MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

Shankill · 11-14-2011, 09:50 PM

I don't think it's really short-sighted as such. After all, how many other e-readers offer this service? It could be a point of differentiation, but my guess is that it would require them to build new and reasonably hefty infrastructure so that it wouldn't break down at inopportune moments. After all, there's no point rolling out an awesome new service if it just craps up and everyone bags you out for teething problems.

The only way I can see it working is if they basically do what Google Music does. AFAIK, right now, Kobo, Amazon, etc. do it by having a single copy of a book on the server synced to many thousand devices. Google Music instead uploads each person's every single MP3 file and allows you access it from other devices.

On the surface, this allows for variations in formatting and covers and metadata and crap like that. The actual reason is that it means Google Music is essentially a glorified storage service, so they're covering their butts from legal action from record companies.

For instance, what if Google Music only had a single 'definitive' copy of, say, Eleanor Rigby? Lots of people upload their music. Google Music detects that they all have Eleanor Rigby, and then directs their Music apps to the single definitive file.

Then someone comes along with a pirated copy of Eleanor Rigby and suddenly has access to this definitive copy without having to pay for it in the first place. Which is why Google doesn't do this. Amazon can do this with books from the Kindle, because they can verify that the book has been paid for. Same with Kobo and their kePubs.

And this kind of situation can happen with e-books as well. Look at how paranoid most publishers are about pirating. If Kobo took the 'single definitive file' approach, they could be opening themselves up to legal action. Whether or not it would actually happen's a different thing altogether.

So in order to protect themselves, the better approach would be to upload every user's every e-book file. Hell, Kobo would probably have to sign up with Amazon S3 for the space required if all their users opted into this feature.

It would be a cool feature, sure. It'd be an awesome feature. But there are the logistics to work out, which is why it's probably not going to be a feature popping up in the short term. Not unless they've already started working on it, that is.

11-14-2011, 09:50 PM	#2
Shankill Nameless Being	I don't think it's really short-sighted as such. After all, how many other e-readers offer this service? It could be a point of differentiation, but my guess is that it would require them to build new and reasonably hefty infrastructure so that it wouldn't break down at inopportune moments. After all, there's no point rolling out an awesome new service if it just craps up and everyone bags you out for teething problems. The only way I can see it working is if they basically do what Google Music does. AFAIK, right now, Kobo, Amazon, etc. do it by having a single copy of a book on the server synced to many thousand devices. Google Music instead uploads each person's every single MP3 file and allows you access it from other devices. On the surface, this allows for variations in formatting and covers and metadata and crap like that. The actual reason is that it means Google Music is essentially a glorified storage service, so they're covering their butts from legal action from record companies. For instance, what if Google Music only had a single 'definitive' copy of, say, Eleanor Rigby? Lots of people upload their music. Google Music detects that they all have Eleanor Rigby, and then directs their Music apps to the single definitive file. Then someone comes along with a pirated copy of Eleanor Rigby and suddenly has access to this definitive copy without having to pay for it in the first place. Which is why Google doesn't do this. Amazon can do this with books from the Kindle, because they can verify that the book has been paid for. Same with Kobo and their kePubs. And this kind of situation can happen with e-books as well. Look at how paranoid most publishers are about pirating. If Kobo took the 'single definitive file' approach, they could be opening themselves up to legal action. Whether or not it would actually happen's a different thing altogether. So in order to protect themselves, the better approach would be to upload every user's every e-book file. Hell, Kobo would probably have to sign up with Amazon S3 for the space required if all their users opted into this feature. It would be a cool feature, sure. It'd be an awesome feature. But there are the logistics to work out, which is why it's probably not going to be a feature popping up in the short term. Not unless they've already started working on it, that is.