Will e-books cut out the middleman?

Ken Auletta recently wrote a very comprehensive (read: long) article in the The New Yorker’s Annals of Communication column chronicling the power struggle between Amazon and Apple in the post-iPad world. The article is good for anyone looking to catch up; for the quick bullet points, see Auletta’s interview on Fresh Air.

At first, the distributor clash was seen as a boon to publishers, who suddenly found themselves with a competitor to Amazon that offered more flexibility in pricing power. However, Auletta notes this view could be naive. In fact, publishers could face being cut out altogether.

“Amazon has actually made some deals with authors — Stephen Covey is one — and has actually approached authors and editors to try to hire editors to work for Amazon and to procure books for them. [And they’re] offering authors a much larger commission than the commission they get from hardcover publishers.”

It seems Amazon, though recently defeated in the pricing battle with Macmillan, has taken steps to circumvent publishers entirely. Of course, these indications may be premature, but even so it raises the question: What role should publishers play in the emerging e-book market?

Retailers have steadily encroached on the value traditionally added by publishers. As the line continues to blur, publishers could face a shrinking need of their services—a far cry from the e-book panacea many had in mind.

'the people formerly known as the audience…'

If you are even remotely plugged into the digital media debates of our time, you’ve probably encountered Jeff Jarvis, author of What Would Google Do and a persistent openness extremist. Despite my description of Jarvis’ views, I happen to find much of what he says compelling, and I particularly liked the way he recently expressed his dissatisfaction over the iPad.

An overreaction? Probably. But I can certainly get behind his rationale. Jarvis believes the iPad’s limited ability to create content is a deal-breaker. I agree. The new Web is all about creating and sharing, not passively consuming. In particular, I like the way Jarvis’ expresses this sentiment in his resent talk at re:publica 2010 in Berlin (about 37:00 on the timeline):

“The problem with the iPad is I couldn’t see a use for it…That scares me: that we move back from a world where we, the people formerly known as the audience, become an audience again.”

Also, check out his comments on why the media loves the iPad (read: because it gives them back the control that the Internet has democratized).

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not a Jarvis fanboy in every respect. However, I do think he forces us to consider our preconceived notions about digital media, and his arguments, if not compelling, at least serve a provoking pedagogical function.

Ads in E-books? iAd and its implications…

Jobs reveals mobile advertising. Could they find their way into e-books?

Apple recently revealed plans to release OS4 for iPhone this summer and a similar update to the iPad in the fall. While the new OS supports many mouth-moistening features for Apple nerds, one particular feature has media developers drooling a bit more than usual. iAd will allow in-application advertising, opening the Pandora’s Box of advertisements in your favorite mobile device.

It was inevitable. The ad-serve model has been the mainstay of media companies for decades, and so it was only a matter of time before mobile apps too found a way to tap in to this explosive revenue source. But, as many have noted, the iPad has a special emphasis on e-books, and it isn’t a stretch to imagine a Blade-Runner-esque future of ad-embedded e-books. Think that sounds horrible? Well, belay your anger for a second and imagine the possibilities.

Ad-embedded e-books may hold an interesting opportunity for publishers and readers.  The traditional advantage of the ad model is it allows displacement of pricing; instead of paying for content, audiences suffer through ads that companies pay for to reach that audience—the audience pays a reduced amount for the content they consume. As Joe Wikert from TeleRead points out, publishers should consider making two versions of their e-books—one with ads, the other without. The ad-enabled version could be priced far lower and potentially distributed more freely than the ad-free version because publishers would collect revenue regardless.

Maybe I’m just a media nerd, but this could be an interesting, albeit a bit stomach turning, workaround for many e-book revenue problems. Thought I hate to say it, there is no free lunch e-book—at least this way consumers may get greater freedom…brought to you by ads.

It's finally here…

It’s finally here. After all the hype and anticipation, after months of collectively holding our breaths, the future of e-reading has arrived, and this blog just wouldn’t be worth its salt if I didn’t cover it. I am, of course, referring to the recent debut of the Kobo e-reader!

What? It’s not like anything else came out this weekend?

But regardless of my interminable love for all things Kibo, all this weekend’s iPad noise hasn’t gone unnoticed. The initial reactions seem positive, though I’d say at least 30% less fan-boy crazy than with previous Apple releases. I — and probably most people — am a bit wary of the iPad, staying home on opening day to lurk on geeky tech-review websites and determine what Apple’s new product is really about.

For myself, iPad aesthetics were a given. I was more concerned with the pad’s functionality. Can you blog from it? (via Mashable: apparently so.) What apps will be available? How will this fit into, or improve, my life?

Less helpful though sometimes comical, I even succumbed to the ubiquitous man-on-the-street interviews.

Your mileage may vary, but after a quick tour of the tech-geek blogosphere, I’m still firmly on the fence. Sure, the iPad looks sexy. The thought of consuming media from the sleek tablet while relaxing in a sphere chair is appealing. But that seems to miss much of the power of web devices: the ability to create in-depth web content, not just consume it. For my current needs — always away from home, all the computing power I can get, quick reliable word/media processing, able to run Adobe products, never a spare moment — this device just doesn’t fit.

But then, I may be atypical. The reviews are far from over.

NYTimes & iPad: A conflict of interest?

From the beginning, the relationship between The New York Times and Apple’s iPad could be characterized as cozy. However, looking back on the nuances of both Apple’s iPad marketing and the Times’ Apple coverage, one has to ask: What’s really going on here? At the very least, both companies seems to afford a number of favorable-coverage coincidences. At most, it could be a case of outright cooperation — just short of quid pro quo.

The following images were captured from www.apple.com:

Among all the rotating slides, The New York Times seems to be the only content displayed that isn’t an Apple application. Similarly, listen to this glowing review of The New York Times iPad application:

Apple seems to have been struck by Times fever, but then, Apple is a company. Companies regularly strike promotion agreements with each other. The more concerning question is: How will a purportedly independent news company deal with all this promotion?

New York Times coverage of iPad.

Catching any bias in The Times’ coverage of the iPad takes more subtlety, and it’s difficult to tell if and when coverage might have been affected. However, there does seems to be a dearth of negativity surrounding the iPad, and surprisingly little coverage of Apple’s recent censorship of a German photographer’s website. One would think a media company looking to start a substantial distribution deal with Apple would be more concerned with the company’s stance toward censorship.