|
andy said:
> pdf is natvie in Mac OSX so I doubt that its absence
> (if it is indeed absent) from Vista is anything to do
> with Adobe 'stomping on' Microsoft.
the dispute was quite public. you could look it up.
> its purchase of Macromedia strengthened its position
> in the market for content production tools where it is
> definitely the dominant player.
it becomes "the dominant player" by buying its competitors,
after which it usually shelves their products. the list is long.
their prominent use of flash is the exception to the rule.
evidently they decided it'd be better to cut to the purchase
and use macromedia's product without developing their own.
but the end-point is the same, a "market" -- as you put it --
with zero competition... wherein it's easy to be "dominant"...
> It is backing epub for its own business reasons but
> that deosn't mean that epub isn't (potentially at least)
> good news for publishers and consumers.
oh, you better believe that .epub is "good news for publishers".
and they will support it strongly, as it's _great_news_ for them.
a complex file-format raises the _cost-of-entry_ to their business,
and since the virtually-cost-free promise of _self-publishing_ is
threatening to swamp their e-marketplace with low-cost books,
.epub is _exactly_ what they need. that's what this is about, folks,
raising the cost-of-entry, a tactic they were taught in b-school 101.
and adobe is quite happy to help 'em do it, just as long as adobe
can sell a ton of content-authoring-tool software in the process.
now, whether this is "good news for consumers" is a different matter.
if you are happy with the pablum the publishing houses are offering,
and you're willing to put up with the d.r.m. they want to force on you,
then yeah, maybe this is good news for you. or maybe it's not, since
it's far from clear that .epub will end up as the sole available format.
there's still mobipocket/amazon to contend with, just for starters.
and some people might prefer .pdf. if you've got a fixed screensize,
and you can quickly and easily create nicely-sized text for that size,
the need for reflow is _significantly_reduced_, perhaps to _zero_...
also, every company that comes out with new viewer-hardware will
probably develop their own format to try to create lock-in that way.
and there could be _lots_ of such hardware coming down the pipe,
as prices of the necessary components drop to commodity levels...
plus, we haven't begun to see the (inevitable) stage where hardware
is _given_away_ in exchange for long-term service-contracts where
the vendors expect to make their money off the provision of services.
(or the display of advertisements. or likely a combination of both...)
remember that _books_ are just a tiny piece of the overall content pie.
and the same corporations that own the publishing houses also own
the film studios, the television networks, and the recording companies.
and there are all types of potentials promising them even bigger money.
a mobile machine that knows _where_ it is (via g.p.s.) can show its user
ads for nearby businesses, whether involuntarily or at the user's request.
there's this big myth that has been perpetrated that the main reason why
publishing companies haven't jumped on e-books yet is because of the
absence of a dominant file-format. and that's just silly. it's the fear of
piracy that's frozen the content cartel in regard to digitization of all types.
they put their foot in the water with the c.d., and -- wonder of wonders --
end-users used the digital format to do what the digital format does best
-- i.e, make copies, copies that can flow over the net quickly and easily --
and the corporations freaked, because their bread-and-butter is _scarcity_.
***
martin said:
> As a photographer I have used and trusted Adobe products for over a decade.
> They work well, do pretty much what they claim and have a reliable and
> sensible upgrade cycle. Of course they play hardball, this is capitalism
adobe does make good products.
and they also buy out their competition,
so the adobe product is the only one left.
that's not "capitalism". that's "monopoly".
> and its what we are stuck with like it or not.
sounds a bit fatalistic to me. but i can understand your pessimism.
> I find all the formats and for me odd conversion apps e readers emply
> a right royal pain in the butt. all I want to do is read books.
this situation was created by the very corporations who own the content.
they want things to be complicated for us. we are a pawn in their game.
that's why i'm here to tell you that a simple system of plain-ascii text-files
-- which are then handled correctly by _intelligent_ viewer-applications --
_can_ work just fine, creating books that are _typographically_beautiful_
and which possess the _high-powered_functionality_ we expect of e-books.
the kicker is that even a garage hacker like myself can program such viewers.
if we _could_ standardize on one e-book format, _this_ is the one it should be.
but i can tell you -- for sure -- the content-cartel will not let it be so simple.
so the main question is whether we want to play the game their way, or not...
and make no mistake -- .epub is playing the game their way.
-bowerbird
|