I read all the time, and yes, most of it is online, but even that isn't all "non-books." There are lots of ebook versions of "real books" available. I also read actual dead trees, too. So the either/or choices in the quiz don't work for me at all.

Sometimes I've got two or three books going at a time (currently it's Kim by Rudyard Kipling and Fever Pitch by Nick Hornby) and I'm an aspiring author.

Steve Jobs is clearly wrong.

I don't think this is a very accurate poll. I have a feeling most treehugger readings are the more intellectual type. I mean, I know very few people who actually sit down and read books.

There are these wonderful places called "libraries" where you can get all your reading materials for free, or a minimal charge. They're good for the environment, too.

i think people read now more then ever . In Göteborg we every year have big big book fair with around 200.000 visiters and the libary had to expand because there were to many people. I think people just find more then one way to get information these days

i know a lot of people who read BOOKS. at least 1/2 the people in my office are readers - there are about 70 people here. My daughters are avid readers - my eldest usually has 1 for school and 1-3 personal books going, and she reads online. my youngest is currently reading The Little House on the Prairie series and getting upset because she's almost through them.

I read for school, for work, and just for fun. Anyone who really thinks people aren't reading, just walk in to a Borders or Barnes & Nobles any day, any time. The ones around me are always busy.

Steve Jobs is wrong in the categorical statement that people don't read, and the concept that people don't read books is flawed as a categorical statement too. People may not read a lot of books, but most people read. A lot of people read before bed. A lot of women read trashy or more mainstream (danielle steel) romance novels. I have a friend who last year I think doubles her goal of reading fifty books in a year. Granted my friend is not typical, but most people read at least a few a year.
However what Steve may be commenting on is that from a market standpoint, people may not read enough books for the market to care about marketign these products or services. Which is a whole different issue.

Personally I like books on paper you can hold in your hands. It may be un treehugger of me, but I feel like staring at a computer screen or some sort of electronic device for to much of the day isn't all that good, and quiet time with a good book is a nice change of pace. However for school i tried to buy used books, and for pleasure I typically use the library. I think swapping actual books is a nice practice as well.
I also have the habit of using barnes and nobles as a library, picking up a book, buying a drink and reading it while there.
There are many books that are over printed, and wasteful, but as green as I may go, I will always prefer a real book to an e-book.

While I might be inclined to agree that most people don't read books in our society (or at least not ENOUGH books), it seems like Jobs says more because it plays into his electronic multimedia utopian vision of the world than anything else. Who needs to read when you have and i-Everything that plays DVDs, MP3s, virtual reality simulations, and cleans the litter box?
Maybe Steve Jobs just doesn't want people to read so he can sell them more electronic crap.

I would agree that most people who consider themselves environmentalists are avid readers with a voracious appetite for knowledge.

"I have a feeling most treehugger readings are the more intellectual type" JOSH V.

As JOCELYN wrote, I am in agreement: "There are these wonderful places called "libraries" where you can get all your reading materials for free, or a minimal charge. They're good for the environment, too."

He's so very wrong, I hadn't read for years because it just isn't very convinient, bought a Kindle and now I'm averaging a book a week...

I read all the time, and am usually suckered into starting several books at the same time [right now I'm currently reading about 5]. It's absolutely wonderful to see the polls so high for extensive readers, although it's skewed by the crows we're polling, of course. Currently, I'm almost finished with Animal, Vegetable, Miracle [not the newest, I know] which instantly became my favorite book until, near the end, the author starts reasoning away vegetarianism as futile because of [her reasoning, not mine] all the innocent little insects and bunnies that are killed anyway by plant farming...
*headdesk*
The last really great book I read was actually Skinny Bitch, which surprised the heck out of me. I thought it was going to be a gimmick book but turned out to be an informative, well-research book written by two highly intelligent authors. Plus, it was hilarious.
VegNews magazine is my favorite continuous green read. Everyone should read it, especially the omnivorous.
I've considered getting a Kindle or some other such paper-saver, but I'm struggling against being able to afford it as well as my inherent love for holding physical books and being able to keep a library and loan them out to friends. So for now I just buy used, use a library, or buy from local small-scale bookstores.
I actually know very, very, very few people who are not avid readers, so when I first learned that "people don't read anymore" I was very shocked. Nearly everyone I know of every age and background reads constantly.

I am an avid reader, reading two or three books at a time and at all times. However, I don't think that Jobs is wrong. I do believe that reading is just one of the mediums that we use to gain information. I wouldn't read to find out more about physics. I would try to get into a lab and try out some experiments. I am also fascinated by economics, but find reading about it mind numbing. I think an online class that was a mix of reading, lecture and film would be more suitable for my development. So I think what Jobs meant is that the days in which reading was the only or even primary way that people garnered new information is over. We simply have to come up with new ways to inform and I think Jobs is in a great position to do just that.

agree with all said above (except the 'women read bodice rippers' bit - my light reading is science fiction or science magazines, thank you very much!)

my reading is limited purely by time available, it has doubled since i had internet connection, as i now read paper books in the evening and a lot of online stuff in the day as well.

so i.m.e. new media have increased reading not decreased it.

I only read for information about something I want to know. I never read for leisure, I would rather do other things with my time.

I'm always reading a book, sometimes two, and I read a LOT online, both newspapers and content in my RSS reader (about 40 feeds).

Watching video is passive. How can you affect change if you're passive?

Fact: There is a great number of people who read on a regular basis for education and pleasure than the number of people who own your precious grail, the iPhone, Mr. Jobs.

I don't understand how he can say people don't read anymore, considering that book stores, both independent and franchise based, are thriving all over the country, even in our down turned economy. Does this man just not pay attention to anything that doesn't involve Apple?

Memo to Mr. Jobs:

Don't tell the people who printed all those copies of Harry Potter.

I read constantly - for info and entertainment. I read books. I would buy an alternative reader but they don't have the titles I want to read.

I still read, but I'm in grad school and am burnt out on books. Getting me to read something for class is rough. But after I graduate and reading is for pleasure again, I have a long list of books.

Steve Jobs is dumb. He doesn't want people to read so they'll buy more of his junk!

Steve is full of it. He is probably planning a book store for the iPod through iTunes. He also claimed that he could not produce a video iPod before releasing one that was eventually followed up with the iPhone and iPod Touch, the best portable video devices ever made.

Steve Jobs is a bonehead. Please stop with the complete Apple-loving, Treehugger.

Thousands, and maybe millions of books are sold every day. On a computer, we don't read as much as we're usually doing other forms of entertainment. Though news articles and blogs, and even ebooks are getting more popularity every day.

I would seem that people who don't read a lot of books, also don't bother to read or comment on Treehugger articles.

Although I do enjoy reading as many books as I can in my free time, I find I spend most of my total time reading articles on the internet. Also, about 50% of the books I've finished in the past two years are audio books, consumed while on the commute between home and work. I think I need a lifestyle change!

Jobs has been so very successful because he understands the very profitable market of people with more money than brains.

Not only do I read books, I READ THEM ON MY IPHONE.

Since I got an iPhone a few months ago, electronic books finally make sense for me: I can hold it in my hand on the couch, take it wherever I go.

Obviously the iPhone/iPod will have some sort of reader someday. Trying to read a book in a web browser or an email application can be tedious.