March 7, 2012
The iPad of 1935
The book reader of the future (April, 1935 issue of Everyday Science and Mechanics)
There’s no denying that devices like the iPad, Kindle and Nook have dramatically changed the way that many people consume media. Last year, online retailer Amazon announced that electronic book sales had surpassed print book sales for the first time in history.
The future of the book has quite a few failed predictions in its wake. From Thomas Edison’s belief that books of the future would be printed on leaves of nickel, to a 1959 prediction that the text of a book would be projected on the ceiling of your home, no one knew for sure what was in store for the printed word.
The April, 1935 issue of Everyday Science and Mechanics included this nifty invention which was to be the next logical step in the world of publishing. Basically a microfilm reader mounted on a large pole, the media device was supposed to let you sit back in your favorite chair while reading your latest tome of choice.
It has proved possible to photograph books, and throw them on a screen for examination, as illustrated long ago in this magazine. At the left is a device for applying this for home use and instruction; it is practically automatic.
Additional text accompanying the illustration reads, “You can read a ‘book’ (which is a roll of miniature film), music, etc., at your ease.”
Though René Dagron was granted the first patent for microfilm in the year 1859, it was New York banker George Lewis McCarthy who developed the first practical use for microfilm in 1925, allowing him to make miniaturized copies of bank documents.
Eastman Kodak bought McCarthy’s invention in 1928 and the technology behind the miniaturization of text was adopted rapidly throughout the 1930s. In 1935 the New York Times began copying all of its editions onto microfilm.
Microfilm was a practical instrument for archiving printed material for a number of institutions in the 1930s, including Oglethorpe University, which was preparing the Crypt of Civilization. The Crypt was sealed in 1938 and is intended to be opened in the year 8113. The December, 1938 issue of Popular Science included an article on the preparations necessary for that enormous time capsule, including the use of miniaturized text not unlike the concept above.
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
19 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Yes, that’s *so* much more convenient than having to mess with a big ol’ space-consuming book!
I notice he’s got two regular books on that table next to him, taking up about 1/30th the space.
It’s not the technology; it’s the experience!
The bloks on the tables are the manuals :)
An interesting technology advancement but, like so many other things a might impractical. It took about 80 years for the concept and technology to catch up to each other. Microfilm is still used today but is winding down as scan to digital increases. Government probably is still the probably the largest user of microfilm for public documanets.
Ooops, you forgot the “Sponsored Post” banner at the top of this article. I’ll bet your hit count has jumped through the roof by simply mentioning the new iPad. Phil Plait’s “Bad Astronomy” also has an obligatory iPad article which just happened to have been posted the week that the new iPad was announced. Ooooh, new overpriced shiny stuff; everybody’s so giddy today.
But, seriously… this thing looks like a big, fat, pain in the butt. For one thing — like the iPad, Kindle and Nook — you can’t take it to the beach, or into the bathtub for fear of ruining it. On the upside — unlike the Kindle, the companies who manufactured the books-on-microfilm couldn’t reach across a network and erase your books.
I can imagine the frustration that guy must have gone through a couple of months before 1935 was out, when they announced “The ipad of 1936″ was soon to come out :(
The thing about microfilm is the fact that, stored properly, the stuff will last nearly forever (basically, its an “archival grade” storage media); furthermore, it doesn’t take anything special to read it (basically some magnification lenses – more or less technology 300+ years old).
Contrast this to digital storage media: The longevity of such media is not as well known (though for pressed CDs or DVDs, stored properly, it can be quite a long time – now, for thermal burned CD-R/DVD-R media, that’s a different thing), plus there’s no guarantee that you’ll be able to read it in the future on future machines/devices (if you want to keep your stuff archived, you have to keep advancing it to the “next” media – I know this well, having had to make copies of my 20+ year old 5.25″ floppies to run on modern computer emulator software).
Add DRM in the mix, such as you see all over the place on many ebooks, and – well – personally, I’ll stick to paper books for most of my stuff for now (I have nothing against ebooks, really – other than the whole media issue, but I can keep up with that – just give me the ebook in an open, easily readable format – dejavu would be perfect – and drop all DRM).
Good imagination in 1935, 10 years before Vannevar Bush’s memex paper.
Who drew this / authored this paper?
Thx – Sam
What are the other two objects on the side table? A packet of cigarettes and an ashtray? (Too small to be a spitoon…)
User-friendly device – a few simple adjusters, otherwise just sit back and relax. No burdensome page-turning.
Why no alcohol?
I like the attributes of ease and wealth (in 1935) – dressing gown over a shirt, tie and pinstriped trousers.
There’s a big problem though – how does he get up (if he ever does) without bringing down the contraption or injuring himself?
@choppa – the “pinstripes” on the pants are the same exact stroke used to imply shadow and texture on on objects, so i dont think the pants are pinstriped. i also think what you see as a tie is really just shadow but i could just as easily be wrong. i do think he is wearing a shirt and smoking jacket tho.
Thank goodness the lamp topping the whole thing off has a pull-chain to control the bulb. Odds are the reader would keep the lamp unlit while reading, as the angle would result in seeing the bulb.
Also, the base of the lamp would need to be about 3 feet in diameter to keep the contraption from toppling. But who would want to buy a microfilm reader, even in 1935?
In reference to the comment that microfilm is “winding down” — that really depends on what you mean. It is, in fact, winding down in patron usage in libraries, archives, etc., with the introduction of digital. It is not winding down in those same institutions’ conservation efforts. As Crosh noted above, digital media is not a reliable medium for conservation purposes. The magnetic signal is fragile and, in this day and age, all digital media is reliant on technology and therefore subject to functional obsolescence within a few years. It would be foolish for any institution to rely on digital media and discard their microfilms.
This is Microfiche, not microfilm.
Written documents are subject to technology loss. Hieroglyphics were once a dominant form of writing, but was supplanted by alphabets in different languages. Only the chance of finding ‘ dictionary’ copies permitted rediscovery.
Microfilm was the reason for German preservation of a copy of the secret protocols of the Molotov von Ribbentrop pact. Only after 40 years of soviet and later Russian denials was it admitted that, yes, it existed, and yes, it was a deal between Soviets and Nazis to divide up Europe.
I remember using microfiche readers very much like this, except you had to go to library and sit up straight. The “iPad” reference is silly.
Anyone who’s ever done serious research in the microfilm stacks would know exactly how painful this would have been.
Some years ago, in 2000, I think, Scientific American had an article about how media can outlive their medium, and how the trend was accelerating. It showed a page from the Book of Kells, over a thousand years old and still quite legible, then mentioned that the U.S. government had the tapes with the raw data from the 1970 Census, but did not have a single machine that could read them. I have read that many consider Blu-Ray will probably be the last physical medium, with subsequent media being downloads, but I prefer having a physical archive copy of everything in case of loss of memory or machinery, and besides, if I don’t have a physical copy, a good case can be made that I do not really own it, even if I paid for it.
Ugh, Blu-Ray, a very clunky technology, almost as laughable as the device above.
Vinyl discs at the seem an achronism, using mechanics to store musical information. But they deliver better fidelity than just about any digital method. .mp3 is the great destroyer of music. The forwarder we go the backwardser we get.