Enough time has passed since the publication of Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs that I think it’s safe to give away the last line of the book. Besides, Isaacson himself reveals it in his extensive 60 Minutes interview. (Here’s a tip to those who don’t have time to read the book: just watch the 60 Minutes profile; it remarkably captures the essence of Isaacson’s reporting.)

In the final passage, Jobs is reflecting on mortality and concedes that he’d like to believe in an afterlife.

“But on the other hand, perhaps it’s like an on-off switch,” he said. “Click! And you’re gone.” He fell silent for a very long time.

Then he paused again and smiled slightly. “Maybe that’s why I never liked to put on-off switches on Apple devices.”

Much can be observed about the late Steve Jobs from this statement: his obsession with simplicity as he oversaw the design of Apple’s remarkable devices, his lifelong connection to digital technology (from pioneering personal computing to creating a market for the “fourth screen” of tablet computing), and how he integrated his soul with the devices that he created. He wanted to make a “dent in the universe” and at least in our gadget-infused, content rich world, he did.

Jobs’ products made a huge dent in my world as a visual storyteller: when I acquired a Powerbook in 2003 with its integrated content creation tools (Final Cut Pro, DVD burning, soundtrack production) I suddenly believed that I could become a filmmaker. Perhaps, I had entered Steve Jobs’ so-called “reality distortion field,” because against all odds, his technology did transform my creativity into a viable content that made its way to the masses.
Read more…

I’ve been thinking about business models for online content (text and images), given Apple’s introduction of the iPad and Amazon’s infamous battle with Macmillan. I’ve argued that digital subscriptions should be less than their analog counterparts, basing my argument in large part on the fact that traditional print is vastly more expensive than digital distribution.

I’ve been wrong. At least in the short run. Read more…

Amazon made an announcement last week about the Kindle e-reader and changes to their royalty scheme for authors that may have caught your eye. I will do a quick recap:

Amazon announced it is providing authors and publishers with a “70% royalty option” for books sold on the Kindle. The new royalty regimen seems to be squarely aimed at keeping Amazon as the’ top of mind’ publisher for e-books, especially in light of the enormous number of new readers that were unveiled at the recent Consumer Electronics Show (CES) and the breathlessly awaited arrival of an Apple tablet device. The new percentage of 70%, from the current royalty of 35% per title, comes with a number of restrictions. These include:

• The actual price of the book must fall between $2.99 and $9.99 and be at least 20% below the lowest price of a physical edition of the same book.
• It has to sell for the same price, or less, as it does with competing booksellers.
• It has to be available everywhere the author or publisher has intellectual property rights.

According to Amazon’s announcement, “the 70 percent royalty option is for in-copyright works and is unavailable for works published before 1923 (a.k.a. public domain books). At launch, the 70 percent royalty option will only be available for books sold in the United States.” To see the entire announcement, go here.

My take: The royalties question is very important to authors, obviously, as that’s how they eat.  Amazon’s announcement has a sobering effect on competitors and publishing houses, as many authors may opt to move their works to direct publishing by Amazon, foregoing the services (and fees) associated with working with a publishing house.

Read more…

Last week, we cancelled our cable TV service.  In one fell swoop, we went from 60 to 0.  No more DVR, HBO in HD, nor movies-on-demand.  Also gone: the extraneous 700 other channels that I never looked at.  For the first time since I was a college student, I wasn’t tethered to a coaxial connection.

I told Comcast, no hard feelings.  We kept their broadband and voice services.  I said, we needed more “breathing room” so I could work on my book (presently entitled Trust Me: How to Tell Stories in a Credibility-Starved World).

I was being truthful.  That said, that I’m also saving $1000 a year.  I’m ingesting content specific to my interests (streaming Hulu and Netflix through my Playstation 3).  And I’m putting the savings to media that matters most to me: public radio (KUOW, KEXP), the Seattle Times Sunday paper, and a dead-tree subscription to the Wall Street Journal.

Image from zeropaid.com

Thanks to three recent articles in that same Wall Street Journal, I now also believe there’s a higher purpose to this decentralization of my media choices.  Because once again, large institutions with a vested interest in maintaining their power aren’t too pleased that people like me are making such choices.

Read more…

Mobile applications might provide a new business model for some artists, according to one of my students who has been researching the music industry this quarter. Last month, for example, the Presidents of the United States of America released an iPhone application containing four of their albums, plus rarities, live tracks and demos. The cost? $3.

Because the songs are streamed from the application, this distribution method should not cut into MP3 sales. That’s an important observation. At Gnomedex three years ago, Dave Dederer described how the band made as much as 80 percent of their revenue from the iTunes store.

Today I read in Fierce Mobile Content that Matt Groening’s long-running (22 years) comic Life In Hell will soon vanish from the pages of the LA Weekly. Jason Ankeny goes on to argue … you guessed it … that Life In Hell and other comics would be “natural on a Kindle or on an iPhone.” And it’s not just because these two devices offer a revenue model that the open web does not:

Read The Rest of This (Very Long) Post At WiredPen