Amazon has released the second generation of the Kindle and according to Wired.com reviewer, Steven Levy it is much improved over the original.
I don’t own a Kindle, I’m not sure if it’s something I want to invest in, but I do like keeping track of where the publishing industry is going. Devices like the Kindle are a step in the right direction. The convenience factor is significant and as more and more capability is infused into the design of e-readers they will become less of a single application device and more multi-functional personal devices.
Publishers are concerned that people “don’t read anymore,” and I wholeheartedly disagree. People are reading in different formats and conditions than they use to. And much as I have been anticipating a comprehensive e-reader that could blitz digital publishing with its exhaustive capabilities, I’ve changed my mind a bit.
I think, in fact, I genuinely hope that there isn’t a catch-all device. Annoying as it is to have compatability issues and bump up against DRM road-blocks, I think the inherent variety of the digital text movement could best served by doing a few things really well and leaving space for others to contribute their brand of support.
Why would anyone want to carry around multiple e-books? Isn’t the point of an e-reader that you can consolidate your library and cut back on physical resources?
My answer to that is manifold. Yes, the idea of multiple devices goes against the grain of what devices like the Kindle are supposed to represent, but I can’t help resisting the homogenization that is likely to occur if someone trots out an “iPod” for books, essentially a device that is without significant peers.
The ideal, and we aren’t terribly far from this, is to have the cost of each device adjust to a point where it’s economical to own two or three e-readers, each with unique capacity. We should be setting the groundwork for creativity, meaning the ability to publish in many formats encompassing many styles of work.
This is a utopian ideal. I realize that. The market is designed to foster competition at the early stages, but ultimately it leads to consolidation, which culls out the competition. How do we keep from handing the freedom of the written word over to a hegemonic structure that can exercise control over its entire product base, leaving the readership without options?
it seems like the Kindle is a practical step toward saving trees since it is so much more convenient to carry around than a stack of books.