Page 24 of 25

RandomMaccess Analysis: Reuters gets it wrong in iTMS ‘Multi-Pass’ analogy

March 8, 2006 /

We’re bracing for the inevitable “Apple blinked” stories regarding the company’s new “Multi-Pass” option for buying content from its iTunes Music Store. From the description in a Reuters article about the service, you’d be forgiven for lumping it in with the subscription-based models offered by Rhapsody and Napster.

You’d be forgiven, but you’d still be wrong.

Start with the lead: “Apple Computer Inc.’s iTunes music and video store on Wednesday took its first step toward a monthly subscription model…” First step? the inclination is clearly that there are more steps yet to be taken, yet the article offers no evidence for this.

And this: “Apple has so far (emphasis ours) resisted calls from media companies and competitors to adopt a monthly subscription fee favored by the likes of Napster and Real Networks Inc.’s Rhapsody…” Again, the description in incremental terms, as if a subscription-based model is a mere inevitability.

But Apple’s Multi-Pass is nothing like the subscription-based model of Napster or Rhapsody. As far as we can determine, there aren’t even any recurring charges. Most importantly, the content is not “rented.” You won’t lose your ability to watch “The Daily Show” if you stop ponying up a monthly fee. It won’t be deleted from your iPod if Apple decides you’ve watched it enough.

Here’s how it works. Episodes of shows like Comedy Central’s “Colbert Report,” for instance, are sold individually for $1.99. But for $9.99, you can buy the next 16 shows and download each after it’s been broadcast.

No, Multi-Pass may be a subscription model, but only in the conventional “Hey, Mister, please support my school with a year’s worth of “National Geographics” sense. If you buy a year’s subscription to Macworld, for instance, you’ll pay a lot less per issue than if you pick them up each month at your local newsstand. But each issue is no less yours. Jason Snell isn’t coming to your house at the end of the year to collect your copies of the magazine.

For whatever insidious intent Reuters may want to ascribe to Apple’s Multi-Pass, the simple, boring truth is that it’s a retailing tactic that probably goes back to the first caveman who wanted to clear out last year’s wheels to make room for the new models. One that fast-talking, plaid-jacketed salesmen have been using ever since. “Hey buddy, they’re a dollar ninety-nine a piece, but I’ll give you the whole shebang for a mere 10 clams.”

Multi-Pass, dear readers, is nothing more complicated than a volume discount.

Keep that in mind when you read some of the pundits’ takes on it over the next few days.

If you love your Mac, let it go: Give your sweetheart a real treat—shut off your computer on Valentine’s Day

February 7, 2006 /

It’s slowly dawned on my that over the years, my love affair with the Mac has evolved into more of a lovers’ triangle.

My wife—wonderful woman that she is—has never really embraced our computer the way I hoped she would. And certainly nowhere near the way I have.

When the World Wide Web was first gaining public enthusiasm, I told her about a site where you could actually see a live picture of a cappuccino machine in Australia. I could scarcely imagine what could be cooler, and could barely contain my excitement. I rushed to tell her all about it. Her response? “If I want to see a cappuccino machine, why wouldn’t I just walk into our kitchen and see a real one?”

She had a point.

My efforts to get her to do our finances on the Mac met with similar resistance. She uttered something about not wanting to do the work twice: entering the information once on the computer and once “for real” into our checkbook was not her idea of increasing productivity.

Again, she had a point.

To be entirely fair, I haven’t given her a whole lot of time to use the family Mac. Between personal projects, work, and freelance commitments, I tend to monopolize most of the available computer time in our house.

And when she does get the opportunity to use it, I usually wind up hovering over her like a nervous mother who’s just handed her newborn to a clumsy aunt. She winds up getting so frustrated with me, she closes whatever file she’s working in (without quitting the program, though—she always forgets to quit the…oops, see what I mean?)

It’s gotten to the point where she sometimes forgets what brand of computer we own. It’s no longer the “Macintosh” computer, it’s a “Thatdam” computer. As in “how much time are you going to spend on Thatdam computer tonight?”

So this Valentine’s Day, those of you reading this expecting to find a list of romantic Internet sites, places on the web to buy flowers or find poetry will have to look elsewhere. This month’s column will feature no URLs, no FTP sites, and no links.

My advice for this Valentine’s Day is about chivalry, not technology. It’s about open hearts and open arms, not OpenDoc and Open Transport.

I’m declaring St. V’s big day as computer-free. I won’t boot up, I won’t surf the ‘net, and I won’t read my e-mail.

I’m turning to simpler pursuits on this day. I’m going to buy a card, put it in an envelope, and hand it—not e-mail it—to her. I’m going to write her a poem, not download one. And I’m going to relish in the “anti-technology” of the whole experience. I’m going to pay special attention to the way the pen feels as it moves across the paper—to how the ink smells. To how beautiful my wife look bathed in the glow of firelight instead of the cathode-ray tube of my monitor.

You see, when you get right down to it, I like my Mac.

It’s my wife I love.

He who dies with the most tech toys probably isn’t paying retail

January 31, 2006 /

I’m not cheap. Really. 

I’m happy enough to spend my hard-earned ducats on the latest gee-whiz gadgetry. (More than happy, my wife would tell you.) What I don’t want to do, though, is pay more than I have to for it. I think it all stems from an unfortunate car-buying incident where the dealer added a year’s worth of payments to my car loan without me noticing. I’ve been obsessive about getting ripped off ever since.

Thanks to the Internet, it’s a lot easier to find great deals on all sorts of things that would otherwise be beyond the reach of my budget. Take cell phones, for instance. A quick trip to Amazon.com will land you a plethora of mind-boggling deals. Pay for a cell phone? Why? If you’re willing to switch providers you can scarf up a state-of-the-art camera phone and actually make money on the deal — after rebates of, course, but more on that in a minute. Even if you’d prefer to stay with your current carrier, you can use those Amazon deals for leverage in negotiating a brand-spanking-new phone. In my case, for instance, my provider told me that, while they couldn’t cut me much of a deal on the phone itself, they’d make it up to me in extra minutes and free months of service. I wound up with a new Motorola RAZR V3 and six months of free calls, which netted out to $30 to me. Sweet.

The greatest thing about pricing over the Internet is that it levels the playing field. Now, everybody knows what deals the merchants are willing to make. And with increased competition online, they’re willing to make a lot. One popular pricing strategy is called the “loss leader.” It’s a highly desirable item that a merchant prices for a low price — often even below cost. The hope is that when you come into their store (either brick and mortar or online), you’ll pick up another item or two — with higher profit margins — while you’re there. Many of these items require coupons. The trick is having enough self-discipline to do a “hit and run” — get just the item you came for, then get out.

Rebates are probably the most popular strategy right now — especially in technology. Rebates can represent a great value, but again — self-discipline comes into play. Make sure to read the terms and conditions and follow them to the letter. You also have to be in a position to front the entire cost and wait the six-to-eight weeks or longer until your rebate check arrives. Merchants love rebate deals because a lot of people don’t bother turning them in — and that means more money for them. My personal rule is that I have to complete and mail the rebate form before I allow myself to install or use the item I bought.

Deal finder sites are a great tool for the tech shopper — it’s like having a whole team of researchers do your work for you. DealsOnTheWeb.com, DealMac.com and its sister site DealNews.com are great resources for finding special promotions, rebate offers, etc. If you’re looking for a specific item, CNET.com has a price tracker that can help you find the best current price at both physical and online stores.

Many brick-and-mortar stores have price protection policies, where they’ll meet or beat competitors’ advertised prices. Most exclude web merchants, but a few will still deal if they think they’re about to lose out on a sale. It never hurts to ask, but make sure they know you’re ready to put cash on the barrel.

As for eBay, I’ve never found the prices to be compelling enough to make me want to put up with the hassle and risk of PayPal, unscrupulous buyers, and lack of instant gratification. If you’re a happy eBay shopper, more power to you; it’s just never been my cup of tea.

Technology shoppers are in a great position—if they have the patience. With tech, you can always get more for less if you’re willing to wait. The hard part is knowing when the time is right to make a purchase. I did it well when it came to my digital camcorder and digital camera. I didn’t do so well years ago when I bought a Power Mac 7200 that became obsolete far too quickly for my tastes. Right now, I’m playing the waiting game on a new G5 and a Bluetooth headset for my cell phone.

The thrill of playing on the bleeding edge of technology is something I’ve learned to outgrow after considerable damage to my wallet. Now, I’m content to let others pay the price of being a pioneer. I’d rather wait for the mature versions that cost a fraction of the price. And when I can get a great deal on them as well, I’m a very happy geek.

I may not be cheap, but I’ve found that being a frugal shopper gets me a lot more cool toys.

Image courtesy of NASA.

Apple could be prepping space venture

July 13, 2005 /

At first, it could be mistaken for a conventional, albeit extraordinarily sleek, airplane. The craft’s engines roar, and it picks up speed as it races down the runway. Upon liftoff, though, it doesn’t level off like an ordinary plane, but continues upwards at an increasing angle as if it’s straining to reach the stars. Suddenly, booster rockets kick in, and the craft reveals itself to be a true spaceship, rising higher and higher into the sky, its clean white body marked only with a light grey Apple logo on the tail.

It may sound far-fetched, but it might make sense for a computer maker that’s revving on all engines and enjoying iconic status as a purveyor of all things cool. After all, who would have thought just a few years ago that Apple would own such a large percent of the music business. And surely Apple’s cult-like followers would line up to plunk down big bucks for a ride on the “iCraft.”

Practically admitting the rumors were true, Apple refused comment on the story.

—–

OK, back to reality — “down to earth,” if you will.

The above scenario is pure wild-eyed speculation, based on absolutely no evidence and fewer facts. Which means it’s got a lot in common with another piece of nonsense published in Forbes. All that’s missing in our little piece of fiction is a quote from Rob Enderle, who’s practically made a cottage industry of writing dumb, wrong things about Apple.

In “Everybody in the Pool,” Forbes writer David M. Ewalt reports on how Apple is considering launching its own mobile phone network. Go ahead, read the story. Now read it again. Nowhere is there a shred of evidence — or anything other than Ewalt’s imagination, for that matter — to suggest the story might be true. To give the writer credit, (I suppose) he doesn’t even try; there isn’t even a suggestion of an “according to sources who wish to remain anonymous” attribution. The only facts in the story concern other companies’ plans, not Apple’s. Disney, for instance, has announced it plans to launch a “family-centric” wireless network. ESPN has already launched a service, as has convenience store chain 7-Eleven. How Ewalt makes the leap to Apple launching a service is no less reality-defying than our own little iCraft fantasy.

The one item that relates Apple to phones is the iTunes-enabled phone being developed with Motorola. Since when is launching a mobile network a prerequisite to developing a mobile phone? And why would Apple want to limit the potential distribution of such a phone to its own fledgling network? Even Enderle’s quote doesn’t suggest that. He only asserts that mobile carriers would prefer to sell music through their own service and would rather have an iTunes phone sync through their networks rather than a computer.

So why make Apple the focus of this piece of pure speculation? My guess is it’s because stories about Apple draw eyeballs. Lots of them. And lots of eyeballs translate into lots of advertising dollars. It’s an old trick that still works. Even when Apple wasn’t the wunderkind of American, even worldwide, culture, websites would run “Apple is dying” stories that would incite Macophiles, excite PC users and make giddy the advertisers who were serving ads to everyone. These days, however, its getting harder to run that kind of story without looking genuinely clueless, so “What-secret-device-will-Apple-unveil-next” stories are taking their place — to the delight, no doubt, of the twenty or so advertisers on the page hosting the Forbes article.

“Everybody in the Pool” could have been a nice little look at boutique phone networks, and the ways companies are extending their brand equity through emerging technologies. It could have been a nice thought piece about why Apple might want to consider such a move — but that would have required analysis, and analysis is hard work. Instead, it becomes a sensationalist supposition unworthy of Forbes, good for nothing but generating page views. It can’t even be called a piece of good old rumor-mongering, because by all the evidence available in his article, Ewalt isn’t reporting on rumors, he’s making them up.

So does that mean Apple isn’t launching its own phone network? I have no idea. But based on what we can see in Ewalt’s article, neither does he.

Image courtesy of NASA.

Apple could be prepping space venture

July 13, 2005 /

At first, it could be mistaken for a conventional, albeit extraordinarily sleek, airplane. The craft’s engines roar, and it picks up speed as it races down the runway. Upon liftoff, though, it doesn’t level off like an ordinary plane, but continues upwards at an increasing angle as if it’s straining to reach the stars. Suddenly, booster rockets kick in, and the craft reveals itself to be a true spaceship, rising higher and higher into the sky, its clean white body marked only with a light grey Apple logo on the tail.

It may sound far-fetched, but it might make sense for a computer maker that’s revving on all engines and enjoying iconic status as a purveyor of all things cool. After all, who would have thought just a few years ago that Apple would own such a large percent of the music business. And surely Apple’s cult-like followers would line up to plunk down big bucks for a ride on the “iCraft.”

Practically admitting the rumors were true, Apple refused comment on the story.

—–

OK, back to reality — “down to earth,” if you will.

The above scenario is pure wild-eyed speculation, based on absolutely no evidence and fewer facts. Which means it’s got a lot in common with another piece of nonsense published in Forbes. All that’s missing in our little piece of fiction is a quote from Rob Enderle, who’s practically made a cottage industry of writing dumb, wrong things about Apple.

In “Everybody in the Pool,” Forbes writer David M. Ewalt reports on how Apple is considering launching its own mobile phone network. Go ahead, read the story. Now read it again. Nowhere is there a shred of evidence — or anything other than Ewalt’s imagination, for that matter — to suggest the story might be true. To give the writer credit, (I suppose) he doesn’t even try; there isn’t even a suggestion of an “according to sources who wish to remain anonymous” attribution. The only facts in the story concern other companies’ plans, not Apple’s. Disney, for instance, has announced it plans to launch a “family-centric” wireless network. ESPN has already launched a service, as has convenience store chain 7-Eleven. How Ewalt makes the leap to Apple launching a service is no less reality-defying than our own little iCraft fantasy.

The one item that relates Apple to phones is the iTunes-enabled phone being developed with Motorola. Since when is launching a mobile network a prerequisite to developing a mobile phone? And why would Apple want to limit the potential distribution of such a phone to its own fledgling network? Even Enderle’s quote doesn’t suggest that. He only asserts that mobile carriers would prefer to sell music through their own service and would rather have an iTunes phone sync through their networks rather than a computer.

So why make Apple the focus of this piece of pure speculation? My guess is it’s because stories about Apple draw eyeballs. Lots of them. And lots of eyeballs translate into lots of advertising dollars. It’s an old trick that still works. Even when Apple wasn’t the wunderkind of American, even worldwide, culture, websites would run “Apple is dying” stories that would incite Macophiles, excite PC users and make giddy the advertisers who were serving ads to everyone. These days, however, its getting harder to run that kind of story without looking genuinely clueless, so “What-secret-device-will-Apple-unveil-next” stories are taking their place — to the delight, no doubt, of the twenty or so advertisers on the page hosting the Forbes article.

“Everybody in the Pool” could have been a nice little look at boutique phone networks, and the ways companies are extending their brand equity through emerging technologies. It could have been a nice thought piece about why Apple might want to consider such a move — but that would have required analysis, and analysis is hard work. Instead, it becomes a sensationalist supposition unworthy of Forbes, good for nothing but generating page views. It can’t even be called a piece of good old rumor-mongering, because by all the evidence available in his article, Ewalt isn’t reporting on rumors, he’s making them up.

So does that mean Apple isn’t launching its own phone network? I have no idea. But based on what we can see in Ewalt’s article, neither does he.

Does Arlo Rose live in a glass house? Konfabulator may have ‘borrowed’ as much from Desk Accessories as Dashboard did from Konfabulator

June 30, 2004 /

Not too long ago, a developer had a conversation with a colleague over the issue of running small “mini-applications” (let’s call them “widgets,” for lack of a better term.)

(He said) “You’d want tiny apps that were good at a specific, limited function that complements the main application. Like a little calculator, for example, that looked like a real calculator. Or maybe an alarm clock, or a notepad for jotting down text. Since the entire screen is supposed to be a metaphorical desktop, the little programs are desk ornaments, adorning the desktop with useful features.” 

“But where do we draw the line?” I asked. “What are the differences between an ornament and a real application?” 

“Well, ornaments have to fit into the world of the main application”, Bud responded, “but not the other way around. The main application owns the menu bar, for example, but maybe the ornaments can have a menu when they’re active. The main application would still run its event loop, but it would occasionally pass events to the little guys. And of course you can cut and paste between them.”

The conversation, of course, took place among two members of the team that eventually turned the idea into Konfabulator.

Oh, wait — that’s not right. It was two Apple developers discussing their plans for Tiger’s new Dashboard feature.

Oops — only half-right.

The author of the above exchange is Andy Hertzfeld and the colleague he was speaking to is Bud Tribble. Together, the two developed this widget idea into Desk Accessories in Apple’s System 6, 22 years ago, in 1982 — predating the release of the Macintosh itself.

  • Apple’s Desk Accessories: the original “widgets?”
  • Konfabulator’s take: does Arlo Rose live in a glass house?
  • Apple returns the favor with Dashboard?

The idea for widget-like functionality, then, is clearly not new. So what sets Konfabulator apart from Desk Accessories? A big part of the difference is in their appearance. As John Gruber notes in his excellent essay, the goal of Konfabulator’s widgets was that they look “right at home” in Mac OS X. Why, then, is it surprising that Dashboard’s utilities — built by Apple — look similar? Remember, it was Konfabulator that was mimicking Apple’s look in the first place.

This part of the argument is reminiscent of Proteron’s cries of foul when Apple included tab-switching in Panther. Proteron didn’t invent the idea of tab-switching; they got it from Windows. And Proteron’ LiteSwitch was designed to look like it was part of the Mac operating system. Yet there was still an outcry when Apple’s tab-switcher had a similar look — but how could it not? It was part of the operating system.

Konfabulator runs Javascript. Dashboard runs full HTML, along with Javascript, Cascading Style Sheets and more. This is nothing new, either — Apple’s Help application has run HTML pages for some time. Apple’s Dashboard takes advantage of Safari’s web engine and other system-level resources like Cocoa. Konfabulator is a stand-alone program. 

So the similarity, it seems, is that both Konfabulator and Dashboard run small applications that have limited or targeted functionality. But that’s a definition that could be just as legitimately used for the original Desk Accessories.

Since John Gruber “beat us to the punch” with his comparison (most of which we wholeheartedly agree with), we’ll point you there for the rest of the arguments, including some important tidbits on the similar Watson vs. Sherlock controversy that got lost amidst the cries of theft.

Some charge that if a third-party developer comes up with a solution not currently available on the platform, Apple should stay out of their way. To address that, we look to Gruber again, who (referring to the Proteron LiteSwitch brouhaha) wrote “? when a utility is designed to compensate for a hole in Mac OS X, the developer should not expect the hole to remain unfilled by Apple forever.”

Mac Evangelist ‘list dad’ pleads no contest to charges

September 14, 2002 /

Wired.com reports that Shane Anderson, “list dad” of the MacEvangelist mailing list, was released from a Waterloo, Iowa jail after pleading no contest to charges that he broke into and tampered with a computer belonging to a business partner.

Anderson sent a note to subscribers of his list, saying he is not guilty of the charges, despite the no contest plea. “The alternative was to spend up to 9 months (3 months bare minimum) in jail awaiting a trial,” he wrote. “I was not prepared to waste 9 months of my life on a very minor criminal charge, especially when I am innocent.”

[ad#In-article banner]

In hist post, Anderson asked subscribers for donations to a “legal/getting-Shane-back-on-his-feet fund.”

“I have been truly shipwrecked by this episode and I have huge and mounting legal costs which I must pay,” he wrote. “I have immediate pressing needs as urgent as today, and really I need to raise about $6500.”

Anderson provided information for his bank account, a PayPal account and his mailing address. He also published his phone number and invited subscribers to call him directly promising to read police interview transcripts to anyone who was interested.

“I hope this does not come across as tacky. Being incarcerated for 4 weeks really smacks your life on hold, and I would never send you an email like this unless I really had no where else to turn. I know I can rely on you.”

The Wired article is available on the publication’s website.

Photo Credit: Shutter-Nub. Used under Creative Commons.
Photo Credit: Shutter-Nub. Used under Creative Commons.

Editorial: GraphicPower ‘blacklisting’ looks more like apathy than conspiracy

July 8, 2002 /

A slow but steady outcry has been building up within the web-based Mac press over the revocation of GraphicPower’s media credentials for the upcoming Macworld New York Conference and Expo. Unfortunately, some in the Mac web have turned it into an ill-informed, inbred hissyfit based mainly on second and thirdhand reports, and the idea that if two or more sites quote the same piece of innuendo it qualifies as “confirmed by independent sources.”

Continue reading

The Perfect Mac: why Apple still can’t get me to dump Ol’ Betsy

May 22, 2002 / / 0 Comments

betsy_frameI know this is not what Steve Jobs wants to hear, but I haven’t sent a dime to Cupertino for a piece of hardware since midway through Bill Clinton’s second term.

It’s not that I don’t want to support the mothership, so please don’t flame me for being “disloyal.” I’ve dutifully handed over my ducats on things like AppleWorks and the Mac OS X Public Beta (not only the first one, but that second one, too — better known as 10.0), and I’ve helped keep more than my share of Mac peripheral makers in the black.

But back in those days when there was just one George Bush, and the only Monica the president lusted after was played by Courtney Cox on “Friends,” I had the uncharacteristic good luck to purchase one of the best computers Apple ever produced: a 233MHz beige G3 desktop.

You see, what Apple produced in those early days following Steve Jobs return was a machine he had little to do with developing. Introduced in late 1997, the G3 is arguably the most expandable Mac ever made.

I’ll also venture to guess that Betsy is the last of her kind: an eminently expandable, easily upgradeable workhorse. She was a product of her times, when Apple was in the midst of its self-imposed competition with cloners, and before Steve Jobs brought back with a vengeance the concept of planned obsolescence.

[ad#In-article banner]

Imagine what kind of shape Apple would be in if every Mac it made had such a lifespan. Computer companies rely on customers upgrading their machines. Some industry analysts look for lifecyles of 18 months or so. By that standard, that makes Betsy about 160 in “PC years.” PC manufacturers have to count on advancements in operating systems, software and peripheral technologies to drive new sales. No wonder Microsoft stays in the software business.

Luckily for me, Gil Amelio was too busy trying to keep people from parking in his space to notice his engineers had taken the concept of plug and play and used it to build what is essentially a modular computer with the ability to morph into something far beyond what anyone could have envisioned when it rolled off the assembly line.

Thanks to its replaceable processor, Ol’ Betsy now beats with the heart of a 500MHz G4, and is packed with 620-or-so megs of RAM. Her three PCI slots are filled with an ATI Rage 128 Pro video card, a Firewire/USB combo card and, most recently, a 133MHz IDE controller card, which let me add two additional internal hard drives, with the potential for two more. A DVD-ROM internal drive and a CD-R/W external Firewire drive keep her in step with the times. (A DVD burner isn’t out of the question, either.) In fact, Ol’ Bet is so current, I finally gave her floppy drive the heave ho in order to make room for another internal hard drive.

Perhaps best of all, I’m happy to report that my diminutive little G3 runs Mac OS X like a champ – with no discernible difference from the Quicksilver G4 that sits in my office.

With each new Macworld announcement, I wonder if Steve Jobs will unveil something that finally prompts me to put Betsy out to pasture. And although the new iMacs are tempting, they offer no compelling reason to ditch the G3, especially considering I’d have to give up my 20” monitor. But my battle-scarred Betsy runs Photoshop, iMovie, iTunes, iPhoto, FileMaker Pro, Adobe InDesign — and even Quake — with aplomb. Thanks to its remarkable expandability, I haven’t had to miss out on a single of Apple’s “iApps,” and I have over 110 gigabytes of storage inside – plus another 60 or so on an external Firewire drive.

Alas, though, it looks like I’ll finally have to come to grips with the fact that the old gal’s days may be numbered at last. At the Worldwide Developers Conference, Steve Jobs announced that the next iteration of Mac OS X – codenamed Jaguar – would feature hardware graphics acceleration that would require high-end AGP graphics cards; an addition my G3 isn’t ever likely to see.

The jury is still out on whether Jaguar will run on older systems without the hardware boost, though, and my guess is it will. If that’s the case, Bet and I may not have to part company for some time to come. We may be coming to the end of the road, but I think there are still a lot of places left to see before we get there.

A final note: lest you think I’ve developed an unnatural affection for my computer (and my wife would probably swear to it), I did not actually name it “Ol’ Betsy.” That was just for the purposes of this column.

I’m glad we cleared that up. After all, naming a computer Ol’ Betsy would be just plain weird.

I just call her schnookums.

The Genesis of Online Publishing, or: Adam and Steve in the Garden of Readin’

April 17, 2002 /

In the beginning, there was the word.

But it was quickly followed by concerns about distribution channels, business models and revenue streams.

Over the past two years, two different authors — horror master Stephen King and TidBITs publisher Adam Engst — have made attempts at bypassing traditional paper-and-ink publishing and physical distribution in favor of a completely electronic model. Other than the “electronic-ness” of their offerings, though, the two experiments have very little in common.

When King conducted his experiment in online publishing in 2000, he wrote a serialized novel, The Plant, and made it available for download — one chapter at a time, purchased on the honor system. But there was a twist: if the pay-to-download ratio dipped below 75%, writing would cease and the experiment would be deemed a failure — proof that people weren’t trustworthy enough not to “steal from the blind newsboy,” as King put it.

After just a few installments of The Plant, though, King announced that writing on future chapters would cease while he “devoted himself to other projects.” While not out-and-out charging readers with assault on that sightless paper carrier, the implication was certainly there; according to the New York Times, the percentage of paid downloads of the latest chapter had dipped into the forties.

There’s room for more than one conclusion from King’s experiment, though: one that doesn’t require indicting the majority of The Plant readers as thieves. The most obvious is that King’s plan to sell and distribute The Plant was based on a bad business plan and flawed analogies. One that even in the most optimistic scenario could only have worked for someone of King’s stature, anyway, and therefore would have been meaningless for the publishing industry as a whole — or for authors in general.

What King wanted his readers to do is pay $1 for each of the first three installments (for each format: PDF, html, plain-text, PDA-formatted) of his story. Although King couldn’t say exactly how may installments would comprise The Plant, he did commit to a maximum charge of $13 — about the price of a hard cover novel, he wrote on his website. Some readers immediately criticized the cost as too high. They complained that when they paid for the paper and toner/ink to print the installments, the price would rise even higher.

There were even more vociferous complaints over King’s insistence that each time you downloaded a particular installment, you had to pay again or be labeled a leech. The problems were obvious: Accidentally erase installment one? Here’s another, please proceed to the cashier. Want to read it on your Palm at the beach? Sorry, you downloaded the PDF. If you want a version formatted for a handheld, pony up another buck.

I don’t think the problem here is greed, but rather King’s flawed comparison between paper and virtual publishing. The Plant may wind up costing about the same as a traditional novel, but it’s not one. Long documents like novels are not easily read on screen, and the cost of the paper and toner or ink to print out each installment is not insubstantial. Further, the electronic version of the book doesn’t have nearly the same production costs associated with it. Sure, there’s the cost of hosting the site, the bandwidth charges for the thousands of downloads and the processing costs of online payments. But that’s nothing compared to the cost of make-ready, galleys, film, plates, printing, binding, book jackets, distribution, publisher’s markup, seller’s markup, promotional displays, etc., etc. For King to compare the two methods that way is either disingenuous or naive. If I am going to pay full price for a book, you’d better believe I’m going for the one that I can pick up and hold, read in bed or on a park bench, put on a bookshelf, save for my kids or donate to my public library. The potential of online publishing is that it makes it possible to get literature distributed without the overhead of conventional publishing. And if it’s going to succeed, the prices of the online titles must be substantially lower than those of their paper-and-ink counterparts.

Another complaint was that King expected payment each time a file was downloaded, even if it was just a different format of the same installment, for instance, by a reader who downloaded a PDF version, then wanted to read it on the train with an eBook. King’s analogy was that was akin to walking into a bookstore and telling the clerk that since you already had the hardcover version of a book, you expected to get the paperback version for free. It’s an analogy that doesn’t work on several fronts. First, if you already have a physical copy of a book, it’s unlikely you’d need another one. You can take the same book with you on that subway, or the living room of your house, or into the bathroom of your office, for that matter. With an electronic book, you are tied to the hardware that can display it. (Just try getting your desktop computer into your office bathroom.) Besides, a hardcover and a paperback version of the same book each has a significant cost associated with its production; there is no additional cost in producing another copy of the same electronic file. Again, physicality carries extra costs that virtual products don’t. By not realizing this, King virtually doomed his virtual experiment.

Think of it this way: for King’s experiment to have been considered any kind of success, it would have to be repeatable. But who, other than someone with the following and status of Stephen King or Tom Clancy or John Grisham, would have had even a chance of pulling it off?

This week, technology writer and TidBITs publisher Adam Engst wrote that he was conducting an experiment in online publishing of his own. Backed by Peachpit Press, Engst is publishing his forthcoming book (about Apple’s iPhoto) as a PDF list priced at $20; buyers will then get a paper-and-ink version of the book’s next edition for free. “It was a perfect solution,” Engst wrote in his newsletter, crediting his wife Tonya for the idea. “Since it didn’t require people to figure out the value of an electronic book, it wouldn’t automatically cannibalize sales of the next edition, and it would ensure that people could benefit from the book for months before the next edition would be available.”

Engst faced the same concerns about “robbing the blind newsboy” that King did, but took a decidedly different stance. “The only people who will have it initially are people who have paid for it,” he wrote, “and my foreword to the electronic edition asks them to share the book as though it were a physical book, at least in the sense of asking the recipients to buy their own copy if they’re using it a lot.”

Still, Engst is realistic about unauthorized copying, and comes to a conclusion the horror writer might find, well, shocking. “After a while, I’m sure there will be copies floating around from a variety of pass-along situations, but you know what? I think that’s a good thing. This electronic book will be obsolete within a few months, and it will be replaced with a paper edition that can’t easily be copied. Sure, some people will get a copy, read it, and determine it’s not worth buying. That’s fine with me — they would have been unlikely to buy it anyway, so no harm done. Others will get a copy, find that it’s useful, and purchase a copy so they can have the print version when that comes out. That’s great — the copies served as free advertising. And undoubtedly there will be some who will get a copy, find it useful, and never pay, which sounds much like what happens with books stored in those subversive organizations called libraries. Frankly, I don’t mind — I’m happy that someone will have benefited from my efforts in such a way that doesn’t add to my email workload.”

The different roads to online publishing taken by King and Engst belie their different backgrounds. King, coming from conventional publishing, sees electronic publishing as analogous to the physical method.

Engst, on the other hand, with his technological perspective, sees things differently. As we wrote back when King uprooted his experiment with The Plant, there’s a far better analogy he could have used in creating the business model for his literary experiment, and it’s one every online denizen, including Engst, is already aware of.

Shareware.

The difference between commercial software and shareware is basically the same as conventional publishing and electronic publishing: overhead. Eliminate the physical production, distribution and promotion of a product and you greatly reduce its cost. By passing on this cost savings (or at least a good deal of it) to your customers, you make it worthwhile for them to forego any of the benefits of the physical model and put up with any inconveniences associated with the virtual (like downloading files, or printing out your own pages).

Here’s our humble suggestion for fixing Stephen King’s experiment. Online books should always be priced significantly lower than an equivalent paperback. We say no more than five dollars — maybe $10 for a long title like King’s more expansive efforts. Like software, your money buys you a license to what’s in the file. That means you can download any format of the same title for no additional charge, but you may not give the file (or a copy, printed or otherwise) away for someone else to read.

The title should be complete, or if there are further installments, they should be available at no extra charge, and should be password protected so only those who paid for them can read them.

If Stephen King put this experiment to the test, we think he could start a real electronic publishing revolution — one that could impact authors who might otherwise never reach a broad audience.

In the meantime, Engst’s experiment with dual-publishing — still at least loosely based on the shareware concept — strikes us as having a much better chance to succeed, and to have a far more long-lasting impact on publishing.

Stephen King uprooted The Plant, but Adam Engst may have planted the seed for a whole new way of publishing.