Moving newspapers to e-ink has already begun

William Gibson was certainly right when he said "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet." But not for long. The New York Times has a very interesting piece on newspapers going e-paper -- and we aren't talking Internet editions. Besides the obvious discussion of dynamic ads, how much e-papers will cost, and the when, where, and how, we're presented with something interesting: De Tijd, a Belgian financial newspaper, has already put their paper on iLiad e-ink eBook readers; Les Echos in Paris, the IFRA group in Germany, The New York Times, as well as the International Herald Tribune are all in discussions to roll out e-newspaper subscriptions for devices like Sony's Reader later this year. Sure, for now it's still in monochrome, but that won't be for long; besides, it was Earth Day this weekend, people, time to make some sacrifices. Think of the trees, won't you?

[Michiel @ Apr 24th 2006 10:06AM]

I hope they will continue making the monochrome versions. I don't want color, the cheaper black and white one will do fine.

[ty @ Apr 24th 2006 10:11AM]

Agree with #1 ... hope feature creep doesnt sink in and bloat the readers with unecessary crap like mp3 players, fm radio, video, gps, etc. Just give me a long lasting, durable, portable e-book reader.

[mG @ Apr 24th 2006 10:17AM]

Please not again.
Every time they bring out e-books, I just shake my head.

To the e-book industry try to avoiding the following, to aleaset give these new technologies a chance:

1) Expensive readers. Yes, I know they are cutting edge but it's hard to justify spending $300+ just to read a few books.

2) Expensive content. Why would you assume that you can charge the same price or even more for electronic formats? People understand value.

Making a book involves not only printing but physical delivery. As consumers we understand this and are willing to pay accordingly. But making a binary copy? There is no cost of materials (electrons are free), embarrassing low manufacturing cost (think CPU cycles), crazy cheap overhead (cheap disk space) and an even cheapening delivery (internet access).

How about charging a few bucks more for both instead?

3) Restrictive DRM. Yes I know you need to protect your copyright, but most professional thieves will handily crack whatever measures you come up with. That leaves us law abiding folks, wondering my DRM music won't play when a faulty Nic card is replaced.

4) Proprietary Formats. I know you want to monetize every aspect of the process, but why do we have to jump through hoops, converting simple text files into proprietary binaries just to read them on an expensive reader?


I personaly wonder if they do these things just to make sure nothing ever succeeds.

[LoonyLeif @ Apr 24th 2006 10:20AM]

Now the question is, who would want to read these new papers? Who wants to spend ~200 dollars for a reader, then subscription fees to read the paper on the bus when there's still the paper edition?

I know, it's cool. But is this even worth the effort?

[Yvan @ Apr 24th 2006 10:21AM]

Finally !
I want one.
When I saw the fist Mac in 84, to me It was a big Ebook reader and I always dreamed that in the future i'd find a portable version. I do most of my reading lying down or in an other non suitable place for a computer.
And I know some computer illiterate people who might make the plunge for ebook reader,audio players and digital cameras, but because they are all computer dependant they won't.
There should be a way to get content without the use of a computer. Maybe It could be sold at the corner book or record store on cheap flash cards?

[Todd @ Apr 24th 2006 10:33AM]

Last gasp of an extinct medium - seems cruel to keep it on life support with some new PROPRIETARY hardware device that no one will buy.

T

[rodJoh. @ Apr 24th 2006 10:34AM]

e-paper? thats ironic

[Mathew Sim @ Apr 24th 2006 10:38AM]

Your radical ideas about newspapers have already occurred to Neal Stephenson.

[YEDDI @ Apr 24th 2006 10:39AM]

E-edition papers are not new. Gannett Publishing has been going to E-Editions for little over 2 years with their papers. The paper in our town made the change August of 2005. The paper sends a PDF copy to a company and they host it. After you long into the newspapers site it opens like a newspaper and you can click on the different stories as they appear in the hard-copy of the paper to enlarge them. The best part of this is our soldiers who are stationed abroad can read the "hometown paper". You can print coupons and other advertisements. Our newspaper is charging just a few more dollars extra to print and e-editions subscribers to cover the cost of hosting the paper. I love it because I can access my newspaper anywhere I go on business.

[Axel @ Apr 24th 2006 11:06AM]

I was really looking forward for all those eInk Displays, BUT:

- I need a resolution of at least 768x1024 (otherwise most PDFs look bad, try it yourself), goodbye Sony
- I need background lightning, goodbye IRex
- I need page switching in a fraction of a second to scroll through not 2 (!) seconds per page, goodbye IRex
- I need something available here, goodbye rest

So I bought a used Compaq TC1000 tablet on EBay for roughly US$700.

Battery lasts nearly 4 hours when reading ebooks, it's nice, compact and _very_ useful, because it does so much more than just reading ebooks.

Wake my up when eBookReaders are:

- light, fast and have a background display
- do NOT feature WLAN, mp3, etc. because it makes them expensive, heavy and sucks batteries
- have _at least_ 768x1024 with at least a 10" display
- do not cost > $200
- can read PDF, HTML, no DRM shit


Man... how can someone implement such a disappointment like the IRex?

[bob @ Apr 24th 2006 11:09AM]

THIS REMIND ANYONE ELSE OF THE FILM "BIG" LOL

[RobERT @ Apr 24th 2006 11:11AM]

I want one - but want to see it in person.
And, yes, content is too expensive.
But there is free:
http://www.gutenberg.org/
Lots of great classics available there to download.
The top 12:
-The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci � Complete by Leonardo da Vinci
-Little Journeys to the Homes of the Great - Volume 01 by Elbert Hubbard
-Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
-Kamasutra by Vatsyayana
-How to Speak and Write Correctly by Joseph Devlin
-Project Gutenberg "10K" DVD
-The Dor?allery of Bible Illustrations, Complete
-The Art of War by 6th cent. B.C. Sunzi
-The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
-The Time Machine by H. G. Wells
-Ulysses by James Joyce
-The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

This will be great for lots of budding writers and comic book artists.

[jared @ Apr 24th 2006 11:14AM]

It would be nice to start paying for actual content where books are concerned. No more full-cost replacement for lost or destroyed copies of a book I've already purchased the right to read. And I would love to replace my untold pounds of books with a hard drive and a few different eInk form factors, especially some that mimic the physical experience of holding a book and turning pages. Imagine using DRM to lend an expensive engineering text to a colleague (or every grad student in your seminar) while retaining full use of it yourself.

But frankly, I can't think of a worse application for eInk than reading the daily news on the train to work. Real paper is cheap to the point of disposability, and moderately robust in the face of harsh environments and clumsy usage. A $300 eInk platform has exactly one useful feature (handsfree page turning) and (as far as I can tell) none of the other benefits of paper.

Try again, monkeys!

[Gaz @ Apr 24th 2006 11:39AM]

That's cool. I hope my fingers don't get covered in e-ink though.

[Lizzy @ Apr 24th 2006 11:44AM]

First of all, surely it has occurred to everyone that these things will drop in price once the concept becomes more common. This will also mean that companies will produce them with more options and allow people to purchase readers with the ability to read a wide variety of file types (see DAPs). Second, let�s say that ebook purchases remain the same price as the print media purchases. Is it really such a pain to buy a gadget which will eliminate so much of the waste that hard copy books and papers use? I�m no expert of course, but the first things that come to mind are energy to print and produce media, exhaust and fuel consumption to deliver it and then the media itself � most people do not save newspapers for home libraries. This is particularly true of e-ink books as they use so little battery power.

[Brian @ Apr 24th 2006 11:44AM]

Now all thats left is for Sony to come up with some stupid format and and try to rent us newspapers and books! And under the bottom panel please permanently insert your credit card, you will be charged for every line of text.

[Troy @ Apr 24th 2006 11:45AM]

Not to flame anyone, (#2) and other monkeys.

Yes again. E-books are here as are the readers.

Right, it�s costly now, but that�s sort of the new tech thing works, as I see it. The price will come down when e-ink works itself in the market.

Expensive content? Please, content does cost money, as we pay our artists. You should use the free e-book readers and books from your local Library.

I think people are smarter then understanding the cost of a newspaper or book is more then the physical cost to manufacture. To say that there is no cost to make an e-resource shows your lake of knowledge on this topic.

Formats and copyrights, well this is not a new topic unique to this media.

From the front lines of the Library, we welcome and embrace e-books and understand the business of making it a reality.

[rodJoh. @ Apr 24th 2006 12:07PM]

I don't get the earth day comment. Maybe it was sarcastic. But thecnologic trash is also bad for the enviroment.

[glacia00 @ Apr 24th 2006 12:14PM]

Newspaper reporting is a medium that is well worth saving. And if this can help save it I'll buy one.

In spite of the proliferation of other news medium almost all investigative journalism is still done by newspapers. Someone will mention blogs but honestly they're more gossip and opinion than news.

TV and the internet are fine ways to distribute news. And they do an adequate job of finding the obvious like a fire or car chase but with few exception newspapers are still the sole source for news that can only come from hard investigation. It�s undervalued because it�s something that you don�t notice when it�s gone. You won�t notice a scandal �not� being reported.

It will never happen but it would be great if we could find a way to save the idea of newspapers. The idea that bringing real news is of value.

[Jason @ Apr 24th 2006 12:38PM]

#17 -- Screw newspapers. Around where I live there are only local editions and liberal-slanted papers. If I got an ebook I could download whatever newspaper I want, from any part of the world (if it catches on, that is).

I do a LOT of reading -- however, reading off of a computer screen or a PDA will hurt your eyes after a while. That these ebooks don't actually use refresh rates will make reading them sooo much easier. I'd buy one -- but then again, I read constantly -- for those of you who'd rather just play with all of your other gadgets, this isn't for you.

[Icelander @ Apr 24th 2006 12:43PM]

The iPod is successful because it plays music well. It does other stuff (calendars, contacts, a couple games, photos, now videos), but it got successful because it made listening to music you had on your computer easy to do. Plug it in, it syncs, unplug it, and you have your music on the go. Other companies seem to think that it's the hardware that makes the iPod desirable, but it's really the software.

Unless eBook readers make reading content as easy (plug it in, sync books, PDFs and RSS) and convenient (reflective, not transmissive screens, durable, water-resistant, and possibly solar powered) as reading paper, I'll still prefer paper books and news articles.

[Icelander @ Apr 24th 2006 12:45PM]

Paper is probably worse for the envrionment than a gadget. It weighs more, it takes up a lot of space, recycling it is very energy and water-intensive, and it uses just as many nasty chemicals as making the e-paper. And if this allows people to consume hundreds of newspapers and dozens of books over its lifetime, that's a lot more material that doesn't have to be processed through the system.

1,000 pounds of paper vs. a few ounces of gadgetry.

[Alex @ Apr 24th 2006 12:56PM]

I do think that 200-300 dollars for a reader is steep for a realer but millions of people dropped the same amount for iPods just to play mp3 files which they then had to buy at an aditional cost (unless we harnessed the pirate inside us). I think once there is a viable amount of content, like daily worldwide nespapers, magazines, and novels, they will be a great investment because they'd be so versitile. Dunno about a color option though, I hope when they hit the market they're smart and consumer-friendly enough to at the very minimum offer two different types of reader but it would be ideal for them to offer a bunch of different options to customize (for those mp3 lovin' junkies). But once again offering different options would jack up the price of no frills reader too.

[Basic Instinct @ Apr 24th 2006 1:21PM]

I think this is a fantastic idea, and to keep the black text is best makes it more realistic as reading a paper.

[John Ohno @ Apr 24th 2006 1:24PM]

To all of those who are stating that "it DOES take cost to produce content", I say this:
There are plenty of professional and professional-level media "producers" who generate such things for reasons other than the cash. For those, the money is not important. That's why you can go to http://creativecommons.org and look up a ton of freely licensed music and video that is often better than the crud you hear on the radio and TV every day, and why you can grab a Linux distro or BSD flavor for free and have it (generally, at least) be better in many ways.
Commercial interest to the exclusion of artistic passion is what drives us to drivel and brings what might be something great down to a level that's understandable to the average (read: dumb) 1st world citizen. I think that if someone refuses to do something without getting compensated for their time, then whatever they create is likely to be rather insipid in nature, since it has to cater to a likewise insipid consensus, instead of one of the many shining groups of statistical outliers that make individuality so great.
If the e-ink technology was made available, I'd get one. Hell, I might even build one. But I'm not going to support DRM, and I'm going to pay the original artists only if I feel they deserve it. I'll do this as legally as I can, mind you, and if that means I need to stick to Gutenburg, WikiSource, and FictionPress, so be it. But I will not pay for the development of technologies that take away my inherent right to free flow of information, nor the right of that information itself to be free.

Again, not to flame, but try and be a little more thorough when researching the basis of your beliefs, ok?

~John

[Jico @ Apr 24th 2006 1:56PM]

I'm sure there will be both lower-priced B&W models as well as ones for people who are willing to pay for color (such as myself). Let's not forget that newspapers have picures as well as text.

[sarcastor @ Apr 24th 2006 2:21PM]

you can get a rebadge gemstar ebook reader for $125.

http://www.ebookwise.com/ebookwise/ebookwise1150.htm

[Bloobie @ Apr 24th 2006 3:28PM]

You're forgetting a few important things about this technology and these devices. These are not LCD screens. e-ink is very low-power since it only requires power when the image changes and it is the closest thing in text quality to actual printed paper (which is far superior to your standard computer screen image)

[mG @ Apr 24th 2006 4:09PM]

#16 Said: "Expensive content? Please, content does cost money, as we pay our artists. You should use the free e-book readers and books from your local Library."

I don't mind paying the author his/her just due. But on average they recieve between 10-15%. So on a $15 book, the author only recieves $2.25!

On Amazon, I've noticed electronic editions going for an average of $1 less than the paperback edition.

Where are the savings from manufacturing, shipping and wharehousing?

[Reg @ Apr 24th 2006 9:17PM]

@Axel, I think you're missing the point on a number of levels. e-ink based eBook readers are not computers, tablets or PDAs, they are intended as the electronic equivalent of a printed book.

> I need a resolution of at least 768x1024 (otherwise most PDFs look bad, try it yourself), goodbye Sony

The pixel count is only relevant when the size of the screen is taken into account. The true resolution should be thought of in dots per inch (dpi).

The higher the dpi, the more "print like" the text becomes. The forthcoming crop of readers have a resolution in excess of 140 dpi, which gives very crisp text.

The current generation of readers are designed to represent roughly the size and appearance of a real, hardback book. Letter sized PDFs could be chopped in half to fit this form.


> I need background lightning, goodbye IRex

You're thinking of a computer again. A real book doesn't have backlighting, and most people find them easier to read than a computer screen. Backlights are made of flueorescent tubes, which have an imperceptible flicker that can cause eyestrain from long periods of reading.

An e-ink display is closer in form and function to a printed book page.


> I need page switching in a fraction of a second to scroll through not 2 (!) seconds per page, goodbye IRex

I don't think the iRex takes that long (it's not even out yet, that could be the prototype spec), but again, this is the equivalent of turning a book page with your thumb, not a web page refresh that you are scrolling through by clicking a scroll bar.


> I need something available here, goodbye rest

Well, if they want to make money, they'll have to find a way of selling them to the largest market.


> So I bought a used Compaq TC1000 tablet on EBay for roughly US$700.

That's an okay tablet, but it isn't the same as an e-ink eBook reader. It has fluorescent tubes to backlight the screen, which is less than 100 dpi.

Reading the latest Harry Potter book on it for 10 hours straight is going to be far harder on the eyes.


> Battery lasts nearly 4 hours when reading ebooks, it's nice, compact and _very_ useful, because it does so much more than just reading ebooks.

If you need a computer, get a computer. But it isn't the best eBook reader. (Bestides, an e-ink reader's battery life could be measured in weeks...)


> Wake my up when eBookReaders are: light, fast and have a background display

Wait for the next generation.


> do NOT feature WLAN, mp3, etc. because it makes them expensive, heavy and sucks batteries

True.


> have _at least_ 768x1024 with at least a 10" display

For 10", you'd want a higher pixel count than that to give crisp, clear text.


> do not cost > $200

Wait for the generation AFTER the next.


> can read PDF, HTML, no DRM shit

The forthcoming generation can read the first two. I agree DRM sucks. The book publishers are thinking like the record industry. I can see their point that they don't want one buyer emailing a book to all their friends. I don't know the solution.


> Man... how can someone implement such a disappointment like the IRex?

Many eBook watchers think the iRex iLiad is the best of breed of the current generation. Guess we'll need to see it in the flesh.

[Wry Cooter @ Apr 24th 2006 11:06PM]

I WOULD want some feature enhancement. Bookmarking, Saving excerpts to clipboard or scrapbook. Search. Or how about interactive games such as crosswords or sudoku?

I think the only way to START to get people to buy the ebooks, is to make any DRM lenient and fair, and give away tons of material with the purchase price; a built in Dictionary or Encyclopedia, some subscriptions, and public domain classics.