MetaChat - Today I saw the future of the publishing industry

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

04 August 2007

Today I saw the future of the publishing industry . . . and wasn't particularly impressed.
→[More:]
I had heard about this new-fangled device called the Espresso Book Machine, which will allow bookstores and libraries to print single copies of books, both hardcover and paperback, from electronic files. The New York Times said that one of the machines was up and running and printing free books for the general public at the Science, Industry and Business Library in midtown. The adjective “free” always manages to grab my attention; I decided to drop by and check it out.

Here’s a photo which doesn’t convey the dimensions very well. The machine was about five feet tall and eight feet long. Maybe three-four feet wide. And it wasn’t particularly impressive. I felt a little disappointed. Here I was, face-to-face with The Future of Publishing and it looked like two laser printers attached to a big grey plastic cube. The pace wasn’t Espresso at all. More like Americano or half-decaf. The student who was operating the machine estimated that each book would take about ten to fifteen minutes to print. He seemed to be erring on the generous side. The machine took a lot longer than that and the first one I saw failed to print the cover, which is OK when you’re getting a free copy of a public-domain book at the library but not adequate for a commercial setting.

If this afternoon’s performance is any indication of the current capacities of the machine, I can’t say that it’s ready for prime time yet, which is a shame because it does have a lot of potential.

That was my afternoon. I saw the future and pronounced it in need of a trip back to the drawing board.

post by: jason's_planet at: 16:41 | 27 comments

Interesting... thanks for posting!

posted by IndigoRain 04 August | 16:59

I think soon people will be reading books on their iPhones and/or tablet PCs. Matchbook thin with wireless access to dictionary and reference materials. You could even read it in the dark, or if your eyes were tired, have it read to you. Think of the possibilities for digitally illustrated children's books.

I will miss that old book smell, though. Perhaps they can bottle it like New Car Smell.

posted by Pips 04 August | 17:02

But how cool is it to get books printed out free? Think of the books you get to have and never move with again and you could cover them with your own coordinating covers, why the design possibilities alone are pretty shiny damn skippy--
--why does mecha always do this to me when i need to nap? Be all interesting why don't you--

posted by ethylene 04 August | 17:06

If this afternoon’s performance is any indication of the current capacities of the machine, I can’t say that it’s ready for prime time yet, which is a shame because it does have a lot of potential.

The book retail chain I work for was pursuing a similar on site print on demand service called Sprout about a decade ago. It didn't go anywhere in the end, and it doesn't sound like the technology has really progressed in that time. It is a neat concept though.

posted by Lentrohamsanin 04 August | 17:16

Poor jon, no sooner does he get a job in a bookstore than books become obsolete ...

posted by essexjan 04 August | 17:36

Let's just pray that jon doesn't get a job in a whorehouse.

posted by ColdChef 04 August | 18:23

I'll second that, CC. ; )

posted by Pips 04 August | 18:32

Yes, but for a different reason.

So what would happen if jon went to work for ColdChef? People would stop dying? But wait, the technology to stop people dying would be in an 8' by 5' by 4' box, require a student to operate it and would go into use before all the kinks are worked out. Which, interestingly, would be fairly compatible with the American Health Care today.

posted by wendell 04 August | 19:14

Besides, an 8' by 5' by 4' whorehouse box freebie? i'm not gonna bother linking to the many requests for that on the blue.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 19:34

Yes, but for a different reason.

Don't be so sure.

posted by Pips 04 August | 19:47

i guess we have to ask box.
But at least we don't have to work out the kinks.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 19:52

The problem with print-on-demand is that most people don't want to pay for an inkjet or laser printout on 20# white paper. I've had advance copies of books printed this way, and even though they are trimmed and bound with a laminated cover they don't feel like a "real" book plus they degrade quicker. The quality is not the same as offset printing on book stock.

As the article notes, it's good for low-demand books where a normal print run isn't economical, but that's about it.

I've seen on-screen book readers since the early-90s and they still haven't caught-on. I'm sure it'll be more common as technology improves, but I don't think it'll kill the market for cheap paperbacks anytime soon, if ever.

posted by D.C. 05 August | 06:48

I don't know, D.C.; I think the ultimate low-cost and direct marketing of digitally produced media over standard books/CDs/DVDs will prove too tempting for publishers/production companies. Think of it, no manufacturing costs, no shipping, no storage, and, potentially, no sharing of profits with retailers. It's inevitable, I say. Especially as more and more of the world becomes technologically sophisticated. I'm not talking in the next ten years, but in the next fifty. Just like with albums; no matter how much people liked vinyl, it was doomed, except as a novelty item.

posted by Pips 05 August | 11:15

As is so often the case, I think that these kinds of technophilic visions overlook the digital-divide kinda issues. The world is becoming more technologically sophisticated, but some folks are moving a lot more slowly than others, and some folks aren't moving at all. It's hard to predict the future, and many people have lost fortunes and credibility when they didn't imagine technology moving fast enough. But that death-of-the-book thing is a song that I've heard too many times before, since at least as far back as the microfilm days.

I think that things are, instead, headed in a direction where the content, in a bits-and-bytes sense, is separated, in people's minds and in their consumption patterns, from the physical object. People will always want interesting, rare and exclusive items. They'll always want things that are beautiful, or nostalgic, or valuable. Most of my music-geek pals download like crazy, and, instead of buying new CDs, they're buying old vinyl, or picking up the limited-edition 12" in the hand-screened sleeve. Antiquarian booksellers complain a lot about how things are going downhill, but doesn't everybody? Well, except for used-record-store owners, most of whom seem to forecast a consistent low level of demand.

I don't think vinyl is doomed--if anything, I think that CDs are doomed. But it won't happen until all the cars with CD players are no longer roadworthy--and if places like Cuba are any indication, we may run out of gasoline before all those cars become unserviceable.

I could, of course, be wrong about all this.

posted by box 05 August | 11:43

Also, now that I've looked at the photo, that gadget sure seems impressive to me. Why the hell does it need to be so big? It reminds me of old vacuum-tube-powered computers, or of the displays at museums like the Exploratorium or COSI.

posted by box 05 August | 11:49

It's not a matter of being a technophile or technophobe. I, personally, love the feel of a book in my hand, but it's a changing world. And I do mean world. Take this guy, for instance.

posted by Pips 05 August | 12:02

Pips, you work with the young people of today. With . . . The Future, if you'll pardon a graduation-speech cliche. So I'll ask you a question:

Those of your students who are readers -- do they prefer reading book-length texts on the screen or in the classic old-timey book format? Do you see a trend there?

Just curious.

posted by jason's_planet 05 August | 17:52

Lowering the barrier to book publication is a bad thing, in my opinion. Possibly the biggest single change the Internet has made to the world is that pretty much anyone with an opinion and a desire to spout it can be published - look at how that has contributed to the quality of literature and knowledge in general. Making it possible for anyone with an opinion and a desire to spout it to publish an actual physical book just means more crappy books that nobody will buy. A nett loss in my opinion. I am firmly in the camp that reading for pleasure is far better with a physical book, but a crappy book is still crap whether it's physical or electronic and at least a crappy electronic book doesn't kill as many trees as a crappy physical book.

posted by dg 05 August | 17:53

There are no barriers to book publication anymore.

Xlibris will print your diatribe about how the NSA planted a microchip in your left buttcheek for the low low price of three hundred dollars (scroll down).

No disrespect intended to people out there with low incomes, but three hundred dollars ain't shit. If the sum of three hundred dollars is all that stands between Joe Schmoe and publication, there are, for all intents and purposes, no barriers to publication.

posted by jason's_planet 05 August | 18:51

Well, that's a crying shame.

posted by dg 05 August | 19:30

Oh, don't worry, dg--$300 is still a significant barrier for billions of people.

posted by box 05 August | 19:53

Oh, I'm aware of that - not enough of a barrier for the billions who can both afford it and who should never be allowed to speak in public, let alone have their thoughts recorded for posterity, though ;-)

posted by dg 05 August | 20:04

It doesn't look like Lulu charges anything up front, only when somebody goes to buy your print on demand book. The only barrier then is access to a computer and the internet, software to properly format your manuscript, and time to do all the steps. Of course, your writing doesn't exist as a physical book until someone buys it in that example.

posted by Lentrohamsanin 05 August | 21:11

Books work without electricity, and will thus be readable after precious, horrible modern society collapses.

posted by Hugh Janus 06 August | 12:04

That's the purpose of the megaserver on the moon, hj.

Those of your students who are readers -- do they prefer reading book-length texts on the screen or in the classic old-timey book format? Do you see a trend there?

They love using the computers. Especially for research. They much prefer computers over books for research. But we still just read regular books for class novels and such, since that's what's available. Ultimately, though, I think electronic textbooks would be fabulous. Textbooks are so heavy, it's impossible for students to carry them back and forth (you have to have two sets, one for home and one for the classroom), and they're so expensive and get damaged so easily (students like to throw them out the window). Smaller books also get lost a lot, and it's hard to find space to store them all (class sets really add up). Electronic books, with a comfortable type of reader, would be great. Furthermore, for remedial and ESL (English Second Language) readers, built-in audio book and dictionary features could be great educational aids. Alas, such things aren't widespread yet (any entrepeneurs out there?). But I really don't see a downside. I'm also all for open access to publishing; the more diverse voices heard from and preserved the better, in my view. Wouldn't it be great if we had access to 3,000 year old blogs from around the world? It's not like anybody's gonna force you to read it (except maybe your friendly English teacher).

posted by Pips 06 August | 14:49

entrepreneurs, that is...

(compliments of google spelling)

posted by Pips 06 August | 14:53

Neat! Thanks for keeping me posted on the people who will be taking care of me in the nursing home ;) I like the speed of computer research and I like the breadth of information that is instantly available online. But the depth is a little lacking. I find the web very helpful in pointing me in the direction of non-web sources of information.

I could see e-books filling the textbook niche market. They'd be very easy to update, for one thing. And, as you mentioned, they'd be much more portable, much easier on the back and shoulders than many separate books.

I wish I shared your enthusiasm for e-books, Pips. It's just that I hate the quality of the e-book displays that I've seen. They're not easy on my eyes. I might be overly sensitive and picky; I also do not own a laptop because I can't stand the quality of those displays.

Who knows? In any event, I think that the publishing game is in for a serious overhaul and that some form of digital format will find a foothold in at least some niche markets.

It doesn't look like Lulu charges anything up front, only when somebody goes to buy your print on demand book.

Yeah, but when people ask you who your publisher is . . . I'd cheerfully spend three hundred to avoid having to say that my publisher has a silly name like Lulu.com.

posted by jason's_planet 06 August | 19:50

← Masters of Science Fiction || So, which one is ColdChef? →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN