Can JK Rowling bring on e-book standardization?

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

It is interesting to me how the Kindle readers don't seem to be the ones complaining about Amazon's "lock-in," but the Epub readers. If lock-in were really a problem, you would hear more Kindle users complaining about it, I think.

IMO, what's really going on is some epub readers feel locked out because they want to be able to buy from Amazon but can't because they bought an incompatible device. I don't think that's really Amazon's problem.

Oh no, this is certainly not Amazon's problem. Indeed, it's their customers' problem, many of which -- apparently -- do not realize it yet.

And in terms of lock-in, you will see posts of mine dating back to my joining this site decrying the non-standardized format (then, Sony's LRF, which I still use myself), and the iTunes-like lock-in. I am not opposed to it because it's Amazon, I'm opposed to it because it's bad for consumers. Amazon just happens to be the one hold out.

We are fine, thanks.

Until you decide to purchase another model of e-Reader, of course.

Why would Rowlings even be tempted to ignore the dominant e-book format, particularly when she owns a Kindle. You should be pleased she even bothered with e-pub.

She chose ePUB. The only platform mentioned in any press release, Google Books, handles ePUB exclusively.

The only debate at this point is how Kindle users will get the books. Will it be via ePUB on Kindle, or will it be by mobi support on Pottermore? That is why this thread is titled the way it is: the one hold out might have to join everyone else.

And of course all of this concern trolling about standards is completely misplaced. B&N uses Epub, but you still can't read a nookbook on a Kobo or Sony. Apple uses Epub, but you can't read an iBook on a nook or Sony or Kobo. Some standards.

There are two layers to the lock-in. First is format, second is DRM. You are speaking of DRM, of which it seems one poster (or twin) has received much (deserved) congratulations on.

DRM from Amazon apparently can be circumvented without damaging the format of the book.

And of course if Amazon did switch to Epub, they would use their own DRM (because there's no way that they are paying Adobe), and you *still* wouldn't be able to read it on other devices.

Unless the book did not have DRM...but if it doesn't have drm, converting formats if trivial now. Or if you didn't mind breaking drm...but again, you would be no better off than you are now.

First and foremost, this thread deals with Harry Potter, which will not have DRM. And, once again, which will be sold via Google Books, meaning no announced Kindle support.

In terms of DRM, I already stated that it can be circumvented.

And this raises the question further. If you support Amazon so whole-heartedly, why would you even care to break the DRM in the first place? If you do not mind being locked in to the Kindle, then DRM doesn't matter in the slightest. The only reason to break DRM (disregarding piracy) is to plan for the future; to make sure you keep access to your book perpetually. The only reason this would be an issue is if you planned to leave the Kindle ecosystem. And then, you are still stuck because only the Kindle supports mobi format.

So if you support removing DRM, why so opposed to a standardized e-Book format? I honestly don't care so much what the format is (except that I've put much time in learning ePUB, as I did LRF before that). I just want a standard that is good so that I can buy any e-book from the store of my choice and use it on the e-Reader of my choice.

-Pie

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

I'm not sure why you would say this. We are on the edge of a unified standard: there is only one hold-out! That hold-out happens to be the largest seller of e-Readers in the world, making them impossible to ignore.

When you take into account all the other brands, Amazon is not #1 world wide. In fact, overall readers that handle ePub outsell Kindles.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ApK

I can see where he's getting his estimates from:
http://www.bookpublishingsoftware.co...ketshare-0511/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20035277-1.html
http://www.ghanavillage.com/showthre...stomer-Loyalty

Where are you pulling YOUR info from, exactly?

Those articles are a bunch of hooey. Amazon doesn't release numbers. They are just a guess. They are meaningless. But given that the readers do not begin and end in the USA and there are more brands out there then Kindles and we know that Pocketbooks and Sony sell well outside the USA. So I would not want to think that AZW is the #1 format. ePub is the #1 format world wide. No, I do not need to cite articles that are incorrect.

[DMB]

I'm not unhappy to be locked into Amazon by the Kindle format, because

1. mobi is adequate for my reading needs
2. In recent years I have bought nearly all my dt books from Amazon, so it's a seamless transition
3. If JK Rowling doesn't choose to publish in mobi format, then too bad. I just won't buy the books.
4. Amazon makes getting books onto the Kindle very straightforward.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Why would Rowlings even be tempted to ignore the dominant e-book format, particularly when she owns a Kindle. You should be pleased she even bothered with e-pub.

The dominant format is ePub. It seems a lot of Kindle owners do not want to hear that. eBooks go beyond the US borders. Outside the US, ePub is more dominant then AZW/Mobipocket. So given the entire world, it's not AZW/Mobipocket, it's ePub.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ApK

Funny, I've never seen 'obsolete' used to mean "still most popular, and best selling" like that before.

eReader format is still sold. Yes it's obsolete. Mobipocket is also obsolete. Just not quite as obsolete. Microsoft realized that MS Reader was made obsolete by ePub and basically dumped it ASAP. Amazon is sticking to AZW/Mobipocket because they can get vendor lock-in quite easily.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

And this raises the question further. If you support Amazon so whole-heartedly, why would you even care to break the DRM in the first place? If you do not mind being locked in to the Kindle, then DRM doesn't matter in the slightest. The only reason to break DRM (disregarding piracy) is to plan for the future; to make sure you keep access to your book perpetually. The only reason this would be an issue is if you planned to leave the Kindle ecosystem. And then, you are still stuck because only the Kindle supports mobi format.

Because Amazon already has one strike against them as far as Books go. Amazon sold eBooks before eink readers and then they just dropped them. No longer could anyone download their paid content when the needed to get a new file to update the DRM. So they got screwed. That's one reason to strip Amazon's DRM.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DMB

I'm not unhappy to be locked into Amazon by the Kindle format, because

1. mobi is adequate for my reading needs
2. In recent years I have bought nearly all my dt books from Amazon, so it's a seamless transition
3. If JK Rowling doesn't choose to publish in mobi format, then too bad. I just won't buy the books.
4. Amazon makes getting books onto the Kindle very straightforward.

Sure, you may not be bothered not being able to buy the HP series for the Kindle, but I can see a lot of outcry if this is what comes to pass. Amazon will have to do something about it and the only way they could would be to add ePub to the Kindles.

[charleski]

Originally Posted by ApK

But it seems, judging by Amazon's success and effect on the ereader industry, the "vast majority" of what readers want in their e-reading experience is already accommodated by even the smaller subset of feature that mobi offers on eink devices.

Amazon wins on convenience, has a large advertising budget and sells a cheap device. I don't think those points are being debated here, but I don't really think they have a relevance to the desirability of having a platform with more typographic sophistication.

Obviously the average reader doesn't think much about the design of the books they purchase. They shouldn't have to worry about the minutiae of how the book is laid out. Good typography is typography that disappears and doesn't call attention to itself, so this is something that people shouldn't have to think about. But getting that to happen requires a knowledge of proper practices and attention to detail to make sure that all the elements work together behind the scenes in a cohesive and elegant manner.

I would argue that there is far greater volume of work that is better served by a fixed layout (all the "...For Dummies" books come immediately to mind...I've now officially given up trying to read "Chess for Dummies" on my Kindle) than would be substantively served by only those features that ePub offers over mobi, as nice to have as they might be.
Put another way, when you are talking about works that are seriously diminished by lack of embeddable fonts and certain kinds of indents, or certain nested table structures, then you are most probably talking about complex designs.

The 'For Dummies' books are, frankly, generally not that complex, and most of the styling, callouts and sidebars they use can easily be rendered in ePub by someone who understands how to use the code.

I think the ePub standard is far from perfect and needs to develop further. But the future of electronic books lies in having a standard that's more capable and not trying to reduce everything to the level of a mediocre specification that was designed for tiny screens fifteen years ago and has been almost untouched since then.

Now we're done.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The dominant format is ePub. It seems a lot of Kindle owners do not want to hear that. eBooks go beyond the US borders. Outside the US, ePub is more dominant then AZW/Mobipocket. So given the entire world, it's not AZW/Mobipocket, it's ePub.

80% of e-books are sold in the US. Of the 10% sold in Europe, most are sold in the UK, where the Kindle is even more dominant than it is in the US.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

B&N do not use the standard Adept DRM that other Adobe stores use, which is why many readers cannot read B&N books. So Sony (if you count them as a major store), and Kobo (for non-Kobo devices only) use the standard Adept DRM. Vs Amazon, Apple, B&N and Kobo (for Kobo devices) that do not. 1.5 for, 3.5 against.
By %age of books sold, an overwhelming proportion of the market do not use standard Adept DRM. Even excluding Amazon and sticking just to ePub books, this is still true. This is hardly surprising, why would they want to pay Adobe 22c per book sold for something that a major player could instead do for themselves?

You have a very strange definition of standard. Anyone can use the latest Adobe Reader SDK and support B&N books.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

80% of e-books are sold in the US. Of the 10% sold in Europe, most are sold in the UK, where the Kindle is even more dominant than it is in the US.

92.3% of statistics are made up on the spot.

And even if a mediocre attempt at research is made, how much value can it have if it exempts known and applicable factors from the underlying data?

How much development of ereader software and hardware goes on in the former Soviet Republics, and in light of thst what effort if any is made to tabulate the extent of ebook use there?

If many of the books sold there are sold very cheap, does that make them not exist at all for the purpose of gathering world statistics on ebook use?

[ApK]

Anyone can use the latest Adobe Reader SDK and support B&N books.

And Amazon COULD sell their DRM to anyone, but neither thing is happening, so same same.
They both have some degree of locking potential, and no users seem to care either way. Same same.

The only PRACTICAL difference is you and those like you seem to like one and dislike the other.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Phogg

And even if a mediocre attempt at research is made, how much value can it have if it exempts known and applicable factors from the underlying data?

A little, which is infinitely more than the TOTALLY unsubstantiated and unsupported things that JSWolf is throwing out. The industry press guesstimates over 50% market share, but JSWolf says they are WRONG...it's LESS than 50%...and he knows this...how?

Heck, this is a bunch who considers two or three ADE/epub stores to represent a "everyone else in the world" aside from Amazon, representing a world standard, so apparently even a teensy bit of data should be adequate evidence for them.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Phogg

92.3% of statistics are made up on the spot.

You may be projecting.

This is pretty well-known if you follow global e-book sales at all. http://dhdeans.blogspot.com/2011/02/...ew-by-200.html

And even if a mediocre attempt at research is made, how much value can it have if it exempts known and applicable factors from the underlying data?

How much development of ereader software and hardware goes on in the former Soviet Republics, and in light of thst what effort if any is made to tabulate the extent of ebook use there?

If many of the books sold there are sold very cheap, does that make them not exist at all for the purpose of gathering world statistics on ebook use?

So you are suggesting that the US doesn't really have over 80% of the e-book market because there is a large number of uncounted sales in the former eastern bloc? Anything is possible, of course, but it would be better if you provided some data.