Biting The Bullet: Publishing And The Net 206
Like the newspaper industry, publishing thinks it can enter the digital age by switching formats. It shows little interest in examining, dismantling and re-assembling its own rusty culture, something admittedly tough for any entrenched institution to do. So like newspapers, book publishers are making it clearer by the month that they would rather die than really change.
For nearly a decade now the newspaper industry has been using the Internet as a pretext for committing cultural suicide -- for cannibalizing its own form and attributes in a panicky response to new information technologies. Some of these once-influential papers may evolve into profitable information Web sites. But increasingly, it appears that most newspapers will not survive at all, at least in their familiar form. We'll never know how interesting or successful newspapers might have become if they'd have taken all the money they've spent on tepid Web sites and simply made their papers better. All that's really clear is that year by year, papers have become more marginalized, less vital.
Newspapers never grasped that interactivity isn't about technology, but rather about attitude, not about the form in which content gets but the means by which the content changes. Interactivity is about the increased power personal computing gives to consumers of information. The industry has spent billions of dollars throwing up sites that mostly underscore the idea that newspapers aren't very important -- that much of their content can be moved online, or given away.
Recently the newspaper business's cousin in industry, book publishing, has indicated that it's about to go the same sorry route. Rather than publish interesting new kinds of books that reflect the intensely interactive cultural ethos sweeping the United States, book publishers are tossing away the very qualities that makes them unique and valuable, and showing their customers that even they don't value the very forms they are trying to sell and, presumably, preserve.
All over New York, unnerved publishers who until recently held their noses at suggestions that the Internet would affect their industry, are rushing to figure out how to move publishing online.
Most recently, Simon & Schuster made available, at the enthusiastic urging of Stephen King, what it called "an electronic book," King's latest novella, Riding the Bullet. The demand online was so great -- more than 400,000 orders -- that would-be readers trying to download the digital horror story into their computers, electronic readers and Palm Pilots overwhelmed retailers' Web sites within 48 hours. If nothing else, King demonstrated how much people love free online stuff. What that means for book publishing isn't quite as clear, other than an indication of the trouble it's in.
King's novella, which will not be published as a traditional book, was promoted both in print and on Amazon and Bn.com. The release week saw a wave of publicity as several other authors publicly made the leap from print to monitor. For advances of up to $100,000, Fatbrain.com hired ten authors to write short essays about the Bill of Rights. The first of these essays -- by Coretta Scott King, Newt Gingrich, Pete Hamill and Doris Kearns Goodwin -- began appearing last week. Fatbrain has now demonstrated that online publishing sites can be pretentious and boring too. Fatbrain (doing this mostly to hype its new site MightyWords) also announced that it had signed a contract to publish Toni Morrison's l993 Nobel Prize acceptance speech. Fatbrain didn't seem to grasp the inherent irony in its promotion -- a site devoted to new ways of publishing new writers launches itself by signing up some of the best-known traditional ones it can find. Like the e-publication of the King novella, it's obvious what MightyWords does for Fatbrain, but what it does for writers, readers or publishing is a puzzle. Maybe the New York book publishers don't have as much to worry about as they think.
This hype about e-publishing made for lots of heat, but little light. It wasn't clear why readers would find this preferable to reading books in their traditional form, or help publishing in any measurable way. You might be holding your breath to hear Newt Gingrich's or Pete Hamill's take on the Second Amendment, but will any of this make books more interesting, relevant, affordable, or vital? Like the newspaper industry, publishers are rushing to embrace a lose-lose model of 21st Century innovation. If they don't change the way they do business, they lose. If they change in the ways they seem to be, they'll lose even more.
Closer to a fat e-mail than a book, King's story ran the equivalent of 66 pages. Its publisher was startled to learn that some booksellers were giving it away for the first day, (this isn't what publishers have in mind when they talk about innovation) and sometimes thereafter, to spur the fledgling e-book market. The 400,000 figure, according to Simon & Schuster, included both paid ($2.50) and free downloads, as well as orders received but not immediately filled because of the heavy demand.
Simon & Schuster made front-page news all over the country with its "e-coup." Innovation in publishing is so shocking it's a major story in itself. But publishing executives weren't certain whether the enthusastic response marked (A) the official beginning of commercial Net publishing on a grand scale, or (B) was simply the result of offering a work from one of the world's most popular authors for little or no money. [Here's a hint: B.]
Simon & Schuster's stunt (these days, almost anything relating to the Internet will end up on the front page of the New York Times or leading NBC's Nightly News) was a textbook example of how to render one of the world's most valuable and cherished commodities -- the bound book -- less valuable, significant and lucrative, virtually overnight. As the Net traumatizes one institution after another, some appear to be eating their young.
Interactivity is one of the world's most powerful cultural forces. it transforms the relationships between consumers and sellers in everything it touches -- publishing, auctions, stock-trading, music. It doesn't eliminate the power of institutions and agenda-setters, but it alters the length of the levers they hold. Individuals now have more options, information, technology and ways to participate. They're more powerful. The institutions remain more powerful than individuals, but less powerful than they used to be. Just ask the music industry.
People selling things on the Net -- whether books, newspapers, chocolates, banking or ideas -- interact with their customers in jarring, often invasive ways. But both sides can benefit. The vendor is better informed, the consumer more involved.
Analysts like Francis McInerney and Sean White, two technology-investors and the authors of Future Wealth: Investing In The Second Great Wave of Technology, argue that this principle -- understanding interactivity -- is the key to corporate survival.
Throughout history, they write in Future Wealth, the falling cost of information has driven change by shifting the balance of market power from producers to consumers. The availability of cheaper information makes it easier for customers to voice -- indeed to force -- their preferences on producers.
"The Internet," write McInerney and White, "has given consumers with PC's the power to exercise market control as never before. On electronic networks of every kind, from television to the Internet, consumers exercise the new power they hold. Consumer reaction is instant, be it through the Internet, at the polling booth, or most important, at the cash register. It is no accident that the companies that have managed to profit most from the information revolution are the ones that devote the most energy to maximizing customer responsiveness."
That would be mean neither the newspaper nor publishing industries, both of which have made it a sacred virtue to be disconnected from and unresponsive to their customers.
Institutions like publishing are among the least interactive cultural entities on the planet. Run by a handful of canyon-dwelling executives who study tea leaves and frog entrails to decide what's "hot" or worth buying, they rarely interact with the people who buy their products. Book buyers face significant hurdles in reaching and influencing publishers, or even the authors who work for them. Yet as book chains (and book-selling Web sites) like Amazon and Barnes & Noble demonstrate, online and off, the enormous public appetite for books persists.
The ferocious interactivity of almost all successful Web sites -- hives of linked, communicative exchanges between dispensers and consumers of information -- or technology companies (think Dell, Amazon, Microsoft or even Wal-Mart, which uses technology intensively to monitor inventory and move products) is completely alien to the way newspapers or publishing work.
Most publishing Web sites don't aggressively link to other sites. Few publishing executives would dream of opening up their corporate processes and decision-making to public inspection, second-guessing and dissection in the way that truly characterizes interactive media. Yet the open source ethos spreading all over the Net and the Web suggests that such openness is the economic model of the future, the real way to prosper in the new century.
For companies like Simon & Schuster, entering the 21st Century doesn't mean moving its corporate culture into line with newer, profoundly interactive, techno-driven companies. It simply means distributing its usual product in bytes instead of paper and ink.
The message to its customers: We don't think the traditional book is worth publishing any more. If Simon & Schuster doesn't think so, why should readers? Why not wait a bit until AOL (and Deja.com and eBay) are peddling "used" downloads of new novels for pennies? Or for nothing at all.
Publishers are buzzing about book-form digital tablets that download text and can store books, magazines and files, but this assumes that consumers are ready for the book itself -- something that is personal and individualized, and can be stored, passed along, re-read, saved -- to disappear. There's no real evidence to support that conclusion.
That a celebrated author is making a sought-after work available online at little or no cost to anybody who wants it, is a brilliant PR stroke. And it doesn't matter that many people got it for free -- it was always more of a promotional giveaway than a book. It doesn't mean much that Stephen King, one of the world's most-read authors, is downloaded by hundreds of thousands of people in short story form. He'd sell that many books anyway.
What would mean something is for a publisher to scrutinize itself and its culture, its corporate hierarchy, its channels of decision-making and creativity, its secret processes of purchasing, editing and distribution -- and yes, its models of distribution. That would truly be novel.
Ironic... (Score:1)
"Riding The Bullet" Free for Download (Score:1)
Re:I'll get flamed for this but.. (Score:1)
But your post suggests you are getting old. You value content over hype. You can recognize crap at 30 paces, even when standing upwind.
It takes a lot of time for most people to develop these skills.. some never do. (they invest in beanies instead).
On the bright side, it is a good thing that most people just "go forth and consume", otherwise the economy would suffer. Marketing people would have to get real jobs, like mowing lawns and spreading mulch.
The sale of SUV's would plummnet, and the resultant reduction in gasoline consumption would reduce the profits of oil companies..
Well, you get my point.
Are you a Mac or Linux user? Jobs.com does not want your resume!
Re:I'll get flamed for this but.. (Score:1)
*sighs* guess I'll have to throw away my collection...they seem so happy on the bookshelf, though...and yes, there are a large number of O'Reilly books there, too.
Producers vs. consumers, performer vs, audience (Score:1)
That's why the old-fashioned models fails on the net. Consider who the author of this thread is? Is it Jon? Not really, he just started the thread.
When Jon posts an article I'm more interested in the comments people make than in the actual article. The comments are often more insightful.
Re:MRBILL HAS TO FIND A NEW JOB (Score:1)
definitely tired of it as is everyone else.
Nice fiction sells itself (Score:1)
"a summar of an article may cover the
essential facts of an event but leave
out responses of those involved statistics
etc. it still funtions independently
from the complete article."
True, but please don't forget that a nicely done fiction sells itself.
Our reading habits differ, but in general, the way we read fiction is different from the way we read non-fiction.
For non-fiction, the time we re-read them is when we need to find out the details embedded in it.
For fiction, the time we re-read fictions is when we REMEMBER the nice feeling (or horror, or shock) the first time we read it, and we want to RE-EXPERIENCE that feeling.
So, we re-read it.
We may remember a nice fiction we read online, and if it is in print as well, if the fiction is so nice that we do need to re-read it, we will go and purchase a copy.
The thing is that most of the publishers are afraid that people will not buy the printed copy of the book if they have read them online. What the publisher forgot is if they publish trash, NOBODY would want to read them in the first place.
The thing is that if they (the publishers) concentrate on publishing GOOD fictions, they wouldn't have afraid people not buying the books, because the more people read them online, the more people will remember the stories, and the more of them will want a printed copy of it.
Sure, there are some cheapskates that would download the whole thing and print it on their own printers, but then, if those people really know how to calculate, they would find that it is cheaper and easier for them to just buy a copy from the bookstores.
The moral of the whole deal to the publishers is - publish GOOD STUFFS and you won't have to afraid people not buying the books you print.
Niceware (Score:1)
Anything else, even shareware, brings with it the whole scummy mess of "piracy" crackdowns, unfree usage, and most everything RMS predicted.
Note: GPL-like licenses are good for documentation, but for fiction works you'd want to keep the text constant - although allowing translation and visual redesign)
Re:Who is Samuel Clemens?? (Score:1)
Re:Publishing on the internet! (Score:1)
Re:Ironic... (Score:1)
In which case I hope someone else moderates it as "funny".
Re:Problems with the cluetrain. (Score:1)
Oh, wouldn't we all.
When's he going to post one? : )
"Deadtree" not dead just yet (Score:1)
And as for interactive fiction, if someone else can't write better stuff than I can, why would I be reading them in the first place?
Interactivity and economics (Score:1)
Jon ends his essay with a challenge to traditional publishers, to "scrutinize itself and its culture, ... and yes, its models of distribution. That would truly be novel."
I don't think that traditional publishers are into introspection, but I can point out one "conventionally published" book that gained value from being on the web and enhanced the printed version.
Once upon a time I worked on the O'Reilly [oreilly.com] Samba book, which contained a chapter on troubleshooting. The largest part of this traditional chunk of paper was a trouble tree, derived from Andrew Tridgell's short paper on debugging Samba. A trouble tree, for those who haven't used one, is a bunch of numbered tests, with lists of outcomes. If the test succeeds, you're sent on to a particular page where the next test is described. If it fails, you're sent to a different page where there's instructions on what to do next.
I hear you saying "Aha!", don't I?
That's right, this was automagically converted into web pages and links, so you can just click to go to the right place. An example lives here [oreilly.com].
The interactivity here is only moderate: the reader can traverse a pre-existing tree. By rights they should also be able to add annotations, hints to themselves and suggestions to the authors. And the web supports this, so it's at least possible...
However, even though the trouble tree isn't very interactive, it adds enough value that this section of the book is more convenient on the web than on paper. This is the first economic gain the user (and publisher) sees.
The next comes from making individual, bite-size sections available on the web. You can't read the book continuously, but my eyes hurt when I try to do that from a screen anyway. You can, though, go from Samba Book to Configuring Windows Clients to Setting Up Windows NT 4.0 Computers and review the steps you need, quickly and conveniently, before or during setting up a PC.
This is pure packaging: it's not interactivity at all. It's just a classical publishing truism: making it easy for the reader to find the information they need. A gain for the reader, and indirectly a gain for the publisher.
So now we can get to economics, and why my pocketbook likes having the book on-line.
O'Reilly tells me that Samba's selling well. People tell them they've referred to the book online and then bought copies. People tell me the same thing. Other people want to contribute corrections and updates, and have. This, to me, is wonderful: I'm both in a traditional market culture, hawking my book in town square for money, and in a "gift culture", contributing my time to making other people's work easier, and having them give me back their efforts to help the next person.
So I've added a little bit of human interactivity to the mix: like other folks with web pages, I follow the newsgroups and mailing lists, and when someone asks a newbie question that my work answers, I mail them a URL. And I get back replies like "Cool, I used your tip and I've bought the book".
So it fits my culture, and my publisher's actual and corporate culture. It nicely dodges questions of hierarchy, as I now don't have to ask the publisher's permission to mail sections to folks with problems. It's an adaptation of classical publishing techniques (trouble trees and packaging), and the editing and distribution models of the publisher adapt easily to the new medium.
For right now, I really couldn't ask for more.
--daveThe Internet as a New Media (Score:1)
http://theotherside.com/dvd/ [theotherside.com]
You don't need a novel... (Score:1)
Nothing's wrong with Stephen King.. (Score:1)
He's great and I love his books. Maybe you ought to try reading the column, for a refreshing experience in fact-based opinion.
E-books (Score:1)
I guess I don't think that much of e-books in general. Every medium doesn't replicate perfectly online..I read the King Novella, which isn't, remember a book at all. I think just because something is available electronically, doesn't automatically make it better. It's the content of the book that ultimately counts, not simply the format.
Getting flamed is good for you... (Score:1)
..it makes my hair grow back. I agree with this post. Publishers can play around with e-writing i various forms, which is a good idea, but if publishers begin go put all their money and energy into forms other than the book itself -- then they will repeat the newspaper disaster. Lots of mediocre websites, weaker and more marginalized newspapers. And for the record, it's a shame you have to fear getting glamed for expressing your opinion. That's the small but ugly little Communistic element at
Re:Don't underestimate peer review (Score:1)
--
Leonid S. Knyshov
Network Administrator
Summary is the key (Score:1)
Why do we all come to Slashdot? For me Slashdot does a reaonable job of summarizing the content available on the web and bringing forward gems or hot news that I am interested in, along with some interesting and occasionally educational commentary. I won't even get into the trolls, the stories, or hot grits and Natalie Portman.
What I look for in a portal site is something that is scouring for what I am looking for. Dead trees aren't bad, I greatly enjoy reading the commentaries on washingtonpost.com.
Maybe some of Jon's energy would be better spent pointing out examples of web publishing from old media that do meet his standards and ideals of "The New Information Revolution" instead of just belittling sites that try to find new publishing paradymes.
chris
Re:Do people really want "interactivity" in books? (Score:1)
why does publishing (or music) have to be done the same way? Have you looked at mp3.com lately? Sure you can browse through everything and listen to a lot of stuff that you don't like, but you can also peruse "top 40" lists and recommendations and pull out a lot of real gems.
I see no reason that you can't have a book site online just like mp3.com. Think of all of the unpublished authors that are letting their stuff rot through rejection letters or unread personal websites. Give them, give anyone, anywhere, the ability to be published. You will get a lot of crap, but you will also get some really good gems.
Slashdot does a good job of sorting throught the web for me. mp3.com does a good job of finding new and original music for me to listen to. There is no reason that a moderated web site for writers could not do the same. Split the test up into reasonably sized chunks and place the innocuous web banners that are easy to ignore on every page. The authors are paid based upon the number of unique IP page views. If people read two pages and give up, and make a bad rating, the author will not get much traffic or pay. If many people read the book to the end, or order a hard copy (printed and sent for 48 hour delivery) then the author could be very well paid. Split all of the revenues 50/50 with the author.
Tell me why it can't work! Most people buy books based upon reading the first few pages or chapter, if not just the cover blurb. People don't like to read online, so they read the beginning, get hooked, and order the book.
Just try it,
chris
- The IP created by this post is covered under the GPL. If you do it, at least let me know, but I wouldn't mind a job offer... 8->
No thanks, Jon (Score:1)
Re:i don't get it (Score:1)
Also, Riding the Bullet has printing disabled. Wonderful.
Adam
I was waiting for this (Score:1)
Re:Do people really want "interactivity" in books? (Score:1)
I believe that eventually, peer review can be enacted, as it has been here on slashdot with post moderation. Love it or hate it, it is a system for peer review of content and it appears to work from time to time.
I only lightly read Katz's article, but I didn't get the impression that he was advocating interactivity in text as much the kind of peer review I have mentioned and incorporation of new media. Furthermore, the OED which you mention is a wonderous example of a moderated open-submission system which appears to have worked =). Yea yea, it's not fiction, but you get the point. On a side note, I thought last I checked, the online OED was around $300.00 per year... I should check again. Anyway.-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
Zippy, the REVENGE!! (Score:1)
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
Demanding interactivity just for its own sake? (Score:1)
I don't quite understand at this point why we as geeks seem to think that everything under the sun must be somehow distorted or twisted away from its original form to be worthwhile in the digital world.
Novel writing in its purest form is simply telling a story. The writer controls the flow of the story because, in all but the simplest instances, creating a cohesive story is based on the synthesis of myriad details. Interactivity shatters this, or at the very least greatly debases this. It's just somewhere between extremely difficult and downright impossible to make a great story in Choose Your Own Adventure style.
Why do we think things have to be interactive to be worthwhile? Why can't we occasionally, just once, be happy with a digitized version of the (far superior to anything else available) status quo?
Re:i don't get it (Score:1)
I signed up to the PDF list as well. The deal was that the server was overloaded, and if you sent them your email address they would email you a PDF of the book. Two days ago they emailed me a link to download the Windows-only e-book, with no mention of the PDF. Oh, and I had to remove myself from an automatic opt-in spam list.
Did anybody get the PDF, or was it just a pack of lies to get loads of email addresses to spam?
Re:The Next Step (Score:1)
The first disappointment is the lack of any of hypertext. Hypertext is a very basic form of a interactivity, and it shouldn't be too hard of a job authorial to add it. I can understand why the story itself wasn't presented as a hyperlink web -- a position with which, as a writer, I sympathize. However, I can easily imagine that hyperlinks to commentary, or sections of the story which are well-written but not relevant enough to include, and so on, could be very interesting; a scheme along the line of those web-annotation devices could very interesting -- especially if those annotations were moderated! (It shouldn't be too hard to adjust the slashdot code to allow contextual responses, right?)
Interactive Fiction is a different beast that normal fiction, and much more difficult. Not only are all the technical problems of writing a story present, and the efforts of imagination necessary to create a scene, but that imagination must extend to interactions that wouldn't occur in a linear plot. Reading interactive fiction is not the same as playing a text-based adventure game -- you must play the role of the character. (well, conventionally. Sufficiently advanced AI techniques might allow you to play a secondary character, cause plot events to happen, etc.) Not everyone role-plays well, and some don't enjoy it; for these people, interactive fiction doesn't do it. But playing a role can itself be entertainment; and playing that role in scenes with talented direction (the game-master or a well-written AI) is even better -- especially if the prose is well-written. (Actually, interactive fiction is close in spirit to pre-built adventures, where the computer is a rather unimaginative game master...) For folks who don't enjoy role-play, writing a script to run the game through on the 'normal path' (the author's cut, so to speak) would generate the normal, book-form novel.
More closely concerning Jon Katz's contentions: interactivity on the 'net is primarily driven by the desire for interaction with others. For effectively every other form of interaction, the internet is a 'mere enabler', a way to solve some technical problem. (How do I interactively control my stocks if I can't be in NY all the time?) The novel as a story-telling form is already strongly divorced from person-to-person to communication -- though there is still some demand for professional (live) storytellers, for much the same reasons that movies have yet to displace live acting, and CDs live bands. But the lack of interactivity in a novel is a concious 'design' choice now, not a mere accident of history. (e.g. you used WordPerfect and Ghostview instead of Inform and Frotz.) The demand for interactivity around the novel, then, can only be satisfied by interaction with other readers, one form of which I suggested above.
This has been an important first step toward 'net-enabling' the novel, but to suggest the net
-_Quinn
Re:Who is Samuel Clemens?? (Score:1)
I'd moderate you up, but I just used my last moderator point on another "f1r57 p057!" AC...
Better luck next time ;)
Re:(rant ahead)BARNES AND NOBLE LIARS! (Score:1)
I made the comment on the story about this a week or so ago that Barnes and Nobles and Amazon couldn't possibly be doing this just to milk a few bucks out of their customers. I now stand corrected. I'm going to start using my old neighborhood book store again and I encourage others to do the same. If it costs a extra buck here and there, screw it. I'll live with it. The above comment is correct. These sights have basically lowered themselves to the level of bad porn sights. They don't deserve my business and they won't be getting it anymore.
What's wrong with traditional books? (Score:1)
What's wrong with traditional books? Why does the tried-and-true method have to be replaced? I personally really enjoy books. I think the idea of selling the book in a digital form is wonderful. What I don't understand, is why abandon the print media too?
The articles on fatbrain are quite interesting too and I think there is alot of promise in the kind of publishing, but why should it replace the old methods? In such a free and open community, why can't both exist?
provolt
-----
Pround supporter of the million node LAN party on the Washinton Mall.
Re:A new trend in Publishing (Score:1)
I carry my Psion 5mx with me all the time. I don't carry books all the time. For me, etexts are more portable!
A fault of some current implementations, not of the medium itself. I've read many whole books on my 5mx's screen, and like any good medium, I'm unaware of it when I get absorbed in the story.
With scrollbars, percentage jumping, chapter/section marks, bookmarks, text searching... etexts are more accessible!
Sure, your set-up might not give you a better reading experience than a dead-tree edition, but many set-ups now do for many uses, and this will increase in future. You don't print out Slashdot to read it, now, do you? :)
Books as a form of communication (Score:1)
I think what is being overlooked here is the nature of books as a communications medium. Books are a means of communication from the author to his or her audience. They are inherently one-way communication. The push for interactivity in any communications medium overturns this model and attempts to establish two-way communication.
In many ways, much of this two-way communication is no better than a choose-your-own-ending novel. We, the readers, aren't actually communicating back with the author; we're really just communicating with an agent the author has created, whether it be a simple choice of storyline thread, or something more interactive like the classic Adventure game. (Caveat: perhaps I'm not understanding what Jon means by interactivity.)
I don't believe that books should be retrofitted with an interactive model. We love books, magazines, and newspapers precisely because they provide this one-way communication. While a "choose-your-own-ending" Tom Clancey novel might be fun, there will always be a greater market for the non-interactive variety.
Storytelling is important. Granted, it's not given as much importance by Western culture as in other cultures, but it's still a very central part of our lives. I think that moving books to the web will in the end change very little about the way in which stories are told -- not because we're merely accustomed to it but because it's how we're wired. Though the delivery medium has changed much over the past centuries, stories have always been -- and always will be -- loved for their narrative form.
I believe that more interactive forms of communication will be important as the new media continue to metamorphose. However, I think these will grow parallel to the digitization of books, not at their expense. Attempting to retrofit two-way communication onto books may work, but in the end will be unsuccessful; completely new means must be developed for this purpose.
Classic Katz (ie, Skip to Next News Item) (Score:1)
Of course, the savvy Internet weenie makes use of a variety of news sources. Some are specialized, such as SlashDot, GoVote.Com, Voodoo-Extreme, Skinz.Org, etc, and provide information uniquely tailored to meet the user's interests. However, sites such as these cannot begin to match the depth of coverage on numerous issues that organizations such as the BBC, New York TImes, Washington Post, Times of London, etc offer. When I want to spend some time chewing on world events and politics I go to the BBC, New York Times, or equivalent websites. No other site/organizations can provide the level of coverage I seek.
Katz's ridiculous arguments are perhaps illustrated by the following statements:
"It is no accident that the companies that have managed to profit most from the information revolution are the ones that devote the most energy to maximizing customer responsiveness."
"That would be mean neither the newspaper nor publishing industries, both of which have made it a sacred virtue to be disconnected from and unresponsive to their customers."
Now, what large, mainstream English-speaking metropolitan newspaper does NOT provide free access to most, if not all, of it's news content? The Wall Street Journal is the only one I know of and it can be argued that the WSJ is actually a specialized publication, rather than a standard "big-city" paper.
So, the newspaper industry is 'disconnected' from and 'unresponsive to their customers' yet they provide free access to their entire publications to every Internet-capable human being on the planet? What a load of crap!
One of the most fascinating things about the Internet, IMHO: people complain constantly about FREE STUFF! A couple of examples that I've seen repeated often: "Hey, these girlie pictures I downloaded from the Centerfold newsgroup don't have indices, so I'm forced to wade through all of these pictures of beautiful women to find out which ones I want to keep. Post indexes next time, A-Hole" "This freeware doesn't do this or that, so the author is an idiot" Check out Skinz.Org: All of the thousands of skins/wallpapers are free, but there's usually a rude whiner or two that beats up on the artists, with no attempt to provide constructive criticism.
Now, Newspapers that give away all of their content gratis are somehow disconnected from and unresponsive to their customers. IT'S FREE KATZ! HELLO! It doesn't get more responsive than that!
Katz is, as always, simplistic, whiny, predictable and sensationalist. However, in the past year, he's finally punched through my irritation barrier and has entered the "boring" zone. I'm not even sure why I've wasted time responding to this piece...I'm convinced he'll rehash this material (a favorite topic, based on his record) in a year or so, with the same illogic and "shoot-from-the-hip" stance.
Why in the world does SlashDot continue to provide Katz with such a high-profile venue? Are we so hard-up we can't find anyone capable of rational argument and original thought?
Re:That is bad. (Score:1)
PDF is overkill for many cases and it's a bitch to read on screen.
Re:That is bad. (Score:1)
I don't like those annoying 8.3 habits which chop off the L from HTML, though
---
Re:Who is Samuel Clemens?? (Score:1)
i hate dorks like you
why are there so many dorks on slashdot?
dork = geek? geek = dork? i think so. notice how i didn't act dorky and use ==? that's because only a dork does that. the english language isn't a programming language. i'm sorry. also notice how i didn't use !=? YOU'RE A DORK!
Re:What's wrong with traditional books? (Score:1)
Re:Thanks Jon Katz... (Score:1)
Re:Do people really want "interactivity" in books? (Score:1)
Back in the late 80's, Marc Stiegler wrote a book called David's Sling. While it was published in "book" form (long since out of print), it was also available in a form to be read with a Macintosh 'Hypercard'. In the latter form, one could read the story in a traditional linear fashion, or switch viewpoints, or branch off to links about specific topics, etc. I didn't have a Mac myself, but I did find someone (only one someone) who did and had read the hypertext form, and he thought it was a much better way to present the story. (The paper version was pretty good too.)
When I check out /., I don't start from the top and read the first story first post and work my way to the end; I pick out the stories that interest me, read the posts, branch off to an occaisional link, etc. The web gives us the ability to do the same with fiction, but the only example of this I can think of is over a decade old.
Actually, we used to do this on BBS's back in the 80's and it was a lot of fun.
Re:Don't underestimate peer review (Score:1)
That's Sturgeon's Law [tuxedo.org]...
ebook encryption (Score:1)
Clearly any encryption system that allows export to text isn't going to be accepted by the writing community. Most authors stick by their guns with the "no unauthorized electronic reproduction whatsoever" clause. Possibly using something like the Intel approach of encrypting all the way to the screen would be more palettable?
As long as it is easy to distinguish the "authentic owned version" from an ASCII pirated version some of the writers might try distributing more works online. The difficulty of pirating then becomes similar to OCR scanning of a paper copy and distributing the pirate version electronically. I think the writers guilds have recognized that the internet is not going away, and will become more of a threat/friend in the future when the other 80% of us get online..
"Ride the Bullet" is a ham bone King has tossed over the wall. They are listening as we snarl and bark.
Re:Problems with the cluetrain. (Score:1)
Lets say publishing continues without any major paradigm shift for now. Publishers continue in their spotlighting role, but gain important interactive feedback from their buyers. Printing and binding is supplemented/replaced with the distribution of copy protected electronic media. The cost savings could be split between publisher and purchaser.
The real problem is that there is a general perceived risk for the arts, losses due to pirating, initial cost for new equipment, resistance to change etc. It really just boils down to taking some of the risk out of online distribution, making it profitable and we will be on our way.
Re:Why the Glassbook? (Score:1)
Since computer hardware has gotten much faster it would be possible to build a special reader that takes an Ebook page bitmap and does the OCR directly without saving an ASCII copy to disk. Although word scanning could not be quickly done with bit maps, you could implement advanced indexing features that would allow better access then paper. Bitmaps are easier to encrypt then ASCII and don't just get pasted into Email casually (how many AOLers know how to attach a binary to an email? If you further obfuscate the encryption method by making it machine specific you could easily make it not worth the bother for the average websurfer to try and follow the instructions. Unless there is a simple one button crack your average web surfer is not going to bother. Look at what happened with PGP ROFL!
Sure any encryption that would be practical to use could be broken, but if it is too difficult for 90% of the people to bother that is considered acceptable loss. The same holds true for DeCSS the actual number of people who would be able to use DeCSS is under 1 percent.
(rant ahead)BARNES AND NOBLE LIARS! (Score:1)
mcrandello@my-deja.com
rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.
Re:"Riding The Bullet" Free for Download (Score:1)
As for whether it was cracked or not, I doubt it (after all why would BN even *offer* normal
mcrandello@my-deja.com
rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.
Publishers (Score:1)
Not alien to all publishers. Baen [baen.com] (no. 2 science fiction paper publisher) has a discussion bar with Jim Baen present in almost all the discussions. Some of his authors also participate. They actually listen to what people say there too. Of course Baen has been epublishing his books in HTML for several months now. His latest best seller "Ashes of Victory" by David Weber was sold in HTML for $2.50 as part of March's eWebscription [baen.com] before it was available in paper. It's now number 14 or so on the NYT best seller list. Some publishers know what they're doing.
Greg Weeks
The new medium...Maybe (Score:1)
Also, despite what some may think, reading off a monitor is a tiresome experience. I can go a whole day non-stop reading a book and not feel tired. Imagine spending that much time reading one e-mail or article for comparison. Make sure you have a bottle of aspirin nearby.
What's needed is a better display medium. I saw someone earlier mention reading Gutenberg texts on his Palm on the way to work. This is where print is going. Maybe not full length novels, but its clear that portable technology like the Palm is where the evolution of print and downloadable reading material is going. In a culture of people on the move, this is the perfect application of technology.
-----
"I will be as a fly on the wall... I shall slip amongst them like a great
Re:digital ink (Score:1)
"lots of heat, but little light" (Score:1)
How about this: cheap; instant access; portable (if you have a Palm or PDA); cool. Not bad for a first try.
Simon & Schuster's stunt... render[ed]... the bound book less valuable, significant and lucrative, virtually overnight.
And yet authors have been publishing short stories and book excerpts in magazines for a century or two without killing off the industry. Are the people who downloaded "Bullet" now less likely to buy the next Stephen King hardcover?
The ferocious interactivity of almost all successful Web sites... is completely alien to the way newspapers or publishing work.
Is this such a bad thing? Artistic genius is non-interactive: consider Thoreau at Walden. Maybe we don't want every segment of our culture polling the Internet for an instant response. In any case, 400,000 downloads is ferocious interactivity of a sort - perhaps the publishers need to begin somewhere.
For [publishers,] entering the 21st Century means distributing [the] usual product in bytes instead of paper and ink.
No. On the contrary, it means distributing the usual product both in bytes and in paper and ink. Here, I hope, all Slashdotters can agree: the pressure to distribute digital content will fast become irresistible. S&S was only experimenting, on a small scale, with one way to make digital distribution real and profitable. (Note: They succeeded.)
Yet... online and off, the enormous public appetite for books persists.
Exactly. And just as Project Gutenberg hasn't gutted the market for Shakespeare, making selected bits and pieces of books available for free download isn't going to kill contemporary book publishing.
no flame, good point, but . . . (Score:1)
I don't see what's wrong with customizing literature to fit your needs. Me, I read from my computer fine; the first time I read Turn of the Screw was online (thanks to Project Gutenberg). Others might be more comfortable by the fire place, but they can be by the fireplace with the book they want in the format they want cheaper than otherwise. People with sight problems can change the font or have the book read to them (the whole thing, not just a book on tape). Heck, they can probably go to Kinko's and put the book in the nolstagic paperback or hardcover form for cheaper than they could get it with all the shipping and distribution costs involved in traditional bookstore buying.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the printed word will ever die. I think that publication an the effort involved adds a level of legitimacy to a text that can never be achieved by purely online means. I just don't see any problem with online novels as an additional, flexible, inexpensive form of publication.
-ac
Re:Newpapers and Books are far from 'Dead' (Score:1)
I don't know if he's attempting to convince us that he was right all along by pretending the emporer actually had clothes, but it's not a terribly honest dialogue either way.
Dangit! here goes my moderation, but... (Score:1)
Sure sure, mp3, Linux, Slashdot (well...), etc. But when was there something on the internet that made it REALLY great? All the time, I see companies doing partnering with this online, hyped up product, or developing that hyped up prodcut, but all in all, its just hype- just to make them look like they are "embracing the future". But its all noise to me.
When I go to a website, I go looking for information, not pretty pictures, flashy java scripts, and loud, highly contrasting colors (been to computershopper.com lately?). In fact, Slashdot is the most complex page I normally visit. Most of the stuff I look at is plain text ( ie digested information, hold the fluff).
I know all that stuff is great, but does it convey the information any better? does it make things easier to look at? does it help me find what I'm looking for? If not, then throw it away, and give me plain old text; in fact, just give me a book, and go away, so I can concentrate on pure data, without distraction (or Java, or shockwave...).
Lets get back to basics here. If it doesn't improve things (read make more enjoyable/easier to use), then chuck it. Serve me data, with a good interface on the side-oh, and hold the hype!
The flip side ;) (Score:2)
Personally, I went with web publishing through impatience with the normal routine. First agent I tried (totally 'cold calling') was the Maas Agency. Struck out (have since learned that it was insanity to even attempt them, but it was fun). Second agent I tried bit, and asked for the rest of "The Kings Of Rainmoor" to read. I sat for months, in an agony of uncertainty, knowing that the guy _had_ expressed an interest- and finally, politely, he passed, citing a big workload.
There was no third try. I plead a low tolerance for sitting around in an agony of uncertainty. I don't write to be _not_ read.
This whole novel, and many other things, are there to be read by anyone, at http://www.airwindows.com/fiction/inde x.html [airwindows.com]
For that matter, I don't play music to be not listened to: as of a few days ago I have most of my song catalog up at http://www.mp3.com/RFW [mp3.com], and I'm working on getting instrumental stuff up at http://www.mp3.com/chrisj [mp3.com] (currently not online as the songs have just been uploaded)
With all of this, my motives are a lot like OSS coders in some ways. I can do these things. They are entertainment things. Where is it written that I have to withhold them and extort money off them and all that rot? I get by- I may never, ever, own a house or something like that, but I don't starve and I have a place to stay. What I would like most of all is to be IN PEOPLE'S FACES making art and GIVING it away. If you want to get picky, I'm expecting to be able to sell _studio_ time and my talents as a sound engineer- and even then, as I've said before, I'll work for open source types who are willing to release the result freely as mp3 for nothing! (_they_ pay cabfare to Brattleboro Vermont, tho)
The era we're starting to enter has some very interesting qualities. It allows pretty much global networking of talents, and the only downside is that you don't just hear about the 'slush pile'- you're soaking in it! But by the same token, word can get out about one of the ten percenters really quick. I know I work pretty hard to be one of those ten percenters- though there are areas, still (like C coding) where I just lose :)
In a way that's why I am so committed to the mp3 revolution that I've put out basically _everything_ as mp3 with no attempt to get money off it. I want people to see that you can do that- it's like OSS coding, people eventually had to _see_ that you could work together giving your code away and that it was all right and even beneficial. I want OSS for artists. I want to show that the qualities for artistic success are talent and hard work- not greed and marketing. I don't know if that'll happen, but it's not for lack of trying- and I have nothing to lose, I can survive even in total obscurity, and in fact I needn't even pay for the 100 megs of broadband web hosting required to store my current mp3 catalog- because I give it to mp3.com, too, and they have nonexclusive rights to it. So even if I get nothing else, my willingness to give out this stuff freely gets me web hosting that would cost me a hundred bucks a month from my current provider. (It gets me no promo, of course- it's all one big slush pile.)
(you and me both, Cap'n.)Re:Publishing on the internet! (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point... (Score:2)
The real problem is, well, what IS the problem? Is it people sitting at home and being hermits instead of going to the bookstore? Is it megacorps trying to sell us anything and everything over the 'net? Is it book piracy?
Personally I think it's a great thing to see a new distribution medium. The public will vote with their dollars... if people don't like it (DIVX anyone?) it will die a quick death. If people like it, it will thrive and you'll probably be praising it the next week as the next best thing to hit the 'net.
Linear Games (Score:2)
Making a more interactive game requires you to give the player more choices. Each time the player gets to make a choice, the gameplay "branchs" into at least two new games. Assuming you want each of those potential games to be just as fun as your original, less interactive game, you're going to have to have them be just as long, and just as detailed. How do you do this?
Note: the following discussion is oversimplified. I hope it still gets the point across.
Well, in a sports game, or a first person shooter, or just about anything in the "action" genre, you have the computer run a simulated world, where little or none of the gameplay is scripted. You create a set of physics rules and AI rules that give the computer an initial value problem to solve, and at each moment in time you present the user with graphics corresponding to the solution, and get new input to change the physical parameters.
In a role-playing game (and any computer game which involves "story telling" is basically either a role-playing game or a movie), you don't have this option. Story telling requires a story, a stream of language, and we simply can't program a computer to generate a stream of convincingly humanlike language on the fly. If someone out there could create an AI that could play the part of a lifelike non player character in a computer game, they'd basically be passing a limited Turing test. It would be even more strict a requirement than passing a Turing test, because you would have to program the AI to appear human *and* to play his required part in the story, no matter what twisted directions the player might turn the story in.
So what do we do instead? We have the AI follow a tree of player actions/statements and responses. If the player asks question A, respond with answer A. Question B elicits answer B. Etc.
As far as these questions and answers don't affect the game state, that's fine. But that's a limited level of interactivity. When I think of a game as being "non-linear" and "interactive", by that I mean that I can make decisions which will change the outcome of the game. And two different outcomes means two different streams of story. If that game-changing decision comes in the middle of the game, then you have to worry about twice as many endings and 150% as much story. If you have 30 game-changing decisions (which in today's 30+ hour role playing games wouldn't be unreasonable), then that means one billion different endings and 70 million times as much work. Obviously this is ridiculous; there's going to be a huge amount of overlap between those different possible games, but play with some numbers yourself; what do you consider to be a "reasonable" interactive game?
Off the top of my head, I'd say 50 2-way decision points, with 10 percent of the subsequent game text changed by each decision. That means writing 25 times as much text as a linear game of the same length and quality. And that text would be harder to write, too, with loads of different options to worry about for each plotline thread. The more you try to "cheat" by making different choices similar or by making fewer choices, the less interactive the game feels. The more you try to "cheat" by having less text, the lower quality the story feels. Writing an interactive, non-linear story is *hard* - the best examples of it are the Choose Your Own Adventure books, not video games, and that's kind of sad.
Don't underestimate peer review (Score:2)
Who was it that said, "99% of science fiction is crap, but 99% of everything is crap."? I think it applies here too.
Publishers don't publish everything they're sent for a reason, and I don't have the time or desire to want to read through their slush piles searching for the occasional gem.
Agreed. Although amateur fiction can be fun, provided you get a little more creative with it than just reading it instead of professional stuff because it's online. My girlfriend used to write serialized, multi-person stories with one of the online groups on "alt.starfleet.rpg"; the writing varied from excellent to mediocre, but it was still more fun than simply reading a book because of the personal involvement. It wasn't quite real-time enough to be a role playing game (since you had to do a lot of playing of everyone else's roles too), but it was a lot more than a static story.
It would have been nice if Katz had found a few similar examples of publishing changed by the net, rather than just bitching about ebooks.
Neither do I want most netizens going through the slush pile to supposedly decide what's worth publishing.
I disagree. You could call it the "Audience Lifeline" effect (although I fear that reveals too much about my entertainment habits; what were you saying about "overcooked turnips"?):
If you get enough people to vote on a question, the people who are wrong will often be wrong in random ways and cancel each others votes out, leaving the right answer to take a (however slim) majority. Yeah, I know, it doesn't always work. But it works pretty well on Slashdot, where the moderation system takes a sea of crap and filters out the dozen or so +4,+5 posts that are a pleasure to read.
It seems almost axiomatic that a peer-review based filtering system will rate those books most highly that will be enjoyed by the most people, and if you don't think that's the ideal way for publishing to work then you're going to have to do some talking to persuade me toward your definition of "ideal".
Of course, on a personal scale there's the problem that my tastes probably don't agree with the majority of the population, netizen or otherwise. (although I'll bet the internet users come a lot closer) Isn't that a problem with traditional publishing as well? Publishers aren't looking primarily for manuscripts that are of the highest literary quality, they're looking for manuscripts that are going to sell enough books to pay their way. And so that just boils down to a majority vote too; just a lot more indirect.
The only problem with peer review of literature on the net is a big one: It doesn't exist. Or if it exists, I certainly haven't discovered it. Where is a website that has a database of links to online fiction, a login procedure to let me score anything I've read from 1-10 or add comments, and sorting functions to let me find what fiction is out there which matches my tastes and is highly rated?
If such a thing exists and I just haven't seen it, by all means post it here (and make it obvious in the subject title; it'd be horribly ironic if such a link wasn't moderated up...)
Well, if it doesn't exist now, it will eventually. And when it does, I'd expect to see the quality of online fiction go up with it. Hell, even the quality of the best slashdot posts went up suddenly after moderation was implemented (although the amount of crap has been increasing for years to balance it out). People would be a lot more eager to write things for the web if they knew that there was a good chance that their work would be noticed, pushed to the forefront of people's attention based on merit, and attract thousands of readers (and maybe a few publishers) to your name. Even writers who wouldn't have given the net a second glance otherwise would want to publish stories online under such a system; a high rating by hundreds of interested readers (and a log with thousands of hits) would be a powerful thing to show to the publisher you're trying to sell a book to.
Far too early to draw such a conclusion (Score:2)
But the Internet is not a three-rung ladder. There are another 50 rungs, or maybe 500, so it's far, far too early to be making end-game analyses of the fate of the publishing industry at this stage.
They're just flapping around in the strong current along with the rest of us, moving a bit in this direction and a bit in that, and meanwhile wondering just where it'll all lead. To criticize them for not having adapted to the new environment is a bit harsh, given that nobody really knows whether there is white water, a waterfall or a fountain just around the corner.
My $0.02 (Score:2)
We must do away with the misconception that you and I are morally inferior to insincere manipulators of the public mind. The underlying message is that slimy deplorable vagrants are the biggest threat to freedom the world has ever seen. Jon, get a life! Shame on him for thinking that people like you and me are uncompromising!
On this subject, we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from him and his lackeys. The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way that if Jon got his way, he'd be able to create an untrue and injurious impression of an entire people. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. Others have stated it much more eloquently than I, but this truth will be as pertinent six years as 60 years hence. I have the strength, ability, desire, and courage to take advantage of a rare opportunity to protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of the worst types of illogical militant cads I've ever seen. Do you?
Jon's magic-bullet explanations are crass through and through. Different people often see the same subject in different lights. Okay, that's a slight exaggeration, but you get the drift. During the first half of the 20th century, collectivism could have been practically identified with extremism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called dim-witted cynical psychics.
I predict that any day now, people will generally agree that the police should lock Jon up and throw away the key. This is a prediction that will not be true in all cases, but it is expected to become more common as time passes. He has figuratively enclosed himself in a secure elitist ghetto. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper, because it's the news that just doesn't fit. He will adopt or abandon any principle to obtain power. The popularity of Jon's declamations among conceited fogeys is a harbinger of pesky things to come. Now, I'm no fan of Jon's, but still, Jon is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead. He, in his hubris, has decided that he has the right to fuel the censorship-and-intolerance crowd. I wish I could put it more delicately, but that would miss the point.
My love for people necessitates that I nourish children with good morals and self-esteem. Yes, I face opposition from Jon. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder. The unprofessional cameralism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of snotty quacks, nor of the grotesque scum who institutionalize imperialism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science. It is the fault of Jon Katz. Please don't misread my words here; this is yet to be comprehended by most money-grubbing firebrands.
I, not being one of the many sex-crazed weasels of this world, must point out that juxtaposed to this is the idea that he thinks nothing of violating the spirit of an indigenous people whose art and songs and way of life are proof that it's a sad world where the most inarticulate yobbos I've ever seen have the power to lead people towards iniquity and sin. On the surface, it would seem that this, of itself, is prima facie evidence that one can see the blood lust in Jon's eyes. But the truth is that Jon got into a snit the last time I pointed out that I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which his positions could be considered appropriate. He is essentially describing a situation that does not exist.
Jon's doctrines are uniformly riddled by an unbelievable degree of ignorance. Which brings us to the harsh reality that must be faced: Jon is the root of all evil. Personally, I don't expect him to give up his crusade to cause an increase in disease, solecism, crime, and vice. But we'll see. It's indisputably time to put up or shut up. Then again, that notion has been popular for as long as Comstockism has existed. Sometimes it seems cold-blooded rapscallions are like a farmer who, in the spring, would work the ground, plant seeds, fertilize, and cultivate the ground for a period of time. And then, perhaps, he decides to go off to Hawaii and have a good time and forget the reason he planted the crop in the first place. Well, a farmer wouldn't do that. But Jon would tap into the national resurgence of overt colonialism if he got the chance.
Even if our society had no social problems at all, we could still say that fogyism is the last refuge of the childish. While most people know this like a schoolchild knows that 2+2=4, he prefers to see problems talked to death instead of solved. What has happened to our sense of humanity? Jon's henchmen have already started to create a kind of psychic pain at the very root of the modern mind. The result: absolute vapidity, birdbrained and laughable cacophony, lack of personality, monotony, and boredom. Jon has no real regard for other people's rights, privacy, or sanity, to put it mildly.
In case you have any doubts, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his epithets. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must reveal the nature and activity of his assistants and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. Despite the fact that his ideas are but a speck in a constellation of methodologies used by commercialism to turn a deaf ear to need and suffering, Jon should clean up his act. He is capable of passing very rapidly from a hidden enjoyment of nit-picky frotteurism to a proclaimed attachment to blackguardism and back -- and back again. That, in itself, will condemn us to live with paltry recalcitrant loan sharks sometime soon. My argument gets a little complicated here. Jon's artifices are based on hate. Hate, autism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. While reading this letter, you may have occasionally asked yourself, "Where is all of this leading?" and, "What is the point exactly?" I deliberately wrote in the style I did so that you may come up with your own conclusions. Therefore, I leave you with only the following: Given the public appetite for more accountability, Jon Katz should have instructed his helpers not to blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events.
You can't fault King.. (Score:2)
...for generating all this publicity. But even though he may be a good author for geeks and others, I don't see how this step will improve publishing, any more than all those websites improved newspapers. Be open to different ideas, though. King's deserved popularity shouldn't be a smokescreen for what is essentially a suicidal move for publishers, IMHO
A decent Katz article, amazing! (Score:2)
As far as book publishing goes: how many people really want to be reading those Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books? What else would an interactive novel look like? This isn't the way for publishers to go (perhaps game companies, but book publishers certainly don't have any of the expertise or infrastructure...)
So what should they be doing?
eBooks are never going to sell well until the hardware exists to make an eBook that has all the advantages of a paperback. Small size, take it anywhere, very good readability. Not least among the advantages: the publishers can make money with them. There are some projects out there working on "electronic paper" that'll look and feel like paper but be changable electronically. I think this is a ways off though, and the hardest problem will be figuring out how authors can get paid for books distributed electronically. It's just too easy to reproduce the bits.
What book publishers need to be aiming at in the short-term is books printed on demand. You go to the bookstore, or a web site, make your selection, and the book is printed, bound, and at the register or ready to ship in 15 minutes. The publishers and bookstores get to keep their business model, and no longer have to carry large stocks of inventory, a lot of which ends up wasted. Consumers can always find whatever title they want at the bookstore, and no book ever has to go out of print. Advantages for everybody.
(The parallel to how music can be sold or movies rented in this way should be obvious, and have even been mentioned in previous stories on
Sort of on this topic: It is sad that Barnes & Noble chose to split off an entire different company for their web business in an unimaginative attempt to copy Amazon. B&N's big advantage was their potential integration with their brick & mortar stores, and they threw all of the possibilities away with this one decision.
Bah Humbug (Score:2)
Publishers perform a valuable service. If you have ever looked through a "slush pile" of incoming manuscripts, you will thank God that someone else is stuck with the job of finding the gems in the steaming heaps of manure. Even with a good manuscript, it usually needs editing, proofreading and revision before it is ready for publication. Then there is typesetting and book design. These are jobs for skilled professionals, not the mob.
If I pick up a computer book published by Addison-Wesley or Prentice-Hall, there is a high probability that it is a good book, unlike the crap that many other publishers shovel out the door. I've never understood why the chain stores carry shelves full of "5 pounds of useless paper on Visual C++ for Blithering Idiots" while not carrying any of the Stroustrup books.
Re:Don't underestimate peer review (Score:2)
If anybody can publish anything, then nobody will want to read it. Which is why the future lies with ebook concerns like Alexlit [alexlit.com], Mind's Eye [tale.com], and others. Forget FatBrain...I don't have the time or money to spend on someone else's vanity e-press.
(As a side note, Alexlit also offers a very nice collaborative-searching literature recommender engine, which I believe is the first of its kind on the 'net. Which is sort of an instant peer suggestion device.)
Re:Publishing on the internet! (Score:2)
My two favorite e-book sites, Alexlit [alexlit.com] and Mind's Eye [tale.com], both offer e-books for download in a variety of formats--text, HTML, Rocketbook, Palm(Aportis)Doc, and so forth. My third-favorite, Peanut Press [peanutpress.com], is closed-format, Palm-only, but my Visor is easy enough to read it from. I've read whole novels that way--including A Fire Upon the Deep, which is one of the longest novels you can find these days.
Re:Microsoft's CHM not portable? (Score:2)
Sorry pal, I'll stick with PDF.
Do people really want "interactivity" in books? (Score:2)
What Katz has failed to address here (and this isn't a knock on him, no one else has quite figured this one out either), is how online publishing works an editorial factor into everything. Look at the (free) mp3 sites out there... tons of music, anyone can put stuff out there... and 99.9% of it is crap. Record labels, if nothing else, provide a filter that while it doesn't ensure that everything is quality, gets rid of a great deal of chaff. Book publishing is the same way... Sure, King probably doesn't need to publish online if he doesn't want to and has a large, already established audience, but how does an online "publisher" separate the signal (a good work) from the noise (the other 99% of stuff out there?)
Plus, I don't want intereactivity in my fictional stores... what will this lead to? Serialized fiction where people provide their input into the work? And you think the LCD stuff that comes out of hollywood after tons of test screenings to provide audience "input" is bad? Wait till Joe Blow gets to go.. well, I liked the Green Mile, Mr. King, but does he have to die at the end???
Re:i don't get it (Score:2)
I dashed off a polite letter to Barnes & Noble, explaining to them that not everyone with a computer runs Windows. No reponse as of yet...
Re:what's wrong with stephen king? (Score:2)
Jordan
Re:"Riding The Bullet" Free for Download (Score:2)
The name of the thread is "Re: Copy/Paste RTB from here".
No Jon!: Interactive Fiction is an Oxymoron (Score:2)
Agreed that publishers haven't "gotten it right" yet. However, have you noticed the dismal failure of computer game and other "hot content" media to tell the story well? Sure, we can "show" a very pretty and impressive screenfull of highly interactive and responsive scenarios -- but can we tell a story?
I think not.
Storytelling over the eras has been an art. Since the Poetics, we have understood that timing, the subtle interplay between characters and scenes over delta t, is critical to the telling the story well.
A story must present characters, develop them, make them real, present their backgrounds, and through a series of episodes interact and have conflicts, ultimately reaching a climax and then, the gentle denoument to let us reflect on how they (and we) have changed.
The magic of doing that well requires that the author controls the tempo of the exposition. Too fast, too slow, and the story loses in the telling.
But granting interactivity permits the "reader" to control the tempo, thereby depriving the author of her key expositive tool: exposition itself.
Have you noticed that the best of simulation games are never telling stories well, and the best of text adventures, always seem too controlling and linear? This is because, I think, there is a distinct tradeoff between quality of the storytelling, and the free will permitted the "reader-as-protagonist."
Now, to be sure, the best of us have found tricks -- tricks to permit people to think they have free will when they don't, tricks to permit people to think exposition is being well-paced when it is isn't. This is the smoke and mirrors of the interactive story-telling industry, and we have gotten pretty good at it.
But this is done not through great story telling, or through great simulation writing. It is done through playing the tradeoffs well one against the other. And you can only do that once you recognize that there is a great conflict between exposition and simulation.
In short, don't write off the writer. I will be pleased to read paper and e-books forever. Publishers have much to offer me that my colleagues in the gaming industry can never give me, and vice-versa.
This isn't a medium issue at all, Jon. I don't want the GREAT story tellers bound by the feeling they need to let me interact -- I want them to tell me THEIR story. This isn't to say that our great game designers and simulationists don't do what they do well. I'm just saying that they do what they do differently. It isn't interactive fiction -- its something else.
There's room for it all. And so far as publishing goes, Jon, I think there's plenty of room for the well-delivered internet book.
Re:Linear Games (Score:2)
I apologize for taking up so much bandwidth, but I want to make an important point. I do not think that linear games make great games because they tell a story better. Linear games make lousy games.
I think that a tree-based game has a similar problem, of course not as bad as a linear game, but much for the same reason -- the limitations of the potential scope of plot means that there are limitations on the liberties of the protagonist. Hence, the more structure on the story-telling, the better the story-telling, but its still just a hack. Further, the more structure on the story-telling, the worse the simulation (that is the less the interactivity).
This is what I meant by smoke and mirrors.
I am not saying that linear games are good games. I am saying that Poetics-based story telling makes for a good story, and that telling a story without Poetics makes for lousy fiction.
Re:Linear Games (Score:2)
My point exactly. For the record, I'm not particularly impressed with a tree-based hierarchy of options any more than I am a linear game, so far as that goes. If you are going to write a simulation, a continuous simulation seems always the least hackneyed. When you can "feel" the discrete granularity of the game, the interaction inherently suffers.
And trust me, I have a detailed sense of how hard it is to build an interactive, non-linear story.
My point, however, is that adding options does not substitute well for story-telling. Either the story-teller is controlling the tempo, per Aristotle's Poetics, or she isn't. The more interaction, the less control is actually possible. (The trick is to make the actual control less perceptible.) And therefore, the less story-telling is actually done.
Almost as proof of my point, you conclude:
. The more you try to "cheat" by having less text, the lower quality the story feels. Writing an interactive, non-linear story is *hard* - the best examples of it are the Choose Your Own Adventure books, not video games, and that's kind of sad.
Sure, because the granularity is obvious, but the control of game tempo is already schemed out -- the story teller has already plotted the graph, and written the several stories based upon each divergence. Thus, the story-teller has more control over the tempo, and better story-telling results. On the other hand, the reason "that's kind of sad" is that Choose Your Own Adventure books (I'm partial to Steve Jackson's, BTW -- do you like any others?) aren't particularly interactive. They're just "drawn that way."
Re:Don't underestimate peer review (Score:2)
Theodore Sturgeon [google.com]: "Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud." This has become know as Sturgeon's Law [tuxedo.org].
Cthulhu for President! [cthulhu.org]
Ha! (Score:2)
/.
Web is not a panacea medium (Score:2)
Re:No Jon!: Interactive Fiction is an Oxymoron (Score:2)
Problems with the cluetrain. (Score:2)
The article itself echos many of the sentiments I've seen cropping up lately in tech journals, fururist rags, art forums and marxist zines -- but they all share a common problem.
It's the cluetrain issue.
That is to say, "change or die! change or die!" might be a fun mantra to chant, but it really doesn't put us on any sort of PATH. Vague notions of interactivity are put forth (a la cluetrain), but that's it.
I.e. Okay, change. Change is good. What are we changing to? And no cop out answers like "more focus on the customer" or "strive to counteract cultural alienation." Solid examples here, people. What could a publisher do to "ride the internet wave" and become a better company? That's not rhetorical or sarcastic, I'm seriously interested in replies.
The problem with altering the nature of publishing houses (be they paper, film, record, whatever) is that they're hocking _two_ products: The actual good, and the name. Stephen King pushed a lot of bits online because he was Stephen King. Or the people who go see a Cohen Bros film, or Star Wars, or buy the new Pink Floyd CD. That is to say, the product does not stand entirely by the measure of it's own quality, it intermingles with a greater cultural legacy, even if that legacy is illusory marketing hype. It becomes a cultural phenomona. Nor is this necessarily bad, it gives us (the members of the culture) something to tie us together.
Though it may seem banal and hollow in retrospect.
Another reader pointed out the obvious: There's really no point in changing, seeing as we have zilpo idea where we're gonna be in oh say five years.
Katz chastized online papers for not providing something "more." But creating more product costs more money -- even if it's just hiring additional researchers to find and link to existant relevant information. The larger online newspapers are supported by their print ventures. How would the money roll in otherwise? I mean, Slashdot wasn't exactly a media empire prior to the influx of venture capital.
Katz hit the nail on the head: the King thing was a PR move. Marketing hype. But so are most websites, and virtually all TV shows. But we're told to think harder what the internet "means" to business. Okay.
Radio is grand. It lets air traffic controllers keep planes from coliding, lets kids play with toy cars, transmits tcp/ip packets, opens garage doors and keeps truck drivers from getting lonely on the long haul. But when most people think radio, they think of, you know, radio. Advertising through "entertainment."
And that's what I've seen happen to a lot of the internet (though I tend to associate the downfall with netscape's introduction of colored backgrounds) -- it's become corporatized. So what? The good stuff's still there, as are ham radio fiends. Don't like it? Learn to live with it.
I don't mean to come off as overly nihilistic here, but virtually everyone I know who uses the internet thinks of it as TV with a buy button, and a neat way to save on stamps. Some for the pirated music/software.
But they're ordinary folks, they're not looking for a paradigm shift. I'll concede, maybe they are and they don't know it -- but that's a dangerous, flawed and elietist (though I too suffer from that disease) line of reasoning.
Dear lord I've become incoherent. So pray tell: what exactly _should_ industry be doing? At least the cluetrain folks had the balls to say "beats us." If we're just going to rehash other people's theories, we should at least _contribute_ something to their development, y'know?
Re:I'll get flamed for this but.. (Score:2)
Give them a chance. (Score:2)
Dave
That is bad. (Score:2)
If you want the code to contain proper markup indicating meaning (perhaps for braile or blind readers, as well as normal document printing and rendering), use SGML. SGML becomes so many things so easyily. It's also an open standard.
CHM is just another 8.3 security hole, IMO.
No source means no true multi-vendor support, too.
---
Re:Spot on (Score:2)
First off, thank you for a great post, some excellent points made on the viability of the electronic book. I have to say that the process of moving to a fully digital book will be a slow, incremental process, probably spearheaded by technical and/or scientific literature, where things like hyperlinks, animated pictures and the like make sense and can make the book a lot more useful.
With fiction I think the process will be far slower. Apart from a few die-hard technology people most readers, myself most definitely included, would far prefer to read a book than read a monitor. Books are for when you stop using your computer, and until the process of reading a digital book is as easy and pain-free as reading a paperback the jump will not be made. And I think the current state of play in e-book development is way behind that.
Yes time (Score:2)
My only hope is to have some help searching sources and filtering out the goodies. Papers have done this for ages. They find intresting stories and sell me a compilation (together with some added content of their own)
Book publishers do the same. There are many crap books out there. Who hasn't thought of writing a book some time? I don't have the time or money to read everything, just to catch some books that I like. Instead I trust the publishers to find the gems. I know very well that I miss some authors that noone dares to publish. So? There is no chance that I'll catch everything.
What does an online bookstore give me? The same as a normal one. A preselection of titles to save me some time. Maybe I'll find this King Novella and note somewhere in the back of my head that King is worth (or not worth) reading. I'll also note that the site that published it gave me a hint. Perhaps I'll return for more. Perhaps the writer and publisher gained my attention. Perhaps I'll trust that publisher to select titles for me in the future too. Then we both won something.
relentlessly profit focussed.... (Score:2)
I don't think that 'interactivity' itself actually answers that question very well. However, it is a framework to start looking at things from.
I'm going to start from what occaisionally (at least on Slashdot) seems like a radical premise -- the next generation of publishing should define a significant portion of its success through how much money it makes. I am frightened of the day when all writing is interactively done for free. While the best books are never the ones that make the most money, at least the money carrot exists and talented writers don't need to take on a second job.
In nearly any industry, the internet has shaken up the traditional structure through a process of innovation. Only in rare cases has this innovation come from within the giant companies that were most ideally situated to take advantage of the industry changes. Instead, small, nimble startups have scampered to the top and changed people's perspective. I think that rather than criticising the publishing companies, deserving as they may be, it may be more productive to wonder why this 'scampering' has yet to occur in publishing.
Now, I can't claim to have any particular insight into the publishing industry, but I have given this problem enough thought to know that there is no simple solution. Unless you already consider Slashdot and other media sites to be the shakeup, it is very hard to envision a better way to make money out of the writing that goes into books than what the publishing industry is (and has been for years) doing. I have a few uneloquent reasons why:
1) Book technology is very useful technology
2) Even with the web, the distribution and marketing of books is non-trivial
3) Despite the newfound technological feasibility of interactivity, interactivity is still hard! Anyone who grew up reading 'choose your own adventure' books knows this. I used to prefer reading these cover to cover -- it was more fun to try to identify the different threads and map the thread strucutre in my head then to flip pages and read an 'interactive' but cheesy story.
4) Much of reading is to understand one author's view of the world, introducing new voices for the sake of interactivity is a wonderful way to approach current events (e.g., Slashdot), but a painful way to approach fiction.
Therefore, I come to the following challenge: how the hell should these silly, stone age, clearly inefficient publishing companies make money in a better way than they do now? Or better yet, how can a small nimble competitor step in and steal the show? (If you can tell me _that_ I may look for a change in career...) Damned if I know the answers to those questions, but I'm pretty sure that those answers are more relevant to the future of publishing than simnple criticism of the status quo.
Counterpoint: (Score:2)
OK, I swear I'm going to reply to a JonKatz article without slagging his longwindedness or irrelevance, mostly because this is one of his more interesting articles.
But, I honestly don't understand his point(s). He says that paper publishing is dying, and that paper publishers are driving themselves into the ground by not adapting to the internet. Then he says that publishers are driving themselves into the ground by trying to get onto the internet, and not doing it perfectly. Then he says that publishers are driving themselves into the ground by turning their backs on their lifeblood--print media. THEN he says that publishers are driving themselves into the ground by giving away their content, which tells their customers that said content isn't worthwhile. (aside: have you ever considered the cost of the Sunday newspaper? They're already essentially giving it away, with advertising paying for the bulk of the cost)
Frankly, I don't see it. News will still have to be reported on, and stories will still have to be written. Joe Schmuck can't be a professional reporter any more than he can be a professional fiction author. There will ALWAYS be a need for professional reporters, editors, and authors; and as a result, there will ALWAYS be a need for publishers and publishing in some form.
Ya gotta give 'em a bit of a break. They've spent over a century making a living off of print media--something the internet makes a mockery of. It's not at all surprising that they're hesitant to jump into it, and blinkered by their preconceived notions of how news/publishing "should" work. Besides, the internet (really, the web) is still evolving--what we would have loved a few years ago now qualifies as SUCKY! In a few years from now, the layout of /. will be considered ugly, difficult, and obsolete. (some would say it already is :-) At the speed a big, old, conservative industry moves, by the time they get online, online will have changed.
One other subtle point. The publishing industry doesn't ignore its public as a matter of pride, policy, or philosophy. It ignores them (if it really does) because it's making money just fine the way things are. Listening to the public takes time and effort, and if you're doing fine without it, why change?
Bottom line: Publishers and the news media will continue to exist in one form or another, and they'll probably be surprisingly close in content and delivery (but not necessarily form) to what they are right now. TV didn't destroy print media, and neither will the web. Furthermore, the 'power and freedom' that the web gives people to be independent from said media will probably be short lived--two more years or so--after which the professional media will get their legs back under them.
Rereading this article, I sincerely wonder if Jon "I wrote for Wired!" Katz has an axe to grind with the world of print media and publishing. Maybe he doesn't, but it sorta sounds that way.
hypertext (Score:2)
altx.com
grammatron.com
sunshine69.com
If you do, you will realize that innovative electronic writing has no place as a mainstream money making product. Hell, NO INNOVATIVE WRITING MAKES MONEY.
At the same time Cute flashy presentation doen't make good fiction.
A new medium generally leads to self reflexive narrative, which is generally not imminently readable. How many of you have read Donald Barthelme? John Barth? Jorge Luis Borges? Italo Calvino? probably a few but not most. I think everyone will agree that even the most widely commended experimental texts don't gain a wide readership. The publishing industry knows this.
Publishing giants don't invest big money in innovative print writing, why would they do so for electronic writing?
electronic mediums offer new possibilities for formal innovation in fiction, but formal innovation is possible in print fiction as well. In mainstream fiction, formal innovation is all but nonexistent. If you ask popular writers to write for they web how can you expect them to produce uniquely structured work? It isn't their thing.
Writers who concentrate on formal innovation will not draw a large audience. The do not have recognizeable names. They are confusing-sometimes on purpose.
significant formal innovation, opposed to fancy tinkering and "attitude," can not be reconciled with popular writing. Originality is confusing. Stephen King is not confusing.
Those of you interested in theory of electronic writing should check out George Landow's "Hypertext" or "hyper/text/theory" also edited by Landow.
Who is Samuel Clemens?? (Score:2)
You should read something by a good auther like Mark Twain or something!
LMAO. - btw, there are a large number of O'reilly books on my bookshelf too (they're the Cisco of tech publishing)
this post was a test to see which moderators can tell the difference between sarcastic humor and plain idiocy
-FluX
-------------------------
Your Ad Here!
-------------------------
I was waiting for (Score:2)
I bought the book and then watched the movie.
You'll find out what a steak feels like in a microwave oven.
Microsoft's CHM not portable? (Score:2)
Lets not list all (Score:2)
We could list all the platforms that Internet explorer is stable on.
Done!
Our kids (Score:2)
Not new!!! (Score:2)
It's on paper, but he published some of the story (up to the attack at the farmhouse).
This is just an adaptation of the method to the new media.
Re:Newpapers and Books are far from 'Dead' (Score:2)
Try reading the New York Times *7* days a week for the past 25 years and see how the content has gone to crap too...   When we have to use something like the NY Times or Washington Post as an example of "upper echelon" and what's right with a newspaper, then we truly are in sad times.
It's unfortunate that something like the NY Times and the now rag sheet Wall Street Journal (which over the past 10 years has focussed more on "expose-style" and so-called "investigative reporting-style writing", ala, the National Enquirer) have degraded down to nothing.   "Articles" are no longer "reporting the news" or "reporting the facts" but are actually "editorializing" the story, giving opinions and impressions (in a NEWS column - not the editorial page) rather than fact, with little data to back up the statements.   Much of the so-called content becomes a contest as to who can include the most descriptive adjectives and adverbs to fill column inches.   Sadly, alot of what you read across the country is regurgitated news from one paper to the next (and as an extensive traveller, I have read quite a number of local newspapers from across the country).
You would be surprised that some of the best reading comes from local neighborhood or small town papers when compared to the "national" ones.   Add to this papers like USA Today (believe it or not), which has so much to report (since they truly are "national") that they don't have chance or enough space to fill the column with useless drivel.
The trend towards "e-ing" everything (and to those posters who are sick of "e", count me as one who is too), can be useful in that you can often "customize" your content (remember the big selling point by some ICPs regarding how you could customize your own electronic newspaper?).   Regarding electronic books - having the web gives you a much broader distribution media (I *refuse* to call it "e-distribution") in that you are given the choice to read a variety of materials that authors might post that would most likely never be published by the established book publishers.   In essence, it takes the alt.*.creative news groups (which I have posted stories to) to another level (particularly with the
Anyway, no flame intended, it's just that the NY Times has lost it's luster...
digital ink (Score:2)
Where this is going (Score:2)
Let me first say that King is a clever man. A marketing genius. Plus he writes an occasional cool story.
But this whole web publishing thing is a gimmik. And a poor one at that. There are several technology companies out there promoting e-books of one type or another. Hmmm, let get this straight. I spend between $200 to $600 on a enlarged PalmPilot ®. Then I pay about $4 to $7 for the privledge of downloading the etext. That's stupid.
Give me a REAL book any day. Go to a real bookstore. Actually pickup a book and look at it. It might be interesting.
The Net is vital for knowledge and entertainment. But lets not make other media become extinct for no good reason
A new trend in Publishing (Score:3)
Katz suggests that with the internet, we the consumer will finally be able to voice our decision as to what books we like and what we don't. Maybe it's time for him to clue in - we already do this, it's just not via a direct link, but rather by means of sales.
Personally, the reason I buy a book put out by a professional publishing house rather than read fiction from the net is two-fold.
Karl
Publishing on the internet! (Score:3)
Slashdot is a good example. There is news of Mattel filing a lawsuit against CPHack (writers and sites), the world is notified in hours.
When the DeCSS suits and arrest happened, the world knew.
Before the internet, it might have made a an underground radio broadcast.
My lawsuit against Mattel [sorehands.com] would not have seen the light of day without the internet. It might of went to trial and Mattel written a check. The internet has allowed me to warn others of the issues in the case. Not to embarass Mattel. Many people (including myself) did not know about the FMLA), but the internet allow me to learn most about the issues more than most lawyers.
Employers have informed me that they would make accomodations for their employees. People have learned of their rights, pointed out the site to their employers who gave them the leave that they requested.
It is not attitude. (Score:4)
Jon said mentioned "attitude", I beg to disagree.
Attitude may be important, but it is not everything.
What the people online lacks the most is TIME. We are living on the age of information explosion, that we have no time to look into each and every piece of news items, and we need someone to summarize what is important for us - if we feel that something is important enough, we will go and dig out the whole article.
At least at that aspect, the online newspaper in one way or another is trying to do it. But they have done it wrong - instead of GENEROUSLY giving us the summary, they leave out IMPORTANT bits of info, (I know why they do that, because they want us to access their site), making many subscribers of those news service feeling frustrated - because on one hand, something _might_ be important, but then, the "summaries" that had been sent to us didn't give us enough clue if the article is indeed important or not.
I believe that if one day, someone will genuinely give us a true summary, and not leave out hooks trying to do us in, then the subscribers would feel that they are not "cheated".
I have seen so many online e-business startup, and the one common blunder that they have made is they have forgotten the basic tenet of MARKETING - that the only thing that is important in the whole scheme of thing is to SATISFY your customer.
Once you can satisfy what your customer WANTS (and not necessary what they need), you will get repeat purchases (or service render, or contractual agreements, and so on), but most online startups, including the online newspapers and now online publishing (even the so-called e-books are making the same blunder) is that they did not put the "CUSTOMER SATISFACTION" as the GOAL of their operation.
Some of the e-business operations that I have tried out have tried to answer the "customer satisfaction" question, but unfortunately, what they do is they do that kinda like an afterthought.
A successful company, no matter if it is online or offline, must satisfy the wants of the customers, or there won't be repeat purchases. Many offline businesses have succeeded in this respect, in various degrees, but online, most do not understand how to satisfy the online folks.
Perhaps that "attitude" thing Jon was alluding to mean just that - HOW TO SATISFY THE INTERNAUTS - but I still do not think that it is an attitude thing, it is just that we do not have as much time as the offline people to look carefully over each and every single item, and we often make our decision right there and then. One click and things is done.
My only hope is someone with marketing/psychological background can come up ways to satisfy the online people. Do not waste more of our time, and waste more of those e-business startup's capital, to do the useless "Come and see us, and waste your time here for nothing" schemes.
Remember, the online people often do not have plenty of time to look over the things you have to sell us. Give us what you one, and package them in a way that we can understand what you are tying to sell, in 8 seconds or less.
Yes, EIGHT SECONDS or less.
That's the AVERAGE time we will allow to be wasted in any website. If the website can't get our attention in the first eight seconds we spent there, we most likely will go to other places.
A challenge to the e-business folks - can you not only get our attention, but give us something of value, in eight seconds or less?
If you can do that, you will be successful. If you can't, don't waste your money, and we will thank you for not wasting our time.