Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, April 21, 2009
Media / Books / Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz How Electronic Books Will Save Newspapers
Posted by Brendan Kiley on Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:16 PM
This is a day late, but Steven Johnson, in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, had a think about the Kindle, the effect it will have on books, and how it might save newspapers:
(Short version: you'll sell more books, people will finish fewer of them, the world will become one constant online book club, and deep, sustained reading will wither, with people treating novels more like reading online—a little bit here and a little bit there.)
The last two paragraphs:
Skeptics may ask why anyone would pay for something that was elsewhere available at no charge, but that's precisely what they said when Steve Jobs launched the iTunes Music Store, competing with the free offerings on Napster. We've seen how that turned out. If the Kindle payment architecture takes off, it may ultimately lead the way toward the standardized micropayment system whose nonexistence has caused so much turmoil in the news business — a system many people wish had been built into the Web's original architecture, along with those standardized page locations.We all know the story of how the information-wants-to-be-free ethos of the Web threatened the newspapers with extinction. Wouldn't it be ironic if books turned out to be their savior?
He also doesn't say that a certain kind of late modernist novel, like Finnegan's Wake, will finally find its technology. Those dense, allusive books aren't novels so much as webs of words and puns and references to other things. Their allusiveness is a kind of intellectual hypertexting, and its ideal readers are thoroughbred nerds who know a lot about the Bible, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Shakespeare, Vico, the Vedas, your momma, and everything else.
As Nabokov described Finnegan's Wake:
nothing but a formless and dull mass of phony folklore, a cold pudding of a book, a persistent snore in the next room [...] and only the infrequent snatches of heavenly intonations redeem it from utter insipidity.
Novels like that were written as pre-hypertexts, with puns and allusions that referenced other works and only the Biggest of Brains, with the information already inside, had access. Now, reading Finnegan's Wake on a Kindle, you could look things up as you go, buy the books referenced them, digitally search A Skeleton Key to Finnegan's Wake for this or that phrase.
The Kindle may democratize and popularize difficult books like Finnegan's Wake, embedding an escalator on the side of Everest. (Yes, I know the internet itself was the first step, but nobody was going to read Finnegan's Wake on a desktop. And the Kindle makes it easier in a bunch of other ways that'll be clear if you read the WSJ article.)
And now please enjoy/shudder at this photostream of LegoGitmo (and Abu Ghraib).
1
What a great way to keep another source of information out of the hands of the poor. A $360 Kindle plus a newspaper subscription, home computer and Internet access.
The comparison to iTunes is moot, since it's a luxury of those with expendable income who are technologically engaged.
The comparison to iTunes is moot, since it's a luxury of those with expendable income who are technologically engaged.
2
E-books destroy book culture. You will never pick up a signed, first edition copy of an electronic book and run your fingers over the author's signature and know that Updike touched the same page. You can't trade or swap or resell your electronic books. Why does progress mean destruction?
3
Have you seen my $200 Dell Mini 9 with Ubuntu.
http://you-saw-it-here-first.com/v/scree…
I can read "The Web" anywhere.
Novels/Kindle lock us into the consumer text model.
Ubuntu/Mini 9 continue the SLOG trend of consumer/producer. Each man reads...each man writes....The real future.
Have you seen my $200 Dell Mini 9 with Ubuntu.
http://you-saw-it-here-first.com/v/scree…
I can read "The Web" anywhere.
Novels/Kindle lock us into the consumer text model.
Ubuntu/Mini 9 continue the SLOG trend of consumer/producer. Each man reads...each man writes....The real future.
4
I think it all depends on whether the price of an ad from a newskindle is closer to an ad seen on a newspaper, or one from a news site.
When most people talk about the trouble with newspapers, they focus on the declining readership and not the difference of ad revenues between newspapers and the web. Many of the top news web sites have readership larger than the largest daily newspapers, but don't have enough revenue to afford the editorial team at a reasonably sized newspaper. Unfortunately, I've never seen a good discussion on why that difference exists. Is it that web advertising is more fungible than print ads (that the reader visits more than one site per session so they can place the ad at the lowest paying site.) Or is it that web ads turn into fewer responses than print ads. (that macys knows that a $x print ad turns into a $x*y increase in sales but web ads do less well.)
If people read as many different news organizations on the kindle as they do news websites, it will keep the ad rates low. If advertising is only as effective on the kindle as it is as it is for the web, then ad rates will be low. If news on a kindle is a useful platform for advertising, then enough money will come to produce useful content that will keep readers.
When most people talk about the trouble with newspapers, they focus on the declining readership and not the difference of ad revenues between newspapers and the web. Many of the top news web sites have readership larger than the largest daily newspapers, but don't have enough revenue to afford the editorial team at a reasonably sized newspaper. Unfortunately, I've never seen a good discussion on why that difference exists. Is it that web advertising is more fungible than print ads (that the reader visits more than one site per session so they can place the ad at the lowest paying site.) Or is it that web ads turn into fewer responses than print ads. (that macys knows that a $x print ad turns into a $x*y increase in sales but web ads do less well.)
If people read as many different news organizations on the kindle as they do news websites, it will keep the ad rates low. If advertising is only as effective on the kindle as it is as it is for the web, then ad rates will be low. If news on a kindle is a useful platform for advertising, then enough money will come to produce useful content that will keep readers.
5
I used to read at least a couple books every month. Since I got my iPhone last year I have read zero. Books are obsolete. Sorry book nerds. At least there will be some books still published until you die off, then a handful more for a couple generations to sell to the cultural conservatives who have to do everything like grampa used to do.
6
Of course sustained reading will wither. Everything always gets worse, and the end is always right around the corner. In the 80's TV was making us illiterate. Our teachers assured us that we would never know just how much smarter everyone was before TV. And now, the Internet kids will just never know just how literate we all were before blogs came along. I would try to explain it to them, but they wouldn't get it cause their concentration is fucked. Panic, doom and gloom are the grownup emotions.
7
@1: Reader price will fall and reader cost will be a minor issue.
I do worry/miss the loss of physical books but there are seriously decent ebooks available at little or no cost. Even textbooks have begun to show up at no cost.
Revise copyright back a bit and we could well see a knowledge boom.
I hope that, on balance, this will be pretty good ..... if we don't screw it up (a big if I grant).
I do worry/miss the loss of physical books but there are seriously decent ebooks available at little or no cost. Even textbooks have begun to show up at no cost.
Revise copyright back a bit and we could well see a knowledge boom.
I hope that, on balance, this will be pretty good ..... if we don't screw it up (a big if I grant).
8
God dammit, will someone please give us a short, free daily paper already?
Canada has two of them in all of their major cities, http://www.metronews.ca/ and http://www.24hrs.ca/ and they friggin rock!
When's the last time you saw someone reading the paper on the bus? Go jump on a morning bus in Vancouver, BC half the people will be reading one of them. They can even afford to have real live people handing out the free papers at Skytrain station entrances. Yeah, even though they're standing right next to a box they pay a person to help hussle the papers a bit.
God dammit, will someone please give us a short, free daily paper already?
Canada has two of them in all of their major cities, http://www.metronews.ca/ and http://www.24hrs.ca/ and they friggin rock!
When's the last time you saw someone reading the paper on the bus? Go jump on a morning bus in Vancouver, BC half the people will be reading one of them. They can even afford to have real live people handing out the free papers at Skytrain station entrances. Yeah, even though they're standing right next to a box they pay a person to help hussle the papers a bit.
9
@7 Reader cost will fall, like the cost of Mp3 players? Media players with high-volume hard drives (the kind required to handle massive amounts of text) are still not cheap, despite the number of options and varieties on the market. And mind you, these readers feature a special type of screen that is relatively new to the market (and undoubtedly costly).
If everyone's dropping paper for electronic readers (a rise in demand), you can expect the cost to stay high to regulate supply. These items will likely be too expensive for the lower-middle class to buy in.
And you bring up a good point. Do you really think the companies producing these readers and selling media are going to use open software and lax licensing?
If everyone's dropping paper for electronic readers (a rise in demand), you can expect the cost to stay high to regulate supply. These items will likely be too expensive for the lower-middle class to buy in.
And you bring up a good point. Do you really think the companies producing these readers and selling media are going to use open software and lax licensing?
10
but that's precisely what they said when Steve Jobs launched the iTunes Music Store, competing with the free offerings on Napster. We've seen how that turned out
Just because itunes is popular, doesn't mean its actually profitable
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/200…
The company has never revealed how much money it makes on each song or video it delivers; it claims to run the iTunes store at “just above break even.” Independent estimates put its profit margin on music sales at 10% to 30% percent.
Just because itunes is popular, doesn't mean its actually profitable
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/200…
The company has never revealed how much money it makes on each song or video it delivers; it claims to run the iTunes store at “just above break even.” Independent estimates put its profit margin on music sales at 10% to 30% percent.
12
Wow. Good article, Brendan.
And everybody above - cool points. I lost some of you there, but tried my best.
Forgive me for being simplistic, but I'd suggest it simply boils down to the rule of 35:
If you're under 35 right now, the Kindle is new and exciting. It represents the way of things to come and should be embraced.
If you're over 35 right now, the Kindle is new and bewildering and goes against the ways of common sense. It is a gimmicky fad and must merely be endured.
Some exceptions apply, of course, but that's how generations often embrace technologies.
And everybody above - cool points. I lost some of you there, but tried my best.
Forgive me for being simplistic, but I'd suggest it simply boils down to the rule of 35:
If you're under 35 right now, the Kindle is new and exciting. It represents the way of things to come and should be embraced.
If you're over 35 right now, the Kindle is new and bewildering and goes against the ways of common sense. It is a gimmicky fad and must merely be endured.
Some exceptions apply, of course, but that's how generations often embrace technologies.
13
@2: virtually nobody gets to handle signed Updike firsts. I doubt more than a handful of Seattle residents ever has. And, you know, Updike is dead; there will be no more signed editions whether electronic readers exist or not. And all of the ones that currently exist will continue to do so, barring various minor catastrophes. Book collectors will continue to exist too.
But most books aren't good collectibles. I read several hundred books a year, at least in part; and very few of them need a permanent three-dimensional presence on my shelves. If I need to look something up, digital is easier. My understanding of Ned Sublette, Earl Shorris, John McPhee, or Mark Kurlansky, to name a few recent authors, isn't enhanced by paper, and might be enhanced by searchable digital text. If I decide I want to buy them -- and I have first editions of everything McPhee has written -- I can, and do. But I don't need hard copies of them all.
Expecting that e-readers are going to "replace" printed books is as ridiculous as thinking that television eliminated radio, or CDs eliminated LPs. Technological change is always concurrent; I have records in my collection that are more than 100 years old, but I also have an Ipod.
But most books aren't good collectibles. I read several hundred books a year, at least in part; and very few of them need a permanent three-dimensional presence on my shelves. If I need to look something up, digital is easier. My understanding of Ned Sublette, Earl Shorris, John McPhee, or Mark Kurlansky, to name a few recent authors, isn't enhanced by paper, and might be enhanced by searchable digital text. If I decide I want to buy them -- and I have first editions of everything McPhee has written -- I can, and do. But I don't need hard copies of them all.
Expecting that e-readers are going to "replace" printed books is as ridiculous as thinking that television eliminated radio, or CDs eliminated LPs. Technological change is always concurrent; I have records in my collection that are more than 100 years old, but I also have an Ipod.
15
In the past, I think, books like Finnegan's Wake or Ulysses were books that were close to impossible to approach on your own; they were better served in a group-reading context, with other people filling in the spots of knowledge that you didn't know--the problem with that, of course, is outside a classroom, where are you going to find a group of smart, well-learned, articulate people who will dig through FW with you?
The internet can bring that group-reading experience to everyone. (Well, of course, everyone with a computer/kindle/internet access. Or everyone motivated enough to get a library card, as kindles and other e-readers become a standard there.) And you can really pick and choose in this scenario--you can ignore the nerds on the internet who have bothered to annotate the shit out of FW, you can dip into their knowledge resources now and then, or you can read it fully, clicking on every hyperlink, definition, or reminder of which character is who. As someone who has read about 20 pages of FW (which took me approximately 3 hours.) I think that's awesome.
The internet can bring that group-reading experience to everyone. (Well, of course, everyone with a computer/kindle/internet access. Or everyone motivated enough to get a library card, as kindles and other e-readers become a standard there.) And you can really pick and choose in this scenario--you can ignore the nerds on the internet who have bothered to annotate the shit out of FW, you can dip into their knowledge resources now and then, or you can read it fully, clicking on every hyperlink, definition, or reminder of which character is who. As someone who has read about 20 pages of FW (which took me approximately 3 hours.) I think that's awesome.
16
News papers publishers need to band together to create a sub $100 e-reader, and subsidize the cost to the consumer with subscription agreements, and leases on the equipment.
17
@17
I have never read Finnegan's Wake, always wanted to, and a resource like what you described might be just what I need to have the confidence to tackle it. Can you recommend a specific site? Thanks.
I have never read Finnegan's Wake, always wanted to, and a resource like what you described might be just what I need to have the confidence to tackle it. Can you recommend a specific site? Thanks.
18
@ 15:
If I were going to do what you describe -- and I'm sure someday I will -- why would I want to do it on a limited, closed-source, proprietary, DRM-crippled, overpriced yuppie toy like a Kindle? Why not a full-function wifi-capable laptop, which would give me so much more bang for the buck?
If I were going to do what you describe -- and I'm sure someday I will -- why would I want to do it on a limited, closed-source, proprietary, DRM-crippled, overpriced yuppie toy like a Kindle? Why not a full-function wifi-capable laptop, which would give me so much more bang for the buck?
19
I'm all for progress, but...
I'm 29 years old, and it's disturbing to me how many people in my age bracket are so willing to kowtow to mediocrity. "Technological advancement is inevitable!" So what? Does that mean we have to be satisfied with being worse readers and only being able to handle smaller snippets of information at one time?! Why are we so content with that being the way it is? Once upon a time, people could HANDLE literary references to other things in their books. They could handle discussing them. It was called being smart and well read. What sucks about the internet is that it's given us a place to hold our information so we don't have to. And that's kind of sad. And it sucks that not very many people seem to mind.
@5 - it sucks that you talk about not reading as many books just because you got an iPhone as if you're proud of it. What does you having an iPhone have to do with your ability to read?!
I'm 29 years old, and it's disturbing to me how many people in my age bracket are so willing to kowtow to mediocrity. "Technological advancement is inevitable!" So what? Does that mean we have to be satisfied with being worse readers and only being able to handle smaller snippets of information at one time?! Why are we so content with that being the way it is? Once upon a time, people could HANDLE literary references to other things in their books. They could handle discussing them. It was called being smart and well read. What sucks about the internet is that it's given us a place to hold our information so we don't have to. And that's kind of sad. And it sucks that not very many people seem to mind.
@5 - it sucks that you talk about not reading as many books just because you got an iPhone as if you're proud of it. What does you having an iPhone have to do with your ability to read?!
20
@1 Not to mention the price of the books, at least as it currently stands. Maybe if e-books came down from their $12.99 price (Really?! That's more than some trade paperbacks!), readers came down from their $360 price tag (on top of the $12.99 book price), and the readers came with a free permanent way to connect to home base without being hooked up to a computer, the e-reader could be freeing.
But, that is a lot of IFs.
But, that is a lot of IFs.
21
Electronic books scare the shit out of me. And they should scare anyone who effectively knows how to use the find/replace function in MS Word. How long until history books are rewritten and we have our Fahrenheit 9/11 moment?
Hackers + Government + Electronic books = Bad
Hackers + Government + Electronic books = Bad
23
Do Kindle users ever actually use the keyboard on it? Of all the Kindles I've seen in use on the bus I've never seen anyone use the keyboard. Maybe they only use it when sitting on a toilet.
24
@19, I read on my iPhone. I'm reading this now on my iPhone. I don't read books on it even though I can, because it's pointless. People who use technology are more literate than book readers, not less literate.
25
@19, "a place to hold our information so we don't have to" -- no, that's what BOOKS are. And it doesn't suck; it's liberating. You can understand more than you can memorize, so if you don't have to memorize everything, you free up your brain to learn many more things. And having those things close to hand is vastly enriching.
Homer only knew two books. I know far more than Homer ever dreamed of -- more than all the people who were alive in Homer's time knew, put together. But the internet, it's extremely limited -- only a tiny portion of knowledge is available on it -- more than Homer had, but still tiny. Most of it's locked up in books. That's what's so great about e-readers: they open up those books in new ways.
@18: your laptop's screen sucks ass for reading. Yes, it does. E-ink is different and better.
@24, the same goes for your Iphone, double. Screen sucks. And, far from being "dumb", books are where the permanent record of humanity lives, not on the damn web. If you (and @5, I dunno if you're the same idiot or not) are only reading the web on your Iphone, you are wilfully making yourself stupider.
@6: People who say that people were smarter before TV are wrong. They don't know what they're talking about. Yes, a lot of dumb people stare at TV a lot, but before TV those people were not reading books.
Homer only knew two books. I know far more than Homer ever dreamed of -- more than all the people who were alive in Homer's time knew, put together. But the internet, it's extremely limited -- only a tiny portion of knowledge is available on it -- more than Homer had, but still tiny. Most of it's locked up in books. That's what's so great about e-readers: they open up those books in new ways.
@18: your laptop's screen sucks ass for reading. Yes, it does. E-ink is different and better.
@24, the same goes for your Iphone, double. Screen sucks. And, far from being "dumb", books are where the permanent record of humanity lives, not on the damn web. If you (and @5, I dunno if you're the same idiot or not) are only reading the web on your Iphone, you are wilfully making yourself stupider.
@6: People who say that people were smarter before TV are wrong. They don't know what they're talking about. Yes, a lot of dumb people stare at TV a lot, but before TV those people were not reading books.
26
I know far more than ... all the people who were alive in Homer's time knew, put together.
What is your proof of this?
What is your proof of this?
28
"I have first editions of everything McPhee has written"
You magnificent bastard. I love Rising from the Plains and Basin and Range.
You magnificent bastard. I love Rising from the Plains and Basin and Range.
29
I know this is a lame place to bring it up, but ... no apostrophe in the book title Finnegans Wake
30
@5/ 19 - I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word “literacy”. You’re mistaking “literate” for “connected”. Literacy is the ability to use language, to speak, to write, to read. Not the ability to use an iPhone. I have plenty of students who are incredibly well versed in technology, but can’t write a sentence. They don’t know what to do when they encounter a comma or a semicolon when they’re reading, whether it’s a book or something online. You can’t tell me that these iPhone using, connected kids are more literate than their book reading English teacher.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (34) RSS