> While electronic publishing may well be economically feasible,
> especially for small run items, what it actually does is transfer
> the printing cost to the buyer of the work. While most of us will
> read or a page or two or maybe more on the screen, I don't of
> anyone who would choose this method read a long work (say a novel
> or a scholarly monograph) so we print. This could be considered
> an other instance of unbundling of benefits and services (like
> selling software and hardware separately, or pants and jackets, at
> a price that if both are bought, they cost more than they would
> have when both were sold together).
This is certainly true today for long works -- we would far rather read them on paper than on screen.
To some degree, that is a matter of resolution -- and montors that match paper resolution are available -- for 10-20K<g>. But I think we can safely expect them to be "standard" a few years down the road. We also are likely to eventually (more years) reach the point where a computer screen is as poratble. or possibly more portable, than a book.
I think also that we make an error to assume that the electronic media will just be the same material presented on a monitor. A while back there was a sample brief up on the Internet in which clicking on any case or statutory reference took one to the case or statutory reference. That was very worthwhile, and made the electronic version much better than the print version.
Regards,
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:20 GMT