Media

2009-04-14

Some newspapers, that is the media companies who own them, are going about the e-reader thing the wrong way. If they got together and offered a single reader you could subscribe to hundreds of papers and other media outlets, they just might pull it off. What they are doing is coming out with their own hardware and service structures that are way over priced.

Amazon and Sony have the e-book market summed up for the moment. The papers should partner with one or the other of them. That isn't going to happen either.

I don't want fifteen pieces of equipment to get news. I used to have a TV. Then I had the TV and computer. Now I have my computer and my phone. Many people have netbooks, or whatever they call them this week. They sell like hot cakes and look like the next big thing. Netbooks can do all of the things these readers can do and many functions of both a phone and a laptop. It looks like they are cheaper than the readers. I don't get it. Why would any one buy an e-reader except for the form factor and coolness ration.

Here is a thought; TV was basically free before cable. News papers used cost the reader less than the cost of printing. Advertisements paid for the rest. Something very interesting that has happened lately is the cost of gathering information has gone through the roof. I have to pay for internet access at home and on our phones. I pay for the devices separately. I pay for the content directly What happened? I used to drop $0.50 on a paper and a couple bucks on a TV every fifteen years.

Then comes the whole debacle over having the machine read aloud or not. Some say it violates the voice actor's rights or something. For God's sake. Who has the patent on reading with one eye closed? This is getting ridiculous. Next they will say you have to pay them for the privilege of shining a light on your document.

[end]