While some people don't like the kindle's appearance, many do like it for reading books. It is intentionally crippled as a web browser, because it has free 3G internet access. If it had a good browser, people would buy it for $400 and get free high speed internet access. Sprint's not going to go for that deal.

So even if people want to read books on a netbook, the business model will have to change. Or they will have to pay Sprint or ATT or Verizon or T-mobile $60/mo for internet access. Would you buy the kindle if you had to pay $60/mo? No, not many people would. And it would lose a lot of its appeal if you had to buy books only on your desktop and then copy them over. and then you wouldn't have the product you are describing, anyway.

Another problem with the netbook that the kindle addressed is the power consumption of the display. the kindle uses e-ink, which uses very little power compared to an LCD display (when organic LED displays are viable, this may not be an issue, as their power consumption should enable lots of new applications). The e-ink, while not good for browsing the web or other PC applications (like watching videos or editing office application files), is great for reading books, unless you can read a page per second. A netbook is going to have a power consuming LCD, and won't last as long on a charge as the kindle. and won't be as readable in different kinds of light.

there's nothing to stop somebody from implementing your business model on today's netbooks (they can be had for the same price as the kindle), you just have to find somebody willing to invest in the infrastructure for delivering the content, and then convince the content owners to trust them. good luck with that.

I agree, the best thing about the Kindle is five days of reading on a single charge. As much as I like Shafer's columns, he's got this one wrong. Kindle is for books and an occassional web search. My computer is for reading articles online -- Schafer's proposal might put SLATE out of business.

Exactly. If I wanted a mini-laptop, I would have purchased one.

The Kindle lets me take 10 books and slip them in my handbag to read on demand. I read the NYT on my Kindle because it is more convenient and less irritating than reading it online via my laptop.

It is not for everyone, especially those who want a multi-purpose machine, but I think it is a great product for readers.

Hear, hear. A lot of people who don't want a Kindle and hence don't want to test-drive one seem to have a big personal investment in bashing it. Thanks for setting some of their confusions and prejudices straight.

The Kindle is great if you like to read! Like an iPod for books! It makes reading great. Any other multimedia or web browsing capabilities would have sacrificed the elements of the design which make it great for immersing yourself in a book.

The Kindle is a great device, and if it were positioned as an alternative to a netbook, I would look hard at it, even at its current price.

But it isn't. It isn't an open device. It is a lock-in device akin to iPods. They force you to go through one retailer, Amazon, and to buy only that retailer's list of titles.

That is fundamentally flawed, entirely apart from whether the device itself is good.

Imagine this: a thin slab of a computer that runs some widely used operating system like Windows or some variety of Linux. You can install or remove whatever software you want. Among that software will be reader software, the kind that is always running on a Kindle. The reader software lets you read books with any file format, not just ePubs or whatever. It will let you get content from any retailer, not just Amazon.

What you'd have is a Kindle, but freed of Amazon, like an iPod but freed from iTunes.

Why don't we have that? Because middlemen like Amazon and traditional publishers want desperately to stay between content creators and content consumers, getting a cut each step of the way. With a device like that, there would be no need for multi-million dollar printing presses. Or warehouses and shipping operations. Or typesetters.

But somebody who isn't a traditional publisher or retailer might want to build such a thing. Like Google.