Slashdot Mirror
Can the New Digital Readers Save the Newspapers?
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that several companies plan to introduce digital newspaper readers by the end of the year with screens roughly the size of a standard sheet of paper to present much of the editorial and advertising content of traditional periodicals in generally the same format as they appear in print. Publishers hope the new readers may be a way to get consumers to pay for those periodicals — something they have been reluctant to do on the Web — while allowing publishers to save millions on the cost of printing and distributing their publications, at precisely a time when their businesses are under historic levels of pressure from the loss of readers and advertising. 'We are looking at this with a great deal of interest,' said John Ridding, the chief executive of the 121-year-old British newspaper The Financial Times. 'The severe double whammy of the recession and the structural shift to the Internet has created an urgency that has rightly focused attention on these devices.' The new tablets will start with some serious shortcomings: the screens, which are currently in the Kindle and Sony Reader, display no color or video and update images at a slower rate than traditional computer screens. But many think the E-ink readers are simply too little, too late and have not appeared in time to save the troubled realm of print media. 'If these devices had been ready for the general consumer market five years ago, we probably could have taken advantage of them quickly,' said Roger Fidler, the program director for digital publishing at the University of Missouri, Columbia. 'Now the earliest we might see large-scale consumer adoption is next year, and unlike the iPod it's going to be a slower process migrating people from print to the device.'"
Yes. Because nothing will boost readership like each newspaper requiring it's own custom $300 reader that doesn't work for any of the other newspapers or books.
Just make it work on the popular readers out there (at this point that's the Kindle and the Sony devices). Amazon is rumored to release a new Kindle with a bigger screen on Wednesday (they've got a press conference announced).
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
This is why recessions aren't always bad. Some of these old companies will only do something novel when they absolutely have to. Otherwise, it's business as usual.
Give me a reader for $80 and maybe. $300? Screw that.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Outside of those carrying briefcases or backpacks, who wants to carry around a papersized piece of equipment to read old-fashioned news. Shouldn't they be focusing on a cheaper kindle-like device, since that has shown some acceptance in the marketplace?
Theres a lot to be said for a newspaper which can be rolled up or folded to take with you. Size is important for this sort of media.
Overclockers
The newspapers are doomed. Their focus is to be able to get the same revenue for ads with a bigger device. They completely miss the point. They think that "giving away content" on the internet was their biggest mistake.
In reality, their biggest mistake was not containing costs 10 years ago (slowly) to reflect the structural shift of information to a different medium.
I used to have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, which gave me both dead-tree and online information. While the content was ok at first, when NewsCorp destroyed the editorial content it was no longer worth the effort. Only about 10% of the dead-tree editions would be read because the format was unwieldy at the desk.
They need to bring costs in-line and generate quality content at the same time. (No, I didn't say it was easy.) There isn't a top-line solution that will make them viable long-term. Look no farther than ad rates to understand the limited value that the papers can generate for most of their advertisers.
...until we get foldable, rollable e-displays.
I mean, if I can't just pull it out from under the birdcage and roll up the dirt inside it, the way I do with today's print newspapers, it's really not going to work out very well for me.
I think when the history books are finally written fifty to one-hundred years from now, that we'll see this is a modern revolution: the media revolution. These things happen every now and then throughout history. While they ultimately bring about major changes in how we do things, they certainly don't happen overnight. But this media revolution is changing the entire face of how we handle and use information, whether it be print, radio, television, internet, music, movies. We've already seen how the music industry, and to some extent, Hollywood, has reacted to this -- though that's only the tip of the iceberg. Mass media corporations and agencies that can adapt to the changes that we are and will be experiencing, will continue to be in business. Those that can't adapt, will fold. Charles Darwin came up with a few words for this: "Survival of the Fittest."
advertising content of traditional periodicals in generally the same format as they appear in print. Publishers hope the new readers may be a way to get readers to pay for those
I'm willing to pay for content OR to have it infested with ads. Not both.
They want to have my cake and eat it too. This is why I can't wait for these businesses to crash and burn.
You can't take the sky from me...
I'd be interested in this, provided it's on a device I can use for other things (like a Kindle, I don't want a newspaper only reader), and it can get the paper wirelessly every morning. If those two things are true, I'd likely transfer my dead tree subscription over to the digital one, which saves the newspaper the cost of printing and delivering a paper to me every day (which are substantial costs).
Of course, right now the Kindle doesn't really work in Canada at all, so that's a pipe dream for me at the moment.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
I would say the reason smaller devices have been accepted in the marketplace is because there are almost no larger devices.
As a grad student who's just finished a master's degree, and is about to start down the long path to a PhD, I know I'm going to have to read a zillion PDFs - journal articles, scanned chapters of books, working papers from repositories, etc. I really want an ebook/digital reader, but I'm reluctant.
The only large-screen device I can find is the iRex DR-1000. It's got a 1024x1280 10" display, so much larger than the standard 600x800 of most readers. That would be great for PDFs. There's also a version with a stylus that allows for direct annotation on the screen. Fantastic.
Downside? It's about $900, has been reported to have battery life problems, and people give very mixed reviews to the firmware. Aside from the iRex, there's nothing else in this category (or if there is, please let me know!).
If someone made a larger, hi-res competitor to the DR-1000, and it cost maybe $500-$700, you might see more interest in larger readers. But right now, iRex has no competition.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Newspapers used to add value. Once upon a time, people who worked for newspapers actually wrote articles. In fact, papers had writers on staff who could be counted on to keep delivering articles that someone might want to read. Now, all the articles come from wire services. So while you might think the situation is bad because one company owns all the papers in your hometown, the situation is actually completely and totally fucked because every significant article in your paper comes from one of a small handful of news agencies.
It is true that major, important articles still come from newspapers, even corporate ones like the New York Times, or the Los Angeles Times. We will all be the less when newspapers are gone, and we have less news sources. But on a day to day basis, the average consumer could do without them. They can get the news from the wire sources directly, and at the point where they are using a computer to read the news, their news-reading device can do content aggregation and filtering for them. I wouldn't recommend it to any average person, but for the technically literate it is possible today to fairly trivially create your own Slashdot-like news site with automatically aggregated content, comments and/or forums, spam filtering, OpenID et cetera using LAMP with Drupal... using only published modules. And if you just bought a tablet, you could run it on the device. The only things missing from this plan are the e-Ink display and the ease of use (including the pretty interface... but you could probably do that in the browser too, with some jQuery effects.)
There are probably even easier recipes for doing the same thing. The simplest (from the actual implementation standpoint) is to just use the RSS functionality in Firefox or similar. But firefox isn't exactly optimized for use on that kind of display... My current goal is getting Angstrom Linux working on my WebDT 366. I got it to build but then the kernel was apparently built for i686 somehow, even though I specified Geode LX. So far OpenEmbedded is kicking my ass :(
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"...unlike the iPod it's going to be a slower process migrating people from print to the device."
What? Why in Heaven's name would Roger say that? If these come out at $50, come with a library of great books (all free from Gutenberg et al.), and allow you to put whatever you like on them in some open format which the FOSS community can create converters for, why wouldn't it blow the iPOD sales records out of the water?
And there's no reason for them to charge more than $50. They spend the price of a Kindle printing newspapers on every subscriber every year. They can sell it for $50 with a one-year subscription to two newspapers, or give it to anyone who has been a subscriber (showing a pattern of reading) for more than two years.
The difference between this sort of thing and the Kindle or the iPod is striking. Those were both created to sell downloads, and thus try to cripple you from doing anything other than buy from Amazon or iTunes. This proposed reader is a desperate attempt to move off of an expensive process (printing papers) and onto a cheap one.
The Kindle and the iPod are designed to wring more and more money out of the consumer. These are designed to preserve a revenue stream from an advertiser. One is designed to entrance and restrict, the other to entrance and keep entranced, whatever small cost is needed to accomplish that.
If the newspapers don't make this thing explode such that EVERYBODY has one by the end of the first year, it'll be because of gross incompetence (which I'm still betting on, unfortunately) or lack of ability to produce enough of them.
The current generation of newspapers is carrying an infrastructure designed to deal with distribution issues from 100 years ago. We have literally hundreds of newspapers in the U.S., with dozens that are considered "newspapers of record" or major players. In an age when information is instant, and you don't have to wait for dead trees to get delivered to your doorstep to get it, there's just too many news sources.
Does anyone else think it odd that the white house press room is filled with reporters? 3 or 4 reporters could do the same job as the 20 or 30 that pack that news room. I also find it funny that most of the major newspapers carry substantially the same stories. It's all very redundant, because it's designed to be distributed locally in an age when that delivery process took an entire day, and delivering over longer distances was not feasible for a daily paper.
The major newspapers will mostly die or consolidate. Technology has made redundant having a major newspaper with all its attendant printing machinery, reporters, staff, etc. in every major city. Certainly there will be a market for a few major newspapers, but not the sheer number we have today.
I don't think it's the end of the world scenario that people are painting it to be, either. We'll still have multiple sources of info (I suspect the NY Times and Wall Street journal for instance will survive, along with a multitude of local news outlets and other media outlets like cable news networks and bloggers), there just won't be the increadible multiplicity we have today.
Amazons Reader won't even read all of Amazons own formats. Remember Amazon bought Mobipocket yet Kindle won't read Mobipocket DRM protected files.
And then you expect them to read other companies formats? You must be kidding.
Martin
Newspapers should offer wireless enabled ebooks with 1 or 2 year subscriptions.
The newspaper will save on print and distribution costs.
People will still be able to read the news with breakfast.
I got a Kindle and an iPod Touch for Christmas from my wife. I loved the kindle but it is just a little big to carry around. When Amazon came out with the Kindle reader for the the iPhone/iPod Touch I tried it out. Guess what it is wonderful. I always have my iPod Touch in my pocket. I use it it to read a lot more than I do my Kindle. At home I may use my Kindle but the Touch is just too handy.
It is the next gen of smart phones that you need to put news papers on. AT&T no has the Nokia E71x smart phone for only $99. Even "feature" phones are getting pretty dang smart these days. Soon everybody will have a Palm WebOS, iPhone, Blackberry, Android, S60, or for those poor souls Windows Mobile device. The question still will be how will they make money? Will people be willing to pay or will ads work?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. We always had a subscription and I used to read it in the morning before going to school. Well, skimmed major articles, and looked at the comics and sports pages mostly, but the daily newspaper was fairly thick and had a decent metro section.
Well, year after year it kept getting thinner and thinner with more generic articles purchased from Ruters or the AP. In the past 5 years my Dad and I can think of a single major multi-part story they did on the corruption going on in local fire protection districts. It was a damn interesting read and something people needed to know about (like how many wives were on fire boards voting for pay increases, etc..) But that was one investigation in 5 years. Meanwhile the business section was cut down to the top local stocks and that was the death nail. Why pay $0.35 a day for the same wire stories you had already read online and he can go to the website and get the local sports stories.
If they brought back more local investigations and reported more about what was going on around town, you know have content that was interesting and worth reading, he'd get a subscription.
I think news magazines are in the same boat. Time, Newsweek, etc. all seem to be thinner than I remember once upon a time. It's gotten to the point where the only ones I read on a regular basis are The Economist and Der Speigel when I can find a copy.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Exercise: buy a newspaper and throw out all the sections that are 100% marketing. Entire sections, like Autos, Real Estate, and Wine (Wine?) go into the dumpster. The classified sections can go; that's all on-line, and on line it's searchable.
Of what's left, over half will still be pages that are all advertising. Throw out those pages. About 15-20% of the original pages will be left.
Then throw out the pages than only have stories you already saw on Google News. Throw out the stories that came from PR Newswire. Maybe 2 to 3% of the pages will be left. That's the "content". The whole paper could probably be condensed down to about six pages. In many cities, less.
Today's newspapers make spam look like an efficient data transmission medium.
I mean, yes, for a living, I stare at a computer all day. I read on it all day, BUT, I often take things that are important, that I want to remember and quickly refer to and print them off. I wouldn't be interested in a kindle, I like to read real books, ones that I can dogear and whatever. I find that when I have things I"ve printed off, I often doodle on the pages and mark or highlight things. I find that like when I was taking notes in school, I can picture in my head the exact page with doodles and all on what I'm trying to look up or remember.
I can't seem to do the same thing with a computer screen.
That and for a newspaper, and granted these days I only get the Sunday paper, but, I like it for the coupons I can clip. I like to take out the store ads for BB and other places, take them with me when I go shopping.
And frankly, how the hell are you supposed to start the charcoal in the 'chimney' starter without newspaper? Not to mention, I'd not like to spread out a bunch of e-newspapers on a table during crawfish season to eat off of....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Remember the pre-internet BBS days, like Compuserve, Prodigy, etc? Selling tiny little low res newspaper readers, would be like in the 90s when the pre-internet BBSes were going down, trying to boost subscriber numbers by selling a tiny low res fisher-price laptop that can only connect to Prodigy, while the rest of the market moves to the internet on their PC.
It kind of makes me laugh.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I used to prefer dead-tree books until I got an iPod Touch last December. Since then my reading habits have been revolutionized. I've read almost 2 dozen books since then, and all but 3 were on my iPod. It is not the *same* as reading a paper book, but the benefits balance the cons quite nicely.
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
1) lightweight
2) flexible - as flexible as paper
3) cheap
4) no vendor lockin
I'd be happy to go to an office supply store and buy a foldable broadsheet-size e-paper reader then download the same newspaper I get at home. I wouldn't pay twice for the same subscription, but I might pay for a subscription I wouldn't otherwise pay for if the content was specialized enough.
For newspapers, specialized content includes local content not covered by other media including other local media, editorials and opinions, and in certain cases, advertisements, such as those in the Sunday supplement. Many of the latter are now online though.
Newspapers need to get it through their head that they are in the news- and opinion-delivery business, and that print is just one of many methods of delivering content.
They also need to get it through their head that if another vendor provides essentially the same information, or even a large subset of it, with no cost and no annoyance, he will be strongly favored over a provider that charges money or uses annoyances. Different readers consider different things annoying, but some annoyances include being on paper, not being on paper, being on paper of the "wrong" size, requiring a screen or window of the "wrong" size, browser incompatibilities, having ads, having animated ads, using active content on a web page, using tracking cookies, requiring a login, not allowing comments, etc. etc.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Am I the only person left on earth that like and often prefers to read things printed on dead trees?
Hardly.
I mean, yes, for a living, I stare at a computer all day. I read on it all day, BUT, I often take things that are important, that I want to remember and quickly refer to and print them off. I wouldn't be interested in a kindle, I like to read real books, ones that I can dogear and whatever.
0. eInk is not at all comparable to TFTs/LCDs/CRTs. It's a stable image, with contrast approaching normal printed text even now.
1. You can bookmark on kindles (and other readers) as well.
2. You can even make 1 file per 'printed bit of information', and still keep it organized (in 'file folders' etc)
3. Sure, currently the opening times aren't in real time yet, but in a 3rd gen or later device i imagine they'll be fast enough to be at least as quick as first having to find a piece of paper in a humongous stack (say, 50 printed research papers of 30-40p each).
I find that when I have things I"ve printed off, I often doodle on the pages and mark or highlight things.
Have a look at, say, the DR1000, or the coming PlasticLogic reader. at least the iRex device has a wacom pen that allows you to scribble in pdfs/image files.
I find that like when I was taking notes in school, I can picture in my head the exact page with doodles and all on what I'm trying to look up or remember.
You realise that with very little extra effort you'd be able to attach tags or whatnot to bookmarked passages, or have the reading program spit out all bookmarked/underlined/marked passages into a different file that links back to the main file, etc.?
I can't seem to do the same thing with a computer screen.
Which is why eReaders aren't pc screens without tablet functionality built in (although those touchscreen PCs as displayed by Jeff Han, or in the latest James Bond film or Knight Rider (2008) might allow you to do similar things).
That and for a newspaper, and granted these days I only get the Sunday paper, but, I like it for the coupons I can clip. I like to take out the store ads for BB and other places, take them with me when I go shopping.
So, advertising will change. Shops will have to in order to survive. Just Be Patient.
And frankly, how the hell are you supposed to start the charcoal in the 'chimney' starter without newspaper?
With something else?
from a news story I gave up. The last election made it even more pathetic. Too many of today's newspapers are nothing more than tabloids. They would have been laughed out of the industry thirty years ago.
So no, no reader is going to fix newspapers. Far too many of these papers are losing subscribers because the paper's political view is no where near in line with those who used to pay for them. Worse too many of these papers then call those people who don't subscribe over differences of opinion "ignorant" and wonder why that doesn't help.
Then again my experience is mostly with the AJC... though my buddy in LA says it is no different there.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I like my little library inprint edition. It nicely displays color and utility on my shelf.
But newspapers are a print disaster. Floppy, yucky layouts full of miscellanea on skip-pages, sorted by day instead of topic....Then you get to throw out a metric ton each month.
I'd seriously consider one of those readers if it kept all the dailies on tap so if you wanted to review your notes you could turn back to October 2004.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I would rather be holding a book to reading stuff onscreen. I would rather be holding a reflective flexible reader (e-ink and the like) to holding a newspaper. Most noticeable reasons: a newspaper is disgusting to hold, and it kills lots of trees for mostly meaningless content that will be irrelevant by tomorrow. For durable content, go dead tree. Makes sense. For transitory content, don't waste valuable resources and energy converting trees into landfill bulk. Leave it in the for of transient electrical charges. We can always print a hardcopy for archiving purposes.
I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
With people losing jobs left and right, maybe you wouldn't need as many permanent reporters if you offered to pay a cheap but reasonable sum for freelancer submissions. I mean heck, look how many people want to biog just because it is fun for them, something to do. Sweeten the pot a little with some cash, who knows... Identify what you want by subject and give some guidelines in advance, etc. I guess you'd have to wade through a lot of crap at first to see who did quality work or not and was reliable so you could count on them, but perhaps that might be a way to cut costs but still have good content. And like you said, that would be a way to reduce office space requirements as well if they just emailed the copy to you. I know every local community has folks who go to just about every local sporting event, other people are court junkies, just go there to watch, other folks love going to the county commission meetings, etc.
Just perhaps. I was just thinking about it, going back to the onions on belts days, how many of us wrote and gave it away free to the "alternative" press back then, just because we were passionate about the subject (usually politics and stuff, that's what I did, but I remember a lot of the artsy fartsy crowd did it as well, covering the local scene, the concerts and local theater and movie reviews and so on).
This whole idea begs the question of whether or not newspapers actually need "saving". The Kindle is not going to save large newspapers anymore than their websites will save them. What needs to change is not so much the delivery format but the way newspapers are run. Newspapers and news entities cannot effectively run as for-profit organizations or at the very least not as publicly traded for-profit organizations. The demand for stock price returns have led to newsroom cuts, consolidations, and expansions into markets newspapers shouldn't really be in. Newspapers either became or got swallowed up by "media companies" and now are part of television, radio, newspapers, magazine, and sometimes internet media conglomerates. We're all the worse for it because in order to drive a profit newspapers have increased column inches for advertising and reduced column inches for actual articles. They've also taken to filling space with wire articles instead of having a decent sized newsroom of their own. Wire services in and of themselves are useful entities, especially for smaller papers but we've moved into an age where people can log onto Google News and read wire service articles, newspapers don't need to waste ink printing them.
What will save newspapers the media conglomerates failing under their own weight and breaking back up. Newspapers will end up becoming more format neutral news organizations. They'll start providing news articles to specialized providers instead of running the whole stack themselves. A newsroom will write the stories and pass them off to Amazon to load on the Kindle, to Audible to make into an audiobook, to their website, and to a printer that will put the words to paper for people that still want (or need) a physical version of the news. The LA Times newspaper (for example) however will probably go away. It will end up being the "News and other work from the LA region" paper. A dedicated publishing group will pick up stories from the LA Times newsroom, advertisers, and possibly local blogs, and print and distribute them. The LA Times newsroom will no longer have to worry about the printer as long as their stories are submitted on time, advertisers can still get local ads out to people, and everyone will still be able to get the news that is important to them.
The main difference between that future and today will be the newsroom and the printer will not be owned and operated by the same company. More newsrooms will likely end up privatized or run as community owned entities similar to the St.Petersburg Times. News is a difficult thing to make profitable as it is a service in the public interest. If existing news organizations don't reorganize they will fail and other organizations with more streamlined processes and better management will eventually fill the void. A newspaper might fail but the journalists that love their work will keep doing it in one way or another.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Mass media corporations and agencies that can adapt to the changes that we are and will be experiencing, will continue to be in business.
More than likely none of them will exist in any form we recognise today. E-reader devices--even relatively successful ones like the Kindle--are stopgap measures that only serve to prolong an obsolete business model in the face of new technology. They are this generation's version of the electronic typewriter.
Personal computers became practical options for a large-enough market to achieve critical mass in the 1970s, yet typewriter companies soldiered on for near around two decades trying to prop up their obsolete concept of a typewriter by adding the technology of computers without actually admitting defeat and MAKING computers. Thus, the introduction of electronic typewriters, and soon after dedicated word processors, in the face of a rapidly expanding personal computer market.
Such devices were to be the savior of the industry. Word processing was the first "killer app" and these devices fit the bill nicely and were easier to use than general purpose computers. Though computers could be bought at comparable prices, you had to add an expensive letter-quality printer to get the same kind of hard copy. There was no concern about interoperability or open standards because the competing computers lacked much of that as well, and there was no publicly-accessible internet either.
Problem is, the typewriter companies didn't "get" computers, even while at the same time making microprocessor-based, single-purpose computers themselves. PC technology continued apace, and the PC industry consolidated around a small number of interoperable, standard platforms. Spreadsheets and databases became more important as "killer apps" and the internet made networking an essential.
Typewriter companies COULD have evolved their product offerings into open-architecture, general-purpose computers and not only survived, but thrived, but how many big typewriter manufacturers to YOU know of that actually DID that and DID survive? Very few come to my mind: IBM for one, and they only "got it" because they were already a computer company too with their mainframe offerings. Commodore got it as well--Tramiel was a visionary, perhaps too far ahead of his time, when he embraced the PET and pushed for low cost and friendliness with the VIC20 and C64.
However, even those who "got it" didn't fully "get it". Commodore didn't seem to figure out the value of interoperability even within their own product line! They couldn't come up with a proper successor to the C64 on their own and could only hang on by purchasing Amiga--which was again completely incompatible ans again acieved ALL its success because of its technical merits and despite the follies of its marketers. IBM saw massive success with their original 5150, 5160 and 5170 models (aka PC, XT and AT), and even saw fit to maintain compatibility. However like Commodore they lacked a proper successor after the 5170 and were stuck in the habit of proprietary offerings, thus the disastrous foray into the MCA bus architecture in an effort to lock-in customers like in the old mainframe days. As a result, Commodore went extinct completely and IBM doesn't make personal computers at all any more.
It'll be the same with media companies over the next 20 years. If the names survive they'll not be the same companies--News Corp. of 2030 will be no more related to News Corp. of today than Atari of today is related to the Atari of 1989. Same goes for television networks, movie studios, record companies and radio stations. True, they are often all divisions of the same big media conglomerate, but that's the point--they are DIVISIONS. They don't "get" that whether it be in newsprint, on TV, on the radio or in a web page, the content is ALL THE SAME--it all gets made into bits, stuffed into IP packets and pushed into wires or over the air at some point, or it easily can be.
The future means a s
There are benefits of having a dead tree, and there are benefits of having a device. The dead tree is reusable in a different fashion and can be used to light a fire, don't need batteries and can also be used to take care of liquid overflow.
The battery powered device is good in another way because it won't get bigger and heavier just because you load it with more information. And it can do things a dead tree never can - like being interactive or interact with other devices.
But if a battery powered reader isn't allowing the user to use it the way the user wants it it's going to be a dead end because you will only get a limited number of users and you will see competition from other data formats and manufacturers. The DRM hell will also cause a lot of agony and make it fail.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
My mod points ran out yesterday.