
Thoughts on "e-readers" - jamesmcintyre
Amazon's Kindle felt right. When it was announced I thought "finally!". Seth Godin (a popular marketing author) predicted back in '98 that Amazon was building what he called a "permission asset" that would later be leveraged to disrupt the entire book publishing industry when Amazon would supplant the publisher by allowing authors to publish directly via Amazon's platform... ala what is now the Kindle and it's open "Digital Text Platform".<p>Kindle also felt right because if felt like an iPod. Apple had already shown the world a great model for building a system capable of replacing atoms with bits: iPod + iTunes. iPod success was in the design not only of it's digital music player but of the entire music delivery/experience system; from the simplicity of the clickwheel to the immense library that would become the iTunes Music Store. Every music retail store you've stepped into at the mall, every music section at walmart or best buy... all displaced by Apple (once thought of as a mere technology company) as the iTunes store is now the #1 music retailer on or off line. It's clear if there is a model to follow for taking a analog system to a digital system one should study iPod + Itunes.<p>That's just what Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon) did when he hired ex Apple employees to help design the Kindle system (from frog design and ammunition group). No wonder a Kindle "feels like an iPod".<p>but<p>it's too easy<p>this is all too easy, I mean after all I was anticipating Amazon to "ipod-ize" the book.<p>This unease came to me when I played with the Barnes &#38; Noble Nook (currently Kindle's only real competition other than physical books or ignorant people who think reading is a waste of time ;)<p>You see the Nook is good, real good... maybe a better overall design than the Kindle. Ammunition Group (a kick ass design firm started by an ex-Apple employee, the same firm that designed the Dre Beats headphones) was hired by Barnes &#38; Noble to design not just the product but the entire system, so Robert Brunner (the ex Apple employee) "ipod-ized" the book and called it... a nook. I think B&#38;N knows they must transition to digital and so the nook was taken seriously (unlike Sony who proved they are complete idiots to actual put advertising money behind their half-baked e-reader). The nook is just as good as the Kindle if not better.<p>So why do I feel uneasy? Because two companies who are in the business of pushing books have come up with nearly identical solutions... feels like the mp3 player market before Apple introduced the iPod... feels like the smart phone market before Apple introduced the iPhone. The companies who thought they were "in the business of _______" developed digital means to push their content or solve problems. Then Apple showed those companies that they had wasted a lot of money to come up with a solution to the wrong problem, that they had designed (or not designed) a solution to a problem that either didn't exists or only existed because they created it. Apple rethought the "problem" to render a completely different solution.<p>So Kindles cool but obvious (with muscle behind it), Nook is even cooler and just as obvious a solution, and Sony's e-reader is just that, a generic e-reader that I don't even know the name of (probably because it's something like EF-485n).<p>Maybe my unease is just me being too sensitive to the elements at play, looking for something that isn't there...<p>or<p>and here's my prediction<p>Apple will try to solve a better problem. (re-read that line... not "Apple will introduce a better solution, but they will solve a better problem")<p>The problem?<p>Personal computers come in many forms, but none have been accommodating enough to serve as adequate alternatives to the physical forms that manifest of print media: book, magazine and newspapers. Paper for all it's "oldness" has unmatched display resolution, convenience and cultural characteristics. Paper has been one of man's best friends.<p>It's possible Amazon and B&#38;N asked "how can I make a better reading experience?". But I wonder how exploratory they were in finding an answer since they both ended up with "let's put e-ink in their hands with 3g and long battery life".<p>If there is a "better problem" that can be identified maybe it's this: taking audio/video from atoms to bits was invisible to the average person and was only experienced as a increase in convenience or capability (think digital music, digital television, tivo, voip, etc). But how to approach the content normally manifested unto print media? The answer is not easy. You see by all futurists accounts the Internet should have already done away with print media, but we just can't let go of our paper.<p>There will be a form of technology that will serve as a lever by which many people will let go of paper. The company that invents that lever will inherit much power and responsibility to continue paper's many missions and uses.<p>Here we have a problem far more pervasive than what an "e-book" could attempt to solve.<p>So either the e-book is a technology that is part of a larger evolutionary trend towards a technological means capable of ultimately supplanting paper or the e-book is technology designed using a fallacious visual metaphor (we use a graphical user interface modeled after what researchers saw in their office environment: a desktop, files and folders... why we call the main screen a "desktop" with "files" on it).<p>If the latter is true, that the e-book is like artists 1950's rendering of what flying cars would look like (usually a sexy car with wings stuck on it), that it IS "too easy" (this whole idea of an e-book)... well then Apple needs to come to our savior! (of course Apple, who else?...Microsoft? Sony? Hah!)<p>What if you took the design elements inherent in paper (which are completely taken for granted, therefore invisible to almost anyone without a trained eye) and attempted not to emulate their characteristics but instead to render the same EXPERIENCE that they render (think insanely high resolution, high visual bandwidth, easy navigation, convenience, etc).<p>Maybe you'd end up with a tablet with the entire top surface being multi-touch. The screen would feature Mary Lou Jepsen's hybrid e-ink capable of color multimedia AND high resolution "virtual paper". The device would have 3g connectivity and long battery life. But MOST importantly the way the user interacts with the interface would re-create the ease of use rendered by our interaction with print media. This last part, about the user interface, is why I believe Apple is best positioned to tackle this problem.<p>In one year's time we'll see. 2010 should be the year paper learns of it's destiny, the year we reach a tipping point on our way towards bits from the momentum of atoms.<p>So there's my thoughts, "ipod-izing" seems to easy, sony's dumb, paper's smart, Mary Lou Jepsen left OLPC for a reason, Dr. Carlin Vieri being on Pixel Qi's board can't be coincidence, Nicholas Negroponte is the father of "atoms to bits" and probably told Mary Lou Jepsen she has something big with her hybrid screen magic, and lastly I strongly believe the success of iPod+iTunes rests in the designers knowing in exactly what forms to manifest exactly what interactions (you can't delete songs on the iPod from the iPod, seems counterintuitive right? but it's actually a side-effect of brilliant design).<p>Navigating to find content on the Kindle or Nook is poor, which would be ok if we would be happy with just having ebooks in our hands versus also having emagazines and enewspapers. Once you add the rest of the paper world of content navigation would become lackluster at best.<p>So Apple might solve the problem of manifesting the interaction of navigating content better by melding multi-touch+Pixel Qi Screen+apples always kick ass interface design.<p>And those are my thoughts on "e-ink media".<p>comment if you think our kids will one day be rummaging through the attic and stumble upon a kindle/nook and think "lol, they thought the book's form was necessary to render the experience of the book when in fact the books form was an evolutionary design revolving around the paper's dimensions and people adapted to it's form in order to extract their ideal experiences."<p>oh and one more thing, the picture is of OLPC's vision for the second version of it's "childrens machine". Often when you "design for the extremes" you end up bring newfound value to the mainstream users. The XO is designed for the extreme purpose of getting a laptop in the hands of every child in the world, and therefore it's design has already invented what we now call the "netbook" and will probably bring to life another design paradigm with the XO2. The XO2 would use less than 1watt of power (your laptop uses 60-100watts) and cost less than $100 (your laptop was overpriced).
======
ryanwaggoner
First of all...you might want to consider getting a blog. This is really good
stuff :)

Second, I haven't used a Nook, but I own a Kindle 2, and I freaking love it. I
carry it everywhere and I often find myself wanting to stop whatever I'm
working on and go sit in a coffeeshop and just read. The device isn't perfect,
but I don't have any major complaints at all. Most importantly, when I'm using
it, it disappears in my hands. I'm not reading a Kindle, I'm just reading.

Also, I had an MP3 player before the iPod and it was a painful experience. It
was clear that there were large opportunities to improve the experience, but I
would argue that the biggest one that the iPod solved was making it easy to
get content on the device, which wasn't the iPod at all, it was iTunes. This
is similar to how I see the Kindle. The device is good enough (just like the
gen-1 iPod, which was fugly but functional) but the really killer feature is
how _incredibly easy_ it is to get books onto the device. I browse Amazon all
the time on my laptop and when I see a book I'm interested in, 1 click and I
have a free sample on the device waiting for me. If I want to buy after
reading the sample, just 1 more click. Easy. I buy probably 3-5x as many books
as I used to, and it takes me 10% of the hassle and I'm not paying much more
in total even though I read way more. The device is only one piece of the
puzzle here; the overall Kindle business model is what's really amazing, imo.

~~~
crocowhile
Are you reading also 3-5x more books? I am just asking and not trying to be a
jackass.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Yes, I am. The actual reading might be a touch faster, but I can't say for
sure. I have replaced more TV / web surfing time with reading because I have
more books available that I want to read. But more importantly, I now have
something to read at hand far more often. I often read while walking down the
street, or when sitting in the car waiting for my wife, or whatever. If I
finish a book while out for the day, I don't have to wait until I get home or
to the bookstore to start the next one.

I got my Kindle in August or early September and I've read dozens of books
since then. I've torn through a SF trilogy in the last week and I read all
five Temeraire books (highly recommended!) in about ten days last month. I'm
also in the middle of 3-4 non-fiction books, which I read when the urge
strikes. The Kindle is awesome.

~~~
xtho
> I've torn through a SF trilogy in the last week and I read all five
> Temeraire books (highly recommended!) in about ten days last month

Do you have a job?

Or to put my question differently: What does it mean for you to read a book?
How fast do you read? How much attention do you pay to single words an author
uses? What kind of books do you read? You mention SciFi novels and non-fiction
books.

I personally really cannot understand what's so good about carrying a whole
library with you. When I have a good book in my hands it keeps me occupied for
several days/weeks/months. Bad books are a waste of time anyway.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Worse, I have a startup. But after a year, I've learned that balance
ultimately leads to higher productivity.

------
Goronmon
Having used both a Nook and a Kindle 2. I currently prefer the Kindle. The
Kindle is noticeably faster, I found the shape more comfortable to hold, and
the battery life is significantly better. In theory, the LCD on the Nook is
much better for navigation than the input the Kindle uses, but in practice I
had a hard time getting it to always do what I wanted.

At first I was excited about the Nook because it was running Android and was
looking forward to seeing that apps they might come up with. But after using
it for a week or so, I decided that I really only need my eReader to do one
thing. Read books. Any extra stuff is just distractions. While obviously not
everyone wants such a specialized device, I think I enjoy the fact that
reading is a separate activity from everything else.

So, honestly, I don't see anyway a company like Apple could do much to improve
on the experience of the Kindle (or even the Nook) when it comes to just
getting lost in a book.

------
larsberg
Only responding to the first part of your treatise, but have you _actually_
used a Nook at the B&N kiosk?

I used to think the Kindle was slow and chincy until I used a Nook, which
feels like its ink display is powered by three blind, drunken gnomes.
Agonizing pain is the only way I can describe a device that takes twice the
time to turn a page that a third grader reads it.

~~~
angstrom
I messed with it as well, but I think there's a lot of inflated importance on
page turning speed and it's probably fixable with a software rev either way.
I've never been able to turn book pages much faster and it never hindered my
reading pleasure. I think they need to focus on the menu system a little more.
It's good, but could use some improvements.

~~~
ianferrel
I had a gen 1 Kindle, and sold it because I was frustrated with the page
turning rate. Well, not _just_ the page turning rate. It was that, combined
with a smaller screen area, combined with a lower-contrast display (than
paper), which made me increase the text size over paper books. Combined, it
meant that I spent a whole lot of time looking at the flickering refresh, and
not reading words.

I really wanted to like the Kindle, and I think that one or two more revs and
It'll be something I want to use.

------
thisduck
While there are some good analogies in the post (like the XO and the netbook),
I'm not sure if this post is as "good" as the "get a blog" comments people are
leaving.

\--- But I wonder how exploratory they were in finding an answer since they
both ended up with "let's put e-ink in their hands with 3g and long battery
life". \---

First of all, the long battery life comes as a function of the e-ink screen.
It's not a built-in design feature, it's an advantage of the technology that
takes no charge to retain content on the screen. Secondly, who really uses the
3G on their ereader, and for what purposes?

3G is a way for the companies to push books to the consumers and a way for the
consumers to pull books on the go. It's like a glorified USB wire that can
transfer books to your device from anywhere.

Another thing to consider is the "illegal" market for books. Apple (and other
music players) did luck out with the plethora of freely available music. How
many of you would have your current portable music player if you had to pay
for every song on it?

E-readers have no where near that advantage. To Amazon and B&N it might as
well be about pushing books to consumers rather than pushing the device
itself. Creating a network of people who have readers means being able to sell
ebooks to them.

What will be interesting (at least for me) to see is the following:

What happens if publishers don't "get it" like the music industry didn't "get
it". Things like delaying ebook releases to months after the print releases.

Will there be an increase in the consumption of public domain and other freely
available books (CC, etc)? Will people care about these? How will authors get
people to care about these?

As one of the comments here mentions, the best things these devices can do is
the disappear in your hands so that they give you want you wanted to do in the
first place: read. And occasionally check definitions without that being too
distracting.

I think the challenges for ebooks lie in getting content from publisher to the
consumers. The technology is not the problem here (or at least I doubt it is).
Your person who thinks that the Internet is Google, or that the "browser" is
search doesn't really care about the tech. Concentrate on the "reader" part of
"e-reader", those are the problems worth solving.

On another note: I hope we don't "Twitterize" e-reading. Meaning creating an
unnecessary service that comes with its own set of problems.

~~~
stcredzero
_Another thing to consider is the "illegal" market for books. Apple (and other
music players) did luck out with the plethora of freely available music. How
many of you would have your current portable music player if you had to pay
for every song on it?_

I have plenty of my own content, which would fit best on a device that goes
_beyond_ the capabilities and goals of current e-readers.

Something that can compete with the display qualities of paper, but bring with
it the ability to run scripts, play sound and video media, create my own
media, sketch, _and_ interface with the global network through 3G or better --
this device would bring about a revolution in personal computing as big as the
advent of the iPhone.

And the funny thing is, Alan Kay thought of this back in the late 60s!

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook>

------
joev
One killer feature that the iPod had, was a very straightforward way to put
the music you already had in "atom" form (CDs) into the device. Even now,
Apple does not force you to use their infrastructure or retail establishment
to add content to the device.

I have lots of books that I haven't read yet. I have lots of books that I
would like to read again. I don't want to have to re-purchase my books just to
be able to read them on an eReader device. If there was a way to either scan
in all of my books, or provide a way to download previously scanned versions
after providing proof of ownership, that would seal the deal for me. I don't
care about 3G connectivity. I can even live without 802.11, as long as I could
sync via USB.

An ebook reader doesn't need to play videos or MP3s. That's what my phone is
for :^)

------
messel
Great post James, please blog it up for other eyes :) Yes, ebooks are assuming
known formats to ease transitions to one giant page layout. We can skip
through the pages in a book, but this is approximated by search for ereaders.

I primarily use my iPhone as an ereader since it's portable and functional.
The original book format is lost in translation and yet I get the essence of a
book, the authors well thought formulation of concepts all bundled together.
Newspapers and magazines are just weaker aggregators though so they mesh well
with the evolving web layouts we experience now.

I think I see the great value of posting your thoughts directly here now. You
invite an entire community to share their feedback without the barrier of a
page load, well done!

------
stse
I think the market focus has been totally wrong from the beginning. Why target
a market were an e-reader offer only a similar or worse experience than a book
and is way more of an investment.

In my opinion they should have targeted the student or corporate market first,
where the potential to save money and the need to work with the text is
higher. Things like comments and annotations could be distributed via a
"social network" to colleges, documents could be auto updated to reflect the
latest version and so on. Might be for technology/pricing reasons though, as
there's currently only one manufacturer that can deliver e-ink (afaik).

I also think that Google (Google books/docs, Android) is in a far better
position than Apple to evolve the e-reader market. But maybe someone like
Adobe (pdf) could also be a candidate.

------
nihilocrat
I haven't had extensive experience with e-readers, no more than seeing them in
the stores, so take me with a huge grain of salt: What's so dumb about Sony
because they want to give you an e-reader and just an e-reader?

I want a device that I can load whatever text / PDFs / etc. I want into it for
convenient reading later. I don't want 3G. I don't want DRM. I don't want a
device that is constantly begging me to open my wallet. I just want... an
e-reader.

Also, the page is a useful interface tool. The size of a page in a traditional
book is limited by its physical characteristics, but segmentation of the data
makes the experience much more comfortable. I notice this whenever I read a
wall of text on the web versus reading pages in a print publication.

~~~
sjs382
> What's so dumb about Sony because they want to give you an e-reader and just
> an e-reader?

The fact that it doesn't have the content that most of us want to read.

~~~
nihilocrat
So we can get the content we want to read ourselves. Sony just gives us a
convenient way to read it, content is not part of their domain. We see the
same thing with CD players, MP3 players, computers, and practically everything
that doesn't have a storefront that wants us to buy overpriced vendor-locked
garbage (i.e. cell phones). How is this bad?

~~~
sjs382
Can you get the content you want to be readable on the Sony? I can't.
"Freedom" is nice, but I'll often choose practical over free.

------
Herring
_> You see by all futurists accounts the Internet should have already done
away with print media, but we just can't let go of our paper._

The economist had an article on this, but it's behind the paywall now.
<http://www.isegoria.net/2008/10/not-dead-just-resting.htm>

Gist -- _"American office workers’ use of paper has actually been in decline
since 2001. What changed? The explanation seems to be sociological rather than
technological. A new generation of workers, who have grown up with e-mail,
word processing and the internet, feel less of a need to print documents out
than their older colleagues did."_

------
teralaser
Here is Economist's take on it (albeit more technology-oriented) :
[http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15...](http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15048695)

~~~
DrJokepu
Personally I didn't like the Economist article as I believe it focuses on the
wrong issues. For example, there's absolutely no need for an e-book reader to
play video. It's just not required. No one wants to watch videos on e-book
readers. This is a not existing problem.

~~~
dagw
I disagree. Given a choice between two e-book readers I'll choose the one that
makes it easier for me to read what I want to read. Given a choice between two
e-book readers that both solve the above problem, I'll definitely choose the
one that also plays video. Being able to quickly switch from reading a book to
watching a movie without having to change device seems like a feature at least
I'd want. Also imagine books and newspapers with embedded video clips to help
illustrate their point. Most news websites contain at least some video or
motion graphics, why not extend that to the ebook reader?

~~~
DrJokepu
Call me unimaginative but I think this would be feature creep. First, e-book
readers are very very far from solving the problem of being as much fun to
read as dead tree books so I would concentrate on that first.

Second, books don't have videos in them. They have mostly words and a couple
of illustrations. I don't see this changing in the short term. I think videos
in books would be way too distracting. Books are very different from
newspapers.

I can read e-mail on my computer and on my phone. I can read the news on my
computer or on my phone. A device that is sold as an e-book reader but isn't
as fun to read as dead tree books but it can do the same things as my phone
and my notebook has no appeal for me.

~~~
dagw
I guess it depends a lot on what you want an ebook reader for. I want one that
can handle all my dead tree reading. For me a good 50% of my day to day
reading is newspapers, magazines and journal articles. If a device can't
handle that and only does novels them I'm flat out not interested. That being
said I agree with you that I'm never going to buy a device that isn't first
and foremost really good at reading books, no matter what other features it
may have. Once they have that cracked then if they can also add video (without
making at worse ebook reader) then I'll be even more happy.

------
crocowhile
I am definetely going to buy an eReader sooner or later. I am actually
interested in hearing your opinion on which one between K and N would be a
better choice to hack. I like Nook better for the hardware seems more
versatile and rooting is very very easy (the entire OS is on a microSD card
inside the device). Yet, I think K's out of the box configuration is way
better given the longer battery life and the ability to access free internet
(at least a tiny part of it) from anywhere in the world. What is your take?

------
lo_fye
When it comes right down to it, Publishers are at the mercy of their authors.
For Apple to really hit the industry hard, all they have to to is make it
super-attractive to authors 7 content creators.

Publishers don't have to "get it" as long as Authors get it.

iTunes currently gives App creators a 30% cut. It they were to give authors
30% to publish with them instead of their traditional print publishers, I'm
sure most authors would jump at the chance. 30% is SO MUCH higher than most
authors ever get from print publishers.

~~~
georgekv
Actually. Apple takes a 30% cut (leaving the creators with 70%).

------
DrJokepu
They day Apple releases an e-book reader that provides such a good experience
as reading a dead tree book will be The Day I Convert To Apple.

I think the key of the solution for making a good e-book reader is simplicity.
Really, a book is not a very complicated thing. What you need is a device that
gets out of the way of the content of the book. A good e-book reader is an
e-book reader I can't notice while reading.

------
niels_bom
Agreed.

Have you read Neil Gershenfeld's "When Things Start to Think"? A lot of the
more general problems surrounding new technology and its (flawed)
implementations are discussed in this book, very interesting. That book is
from 1999 btw.

He also discusses the drawbacks of ebook readers and his arguments still stand
today, even though the technology has matured significantly.

------
gaius
_You see the Nook is good, real good..._

The NYT begs to differ:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/technology/personaltech/10...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/technology/personaltech/10pogue.htm)

------
jamesmcintyre
looks like my predictions are aligned with "new tips on Apple tablet" from NY
Times: [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/2010-the-year-of-
th...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/2010-the-year-of-the-tablet/)

------
jrockway
TL;DR. Get a real blog.

~~~
stcredzero
Seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. So I don't click a link to an
external site, how's this a problem?

~~~
jrockway
For one thing, your text won't be light grey on light grey.

------
nfnaaron
Thank you for putting the time and thought into this. If you don't have a
blog, you should give it a try.

I like the idea of an ereader, but they aren't ready for me yet. That's just
me. I encourage everyone but me to get an ereader, so you can all work out the
kinks for me. :)

One thing they will never have that books have, is being able to drop one or
lose one and feel nothing more than slight regret. The other day I creased the
back cover of a used paperback; I felt a bit of remorse because I have an
emotional attachment to books, but I got over it. I'd feel sick if I dropped
or creased a $259 kindle, more so if I lost access to all the books stored in
it.

"Apple will try to solve a better problem."

What a great way to shift perspective and open up areas of possibility.

Others here object to an ereader doing anything more than presenting static
text (and pictures I assume), specifically objecting to video.

For me, an ereader that does nothing more than digitize a book is not nearly
enough of a new product to make me want one. Other than a great improvement in
storage, and a slight improvement in portability, an ereader doesn't solve the
problem that a book solves much better than the book already solves it. That's
because ereaders currently try to be "better books," rather than trying to
solve a better problem.

Here is an ereader that I would buy instantly:

\- Reasonably indestructible.

\- Made and makable by many vendors, using basic media standards. Competition
is good, lock-in is bad.

\- Owned media portable to any new reader that I may acquire, from any vendor.
Copyright and piracy issues aside, this is merely an expected consequence of
the previous point. Maybe better use of cloud technology would make this
practical, and might also help solve piracy concerns. In other words, you
don't "practice ownership" (better term?) by having a work on your ereader,
you do it by having it on your cloud.

\- Able to load media that I and my friends produce informally (without
benefit of corporation).

\- Tailored to consumption rather than production. I don't want a laptop with
a keyboard. CD and MP3 players don't need to give the user the capability to
play the bassoon. But I might like to be able to take pictures and record an
audio record. I'd accept limited text entry ability if it didn't physically or
cognitively bloat the device.

\- Able to present any digital media, with a reasonable approximation of
"any."

That last point jumps off from jamesmcintyre's "solve a better problem." As
long as ereaders are merely better books, I'll probably continue to use paper
books, until they're not commonly available.

What I expect to see is new forms and uses of media. Books should commonly
become more than just linear text strings, except where that's all a
particular work needs or aspires to be.

Certainly I would like video and audio commonly integrated into the idea of a
"book," to the point where the table of contents and the index reference not
just the beginning of a video/audio section, but specific locations within
those sections, just as an index can reference a page within a section. Of
course those directories would be active and lead you right to the referenced
item.

Works that reference each other should also lead you to those other works
(superhyperlinks). If you own access to the referenced work then you should be
led to the work itself; if not, then to some "fair" portion or approximation
of the work. I don't think payment should be involved; having a consumer
exposed to a work, and made a potential buyer, is probably compensation
enough.

------
mattmaroon
Wait, you're saying Apple is going to build a tablet?!?!? NO WAY!!!!

~~~
jamesmcintyre
The title of the article featured the word "e-reader", and surely enough you
read an article I wrote about my thoughts on e-readers, where I postulated the
rumored Apple tablet is not "a better take on the tablet" but instead a
solution to a problem more thoroughly identified and explored: the transition
to bits (Apple's take on e-ink display tech) from atoms (books, magazines,
etc.) If all you took away from my writing was that Apple is going to build a
tablet than I recommend you acquire more knowledge in the areas of design and
technology trends (a couple related books: The Nature of Technology, Subject
to Change) than revisit both my article and the comments that followed as
almost everyone who commented but you actually offered valuable input and
continued a conversation primarily about design not industry rumors.
Regardless I appreciate your comment, just try not to be so troll-ish.

