Backward time-travel Item #2: When it comes to tech news and punditry, my news in-box (primarily, the RSS newsreader, NetNewsWire), often contains “news” items that make me think I’ve gone to sleep for 20 years. But unlike Rip Van Winkle, I’ve awakened to discover nothing has changed.

For example, there was a weekend item from the former Forbes reporter, former fake Steve Jobs and former blog-basher Dan Lyons, who kicks off his new career as a fake Newsweek writer by lobbing this link-baiting bomb at Apple fan-boys. In essence, the piece suggests that Apple has started appropriating technology and approaches that are first developed and proven successful by little guys. According to Lyons, such a practice is turning Apple into the new Microsoft.

But anyone who has even casually followed Apple since its inception knows the company has always viewed as “fair game” to compete with (translation: rip off) anything in its ecosystem. The examples of what Apple has appropriated over the years is legendary: for example, the notion of “scripting.” Or look at the former Apple channel retailers who have been crushed by Apple Stores — and who developed a class action lawsuit against the company, dispelling Lyons notion that, “In the old days, stuff like this didn’t matter. Apple was such a fringe player that nobody really cared how the company behaved.” Bottomline: Apple has always been a company that develops very cool products, but there have always been controversies swirling around the ideas that did not come to them in some a priori fashion. Even the iPod was inspired by a real guy who didn’t work for Apple.

Almost all of Apple’s features have come from their observation (and occasionally, their acquisition or licensing of) what innovative individuals have hacked together to make their Mac run better or cooler. After that, Microsoft takes Apple’s best and includes them on some future update of their products. Finally, Google takes the best of what Microsoft does (unless it’s search) and turns it into a web-application. It’s what makes the world go around.

What you end up with is a Google web-application adaptation of a Microsoft adaptation of an Apple feature that Apple adapted from an innovative individual.

I don’t like it. But that hasn’t kept me from using Google docs.

Backward time-travel Item #2:

e-Newspapers: The New York Times is a sucker for any story about devices that replicate the way people over 40 think a newspaper should look and that keep alive the notion of an obsolete news distribution channel. I still love the notion that one day we’ll all have flying cars. But I at least understand it’s not the flying car I want but the ability to be transported from anywhere I want to be to another place I want to be. The e-Paper people are so obsessed with trying to create something that “looks like” print, they’ve lost sight that it’s knowledge and information and connectivity and entertainment that people want — not something that “looks like” a newspaper. And unfortunately, the closer we get to the future, the less impressive e-Paper appears. Twenty years ago, e-paper concepts could be folded up and put in our pockets. Where are those devices? I’m waking up 20 years later and the concept technology is less cool than what was predicted back then.

This morning, Amazon.com emailed me (and I assume a gazillion other participants in its affiliate program) a promotion to check out its “Your Video Widget” service that includes a feature like the new “annotation tool” on YouTube. But with Amazon, the creator of the video can annotate the video with links to products on Amazon. If the viewer clicks through and purchases the item, the video creator will receive a commission. While I’ve never had much luck with affiliate revenues (on other sites, not here), it sounds like a great idea for review-intensive content sites.

But here’s the problem. When I clicked through to learn about the new service, the “demo” version of the new feature would not allow me to see the featured products. In other words, the feature being demo’d didn’t work on the demo. All I got was a video with a message that looked like this:

Not a good way to launch a feature, Amazon.

I promise, these Kindle-related posts will stop.

However, I wanted to point to this Staci Kramer post on PaidContent.org . Unlike me, Staci gets to chat with people like Jeff Bezos. In her recent conversation with him, she asked if the display of color was planned for the Kindle. His answer: “We would love to have color but electronic ink doesn’t do color.”

Amazon is, no doubt, now the largest customer of the company that manufactures electronic ink (E Ink) and therefore Jeff Bezos is the expert on this topic — even if he’s wrong. E Ink has issued press releases before stating electronic ink DOES do color. Again, Jeff Bezos is likely now the E Ink’s largest customer, so his perception of what E Ink products do or do not do is more important than any reality that may have been announced in an E Ink company press release.

But that’s not why I am making this follow-up post to my way too-long Kindle post last night .

I’m making this post because I think many people don’t know that there are 20,000 free eBooks in a Kindle-friendly format. If you don’t mind spending the 10¢ e-mail fee Amazon charges, you can even e-mail these books to your Kindle without hooking it up to a computer.

Here’s how to get 20,000+ free eBooks for your Kindle (or your computer or iPhone):

1. Go to Project Gutenberg , one of the most amazing treasures of the web.

2. Search through its catalog of 25,000+ public domain titles.

3. Download a PDF version of any book you want to read.

4. Synch or email it to your Kindle.

An even better alternative suggestion: While the Kindle will display PDFs and text documents, I’ve found the best format for books from Project Gutenberg are those saved in the mobi format. There are several incredibly community-spirited people who have converted thousands of Project Gutenberg files into the mobi format already — and now they are just calling it the "Kindle" format so people like me won’t be confused by the term "mobi" and the several other initials the same format goes by. There are several sources for these ready-for-Kindle free books, but I’ve become a quick fan of one called ManyBooks.Net .

Sidenote: Like when Apple figured out that the iTunes store would be more compelling (and they would sell more iPods) if they incorporated free podcasting content into the ITunes Store, Amazon should incorporate free books from Project Gutenberg results into the Amazon Store. Of course, they won’t do this because Amazon (unlike Apple) has the DNA of a retailer and not a device marketer. Apple discovered that easy access to free content sells hardware. I have my doubts about whether or not Amazon can make that leap.

Bonus links: Merlin Mann has some more sources of free eBooks for your Kindle including my soon to be new favorite source, Feedbooks.com. He also points to this blog post that explains how to get free eBooks for your Kindle. The coolest thing Merlin points to is this mobi file one can download to their Kindle that has a means for Kindle users to click-through to other books. This is a innovative work-around to avoid the Amazon Store when downloading books.

I’m a fan of the Amazon Kindle, however I feel sure the company would prefer that I keep my version of praise for the product to myself. And, to judge from some e-mail I’ve received knee-jerking past observations I’ve written about the device, some of my "fellow" fans of the Kindle also prefer I shut-the-praise up.

I guess I’m an enigma to traditional eBook/ePaper lovers because, get this, I like my Kindle but am less than convinced there is much a future for a dedicated eBook reading device. In other words, the love I have for my Kindle is the kind of love that only a mother of a, how can I say this?, unfortunate-looking baby could understand.

So as they typically draw arrows, why do I bring up this topic yet again ?

Because the New York Times today asks , "Is the electronic book approaching the tipping point?" The story reports on the confused ("energizing yet unnerving") response book industry people attending the giant "BookExpo" trade show had because someone (Amazon) has finally come up with an eBook reader and business model that may actually work.

Around ten years ago, I attended that very same trade show in Los Angeles. Ironically, eBooks were getting the same kind of unnerving response then. Also getting the same unnerving response the year I attended was Barnes & Noble and Amazon — the show is filled with independent booksellers who are perpetually unnerved by Barnes & Noble and Amazon — for everything.

As the New York Times story reports, eBooks have been around 40 years. And the concept of ePaper (thin displays that replicate the properties of real paper) is right up there with flying cars and TV watches as the most predicted technology never to make it to the mass market.

So, if by "tipping point," the New York Times writer means, has the eBook reader finally had a "proof of business concept," I’d have to answer that the Kindle is, yes, a tipping point product. However, I’d place it along side the Motorola brick phone in the "works-great-but-can-we-get-something-that-does-this-that-is-less-goofy" department?

And the Kindle tipping point moment came just in time, I might add. I think many in the digital book fan nation had all but given up on the mass-market viability of eBook readers.

In perhaps the most dramatic display of what I mean is the rather untimely release of the book "Print is Dead " by Jeff Gomez. I say "untimely" because it was published (on paper, no less) at precisely the same time as the Kindle was being announced — last November. Yet if one reads the book (as I have, on my Kindle), one is struck by the irony of how many thousands of words Gomez devotes to explaining why "the eBook revoluton didn’t happen." In a long chapter (7), Gomez, in effect, surrenders the notion that any eBook reader will ever succeed in order to support his central argument — that text delivered in a digital form will ultimately render paper and ink "dead."

So rather than helping Gomez prove his point that "print is dead," the success of the Kindle dramatically placed his technology forecasting credentials into question. (I’m sure he’ll reclaim his cred when he re-writes Chapter 7 for the Kindle version of the book — and takes out the "eBooks are doomed" part and that part where he quotes "the experts" who claim it will take a $1-$2 price point for eBooks to ever catch on.) (Later clarification: Despite my snarky comments regarding Gomez’ book, in general, I found that I agree with much of what he writes — except I still think the title is bad and, frankly, not what the book is truly about.)

So yes, I’m a Kindle lover who thinks, as I’ve said many times , while its hardware and interface design are inexcusably unfortunate (ugly-bad), its function (200 books in my briefcase) and the pricing of books one can purchase and download to it wirelessly (never having to attach it to a computer) makes me overlook the way I constantly lose my place in a book because of its peculiar button placement or the way the fricking back panel randomly falls off the device.

Yes, I love my Kindle — but here’s where I lose my invitation to join its fan club. I don’t think Amazon is going to be the long-term winner in the category. Like the Motorola brick, the Kindle is a great proof of concept. But in the end, the product that ultimately owns this category will be much, much more than a mere eBook reader using ePaper technology.

Bonus link: Thanks to Michael Turro (see comments) for pointing to this recent Gordon Crovitz column about the Kindle. Also, check out Michael’s post, as well.

I must say, I’m beginning to admire Henry Blodget for his unabashed willingness to ignore any irony others might see in his analytical posts about Amazon.com, like this one that looks at Citi analyst Mark Mahaney’s report that the Amazon Kindle could be a $750 million iPod-like franchise in a couple of years.

Blodget does not explicitly agree with the prediction, indeed, he points out some holes in the theory. He doesn’t fully repudiate it, however.

I’m clearly not a financial analyst and so any disagreements I may have with Mahaney’s predictions have nothing to do with market-share numbers. I have no idea about the revenues or bottom-line impact of future Kindle developments. However, since some of his analysis is based on his personal experience with the device, I feel I can at least weigh in on that front.

First, let me say I use the Kindle frequently. Not quite daily, but several times a week. My review of the Kindle from last December is still accurate. I haven’t really been surprised by anything about it during the past five months. It’s still a clunky, poorly designed piece of hardware with a ridiculous interface. Yet the EVDO (digital cellular)-powered feature that allows one to instantly purchase books from Amazon for less than $10 is near magic. That price-point for books and the instant download are what make the device work for me — and, apparently, the Citi analyst, also.

However, I stand by my earlier prediction — and this is where I find a flaw in Mahaney’s analysis: Apple won’t stand still and let Amazon have this market all to itself. As I’ve written about ad-naseum, a slightly larger iPod Touch linked to eBooks distributed via the iTunes store would match and raise the game with Amazon. At that point, Amazon would be competing with the iTunes distribution channel, but with Amazon hardware that looks and feels like it was designed in Soviet-era Russia.

Also, with Apple in the game, its eBook format would be readable via the Mac or iPhone, as well. The Kindle format is locked into a Kindle device.

As I wrote last November, I’ll continue to use my Kindle until Apple comes out with something like this (even if it’s not in the next couple of weeks):

As usual, Chris Anderson is a voice of reason when he answers a question that implies magazines will be replaced in a decade or so by something digital that is distributed via a new device. Will it happen in a decade? he is asked. “No,” says Chris, “Technology adoption happens slowly. This is the editor of Wired telling you no. Obviously, newspapers are going to be changing dramatically over the next few years, but magazines are not newspapers. And I think magazines 10 years from now are going to look something like they do now.”

I’ll go further: magazines (like Chris, I won’t extend the following prediction to newspapers) will never be “replaced” by any digital device, especially the device hypothesized in the article:

“…you’ll walk onto a plane, or a subway, or a soon-to-be-invented mode of transport, and you’ll tuck a little electronic book under your arm. Inside that little book, which will be very expensive at first but soon will cost $150, there’ll be a series of mylar “pages,” and there will be small buttons off to the side, and once you hit one of them, whoooosh, words and photos from Vanity Fair will suddenly appear.

The problem with this future-scape is this: The technology/delivery channel being described is not a magazine. It may use the metaphors associated with a print magazine, but it’s not a magazine. It’s another media platform. It’s another distribution channel. And frankly, whenever the device being described breaks the $200 barrier, the last thing people will be doing with it is flipping through a souped-up PDF of Vanity Fair.

Moreover, the media platform being described in the scenario is more likely to replace whatever you’re reading this blog post with than replace the print magazine format.

You see, the device being described is already here — it’s just not the right size yet. For years, I’ve been writing about the device I now call the iPod Touch Book (or Rumor #3). Last year, I even comp’d up an illustration of what it would look like.

The device could be widely available 1-3 years from now. Indeed, today’s announcement about a new Intel chip could have a direct bearing on this new device.

So why won’t this incredible device replace magazines? Well, if you have this device that will provide you access to all the video, audio and digital content there is, will you be using it to flip through a souped up PDF? There’s an easy answer to this question that anyone who has used the Internet can answer: No. You’ll be using it to do the kinds of things you do with your computer. You’ll access all the content published by magazine companies in the form you’re now accessing it via the device you’re using to read this.

When it comes to magazines, you’ll be reading them on paper.

Addendum for those who aren’t familiar with this blog:

As I’m sure there are some who will stumble onto this post and who will be convinced I’m out of my mind, I’ll restate several things that are known by those who read this blog with some regularity (all 12 of you): I own an iPhone and use it all day, everyday. I’m fairly comfortable with my understanding of the incredible potential with that device. I own a Kindle and download and read about 2-3 eBooks a month using it, so I’m fairly comfortable with my understanding of that device. Indeed, I’m a huge fan of the potential of eBook readers — especially if Apple creates the iPod Touch Book.

However, my enthusiasm for such devices does not overwhelm my understanding of the history of media, technology and user adoption. As I’ve said every time I head into one of these magazine apologist rants, the magazine format is not a business model. Business models that depend on magazines — newsstand distributed mass-consumer magazines, for example, or transaction-oriented trade magazines — could one day slide into a Smithsonian Exhibit. However, magazines that support a business model (university development, for example) will likely grow as online strategies strengthen the communities who will want to expand their story-telling to print.

I also refuse to accept the notion that advertisers will leave magazines — or broadcast TV, for that matter. Why? Well, for one thing, the world’s best brand spends only a fraction of its advertising budget online: the majority goes to TV and, wow, magazines, along with a healthy chunk of outdoor spending. If you want to follow the leading brand (that’s what marketers do), you’ll hesitate before shifting all your advertising dollars online — even if it’s distributed on devices created by the world’s best brand.

Later: As often happens, when I write things during flights and that are responding to something that causes me to rant, I write in a way that confuses even me — when I read it later. My point is not to dismiss the appropriateness of digital magazines in certain circumstances. And if you enjoy reading or publishing digital magazines, I am not suggesting you’re wrong — as mentioned, I am currently working on projects that have digital publications as a component and I enjoy reading books on my Kindle. In these rants, I’m merely emphasizing my belief that the roles of print magazines and so-called “digital magazines” are not the same — and that digital magazines may grow in importance and acceptance, but they will not replace print magazines as a medium, even if certain titles “convert” some or all of their circulation to digital products. My second, and perhaps more passionate argument is focused on those who believe the highest and best usage of hand held digital devices is replicating a physical product. My argument is this (and has always been this): New technology enables new experiences and new media — rarely (if ever) is new technology’s ultimate use in replicating old media.

[See update for link to a post from a former FTC economist who explains the concept of an "illegal tie."]

I’m just now catching up on the news about Amazon.com forcing print-on-demand publishers to use its printing and distribution service, Book Surge, if the publishers want their books to be sold on Amazon.com. The news was covered on Friday by the Wall Street Journal. Later on Friday, O’Reilly’s Andrew Savikas wrote a detailed post explaining the kinds of lock-in Amazon.com is attempting with this move.

And yes, there is a Nashville angle to this story as one of the on-demand printing services that is being targeted by this move is Ingram Industries subsidiary Lightning Source.

Quote from WSJ.com:

“Amazon’s decision means that any of those publishers who want their books sold on the giant Web site will have to use BookSurge. Not only will that squeeze rivals like Lightning Source, it will reduce publishers’ bargaining power. Publishers will “have to abide by Amazon’s pricing,” said Bob Young, CEO of Lulu Inc, a print-on-demand publisher based in Raleigh, N.C. Mr. Young said he believed BookSurge’s prices to be “slightly higher” than other printers. An Amazon spokesman declined to comment on that issue.”

I guess it’s somewhat ironic that this year marks the 10th anniversary of the attempt by Barnes & Noble to acquire Ingram Industries’ Ingram Book Group, a move that was withdrawn later after the Federal Trade Commission indicated it would contest the transaction. The transaction, which was blasted by independent booksellers because it merged the largest wholesaler with the largest retailer of books, was seen as a bold grab by Barnes & Noble to vertically integrate a competition-stiffling segment of the book distribution channel.

I say ironic, because at the time, Jeff Bezos was one of the most outspoken opponents of the B&N, Ingram deal, issuing a message to Amazon customers in which Bezos said, “To our customers: Worry not … Those who make choices that are genuinely good for customers, authors, and publishers will prevail. Goliath is always in range of a good slingshot … Our long-term strategy has been to diversify our supplier base and to increase our direct purchasing from publishers.”

So, in 1998, the concentration of book distribution and book retailing was opposed by Amazon. In 2008, at least when it comes to the print-on-demand segment of the book industry, Amazon apparently now likes playing Goliath. However, I’m sure Amazon will see it another way — as in, they are still just trying to cut out the middle guy. That spin worked ten years ago. I wonder if it will now. I wonder if it will when all those independent booksellers realize they’ll have to purchase books from Amazon?

Update: Luke Froeb, a former chief economist for the Federal Trade Commssion posted some insight into the legality of what Amazon is doing and asks, “Is it an illegal tie?”

Quote:

“Here the tying good would be on-line sales of books and the tied product would be BookSurge. If the plaintiff could show that Amazon has market power in the sale of on-line books, the plaintiff would have a pretty good chance. (This requires a market definition that excludes brick and mortar stores.) Also, if there is a dangerous probability that competition [is lessened] in the tied product market (”POD books”), the plaintiff could very well make a case that this is a per se violation.

Bonus link: Rafat Ali posts a follow-up piece regarding Amazon’s damage control on this issue that includes some great comments by some Amazon and book-publishing insiders.

Update: More on Amazon’s response to the criticism at PublishersWeekly.com, including coverage of a response from John Ingram:

In his statement, John Ingram said that while “the questions that are being raised about Amazon.com and its Booksurge division don’t directly relate to Ingram - either Lightning Source Inc. or Ingram Book Group - it clearly is alarming many of our publisher partners.” According to John Ingram, “publishers are telling us they feel Amazon.com’s actions are not appropriate.” John Ingram’s statement adds that the company has been unable to get a direct response from Amazon about its pod shift. “We all live in a world where decisions are made about insourcing and outsourcing, and free choice is important,” the statement continues. “At Ingram Book and Lightning Source, we are going to work really hard to continue to be the compelling choice as publishers make their outsourcing decisions. Our breadth of distribution channels including the online retailers remains the same, and Ingram still provides one day turnaround in the fulfillment of orders for books including print on demand titles.”

(Thanks, Lewis Pennock, for several heads-up related to this post.)

Cory Doctorow is reporting that Bertelsmann’s “Random House Audio has announced that it will now allow its audiobooks to be sold without DRM by all of its online retailers.” Already, it sells DRM-free audiobooks through emusic.com. From that experience, Random House Audio has learned that not treating its customers like criminals is a good thing. One would hope such a move by the largest book publisher in the world would lead other publishers to recognize (as I blogged in January) how ridiculous it is to encrypt downloaded versions of audiobooks while the same audiobooks on CDs are not encrypted (i.e., you can go to a public library with your laptop and load up DRM-free audiobooks for free, but you can’t buy the same thing online). As I said then, for the same reason Amazon.com doesn’t sell music downloads that have DRM, it should pressure publishers to allow it to sell DRM-free audiobooks on its new acquisition, Audible.com.

Oh, yeah, and then it should do the same with eBooks for the Kindle.

(I learned about this on Twitter from @marshallk.)

You can transfer audiobooks
from Audible.com to your Kindle.
That is, unless, you use a Mac.

Here’s some big news for audiobook listeners (I’m one): Amazon has announced this morning they are buying Audible.com. If you’re an audiobook listener, you probably already know that Audible serves as the back-end for audiobook downloads for Apple’s iTunes Store. However, as I’ve said on this blog before, it’s crazy to purchase audiobooks via the iTunes Store rather than directly from Audible.com as the direct purchase allows re-downloads of any books you buy — and the iTunes Store doesn’t. Amazon.com has a similar “library” backup feature for digital media purchased there (except MP3s), like Kindle eBook files.

I have some problems with audiobooks via Audible.com, however — some problems Amazon could solve. First, audiobooks are incredibly expensive — just like the inflated cost of eBooks before Amazon stepped in with the Kindle and a price around $10 for best-sellers. An audiobook of a bestseller is more likely to be more expensive than the print version — and in the same range as the cost of an audiobook you’d purchase on a CD in a bookstore. To get around such inflated pricing, I have a subscription plan on the service that provides one book credit per month. I never go over the limit as the per-book cost can be stratospheric — as in, provide me all the incentive necessary to drop by the Nashville Library and check out the book on a CD. Oh yes, and on a CD, those audiobooks don’t have all the DRM one finds on the same aduiobooks one downloads from Audible.com. Let me translate this: I can drop by the library and transfer DRM-free audiobooks to my computer. Gee, that sounds like the same issue Amazon.com fixed when they started offering music downloads recently. Hmmm. Dear Jeff: You can do it dude. Cheaper audiobooks. No DRM — just like the same books on CDs. Hey, you da man.

Speaking of audiobooks and Amazon and Audible, here’s a suggestion for Amazon: Quit locking out Mac users from using their Kindleto listen to audiobooks from Audible.com. Here’s what I mean: The only way to transfer an audiobook to the device (precisely, a DRM-ladened audiobook purchased from the leading online retail sources of audiobooks — Amazon, Apple or Audible.com) is via a computer. The only computer operating system with which one can authorize a Kindle to play an audiobook purchased from Amazon, Apple or Audible.com, is with software available only on the Widows operating system.

How did I discover this? I have both an iPhone and an old-school iPod nano for listening to audiobooks, so I hadn’t previously taken much of a look at the audiobook capabilities of the Kindle. And frankly, while the device has a headphone jack for listening to audiobooks, that feature wasn’t heavily touted in the roll-out of the product. After a bit of struggle recently, I can now understand why this little-touted feature is so little touted.

The first problem has been noted and is what the pundits would call “the elephant in the room”: While you can store the text and black/white graphics from 100+ books on the 256 MB of a Kindle, the number of audiobooks is considerably less — say, less than one, in some instances. In my experiment, on a Kindle with about a dozen text books already loaded on it, I was limited to one Audible.com file containing an eight-hour recording.

However, I couldn’t listen to any of that file, as I discovered the following message buried in the directions found on Amazon.com regarding using an Audible.com file on a Kindle (something allowed) if that file is transferred to the Kindle using a Mac:

“In order to play audiobooks on the Amazon Kindle, you must first activate the device to your account (using the Windows software, AudibleManager)…If you are a Macintosh user, you need to connect your Kindle to a Windows-based computer running AudibleManager to authorize your Kindle using the above instructions. You may be able to authrize your Kindle running AubibleManager on Windows on your Macintosh is you have your Macintosh configured to run Windows. Once authorized with your Audible credentialis, you can then use audible files downloaded through Audible Manger under Windows or itunes by copying them to your Kindle via USB.

Uh, no thank you. I’ll just use my iPhone.

Sidenote — a positive word about the Kindle: As I’ve written before, I have one and despite its god-awful hardware design and some of the most incredibly bad user-interface ideas I’ve ever witnessed (see earlier review), I like the convenience of having dozens of books in my briefcase and I especially like the think-it, buy-it instant-shopification features it offers with an EVDO-powered access to the Amazon store. Oh, yes, and I’m big fan of the way your ebook purchases are backed up on Amazon.com. Unlike most badly designed things — say, the QWERTY keyboard — the Kindle’s bad features never get easier to use with experience. Almost daily, I’ll pick it up to put it away to discover I’ve advanced dozens of pages in the process. It boggles me that its designers failed to take into consideration how people hold a book when they read it.

But that’s not what I wanted to rant about this time.

Technorati Tags: amazon.com, audible.com, kindle

Here’s a way to save lots of time during the next month. Ignore all articles you see that predict what will be announced at Macworld on January 15. My post from September 5, 2006 is all you’ll need. The specifications (smaller, faster, cooler) for stuff always improve, but the fundamentals change slowly. For the record, if Apple does, indeed, announce an ultra-sub-compact-portable-light-weight-nano-Macbook, I will declare Rumor #3 fulfilled if it has a touchscreen.

Side observation: As much as I like the touchscreen on the iPhone, I’m now questioning whether a keyboard-less device is capable of becoming my primary travel-device. Using the Kindle has caused me to decide a device without a real keyboard can never replace a laptop. I want to talk back when I’m reading — and I need a real keyboard — not a virtual one, or, those toy keys on the Kindle.

Positive #8: Kindle’s
‘experimental’ browser
is so bad, it’s good.

I’ve had an Amazon Kindle for over a week. (Sidenote: I purchased it after they started saying it wouldn’t be available until after Christmas). There are some things I like about it — and some obvious and well-documented things about it that make it, frankly, inconceivably bad.

I was waiting until next week to review it, but when I read on TechCrunch that Kindles are going for $1,500 on eBay (geez, people, don’t be crazy), I thought I should go ahead an post what I’ve discovered after reading a couple of eBooks on a Kindle and messing around with most of the features. (Private message to Aaron Pressman re: eBay: You win.)

Here are some things I like about the Kindle:

1. I like the concept even more, now that I’ve tried it: I can read books on a little rectangular chunk of plastic and the print is very clear and paper-like. And I can carry around a dozen or so books (up to 200, in theory) in my briefcase. Bring on the flying car, and I’ve got everything I’ve ever dreamed of.

2. It has lots of the customer-friendly things I like about Amazon: Since I’ve been a heavy-duty customer of Amazon for a decade, the service already knows what books to recommend to me.

3. The books cost about $10: That’s for current best-sellers that cost $25 or so in hardbook. I’m buying books I’d never purchase in hardback (also, no way am I going to be seen in public reading a David Baldacci novel). I have no doubt (I learned this from the iTunes Store) that I will end up spending more on books in the long run. Frankly, there are lots of hardbacks I’d never purchase that I’ll download with no second thought. This is the true magic of the eBook concept and what will make the concept succeed — however, that’s a concept bigger than just the Kindle.

4. Think it, buy it, anywhere (if you’re not in Montana): The EVDO wireless connection is incredibly fast when it comes to downloading books. (However, there are some spots where it doesn’t work, I’ve read.) This aspect of the Kindle is truly phenomenal. Indeed, if anything about the device is radically disruptive, it’s the way in which cellular technology is being used in a device that is not a mobile phone.

5. I can read it even if I can’t find my glasses: I’m farsighted so I appreciate the way in which the type can be enlarged so that I can read easily.

6. The e-mail a document to Kindle feature: The way in which you can email documents to your Kindle (a way to get documents onto the device if you don’t have it hooked to your computer) is very creative. (You send the document as an email attachment for 10¢ a document.)

7. The Amazon Digital Libary: They get an A+ for this feature: When you purchase an eBook from Amazon, a record of the purchase is kept in your Amazon account’s digital library so that you can download it again. (Long-time readers of this blog may know why I’m a fan of Amazon’s approach in this department.)

8. The funky web browser is so bad, it’s good: The web browser is labeled “experimental,” but I find it entertaining to see websites striped of most graphics and advertising — reminds me of 1995. A text-heavy site like Wikipedia (or, say, SmallBusiness.com) actually “work” on the Kindle. Most traditional sites (except, perhaps, those that a optimized for mobile devices) lose lots in the translation.

Here are some things I don’t like about the Kindle:

1. The design of the hardware is off-the-charts bad: To be honest, I really wanted to be able to say that I thought Robert Scoble and others had gone over-board with their piling-on, kick-sand-in-the-face-of-the-dorky-kid observations of how crudely designed the usability aspects of the device are. But if anything, they’ve been nice. Every bad thing that’s been said about the buttons and the way one can carelessly click something and end up god-knows-where is absolutely true. There’s a button labeled “back,” for instance that I still am confused with after 10 days of using it. Using the Kindle has made me appreciate something I’ve never — and I mean never — appreciated before despite spending most of my adult life using computers all day, every day: The Cursor. The little blinking cursor — and I’m not talking about the arrow that shows up when you move a mouse around, but that blinking horizontal line that predates the mouse. That someone could design a digital device with a text display that has no cursor is bold, indeed. It’s also crazy.

2. Anything other than a book — as in a book that is primarily words on paper — displayed on the Kindle is awful: When they say you can purchase Time magazine on the Kindle, it’s the articles — the text only. This is a device that’s good for displaying text and illustrations that lack grays. I’m thinking Wall Street Journal before they went to color where every illustration was that pointalistic style — that might work on a Kindle. In other words, digimagazine fans, this is not your platform.

3. The book selection is puny: Wait, you say. I’m sure the Kindle may have access to more eBooks than any other source, but last Sunday, I was sitting with an author who has had a book on the New York Times Bestseller list that still sells thousands of copies each year as the title is used in college and high school courses. I was going to purchase the book to show the author how it’s done, except it wasn’t available. So we looked up other books by authors we know who have mid-list (back-list) books that continue to have book-club and assigned-reading sales, and, zilch, we came up empty. In other words, the title list for the Kindle is front-end loaded with books one will only find along the short-tail. I’m sure (?) this will rapidly change (a similar problem plagued the early iTunes Store) as publishers jump on the Kindle wagon — especially if the device is going to be marketed to college students. But for now, don’t expect to find those obscure titles you may think will be available.

4. Yet another proprietary format: I guess we’ll have to go through a decade or so of the whole DRM thing that has plagued the music industry. Lots of other folks have written about this, so I’ll just skip it for now and say, I can share print books with my kids or colleagues, but I can’t share Kindle books. Big conceptual flaw in the whole “future of books” thing.

Summary: Amazon is a great online retailer. Bezo’s desire to solve the eBook dilemma is valiant and the Kindle is a step in the right direction. But Kindle 1.0 should be purchased only by individuals who have a taste for 1970s Yugoslovian design and who will buy just about any gadget that comes along. I hope, however, that Amazon and others keep pushing the concept forward. I hope they actually listen to some of the bad reviews and bring in real designers to create the next generation of the device. I’m more convinced than ever, however, that if Apple were to offer an iPod Touch in a size similar to the display area of the Kindle — and, perhaps, support the Kindle format — it would revolutionize the eBook concept. As it is now, the Kindle won’t.

It’s December 1. (Sorry to break that news to any of you who may be thinking November just got started.) I realized it is December because I was just notified by Amazon that my “sold out” Kindle that was not going to be available until December 6 has just shipped. I mention this only because some over-hyping eBay sellers are suggesting the Kindle is going to be sold out until after Christmas (note: Amazon is saying the Kindle is temporarily out of stock — as my order indicates, they are not out of stock until after Christmas ).

Update: Despite evidence (a UPS tracking number that says my Kindle has been picked up in Louisville, Ky., to prove that Amazon has Kindles and is shipping them, apparently they are indeed saying they’ll not be available until after Christmas.

Note: Who knows? I may be selling a used Kindle on eBay in time for Christmas.

That reminds me: The 17-year-old is selling his PS2 with some Guitar Hero games and wireless guitar controller bundled-in. The auction ends tomorrow. With the proceeds and some help from Santa, he hopes to move his virtuosic Guitar Hero skills to an X-Box 360. Only Santa knows if his strategy will succeed.

There have been lots of good comments on my week-old post about the Amazon Kindle vs. a possible larger-format iPod Touch. Today, Michael Hyatt, CEO of Thomas Nelson Publishers (the sixth largest trade book publisher in America and the world’s largest publisher of Bibles and books for the Christian market) comments that Apple may now have a good 2/3rds solution to eBooks — a hypothetical larger format iPod Touch and the iTunes Store channel — but what they don’t have is a relationship with book publishers — and Amazon is most publishers #1 customer.

Says Mike:

“I completely agree. I would much rather have an Apple Touchbook than the Kindle (which I own). However, you’re forgetting one small detail. The device is only one-third the equation. iTunes is another third. So far so good. A seamless way to get content from the store onto the device. What Apple is missing is the RELATIONSHIPS. They don’t have any relationships with book publishers that enables them to get access to the content. (I know because I am the CEO of the Thomas Nelson. We are the sixth largest book publisher in the U.S.) Could Apple develop these relationships? Sure. My point is that they haven’t started and this is where Amazon has a leg up. For most of us, they are one of our largest customers—and we trust them.

Related: I’ve had several people email me saying they already read books on their iPhone. And one web-apps company has contacted me with a solution they offer related to reading an eBook this way. I’ll be trying out the different solutions — along with my review of the Kindle I’ve ordered — sometime in the next couple of weeks.

Later: Robert Scoble pops a blood vessel ranting after his first week’s use of the Amazon Kindle. Really, Robert, tell us what you really think about the Kindle. I lost count after the fifth, “Whoever designed this thing should be fired.” He then gives the designers the worst insult imaginable, “Did you hire some out-of-work Microsoft employees?”

Equal time: I point once more to Aaron Pressman’s positive review.

Longtime readers of this blog know I’ve always been a fan of 8020 Publishing (and JPG magazine). I started blogging about the founders when they announced their concept three years ago and later when their first issue was available. I also blogged about it when they announced they were going to expand the concept beyond JPG magazine and I lamented the startup challenges they faced when two of the founders left.

So today, I’m happy to see the New York Times has discovered them and has published a glowing profile.

Quote:

(CNet founder and investor in 8020 Halsey) Minor thinks he can also make money from old-fashioned print. Online readers vote on their favorite submissions appearing at JPGmag.com. Then a tiny staff of 10 designs a layout for the winners and about 50,000 high-quality slick-looking magazines are printed six times a year. They are sold through $25 annual subscriptions and on newsstands for $6 each.

Earlier this week, I linked to this TechCrunch item about a Google patent to, in Michael Arrington’s paraphrase of the patent-speak, “give users the ability to search and browse their own content, and receive an electronic or hard copy version of the final product. And that final product will include advertisements highly relevant to the user.” (As I noted at the time, Dear Google: Please sign me up as to beta-test this product.)

So, during this week of eBook reader hype, let’s consider the Google patent, the first-mover efforts of 8020, or, for that matter, the self-publishing services like Lulu.com or (for some Nashville-centric linking) the technology and unique distribution available through Lightning Source, an Ingram Book business unit that serves as the back-end for many on-demand book-publishing services. During this week when many seem obsessed with painting a picture of a future where print is only “replicated” on a digital device, let us remember that some primordial force is similarly pulling us in the opposite direction. Some force that makes bloggers love to see their names in print. Some force that makes people want to write or buy books about using technology, even technology that needs no explanation — need proof? There are multiple titles on how to use Flickr.

So, let’s not get carried away with the whole “print is dead” meme (Isn’t it ironic that such a book is available in hardback, and not eBook only?). Google understands it’s worth patenting something based on the proposition that print is not dying. And others get it, including Apple and Flickr and, obviously, HP does — they even have a wiki devoted to the topic of getting stuff you create digitally into print — using their technology, of course.

Related: Over the years, I’ve softened my stance on the notion that people may want to view a replication of a printed page on a digital device — but I’ve not completely come off the stance. (And a note to those who don’t read this blog: Obviously, I think people want to access damn-near everything digitally — I just don’t think the best “form” for accessing that material is in a way that replicates how the information appears in print.) Also, In February, I made some predictions about the future of magazines, one of which is likely to become a quote I’ll be known for forever in some circles: “As long as there are coffee tables, there will be magazines.”

Bonus points: The NY Times piece today includes the prerequisite Samir Husni quote.

Technorati Tags: 8020, lightningsource

First, let me say this: I will purchase an Amazon Kindle and will use it before I make any comments like, “it sucks,” or, “it’s the greatest device, ever.” However, from what I’ve read in this Newsweek cover story and in the Newsweek writer’s blog and on a post at PaidContent.org by Rafat Ali that outlines the Kindle’s specifications, I must say the reports leave me rather underwhelmed. I’m an Amazon.com fan and I hope I’ll one day say these initial reactions were wrong.

From where a sit (a publisher of magazines, a bibliophile, an info-gadget early adopter and a rather active customer of both companies I’ll be mentioning in this post, Amazon.com and Apple), here are some observations I have of the Kindle concept — again, not a review of the actual product, but observations and reactions to what has been revealed about the product and, frankly, the entire “eBook” reader concept. (Later: Seth Godin has a digital-age author reaction I didn’t consider.)

1. The Kindle has been under development since 2004 — and it shows: It sounds like a three-year-old feature set. Actually, it sounds like a 20-year-old feature set as very little about it is different from the eBook concepts anyone who has followed this niche for the past two-decades will know. Other than the marketing channel — we’ll always be connected to Amazon.com via wifi so we can download new content to our reader 24/7 — is there something radical about this? Again, because it’s Amazon and I allow them to know so much about my reading preferences, they’ll be able to market books better to me than, say, Sony. But is that what’s going to make me passionate about this device? No.

2. The following desperate-sounding quote from Jeff Bezos sets off my caution-meter: “This is the most important thing we’ve ever done…It’s so ambitious to take something as highly evolved as the book and improve on it. And maybe even change the way people read.” This quote concerns me for two reasons. One, he may actually believe it, which would mean that one of my all-time entrepreneurial heros is disconnecting with reality. Or two, and I’m guessing this is more the case, it’s an extremely important project — a passion, a cause — to him personally. I can understand this, as it’s something that has vexed the book publishing world for as long as anyone can remember, and, sure, Bezos would like to be the guy who solved it. Unfortunately, this means that everyone at Amazon who has been working on this has been creating a product to please the boss. And as much as I love Amazon.com, I’m not so sure it’s a winning idea to design a consumer electronic product for Jeff Bezos, who indicated to the Newsweek writer that an eBook reader “should be less of a whizzy gizmo than an austere vessel of culture.” (And from the looks of that device he’s holding on the cover of Newsweek, he got what he was looking for.)

3. There are not one, but two, elephants in this room: Apple and Google. (Actually, Microsoft and Yahoo! are also in the room, but they are rhino-sized, not elephant. And, come to think of it, there are all the other booksellers, both the chains and independents, and then there is Sony and I know, I know, I should really include the iRex folks but this room is just not big enough for all those animals.) Do I need to explain why? First, Google is always the elephant in the room when it comes to digitized books. But if you think about such Google moves as Android and how it will affect mobile access to the web, it doesn’t take rocket scientists (Bezo’s employs some of these, also) to conceive of how a more open platform than Amazon’s will be available to the market. As for Apple, I’ll get to that elephant in the room in point 5.

4. Is this all there is? At this price? Okay. Maybe I’m wrong — and I hope I am — but this just doesn’t sound like much. As my son (now 17) went through a few years of buying and selling hand-held videogame platforms, I was extremely impressed with each new iteration. The PSP finally convinced me that portable videogame platforms were way more than gaming platforms. Indeed, now Sony describes the PSP as, “the first truly integrated portable entertainment system designed to handle multiple applications – music, video, photo, internet, and wireless connectivity, with games as its key feature.” But as cool as the $169 PSP is, for $100 more you can have an iPod Touch or an iPhone — which makes a PSP look like a toy, which, uh, I guess a gaming platform is. My point is, however, look what’s happened to the world since 2004. All these flat little rectangular devices have flooded into the market and every few months, they’ll do more and more. And now, we’re at the point where we have a wide array of thin, rectangular wireless devices that will do practically anything a computer can do — and they cost less than what the Amazon Kindle costs.

5. Why do we need an eBook reader? This is directly related to my previous point, but it also relates to what I wrote 18-months ago when a flurry of rumors hit about Apple developing an eBook reader. That post was even before the iPhone and the iPod Touch, but anticipated there being such a device that filled the rectangle of an iPod with a touch screen. As I pondered then, if an iPod like that (which we now have, the iPod Touch) was increased to the size of a book, why would there be a need for an eBook reader? If via that device we could access movies, music, the web, our email, talk with anyone in the world, etc., etc., what good would an eBook reader be? Note to those not thinking about this stuff: every time you purchase an album from the iTunes store, and the liner-notes come along with the download — you’re purchasing an eBook via Apple. In other words, Apple already owns a rather commanding distribution engine to sell “eBooks” called the iTunes Store — a platform that is already syncing with software sitting on the desktops of millions and millions of Macs and PCs worldwide.

So there’s the other elephant in the room: Apple. All it would take is Steve Jobs announcing on January 15 a new “iPod Touchbook” that is the same size and price as a Kindle and poof, Apple has the distribution channel and Amazon has something akin to the Zune.

Okay, I’ll admit it: I’ll buy and review a Amazon Kindle, but what I really want my eBook reader to be is a Kindle-size iPod Touchbook (or what we call around here, Rumor #3). I guess since Apple doesn’t blog — they advertise and publicize and present and pronounce — I guess I am wasting my time blogging about this. Perhaps I should be sending this message to Apple in a way they might understand (Books are my girl frend…):

6. Ironic last point: If Amazon.com sold eBooks in a format that would be readable on my imaginary iPod Touchbook, I would purchase them via Amazon for the same reason I now purchase all my music via Amazon. Competition is good.