I feel like a broken record sometimes. I went to Next Issue Media's site today after reading about the new release of Zinio 2.0. I thought for sure that the digital publishing consortium of Conde Nast, Hearst Corporation, Meredith, News Corporation, and Time Inc., would have shown by now some modest interest and progress in their pursuit of a workable digital newsstand. I am here to report sadly that there is still no progress indicated what-so-ever. They are still proudly and boldly advertising on the top of their web site that Next Issue Media is exclusively found only on the Samsung Galaxy Tab, like that is a good thing. What? I have an iPad. The world has iPads. But, OK, perhaps they don't want to do business with Apple. It is a possibility. But then why can't they have an Andriod app after more than two years? Why? On their site they boast of your ability of get any and all of nine titles. Imagine that, two years and all they can do is put up 9 titles on a single lonely device. 

Can we just step back here for a second and ponder the publishing universe from the corporate towers of these major powerhouses? Multiple years in the making and multi-millions of dollars spent and what do they have to show for the money, the time and the experience? Next Issue Media is only available on the Samsung Galaxy Tab. Speaking for myself, I've gone from pretty enthusiastic at the beginning of this process two years ago to I don't give a damn what happens next to Next Issue Media, because it won't matter an iota. In fact, I am completely embarrassed for our industry by this absurdity. I continue to be stunned by the shear idiocy of this failed project. 

This is a clear case that it doesn't take unlimited money to insure success. In fact, judging by this non-achievement I would have to conclude that having too much money can be a detriment to success. There are plenty of damn good newsstands out there right now with thousands of titles. Zinio, the long-standing leader in this field, has a good one, just see the video below. Publisher's Press has a good one. Bluetoad has a good one. And so do many other hungry companies that don't have the clout of these so called giants. But they do have the will and the gumption to get things going on any and all platforms, and that is because they are run by real entrepreneurs and not corporate shirts with no real skin in the game.  To me, it is a clear case of the hungry vs the overstuffed. What do you think? Care to offer an opinion for our fellow BoSacks readers?

(Disclaimer - I mentioned my sponsors here because I am most familiar with their work. You should also know that I have turned down sponsors whose work I deem less than it aught to be. ) 

I won't close down a business of subnormal profitability merely to add a fraction of a point to our corporate returns. I also feel it inappropriate for even an exceptionally profitable company to fund an operation once it appears to have unending losses in prospect. Adam Smith would disagree with my first proposition and Karl Marx would disagree with my second; the middle ground is the only position that leaves me comfortable.

Warren Buffett (1930 - ), The Warren Buffett Way by Robert Hagstrom+