Originally Posted by JeffDM
That's the thing though, that was using too narrow of framing a point to make it say what he wants, covering at best, only one of three major forms of printed consumer media, all of which had offerings on ereaders at the time.
And even going outside the general consumer market a bit, textbooks are something that 6 to 8 million US college students are going to need in a given year. To me, all this makes focusing so hard on the NYT bestsellers seem a little trite, making it a likely diversionary tactic as Solipsism suggested.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I think the same thing, except for the very end. I'm just referring to his statement, which was narrowly defined. The thing is that "traditional" bookreaders, from the Franklin forward, were not really useful for anything other than books, and I think he was thinking about "bookreaders" such as the Kindle, which is not good with anything other than books. Yes, the NY Times is on it, but it's just individual articles. Nothing like the newspaper. Same thing for magazines - terrible.
So there, he was right. Book reading has been declining, and bookreaders aren't much good for anything else.
Of course, he was being asked, for a while, if Apple was going to make a bookreader (those asking, no doubt thinking along the lines of a slightly more advanced Kindle). His response was this statement.
The iPad is of course, not a bookreader per se. It's far more. So he was telling the truth. Book reading is just a part of it. The surveys show that bookreading is way down on the list of interest for this device, the biggest of which is web surfing.
So Apple isn't making a bookreader, they're making a device that can read books too. Like the Mac, or the iPhone, or iPod Touch.
He didn't really say anything misleading.