Younger generations will more readily adopt new technologies because the more recent technologies are all they've ever experienced, and will fully invest in them. It takes a while for feelings of nostalgia to arise, and when it does, the common one is that analog is a superior technology. When all there was was analog, it wasn't always better. The grass is always greener on the other side of the technology fence when the new technology starts to grow weeds.
The problem lies not in the state of the technology, but the ideas it allows or disallows. It's not that one technology obviates the other; it just shifts our attention for a while. Like the thinking that one understands a book merely on its title, understanding art through its technology is ultimately misguided.
I hardly ever read an e-book if I can get a print version, or perhaps the audio version. I think a lot of people are more attracted to print now because it removes the noise of opinion. This is also why I prefer looking at framed photographs in galleries: it reduces the experience to a room, a wall and contemplation of the image in context with others in the room. I want to know as much as I can about them with the limited time viewing them.
Richard Dawkins remarked in a recent interview with Sam Harris that the success of the "The Selfish Gene" is almost entirely in its title. People appropriate it based on the word "selfish" and never really know what the book is about or what the main point is about natural selection.
If you look only at the technology (or what the technology makes possible), you can completely miss the point.