Their time has almost gone. There may be some opportunity for established brands that can charge market rates or even a premium to cover printing and distribution costs, but I am convinced that 99% of the print newspapers and magazines that exist today will be dead or online-only by the year 2014.I've talked about the impact of Gutenberg's printing press on my old graduate school blog before -- see Bible study: Comparing Gutenberg's invention with the rise of the World Wide Web.
It's sad, but it reminds me of the passing of illuminated manuscripts in the decades following Gutenberg's invention in 15th century. It was the end of a way of life for many people, businesses, and institutions, including scribes and the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, the changes that came as a result of the invention of the printing press were far-reaching and ultimately wondrous to behold. They led to other inventions and trends that are still being felt today.
I feel that the advent of the Internet and several other related technologies (such as the browser and LCD screen) are creating a similar period of disruption, but ultimately a host of opportunities for people and publishers. It will be sad to see magazines and newspapers close, but I am also very excited about what the future holds.
Integration between Facebook and major news sites that let members track what their friends are reading and recommending.I actually meant to say "narrow AI," not "limited AI". I first heard the term when I read Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near
The continued shakeout of news and trade pubs. In many markets, it's going to be a "last man standing" situation, or even complete failure of established brands, which will lead to new opportunities for smaller ad-supported online publishers and niche subscription services.
Low-cost mobile data networks. The ridiculous data fees charged by carriers can't hold up, and when they come down, the adoption of smart mobile devices will soar, along with content optimized for mobile devices.
Limited "AI" technologies – perhaps developed in concert with crowd-sourcing apps -- that allow people to effectively filter the information overload.
, and interviewed him for Computerworld. He was referring to limited applications of artificial intelligence -- a program that uses AI technologies to do a very specific task. This is opposed to "strong AI," which Kurzweil described to me as "human-level AI, artificial intelligence that could pass the Turing Test.", will have on the future of publishing?Mobile devices are clearly the future, and add fuel to the bonfire of long-form news content. People are already leaning to short-form content thanks to Digg and information overload, and the mobile trend fits right into this. No one wants to read a 2000-word feature on their iPhone, and will even click off an 800-word article if it takes too long to scroll through or breaks to a second page.
I have already started instructing my writers to write short-form content that is under 400 words and concentrates on one or two specific issues, as opposed to attempting to summarize the whole story. Background can be linked off. It's perfect for readers' shorter attention spans and [the formats on] mobile devices.
I have to admit that I didn't fully answer his question -- I was thinking more of news and magazine content as opposed to books. While there is a trend toward shorter news/features/commentary on the Web and on mobile devices, I am not sure how things will pan out in the book world. And despite the attraction of short-form content, people still love stories, and it will be interesting to see where the Kindle/e-book experimentation leads.
I actually think Twitter is a very effective medium for delivering short-form content on the Web and mobile devices, and is one of the most effective barometers for breaking news ever invented. If there's an earthquake in L.A., the spike of reports will be noted on Twitter long before AP or CNN lumber into action.
Digg serves as a useful tool for people inundated by potential sources of information. It aggregates large numbers of news articles on specific topics, and lets users rate them, which in theory provides people with a very effective way of finding things of interest without wasting lots of time browsing multiple sites or search engines.
I think the problem with Digg and Twitter, and this is something that I alluded to earlier, is that they can be manipulated. I get kind of peeved when I see the top trending topics on Twitter are groups trying to promote an event or cause, such as #ces2009 on Twitter. Digg is notorious for being manipulated by paid gangs and artificial networks of friends who automatically vote up each others submissions, regardless of the quality. I have to admit that I myself sometimes ask my friends to vote up content from my own site, because I honestly believe it's quality content that deserves to be seen by a wider group of people. However, I never pay anyone for this and always use an account with my full name and title.
In the future, I think there will be better tools that help people find information that is useful and helpful for them, and is less susceptible to manipulation. I look forward to location- and time-based filters ("let me see all of the posted video within a 200-ft radius of Times Square between 12:00 and 12:02 am on January 1") as well as a Facebook tool that tracks the news articles that my friends like.
A lot of people drank the Second Life Kool-Aid in 2006 and 2007, and got burned when it didn't pan out as a magical place to do business or attract new customers. Several news organizations attempted to set up outposts in SL and failed to make any impact on their audience or newsgathering mission. Wired and Reuters spring to mind as examples. I actually remember someone in IDG floating the idea of building a brand outpost in SL at a meeting after some PR agency pitched it. I and another colleague objected, and nothing ever came of it, thankfully.Some of my other answers from the interview:
That said, there is a value in Second Life for understanding news. It is a visual medium, and is very much able to simulate places, objects, and events. Companies are already using SL to simulate products and demonstrate their services. At some point, I expect news organizations will use Second Life to simulate an event. Imagine a news organization that wants to explain to readers how a crime or fire took place, and using SL to model these events.
Second Life is also an effective way for people and small groups to communicate. I have reported on demonstrations (and counterdemonstrations) taking place in Second Life, and I expect these types of events will become more commonplace as they are easier to carry out than travelling to a site in person, and don't involve danger or embarrassment.
I love the idea that the old way of doing news – the one-way, mass communications model that put professional gatekeepers, experts, and people with connections in positions of great power – is being dismantled.Some of my other answers from the interview:
Web 2.0 is proof that the audience has power and knowledge that is often more relevant to understanding news than the so-called pros. I like the fact that Web 2.0 technologies empower individuals and lets new networks and communities have a say in the way news is generated and analyzed. The idea that it's possible for me to understand a news event based on the unfiltered video and text accounts of ordinary people at the scene – often amplified by the opinions and connections of other ordinary people -- is very, very significant. It has already begun to erode society's traditional power centers and will continue to help our democracy evolve in new ways.
Of course, these technologies and the ways in which they impact society can be very disruptive and even harmful. Mob mentality sometimes takes over in unpleasant ways by promoting false information and stifling certain opinions. I also dislike the way that these networks and technologies are often manipulated by powerful interests, and undermined by a culture of anonymity that often brings down the level of discourse.
Even with such porous roadblocks in place, the Internet has not made a huge impact on acceptance of Charter 08. More than 8,000 people have signed it, often after finding out about it through the 'Net, and many more undoubtedly sympathize with its tenets. The Washington Post cited the example of a cosmetology student who signed it as evidence that it is achieving a certain degree of mass support. But even if each of the 8,000 or so signatories had 100 other silent supporters who were too afraid to submit their own names, the total support would still be negligible -- less than 1% of the nearly 300 million Internet users in China.
