But for Barnes & Noble, the model can’t hide a brutal reality: $3.90 is a fraction of the $12.50 it now earns on a full-priced hardcover priced at $25.

Now I’m no math whiz, but as more people embrace e-reading, the $3.90s will never catch up to the $12.50s. It’s imperative that the book superstore find a new business model, and quickly. Books won’t join VHS tapes anytime soon, but obsolescence has its way of creeping up on you. Better to be prepared.

2. Speaking of books, here’s an interesting article from the Mercury News about Stanford’s foray into “the bookless library.” Stanford is conducting the experiment with its physics and engineering libraries first. Its reasons: It’s running out of room for physical books, and the availability of technical information online.

3. And now, for newspapers. The Atlantic’s How to Save the News is a fascinating, in-depth look at the newspaper industry’s troubles, Google’s role in all of it, and what can be done to fight the fact that print newspaper ads still pay the bills (sort of) while online ad prices have yet to catch up. The article’s overall tone: Online’s the future; publishers need to keep trying new ideas to make money; and information won’t be free forever. Apparently, Google executives think it’s inevitable that people will start paying for information. For the newspaper industry’s sake, I hope the brilliant minds at Google are correct. But I doubt most consumers hope the same thing.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Google will be launching its e-bookstore as early as June. The e-books customers purchase can be read on a good old Web browser — no fancy iPad, Kindle, Nook or (Sony) Reader needed.

I can imagine how this might be exciting to avid readers. Because many people have Net access almost everywhere they go, Google Edition customers would never need to lament that they wished they had brought a book with them. They could finish those last few pages of a really good book during a break at work, or on their smartphone as they stand in a long line for a latte.

If you already have an e-reader, this could be good news for you, too: It expands your options about where to get your books, as long as your device can access the Web.

I can also see how Google’s entry into the world of e-books would excite publishers. It’s yet another high-profile plug for reading and buying books. The print book business might be struggling, but the e-books business is growing; publishers need only find the right balance to profitability.

Of course, Google has a couple of legal and old-school hurdles. Old-fashioned readers like the feel, touch and smell of printed books. They turn their noses up at e-readers. But I would guess that the possibility of being able to read anywhere without having to buy a new device might entice some of those readers. As for the legal hurdle, it involves reworking of a settlement on Google’s right to distribute out-of-print books. (See “Another rewrite urged for Google Books deal.”) A U.S. district court judge is deliberating the case.

Lastly, if you believe Google has good intentions, this latest venture might bolster that faith: By making its e-books platform-agnostic, it seems to be staying committed to its declarations of openness and bringing information to the masses. On the other hand, it does stand to make good money by opening up its e-bookstore to as many channels as possible.

Perhaps American consumers are spoiled. It’s the Wal-Martization of our nation; we expect to be able to buy things at rock-bottom prices. Now, I know authors and agents and marketing and publishing executives have to be paid. But what I’d really like to see is a detailed comparison of the cost of publishing a printed book vs. the cost of distributing an e-book. In other words, are these new prices for e-books fair to consumers? I can see an argument for publishers. They still have to deal with the costs of distributing books in print as well as the added cost of distributing it in electronic form. But some consumers would argue — and rightly so — that owning an e-book is not the same as owning a physical book: You cannot really lend it out (or have to work within your e-reader’s constraints); you cannot read it if your e-reader’s battery runs out; you would be forced to read it on your PC if you dropped and broke your e-reader. All this brings up another question about the true value of information: Should its price be determined by the medium on which it is delivered?

It’s like a metaphor for the cultural shift that is happening with books and the transition to e-reading. Out with the old, in with the new. Lynch’s experience is in online commerce: Before he joined B&N last year, he was at HSN, founded gifts.com, worked at Palm. At 39, he’s relatively young. A quote in the Wall Street Journal by B&N Chairman Leonard Riggio  — brother of the 55-year-old CEO being replaced by Lynch — speaks volumes:

We need someone who has a vision of the new space, somebody who can recruit great people in technology. We have to be more than a retail bookseller.

Now, the Nook doesn’t have the hype of the forthcoming iPad, or even Amazon.com’s Kindle, but in February then-B&N CEO Steve Riggio boasted that the e-reader boosted online sales 67 percent. (Neither Amazon nor B&N releases sales figures for their e-readers, so I’m always skeptical about the claims made by either retailer about their success. Amazon has been touting the success of its Kindle for the longest time, but I bet many, many people out there haven’t even seen one in person.) The Nook has had its problems, including a supply shortage that prevented some consumers from getting their e-readers in time for the holidays. But apparently the shipping delays weren’t a complete disaster: Lynch was the man in charge of the Nook’s rollout, and now he’s No. 1 at the No. 1 bookseller.

Barnes & Noble’s move also reflects how Apple’s iPad has already become a game changer even before consumers get their hands on it. From the furious battles between Amazon and book publishers to the apparent changes upcoming in the Kindle (color screens, just like the iPad!) to both B&N and Amazon making their e-bookstores available to as many people as possible, the tablet cousin of the iPhone has put e-books front and center. Even if there is no immediate clear winner in the industry once the iPad rolls out, e-reading itself has already gotten a huge push toward the mainstream. People are talking about it, and some who previously dismissed electronic readers are now probably seriously considering how the Kindle, iPad or Nook could change the way they live.

But here’s why it makes a lot of sense: Like the rest of us, B&N has heard and seen and felt the hype. Apple’s iPad is coming — the day before Easter! — and despite its apparent shortcomings, people are going to buy it. And B&N could crawl under a hole with a Nook and pretend the iPad doesn’t exist, or it could sell books on the thing and make money. In the nascent e-reader world, it’s probably smart not to put all your books in one basket — unless you were there first, like Amazon, or you have a cult-like following, like Apple.

What remains to be seen is whether notoriously prickly Apple will like the idea of a competitor making it easy for iPad users to choose where they buy their e-books. Just ask Palm: When the Palm Pre first rolled out with the ability to download songs from iTunes, Apple updated iTunes so it couldn’t sync with the Pre. When Pre engineers fixed the “bug,” Apple blocked it again. And again. It’s entirely possible Apple won’t play nice with Barnes & Noble and its e-reader app for the iPad.

It is a moral imperative. I cannot enjoy health coverage and turn to my neighbor and tell him he doesn’t deserve it. A nation is a mutual undertaking.

Now comes a beautifully done profile of Ebert, whose thyroid cancer led to many operations and his present condition: He has no jaw. He cannot speak. He cannot eat or drink and is fed through a tube in his stomach. It’s fascinating, not only because Ebert is famous, but also because the profile so perfectly captures the tenacity of the human spirit. He still travels with his wife, still dines in restaurants — although only she orders food, of course. But what really prompted me to blog about this was the fact that if you only read his movie reviews and blog entries, you wouldn’t know Ebert was “dying in increments,” as Chris Jones writes in Esquire. Ebert can still watch movies, and write (and does he). Therefore he lives. And that’s beautiful.

After reading all five viewpoints — from two educators, two authors and a library director — plus the multitude of comments this topic generated, here’s what I came away with:

• Libraries need to be updated. This is true. But in the please-digitize-microfiche kind of way. Cushing Academy, the aforementioned school, is right in saying that research is done differently now — libraries need to keep up with the times. Getting rid of all physical books may seem bold, but it’s ridiculous. Sure, most students turn to the Internet to do research for a term paper, but when they have to read “Anna Karenina” for class, they pick up the book. And that makes sense. Update libraries, yes. Have the digital tools complement the physical ones. But take away the books and they’re no longer libraries.
• Reading physical books rocks. Most people seem to agree with this. Many serious readers say there’s nothing quite like picking up a physical book and allowing yourself to get immersed in another world. Or turning back a page to laugh again at that one exquisite sentence or passage. All this without the distraction of an instant message, or checking your e-mail, or chirps from TweetDeck. Books make us focus and think. But I bet there is some overlap among the people who say this and those who are atwitter over the iPad. Humans are fickle. We aren’t consistent. We want it all. So if we were to get rid of all books at all libraries and turn them all into “digital centers,” it would spark a revolution. Maybe. (In the past few days, I’ve read quotes that were in both camps: “Once printed books go we are lost as a people. Lost. They are as necessary as water,” and, in a NYT article about possible higher prices for e-books, “They’re just books. I do other things besides reading.”)
• Which reminds me: Reading physical newspapers rocks, too. Along the same vein — and despite the convenience of 24/7 updates online and being able to read about the same big, breaking news event from several different sources in a matter or minutes — I still like being able to keep the printed newspaper around for a couple of days or a week, and somehow coming across a short article I overlooked, or being amazed/dismayed by a typo in a 100-point headline, or finding a headline I wish I had written myself. (Believe me, the art of the headline is lost in the SEO-obsessed online world.)
• We need serendipity. I love that word. In my world, it’s the feeling I get when I come across a book I had never heard of but find myself finishing in one day because it was just that good. Or the delight I feel over a perfectly crafted headline, or when I laugh for days over a newspaper cartoon I just happened to see. Of course, some of this is possible online, too, but I can’t say I have had the pleasure quite as often. StumbleUpon is cool, but it isn’t quite the same as actually stumbling upon something. Also, most of the time people search for specific things online — hence Google’s success. Put simply, taking away physical books and newspapers gives us fewer choices, and therefore fewer places to find serendipity.

Google, which has scanned millions of books and aims to create a massive online library/bookstore, has again run into a roadblock. The Justice Department said Thursday that the new proposal, borne out of Google’s 2008 settlement with a group of authors and publishers, still would effectively give the Silicon Valley company a monopoly over out-of-print books. Justice’s position could affect a federal judge’s ruling, scheduled for Feb. 18.

The quick summary: Proponents of Google’s books project say it would benefit the public good. Opponents — including giants Microsoft, Amazon and Yahoo — argue it would give too much control to one company. Some would say that the need to avoid a monopoly in this instance is especially grave because the company in question is Google, whose stated aim is to organize the world’s information and has so far amassed quite a bit of it (including data on its throng of users). Don’t give it copyright immunity, too.

I wrote about the battle of the Goliaths in tech blog Good Morning Silicon Valley last year, in which I posed a question I have yet to find/read a convincing answer about: The project itself, which aims to breathe new life to works that most people cannot now access, seems like a good idea. But who should have control? Entities other than huge companies like Google, which have the resources for such a massive undertaking? Universities (Stanford has signed on with Google, for example) seem like a reasonable alternative, but even individual ones with huge endowments probably lack the manpower and reach that global companies have.

Did Amazon put up much of a fight against Macmillan? It doesn’t appear so. It pulled Macmillan titles Friday, but by the weekend it had backed down. Good Morning Silicon Valley, a blog written by a former colleague, has an excellent post about what went down. It’s too early to tell the winners and losers in this fight — it’s only just begun — but it seems publishers are going to be able to take more control over e-book pricing now, thanks to Apple. Perhaps Apple will help save old media after all. And the iPad hasn’t even come out.

As for Amazon, its stock dip might be temporary. After all, even if it renegotiates with all e-book publishers, there’s a possibility it would make more money on each title it sells, as opposed to what happens now. Investors are sure to realize that eventually.

• Where does the Nook, Barnes & Noble’s new e-reader, fit into the iPad vs. Kindle fight? The Nook came out late last year, but few people got their hands on one because of shipping delays. Many people who ordered didn’t get them in time for the holidays. In fact, from what I can tell, some customers probably didn’t get their Nooks till a couple of weeks ago. That’s not enough time for the Nook to gain traction, although with B&N’s huge library of titles — and the fact that people are supposed to be able to try them out at the bookstores (I intend to) — it could. Early reviews seemed mostly favorable, with the Nook scoring some points over the Kindle, but many reviewers still give Amazon’s device an edge. Now the iPad is likely to take some potential Nook buyers away.

• Amazon.com earnings: The Seattle-based retailer yesterday reported results that exceeded expectations, and boasted that “millions of people now own Kindles.” Amazon doesn’t break out Kindle sales, so the world is left to speculate on what that means. I’ve stepped away from Silicon Valley for a while, and I don’t hang around with the well-heeled, so the number of humans I know who have Kindles is a grand total of two. But hey, with the millions of Kindlers out there, I expect to run into a few more pretty soon. (But I bet I’ll run into more people with iPads before then.) Amazon’s results included an accounting change, but it’s also worth noting that it sells just about everything under the sun, and that its stock had been doing very well for the past 12 months. In other words, even if the iPad soars, don’t cry for Amazontina, it’s going to be all right. Still, Amazon can’t get complacent about its foothold in e-reading. It’s got competition galore: Apple, Barnes & Noble, Sony, Google (See my brief post in GMSV about this), and many others wanting a piece of the action.

• Reading experience, iPad vs. Kindle: Many tech writers and Kindle users point out that by design, reading on a Kindle is much like reading a book and therefore easier on the eyes than the iPad’s LCD screen, which can also be hard to read in sunlight. The sunlight thing is a good point, but aren’t most people used to the strain of reading on our computers and watching our TVs? Still, people who already use the Kindle might find it hard to switch if they’ve become used to the experience.

• Who uses e-readers, anyway? I’m old school. Despite having worked in the online world, I still like the feel and portability of the print newspaper.  (Plus it won’t stop working if I drop it or it gets wet, usually.) And for most of my life I’ve bought many, many books, but now I’m a regular again at my local library because nothing beats free. Yet I spend tremendous amounts of time reading all kinds of things on computers, so it’s not inconceivable that I would want an e-reader at some point. Some compelling reasons for e-books vs. physical books: Frequent travel. Use less space, eliminate clutter and kill fewer trees, although I’m not convinced electronics are always greener. Instant gratification. Geeking out. Still, there are many familiar reasons to stick with physical books, including being able to lend them to people, something that’s either unavailable or limited on e-readers. Also, being able to check books out at the library, as I mentioned above, because all this talk about e-readers that are worth hundreds of dollars really leaves out the fact that reading can be the ultimate democratizer. I’ve never been dirt poor, but being able to borrow books during my youth probably saved me from being a complete degenerate. So yes, I applaud technological advances, but I also hope that e-reading doesn’t make print — in all its forms — extinct. That would be tragic.

• Who says people don’t read anymore? As an aspiring author, it’s discouraging to read about the woes of the book publishing industry, from news articles to agents’ blogs. I tend to gravitate toward dying industries, I guess. On the other hand, all the hype about e-readers, plus the rollout of the iPad, is encouraging. People are reading! Here’s a look at how the iPad might affect publishing, written by my former colleagues at the Mercury News. It includes a handy little graphic that compares features of the Kindle, iPad, Nook and Sony’s e-reader.