Nicolas Negroponte: The Physical Book is Dead in Five Years

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by kjk

Depends what quality the MP3 is. Apple's original digital files were 128kbps AAC-their new ones are 256kbps AAC. Amazon's are 256kbps MP3s. Both those formats are compressed. CD music files are WAVs, uncompressed. Copying MP3's or AACs at 256kbps to a CD won't match an original CD, in most cases.

Yes, thanks. Anyway, I'm happy with CDs and can convert to MP3.

And yes, DVD players can still play CDs.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Still... You know that most of that is available without paying the premium.

Actually, for the CDs I buy, it's not. I search the web before buying and if the CD has cover art/etc. that I want and I can't find it online (I'm not talking about just the front cover), then I buy the CD instead of downloading (assuming it's available for downloading).

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by kjk

Depends what quality the MP3 is. Apple's original digital files were 128kbps AAC-their new ones are 256kbps AAC. Amazon's are 256kbps MP3s. Both those formats are compressed. CD music files are WAVs, uncompressed. Copying MP3's or AACs at 256kbps to a CD won't match an original CD, in most cases.

Most, if not all, my downloads from Amazon have been at 320kbps. Whether the original wave file on a CD sounds better than an mp3 depends a lot on the quality of the original recording and the quality of the sound system playing it. Frankly, I can't hear the difference between a GOOD mp3 and the original wave.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Your assumptions are off. Most of the music I like was done by people who are now dead, lol. Lotsa cheapish CDs, especially if you buy used, as I do. I don't care about the packaging. I have a 400-disc changer, so I usually load the CDs, recycle the paper and take the jewel cases back to the CD store when I go. I don't listen to much pop music. I sometimes buy a Norah Jones album, for instance, but I don't pay more than $9.99 even if I buy new. Lotsa stores discount CDs to lure in customers.

I used to use a 400 CD changer but since I won't have room for the monster when I move in a year or two and my collection has outgrown it, I've ripped all my CDs to my computer (and yes, it's all backed up).

[RoboRay]

Hell, I'm still waiting for that $100 laptop he promised me 5 years ago.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by RoboRay

Hell, I'm still waiting for that $100 laptop he promised me 5 years ago.

Lol. Exactly. I wouldn't look to him for e-book predictions, either.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

I used to use a 400 CD changer but since I won't have room for the monster when I move in a year or two and my collection has outgrown it, I've ripped all my CDs to my computer (and yes, it's all backed up).

I hear ya. I'm not hauling my CD changer everywhere, lol. All my music is in MP3 form, too.

[mike_bike_kite]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

I'm one of the holdouts. I buy all my music on CDs. Better sound, and I have the originals to convert as I like. I don't plan to buy digital music unless I have no choice.

Sorry but CDs are digital music. From the wiki:

Red Book is the standard for audio CDs ...
An audio CD can represent frequencies up to 22.05 kHz, the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1 kHz sample rate.

The bit rate is 1411.2 kbit/s:

2 channels x 44,100 samples per second per channel × 16 bits per sample = 1,411,200 bit/s = 1,411.2 kbit/s.

As each sample is a signed 16-bit two's complement integer, sample values range from -32768 to +32767.

On the disc, the data are stored in sectors of 2352 bytes each, read at 75 sectors per second. Onto this the overhead of EFM, CIRC, L2 ECC, and so on, is added, but these are not typically exposed to the application reading the disc.

By comparison, the bit rate of a "1x" data CD is defined as 2048 bytes per sector × 75 sectors per second = 150 KiB/s, or approximately 9.2 million bytes per minute.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

Sorry but CDs are digital music. From the wiki:

Red Book is the standard for audio CDs ...
An audio CD can represent frequencies up to 22.05 kHz, the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1 kHz sample rate.

The bit rate is 1411.2 kbit/s:

2 channels x 44,100 samples per second per channel × 16 bits per sample = 1,411,200 bit/s = 1,411.2 kbit/s.

As each sample is a signed 16-bit two's complement integer, sample values range from -32768 to +32767.

On the disc, the data are stored in sectors of 2352 bytes each, read at 75 sectors per second. Onto this the overhead of EFM, CIRC, L2 ECC, and so on, is added, but these are not typically exposed to the application reading the disc.

By comparison, the bit rate of a "1x" data CD is defined as 2048 bytes per sector × 75 sectors per second = 150 KiB/s, or approximately 9.2 million bytes per minute.

Lol, OK. Shrug.

[fjtorres]

Negroponte is known for his tendency to overstate everything.
He's never met a technological concept he couldn't hype beyond all reason.
And yet...
...this time I wouldnt be as quick to dismiss him as I normally would...
For two reasons:

1- He explicitly states that ebooks won't obliterate print; just that they will become the *dominant* form of publishing. As in the form that sets the rules for the other forms, the terms for debate, defines the economics of the industry. And this *is* happening. *NOW*. Why else would we be debating orphan book copyrights? Why else would writers/agents be warring with publishers over backlist contract rights? Why else would authors be looking to take back their copyrights from publishers? eBooks are disrupting the existing business models and setting new guidelines. They are changing the production process right *now*. It is easy to see a whole new publishing paradigm where the new ebook-centric production processes change the economies of print books away from batch printing to print on demand. So ebooks don't *have* to obliterate print books to dominate the industry.

2- Having been around the block once or twice, I've seen these kinds of transitions before: from LP to CD, from Video Tape to DVD. In both cases, the transition starts slower than expected, then it hits a critical mass among early adopter consumers, and then retailers bail out *before* the majority of consumers is ready. Do a little digging and you'll find reports of LP buyers griping about being forced to buy CDs because the record stores switched out LPs overnight. And the complaints of VHS renters when DVDs took over were likewise loud and abundant.

What makes me think Negroponte may not be all that far off base this one time is the concept of tipping points. In both the LP-CD, and VHS-DVD transitions, the tipping point for *retailers* came before the tipping point for consumers. In both cases, early adopters triggered the tipping point by transferring the profitability of one format to the other so mass-market retailers *had* to switch their focus just to survive, even if it meant that the numerically superior but economically less powerful late adopters got left behind.

We need to remember that when it comes to retail, "some animals are more equal than others". Yes, there are 50 million americans that buy less than 10 books a year. There are also 30+ million that buy *more* than 24 a year. In market power, those 30 million outweigh the 50 million because not only do they buy more books, there are more likely to be buying the more expensive hardcovers. They control more of the market they control the *profits* of the industry.

As the 30 million move their purchases to ebooks, the center of gravity of book *retailing* moves away from print to ebooks. And the tipping point *is* going to come long before crossover. The pbook business is going to lose its profitability long before ebooks start outselling paperbacks. Count on it.

eBooks are coopting the "best" customers away from the print book business, cherry-picking the heavyiest buyers, the most afuent. This *is* happening. Now. And it is not going unnoticed.

Why is Barnes and Noble so aggressively looking to establish Nook as a big-time player, even at great financial stress to the company? Because they know they need the ebook customers to survive. Because they know they can't survive solely on their share of the 50-million casual readers; those customers don't geerate enough high-margin sales to pay the bills.

Why have the BPHs so aggressively tried to slow ebook adoption? Even though ebooks are more profitable than print books? Because they fear the tipping point; they fear that even ebook profits won't outweigh the p-book losses to come in that critical period between the defection of the heavy readers and the final marginalization of p-books. Having failed to adopt POD tech for pbooks, they are now too deeply vested in a pbook infrastructure that *needs* pbooks to be dominant to achieve enough economies of scale for their batchprint business model to produce profits.

To me, it is looking very likely that pbooks will cease to be profitable for retailers long before ebooks outsell them, industrywide. Whether the tipping point comes when ebooks make up 30% or 40% of the industry I don't know---I'm no insider---but from what I can see of the profit margins of pbooks, freely priced ebooks, and Price-fixed ebooks, I suspect the tipping point is going to be closer to 25% than to 50%.

ebooks are now running about 8% of the revenue of the BPHs and probably a bit more of the total industry. We've seen predictions of 25% in a few years. Shortly after that, things are going to get nasty. Because at some point after that, ebooks will be 30-40% of the revenue but well over 50% of the *profits* in the industry. They might even ake up *all* the net profits of the industry. At that point, retailers will start seeing pbooks as more of a cost center than a profit center and we'll see B&N and Borders closing/converting/whatever their storefronts at a furious pace because, unlike the LP-CD and video transitions, you can't just repurpose a bookstore into an ebookstore. Once the 30 million are gone, they're gone. They'll have little use for the storefront.

And at that point we'll see the griping and hand-wringing of the casual readers and the luddites reach fever pitch as print books become harder to find, more expensive, and possibly even vanish entirely from some locations; supermarkets, department stores, newstands... It won't matter if the 50 million are ready to move to ebooks or not; the economics of print simply won't work out.

That is how the earlier transitions played out and that is how his one is going to play out. One day we'll walk into a WalMart or a Target and see the usual rack of discounted bestsellers and a week later they'll be gone, replaced by a different traffic-generator product because pbooks will no longer generate enough trafic to justify the floor space. Overnight, print books will become a lot harder to find.

And this will happen long before ebooks outsell print books.
When?
Definitely before ten years.
Five years? Probably.
But it would not shock me if it began in three.

[shanghaichica]

It will happen but not that soon I dont think. I can see a time when paper books will become largely confined to public libraries.

[J. Strnad]

I think that public libraries will be among the first to dump them. They don't have the money to maintain the purchases and shelf space. You'll have to go to private collectors (and there are lots of book hoarders) to find print books.

[mikij]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Yes, thanks. Anyway, I'm happy with CDs and can convert to MP3.

And yes, DVD players can still play CDs.

Digitalized music (compressed or not, even CDs), by its nature (0 and 1) is always of lesser quality than the analog one. Curves are always at least a little bit squared and sample rate should be unbelievably high to pick up every transient that exists on the original analog recording (where the master exists). Even for music captured by digital devices, this "squaring" still exists, but filters mask and "improve" a sound. However, the transients will still be missing. But, with today's music there is not much to do: no fine guitar nuances (is this instrument still used ? LOL), even the singers that can't sing do the albums that sounds correctly (voice pitching software will fix their wrong singing and adapt it to the instrumental part and nobody will even notice something was wrong).

Vinyl is back and their sales, although still small, increase a lot every day. But not every Rihanna or Britney Spears will use them. They reveal too much the lack of talent. Vinyl is for the people who know the music and the good real warm sound. My ears are no more what they used to be, but there is still a huge difference (on a good stereo system) between a vinyl and any MP3.

However, vinyl will never be as portable as digital music. And if you are in a subway, you won't be able to bring your collection of vinyls (and fill the whole wagon), neither you'll take 200 CDs with you. MP3 player will be correct.

Books are different at the point that letters are letters. no matter paper or electronic version. No loss of characters or words (no "squaring").
pBook could be like vinyl - warm by touch, with a smell; eBook can be like any digital form. If you are at home an you have a pBook collection you like, you can read it. If you have an eBook version of the same, you can read it either. While commuting, you can use either (but if the books are heavy, you won't be able to bring two of them to continue reading when you finish the first one during the travel - something you can do with a reader).
It's personal.

So, to return to the topic - I don't believe Negroponte's prediction is correct. There will always be those who like any of the two forms of reading and maybe even those who will continue to buy both forms (not of the same book). I grew up surrounded by thousands of books, but now I appreciate my reader and the possibility to bring with me dozens of selected books and read any whenever I want. But when at home - I have a choice.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by mikij

Digitalized music (compressed or not, even CDs), by its nature (0 and 1) is always of lesser quality than the analog one...

Strictly speaking, this is true but, assuming both are high quality reproductions, it takes some pretty expensive equipment and a really good ear to hear the difference. Not very many people are going to be able to hear the difference and even fewer are going to be willing to pay for the equipment required. Also, analog has to be recorded on media that is subject to wear and tear which will eventually degrade the quality of the sound. Digital media is subject to similar wear and tear but, due to its nature of each sound sampling being all or none, still can be played at the original quality despite wear and tear of the media (up to a point, of course). Also, as long as the wear and tear is not too bad, a digital recording can be reproduced on fresh media and be as good as the original recording. So, basically, analog will sound better initially but will degrade over time but digital can maintain its quality over time.

Originally Posted by mikij

...Vinyl is for the people who know the music and the good real warm sound. My ears are no more what they used to be, but there is still a huge difference (on a good stereo system) between a vinyl and any MP3...

There has been a huge debate regarding the "warmer" sound of vinyl over digital. My experience had been, other than really obsure nuances digital may not pick up, digital sounds closer to a live performance than vinyl. I much prefer the brighter sound of a live performance (sans the faint sound of someone clearing their throat, people shuffling in their seats, or applauding during or just before the end of a piece but then there are people who like those sounds; that's a whole 'nuther debate) over the warmth of vinyl. I suspect many people prefer the warmth because they grew up with it. I also prefer the convenience of not having to hassle with trying to take care of a vinyl disk that will eventually wear anyway no matter how careful I am. I like being able to put together playlists from multiple albums that can play for several hours with no attention from me. I like the idea I can put up to thirty hours worth of music in my car stereo and not be at the mercy of broadcast stations that may or may not (generally not) play what I like to listen to, especially when driving a stretch of road that has no stations I like (I'm a persnicketive old bitch).

Btw, I'm not knocking people for prefering vinyl over digital; I'm just pointing out it is just a preference and not necessarily better.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by mikij

There will always be those who like any of the two forms of reading and maybe even those who will continue to buy both forms (not of the same book).

Are you sure *both* forms will be available to buy? Forever?
That it will always make economic sense to print books for mass market sale?
That the future will be exactly like the past or the present?

Negroponte's comment is about market dominance, not reader preference.
Just because people may *want* to read print books doesn't mean there will be new ones printed, or sold, or sold at affordable prices. Mr Strnad is most likely right; print books will most likely endure as only limited edition collectibles.

Yes, vynil is back. Sorta.
Although it never really went away; it always endured as a niche product for the golden ears crowd. Nonetheless, vynil is more popular now than it has been in decades. Only thing is, the average price of a vynil album these days runs north of US$20, whereas in the pre-CD days they ran US$5. The only way new vynils are viable is at a 4X traditional price. (Or double the CD price; take your pick.) Not the best example for the future of print books as a mass market product.

It is one thing to talk about people's preferences and another to talk about economic forces. If the volume of print book sales declines to the point a new release has to sell for $50 to justify even a POD edition those preferences are going to change pretty quickly.

As an ivory tower theoretician Negroponte tends to overvalue technology and underestimate economic effects but this time I suspect he's closer to being right than is his wont.
It may not take five years for print books to be marginalized but I still think it'll happen sooner than most people realize.
Or would prefer.

The way the wind is blowing, the economics are going to have the final word.