AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Barnes & Noble introduces 9" Nook HD+ touchscreen tablet
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Barnes & Noble introduces 9" Nook HD+ touchscreen tablet - Page 2

post #41 of 51
9/26/12 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Right. And RIGHT! Many publishers would be hard pressed to be much more resistant to taking advantage of the medium. And then they whine when the books don't sell well.

That's a reasonable statement. That is NOT what you said earlier. You said that there was no place for eBooks until their resolution exceeded that of paper - which is clearly a false statement.

Wouldn't it be easier just to reach your final argument first rather than creating a nonsensical argument and flip-flopping all over the place and changing your argument multiple times until you can come up with something reasonable?
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 51
9/26/12 at 2:50pm
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
You said that there was no place for eBooks until their resolution exceeded that of paper…

 

Where in the world did I say that at all?

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #43 of 51
9/26/12 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Where in the world did I say that at all?

Post #13:
Quote:
Until a digital version of a book even has higher resolution images in it than a paper copy, I don't think there's much downhill-going yet.

Inexcusable, really.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 51
9/26/12 at 4:07pm
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
Post #13:

 

You're so used to GatorGuy's crap that you see arguments where there are none. And that's a shame, even though it has probably made you better at debate.

 

I don't see digital books being adopted to the point that paper books are being killed off until they're at least above 1:1 quality, in every capacity, with paper books. And that's where the point about publishers comes in. 

 

That in no way is saying "there is no place for them".

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #45 of 51
9/26/12 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

You're so used to GatorGuy's crap that you see arguments where there are none. And that's a shame, even though it has probably made you better at debate.

lol.gif

If he's used to it then I'm not doing as well as I could . . .

 

Just pokin at ya Jr.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #46 of 51
9/26/12 at 9:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You're so used to GatorGuy's crap that you see arguments where there are none. And that's a shame, even though it has probably made you better at debate.

I don't see digital books being adopted to the point that paper books are being killed off until they're at least above 1:1 quality, in every capacity, with paper books. And that's where the point about publishers comes in. 

That in no way is saying "there is no place for them".

There you go changing the argument again. I never used the term 'killing off'.

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), you've been flip flopping all over the place. Now you're arguing about killing off paper books - which was never the subject.

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.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 51
9/27/12 at 8:40am
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
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. 

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #48 of 51
9/27/12 at 9:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, that's just a separate point I'm making, parallel to the original argument. Feel free to ignore it, if you choose.


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 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. 

And, once again, that's not what you said. You said:
Quote:
Until a digital version of a book even has higher resolution images in it than a paper copy, I don't think there's much downhill-going yet.

That is a very clear statement that you think that digital versions of a book must have higher resolution than a paper copy in order to meet some standard of success. Nothing about your books. Nothing about existing books. Nothing about any specific tablet. Nothing about graphics. Nothing about zooming (all of which are arguments you tried to introduce later). It was a very clear statement that you think it's necessary for digital books to have resolution greater than paper.

As I pointed out earlier, digital technology already allows for books to have resolution finer than the human eye can see at normal viewing distance. So there's no value in increasing the resolution even to the level of paper books and certainly no value in increasing it beyond that of paper books. There is ZERO value in what you are demanding as a measure of success.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 51
9/27/12 at 9:18am
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
And, once again, that's not what you said. You said:
That is a very clear statement that you think that digital versions of a book must have higher resolution than a paper copy in order to meet some standard of success.

 

Yep, you'll notice I said that, again, in the most recent post you quoted.


As I pointed out earlier, digital technology already allows for books to have resolution finer than the human eye can see at normal viewing distance. 

 

Allow it. Yes. THEY DON'T ALWAYS DO IT.


So there's no value in increasing the resolution even to the level of paper books and certainly no value in increasing it beyond that of paper books. There is ZERO value in what you are demanding as a measure of success.

 

Okay. Sure. That's fine. I mentioned zoomability, you dismissed that; that's fine. You don't think eBooks should be required to have feature benefits over physical books, that's fine. I think that they not only should, but also that they're not about to get any sort of meaningful adoption until they do. 

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #50 of 51
9/27/12 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yep, you'll notice I said that, again, in the most recent post you quoted.

Allow it. Yes. THEY DON'T ALWAYS DO IT.

Okay. Sure. That's fine. I mentioned zoomability, you dismissed that; that's fine. You don't think eBooks should be required to have feature benefits over physical books, that's fine. I think that they not only should, but also that they're not about to get any sort of meaningful adoption until they do. 

You're fine to think whatever you want. If you had said that eBooks needed features that paper books don't offer, then it would be a reasonable argument.

Instead, you made an argument that eBooks needed GREATER resolution than paper - which is a totally false (and nonsensical) argument. Then you keep changing your argument over and over.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 51
9/27/12 at 7:39pm
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
Instead, you made an argument that eBooks needed GREATER resolution than paper - which is a totally false (and nonsensical) argument. 

 

… Right, there's no reason anyone should want to be able to look at their eBook and then look at their book, side by side, with the images at the same size, and see at least the same quality between them. The paper book should always look better.


Then you keep changing your argument over and over.

 

I'm doing that thing where you rub your fingers on the bridge of your nose while your eyes are closed. That action probably has a name, but I don't know it.

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Barnes & Noble introduces 9" Nook HD+ touchscreen tablet