I happened to catch a conversation on Radio 5 Live late last night, in which Tim Waterstone was being asked about the future of the traditional book. This was prompted by reports that Bloomsbury will now be offering downloadable e-books. Waterstone said that, despite everything, the market for regular (printed) books continued to thrive and he was confident that the availability of e-books would make no difference. The same case is argued forcefully by Gabriel Zaid in So Many Books, which I featured here in November. Zaid has a whole chapter on the advantages of the traditional book over its competitors. He says that 'the visual, tactile, and even olefactory experience can make a lot of difference to the reader'. He also reports this:
[W]hen McGraw-Hill released electronic versions of its scientific books, it thought that readers would most appreciate them for their content and hypertextuality and for the advantage of getting the text three months before it appeared in its print version (which would eventually be phased out). Surprisingly, although there were sales of e-books, the demand for the printed books rose. The advertising for the electronic version made more readers aware of the text, and they became interested in buying the print version after reading sample pages on screen.