[davidrothman]

"The problem is, companies like MobiPocket, Microsoft, and eBook Studio or not going to share their proprietary formats with any company that wants to develop an application to create multiformatted eBooks. It will cut into their profit."

Amen! Many thanks for a wonderful example of the harm from the Tower of eBabel. Of course, OpenReader will reduce the need for a zillion and one formats--given its usefulness in a number of situations. Try running PDF on a PDA, for example, particularly if the files are DRMed and you're stuck with the pathetic Adobe Reader. Many and probably most e-books are NOT tagged for PDAs. In practice this is a rather theoretical solution.

By contrast, OSoft's dotReader (dotReader.com), the first dotReader-compatible software, will work great with OpenReader-format files on most anything from PDAs and cellphones to desktops with 32-inch monitors.

"Standardization of eBooks publishing cannot, will not, must not initiate at the hands of those who will not do the publishing."

Bingo! Exactly the problem with the IDPF. It's been FAR more responsive to the needs of Adobe, etc., than to the needs of big publishers demanding a robust consumer standard. Meanwhile smaller publishing houses, which also count, have suffered the financial consequences of the Tower of eBabel even more than the big boys have.

"The problem isn't coming up with an eBook standard. We already have a pretty good one that the publishers support."

Huh? Not at the consumer level. As for the production level, things have a way to go--yes, even there.

"It will simply be just another of the 30+ standards already in existence."

You might want to reconsider. Jon Noring, founder of OpenReader, has been in the thick of the standards action for years and knows the weaknesses of the existing production standard. Plus, he's a very small publisher himself and, amusingly, is even an invited expert to the IDPF. Makes sense. He's like a priest doing nightclub duty to reach sinners. Along the way, he's looking for ways to harmonize OpenReader with certain elements of the IDPF's efforts. In the other direction, the IDPF has benefited from Jon's major technical expertise--a lot more than it deserves.

Meanwhile OpenReader's first implementer, OSoft, is coming out with a powerful implementation in dotReader that runs not just in linux but on a bunch of other platforms, including Windows. So dotReader's reach will be far, far behind that of the usual open source software.

As noted, look for OSoft's dotReader in weeks. The main reason for the delays have not been technical but simply the usual business challenges that small companies face. It does not help when a bully like Adobe so aggressively spreads malicious misstatements about the related standard; but actually that will be pretty useful in the end. Some real proof of dotReader's viability, and that of the OpenReader standard, will be in the quality of this first implementation and new features not found elsewhere. At that point, publishers more than ever will understand why a giant like Adobe has spent so much time attacking the OpenReader standard.

The ultimate proof of viability will of course come in the form of adoptions. As noted, Freeload Press, subject of major international publicity, is already planning to use OpenReader in the near future, and meanwhile we're oh so close at some publishing giants impressed with dotReader's feature set.

I know. Publishing is a conservative industry. But dotReader, in areas ranging from interbook linking to suitability for E Ink machines, is so far ahead of the competition that large houses will find it risky NOT to embrace the OpenReader standard. While dotReader can deal with a number of formats, OpenReader will be the preferred one because of its interactivity and for other technically related reasons.

Thanks,
David

(Running out of time but enjoying the chance to enlightened folks about e-book standards and the considerable potential of our first implementation.)