I read this article in The Times about this new version of a book - a flipback. It was introduced in Holland in 2009 and since then it's sold one million copies. It's also been launched in Spain, and then it will be France, and it will be in the UK this month apparently. You can easily search online for more information, but basically it's a paperback made with thin paper (like the Bible - if I remember rightly), and you read it by turning pages up, rather than right to left (like a calendar). I think it's to challenge e-books and increase paperback sales. Anyway, I just wondered what you all thought about it?
Aw. It's making me quite sad to think that people keep trying to change the way people read. I like books just the way they are. I only recently found out about the kindle thingy. I mean, I get it, but I don't like it. I suppose if this sort of thing gets more people interested in reading, it's not that bad. I still don't like it though.
I don't really see the point myself. It'll be small print, size of a cassette but thick. What's wrong with an ordinary paperback? Plus, these flipback books will cost a couple of pounds more. It'll be interesting to see what they're like when in the bookshop though, out of curiosity.
I don't like the idea of it. I hate how many changes and gimmicks people are adding to the reading experience. I don't need a Kindle or a Nook or any of that, I love the feel of a real book in my hands.
I love the feel of a real book, too. But I also love my Kindle. I have learned that there's room in a reader's life for both.
It always amuses me how resistant people are to change in the way people read. This same conversation has happened dozens of times since language was developed. If you're gambling, I wouldn't put my money on the book (not that I'd put it on this weird sideways book either...).
Yeah. I have tons of real books, but my Kindle is awesome. It isn't any more a gimmick than the first book was a gimmick compared to what came before it.
The issue is this. My sibling unit use to have a Kindle. Do you know what happened to said Kindle? There was coffee left out and said other sibling unit Number 2 knocked over Number 3's coffee all over the Kindle. The Kindle didn't last very long and said Kindle broke. I've split water on my hardback covers, a cat vomited on another one of my books [eww gross I know], and some coffee was split on some of the pages. They stick sometimes. But at the same time. Guess what still lives? The book. For the most part my books are all still alive. And being split on or vomited on is just part of the wear and tear. Not all the time does a Kindle survive destruction. You drop a Kindle most likely you've broken the screen, sometimes not all the time. You drop a book and nothing breaks. Books > Kindle/Nook On topic at hand, the book sounds interesting to look at. None I'd actually read. To much hassle it sounds like.
You can argue either way about various features of the ebook vs the book (weight of 3000 books, ~1.3 tonnes, weight of 3000 ebooks, 240g), but ebook readers are improving while books remain stuck in the early 20th century. They'll replace books just as mp3s replaced cds. This new 'flipback' isn't an innovation, it's a gimmick. Gimmicks sell, then they get forgotten. Meanwhile, ebook developers are being innovative, working on ways to improve the reading experience and make the most of new technology.
But the ebooks are kind of large aren't they? MP3s are easy and pocketable. And I'm not afraid they will break. Mine is a few years old and has survived many many falls. The Kindle didn't survive a fall. Nor the Nook. Its good to have a backup data of a book. But at the same time, ebooks are to fragile.
