Print On Demand: Major Announcement Could Change How You Buy Books

[xg4bx]

Print-on-demand (POD) books could soon be everywhere, according to a major announcement made today.

On Demand, the makers of the POD Espresso Book Machine currently installed in fewer than a hundred bookstores nationwide, have announced new partnerships with Eastman Kodak and ReaderLink Distribution Services.

Under the arrangement, the company's POD technology will be made available to retailers who have Kodak Picture Kiosks, currently installed in 105,000 locations according to Publishers Weekly, including drugstores and supermarkets.

ReaderLink, a major book distributor, will also bring book machines to more than 24,000 additional new outlets, as well as supplying commercially published titles to be printed on demand from the machines.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...m_hp_ref=books

[teh603]

Tomorrow's news: Kodak barely manages to avoid total liquidation following decades of bad management decisions.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by teh603

Tomorrow's news: Kodak barely manages to avoid total liquidation following decades of bad management decisions.

I thought Kodak was already being liquidated. I know they sold their nuclear reactor (really - they had one in a basement somewhere).

In any event, this is hardly a new idea.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by teh603

Tomorrow's news: Kodak barely manages to avoid total liquidation following decades of bad management decisions.

Kodak didn't really make bad management decisions any more than buggy whip makers made bad management decisions. As a chemical company (that's what they really were), there just wasn't really much space for them in the digital realm.

[robko]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Kodak didn't really make bad management decisions any more than buggy whip makers made bad management decisions. As a chemical company (that's what they really were), there just wasn't really much space for them in the digital realm.

Yes and no. Kodak holds a huge portfolio of patents on digital imaging that would have put them at the forefront of the technology if they had commercialized them. Instead they kept making buggy whips and let their competitors come up with other ways of doing digital so their patents aren't nearly as valuable now (OK, so that's a little oversimplified but they had the potential and played it safe with their known film products).

Unless they can make this change for free it's probably a bad overall decision as books are going to specialty for those who want hard copy or digital for the rest.

[Edward M. Grant]

That will be very cool if it works.

[DrNefario]

I'd prefer a machine that chewed up my pbooks and gave me an ebook.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by teh603

Tomorrow's news: Kodak barely manages to avoid total liquidation following decades of bad management decisions.

My thoughts exactly. Kodak had all the keys to the kingdom and squandered it away, exactly as the current big publishing houses seem to be doing with the book industry.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Kodak didn't really make bad management decisions any more than buggy whip makers made bad management decisions. As a chemical company (that's what they really were), there just wasn't really much space for them in the digital realm.

Of course they did, they could have chosen to invest in research and shifting the company in the new direction. Instead they dug in their heels and continued to focus on a dwindling market. ....

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I'd prefer a machine that chewed up my pbooks and gave me an ebook.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Kodak didn't really make bad management decisions any more than buggy whip makers made bad management decisions. As a chemical company (that's what they really were), there just wasn't really much space for them in the digital realm.

Kodak invented digital cameras in 1975. Rather than become the leader in the field, they put their eggs in the buggy whip basket.

[Apache]

And now they want to start printing books on demand? They still seem to be behind the curve to me, what with more people going to ebooks.
Apache

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Apache

And now they want to start printing books on demand? They still seem to be behind the curve to me, what with more people going to ebooks.
Apache

Dunno, I haven't seen any print- while- you- wait kiosks in the Houston area. So I'd say the market is largely untapped. Now we just have to wait and see if Kodak can roll out a high-speed printing process that provides good resolution.

As a side note, I could also see people going back to the old "And (number) color plates" notation as a way to give people some idea of how many expensive color pages will have to be printed.

Originally Posted by Apache

And now they want to start printing books on demand? They still seem to be behind the curve to me, what with more people going to ebooks.

It may be a smart business move. There will always be some demand for printed books. In a world that is dominated by ebooks, someone is going to be making money off of print on demand. That being said, Kodak is probably too big to be able to survive off of it.

It's also worth considering that Kodak was creating digital photography products for a very long time. The issue is that consumers weren't buying these new products. It's kinda hard to sell digital cameras when you're customers are only buying buggy whips.

[graycyn]

Originally Posted by Apache

And now they want to start printing books on demand? They still seem to be behind the curve to me, what with more people going to ebooks.
Apache

I could see it if you could get some rare, out-of-print texts that aren't available as ebook, but I rather expect such texts probably wouldn't be available by this route either, though I could be wrong.

So yeah, seems a bit behind the curve to me as well. Still, if, for instance, you could print large print books on demand, that might be useful for the visually challenged who don't care for e-readers.

I wonder what pricing would be like though.