Originally Posted by jragosta
There you go changing the argument again. I never used the term 'killing off'.
No, that's just a separate point I'm making, parallel to the original argument. Feel free to ignore it, if you choose.
Your original post made the claim that eBooks had to have higher resolution than paper in order to succeed. After I proved that to be nonsense (because both are finer resolution than the eye can see),
I did, yes. And then, ah, but you didn't. If that's still the problem here, it needs to be resolved.
The fact is that eBooks (at least on Apple's retina displays) have sufficient resolution that resolution is a non-issue - which completely negates the argument you made initially.
The fact is that this is completely false, is all. I don't know what books you're buying, but they're not the majority of digital books available, even in the iBooks Store.
I shouldn't have to qualify this, but I will, since you enjoy pulling arguments out of thin air:
I am not saying your books do not have retina imagery. I am not saying that no books have retina imagery. I am not saying it is impossible for books to have retina imagery.
I am saying that my books do not have retina imagery. I am saying that some, perhaps most, books do not have retina imagery. I am saying that I don't expect to ever be given retina imagery for these books at any point in the future as an update. I am saying that if the same attention to detail and quality given to physical books is not given to eBooks, the latter will not replace the former, nor will it gain any meaningful amount of ground in the market.