The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Do you think people read less now than before? How many books do you read in a year?
I'm still undecided over whether to read the new Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy book. In a way it feels wrong that it's a HHGTTG book without Adams writing it, but I also want to see how well it fits.
I must admit that I don't read half as much as I did, it's very hard to sit down with a book when you have kids. I guess I read stuff on the internet more at the moment but I'd love the chance to get back in to reading properly. I'm a member of Amazon Vine, which lets you test out specific products each month and there are loads of books from new and old authors on there, so it's a good way of getting me to read something. Sometimes it's a pleasant surprise and at other times it's a slog to get through a book.
> Would you have more time to read if you had an ebook reader like
> an iPad or Kindle? Lets say you won an iPad, would you be tempted
> to buy ebooks for it if they prices were good?
>
> I'm too busy to read books anymore so I just joined audible.com
> (amazon company) and get 2 books a month and have people read
> them for me.
Those e-book readers are sacrilege! I'm so whole-heartedly against them I can't even begin to describe.
They're just so....wrong.
> Would you have more time to read if you had an ebook reader like
> an iPad or Kindle?
How would this give you more time to read? Because you can't go out and enjoy life with the money you wasted?
> How would this give you more time to read? Because you can't go
> out and enjoy life with the money you wasted?
That's why my example was if he had won one. :)
DVD players use to cost a few hundred pounds. Maybe in a few years with more competition, ebook readers will come down in price too.
> Those e-book readers are sacrilege! I'm so whole-heartedly
> against them I can't even begin to describe.
Some might argue its sacrilege to cut down hundreds of thousands of trees a year to publish books when there are viable digital alternatives.
Tablets are the future. You have bookstores closing, newspapers and magazines going out of business. We're recycling almost everything and trying to cut down on our carbon footprint. Books are as dead as the trees they use to be.
Hurray for science!
At the end of the day DVD's were seen by the masses as a better alternative to VCR, which is why VCR eventually died out. I don't know anyone except a few people on the internet who think e-book readers are any cop, but I know plenty of people in my own surroundings who still read books and say they'll continue to as long as they can.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure one day in the future books will stop being produced and it'll all be on tablets, but I can't see it happening for many many years.
> Gold Timbo wrote:
> Those e-book readers are sacrilege! I'm so whole-heartedly
> against them I can't even begin to describe.
>
> Some might argue its sacrilege to cut down hundreds of thousands
> of trees a year to publish books when there are viable digital
> alternatives.
But surely the production costs and carbon footprint of upgrading a world supply of e-book players every few years would have just as much impact as the amount of paper created to make books?
Oh, not to mention the electricity costs of running them all. Books don't drain any power sat on a shelf after being produced.
Oh and theres also the IT revision books. Part of my career.
> But surely the production costs and carbon footprint of upgrading
> a world supply of e-book players every few years would have just
> as much impact as the amount of paper created to make books?
>
> Oh, not to mention the electricity costs of running them all.
> Books don't drain any power sat on a shelf after being produced.
The point is if you cut down all our trees we're all dead. Admittedly that would reduce our carbon footprint significantly. :)