I have been arguing for a while that the e-reader could be the silver bullet for print products. I like the fact that the content is controlled and have always felt that it offered a compelling proposition to advertisers, if and when, advertising was made available on devices like the Kindle and the Sone E-Reader. I thought, the day would come when e-readers, rather than the web, would become the way newspaper and magazine content was dispersed. Maybe I was wong. 

Jack McKeown lays out a compelling argument that the e-reader adoption is likely to be much slower than the e-reader manufacturers would have us believe. In fairness, McKeown is the former CEO of a book company, so he may not be completely objective but his arguments are worth considering.

From paidcontent.org: full story here

Here is an excerpt:

"There is mounting evidence that screen-reading, even on reflective E-Ink devices, is not the same as reading print on a page. Recent articles in publications including Slate, The Washington Post and O Magazine, make the case that screen reading is more distracted and less immersive. Studies by Ken Pugh, president of Yale’s Haskins Laboratories, and Maryanne Wolf, director of the Center for Reading and Language Research at Tufts University, point to the same conclusion. A piece in today’s New York Times (NYSE: NYT) also looks at how the reading experience differs between paper and screen."