MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Tower(s) of e-Babel

Bob Russell · 02-22-2007, 11:21 AM

How many newpaper reader applications do you need to read newspapers? According to a recent post by Kevin Tofel at JKonTheRun, it's more than you think!

David Rothman has popularized the phrase "Tower of e-Babel" to refer to the nightmarish incompatibility of e-book formats. It is a phrase that captures the frustration of every e-book fan, because nothing seems to be compatible. You can't read an eReader book on a Sony Reader. You can't read a Connect store e-book on a Palm device. The list goes on and on with all the ways you can't read various formats.

But we really might be better off thinking of it as TowerS of e-Babel, especially with electronic newspapers. Consider the Times Reader software that was announced by Microsoft and the New York Times back in April. Against every last bit of logic with regard to satisfying the consumer, we now learn that Microsoft is releasing additional reader software - one application per newspaper. The latest papers to join are the Seattle-Post Intelligencer, Forbes, and the Daily Mail tabloid from the UK.

I can't help but wonder if this is a control issue. Newspapers may be trying to keep control of their newspaper and give it a sense of independence by giving it a new container with it's own application instead of just being another bit of content in the same reader software that can display other papers as well. Maybe they are trying to keep the physical paper newspaper paradigm as best they can in an electronic world. They may hope to create the illusion of being a "real" object as opposed to becoming just content.

Sure, they want to control layout and navigation, but isn't this taking it a bit too far? What happens when e-paper becomes cheap and common? Are we going to be bound by a particular New York Times e-paper hardware for that paper? And then have to go pick up our Washington Post e-paper hardware if we want to read the Washington Post? That sounds like a mangled retro-future-tech paradigm if I've ever heard one! With any luck, this silly approach is not in our future.

See Kevin's reaction at JKonTheRun.

02-22-2007, 11:21 AM	#1
Bob Russell Recovering Gadget Addict Posts: 5,381 Karma: 676161 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Device: iPad	Tower(s) of e-Babel How many newpaper reader applications do you need to read newspapers? According to a recent post by Kevin Tofel at JKonTheRun, it's more than you think! David Rothman has popularized the phrase "Tower of e-Babel" to refer to the nightmarish incompatibility of e-book formats. It is a phrase that captures the frustration of every e-book fan, because nothing seems to be compatible. You can't read an eReader book on a Sony Reader. You can't read a Connect store e-book on a Palm device. The list goes on and on with all the ways you can't read various formats. But we really might be better off thinking of it as TowerS of e-Babel, especially with electronic newspapers. Consider the Times Reader software that was announced by Microsoft and the New York Times back in April. Against every last bit of logic with regard to satisfying the consumer, we now learn that Microsoft is releasing additional reader software - one application per newspaper. The latest papers to join are the Seattle-Post Intelligencer, Forbes, and the Daily Mail tabloid from the UK. I can't help but wonder if this is a control issue. Newspapers may be trying to keep control of their newspaper and give it a sense of independence by giving it a new container with it's own application instead of just being another bit of content in the same reader software that can display other papers as well. Maybe they are trying to keep the physical paper newspaper paradigm as best they can in an electronic world. They may hope to create the illusion of being a "real" object as opposed to becoming just content. Sure, they want to control layout and navigation, but isn't this taking it a bit too far? What happens when e-paper becomes cheap and common? Are we going to be bound by a particular New York Times e-paper hardware for that paper? And then have to go pick up our Washington Post e-paper hardware if we want to read the Washington Post? That sounds like a mangled retro-future-tech paradigm if I've ever heard one! With any luck, this silly approach is not in our future. See Kevin's reaction at JKonTheRun.