study, it saved me ink & four sheets of paper!

sucks2beme

What's with all the "book clutter"?
You guys never heard of half price books?
Drop off the old for trade in, go buy some different ones.
I don't think you can do THAT with those online
downloads. DRM to the rescue! Corporate profits are safe
from thrifty readers.

cfrizz

The books I buy I keep, otherwise I wouldn't have gotten them in the first place. I have never been a fan of lending out my books, since most don't know how to take care of other peoples property. So it doesn't matter to me if the book had drm or not. While I would prefer that it not have it, I'm not going to stop buying books for my reader because of it.

cokewithvanilla

sucks2beme wrote: »

What's with all the "book clutter"?
You guys never heard of half price books?
Drop off the old for trade in, go buy some different ones.
I don't think you can do THAT with those online
downloads. DRM to the rescue! Corporate profits are safe
from thrifty readers.

That certainly is an option, but I think you kind of missed the point. Sure, the reason we have all these options (library to rent, book store to buy, used book store to buy used, ebooks, audio books, itunes specific audio books, general used market, trade in type stores, ect) is that there is demand for such an option. As long as there is still enough demand for it, it will exist. I am just saying, in the end, ebooks (and technology in general) will probably win (or be the major format) due to many factors including:

Author:
Can go to "print" without a publisher, freedom, ect

Seller:
Easy distribution, cheap distribution, easy to hit a larger market, cheaper all around.

Buyer:
Can be cheaper, do not have to store a book, can buy any time of day, from anywhere, no page flipping or worrying about light, ect

Everyone:
Less overall waste (in every aspect).

Sure, other formats have merit. Unlike a dvd, a book can be used without any electricity. I'm sure someone could invent a solar powered kindle though. Anyway, I am not saying books are gonna disappear tomorrow, I am just saying ebooks make much more sense.

edit: oh, and copyright protection is futile. You can probably get more ebooks in the 'illegal' market than the legal one. And it's faster (no credit card info)... fight the power, little G

exalted512

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

In terms of books, I think it is. Before the kindle, even with ebooks, could you have reliably and easily eliminated books? You could, as you have said, use a laptop or a tablet.. but did that allow you to take it with you for a 10 hour reading session on battery (or even take it with you on a week long hike), or allow you to hold it in one hand while you're laying in bed on your side? or hold it at arms length with one hand above you while you read? Basically, did that allow you the convenience that a book offers?

Then we can just agree to disagree.

See my earlier post about only around 7% of people that are buying books are using kindle-type readers. By the time eBooks grows to be sold as much as print books, I think readers are going to be outdated...and replaced by tablets.

To me, revolutionary means a lot more than 7% of people are adopting it...and, like I said, by the time the technology grows to where more like 50% of people are using eBooks, they'll be doing so on tablets, not readers.
-Cody

cheddar

exalted512 wrote: »

To me, revolutionary means a lot more than 7% of people are adopting it...

Well, even IF your numbers and assumptions that get you to that 7% number are completely accurate, seems like ereaders would only have to double their adoption numbers to reach your definition of revolutionary iphones according to bobman...

bobman1235 wrote: »

I've never seen stats based on age, unfortunately, but for general users, it's not even CLOSE to 50%. More like less than 20%. Blue is "dumbphones"



http://gizmodo.com/5740216/almost-everybodys-still-using-dumbphones

Why trying so hard to come up with such a narrow definition of revolutionary that only works for your favored product? Seems like many tech devices can be revolutionary in many different ways for many different consumers. Doesn't seem like something that needs such a narrow, over proscribed club.

wayne3burk

Jstas wrote: »

It seems that people who are married to technology do this. They start using something that they think is really slick and start proclaiming that it will replace something or other in a certain amount of time.

On the other hand... maybe we should list the technologies that absolutely changed the world.

1. fire?
2. wheel?
3. gear?

1001. http / html (i.e. the internet)

i'm just saying...

wayne

BlueFox

wayne3burk wrote: »

On the other hand... maybe we should list the technologies that absolutely changed the world.

1. fire?
2. wheel?
3. gear?

1001. http / html (i.e. the internet)

Beer.

exalted512

cheddar wrote: »

Why trying so hard to come up with such a narrow definition of revolutionary that only works for your favored product? Seems like many tech devices can be revolutionary in many different ways for many different consumers. Doesn't seem like something that needs such a narrow, over proscribed club.

Because I believe those numbers are skewed, as I already mentioned. I can go down my contact list and almost everyone I know, including my parents have a smart phone.

On the other hand, I learned yesterday of the first person I know that actually owns a kindle. I've never even actually seen someone use one, ever.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out smart phones are a little more abundant than eReaders.
-Cody

ysss

You may hate his attitude, but he's right on this point.

Just look at Blockbuster.

Netflix has made some strategic moves to downsize their disc mailing operation in favor for fully digital distribution.

The battle for 'netflix bandwidth tax' is being fought today by the giant ISPs because they know this is huge.

cfrizz

It all depends on where you are Cody. I take public transportation, and I am now riding the train with at least 1 person on my car with an ereader or with as many as 3 around me using an ereader.

I have no doubt that there are more smart phones in use than ereaders, but who cares. Having all of these choices is good, so that everyone can get the tech that they want that will suit their lives & need.

exalted512

cfrizz wrote: »

It all depends on where you are Cody. I take public transportation, and I am now riding the train with at least 1 person on my car with an ereader or with as many as 3 around me using an ereader.

I have no doubt that there are more smart phones in use than ereaders, but who cares. Having all of these choices is good, so that everyone can get the tech that they want that will suit their lives & need.

and im in no way saying that theyre worthless. I suggested to my wife yesterday about getting her mom one eventually.

And I'd also completely agree that it depends on location...but I've been around the local college campus a lot, as well as taken a few flights last year and I've honestly never seen anyone use one.

Smart phones on the other hand...I have a hard time driving and not seeing someone use one...and you shouldnt be using one while driving!


And to go back to the smart phone debate, here's an article from last month that says "in November, 45 percent of recent acquirers chose a smartphone over a feature phone."
http://www.9to5mac.com/45665/apple-retains-us-smartphone-market-lead-nielsen-data-shows

Heres one that says 1 in 2 Americans will have smart phones by December this year:
http://gigaom.com/2010/03/26/1-in-2-americans-will-have-a-smartphone-by-christmas-2011/

Heres another from march 17, 2010, that says 31% of Americans are using smart phones. up from 23% a year prior.
http://moconews.net/article/419-deep-discounts-on-smartphones-drive-u.s.-adoption-rates-to-nearly-a-thi/

-Cody

nooshinjohn

Jstas wrote: »

The iPhone was at least 5 years behind the Blackberry which was at least 5 years behind the Palm Pilot which was the start of the PDA/Smart phone craze. The iPhone isn't anything new. It just took an established technology, polished it up and sold it to consumers who previously had no desire to own a more complicated Blackberry.

Sorry John, but on this one, you have no idea what you are talking about. I was part of the cell phone revolution from the days of the Motorola "Bricks" and briefcase phones. There is as much in common technology-wise with an original Blackberry or Palmpilot and the iPhone as there is between the F-22 Raptor and the Wright Flyer of 1903.

I do agree with you that the iPhone is not causing a revolution in communications, but the underlying technology, the cell phone itself, has had a dramatic impact on our lives and the way we communicate with family and how we conduct business. The off-shoot of this has been wireless data/internet, and this too, has forever changed how we interact with each other. The iPhone's place in this is that it combined both phone, data and MUSIC in a package that was easy to use and could fit in a shirt pocket. The iPhone is just a product of it's times and hardly revolutionary, but the network that makes it's use possible... is.

cheddar

exalted512 wrote: »

And I'd also completely agree that it depends on location...but I've been around the local college campus a lot, as well as taken a few flights last year and I've honestly never seen anyone use one.

I don't think anyone is debating that iphones have had an effect (Even cell phones still haven't completely eliminated landlines, though. And your own 'research' appears to show how difficult it is to replace something as old school as books.) and that people are buying them. Just interesting how crazy devoted you are to it as your true revolutionary product of the moment. And...that you don't realize how your personal 'statistical samples' probably skew much younger and more affluent than most of the nation.

But it's your business what tech product you worship, everyone probably has one...carry on. :cool:

newrival

exalted512 wrote: »

Because I believe those numbers are skewed, as I already mentioned. I can go down my contact list and almost everyone I know, including my parents have a smart phone.

On the other hand, I learned yesterday of the first person I know that actually owns a kindle. I've never even actually seen someone use one, ever.
-Cody

I'm sorry, but this is not a valid argument. Just because you're exposed to a density of people with smart phones and not people with ereaders is not indicative of anything. lets be generous and say you are talking of 1000 people that you are closely familiar with. Thats .0000037% of the population and likely very regionally saturated sample. Hardly any evidence to support your claim.

As it was pointed out, your view of revolutionary is narrowminded.

revolutionary
rev·o·lu·tion·ar·y [rev-uh-loo-shuh-ner-ee]

radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.

theres nothing that says that 30% of people need to own something for it to be revolutionary. Not even 1%.

exalted512

so whats radically new or innovative about a kindle?
-Cody

sucks2beme

Reality check: most Americans don't read for recreation.
It's kind of like 2-channel, only a small hard core group is involved.
Yes, many will read a book here or there, but people that read
more than a book or two a year are a small group.

kevhed72

sucks2beme wrote: »

Quickly? My school had the same grade school books for 20 years.
Same for high school. The only think that goes out of date are college
books. It's ok to change them every semester as long as the students
have to pay for them! Sad thing is, there isn't much of a discount for
the online stuff. Same thing for downloading albums.
Given what happens with kids, I can see them getting busted or stolen
at a high rate. Why take their lunch money when you can swipe their
electronics. Sorry teacher, my IPAD crashed and I lost my homework.

Yes, college textbooks are a COMPLETE RACKET. Professors demand the newest edition of basically the same material inside, and even cut from the publishers. But again, both my kids had a tough time this morning climbing out of my car with their huge backpacks full of paper...:rolleyes:

newrival

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Sorry John, but on this one, you have no idea what you are talking about. I was part of the cell phone revolution from the days of the Motorola "Bricks" and briefcase phones. There is as much in common technology-wise with an original Blackberry or Palmpilot and the iPhone as there is between the F-22 Raptor and the Wright Flyer of 1903.

I do agree with you that the iPhone is not causing a revolution in communications, but the underlying technology, the cell phone itself, has had a dramatic impact on our lives and the way we communicate with family and how we conduct business. The off-shoot of this has been wireless data/internet, and this too, has forever changed how we interact with each other. The iPhone's place in this is that it combined both phone, data and MUSIC in a package that was easy to use and could fit in a shirt pocket. The iPhone is just a product of it's times and hardly revolutionary, but the network that makes it's use possible... is.

Your first point is spot on, but I strongly disagree with the part about the iphone not being revolutionary. It didnt change com in regards to telephony, but it brought for the first time a usable mobile solution for social communication and media. Others had tried it, but it was far too laborious and cumbersome for general use. Enter: iPhone. People could watch youtube videos anywhere, check and update twitter in seconds. anywhere. facebook, myspace, etc. communication was drastically changed by the iphone. Additionally it brought technologies into the palm of your hand that previously only resided in large stationary devices.

I'm not quite sure why there are people arguing about the revolutionary aspect. Its like saying the first flat panel display wasnt revolutionary because we already had tv's. It's rediculous. Like it or not, the iPhone changed the direction of mobile communication. It's undeniable. And to call that anything short of revolutionary is to claim ignorance to from where technology has come

newrival

exalted512 wrote: »

so whats radically new or innovative about a kindle?
-Cody

you have to be joking...


I'm sorry but that statement is just plain ignorant. You seem to be someone that is just unimpressed with anything. It's like I could show you cold fusion and you'd say, "meh, my lights worked just fine before."

newrival

but to play your game here is a short list of innovations (applies to kindle or nook):

-eInk display
-free wireless transfer of books
-holds millions of pages of documents in under 1/2" thick and in the palm of your hand.
-it can read the book to you
-plays audioboks
-can last a month on a charge
-brought books into the hands of thousands of people that otherwise never would have otherwise.
-you could fit a copy of War and Peace in your pocket (along with a few hundred more books.

yeah, you're right, i guess just i though there was some innovation i there somewhere.

cheddar

newrival wrote: »

you have to be joking...


I'm sorry but that statement is just plain ignorant. You seem to be someone that is just unimpressed with anything. It's like I could show you cold fusion and you'd say, "meh, my lights worked just fine before."

Naw, he'd just say it's no good until there's an app for it...

exalted512

-free wireless transfer of books
-holds millions of pages of documents in under 1/2" thick and in the palm of your hand.
-it can read the book to you
-plays audio books
-you could fit a copy of War and Peace in your pocket (along with a few hundred more books.

so can a tablet...oh, and its a computer...and most of that stuff has been around for years.

-brought books into the hands of thousands of people that otherwise never would have otherwise.

proof?

It has eInk and can last a month on a charge...the only thing it has going for it.

Convenient? Yes.
Revolutionary? No.

newrival

sucks2beme wrote: »

Reality check: most Americans don't read for recreation.
It's kind of like 2-channel, only a small hard core group is involved.
Yes, many will read a book here or there, but people that read
more than a book or two a year are a small group.

So what's the point?

and this is hardly a reality check. 50% of American adults can't read an 8th grade level book (Illiterate America, Jonathan Kozol) Yet 46% of people, according to a 2007 survey, say they regularly read books for pleasure.

Interesting, I'd hardly call 46% of adults a a small hardcore group.

exalted512

edited: nevermind