A passage from the New York Times article "Looking to Big-Screen E-Readers to Help Save the Daily Press" explains why newspapers, magazines and other print-centric companies are failing in the digital domain:
Unlike tiny mobile phones and devices like the Kindle that are made to display text from books, these new gadgets, with screens roughly the size of a standard sheet of paper, could present much of the editorial and advertising content of traditional periodicals in generally the same format as they appear in print. [Emphasis added.]
Why would anyone want a print experience on a digital device?
Worse still, why would we go backwards? The novelty of reading magazines and newspapers on the Web died when savvy Web developers meshed content with interactivity. But now, we're supposed to forget about hyperlinks, comments, mashups, video, audio, and other common Web functions and instead turn our (allegedly) eye-strained pupils to these non-interactive grayscale devices?
The genius of the iPhone and the iPod Touch is that they bring an experience we all rely on -- full Web access, and its accompanying efficiencies -- into a whole new arena. The value proposition is obvious.
Large-form e-readers -- especially those that aim to recreate the print experience -- are the antithesis of the iPhone and iPod Touch. They benefit the wrong group: antiquated publishers with the stink of desperation.
This is precisely why I hope rumors of Apple's uber-tablet are true. Just as the iPhone washed away the horrid smartphone experience -- my old Treo is an abomination now -- a high-resolution, multi-purpose device that combines the mobility of an iPhone and the size/computing power of a souped-up netbook could ignite a new wave of content innovation. We need to nip this low-res, locked-in, print-centric thinking in the bud.
Hand-Picked Related Links:
I would disagree about the eyestrain certainly. After a day of looking at a computer screen, it's refreshing to sit down on my couch with the Sony Reader to read an ebook. Besides that, a device such as an uber-tablet could never compete with the battery use of an ereading device. I would guess that with ordinary usage, you'd use up the battery power of a tablet in around 4 hours whereas you get about 2 weeks worth of power out of an e-ink device.
They're both interesting and useful in different ways... I love my iPhone, but it sucks for reading books.
@Chuck: While I would never discredit an individual's experience and/or preference (eyestrain and battery life, included), I think there's a danger in expanding these issues to the broader population. For example, the iPhone's questionable battery life has been well documented (http://bit.ly/V1I8t), yet millions of iPhones have been sold. If battery life was a deal-killer, wouldn't that have impacted sales? (And perhaps it has to some degree, but once you crack 10+ million, I don't think the "it hurt sales!" argument holds.)
Re: eyestrain. I think that's a case by case basis. I certainly suffer from it on occasion, but I also read an ungodly amount of text off of screens every day.
And if you'll excuse a tangent -- I intentionally avoided any mention of ebooks because the "book lover" is a different animal than the "content consumer." The Kindle seems to appeal to the same demographic that likes to curl up with a good novel, and far be it from me to limit the curling/feel-goodedness of these folks (even if I don't quite understand the logistics of Kindles and curling). That said, the book lover reaction falls apart when you try to mesh the Kindle experience with newspaper/magazine engagement. It may be a pain to read a full book on an iPhone, but it's a beautiful device for zipping through articles (and sending email, and checking Twitter, Facebook, the weather, etc. etc. etc.). I don't see any reason why a media consumer would pick a standalone e-reader over a multipurpose phone or tablet.