Yes, I too think he was wrong about that particular point. The “paperless office” did not materialize because people were unaccustomed to reading and manipulating documents on screen and because the technology did not make reading them truly easy. Both of these factors have changed.
But I disagree that instant publishing will vanish. Paper is really an amazing and useful technology.
The real problem with comparing the paperless office with publishing is that these are two entirely different contexts. Office paperwork is largely ephemeral. It is used briefly and then socked away in case someone ever needs to reference it, which they probably won’t. Going electronic for this use makes infinite sense. It saves printing and storage costs.
But publishing deals with works that are to be saved and consulted over time. For many, but by no means all, uses paper makes a lot of sense. It is more readily archivable over long periods, with no concerns over obsolescence of media. It can be accessed anywhere and anytime. It requires no power source. And it provides a stable edition which can be used for reference, unlike the continually changing electronic copies.
Certainly more and more works will go digital, but traditional publishing will not disappear. Just as television changed radio, so publishing will change. But it won’t go away.