Despite all the problems with the
Kindle -- poor PDF support, low-contrast screen,
Orwellian fears -- it makes for a mighty-fine reading experience for users. From a publisher's perspective it stinks, with Amazon reportedly sucking down 70% of a sale's proceeds. Hearst Corp. (owner of the
Houston Chronicle,
Oprah Magazine, and many others) wants to set things right. For two years the company has been developing a digital content publishing and distribution service called Skiff, and it's nearly ready for its christening. Publishers will be able to render and ship their content to a number of devices, including the iPhone, but Hearst is also working on its own Kindle competitor that will be the flagship of the Skiff system (we've created an artist's mock-up above). Skiff promises better graphics and better layouts of digital content, which is encouraging, but it'll also allow the easy injection of advertising into paid content -- something we're less happy to see making the transition over from print.
As rumored many publishers are said to be signing on soon, with Sprint providing connectivity. That's great, but will you be coming aboard?
Update: We have a few more details courtesy of the
official press release, most interesting being news of a partnership with Marvell to develop a system on a chip for e-readers. Given that
Spring Design's Alex and the
Entourage Edge are both using Marvell chips, we wouldn't be surprised to find they've both been given a berth on this new venture. Also, Skiff is confirmed to be launching sometime in 2010.
posted December 4th 2009 7:41AM
I read the title and thought there were going to be funeral boats.
Its early
If we're going to be locked into platforms, I want cheaper hardware. Can I browse the web on an e-ink display reader? Ehh. Who cares? Make it cheaper and I'll get one, and suck down tons of content.
The Kindle is more compelling than something specific to magazines and newspapers (plus, I don't think anybody really has warm feelings towards Hearst & Co.).
Amazon is keeping 70%? That seems a little ridiculous.
@kpgalligan Yeah, weird right? Amazon 70, Publishers 30. And I'm assuming that is completely separate from Amazon's Kindle hardware sales. Compare that with Apple's App Store. It's the reverse. Apple 30, Developers 70. That seems fair.
With 30 e-ink devices on the market (and more coming out) there's only so much room at the top of the heap. The Kindle, and the Sony are well established, and The Nook seems set to join them. Unless Hearst does something dramatic with pricing on both the device and content, I don't see this making much of a dent in the market.
Being from Canada I want the ereader device to automatically sink up using my home WiFi to get my daily newspaper or digital version of Engadet. Using the Cell phone back bone to internet connectivity is a great idea if you live in a country that that have high speed internet cell companies that do not want to even buy you a dinner before they rape you.
I would even be willing to sign a 3 year digital content contract with the local newspaper if they supplied a ereader for free or nearly free. IE: I pay ~30 a month now for the newspaper so I would happily pay $5-10 a month for e-edition if was delivered via my home WiFi connection every morning on the newspaper's supplied ereader.
I'm sorry, I thought you wanted *customers* to read your material. If you want publishers to read it, it'll take quite a lot more work. See, they don't even accept unsolicited manuscripts...
I have great doubts about this device's ability to succeed. It doesn't sound like they're providing anything that any other device does, except ads. Even if the price is much lower than other competitors in the market, They're going to be late to the game, with yet another standard format. I'll still with my 505, thanks.
The best chance any magazine company is going to have at gaining new readers, is to offer free subscriptions. No one is going to pay for virtual magazines and these companies will then bleed advertisers, which are their bread and butter. The smartest thing they could do is to underwrite the cost of the e-readers, giving them out for little or no cost, along with the subscriptions, in the hopes the most people will look at their magazines. I, for one, would look at their magazines and accept a free e-reader, if the cost were zero. The magazine company would see a jump in readership, their ad revenues would jump and everyone would be happy. They could offer a premium, no-advertisement service for paying customers, but in the magazine world, that would put each magazine down to about 3 pages.
@Griffin
Am I the only one who also sees value in advertising when I flip through a magazine? I actually like to see relevant products in the publications I read. I think because print advertising is still relatively expensive that companies will spend extra dollars and effort to create something pleasing, whereas web ads often don't have this attribute.
Rosebud! Citizen Kane! Patty Hearst!
I registered just to yell that about the company.
I've owned a Kindle since they first hit the market. It's one of the best purchases I've ever made. But now the Kindle has new models with features I'd very much like to have. So on researching what I'd like to replace my Kindle with, a Kindle 2 has been at the top of my list. But having come across the Spring Design Alex reader and all it has to offer, I think I'm going to hold off a bit on my decision. If Spring Design can get Hearst behind them, that little company just might come out and surprise us all with the best reader on the market.
"...but it'll also allow the easy injection of advertising into paid content -- something we're less happy to see making the transition over from print."
Can we take this as a sign that engadget plans to abandon all the advertising that's currently plastered on each and every page of their site? Or are you just talking out of both sides of your mouth?
@hippocr8 I see you missed the word "paid" in that sentence. I suppose I should have bolded that... maybe underlined... itals too?
Anything Hearst should be avoided. They are the very definition of yellow journalism