Borders Bookstores to Liquidate

[Soontir C'boath]

Third, didn't have unlimited access to the book. After purchase I found out I had bought 'Licensed Access' for 120 days of use! I was paying 70% of the price of the book, and I didn't get to keep a permanent copy!

Any notion that textbooks will be cheap in e-reader format makes me inwardly cringe.

Hey, it's not like you need the damn thing after you finish the course. Unless you're some dumbass who has to take it again then you should pay another $90.



Frankly, whichever you choose is what works for your own comforts and situation. I don't usually carrry a backpack nowadays and I do not want to take one with me if I have to. If I can fit it in my pocket I will do so and that means a paperback.

[Norade]

For a student is there any reason to use an e-book reader over a laptop for course work? It would be great for those working sans laptop looking for a cheap e-book reader, but when I have a laptop, I can only see it getting use on a long bus trip or flight where the laptop gets to feel bulky.

[Simon_Jester]

Third, didn't have unlimited access to the book. After purchase I found out I had bought 'Licensed Access' for 120 days of use! I was paying 70% of the price of the book, and I didn't get to keep a permanent copy!

Any notion that textbooks will be cheap in e-reader format makes me inwardly cringe.

Hey, it's not like you need the damn thing after you finish the course. Unless you're some dumbass who has to take it again then you should pay another $90.

If you're in engineering or the sciences you may very well need a textbook again; most scientists I know keep a collection of old textbooks as references for later use. Physics, certainly, builds on itself- if you want to know how Bose-Einstein statistics work, you can do a lot worse than starting in your old undergraduate textbook.

The problem is that for science, engineering, and pretty much any area where textbooks are specially written for the coursework because reading novels on philosophical tracts isn't good enough... the total market for textbooks is quite limited. There's only so many people taking a thermodynamics course in the US per year, after all. And producing the book is very expensive- there's a great deal of work to be done by technical specialists to compile all the necessary material; it isn't just one man in an office writing the whole thing start to finish in six months.

So they have to recoup their expenses somehow, and that means charging through the nose for the books. Making them e-books doesn't solve the problem, not really.

[Akhlut]

There's also the idea that if I just paid $150 for a 900 page book on aquatic invertebrates, I'm keeping that son of a bitch with me for as long as possible; I'm not doing a temprorary lease on that damn thing.

Additionally, even older science texts can still be useful, as most are rarely flat-out wrong about something, and will cover a topic far more in depth than a wikipedia article. Or, at least, be a great deal more technical than the wikipedia article. For instance, my physiology book might not have all the underlying molecular biology portions about how certain metabolic functions work, but it's never going to be wrong about, say, the Kreb's cycle, at this point.

[Simon_Jester]

E-book textbooks work better for stuff where the cost of production is already recouped, or can be amortized over a huge number of sales. I can produce a million e-book copies of a Charles Dickens novel for effectively nothing; I can rearrange a bunch of essays by ancient philosophers into a 'textbook' for not much less. But writing a whole book on a complicated subject out of whole cloth is a lot more expensive, and a lot of that cost has to get passed on to the consumer somehow.

[Stark]

Additionally, even older science texts can still be useful, as most are rarely flat-out wrong about something, and will cover a topic far more in depth than a wikipedia article. Or, at least, be a great deal more technical than the wikipedia article. For instance, my physiology book might not have all the underlying molecular biology portions about how certain metabolic functions work, but it's never going to be wrong about, say, the Kreb's cycle, at this point.

I'm curious if any academic ebooks ever use auto-updating; technically editions can be pushed out without needing to kill a bunch of trees. Online stores certainly fix their editions of novels etc, and with background downloading you don't even really notice.

And seriously, what Guppyshark said about mass-market paperbacks is so true. I love books; I love properly printed and bound books of excellent quality. Not a bunch of newsprint smeared on yellowing pages and pushed down a glue slide like a sheep dip.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Textbooks are expensive because the publishers are wankers who put out a new edition with changed fonts and layouts every year to artificially limit the supply

[Stark]

Whether textbook prices are driven by market forces or the need of professors for income is an important question. Nobody will adopt updating books if they bank on reselling 99% the same shit for another €150.

[Agent Sorchus]

The cost of textbooks was described to me by someone who has worked to get things published as the guaranteed money as far as publishers are concerned. They are massively profitable and have a captive market and only a small amount of competition from other publishers, whereas Novels have no guarantee of making back the costs of production, especially with new authors. SO textbooks are considered an insurance vs new writers coming out into a bad market.

[TC Pilot]

Pff, all this talk of "buying" books. Just go to your damn library!

I had a gift card to Borders which I promptly spent within hours of reading in the newspaper that Borders was closing permanently, kinda surprised they still accepted it. I actually applied for a job at Borders a few months ago, no wonder I didn't get a call back.

It's unfortunate that Borders closed, from my perspective as a very infrequent and casual shopper, but there's really nothing in terms of selection, price, or convenience that allows it to really compete with something like Amazon, unless you're picky and don't like smelly used-quality or MUST HAVE IT NOW.

As for the paper vs digital argument tangent going on, I just glanced through Amazon.com for all the books I could remember reading recently. Half of them weren't in digital format, and all were more expensive than I paid to buy physical copies (except the ones from Borders/book stores!). So, while I haven't used one personally, the second-hand accounts of e-books being either unreadable outdoors or painful to look at for long periods of time, matched by being more expensive and less variety... real tough choice.

[Stark]

Oh man, it never ends.

E-ink displays are much easier to read in sunlight than traditional LCD displays, and the display on the K3 never gets glared out (since it has no reflective coating) unless you have grubby fingerprints all over it.

Since they're not backlit, they're significantly easier to read for long periods of time than traditional LCD displays, due to eyestrain. Indeed, E-ink displays basically look exactly like a page (ie, a neutral background with ink arranged into words on it) so yet more ignorant anecdotes for the win.

My motivation for buying a K3 was actually because my partner spends so long squinting hunched over reading books on her phone. The actual downsides of the displays are the non-trivial latency (since rearranging the ink takes longer than refreshing a traditional LCD display, often a significant fraction of a second) and the need for light in darkness (a logical consequence of the lack of a backlight). Arguably the poor processors (which make displaying complex image data refresh slower - such as comics or pdfs) are a downer, but even so the K3 is great for manga.

[ComradeClaus]

ALL of your set Lovely idea. Who publishes the textbooks, and why?

No, once when I was four, no, and not badly enough to have real consequences, respectively. Meanwhile, I've managed to accidentally drop e-book readers onto stone/concrete/asphalt floors, damaging them, and I find myself having to worry about my e-book reader being stolen in a way I'd never have to worry about a book being stolen. This is probably due to my own clumsiness and paranoia, but there it is.

Meanwhile, digital objects are theoretically forever, the possibility exists, but the quality of our ability to read and make use of 25-year-old computer content does not encourage me on this account.

"We're sorry, but we no longer support this format because it doesn't allow us to insert free-air standing holography into the book to go with the hologram projectors that let us charge an extra (inflation-adjusted) hundred bucks for the reader. Also because we're upgrading to 256-bit readers next year, and we can't be arsed to write emulation software."

Nothing like that would ever happen, of course. I'm being silly. I hope.

At the same time, the ability to carry an entire library around with me doesn't feel all that useful because I usually have a maximum of two or three books that I'm in the process of reading cover to cover anyway, and I only carry one of them around with me, usually a paperback that weighs well under a kilogram. The weight and bulk are not a problem, at least not for me.

Now, I'm not saying "e-books will never catch on" on account of these things. That would be ridiculous. What I want to ask, though, gentlemen, is:

Does thinking this way make me a "fetishist," as some imply? Does the fact that I honestly feel that for conveniently accessible paper content, the disadvantages of storing and carrying paper content aren't all that serious, mean that I am somehow an illogical person with a creepy obsession for paper books? Does liking being able to go to physical locations and shop for things make me an illogical person with a creepy obsession for... something?

And is something wrong with the fact that I regret the predictable, eventual decline of that network of stores with their conveniently accessible paper content, in favor of an online order and online e-book distribution network?

Yep. You can. There are drawbacks- you don't meet people, you're more likely to have Amazon stick only the books it expects you to want under your nose. And psychologically it's much, much easier to just go to Amazon and grab the book you expected to want than it is to go looking for something new to want.

This is, I think, one of the unresolved issues of the Internet age: the fragmentation of culture into small groups of like-minded enthusiasts: the system is smart enough to market to you that which it expects you to want, and as a result you see a lot more of that, and fewer opportunities to see something genuinely new.

I'm paranoid about dropping things too. Or having them stolen. not many people steal books, not as much money as in electronics.

I read books cover-cover too, like David Brin's Uplift War (~700pgs!) in one night... (God was I tired after that, but's he's such a captivating author, I had to know what happened next after EVERY chapter! Lucas should get him to right some EU)

Ah... Formats, something that makes an iMac G3 (or a Wii's Opera browser) useless after a few years at the same time a tv from the 70's can be hooked up to an adapter & still display shows. (Yahoo is a particular asshole for dropping support for browsers just a few years old) Plus what I saved on a floppy from my BrotherInc. WP isn't compatible w/ any computer, so I had to retype EVERYTHING onto NeoOffice.

So what if a book gets a few pages torn? that's what scotch tape is for. A damaged book can be fixed, a damaged ebook is just a BRICK.
Plus w/ Amazon, you can't really READ the book to see if you really want it. I'd spend HOURS at borders just reading books (& enjoying the Manga Fanservice I have about 30.000 manga pages on my computer, but it's faster to access them in paper format. Though viz medioa censors all the cleavage & pantsu & dark horse fucks up the dialogue!) Plus it's easier to pick up chicks than at a bar. (at a bar, you're "a douche w/ one thing on your mind." At a bookstore, in the right secition, w/ glasses & you're "Sophistiacated" "Sensitive" "Artistic". Online, you get none of that.

@Destructionator XIII: your location says Watertown NY, I take it that means you've been at the Salmon Run Mall Borders. (I hate the changes to the mall, like that convienient entry from Arsenal street they closed off forcing you to take that horrid intersection! & they demolished the hillside flowerbed too.) Do you remember the Waldenbooks they used to have? It was right across from a corn dog stand. Corn Dog + books made my a happy reader. God I loved the 80's.

I also like the cheap books sold at the Flower Memorial Library book sale. Paid only $1 for a SUNY Canton Physics book listed for $53 (still had the price tag) & two encyclopedia sets for $5 each.
Plus garage sales sometimes have treasures, i bought a whole TimeLife Science series (from the 60's) stuff on elements, & space, stank of mildew & a few pages stuck together that I had to pry apart, but still fully readable. An Ebook is nowhere near that survivable. I hate Starbucks, (SBC's killer) their coffee is liquid crack, but more expensive. I prefer Nice n' Easy convience store instead, or Stewarts or even the local shop in Sackets' Harbor w/ fresh baked scones.

[Stark]

If only converting between ebook formats took more than two clicks in free software? If you're paranoid you can even habitually strip the DRM from purchased books and squirrel them away wherever paranoid people put their backups. Comparing converting a piece of information (particularly a markup language) to physical plugs is fucking stupid. Hell, they're user editable!

If I drop my K3 it scratches the lightcase and I don't care. If I drop my similarly-priced original-run leatherbound hardcover, it scratches the binding and I'm fucked. Meaningless? Perhaps. Moreso than drivelling on about trolling garage sales? Unlikely.

[TC Pilot]

E-ink displays are much easier to read in sunlight than traditional LCD displays, and the display on the K3 never gets glared out (since it has no reflective coating) unless you have grubby fingerprints all over it.

So, basically don't touch it?

On a rather unrelated tangent, my one big regret about my current computer is that I got it in black, so I'm constantly stuck looking at all these ugly fingerprint smudges that I want nothing more than to go away.

Since they're not backlit, they're significantly easier to read for long periods of time than traditional LCD displays, due to eyestrain. Indeed, E-ink displays basically look exactly like a page (ie, a neutral background with ink arranged into words on it) so yet more ignorant anecdotes for the win.

Define "easier for long periods of time." If this actually has to come to a discussion, I'd prefer this not to be your worthless anecdote versus the worthless anecdote of people I actually know.

My motivation for buying a K3 was actually because my partner spends so long squinting hunched over reading books on her phone. The actual downsides of the displays are the non-trivial latency (since rearranging the ink takes longer than refreshing a traditional LCD display, often a significant fraction of a second) and the need for light in darkness (a logical consequence of the lack of a backlight). Arguably the poor processors (which make displaying complex image data refresh slower - such as comics or pdfs) are a downer, but even so the K3 is great for manga.

Not exactly a great sales pitch there. "Worry about some other shit and the problems you already mentioned."

Or I could, you know, open a book that I got for a fraction of the price than it would have been if it were actually sold digitally.

[Stark]

So, basically don't touch it?

Don't touch the screen ... when eating hamburgers. Clearly, ereaders useless. And do not get me started on 'sexy' piano black finishes of smudge collection.

Define "easier for long periods of time." If this actually has to come to a discussion, I'd prefer this not to be your worthless anecdote versus the worthless anecdote of people I actually know.

Too bad? It has no backlight, and so reduces eyestrain, specifically the primary cause of 'reading books on computers' eyestrain. Define whatever the fatlords you know even mean by 'harder to read'; for all I know they set the font to small and need glasses.

Not exactly a great sales pitch there. "Worry about some other shit and the problems you already mentioned."

Fixing your errors of fact isn't a 'sales pitch', its called 'being right'. Ereaders have limitations and flaws like any device. I'm sorry my post relied too heavily on objective facts and presented too many sides of an issue for you. It's a fact that some people really hate the refresh time on ereaders; should I deny it? Pretend it doesn't exist? Cry on the internet about it? Or just mention it as an actual issue, in opposition to all the made-up issues people mention in this thread?

[ComradeClaus]

Fucking edit window! closed just after I'd finished an edit, why the Hell is it so short anyway?!

Anyway, Ghetto Edit:

Real books, unlike Ebooks, can be written on, either for usefull notes ("Sectumsempra: for enemies" ) or hilarity (When I borrowed a library copy of "Star Wars: Splinter of the Mind's Eye", I saw written im the margin of a page showing an 'awkward' Luke/ Leia moment, "Luke+Leia", written long before TESB & ROTJ made that relationship Squicky. You can't put a price on such moments.)

I've actually raced a few digital proponents in browsing races, their 'e' or 'i' whatever, vs my book collection + my eidetic memory, I've rarely lost. I'm working on closing the few remaing gaps in my personal library. It helps that search engines tend to be INCREDIBLY stupid & wikipedia tending to be VERY poorly edited in places.

[Stark]

I hate to tell you this, champ, but you can also edit and tag ebooks with notes. Not only that, these notes and highlights can be shared wirelessly with others, so you don't have to destroy a publicly-owned copy of a book to put your 'hilarious' commentary on Star Wars out there for people to read.

[Darmalus]

For me, the big advantage of e-readers is that I read a lot of pdfs, both work related and for fun, that have never existed as a physical object. If I printed out everything on my Kindle right this moment, I'm pretty sure the results would weigh more than I do. It's nice to never have to pick what I want to read on the train in advance.

P.S. I hate finding idiotic notes in library books, go DIAF Claus.

[Stark]

I turned on the highlights/notes shit for a history book I have, and it's actually quite interesting. Because the audience is smaller, and I guess most people never highlight jack shit, you get a sort of distorted window into the mindset of people who read the book. Anything friendly to fascism? Highlighted and commented favourably!

[TC Pilot]

Don't touch the screen ... when eating hamburgers. Clearly, ereaders useless. And do not get me started on 'sexy' piano black finishes of smudge collection.

Well shit, if I can't be eating hamburgers while reading....

Not sure where you're getting this "e-readers = useless" thing from, though. If it wouldn't cut the number of books I could read in half and quintuple my cost for buying books, I might actually get one.

Too bad? It has no backlight, and so reduces eyestrain, specifically the primary cause of 'reading books on computers' eyestrain. Define whatever the fatlords you know even mean by 'harder to read'; for all I know they set the font to small and need glasses.

So some brand causes some vaguely smaller amount of eyestrain than other brand that causes some vague amount of eyestrain, in response to my hearing that the things cause some vague amount of eyestrain? Good to know, have a cookie.

Of course, why do you think this is actually responding to what I said? Or if it wasn't responding to what I said, why do you make it look like it is?

Fixing your errors of fact isn't a 'sales pitch', its called 'being right'.

Yeah, sure, keep telling yourself that.

If my argument was "I hear e-ink (or whatever the fuck it's called) is as hard on the eyes as LCD displays," you might have actually been making a point.

should I deny it? Pretend it doesn't exist? Cry on the internet about it? Or just mention it as an actual issue, in opposition to all the made-up issues people mention in this thread?

Well, for starters, you could try making it so it doesn't look like it's a response to what I was saying and coming across as some knee-jerk spaz-out. Rage all you want at random other people, I don't care. Just don't waste my time with it.

[Stark]

So some brand causes some vaguely smaller amount of eyestrain than other brand that causes some vague amount of eyestrain, in response to my hearing that the things cause some vague amount of eyestrain? Good to know, have a cookie.

Sorry, I didn't see you mention a brand. Could you get me a quote?

Yeah, sure, keep telling yourself that.

Right, because your criticisms were placed safely behind a 'people I know' shield and included almost no information. Hell, if I posted a picture of someone using an ereader in full noon glare you'd just respond with 'it was a different brand'.

Well, for starters, you could try making it so it doesn't look like it's a response to what I was saying and coming across as some knee-jerk spaz-out. Rage all you want at random other people, I don't care. Just don't waste my time with it.

My point is that you don't have to make up ... sorry. I mean PEOPLE YOU KNOW don't have to make up things about ereaders that turn people off; actual factual ones exist, and there are perfectly valid reasons to not use them (not least being book availability). Nonsense like 'unreadable outdoors' is unnecesarry, and people who dislike them could just spend fifteen seconds research to make criticisms or complaints that aren't obviously wrong.

Since you can't accept statements of fact without describing them as 'sales pitches' or 'knee-jerk spaz outs', I don't expect any of this will penetrate your established prejudices. It's ironic for you to use such language when 'knee jerk' is probably the best description of the ignorant negativity toward ereaders displayed in this thread - not least of which is the adversarial mindset you so competently display!

[TC Pilot]

Sorry, I didn't see you mention a brand. Could you get me a quote?

...the fuck are you on about? I'm talking about your "K4," "e-ink," vs LCD shit.

Ok, so "brand" isn't the right word for it. Fine. "So some particular type of e-reader causes some vaguely smaller amount of eyestrain than other particular types of e-reader that causes some vague amount of eyestrain, in response to my hearing that e-readers cause some vague amount of eyestrain? Good to know, have a cookie."

Right, because your criticisms were placed safely behind a 'people I know' shield and included almost no information. Hell, if I posted a picture of someone using an ereader in full noon glare you'd just respond with 'it was a different brand'.

For fuck's sake, this really isn't that hard to grasp. Maybe you'd figure it out if you stopped using those shit e-readers

Since you seem to be having trouble grasping this, I'll break it down for you:
Me: Besides the other reasons, I hear e-readers are hard to read or hurt your eyes.
You: The K4 and E-ink is easier to read in both respects than LCD displays.
Me: That doesn't answer my point.
You: *rage*

Don't believe me? Fucking look at what you actually wrote:

E-ink displays are much easier to read in sunlight than traditional LCD displays, and the display on the K3 never gets glared out (since it has no reflective coating) unless you have grubby fingerprints all over it.

Since they're not backlit, they're significantly easier to read for long periods of time than traditional LCD displays, due to eyestrain. Indeed, E-ink displays basically look exactly like a page (ie, a neutral background with ink arranged into words on it) so yet more ignorant anecdotes for the win.

My motivation for buying a K3 was actually because my partner spends so long squinting hunched over reading books on her phone. *snip rest*

In other words, you've only managed to establish that the K4 is easier on the eyes than LCD e-readers. Naturally, when asked to add some context (like to establish what "easier" for a K4 fucking means), you, of course, dodged it. Ok, am I supposed to assume e-ink is the bog-standard now and LCD isn't relevant to the market? If so, why mention it in comparative terms? Why not just say "E-readers are easy on the eyes," instead of couching it in comparative terms that are even less worthwhile than just your say-so? And if that's not the case, why are you getting so butt-hurt over this? Since I'd prefer to think you're not an idiot, I can only assume you're just still pissed off about something someone said somewhere.

Get it yet?

My point is that you don't have to make up ... sorry. I mean PEOPLE YOU KNOW don't have to make up things about ereaders that turn people off; actual factual ones exist, and there are perfectly valid reasons to not use them (not least being book availability). Nonsense like 'unreadable outdoors' is unnecesarry, and people who dislike them could just spend fifteen seconds research to make criticisms or complaints that aren't obviously wrong.

If I had actually disputed what you said, this sort of whining might be justified. Honestly, get the fuck over yourself.

It's ironic for you to use such language when 'knee jerk' is probably the best description of the ignorant negativity toward ereaders displayed in this thread - not least of which is the adversarial mindset you so competently display!

"Not sure where you're getting this "e-readers = useless" thing from, though. If it wouldn't cut the number of books I could read in half and quintuple my cost for buying books, I might actually get one."

CLEARLY I HATE E-READERS!

[Guardsman Bass]

As long as we're throwing down anecdotes, I've rarely seen a e-book that was more expensive than a new physical copy from Amazon, and virtually never one that was drastically more expensive than a physical copy unless we're counting used copies sold from a third seller through Amazon Marketplace. Here's my latest 10 purchases:

1. A Dance with Dragons: A Song of Ice and Fire: Book Five
2. Beyond Star Trek: From Alien Invasions to the End of Time
3. Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics: Hollywood's Best Mistakes, Goofs and Flat-Out Destructions of the Basic Laws of the Universe
4. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
5. "De Bello Gallico" and Other Commentaries
6. The Greatest Show on Earth
7. The Doomsday Book
8. Pakistan: A Hard Country
9. Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (Oxford History of the United States)
10. What Hath God Wrought (Oxford History of the United States)

Two of those (#3 and #4) had paperbacks that were cheaper than the kindle e-book, and in both cases the difference was tiny (in the case of #3, it was less than two dollars). #7 was the same price for both editions, and the rest all had e-books that were cheaper than physical copies from Amazon. Some of them were drastically cheaper, such as #9. #5 was actually free compared to the $9.99 price for a physical copy.

Since you seem to be having trouble grasping this, I'll break it down for you:
Me: Besides the other reasons, I hear e-readers are hard to read or hurt your eyes.
You: The K4 and E-ink is easier to read in both respects than LCD displays.
Me: That doesn't answer my point.
You: *rage*

I've never suffered more eye strain reading my e-ink Kindle than I have from reading any physical book for a long period of time. I've actually read 6-7 hours at a time with my Kindle without eye strain, which is not the case when I've been reading on an LCD screen.

[weemadando]

The best Borders closing comic yet

[Alyeska]

Since you seem to be having trouble grasping this, I'll break it down for you:
Me: Besides the other reasons, I hear e-readers are hard to read or hurt your eyes.
You: The K4 and E-ink is easier to read in both respects than LCD displays.
Me: That doesn't answer my point.
You: *rage*

Only LCD can cause eye strain. Its from two factors. Screen refresh, but mostly being backlit. E-ink displays have no actual refresh. It is a true static image on the screen. They also require absolutely no backlight to see. E-ink literally causes no eye strain of any sort. It consumes zero power to display the screen and only consumes power to change the screen (aka turning the page). And because of how it displays it requires absolutely no backlit setup to read. With no backlight, they do not create any eyestrain from the lighting setup either. LCD based E-Readers will cause eye strain (like the iPad or the Nook). E-ink readers will not cause eye strain. There is a small exception where they might have a poor e-ink display that renders text fuzzy, but they are already on the 3rd and 4th generation e-ink devices right now and they are crystal clear. I can honestly say my Kindle is like reading news print or text directly from a book. It looks exactly like your reading off paper. It really does. If the room is dark, its impossible to read because the device itself provides absolutely no light.