My immediate reaction is to wonder who is going to create all of the devices, electronic paper and so on, install the infrastructure globally, pay for both infrastructure and tech for everyone who currently reads papers and magazines, and persuade people who don't have electricity or love paper or hate tech or can't afford tech or (insert all 'or's for why people don't use technology currently)... to change.

The business models are the easy part. Where's the thinking about people, real life, individual economics and human behaviour?

Environmentally it would save a lot of trees to no longer have all this printing, sure. Maybe that'll be the catalyst. Because the infrastructure isn't there, the technology isn't there, people can't afford to buy tech, and I can't see such a change in such a short time globally.

This doesn't address any of the objections Lex presented, but I thought it germane that today's NYTimes column by Paul Krugman takes on the possibility that all creative content will be free in e-form. If that were to come true, free and paperless are two strong incentives for individuals to acquire the personal infrastructure to enjoy those benefits.

Oops, sorry, forgot to provide the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06krugman.html?hp

Hi Rob;

I think Steve Ballmer is overly optimistic about the adoption of people to an all digital format. We're just getting into the new generation of eInk devices and widespread adoption is still a ways off.

First, there needs to be a range of devices at a range of prices.

Second, people need to see those devices at Target, Wal-Mart, places like that to start to get used to the concept before they even think about trying one out.

Third, unless eInk can solve the lack of color and instant refresh rate, eInk technology may not be the best way to go long term. Especially when you can get a low cost lcd picture frame in sizes up to 10 inches. It doesn't look hard to insert the basic components to turn it into a reader with room to spare.

Fourth, there would have to be a device that handles all the things we carry so many gadgets around for now.

It would need to be something like the HTC Advantage, only thinner and lighter with a 5 or 6 inch screen. Powerful enough to handle Windows Mobile or Blackberry type applications, function as a phone via bluetooth, decent MP3 player, play YouTube, jot notes, show off the vacation pictures, etc.

Windows Mobile, the new Blackberry OS, and the iPhone can do all of that and more now. What would be needed is the device with a slighlty larger screen than the Advantage, but slimmer and cheaper. Something like the current Sony Reader with a color LCD screen and the option to turn on and off a backlight to conserve battery.

If Microsoft, Apple, Google and RIM made a device that put their respective mobile OSs in a device like that and at a fair price that you could get from any store, then pick your carrier for the phone part.

There are already a handful of e-book reading devices that use B&W LCD screens that are small and light and get an all day battery life. Add color and one of the above mentioned mobile OSs then, maybe in 20 years, you might approach what Ballmer predicted.

This would be my ideal carry everywhere device. If I had the money, I'd be holed up in a factory somewhere creating it ;)

NEWSFLASH
Balmer will more likely be dead in 15 years.

I agree and I disagree. I think people will read more and more online, and newspapers and magazines will come under increasing economic pressure, but I also don't think ebooks and tablets and notebooks are for everyone. I certainly don't see print going away entirely within 10 years. Not everyone can afford to drop $400 on a device to read their 50 cent daily newspaper.

I do think newspapers are more likely to die than magazines. Short, timely nuggets of information are well served by online reading. Longer feature stories, not so much so.

Steve 'I believe America is the only place that exists in the universe' Ballmer.

A decade ago I predicted that newspapers would stop printing stock tables within a short period of time. My prediction was basically correct in that very few newspapers publish stock tables any more, but it took longer to happen than expected, and a few newspapers of record still publish some stock tables.

I expect Ballmer's prediction to fare similarly: in a period of time a few fold longer than he predicted, almost all newspapers and magazines will be paperless.

What's a magazine?

If you actually read the Washington Post, you understand that there is a very large difference between print and electronic media today. I'll give examples -

Print paper: Open it up, scan the headlines, look at the pictures, move on. Sometimes I see a story I like, sometimes I don't. Move onto local news, style (arts, comics, fashion, theater, etc.), sports, business, and the special interest section of the day. Hold onto the comics, and whoa 3 pages of comics (online? Each seperate comic is on a seperate page - it's all about accessibility to content). Look at special interest - is today when the Food section comes out? Travel? Scan it, look at the pretty pictures, etc. With print media, I am actually persuaded to look at the food section for example, and find something interesting. Online, I'm just going to skip over it. I get more out of a print edition than an online edition, and until they make eInk screens that have color, instant refresh times, are flexible, are as large as a full sheet of newspaper, is disposable for wrapping things/ serving as a cover to put a paint canvas over etc., and can allow me to switch to another section of the paper quickly and easily (with print, I can just pull out the food section behind the business section, I can "feel" the pages and flip right to the comics page in the style section), I don't see myself switching to an electronic form anytime soon. Besides, if I lose a newspaper, it's no big deal - try losing an electronic reader and see how well that goes over with your wife :P

Same goes for magazines - ads are not on the same pages as content, and content is laid out with graphics and other nice stuff. Compare with online, where you just get the raw content and some ads on the side of the page.

What is the purpose of electronic distribution? Up-to-date-ness? I can wait until the next morning to read headlines, or else listen to the radio on the way home - in the meantime, I appreciate the opinion pieces and features of the print media I read, which are more insightful usually than even the drivel found on well known blogs like Engadget.

@ Mickey Segal - namely, the Washington Post still posts stock tables. I forgot about that on my previous post - that is one of the few subjects that's better electronically, but I don't need an e-reader for it, just an iPhone.

Ballmer's comment misses what wickedpheonix correctly points out -- that the newspaper and magazine media are different from their electronic counterparts and we respond to the media differently. Ideally, both formats would continue.

The one way that Ballmer could be correct is if the encroachment of digital media and the rising cost of paper jointly make print publications unsupportable economically.

This is very interesting topic. I'm pretty much agreeing with the commentators here. I dont believe that mags are gone in ten years or even twenty, but I think newspapers could go away in their current print format.

Also Agree that mag format is more appealing then online content, but do we like that type of format online? ie. virtual mags?

I think we will continue to have both for a long long time. New mags will come, other will go and both, eformat and print will evolve...

I think what will be crippling for the newspaper media is not the cost of paper which is a renewable/recyclable resource but in the final analysis the cost of delivery which will raise the price of the newspaper by 50-100 %. If there is in place an over the air delivery system such as WLAN then paper delivery will become obsolete.