Jones Beene wrote:
. . . why buy two similar handhelds if the iPhone can do the book task almost as well?
Answer: People who read a lot do not want one that is "almost as good"; they want the best possible gadget for the job, even if they have to spend $360 extra. It is worth it. For the same reason, I am happy to pay $170 a voice input microphone, even though others that are "almost as good" cost only $50. It saves me countless hours of searching for voice input errors. It is worth $120 extra to me.
If they could make a Kindle with a larger screen, more suitable for newspapers and magazines, that weighs less than 1 lb, I expect they could sell it for $1,000. The audience would be limited, but it would be much larger than it might have been a few years ago, because many people now realize the benefits of the gadget. People sometimes have to learn the value of new technology; it is not always readily apparent.
It is surprising how often people fail to realize the benefits of a new technology, even when the benefits are obvious in retrospect. A classic example was the world's first telegraph, installed between Baltimore and Washington DC in 1828. It cost an enormous amount compared to subsequent installations, and it was paid for by the U.S. Government -- like so much other cutting-edge, futuristic technology. For the first several weeks it was open to the public, no one used it because no one saw any benefit to instantaneous communication with Baltimore. A few years later, telegraphs were one of the largest businesses in the world. Even so, in 1846, Thoreau famously wrote:
"As with our colleges, so with a hundred 'modern improvements'; there is an illusion about them; there is not always a positive advance. . . . Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end. . . . We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate."
You still find Luddites who say the Internet and computers are overrated, or more trouble than they are worth, and we should stick to printed newspapers, fountain pens, typewriters and so on. Some cold fusion researchers, who shall remain nameless, feel that serious scientists should publish only in printed paper journals, not on the Internet.
It is kinda-like the computer printers these days, where they practically give away the nice printer but then rob you with the high priced ink. Lesson there: get a laser printer instead.
I recommend an HP Officejet Pro K550 inkjet printer instead of a laser printer. The printer is a bit more expensive going in, but the black cartridge holds 17 ml of ink, and it is far cheaper per page than others.
- Jed
