I read an article a couple of months ago which stated that magazine subscriptions are up, and so is printed catalog distribution and sales from those catalogs.
Anecdotally, subscribing to Apple News only whetted my wife's appetite for the printed versions of the magazines she sees on her iPhone. She's since subscribed to the print versions of three of them.
We were at the rodeo one day and one of the magazines had a booth. I mentioned to the people from the magazine that my wife subscribed to their publication because of Apple News, and they said they hear that a lot.
Of course, I've also read that some publishers are not happy with the revenue cut they get from Apple News, so perhaps its not right for every publisher.
Would love more context on this. Up from when? Up for whom? Which countries? The details matter in something like this.
"Print is dead" is hyperbole but I thought it was pretty established that print is struggling compared to the mid/late-'90s or mid-'00s. https://www.statista.com/statistics/184055/estimated-revenue...
Nearly (if not actually) all of the pulp required for paper comes from managed forests grown and harvested specifically to produce wood products over time. These tree farms are stable, not shrinking.
“managed forests” produce high amounts of waste and take away arable land and natural habitat quite aggressively . what you have said here is a common propaganda perpetrated by industry advocates on the web and is often passed on as gyan without any scientific basis or authentic study or source to back it up.
hell, even critical thinking is missing when people write comments like this!
kind of like lobsters were cheap prison food in 1800s story:
We briefly ran a full online marketplace for individual copies printed on demand and shipped, with a revenue split, but it was too difficult to make the economics work.
However, if you need to print a few hundred copies and send them all round the world, I expect they can organise that.
The most obvious one to me: allow people to test their applications in production. Allow them to generate a temporary fake card number, expiration, and cv2 that Stipe can authorize as if it is real.
Allow you to generate and expire it from the console and via the API.
We had people on stripe's support team for 6 months tell us we can't test in production on real cards. We didn't want to, but we do have to test production check out flows, and currently the only way to do it is with real cards.
Someone senior finally told us "of course everyone tests production, you have to. Just nobody likes it. "
I would put out a call for at least 10 to 100 customer requested features first before a print magazine.
I think it's been almost 5 years since stripe has introduced a feature we actually wanted. I'm not trying to be a troll, but this super obvious payment testing thing really bothers me because 100% of customers who build apps for payments should be using it. And it's not built.
* the fake cards can leak, and your customers can start using them on your site. I'm not sure how you want to handle this. If this is production your code shouldn't have to be checking for card number patterns, and since you don't get the full card number anyway, I'm not even sure how you would.
* Part of your bookkeeping is that all production transactions are reported as income, both to your CPA and to the IRS / tax authority of your country. You're going to have a major headache trying to explain what's going on to the auditors. These fake transactions will forever be part of your audit trail.
* It'll screw up your reporting - your analytics, revenue, churn rate etc will be artificial, and you'll have a hard time getting people to trust them the moment it's even possible to fake those numbers with test cards.
We have a ticketing system, and yes we do use our own cards to buy low value stuff on production. We then trigger the normal return / complaint flows to get actual refunds back (Stripe doesn't charge you anything for refunds), so it's really no skin off anyone's back, and it does properly test both your purchase and refund flows fully.
You could argue it’s pretty monocultural but otherwise I don’t see much of s problem with it.
Someone elsewhere in the discussion asks for a Kindle edition; that'd be a great way to keep unnecessary paper down.
I'd rather have the dead trees, thanks.
> discarded paper and paperboard make up roughly 26% of solid municipal solid waste in landfill sites
> In the United States the pulp and paper industry released about 79, 000 tonnes or about 5% of all industrial pollutant releases in 2015...
> Worldwide, the pulp and paper industry is the fifth largest consumer of energy, accounting for four percent of all the world's energy use.
> Wastewater discharges for a pulp and paper mill contains solids, nutrients and dissolved organic matter such as lignin. It also contains alcohols, and chelating agents and inorganic materials like chlorates and transition metal compounds. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can cause or exacerbate eutrophication of fresh water bodies such as lakes and rivers. Organic matter dissolved in fresh water, measured by biological oxygen demand (BOD), changes ecological characteristics. Wastewater may also be polluted with organochlorine compounds. Some of these are naturally occurring in the wood, but chlorine bleaching of the pulp produces far larger amounts.
> The pulp and paper industry is also associated with important emissions of heavy metals. In Canada, for example, this industry is the third source of lead (Pb) emissions to water In the U.S., the pulp and paper industry is responsible for 9% of industrial releases to water.
and so on...
Even if the 1% number were fair/complete, combating climate change is likely going to involve a lot of small cuts rather than one or two big ones. Avoiding printing stuff we don't need to print is worthwhile.
That being said, an individual reducing their consumption of paper based products is arguably the least impactful action we can take as a society.
Instead we should be focusing on the packaging industry's use of onetime use packaging for products, particularly those that are difficult or impossible to recycle (e.g. milk cartons, juice boxes, etc). This is not only a huge contributor to paper pollution but also micro-plastics pollution and landfill waste in general.
Greater Container-deposit legislation on more products (e.g. plastic bottles) and on limited use but highly recyclable paper goods (e.g. newspapers and magazines) would greatly increase the amount of recycling we do as well.
So you're arguing against using crop land to produce a crop?
Producing crop for food supplies is not the same thing as producing crop for transmission of blob of text. The former is critical for human survival whereas the latter is totally undesirable. Especially now that we have a well permeated web to distribute books on, we don't need anyone to sow or reap the trees anymore. Period.
> Producing crop for food supplies is not the same thing as producing crop for transmission of blob of text. The former is critical for human survival whereas the latter is totally undesirable.
Do we need to produce more food? No, we have an over supply and producing more would only drive down prices and harm the producers who are already struggling and require subsidies. Proposing we produce more food crop farms is asinine at best.
> Especially now that we have a well permeated web to distribute books on, we don't need anyone to sow or reap the trees anymore. Period.
Suggesting that web delivery is a suitable or even complete replacement for books or printed literature is equally asinine. Conveyance of discrete data is only one small aspect of printed media. The experience of reading a book, magazine, pamphlet, or paper is entirely different from reading on an electronic device. Dissemination is also another critical difference, sure everyone can download your PDF but that doesn't mean they will. A magazine sitting on a coffee table in a waiting room is an entirely different experience from anything electronic and it is complete incomparable.