News Report #5

Motoko Rich and Brad Stone, The New York Times Online

11.17.09

"Cellphone Apps Challenge the Rise of E-Readers"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/technology/18reader.html

Alright so eBooks will probably be dominating consumers for the holidays -right? Wrong. People are discovering that their smartphones already have the potential to do what any Kindle can. Why the inconvenience of reading off of a cellphone screen as opposed to the larger eBook one? Because by doing so, they will save $250 to $350. For the last eight months, Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other, smaller companies have been releasing this book-reading software for iPhones and smartphones. In fact, 84 million Americans already have smartphones that can run these applications. And that's just phones. Apple has sold more than 50 million iPod Touches that also run e-book software. But, of course, Apple itself doesn’t see iPhones or iPods as the primary reading device they can profit from. Next year they plan to introduce a tablet computer — some device bigger than a phone (smaller than a Kindle?) “The iPod Touch is always at hand,” said eBook app user Shannon Stacey. “It’s my calendar, it’s my everything, so my books are always with me.” Interestingly enough Stacey also owns a Sony Reader, and claims she has bought twice as many e-books for her iPod Touch as for her Sony. Amazon is currently working on e-reading software for the BlackBerry and for Macintosh computers and last week introduced the said software for Windows users. But that's not it: publishers are now developing new forms of books especially for "smartphone readers," not eBook readers. Musician Nick Cave recently wrote his second novel, for which he worked with his publisher and a multimedia company to develop an app for the iPhone that incorporates the text but also videos, music (composed by himself) and audio of the author reading the book.

Okay, so I've never heard of this before, and though in light of recent events, this shouldn't surprise me - but it kind of does. This is sort of ridiculous. Yeah, I see it being convenient knowing that I could have the current novel I'm reading in my pocket, on the small device that I carry around with me everywhere anyway. Yeah, it's convenient not to have to spend the $250-$350 for a Kindle, but it's not a Kindle. The one business lady in the article says she uses her iPhone to read romance novels on her coffee or lunch break, and I get that -- but I really don't see how into a book you can get when you're reading it off of your cellphone. At least the eBook readers are designed for reading. Phones are phones. And all the apps are fun, but I've never used one that is that engaging, nor have I ever seen somebody use a smartphone app for longer than 30 seconds. This may just be me, but when I find the time to read for pleasure, I usually remove myself away from my phone and other distracting technologies so I can relax and get into the book. (Lately I've been doing it by the fireplace with some hot cocoa. TMI?) I can see where all the big companies are making profit off this, but like everything else with this whole digital libraries vs. actual hard-copies of books, I don't know where this is headed...

News Post #4

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/technology/companies/21google.html?_r=1&ref=technology

Google recently signed an agreement with the University of Michigan that will give librarians input and oversight on the prices of books within Google's digital library. Google is doing this smoothing over in light of their potential lawsuit settlement of their book-scanning project, because there was a lot of criticism due to "the exclusive rights the agreement gives Google to publish online and to profit from millions of so-called orphan books, out-of-print books that are protected by copyright but whose rights holders cannot be found." However, Sergey Brin, Google co-founder, president of Google's technology, says that "the settlement would allow Google to offer widespread access to millions of books that are largely hidden in the stacks of university libraries." Google's plan is to have one computer at public libraries that will have free access to full texts, and universities can purchase subscriptions in order to make this service available to others. The costs of these subscriptions are based on the universities' student enrollment. Google's new propsal, which they are trying out with the University of Michigan, allows the university to essentially decide the prices. They can "object if it thinks the prices Google charges libraries for access to its digital collection are too high, a major concern of some librarians." Any disputes will be resolved outside of court between the two parties. However, only libraries that lend books to Google for their scanning will be allowed to object unfair pricing. The American Library Association thinks that Google's plan is "a step in the right direction," but is wary that Google will "set artificially high prices for its digial collection." Google is also giving libraries that contribute books discounts.

I think I'm beginning to hate Google. It seems that they are just trying to hush up any naysayers as they continue their plan to dominate American libraries and have all of their collections digitized into their own databases. At the very least, they are throwing these libraries a bone, giving them discounts, etc. just so they'll have fewer incentives to complain during this whole process. I'm pretty sure the American Library Association is keep to what Google is up to, and I am glad they asked the court to oversee this settlement, but it seems that Google will eventually get what they want because they are Google. They're taking over!

Reading #5

"Information Navigation 101" by Andrea L. Foster.
Chronicle of Higher Education (3/9/2007)


The article "Information Navigation 101," by Andrea L. Foster, brings up the point that although this generation of undergraduates consistently use technology, we may not be as tech savvy as we think. It states that for collegiate research, students rely on Google or Wikipedia moreover peer-reviewed sources. Foster says that all of the information we recieve online is confusing students, and beceause there is so many resources, "students are drowning information." Because of this, at colleges all over the country, librarians are finding methods to instruct the students to become more "information literate," or "more adept at locating and evaulating electronic data." The vice president of Educause -- "a higher learning technology consortium" --says that everyone uses the Internet because of its convenience, but it is important that our research skills stay effective. Foster later points out that most every university library in the country now offers information literacy courses/help, or they are mandatory.


In my experience, it's no surprise that students in general use Google and Wikipedia as their main source of information during academic research. In most of the technical English classes that I've taken, that requires verifying names, spelling, translations, etc. my professors encouraged the use of Google in class. I think it's great that so many universities offer courses trying to help students become "information literate," because students primarily use Google and Wikipedia because of their accessibility. But if they're aware that they can retrieve more relevant information elsewhere, hopefully they will apply the few extra mouse-clicks, seconds of reading/typing to get it. I also think it is great that so many colleges are requiring that students are trained to become "more adept at locating and evaulating electronic data," because I feel that they aren't aware that there are better methods of getting information, or they are aware, but they just don't have any idea how to retrieve it. However, I think that when it comes to scholarly research, simple search engines like Google will always dominate in numbers, because it is easy and people can be lazy. It's why Dan Brown, Danielle Steel, or Dean Koontz novels will always be on the best-seller list -- there are plenty of books that would probably be a more rewarding read to the consumers, but it is a safe bet. People get drive-thru fast food, or delivery, when they could eat a more healthful meal for just as cheap if they just made it themselves, but they don't. It's no different than the methods of how Americans get their information.