I like to personally try things I write about. Really. I think it is important to have spent enough time with a product or service to understand the experience rather than to rely on the comments of others. I admit that I also like to explore new technology.
eBook readers have been one area of personal interest. There are plenty of hardware options. I started with the KindleApp for the iPod Touch. The app was cheap (free if I remember) and the books reasonable. The books I have purchased so far have been in the $10 range. The issue for me has really been the reading experience.
The visual experience of reading on the iPhone was acceptable. I found a font size that was good and read several books. Of course, the iPhone Touch screen is small and the display contains a limited amount of text. I do hope Apple comes out with a tablet or some handheld device with a little larger screen.
Recently, I have been exploring the experience on the Kindle. The reading experience on the Kindle is very good and seems superior to reading for long periods of time on a computer screen.
My reading habits require more than text display. I seem to read very little for enjoyment preferring to listen to audiobooks instead. I spend a great deal of time doing is reading nonfiction and professional content. In exploring ebook devices, it was not the hours of reading from a device that concerned me, but the other activities that are a part of professional reading – highlighting and note taking. Kindle does offer these features. In addition to allowing you to mark up the text and insert notes, these additions to the original text are stored on the Kindle as a separate text file. You can connect your Kindle to a computer via USB and drag this file to your desktop. I must admit I am not a big fan of the Kindle keyboard so adding my own notes was tedious. Highlighting worked fairly well. A sample from the text file appears below. Perhaps downloading this file frequently and expanding these notes from a more efficient keyboard might be the answer.
I have been reading and commenting a lot lately about the free alternatives to commercial information products (e.g., newspapers, textbooks). My latest read is Curt Bonk’s “The world is open” (ironically a book I bought).
We have been attempting to get our publisher to consider a different model for some years without much luck. However, it does look like there is now some movement among commercial providers. I am guessing the hardware (e.g., Kindle) is available that will offer the providers some assurance their basic products will not be passed around.
I read today (ReadWriteWeb) that CourseSmart now offers content for the iPhone. I am familiar with CourseSmart as a provider associated with textbooks I have used and I own an iPod Touch (close enough) so I downloaded the app (the RWWeb article contains a link) and tried some of their demonstration materials.
A display from a psych textbook involving an entire page.
A display from a biology textbook zoomed to one column. This offers a better idea of how one might actually use the iPod to read.
The screen captures from the iPod are larger than actual size.
I find this interesting and a useful mobile tool, but I am not certainly I would be willing to read a thousand pages a semester (multiple books) in this format.
I have been working to create an educators portal for about a year now (Learning Aloud). It is a combination of my blog posts, a social bookmarking site focused on topics in educational technology, and most recently something I think of as an online book entitled Meaningful Learning and the Participatory Web. I originally developed the online book as a personal wiki (anyone could read, but only I could write), but then converted the content into more traditional web pages. There are also options for participation – it would make little sense to write about the participatory web without welcoming and offering opportunities to participate. The social bookmarking site allows registered users to contribute and rate. Access to some parts of the stie are controlled through Drupal and those who register are provided a page they are encouraged to use to link to their own projects and examples.
My site was certainly not the original. Those who work in this area enjoy working with the tools and sense the value of using these tools to tap the knowledge and experiences of others. However, a reasonable question might be – if too many portals are created has the potential body of participants been diluted to the point that the potential benefits of collaboration cannot be realized. I have begun to think about this topic because of two new portals I have encountered in recent weeks.
One site is sponsored by a major organization for educators with technology interests (ISTE). Those organizing the other are a little difficult to identify (I know how some of the individual components originated, but not the site). While it has been argued that survival as a content/service provider is really a battle for attention, I encourage your examination of all of these sites. BTW – I am making no effort here to be exhaustive.
So, the site I am attempting to organize may have little hope of competing with the resources of an organization or perhaps an organized group with well-known members. So, what I would like to argue, perhaps in an effort at self delusion, is that the model I propose is more useful. Others could offer this model (a cohesive position/vision statement in combination with examples and comments), but I am guessing this will not be the case with the examples I offer here. I translate “cohesive vision” into something as comprehensive as a book. I say that I doubt the willingness of the sites I have mentioned to offer such a resource because of the “money” issue – the examples I am using as contrasts generate income from books or presenters’ fees. It is therefore difficult to acquire an integrated model and examples from these sources.
I think others offer a similar perspective. In Tapscott’s recent book (Grown Up Digital), he offers a perspective he bases on Geoffrey Moore’s famous “Crossing the Chasm” (this analysis based on an even earlier model of innovation that I remember using farmer adoption of hybrid seed corn as the core case study if my Iowa roots serve me well). To be honest, I am using Tapscott’s analysis here – I have not read the original content for some time. I am guessing you have encountered the argument – ideas take off when the early majority (rather than early adopters or visionaries) buy in. Moore argues that to reach the more pragmatic “early majority” one must offer a “whole product”. Visionaries and early adopters are excited enough by pieces that they will generate their own implementations and discuss these implementations with anyone willing to listen. I read an interesting ReadWriteWeb post that went further and proposed a somewhat different scenario when applying the Moore model to tech innovation. This post argued that innovators and early adopters can be driven by the excitement of the innovation (my interpretation), but they may not necessarily serve the most useful role in promoting change because they often move on to new innovations before the present ones are actually fully implemented or given a trial. I see a real germ of truth in this claim.
I have written multiple posts concerning copyright and the publishing industry. I certainly don’t have the answers, but as both a producer and consumer I at least understand the frustrations experienced by the multiple parties involved.
The NYTimes Review of Books offers an interesting editorial on such topics prompted by Google’s efforts to digitize and offer as much published content as possible. I learned some new things – e.g., libraries must pay $25,910 to offer access to the Journal of Comparative Neurology. I was curious and tried to access this journal. UND does have it and I could access online. I took a look at the first title – Deletion of the citron kinase gene selectively affects the number and distribution of interneurons in barrelfield cortex (p spc1) –and decided that I would stick to reading the Journal of Educational Psychology. I wonder what the library budget for the College of Education is.
BTW – the editorial does not come down on the side of open source:
Libraries exist to promote a public good: “the encouragement of learning,” learning “Free To All.” Businesses exist in order to make money for their shareholders—and a good thing, too, for the public good depends on a profitable economy.
I offer this resource as another comment on this complex issue. The article describes the present agreement between copy-right holders and Google (students don’t count on legal online access to your textbooks) and also expresses some concern that the present agreement is limited to Google.
I have no business background. I am a college professor. Still, I believe in funding models and I distrust situations in which I cannot figure out what the funding model is. Often, the funding model is there but not apparent. Some web companies offer content or a service in hopes you will click on ad links that generate some money for the owner of the content or provider of the service. Providers must weigh the cost of creating the content/services against the ad revenue they generate. Some companies offer free services just so web users will spend more time with other revenue generating web services. Maybe the only benefit is reputation that generates a payoff in another area – call this the college athletics model. The model also works quite well for Google. I see today that the founders are buying a fighter jet. In my way of interpreting the world, the reputation model explains the efforts of some who create web content/services and then make a living speaking about their experiences. The web resources are basically advertising.
The music distribution “industry” is fertile ground for exploring competing funding models. There is file sharing, but I don’t count illegal ways of making money as funding. iTunes is clearly the leader – if I remember correctly Mr. Jobs claims the iTunes store now sells more music than any other outlet. Apple has now forged ahead of Walmart.
For a couple of years, I have been following (and paying a small monthly fee) to use LastFM. This company is more of a social site focused on music. If you are into the social thing, you can interact with others and learn about music in the process. This following/friending thing gets a little weird when you are sometimes 3 times the age of a potential friend. Perhaps classical rock, blues, and jazz works something like classical classical – good music is simply good music. Anyway, you can “discover” music that may interest you by noting the gaps in the overlap with others who have similar tastes. It works much like exploring the social bookmarking sites of others with similar interests and finding new sites you have yet to explore. You pay a little for this service and you contribute by simply using the site and sharing your own preferences. You do end up purchasing music, but not from last.fm.
I mostly pay the last.fm fee because last.fm keeps track of the music I listen to online and from my ipods. I am interested in these data (nearly 60,000 plays now) and in the “online radio” station I can access based on my preferences. They can’t play specifically what I request, but the “mix” is so heavily saturated with my favorites that it does not really matter. Not sure how this is legal. I assume there is an ASCAP fee. I guess my $4 a month must cover the cost. Beats me.
My new experiment is LaLa. You can pay to download MP3s (without DRM) for .89. You can also pay .10 per song to create an online library you can continually access from any computer. In addition, you can upload the music you own (the site went through the 4000+ songs I have in my two computers with iTunes accounts) and play this music online just like the .10 songs you purchase. I sit at a computer the great majority of my waking hours so this seems like a steal. I will likely invest $10 a month in this site, but I could easily play 20-30 hours of exactly the music I feel like listening to from this site each week. I understand they are generating some money, but I am not certain they will make much money on me. The bandwidth costs must be immense. The cost for perpetual online access to the music I purchase is low, but there seems some possibility this company may not make it and then all that dime music is gone. We will see. Go slow.
What about Pandora and PandoraFM? Free music as in FM radio. There are some ads on the sites. The Music Genome project which selects the playlist based on preferred artists and then songs you like and dislike first interested me (for those interested in the latest from Apple – this is very similar to Genius). I am not sure how these sites make it. They offer a great service to those who purchase music and I feel certain they encourage the sale of music, but they pay to stream nonetheless and face serious challenges.
I read a blog post today from Rheingold’s SmartMobs blog describing the FlatWorld Knowledge project. I have commented on this venture previously because the idea is to offer online textbooks for the college market at no cost (you might pay for ancillaries). The blog post indicates the company “announced the completion of a $700,000 round of funding“. Talk about an angel investor.
The Flat World Knowledge Business Model
Flat World Knowledge publishes professionally-produced, peer-reviewed college textbooks from leading educational experts. The company offers the textbooks as free web-hosted textbooks to students, and earns its revenue by providing students the option to purchase print-on-demand textbooks, audio textbooks, and digital study aids.
I would love to meet the folks who sold this model. I have been in the higher education setting for 30+ years and my experience has been that it works in the opposite way. You can give away ancillaries to instructors and students for using your book. I would be very skeptical that you can get enough students (and instructors) to fund the costs of free books by purchasing supplements. There is plenty of supplemental material already available at no cost (e.g., Merlot, search for instructor generated content in about any area of interest using Google). The effort and expertise to generate 300-400 pages of content requires an entirely different level of commitment. Perhaps states should commit funds to a grant program to support authors. Perhaps professional societies could generate resources (wait they are selling their products and clearly do not see themselves offering educational resources at no cost). I am certain that many universities are interested in this project (at least according to the press release). I wonder if these universities would be interested enough to fund summer writing projects or do they believe in the “free” business model too.
It appears that Oprah has become fascinated with reading books on a Kindle. The financial folks are projecting a bump in Kindle sales.You certainly will get no negative reaction from me. I wonder if Kindle reading is subject to the same hurdles that have prompted the recent discussion of the downside of reading from a screen (a recent discussion on WWWEDU focused on Nielson’s description of typical online scanning patterns and the concerns of some that this was encouraging a shallow style of interaction with text). I am guessing the content available for the Kindle offers little to those who want to skim. I don’t think I will invest in another gadget, but I hope a more general purpose “tablet” will eventually become available. I keep hoping Apple will offer a larger version of the “Touch” which I see as about half-way there.
Now, if we could direct Oprah toward other financial targets. How about hybrid cars?
There are many big talkers out there. Folks who have lots to say about situations they do not actually deal with themselves. The folks who criticize authors and book companies probably annoy me the most. They also fail to carefully analyze the book business and appreciate the role that we all play in creating what is pretty much a tragedy of the commons. No one denies that textbooks cost a lot. So does gas. So does beer. So does college tuition. The big talkers collect their speaker fees for telling the rest of us that the world is changing and digital media requires open access and free sharing of content. Lots of folks welcome this message. Perhaps it eases their conscience when violating copyright. Willingness to pay to hear this message makes it very likely the message will continue to be repeated. The message of entitlement creates a self-perpetuating cycle.
Siva Vaidhyanathan is working on a new book about Google. This is the type of book I cannot resist purchasing. Siva’s book (The Googlization of Everything) is written with the support of the Institute for the Future of the Book. This is an organization with clear intentions of changing the publishing industry. What I admire about this project is that it is consistent with the position of the Institute. It attempts to involve the “audience” in the writing process and the “drafts” are openly available. Take a look at The Googlization of the Everything. No big talkers and no implication of entitlement here – the author is supported by the organization with a position and the content and process is shared. As a reader, you can participate and you can avoid purchasing the book if so desired. However, it is important to understand the circumstances in play here.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
You must be logged in to post a comment.