jeff nolan said:
> in terms of simplicity and cost,
> it's hard to beat a hard copy book.

excuse me?

did he say that hard-copy books
-- ones that are printed on paper
and then put into boxes that are
then shipped all over the country
in trucks and trains and airplanes
that burn fuel -- are "hard to beat"
in terms of _cost_, compared to the
transmission of bits of digital content?

did he _really_ say that?

and did he really say p-books have
the advantage of _simplicity_ as well?

and did he really say that this was
"an impressive disruptive strategy",
as if this hadn't occurred to anyone
before, most definitely not to him?

because, like, you know, i have seen
the possibilities of all-digital content
for about 30 years, knowwhatimean?
and i'm sure i wasn't the only one...

so i'm confused...

and, peter, do you make this entry
consisting of just this quote, without
adding any commentary of your own,
because you thought it was _wise_?

or because you think it's as stupid
and vapid as i do? just wondering...

-bowerbird

It was posted as a news item only, without any commentary or endorsement. I am a little more skeptical, as are you, of the worth of the paper book object in the years ongoing.

ok, good. :+)

i love paper-books (and i'm sure you do too),
and i firmly believe that they will continue to be
_extremely_ useful for several decades to come,
providing we humans don't go extinct by then,
but i'm afraid paper-books will _not_ be cheap,
especially once we give up the large print-runs.

here's hoping the p.o.d. expresso machine keeps
the cost within the range of the average person...

maybe the money we can save by treating _most_
books as digital objects will be how we afford to
print out the books we want to have _that_ way...

-bowerbird

@bowerbird, my comment may be vapid but it's certainly not stupid.

hi jeff!

i didn't find much intellectual acuity
in the observation that print-books
are cheaper than electronic-books...

but ok, we can agree on "vapid"... :+)

-bowerbird