Maybe that's true on iOS. On my phone (Android), it's the only reader I've found that I consider tolerable for most uses. It's not by any means perfect, but of the dozens of alternatives I've tested, it's the one that annoys me the least.

> Page-flips are an important experience of books, even iBooks has it! And I like it that way.

You may think so, I don't, and I won't ever agree with you on that. For my part I simply don't use readers that force it on me. Either they have the option to disable it, or I won't use it.

> I'm afraid that is not your decision to make.

It's an opinion, not a decision.

> It is absolutely necessary and does good for the children to move beyond stuck up books that are locked in time and technology of 15 years ago.

I agree, which I why I find it annoying to deal with readers that insist on trying to mimic even older technology in all kinds of ways that introduce artificial restrictions on a medium that does not need them.

Case in point: It's simply not possible to offer proper zoom support without text-reflow, at which point the page-layout oriented UI falls apart.

They are - the physical, tactile experience of it is a helpful part of the reading experience. It's not the visual image of a page being turned that's useful; it's the actual physical interaction of reader and book.

Non-physical books that simulate the 3D visual and physical experience with a hideous 2D visual only experience are hideous and intrusive and make the overall reading experience worse. Non-physical books shouldn't try to pretend they are what they're trying to replace; they end up just reminding the reader of what they're not, instead of impressing the reader with what they are. It's like advertising by drawing attention to features a product doesn't have.

Given that this product is meant to be taking advantage of all the things a physical book cannot, to clumsily ape physical books in this way is just silly.