I agree with you, Roy. E-resources are great, but I think there will always be a place for print.

Thanks for the shout-out Roy.
We'll be collecting some more data at the end of the quarter about how students use Google Books, so stay tuned!

I'm a librarian and I find myself referring to Google books even for items that is in our physical collection. Indeed I use it in the same way your quoted text above mentions, full text searching and backup. That seems to be the most sensible way.

"Both/and...and" is a happier outcome. The Myth of the Paperless Office, by Abigail J. Sellen and Richard H.R. Harper (MIT Press, 2002) is relevant in this regard. Consider also the preacher who holds up a Bible in the pulpit and says "This is the Word of the Lord!" We all know it could be anything or nothing.

CORRECTION: Consider also the preacher who holds up a Kindle in the pulpit and says "This is the Word of the Lord!" We all know it could be anything or nothing.

I include Google and Amazon previews and search inside in my services precisely for how they can _supplement_ a hard copy book. They aren't even the full text -- but you can't keyword search paper.

I have some anecdotal evidence from reference librarians that patrons they would NOT expect to be interested in e-books at all, and may not have even KNOWN about Google and Amazon's services---are taking advantage of them when my software pre-checks and let's them know "Hey, you can do a keyword search of this on Google if you want, just enter your search terms here and hit 'go'."

But I actually kind of suspect that the use of print copies is going to seriously decline, for both scholarly research and pleasure reading, in the next 10-20 years. I am not personally particularly enthused about that, I think computers are neat but I became a librarian because I love books too. Not enthused about it, but I predict it nonetheless.

In the world of popular fiction and non-fiction, I think digital will make a BIG dent. The titles coming out as digital editions are current ones (rather than backfiles) and they are cheaper than the hard copies. I can save $10 by purchasing the latest thru Sony for my Reader rather than buying the print. Our patrons are now starting to request ebook titles for our Overdrive service. I think that says a lot.

There will always be those of us who love books. Not only because we are visual learners and enjoy reading but because we love the way a book feels in our hands, the way the ink smells and because we can stick a paperback in our purse or backback and we never waste time because we can lose ourselves in the printed word. I don't mind waiting in lines or at the doctor's office because that is found time to read. I admit I am a bibliophile +. So I will fight to protect the book as a container of knowledge and entertainment, art object and friend.

I read this article for the same reason I read other articles related to this topic: because I'm anxiously looking for the 'proof' of what I already believe: that digital is replacing print. As you point out, your discovery of this person's blog posting is merely anecdotal to the longer-term story of the transition. I, like you mentioned about yourself, don't see any evidence that print could not ultimately be replaced by digital. I think this discussion simply indicates that we are just not there yet. Who cares what medium is used to convey content? Does the user care? Well, your story is interesting because it points to the notion that the user does, in fact, care - for the time being. But we really don't have to speculate on whether digital will ultimately replace print or not. Instead, why don't we just answer the questions, 'Why does the user care?' and 'What steps are being taken to overcome the user's barriers to the transfer to digital?' Because if digital brings all the benefits of 'greening' the world, while making all content electronically searchable, then there is a clear business case for more penetration of digital content into the market of information seekers. In that sense, the issue is more about economics than the 'coolness' of switching to digital. My view is that as long as the costs of digital barriers are greater than the benefits provided by digital, the system-wide switch to digital is still some time into the future. The printed word is still important because it offers benefits to the user that digital hasn't mastered yet. A few years ago, this argument was encapsulated by the notion that 'you can't curl up with your favorite digital book,' and 'you lose the smell and touch aesthetics' of printed books. Well, since then, one of these issues has been solved - one can certainly curl up with a Kindle or Sony e-book reader nowadays. One of the obvious benefits of these media over print is the reduction of printed materials taking up shelf space in one's own personal library. A user can theoretically carry around his or her entire library on one devise. These are clear benefits to users. One has to consider whether the cost of a Kindle is worth the convenience of relieving shelf space. (not to mention the saving of trees...) For the moment, this, along with the searchability of digital, are the obvious benefits that users receive from investing in a digital reader. However, this value proposition only works for the set of users who are interested in these notions (and have the requisite $350+ startup cash to buy the readers, that is...) This leaves out the rest of the masses, who don't find parting with $350 worth the savings of shelf space and convenience of carrying around their personal libraries in their hands. My view is that when some or all of the conditions above change - either the costs of buying and storing print go way, way up... the costs of buying digital come way, way down... or the benefits of digital innovations increase beyond what print is capable of - the pendulum will finally swing toward the digital side. And I agree with you - some users will always value print over digital for many reasons. Print will never truly die. But I believe it will be replaced as the primary medium for the written word by digital, if the barriers to its expansion can be overcome.

Thank you all for your interesting comments. David, while I was reading your comment I was struck one such barrier (by no means the only one) to an all-digital future -- confidence in the format. I can walk over to my bookshelf and find books I've had for several decades. Meanwhile, if I had been an early adopter of e-books I'd have nothing. The Kindle does not make this problem go away, with its proprietary and locked-down format. You could argue that Google Books is somewhat different, and you'd be right at least to some degree, but in terms of consumer devices and content -- in particular licensed and locked-down content -- until I have some assurances I will continue to own it and be able to use it for some time to come you would not find me buying <

The comment monster strikes again! Despite the instructions specifically saying HTML formatting is allowed, good luck with that. To continue my comment above where it was truncated..."until I have some assurances I will continue to own it and be able to use it for some time to come you would not find me buying _some_kinds_ of books in digital format.

Roy, thanks for your response to my post. (I had the same problem with HTML that kept me from making my lengthy response more legible... Sorry about that!) I think your comment is astute and accurate - longevity of the format is obviously a benefit to some. This is especially true for those who are in the business to preserve knowledge and information (academic and research libraries, museums, teachers). Otherwise, I think the benefit of format longevity may be an aesthetic benefit to others (although some will always prefer to walk to their shelves and pull down the print copy. Aesthetics and preservation, together, mean there will always be a business in printing books). Not to be crude, but consider Half-Price Books' program to buy Books by the Yard for purposes of decorating... (can you say, 'what 'genius' thought of that one?'!!! geesh!) Longevity represents a benefit to some but is a cost to others. For my tastes, once I've read a book, I generally don't go back to it because there's not enough time in the day. I therefore don't care if I still own it or not. Sure, I still have books that I love and will never get rid of because I loved those books and want to own the copy. Don't get me wrong - I am sympathetic to the idea that Print should continue ad infinitum because I love books. As a child, I used to want to own the largest private library in the world when I grew up. I will probably always have a collection of books that are dear to me. But this is more for the sake of my own desire to build a collection of cool stuff than for any future informational needs. Again, not to be crude, but there is some similarity between this behavior of mine and the behavior of collecting stamps or coins or some other ephemera. For most things, I would rather donate to someone or sell for cash than keep less-collectible books around. I have already extracted the educational and entertainment value from such things and I dislike clutter. :) And I am not alone. Strong evidence suggests that longevity is not a benefit for other people, too. Evidence includes: Bookmooch and other book-swapping sites... millions of annual library discards... and used book companies, like Half-Price Books, that receive millions of consumer discards annually. Do you agree that these behaviors are evidence that many do not want to keep their print materials? But still, I think we are at the same place we started - Print will never die. My view is that Print's major place in society will be transformed from being the primary means of 'accessing' the written word, to becoming the primary means of 'storing' the written word - accessible when something goes wrong with the digital. Otherwise, once the costs go down enough and the net benefits of digital increase enough, digital will eventually take over. But again, the switch clearly hasn't happened yet. So for my part, I will continue waiting anxiously for the proof.

Just as paperbacks didn't kill hardbound books, the "e binding" will not kill all print bindings. Regardless of format, content is still king and readers will choose what format they want for what content.

I am very skeptical of the claim that e-books are better for the environment. Computers in general are not in fact very good for the environment. Books could be made more ecological sustainable in many ways that do not add an ecological burden of additional (semi-disposable) electronics production (and disposal) -- for starters, you can definitely make paper out of plants that grow a lot quicker and 'cheaper' than trees.

Jonathan, that may be true, but 1 Kindle can hold up to how many books? I think Amazon says 1,500? I don't know enough about this equation to know for sure. But I do know that trees are not the only resource used to make books - lots of power, water, ink, and other chemicals go into the production of paper. Not to mention the pollution and heating of rivers beside the paper manufacturing facilities. I used to work for a packaging company and visited two recycled paper plants, and man, do they get HOT! I really have a hard time believing that producing 1,500 books is the better side to the ecological equation than making one Kindle. I'm sure someone could answer this question for sure, given the right resources. Actually, though, this isn't even a fair comparison yet because the Kindle 2 is not the final word on Digital yet - we are still very early in the evolution of the digital content lifecycle, and much better solutions have yet to be created. Overall, I disagree with you, but I could be wrong. Anyway, we are off topic with this line, interesting as it is. We weren't talking about what is better for the environment on this post - the primary argument here is whether the switch to digital from print is happening or when it will. But I think your question is interesting and another aspect to the cost-benefit equation.