The obvious content sources that consumers want to be digital and will eventually be digital include:
- Music
- Newspapers and Magazines
- Books (including textbooks)
- Photos and other Art
- Video, Movies and Television
- Games
- Digital content is portable.
- Digital content can be searchable. (it can be classified and categorized)
- Digital content is accessible.
- Digital content can be archived.
Some may argue that content in non-digital forms is also portable. The Sony Walkman existed for CDs long before the Apple IPod. Books, newspapers and magazines have been carried around for as long as they have existed. The difference is that digital content removes the size and weight limits that exist with traditional media. An MP3 player can carry 10,000 songs, while it would be physically impossible for someone to carry more than a few dozen CDs. A backpack can carry a dozen textbooks, but the size and weight of the books quickly becomes a limiting factor. An e-book on the other hand, can carry hundreds of books on a device that weighs only a few ounces. (A point that was driven home on a recent two week beach vacation when I no longer needed a separate duffel bag for books. The Kindle had all the reading I'd need for the trip.)
Searchability
It's relatively difficult to search and access content in non-digital form. Newspapers and magazines in non-digital form are almost impossible to "search" for a story of interest. Books in a physical library can at best be searched by category, author, title, etc. Books that have been digitized and stored only can be searched by any word or phrase in the book. Think of the vast wealth of human knowledge that can now be searched instantaneously due to digitization and internet search engines. Now imagine if every book, newspaper, television program or magazine ever created were available for searching and accessing online.
Accessibility
Content is more valuable when it can be accessed whenever and wherever it is needed. Physical encyclopedias were quickly replaced by internet encyclopedias because the information could be accessed and updated more efficiently and effectively in digital form. Sites like Hulu.com have demonstrated the easy with which television content can be accessed and viewed online (including commercials to pay for the content). Devices like the IPhone, Droid, Blackberry and IPad demonstrate how digital content can be accessed, stored and viewed from mobile devices anywhere and at any time. It's now possible to be sitting on a beach on a remote Greek Isle (due to cellular coverage) and search for content, purchase it and download it for instant viewing or reading.
Archiving
Physical content is difficult to archive and retrieve. How many of us have a favorite magazine subscription (e.g. Rolling Stone, Conde Nast Traveler, Cooking Light) that we store in boxes in our basement or attic? The expectation is that at some point in the future, we may want to refer to the content when we have a specific need. I've saved dozens of Conde Nast Traveler magazines with the hope that the next time I visit far away place, I will sort through them to find relevant articles (e.g. the coast of Spain). Of course, what really happens is that when planning the trip to Spain, I'll search a variety of online sites for content before I'd ever flip through years of physical magazines. The content online is searchable, has been categorized, can be printed or copied to my laptop or mobile phone for travel. It's also far easier to make copies of a digital archive for secure storage in multiple locations. A fire would destroy all my physical archives in minutes, while my digital archives would be secure in an offsite safe.
What's next?
It should be obvious that in many forms each of these content types are already digital. CD's have almost completely been replaced by music downloads, and an In-Stat forecast predicts that the e-book market will be more than $9 billion in 2013 (and that was before the 2009 holiday season and the January 2010 Ipad announcement). In addition, video game sales accounted for more than $19 billion in 2009 (source). It should be obvious that the future for content is digital.
If we can make the assumption that digital content delivery will replace physical content in the not too distant future, what should content generating companies and individuals be doing to prepare for it. In addition, what needs to happen to make the digital future a reality for each of these content types. The answers to these questions must include analysis of the hardware and software for displaying/using digital content as well as a look at how digital content will change the business models for publishers. We'll also look at the big question of when digital may replace physical content for each of the media types. These questions and the answers will be the subject of our next article...
5 comments:
Searchability - yes, being able to do full text searching of articles and books is a great feature. It is something I use on a regular basis for personal and professional reasons.
But information has been classified and categorized for a long, long time before any of it was available digitally. Libraries have been using classification systems (Dewey, Library of Congress, etc.) for longer than you or I have been around.
Librarians have also applied subject headings to both books and periodical articles. An advantage to those subject headings is that it allows the person searching for information to find the book or article that is largely concerned with the term being searched, and it also has the advantage of there being one authoritative way of describing a subject.
These classification schemes and subject headings are not without their faults, of course. And some of that is corrected with the ability to do full text searching. But depending on the words being used to search, it can also create a great deal of frustration on the searcher's end when their search results in too many results, and many of those results not being relevant to the searcher's need.
As for archiving, it's not all that difficult to archive or retrieve physical content. The biggest issues have to do with having sufficient physical space in which to store the stuff! Retrieval isn't going to be instantaneous, of course, but when one knows what one is looking for, it's a matter of making the request. The fact of the matter is that digital media are great for storing in small spaces and being instantly retrievable, but as far as true archiving is concerned? Not so much. Get out that 5" floppy that you wrote your last college paper on and you'll see what I mean. If you can find a machine that will allow you to access the information contained on that disk, not to mention the software to read it, too, the disk may have become unreadable over time anyway. And what happens when a person who has loaded a bunch of books on to a Kindle and then the next latest and greatest ebook reading device comes along? The content on my husband's circa 1998 Rock eBook won't be able to be transferred onto a Kindle, and I expect that will be the same when something comes along to succeed the Kindle. DRM, anyone?
Kevin... allow me to agree, augment, and rebut :-)
First, in portability I don't think you touch on one of the greatest values of digitization.
Digital content can be "portable" across technology changes, which is a BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER. Properly done, in a standardized format, with open-source codecs, digital media can be ported to new media devices without having to buy the latest physical form factor. Need I remind you: LP, Cassette, 8-Track, CD, DVD, Blu-Ray... Damn! There are only so many times I can re-purchase my John Denver's Greatest Hits!!
But this type of portability is not INHERENT in digital media. Consumers who actually want to OWN what they have purchased should strongly advocate for open-source digital data... I am realistic (rather than cynical) when I suspect that efforts are being (or will be) made to keep data proprietary and leave control in the hands of the publisher/distributor.
So I agree that content wants to be digital, but "Information wants to be free."
And that brings me to a much broader tangent, regarding your take on "Accessibility"...
I have expressed this idea with other people through the years, but we face a global "de-Gutenbergization" of knowledge. Gutenberg's invention allowed mass distribution of data, decodable by anyone able to achieve literacy in their vernacular. Digitization, while certainly increasing availability on many fronts, also reduces access by keeping data locked behind technological barriers to entry. It puts the "priests" back in charge.
Certainly computers are becoming more ubiquitous in developed countries, but as more data and knowledge are stored digitally, accessing the knowledge relies less on your ability to read than on your ownership of (or access to) the technology to get at the data, and perhaps even on your skill in hacking to decode what has been made proprietary.
One must surely ask, what information will be distributed widely and freely available to ALL people? Advertising? Propaganda?
It is really, really hard to predict where this trend will go and what its impacts will be, but it is (IMHO) reasonable to be concerned about the impact of such an amazing and rapid change in the distribution and availability of information, in forms that are non-human readable, restricted by technological barriers to access, and controlled by powerful entities with vested interest in controlling information flow and access.
I advise anyone who has taken the time to read this far to keep this in mind as we move into this new era, simultaneously replete with wonders and pitfalls; with new fronts for warfare. Strive to build the BEST information infrastructre possible, with human rights and societal betterment as a core driving motivation.
Regarding the comment from "rebecca.hunt": It's certainly true that we've had classification and categorization in libraries for a very long time, but I suspect most researchers prefer the ability to search online and instantly access the digital content rather than physically going to a shelf to access a book or periodical.
Your point is well taken that current search engines often return too many irrelevant results due to a lack of classification and categorization of content. I suspect that if this is enough of a problem for researchers, someone will find a way to solve it.
As for archiving, the key is the physical space limitations. Libraries discard thousands of books every year because they don't have the shelf-space or storage space to keep them. It's impractical for them to keep physical books that seldom are used. It's very viable to keep digital content that is infrequently accessed.
An interesting question is what will happen to libraries if all content becomes digital. Imagine a not too distant future in which all books, magazines, newspapers, music, art, are primarily accessed in digital form. I'd expect that publishers will insist on strict Digital Rights Management (DRM) for their works purchased by libraries to limit the number of library patrons who can simultaneously access them. In other words, if I can access every book, newspaper, or periodical online digitally from a library, why would I ever pay for my own copy or subscription? The publisher of a bestselling book would probably expect a library to use DRM software to limit the number of simultaneous readers of the book to the number of copies purchased.
Regarding the comment from "Robert": It's clear that consumers of digital content need to insist that the content can be used on multiple devices and operating systems. Let's remember that ITunes originally had very restrictive digital rights management (DRM) built into the downloaded music files and it was only competitive pressure from Amazon and others that forced them to change. It's unfortunate that the burden to convert files to the latest software does seem to fall to the user. There are various current versions of word processors that are unable to read files created by their earlier predecessors. The files would only be accessible if the consumer had converted them multiple times as the software was upgraded. (Even if I had a 5 1/4" floppy drive, there is no guarantee that any program could read my college papers written using Word Perfect for DOS.
You also highlight what has been referred to as the "Digital Divide" between the technology haves and have nots. Libraries in the U.S. play a key role in closing that gap. In developing countries, initiatives like One Laptop per Child (OLPC) (http://laptop.org/en/vision/project/index.shtml) is helping. In many homes in the U.S. and around the world, there are no books, magazines or newspapers. This is a literacy problem, not a financial or technology problem. If we can overcome the literacy challenge, then digital content delivered through technology can create a wealth of possibilities throughout the world. Imagine the remote village in Appalachia or Ethopia who gain access to a computer and the internet through OLPC. Suddenly they can access the art of the Louvre online, they can read thousands of free books from Google online, and they can access news and information from media sites around the world. At that moment, their dreams get bigger and the world gets smaller...
Interesting article in the NY Times about school libraries:
"Do School Libraries Need Books?"
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/do-school-libraries-need-books/?em
Post a Comment