Is print publishing a dinosaur? Is epublishing a looming monopoly?
Tlwinslow
it is print publishing that is on the way out. If nothing else, trees, think
of trees. It takes 100 years to regrow a tree. Think of all the ecobenefits
that tree could provide if let be. Think of the gas problem in urban dumps
caused by decomposing paper. People who want to curl up under a
tree with a dead tree carcass make me into a poet :)
E-publishing is an infant industry. It's going through all the phases of
feeling out the market and the technology. It will make its mistakes,
have its excesses. Whether it will remain a field for many competitors
or end up being taken over by a monopoly like PC software remains
to be seen. It could go either way.
Right now just about anybody with a little capital and a lot of time can
set up an epublishing company and compete on a fairly even keel with
the others. Just about anybody can epublish their own material in
html format right on their own web site, and sell copies. The problem is
in sales. Who will buy a new book with nothing offered except excerpts
to judge it on? Some will, but people are used to resisting sales
pressure that is much greater than this. And in epublishing, there are
no refunds, so people are leery of dropping even a few bucks. Yes, the
same people will drop more than a few bucks at a bar and think nothing
of it, but if they buy an ebook they don't like they seem to bear a grudge
for a long time :) Yet print publishers put stuff in bookstores all the
time with big ticket prices that people don't like too. So that isn't the
real difference. The real difference is reviews. Epublishing will get a boost
when and if entrepreneurs set up reviewing companies, doing some
reviews for free but probably charging for their services because they have
to hire so many reviewers. Perhaps they will charge the epublisher not
the author. Epublishers will offer authors deals to attract their work. So
the fact that there is a new middleman in the chain isn't the problem,
rather it's the solution, since it will increase total sales revenue.. A
person can, in time, be persuaded to try an ebook based on reviews from
reviewers who establish their own name.
As to monopolies, it's very possible. For example, a giant such as
amazon.com or AOL might decide to combine a giant online bookstore
with free epublishing. They can buy huge blocks of ISBNs at a dime or
so apiece for instance. They can get a staff of artists to do book cover
art by the hour, and cut the cost to just a few bucks each for minimal
covers. They can have an inhouse review staff. Their system might permit
any and everybody to epublish using automated web forms, after they click
on a disclaimer taking all risks as to content on themselves. Then the
author can click to pay for cover art, reviews, etc. Maybe there will be an
economy package and a luxury package offered. It can be made so easy
that it would put small epublishers out of business, except for what the
monopoly won't handle, arbitrarily, for instance hate literature. The
monopoly would cement itself in as the development of advanced ebook
technology, software, readers, etc., puts it all in their hands forever, much
like Microsoft did with their op. systems. Maybe there would be a backlash,
a group of renegade authors supporting alternative epublishers, but that
exception would only prove the rule that there is a monopoly in epublishing.
Unlike software, I don't see a "free literature" movement. Authors don't
get paid enough as it is :) Sorry, I'm one so I'm biased. Epublishing
promises an equality of opportunity and a greater opportunity simultaneously,
and that is the irresistible force that will push aside the immovable object
of print. The print publishing market then would systematically dry up, and
some computer/net firm would end up controlling publishing in America,
perhaps worlwide.
I personally fear and detest monopolies. The only bright side to a looming
monopoly is that it probably won't be Microsoft. Too many people detest
and hate Microsoft already to let it happen. Consumer rejection keeps them
from taking over the Internet, and indeed boosted AOL over the top :) The
entire trouble with computers is how you don't have to be a technical genius
but only a marketing genius good at stealing others' ideas to become the
monopolist. You can become the richest person in the world without inventing
a single thing :) There ought to be a law :)
I know! Somebody ought to write a book satirizing Microsoft :) This is a
shameless ad, but yes I have done it. I hope one day I don't have to write
a book satirizing an epublishing monopoly. Keep this post for future
reference :)
T.L. Winslow, Fiction Author
Author of "The Incredible Billion Dollar Geek", "Dork Dick",
"Young Howard", "Horror High School", Anti-World War I", et al.
http://tlwinslow.virtualave.net
D. Davis
Tlwinslow <tlwi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000319091752...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> Some have suggested that e-publishing is dead. Let me suggest that
> it is print publishing that is on the way out. If nothing else, trees,
think
> of trees. It takes 100 years to regrow a tree. Think of all the
ecobenefits
> that tree could provide if let be. Think of the gas problem in urban
dumps
> caused by decomposing paper. People who want to curl up under a
> tree with a dead tree carcass make me into a poet :)
I don't think paper publishing will go the way of the dodo. Consider the
history of media technologies so far this century- Telephone, Movies, Radio,
Television, Cable, Satellite, ...Internet. With each successive wave, the
older tech. was *displaced* - bumped around and its producers forced to
rethink its role- but each continues. When each of these innovations came
into wide use, commentators argued that the newer tech would *replace* the
older. For the most part, this doesn't happen (these observations are not
original with me; Daniel Boorstin wrote about this a few years ago;-) ) .
I think paper publishing, widely taken, is doing many new and interesting
things in reaction to the new e-world, which includes e-books, e-articles,
e-media (audio, video, etc.) . For one thing, have you noticed how many web
sites are advertised in the print media? Since advertising is what keeps
newspaper in business, this is a good sign for the continuance of print
newspapers.
(I don't have much to say about the prospect of an e-publishing monopoly; I
basically think that monopolies are unusual, government-borne, and
transient. Sort of like a corporate virus. ;-) )
Cheers. I guess "we'll see" is a safe bet. ;-)
Dave Davis
Jerry Muelver
>
>
> I don't think paper publishing will go the way of the dodo. Consider the
> history of media technologies so far this century- Telephone, Movies,
Radio,
> Television, Cable, Satellite, ...Internet. With each successive wave, the
> older tech. was *displaced* - bumped around and its producers forced to
> rethink its role- but each continues. When each of these innovations came
> into wide use, commentators argued that the newer tech would *replace*
the
> older. For the most part, this doesn't happen (these observations are not
> original with me; Daniel Boorstin wrote about this a few years ago;-) ) .
>
Here's an interesting point. If those other technologies had been treated
the way ebooks are being discussed.....
When movies came along, and people got the idea to produce movies from
previously published novels, the camera simply zoomed in on an open book,
and occasionally-seen hand would turn pages periodically to guide the
viewers, rapt in their theater seats, through the book.
With the development of the talkies, sound added a welcome dimension, for
the occasionally-seen hand became attached to an unseen voice which read the
text on the screen to the audience, opening fine literature to legions of
the illiterate.
Radio gave mobility to the process, allowing people to enjoy the classics in
the privacy of their homes and cars, thrilling to the deathless prose read
to them from remote studios.
Television gave great immediacy to the communication of literature, for in
an instant the viewer could be whisked to the actual locale of the story,
and watch spellbound as the narrator held up the book so the scenery could
be enjoyed in the background as the pages flipped past in the foreground.
The advent of digital technology, and the Web, brought the process
full-circle. Now people can hold digital images of the classics in ebooks in
their very own hands, and turn pages themselves with a touch of button,
instead of being locked-in the narrator's pace in the old technologies.
The liberating power of new technology is truly awesome to behold.
--
---- jerry
Tlwinslow
>I don't think paper publishing will go the way of the dodo. Consider the
>history of media technologies so far this century- Telephone, Movies, Radio,
>Television, Cable, Satellite, ...Internet. With each successive wave, the
>older tech. was *displaced* - bumped around and its producers forced to
>rethink its role- but each continues. When each of these innovations came
>into wide use, commentators argued that the newer tech would *replace* the
>older. For the most part, this doesn't happen (these observations are not
>original with me; Daniel Boorstin wrote about this a few years ago;-) ) .
Well, normally I'd agree with this, but when it comes to the omnipotent Net, I
see TV, music and movies also in trouble. However, they, and radio, might find
ways of continuing their existence for a while longer. Print, ultimately,
can't. If you don't think so, tell me why people don't complain about missing
curling up with a good roll of papyrus? :) The final "straw' for print will be
when ebooks deliver what print can't, such as instant dictionary and
translation services, audio (spoken) output, and all the power of the Net, such
as embedded hyperlinks, sound, pictures (static and moving), instant
interaction with other readers, critics, and the author. Maybe the more
popular ebooks will become large web sites in themselves. People with print
books will find themselves crippled, and have to give them up for the very
reason they read them in the first place, viz. to aid their brains.
Movies are already being delivered on the Net, as are music tracks, and radio
and TV broadcasts, but maybe the movie theater experience can still be sold to
the public. Radio keeps alive because of people listening to it while driving
or while
at work. Also, because music artists get paid everytime a track airs. When
everybody has the Net available wherever they go, maybe this will change.
Ironically, there is still one big problem
holding eproducts in general up, and
that is the problem of avoiding illegal
duplication, of avoiding the spread of information. The Prometheus Problem :).
This is still an economic world, and people want/need to be paid for
intellectual work, not give it away free after claiming they got it from the
gods anyway and have no right to hoard it. Bill Gates aside (the ultimate case
of over compensation for intellectual work), most people would accept some
leaks in the market as long as they got paid a decent living wage. But it
doesn't work that way yet. Maybe this will be solved with cryptology, maybe
it will never be solved, and this will keep the older technologies alive
through sheer economic necessity.
The closest thing to a shining hope is the dot com companies, who float the
company on the stock market successfully even if the company itself is losing
money. Maybe somebody will figure out how to do that for individual products,
or individual authors, so the very free market system that made Bill Gates can
make others too. After all, Martha Stewart went public :) If Stephen King
tries it and it works, there might be a stampede :)
T.L. Winslow, Fiction Author
http://tlwinslow.virtualave.net
Jeff Cochran
>it is print publishing that is on the way out. If nothing else, trees, think
>of trees. It takes 100 years to regrow a tree. Think of all the ecobenefits
>that tree could provide if let be. Think of the gas problem in urban dumps
>caused by decomposing paper. People who want to curl up under a
>tree with a dead tree carcass make me into a poet :)
Trees are a renewable resource. Pulp trees used for paper take less
than 20 years to grow, and as for disappearing forests, forested
acreage in the United States has grown each year for the past 30
years. In contrast, ;ess than 20% of the world's electric power comes
from renewable sources such as hydro or solar.
>Right now just about anybody with a little capital and a lot of time can
>set up an epublishing company and compete on a fairly even keel with
>the others. Just about anybody can epublish their own material in
>html format right on their own web site, and sell copies.
E-publishing has a pretty dismal track record for profitability.
Plus, as the volume of material published increases, the amount of
material that never should have been published also increases.
>The real difference is reviews. Epublishing will get a boost
>when and if entrepreneurs set up reviewing companies, doing some
>reviews for free but probably charging for their services because they have
>to hire so many reviewers. Perhaps they will charge the epublisher not
>the author. Epublishers will offer authors deals to attract their work. So
>the fact that there is a new middleman in the chain isn't the problem,
>rather it's the solution, since it will increase total sales revenue.. A
>person can, in time, be persuaded to try an ebook based on reviews from
>reviewers who establish their own name.
E-books will sell the same way conventional books do. Name authors
will sell the high-quantity books, as will celebrity tell-alls,
cookbooks and self-help. And reviews are only valid if they come from
a valid source. Anyone can review a book on the internet, but not
everyone's opinion really matters.
>Then the
>author can click to pay for cover art, reviews, etc. Maybe there will be an
>economy package and a luxury package offered. It can be made so easy
>that it would put small epublishers out of business, except for what the
>monopoly won't handle, arbitrarily, for instance hate literature.
Vanity publishing. Don't see many Pulitzer winners taking that route,
now do you?
>Unlike software, I don't see a "free literature" movement. Authors don't
>get paid enough as it is :) Sorry, I'm one so I'm biased. Epublishing
>promises an equality of opportunity and a greater opportunity simultaneously,
>and that is the irresistible force that will push aside the immovable object
>of print.
It's quite possible for anyone to bublish a book currently, certainly
possible for thousands of printing companies in the country. Yet none
are publishers. What makes you think the medium will change that
fact?
>I personally fear and detest monopolies. The only bright side to a looming
>monopoly is that it probably won't be Microsoft. Too many people detest
>and hate Microsoft already to let it happen. Consumer rejection keeps them
>from taking over the Internet, and indeed boosted AOL over the top :)
Love or hate doesn't enter into capitalism. People buy from whoever
has the products. I fail to see any correlation between consumer
rejection of Microsoft and AOL's success, if that were true we'd be
running Netscape browsers on Linux systems attached to Novell
networks. And what it has to do with e-books is beyond me.
>The
>entire trouble with computers is how you don't have to be a technical genius
>but only a marketing genius good at stealing others' ideas to become the
>monopolist. You can become the richest person in the world without inventing
>a single thing :) There ought to be a law :)
Traditionally, the richest people in the world didn't invent anything.
They rarely made anything either. And I have yet to see a truly rich
publisher, though a few name authors have made it big.
>I know! Somebody ought to write a book satirizing Microsoft :) This is a
>shameless ad, but yes I have done it. I hope one day I don't have to write
>a book satirizing an epublishing monopoly. Keep this post for future
>reference :)
There are several out there already. Of course, none are e-published.
Look, TV was supposed to be the death of radio, but there are more
stations on the air today than ever before. Radio was supposed to
kill the newspaper, but more copies of newspapers are produced now
than ever before. Photography was supposed to be the death of
painting, the fax was supposed to make mail a thing of the past and
the printing press was supposed to be the death of religion. E-books
aren't going to destroy anything, no matter how many people predict
it.
Jeff
Tlwinslow
>than 20 years to grow, and as for disappearing forests, forested
>acreage in the United States has grown each year for the past 30
>years. In contrast, ;ess than 20% of the world's electric power comes
>from renewable sources such as hydro or solar.
>
>
paper industry has butchered many "old growth" forests and left either blight
or tiny little replacement trees. And what does this have to do with electric
power? Another problem with paper is that paper books literally eat themselves
up and decay after about 100 years since cellulose is hard to break down and
requires concentrated acid, usually sulfuric. The acid cannot be totally
washed out of the pulp and this has caused libraries worldwide to go into a
panic for some time as the paper decomposes. The old way was to use hemp
paper, but the super-powerful Hearst newspaper mogul, who had vast ownings in
timber, spearheaded the smear campaign against "marijuana" that made it, and
all hemp growing, illegal in the '30s, and made his timber worth more as paper
could no longer be made of hemp. Hemp paper lasts centuries. The original
Declaration of Independence is on hemp paper, and still exists. But I'm not
keen on paper, even hemp, so forget it :)
>E-publishing has a pretty dismal track record for profitability.
>Plus, as the volume of material published increases, the amount of
>material that never should have been published also increases.
>
>
Epublishing is too new to have a valid track record yet. The other crack is
what they called playing the Chinese boy. You can say that about print
publishing also.
At least with epublishing, there is no waste if something is offered for sale
that nobody buys. With print, the stores tear off the covers to get a refund,
then dump the unsold merch. into the dumpster, where it goes to the dump, and
causes an environmental problem.
>
>E-books will sell the same way conventional books do. Name authors
>will sell the high-quantity books, as will celebrity tell-alls,
>cookbooks and self-help. And reviews are only valid if they come from
>a valid source. Anyone can review a book on the internet, but not
>everyone's opinion really matters.
>
>
And your point is? Do you know the difference between making a valid point and
just yim-yamming? :) The point I
made is that reviewing companies have their chance to establish their reps with
ereviews, helping themselves and the epublishers and eauthors at the same time.
If a company gets a bad rep for schlock reviews, it will give its competitors
a break, but epublishing will go on. Amazon.com and other online bookstores
already permit any user to submit a review on any book. Individual reviews
have little value perhaps, but the aggregate gives a group opinion that some do
find useful.
>
>Vanity publishing. Don't see many Pulitzer winners taking that route,
>now do you?
>
>
Epublishing makes "vanity" publishing a non-issue. I'm talking about, say,
$49.99 for the luxury package. With print, a vanity publisher wants thousands.
And I guess you never heard of the novel that was recently voted the best
legal thriller of the century, by one John Grisham. It was originally vanity
published, as were Shakespeare's works. So I guess your entire credibility is
wasted. Anymore response to you is pure charity on my part, wouldn't you
agree? Do I even know you? What is your rep? Who is the inventor of the cure
for polo? :)
>
>Love or hate doesn't enter into capitalism. People buy from whoever
>has the products. I fail to see any correlation between consumer
>rejection of Microsoft and AOL's success, if that were true we'd be
>running Netscape browsers on Linux systems attached to Novell
>networks. And what it has to do with e-books is beyond me.
>
>
You fail to see? Get some glasses.
When Microsoft included free MSN
access, trial access, etc., with its
op. systems, people by the millions said No to Microsoft, and subscribed to AOL
instead, precisely because they were sick of this hideous monster. When MS
copycated Netscape's browser, millions held out even when MS was offering
theirs free. Netscape helped the U.S. govt. in its antitrust suit. Helped it
win. Is beyond you? Do you see things only through one eye? :) What do Jewish
people wear on their heads? Don't say
money. That would be a stereotype :) Epublishing is in its infancy, but as it
develops it will start to depend on advanced technology and big budget
marketing, and be ideal for takeover by a monopoly. I don't know any ebooks
that have sold a million, but for one to do so the ecompany behind it will have
to have big bucks for marketing and distribution probably. Microsoft is sure
to try it. They already have their pig feet in the trough, trying to take over
the ebook format for instance. Again, mass hate of their monopolistic
practices is leaving the market open for the little guys for the time being.
>
>Traditionally, the richest people in the world didn't invent anything.
>They rarely made anything either. And I have yet to see a truly rich
>publisher, though a few name authors have made it big.
>
>
Traditionally? Yes, there are the Rockefellers, Gettys, and others who made
their money in commodity distribution, financing, greenmail, et al. But this
is high technology, and the tradition is for the gold to go to the brains who
thought it up. Kodak, Xerox, Carrier, Ford, RCA, GE, the list goes on. Even
in computing, the innovative tech people were behind most successful companies,
such as DEC. MS is a company who jumped in and, through sheer luck and
ruthlessness, ended up monopolizing an industry in which it didn't invent a
thing, while those who did were basically robbed blind. As to publishing,
Hearst made it big with his publishing empire, but that was newspapers. Time
made it big, but that was a magazine. There are a few really big book
publishers. Too few, since they are consolidating into a near monopoly of
their own, which I hope will cause epublishing to grow that much faster. What
is the current size of the publishing industry? $40 billion? Look it up and
check back with me.
>
>There are several out there already. Of course, none are e-published.
>
>
Can you read? I said I epublished one of my own. And what are these others?
Name names.
> E-books aren't going to destroy anything, no matter how many people predict
it.
>
I gave my reasons in the post you ref'd, and others. The ability of computers
to augment reading ability, memory,
comprehension, and to provide live interaction, pictures, sound, etc., seem
sure to make print become obsolete one day, except maybe as a retro experience.
Some tech innovations did make things obsolete. For instance, when railroads
came out, in one year Britain disposed of some 800,000 of its 1 million horses
in favor of iron horses. (Saw this in the April 2000 issue of Scientific
American, p. 14).
T.L. Winslow, Enovelist
Author of "The Incredible Billion
Dollar Geek" et al.
http://tlwinslow.virtualave.net
Jerry Muelver
> > A 20-year old tree is, ahem, not much of a tree. Ask any squirrel :)
You make some interesting points, in a semi-lucid manner. Too bad they were
interspersed with irrelevant personal attacks, ethnic slurs, and inept
snideness. You provide little inducement for anyone to follow the link to
your personal ebook hoard.
--
---- jerry
Tlwinslow
Are you a PC guard dog?
Down boy! Somebody get me an
umbrella!
As for you, 'jerry', I don't want to induce
you to purchase anything by me. Indeed I hereby prohibit you from purchasing
any of my ebooks. They're only for people who don't flame me. I'm building
anti-personnel devices into them now. You're hopeless. What color is puce?
What did you say? Is that with a u or a double o?
Send me your real name and SSN for my records :)
T.L.W.
Deck Deckert
> >You make some interesting points, in a semi-lucid manner. Too bad they were
> >interspersed with irrelevant personal attacks, ethnic slurs, and inept
Tlwinslow retorted:
> Are you a PC guard dog?
I had the same response to your post and stopped reading after the first
personal attack. Life's too short to waste on people who 'debate' in such
a manner.
Deck
Tlwinslow
is your life? You couldn't be over 10 or 11 now :) You and your friend don't
even know what debate is. Growing up on a farm isn't all hard work. You could
have at least gone to first grade :)
TLW
