Just in case you were wondering - no! d i g i t a l m i s s i v e has not gone into hibernation or is contemplating early retirement. Far from it actually. 

It’s just we’ve all been rather busy with jobs, projects, plus some vacation time here and there, which has caused us to post less than we have since we started this blog in August of last year.

Which brings me to the topic of my (long overdue) post: What happens if a blogger doesn’t blog each and every day? 
Read the rest of this entry »

Who knew? Barack Obama, of all things, now as Microsoft Office Clip Art!

With almost half a billion copies of the software giant’s Office application suite installed around the globe, anyone featured here is likely seen more often than Kim Kardashian on Dancing With the Stars ever will.

Clearly, Microsoft’s clip art has the reach most media outlets crave - a real asset, especially in today’s increasingly disintermediated world.

Which brings up the question, who at Microsoft decides over who’s in (the library) and who stays out?

In lieu of an answer, I was curious enough to check what other contemporary or past celebrity made the cut according to Microsoft’s Clip Art staff.

Turns out, neither George W. Bush nor Bill Clinton are included.

Neither is Adolf Hitler. (Thought I’d check, just to be sure).

But Mahatma Gandhi is.

And so is Abraham Lincoln.

Which brings us right back to Barack Obama, who has recently received much (self-induced) comparison to the iconic 16th US President.

Is someone in Redmond having fun channeling the travails of current-day politics via cliché PC clip art?

Germany’s Rhine Valley, 1439: the movable type printing press comes to western Europe, making the renaissance (and much of what came after) possible.

It took over 500 years for another technology to come along with that kind of impact on the dissemination of information and knowledge, but here we are, in the age of the internet - and Google is now working with several major libraries to digitize their collections through its Google Books Library Project and make them available online via one free terminal at any library that requests one.  The company has also reached a tentative settlement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers concerning compensating the copyright holders, and in June the settlement goes up for approval by the US District Court of New York.  Carefully reviewing such a complicated issue can be a lengthy process, to be sure - but to the extent one believes in the judgment and impartiality of the courts to assess any public interest  issues,  the system would appear to be working (so far at least) - right?

Not so to Robert Darnton, director of the Harvard Library, who in a recent New York Times Review of Books article and in a recently NPR interview laments that it was Google and not the government that undertook the digitizing process.  Darnton expresses concern over what he describes as the “wizardry” of the internet making it possible for one private entity to gain a monopoly over the printed word, and is of the opinion that in terms of copyright law,   “Congress got it better in 1790 than in 1998.”

A few thoughts:

• It’s the individual libraries’ prerogative as to whether or not to opt in to the Google project -  of course, Harvard is free to decline to make their impressive collection available for scanning.
• Similarly, the copyright fee settlement itself concerns only Google and the copyright holder organizations - if academic library directors were not offered a seat at the table for a business negotiation that didn’t directly involve them, is that necessarily a sign of conspiracy?
• Having arrived at a copyright fee settlement, it’s important to remember that it’s still not a done deal - it remains subject to a thorough hearing an an open court of law this June.  I would hope any valid issues raised by Darnton (or any other concerned citizen, for that matter) concerning the public good would be duly considered and debated at that point.
• As to the threat to the traditional library, it’s very likely the project will increase visitor traffic - and if some people will have some time on their hands as they wait their turn at the one computer, that would seem to be a perfect scenario for traditional book browsing and borrowing (ironically, the banks of multiple Google computers Darnton feels each library is entitled to would ultimately be far more threatening to the traditional library model).
• Lastly, what the Google venture promises is nothing less than access to the immense “long tail” of  five centuries’ worth of the printed word.  To the extent one is of the opinion that information tends to want to be free, the Google initiative is just part of an ongoing larger natural progression - a disruptive progression, to be sure, but one sometimes difficult to manage or thwart.

Personally, I like paper - I don’t think Kindles or computers will ever become my personal ‘medium of choice’ for reading.   However, I do look forward to the option of accessing that otherwise inaccessible long tail.  Granted, there are monopoly concerns, and it’s not going to be a trivial issue to build in the necessary safeguards - but let’s not risk paralysis by (to paraphrase the very Google-searchable Voltaire) making the perfect the enemy of the good.  Let’s figure it out.

The basis of Darnton’s arguments have to do with the commercial nature of  Google, but would he prefer that the Google/library project be absolutely free?  Again, one can easily imagine that if it were , the treat to the traditional library model would only be only that much greater (and it’s also worth noting that putting information under state funding and control is no simple panacea either - ask China).

In any event, will the library’s role as gatekeeper change?  Yes, but that’s unavoidable - and the fact of the matter is that the wizardry of the internet, much like the wizardry of the printing press before it (which incidentally made libraries themselves possible), is going to be with us for quite a while.

What’s going on? 

Of the ten or so people sitting immediately around me on the New York subway from 14th to Wall Street, an impressive seven riders actually read a book!

Yes, actually reading hard and soft cover books, one page at a time, without the help of an iPod, or Kindle, or any other digital hand-held device.

Although completely anectodal (and statistically irrelevant, I know), behind my impromptu mini sample of “analog” readership, is there more than meets the eye?

Hey, it’s probably just a push back by a few, against the omnipresent popularity of overly slick and shinny digital rich media players packaged in 21st century form factor and UI.

Or maybe it is a case of “it’s the economy, stupid”.

People reading relatively inexpensive physical books today may be an indicator that previously released Zunes and iPods are now considered way to pricy.

My money, though, is on a different point: My seven fellow straphanges have either re-discovered the age-old value proposition of printed paper, or never actually abandoned their love for it.

To them I guess, when reading a real book, the tactile experience is unqiue and remains unmatched compared to any digital e-reader counterparts.

There’s also a certain emotional bind to turning pages manually, one by one. 

Oh, and if you are into dog-ears, try that with an Amazon Kindle - can’t be done.

Long story short, companies have long started working on e-paper and e-readers to recreate similar effects, but none seemed to have cracked the code on sufficiently simulating the organic experience of holding and reading an actual book. 

Until there is a similarly satisfying “touch and feel” reading experience with e-reading devices, I’d like to assume my seven subway mates probably are the equivalent of vinyl record fans amidst a sea of DVD owners.

Nothing major. Nothing to be concerned about. It’s interesting though, as the e-reader industry seems to still have ways to go.

PS: For those of you interested in “the latest and greatest” innovation in e-books, e-reading, and the like, check out these items:

In case you missed the first one, Amazon Kindle II is coming out

Amazon to offer e-books on Apple devices

Sony going next-gen with its own e-Reader, too

The bookworm project now supported by O’Reilly

Stanza, a prominent e-reader iPhone app

Google Books now officially online

Samsung has genuine interest in actual e-paper

Business Week recently ran a telling article about the state of the German dailies industry.

The magazine argues - despite dropping ad sales overall - “special interest”-focused print media seems to do reasonably well in an otherwise hotly competitive marketplace for news.

Compared to many of its ailing US peers, popular dailies such as Berlin-based Bild apparently knew to focus on exclusive content, and embrace (rather than fight) innovation early enough to succeed. 

What’s more, Bild and other dailies managed to benefit from German readers’ somewhat slower flight to online media alternatives. Turns out, in an increasingly crowded field of German dailies publishers, readers seem to find solice in established print media brands they have known for years.

Still, competition remains tough; with increasing pressure not just from semi-professional and user-generated news sites, blogs, and online video, but also from at least 600 branded online editorials trying to compete for diminishing audiences and a shrinking ad revenue pie.

In the US a similar “doom-and-gloom” scenario persists, but the “pain” of market share loss felt by state-side newspapers seem more urgent compared to their German peers.

Seeking a solution to the mess, the Newspaper Association of America recently published its own state-of-the-industry stats, and, along with that, recommended 8 steps towards dealing with its own challenges of dropping circulation and ad sales.

Meanwhile, over in Germany, Bild intuitively took some of these recommendation to heart, yet went beyond its US peers’ 8-step plan.

Among other things, it partnered with Germany’s #1 consumer online portal, Deutsche Telekom-owned t-online.de, and later, started selling pre-paid mobile phone services at newsstands, right where its dailies sell.  (The service affords customers unlimited online access as long as they are reading bild.de online).

While the former provided instant traffic boost to its first branded online site, the latter helped to make up for revenue losses from ad sales moving to the Web. 

Of course, Bild is infamous for its daily coverage of sex and crime. Unlike in the US, nudity not a problem to the extend shown (think topless models on the cover looking for a date), maybe its the oldest trick in the book that does the trick for Bild.

I doubt this would be an option for Bild’s US newspaper publishing peers.

UPDATE:

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Today, the New York Times reported about BusinessWeek’s planned launch of BusinessExchange.

The Wiki-meets-social networking sites seeks to amalgamate professional and user-generated news into a new and (hopefully) successful online news experience.

Clearly this is BusinessWeek’s own attempt to fight off lagging ad sales from ongoing audience fragmentation and ubiquitous “anytime, anywhere” content competition.