Update: The Power of Print! (As Seen on YouTube)
The “Power of Print” ad blitz enlists YouTube to get its message out, inviting the question: If print isn’t dead, why?
The “Power of Print” ad blitz enlists YouTube to get its message out, inviting the question: If print isn’t dead, why?
O’Reilly launches the “live book,” a way to extend the useful life of a book by turning hardware into software.
CrossRef moves into the reference works area for e-books, with a linking approach and pricing that might just work.
Publishers may have won the pricing war, but the real struggle is now on for users’ attention. Because the iPad is not a dedicated e-book reader there are, unfortunately, many things that users can do with the device other than read books. Unlike the Kindle, where publishers have the device all to themselves iPad users will be able to surf the Web, play games, watch movies, view their photo collections, listen to music, watch TV, send e-mail, work on a presentation, or access over one hundred thousand applications that do any number of distracting things.
Demand Media has created a journalism and custom content platform that disrupting neighboring publishing models. Can we learn something from their approach?
Information wants to be free? Then why are expenditures for information skyrocketing? Maybe the pendulum has swung back to “information wants to be expensive.”
We welcome Alix Vance, SSP Board Member and president of Paratext, as the newest chef in the Scholarly Kitchen.
This weekend Amazon pulled all of MacMillan’s books, both electronic and paper, from their store due to a dispute over eBook pricing policies. Is this the first battle in the war for control of the publishing industry?
How custom is custom publishing? Will custom publishing ever move fully into the user’s hands?
Initial impressions of Apple’s new iPad device — how the tech press is missing the meaning, what it might mean for publishers, and a chance to tell us what you think.
The subscription model is more prevalent than ever, but it’s also different in important ways. What can publishers learn and implement?
The fact that scientific publishing hasn’t been disrupted may be a sign of a problem, not an advantage. A future choice may be disruption or irrelevance. Which will we choose?
Publishing can’t attract the best and brightest until it markets itself correctly — as being about more than the containers of the past, and being all about the ideas and communication approaches of the future.
A famous publishing course is officially laid to rest, while a renowned publishing mag gets a reprieve. Which decision makes the most sense?
Highlights from this week’s reader comments, pointing the way to dialog you might have otherwise missed. Also, let me know if you like this as a weekly feature.