Yes. I don’t waste the space downloading ebooks or audiobooks until I’m ready to read them.
For the purpose of learning, such as a textbook for a college course, or practicing a new piece for the piano, I find that I absorb and retain information better from paper pages. However, for pleasure reading I prefer an E-reader for the all the paper it saves.
In all practicality, I will most likely never buy a print book for myself the rest of my life, because my schooling years are already over, and I am a minimalist who hates it when my personal space gets cluttered with physical junk. I’m fine with buying print books as gifts for others, though.
Increasingly, the SDMB trends old. My children are voracious readers and only read paper when it’s the only thing available. Same with their friends. When they are all in the same age demographic as the SDMB, books will be a slower dying thing than vinyl, but just as terminal.
Most ebooks are minuscule compared to the amount of space available on just about any device you’d have them on. I’d feel naked if I didn’t have a bunch of them already downloaded and ready to go.
I’m 49, and haven’t read a single paper book in at least 10 years.
You want to see the other side of the coin, look at this site.
Yes, but perhaps your devices are newer or of better quality than mine. One book at a time on the device works fine for me when Amazon’s not tied up in a knot.
But have you read any books in the last 10 years at all 
Some of the books. Not most of them.
Are you using a phone? Even my first Kindle (bought around 2011) had room for at least a couple of hundred books.
Phone, and not a new one. My strong preference is for paper books.
Fun fact: I did a solo vacation out west, just carrying a tiny backpack (kid’s school backpack that got outgrown). I felt a bit proud of myself, then had to admit I could’ve packed lighter…
… half my bag was books.
IF (big if) I could’ve taken an e-reader, I could’ve packed more clothes and avoided having to stop by a laundromat.
Next trip, I’ll compromise… I’ll take small paperbacks (I’m hunting up some classics that are only 4x6", and less than 1" thick… like moody, wondrous Saki stories):
I really believe there is a strong argument for both physical and digital books, and I myself enthusiastically embrace both. I’m a collector of certain types of old books and value them as intrinsic art objects, to be enjoyed for their physical form as well as their content. But I also enjoy the great convenience of ebook readers, and I find the Kindle Paperwhite to be the ideal medium for reading in bed, being very light and self-illuminated.
I suspect that many kinds of physical books, mainly those containing primarily text content, will become less prevalent, but other kinds – the kinds with beautiful paper and illustrations – will always be around. And all other kinds of books, I think, will also always be around for reasons of aesthetics and tradition. A “Kindle library” is not something that requires a dedicated room with massive bookshelves and perhaps a fireplace, and an easy chair backed by a stand lamp, but many of us will always enjoy those things.
As art objects and about as universal. Just like LP’s with great cover art.
Younger generations will prefer high definition digital moving and still images, in their books.
Books and paper are not inherently beautiful. They are something you and I see that way through our life experiences.
Young people of my children’s generation have no idea why I own any music or keep collections of it because it’s all available to be streamed. Outside of a handful of enthusiasts, they have no idea about album art and don’t see it as particularly interesting when shown it. They barely register the concept of an “album”.
Books will be the same.
It ain’t all available to be streamed. Believe me, I know. Similarly, it may be a while before all books are available electronically.
I’d heard of that same study, and while I can’t be bothered to dig up references, I believe it. I took some college classes a couple years back, and in both cases had the electronic version of the text, and I didn’t feel it worked as well. You can’t flip back and forth from one section to another to check up on stuff (yes, I know about electronic bookmarks etc, - it just ain’t the same). The overall scamminess of college textbook pricing, and mandatory online components which cannot be reused, is another reason this is not an improvement. As a supplement to a dead-tree book, sure. As a replacement? I don’t like 'em.
Then there’s the pleasure of browsing through a bookstore, and stumbling across something you never heard of and didn’t know you wanted to read - and you can pick it up and riffle through it and get a feel for how you’d like it. I’ve discovered many a wonderful read that way.
My daughter lives in a small town in Vermont. On one visit, we wandered into the town’s ONLY BOOKSTORE - which happens to be a used-book shop. I imagine there’s a selection of paperbacks at the WalMart across the road, and the grocery and drugstores probably have a few, but aside from that, this is the only place to buy real books. Sad. Hilariously, however, we stumbled across this tome, which we naturally bought. I actually haven’t read it (there’s no Kindle version!). We actually make a point, when there, to drive to the nearest town with a real bookshop (Northshire, in Manchester - a must-visit destination), and buy stuff.
As a person of “a certain age”, I must admit that ebooks are much easier to handle. Any book I want, at my fingertips, and I can tweak the font and/or backlighting, which became necessary when I got my bionic eyes a few years ago. I could read a regular book, of course, but would have to hunt down reading glasses. I have been known to repurchase books we already own, in digital version, just so I can have them on my KIndle.
But they do make finding new books harder. You pretty much have to know what book you want, and specifically search for it. The “people also bought” and “recommended for you” at Amazon etc. generally stinks worse than a week old skunk carcass on the highway shoulder.
I know that but tell that to my children’s generation - everything important to them is available to be streamed. And that is what is relevant to my point.
Vinyl LPs and EPs generated $619.6 million in retail spending in the year, according to the RIAA’s new year-end report.
That was $136 million more than the total amount spend by US music fans on CD albums ($483.3 million) in the same 12 months.
Niche, huh?
I have over 6500 SF books and magazines, and maybe 5%, at most, are available digitally. Many I bought 50 years ago, and can pick up and read now. Want to bet on how much digital content you’ll be able to read 50 years from now?
I load a bunch of books from the library on my Kindle before I travel, so I’m not a Luddite. But paper still wins.
I read quite a few books with annotations and those are significantly more pleasant to read in e-book format, jumping from text to note and back is so much better than paging.
So people spent more on vintage than veteran formats. Not surprising - vintage is cool, veteran is what your Dad has and is uncool. Meanwhile your same cite shows that digital was 90% of sales. Vinyl is niche and the only way you can argue it isn’t is by pointing to something even more niche.
In a few decades all those who grew up with vinyl will be dead, and the only remaining market will be a few enthusiasts.
Books will die out slower because more old stuff is still worthwhile (not merely briefly popular) and they are not as easily digitised.