Book ’em Danno!

Pettite states print may have been the anomaly in that it is a separating process that has kept ownership of reading material and, in turn, knowledge from the masses with little or no ability to change or add to that content. The Internet—and, I would guess, its many children such as e-Books—on the other hand, provides an open frame work to control, change, add to or modify what we read. Google “The Gutenberg Parenthesis” to review his exact words and summary and let me know what you think.

So if we can add more to the value of an e-Book, and some of that value has a commercial value, the publisher can offer advertising via the links, the author gets a share, and customers get a reduced cost, is that a better thing or a bad thing?

Seems to me that on the surface, yes this is a better thing for all. I believe that you need capital to grow, expand, explore and experiment in this new world of Media Convergence. Publishing would also offer expanded profits to the industry, having the capital needed to move to the next stage of convergence.

A similar argument can be made for TechCrunch. Its stakeholders too are looking to make the consumers life simpler, easy and stress free. They offer a more indirect benefit offering—the ability to search out a networked medical record via the Internet, or voice activated array of interconnected mini-apps linked to social networks and social media. Direct or indirect benefits, your call?

In the end, the result of will be the same—life, at least one level, will be made better for all involved. The integration of media via a defined strategy based on Media Convergence and the increased benefit to the consumer by the combination of media used is in itself a valued option. But can the media experience be added to in a positive manner across other media venues?