> How much of the 'future of publishing' discussions do you think are driven purely by ardent desire not to lose the status quo? Depends on what you're reading

> How much of the 'future of publishing' discussions do you think are driven purely by ardent desire not to lose the status quo? Depends on what you're reading. If you read e.g. Clay Shirky et al.'s "Post Industrial Journalism" report [1], which is close to the consensus view among people talking about the future of journalism, you'll find that it aligns pretty well with what you outline in your comment. It's different when you talk to the owners and managers of newspapers and magazines because it's their job to make sure the ship doesn't sink, not follow the disruption to its logical conclusion as fast as possible but to delay it as long as they can so you can avoid social and financial drama. Yes, they're grasping at straws ("Let's license Marco's iPad app and everything will be better. Or let's put up a paywall."), but they're in a very unenviable position and I don't know what I'd do if I were in their shoes. [1] http://towcenter.org/research/post-industrial-journalism/ http://towcenter.org/research/post-industrial-journalism/