ZDNET: Apple sabotaging ePub?

[Katsunami]

"Sorry Sir, but I couldn't do my homework because I accidentally deleted my textbook."

I can see it happening Besides, buying into a non-open, one-manufacturer solution with regard to education would not only be bad, it would be plain stupid. If you can't see why... Then I'm not even going to try and explain. (It has to do with power and influence, and the unseemly amount of it you'd be giving to said manufacturer.)

But, looking at Apple's ever rising profits since 2001, it seems many people are willing to give up openness and choices for a little more convenience. Actually... Many of the people I know that complained about Microsoft's monopolistic attitude in the 90's now buy Apple, and they *defend* those same attitudes. "But it's not the same, because Apple does not have that big of a market share." Yeah, right.

If Microsoft would try this, in whatever way, they'd be fined by more than one government. They're not even allowed to incorporate a media player in Windows in the Netherlands. (There has to be a separate Windows version without one.) Let alone they'd be allowed to try and setup a one-company solution to use educational material.

[kartu]

Originally Posted by leebase

Destroy the public good? Without Apple, there would be no tablet market.

We don't know.

Apple has placed a multi million dollar bet.

Doesn't sound as much money after Apple has spent about 100 million on sueing competitors around the globe with "rectangular shape with rounded corners" designs.

Apple isn't evil for wanting a return on it's investment. Apple isn't evil for not giving away it's intellectual property to it's competition.

Not evil, right. Let's call it innovation. Apple is being innovative by claiming rights on the work created using their tools.
Trailing this "blazing innovation" Oracle has to claim rights on stuff created using Open Office and Microsoft should do the same with Microsoft Office. Not to give out their intellectual property to the competition.

[leebase]

Apple didn't have to give away webkit....but they did. They didn't have to use open source, but they did.

And Apple participates and supports the open epub standard.

Apple does both open and proprietary products. Right now, the iBooks are proprietary. This is common. Even open source companies make sure they hold important elements back for themselves so they have a reason for folks to pay them.

And you are right, school systems are going to consider the proprietary format as a negative. All Apple's competitors need to do....is do better, or even "close enough". Apple has left that door open by their choice.

Amazon is doing better, far better, at selling novels. Interestingly...it's doing better and yet it's NOT supporting or participating in the open epub standard.

If a company can secure a leading advantage, they will go it alone. If they are an "also ran" trying to break into a market, they'll join up with others to be "open". Both are simply competitive tactics with no "goodness" associated with them. It is not good or bad inherently.

The market will decide.

Lee

[leebase]

BTW...there is already "vendor lock in" with text books. When a school system (or state) picks a text book. That's it. Parents can't go out and shop for the text book of their choice. Nor would we want them to.

Which of us has ever cared what tools those publishers choose to make their books? I bet you Adobe has a near monopoly position.

And what do you mean "we don't know" if there'd be a tablet market without Apple? 2 years ago there was no tablet market to speak of. Then Apple announces the iPad, and the folks decrying the iPad today were saying that "nobody needs a device between a computer and a smart phone". Oh...it's too expensive. Doesn't do anything. Doesn't have this or that port...yadda yadda.

Then when Apple succeeds in selling millions of iPads....NOW there's a tablet market and everyone and his brother is putting out tablets.

Lee

[kovidgoyal]

Apple did have to open source WebKit (the parts of it based on KHTML). WebKit was based on LGPLed code, which means if they made any changes to it, they had to open source them, or be in breach of its license. Contrast that with their kernel code which was also based on open source code, this time BSD licensed, which therefore did not have to be open sourced, and ended up not being open sourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins

They did not have to use open source, true. they could have developed their own browser engine from scratch, but I claim they did so to save development costs, not to support open source. Feel free to claim otherwise.

And finally, I dont give a rats ass what Adobe or Microsoft or Amazon or Google or Facebook or whatever corporation you care to name did or will do. I dont condone anti-social actions simply because more than one entity does them. This thread was about Apple, but I can and do say the very same things about all these other companies.

I say that this move by Apple is bad for the ebook ecosystem, and for society that will depend on that ecosystem in the years to come. I have explained my reasons before. Those reasons stand, irrespective of whether 10 other compaines would do the same or whether "the market" approves of Apple. I choose not to outsource my ability to make moral judgements to "the market".

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by leebase

Apple didn't have to give away webkit....but they did.

They had to, as Khtml was already gpl2. It dictates that any derivative of a gpl2 work also becomes gpl2, with fully available source code. If I remember correctly.

The market will decide.

In this case, with regarding to educational stuff, 'the market' will be mainly governments, and they are almost unanimously moving, or trying to move toward open standards and even open source to get out of all the lock-ins and regain independence of any company. Because of that, joining a new propietary standard at this point would be the stupidest thing to do.

With regard to the current textbook market: a government now deals with publishers X, Y, Z, and A. If one of them [expletive deleted by moderation] in some way, they move to another one. (And maybe changing books in the process, or nave not; textbooks often are to be had with several, at least in the Netherlands.) If they do everything through Apple and the iPad, then Apple is the only publisher. Imagine Apple [expletive deleted by moderation].... Bad situation, because the entire system will need to change *at once* if a government wishes to leave Apple. No government will take that risk.

In the end, open formats will always come out on top, because "everything with one vendor" is only convenient as long as you don't want to switch. As soon as you want to switch, it's a nuisance.

Edit: 50.000 Karma for Kovid, if I could. No way I could post that better.

[cjr72]

For what it's worth 'This Week in Tech' had an interesting back and forth with Ed Bott (the author of the zdnet article linked to in the original post) on this very subject:
http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-tech/337

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

They are not saying that iBook format books are ePub compatible, they are not. They are saying that the iBooks application is ePub compatible, which it is.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

If you just want to create standard ePub2s with no extras (then why use this?), then there are reports that just renaming the file to .epub allows it to be opened in a Nook.

If renaming an iBook to .epub works how is iBook not epub compatible?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If renaming an iBook to .epub works how is iBook not epub compatible?

If you restrict to using only some features, the book may open in some ePub readers. That doesn't mean that the book is valid ePub, only that the reader accepts it, and it certainly doesn't mean that a book using all features would be.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

If you restrict to using only some features, the book may open in some ePub readers. That doesn't mean that the book is valid ePub, only that the reader accepts it, and it certainly doesn't mean that a book using all features would be.

Don't you have the same relation between .doc and .docx?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Don't you have the same relation between .doc and .docx?

No idea.

Another example would be that most HTML viewers would probably accept and display a plain text file with no markup. That doesn't mean that the text file is HTML.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

No idea.

Another example would be that most HTML viewers would probably accept and display a plain text file with no markup. That doesn't mean that the text file is HTML.

Your statement is about the viewer, not the format. If you change the name from .html to .txt can it still be opened?

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Your statement is about the viewer, not the format. If you change the name from .html to .txt can it still be opened?

Yes. A .html file is just flat text, so renaming to .txt will work and the file will be opened by any editor; even by a browser. Obviously, the browser won't show the html-markup anymore if you open the file as a txt file.

Any .html file is a valid .txt file, but not the other way around.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Yes. A .html file is just flat text, so renaming to .txt will work and the file will be opened by any editor; even by a browser. Obviously, the browser won't show the html-markup anymore if you open the file as a txt file.

Any .html file is a valid .txt file, but not the other way around.

So an ibook file is a valid .epub file, but not the other way around.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

So an ibook file is a valid .epub file, but not the other way around.

No, it's probably not a valid ePub file; it's just a file that an ePub viewer will do something vaguely sensible with. That certainly doesn't mean that it's a valid ePub.