I really enjoyed reading Sorry iBooks, paper books still win on specs by Dieter Bohn at The Verge. I had been thinking for a long time about writing some sort of ‘definitive’ article which could clarify my exact take on paper books vs ebooks, and after reading this piece I haven’t much to add. I’ll quote the excerpts I agree the most with, then, but you should really, really read the whole thing.

What I’ve found quite ingenious in Bohn’s article is his viewing of paper books as a technology and, as such, comparing it with ebooks’ technology.

Before we get too far along in this discussion, I want to lay my cards out on the table. I am not against ebooks — I believe that their mass use is not only inevitable but will change the ways that we think and learn. I am, however, deeply concerned about ebooks when compared to paper as a technology. Make no mistake, paper is a technology just as much as an LCD screen is, and as a technology it has several important advantages over e‑readers that I am loathe to see disappear. […]

As fast as technology moves, it’s important to remember that previous changes in reading technology took literally centuries to spread. This current change is happening much more rapidly, and we need to think just as rapidly about its repercussions. 

I really like Bohn’s list of a paper book’s ‘technical specs’:

If you take a moment to think about a paper book as the technological object that it is, you can quickly see plenty of advantages over e‑readers. The list of “specs” for your standard paper book gets surprisingly long when you expand your definition of technology to include elements that don’t require a computer chip.

1. Readable with any form of light
2. Very high contrast display
3. Requires no battery power
4. Depending on model, lasts anywhere from five to five thousand years or more
5. Immersive and non-distracting user interface
6. Offers a spatial layout for immediate access to random information
7. Conforms to the standardized “page number” spec for easy reference
8. Supports direct interaction via pen or highlighter
9. DRM-free for easy lending and resale
10. Standards-based system not controlled by any single corporation or entity
11. Crash-proof and immune to viruses (though vulnerable to some worms)
12. Easy to learn user-interface consistent across most manufacturers
13. Supports very large number of colors and also black and white images
14. Compatible with a wide variety of note taking systems

These features and specs are either unmatched or poorly matched by most current e‑reader technology. While e‑readers obviously offer many advantages over paper books, I would argue that most of the above specs are essential to how most people think of the act of engaged, active reading. More importantly, many of these “specs” are vital to how most cultures have historically preserved and disseminated knowledge for thousands of years. The phrases “most cultures” and “thousands of years” sound awfully hokey, I know, but those are the stakes. If we are to replace this powerful and durable technology, we need to think in those very large terms. 

Spec No. 4 made me chuckle, but it’s true. And I’m glad Bohn included Spec No. 6, because it touches on an often overlooked aspect when we compare digital and paper books. When discussing this matter with other people, I often hear the argument that digital publications are more easily searchable than printed ones; that looking up information on a traditional paper book is a slower, more painful process. It’s true. But with digital books you also often lose something I’ve always found truly fascinating in paper books — stumbling upon bits of information you didn’t know and which might enrich your knowledge. 

When you perform a search in any digital search engine, you enter the word or the keywords you’re looking for. You search for information. When you randomly leaf through a paper volume of an encyclopaedia, a dictionary, an academic journal, a newspaper, etc., you find information. When I was at school, I knew many more English terms than my schoolmates because I used to open my English-Italian and English-only dictionaries at random, find words that looked ‘interesting’ and memorise their meaning. I did the same with other textbooks and encyclopaedias (at home I had access to a lot of art, literature, and other various generic encyclopaedias thanks to my grandfather’s vast and diverse personal library). This kind of — how can I say — ‘erudition by encounter’ is largely lost with digital books. (Not on the Web, though).

Back to Dieter Bohn’s article, another important section is The thousand year view, in which he talks about something I really care about: book longevity and preservation.

When it comes to the longevity of paper book technology and virtually any digital technology, there is simply no comparison. Assuming that the paper a book is printed on isn’t too acidic and it’s well-kept, it will last for literally thousands of years.

Digital formats have evolved quickly and it’s likely they will continue to evolve for the foreseeable future. Even if we assume that digital storage formats won’t ever change again and we’ll always have access to computers than can read them, the physical media itself simply breaks down in a matter of years. There are some solutions (like Millenniata), but few if any that are widespread, well-known, and standardized.

If you’re not convinced yet, I can make this point very quickly. I’d like you to read an ebook stored on a 5.25-inch floppy disk. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Solutions to this problem from Apple, Amazon, and others seem to be based on their cloud services. That is a lot of trust to place in these corporations and their costly servers. I’m not saying that preserving paper books is free, that the work of that preservation hasn’t been manipulated by powerful interests over the centuries, or even that they’re immune to catastrophes (pour one out for the Library of Alexandria). What I am saying is that we’ve developed a system of libraries and universities that work to ensure that books are preserved for the long haul. Those same institutions and many more are trying to do the same for digital media today — but they need help and I don’t see evidence that the ebook industry is collaborating with them in any meaningful way.

Before I am willing to say that ebook technology can measure up to paper book technology, I need to see the companies developing ebooks lay out a clear plan to ensure that their books and any notes we take on them have a legitimate shot of still being around and readable in a thousand years.