Absolutely 100% correct.
That’s because “bibliophiles” fetichise books as physical objects, as opposed to appreciating the beauty of the content contained within them. Because of this, despite having owned 1000s of books in my lifetime - the vast majority of which are physical books, I would never call myself a bibliophile.
I consider myself a reader.
Readers appreciate the wonders contained within books. The stories they contain, the wonderful visions created by authors, who have devoted countless hours crafting their ultimate vision.
Hardbacks / Hardcovers. Paperbacks. Trade Paperbacks. Ebooks. Flipbooks. Audiobooks - to a reader, they’re merely different formats - different content delivery systems, for want of a phrase, to bring an authors vision to the reader.
To a reader it doesn’t matter - because they luxuriate in the words, the plot, the craft of an author, to be transported to new and exiting worlds.
Bibliophiles on the other hand, they appreciate a book differently. To them the “feel” of the book - it’s physicality, is either as important as the content an author has created - or in the instance of those who seemingly go out of their way to look down their noses on people who use eBooks - it’s actually more important.
To them, yes the vision of the author is important, however to them an incredible piece of literature is somehow defiled, if you don’t read it on paper.
To them a book written by an author on a computer, often times initially proof read by an editor on a computer / eReader, isn’t actually a book, until it’s printed onto paper. Onto the remnants of dead trees.
For them, an authors vision, their story, only becomes “real” once it’s taken from them, and handed over to someone who puts it onto paper, then binds it.
A process the author has no involvement in.
I’m happy to call myself a reader, as opposed to a bibliophile.