Encyclopaedia Britannica Kills its Print Edition

Sunni Man

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2008
62,159
29,364
2,320
Patriotic American Muslim
The first Encyclopaedia Britannica was printed in 1768. And now, 244 years later, it has been printed for the last time. At least as a set of bound books.

Its publisher has announced that it will no longer be publishing the print version, and will stop selling it when current stock runs out. It will continue to publish a digital version, which can be accessed on its website and through its iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch apps.

The digital option costs $70 a year, while the last printed version cost $1,400.
Britannica has printed a new version of the reference books every two years; the 2010 32-volume set will be the last.

“This is a decision we have been contemplating for a few years. We decided to break the news now as it was time to release a new printed version,” Jorge Cauz, the president of Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., told ABC News.

Over 7 million sets of the bound books have been sold since 1768. Twelve thousand copies of the last set were printed, although 4,000 still remain in inventory. Britannica expects those remaining books to sell quickly.

The end of the bound encyclopedias, which lined many bookshelves for years, is certainly a sign of the times. As services like Wikipedia gain steam, the idea of using a book to look up the history of, say, a presidential candidate seems rather quaint.

Still, Cauz said the Britannica brand is strong in the digital space, but the focus goes beyond encyclopedia content. “Eighty-five percent of our revenue comes from non-encyclopedia content — mostly from instructional and e-learning solutions,” he said. The company works with schools to provide its learning tools.

But of course, Wikipedia has taken over a large chunk of the digital encyclopedia market. “We have a very different offering than Wikipedia; our content is mostly created by experts and editors,” Cauz said. ”I understand Wikipedia has won the popularity contest, and Google loves Wikipedia in regard to search. We need to do something so we can be more prominent.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/03/encyclopaedia-britannica-kills-its-print-edition/
 
Grew up with a set of Britannica's in our home.

I remember spending hours just thumbing threw them and looking at the pictures.

They were almost an education in themselves.
 
The first Encyclopaedia Britannica was printed in 1768. And now, 244 years later, it has been printed for the last time. At least as a set of bound books.

Its publisher has announced that it will no longer be publishing the print version, and will stop selling it when current stock runs out. It will continue to publish a digital version, which can be accessed on its website and through its iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch apps.

The digital option costs $70 a year, while the last printed version cost $1,400.
Britannica has printed a new version of the reference books every two years; the 2010 32-volume set will be the last.

“This is a decision we have been contemplating for a few years. We decided to break the news now as it was time to release a new printed version,” Jorge Cauz, the president of Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., told ABC News.

Over 7 million sets of the bound books have been sold since 1768. Twelve thousand copies of the last set were printed, although 4,000 still remain in inventory. Britannica expects those remaining books to sell quickly.

The end of the bound encyclopedias, which lined many bookshelves for years, is certainly a sign of the times. As services like Wikipedia gain steam, the idea of using a book to look up the history of, say, a presidential candidate seems rather quaint.

Still, Cauz said the Britannica brand is strong in the digital space, but the focus goes beyond encyclopedia content. “Eighty-five percent of our revenue comes from non-encyclopedia content — mostly from instructional and e-learning solutions,” he said. The company works with schools to provide its learning tools.

But of course, Wikipedia has taken over a large chunk of the digital encyclopedia market. “We have a very different offering than Wikipedia; our content is mostly created by experts and editors,” Cauz said. ”I understand Wikipedia has won the popularity contest, and Google loves Wikipedia in regard to search. We need to do something so we can be more prominent.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/03/encyclopaedia-britannica-kills-its-print-edition/


surprised-005.gif
surprised-005.gif
surprised-005.gif
surprised-005.gif
surprised-005.gif





Wow. This is just so sad.
 
Oh noze. A sad testament to the electronic age.

One of my first jobs out of college (Class of Ought-77) was selling encyclopedias in rural Appalachia.
They couldn't afford them, and they sure as hell couldn't read. What a challenge that was.

Newspapers may be next.
 
Grew up with a set of Britannica's in our home.

I remember spending hours just thumbing threw them and looking at the pictures.

They were almost an education in themselves.

Growing up the child of a teenager in the 60s did not allow for much extra. My grandmother though had a set of World Book encylopedias that I spent hours thumbing through. I could tell you the GDP of Ethiopia long before I knew what GDP was. Knowing the main exports of Columbia (besides the obvious) when most kids did not know where Columbia was even located came in handy on occasion. I was deployed when my grandmother died and I couldn't make it back for the funeral. By the time I got home, all her possessions had been picked over and the World Books had been thrown out. I was pissed but they were just books. I have since discovered the Internet.
 
I still have a set, 1986. I bought them used in 1992.

Benjamin Franklin's birthday has not changed.

But paper is obsolete. Every family should have a 100 gigabyte database in their homes. Kids should be able to access data without being bombarded with commercials over the Internet.

But who decides on what 100 gig of data?

psik
 
I still have a set, 1986. I bought them used in 1992.

Benjamin Franklin's birthday has not changed.

But paper is obsolete. Every family should have a 100 gigabyte database in their homes. Kids should be able to access data without being bombarded with commercials over the Internet.

But who decides on what 100 gig of data?

psik

I'm certain that you have read "1984."

Remember what Winston Smith's job was?
Ever notice how many anti-Obama vids have been scrubbed, deleted?

Gettin' my drift?


Without the hard copies, altering evidence might be a cinch....
 
I'm certain that you have read "1984."

Remember what Winston Smith's job was?
Ever notice how many anti-Obama vids have been scrubbed, deleted?

Gettin' my drift?


Without the hard copies, altering evidence might be a cinch....

If everybody has a 100 gigabyte database that they can add what they want to then we can share out the information that we want. It can never disappear.

But with all of the print we have had for centuries who has said that double-entry accounting is 700 years old and should be mandatory in the schools? I find it laughable that you consider Obama important compared to that. When have Conservatives suggested mandatory accounting?

I have seen two versions of "1984" movies. I tried reading it twice. Boring, marginal sci-fi. I don't see why such a big deal is made of it.

This is better than 1984.

Badge of Infamy by Lester del Rey
http://www.booksshouldbefree.com/book/badge-of-infamy-by-lester-del-rey

psik
 
Last edited:
I still have a set, 1986. I bought them used in 1992.

Benjamin Franklin's birthday has not changed.

But paper is obsolete. Every family should have a 100 gigabyte database in their homes. Kids should be able to access data without being bombarded with commercials over the Internet.

But who decides on what 100 gig of data?

psik

I'm certain that you have read "1984."

Remember what Winston Smith's job was?
Ever notice how many anti-Obama vids have been scrubbed, deleted?

Gettin' my drift?


Without the hard copies, altering evidence might be a cinch....

You almost earned a thanks. Maybe I only see history being revised by the right, I'm sure both sides do it, but I've listened to Hannity and Limbaugh (and read posts which I know are not true and thanked by the echo chamber). How many different reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq have been offered by the right?

I love newspapers and regret that they are dying. Newspapers are a great chronicle of events and once produced are never changed. In this respect we agree, the danger of chicanery on the internet is high and a Ministry of Truth is a likely outcome if CU v. FEC is allowed to stand.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top