It has been my lifelong habit to read the newspaper. That coupled with the fact that I am not inclined to be an early adopter of personal electronic devices means that it will take something special for me to alter my morning ritual with the newspaper. Well, I came across the something that just might do it. The trick was to make the electronic display look and, to a certain extent, handle like a conventional paper newspaper.

Art Berman
Insight Media Consultant

The candidate is a product under development at NewsFlex Inc. (Golden, Co): an electronic display that is in the size and shape of a broadsheet and that is also foldable.

The reflective, bistable e-newspaper can be unfolded into three configurations that correspond to the ways that a conventional broadsheet is typical folded. To accomplish the folding, the company has developed and patented a hinge that allows four page-sized e-paper panels to be connected into a single broadsheet. The compound broadsheet is almost seamless since the separation between panels is less than 2 millimeters (see their web site for some interesting video and animations of this product).

I am a big fan of the name chosen by the company for the new product: the OrigamiReader, as it clearly conveys the sense of what the product does.

Not only is the display technology designed to feel familiar and be appealing to newspaper readers, but so too is the company’s business model. What the company proposes is modeled along the lines of that widely in the US for cell phones. If customers would agree to a contract period for fee-based content, they would be entitled to receive an e-reader either for free or at a highly reduced price. The "deal" on the e-reader is made possible by a subsidy provided by the newspaper publisher. The publisher will also pay a portion of the fee from the first customer contract to NewsFlex to pay for the e-display. The price of the OrigamiReader is projected to be about $300.

When the service contract expires, the publisher may well offer the customer a subscription renewal at a reduced price. This should be possible and still allow the publisher to make a profit. The reason is that, with the e-reader, there are no printing costs associated with the publication of the newspaper.

Another distinguishing aspect of the business plan is that content will be delivered to NewsFlex customers both in real-time and on demand. Many other e-readers use cell phone like 3G connectivity, allowing newspaper content to be updated only periodically. NewsFlex, on the other hand, plans to use the local wireless Subsidiary Communications Authorization subcarriers. Such subcarriers are widely available from FM channels around the country. NewsFlex calls their point-to-multipoint communications system nService.

On the technological front, NewsFlex is reportedly in the process of choosing an e-paper vendor. On the business front, the company hopes to have contracted with various publishers by the end of the year.

The OrigamiReader brings to mind an observation. It exists because the management and engineering teams at FlexNews had the vision to conceive a new product, which was designed and implemented utilizing existing technologies with good straightforward engineering. The example illustrates the point that starting a new company and developing a new product does not necessarily start with or require a technological breakthrough.

The example of the OrigamiReader has also sparked a little speculation. The types and capabilities of existing display are so extensive that if there were no technological developments at all for the next, say, 10 years, there would be no need for a slowdown in the production of innovative consumer products.

On the other hand, the success of this product will be partly based on a recycled business model with some new delivery twists. While there is some clever thinking here, we have no idea how engaged NewsFlex is with the publishers, supply chain and subcarrier providers. We have seen many innovative and interesting ideas fail because the companies did not do a good enough job of understanding what their customers and the market really wanted — and would pay for. Let’s hope they have been as clever on the business development side as they have been on the product development side.