What will Adobe Digital Editions do for Sony owners?

[jbenny]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Adobe has a pretty good FAQ on their website about Digital Editions.
http://www.adobe.com/products/digitaleditions/faq/

According to this it will read PDF/A (subset of PDF) but they indicate it's intended as a lightweight solution that isn't intended to replace the full Acrobat Reader.

One additional comment on the PDF/A subset. This is actually a good thing. PDF/A is an actual standard, which is used for archiving documents. It is basically PDF v1.4 (Acrobat 5) with mandatory font embedding and minus a few things like scripting, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/A

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Good find, Barcey! It seems to apply to only the current DE though, we're theorizing about the version of DE that will end up on the Sony Reader (and other devices, hopefully). I have no idea where Adobe is in designing/developing that "mobile DE" so even they may not know what they intend to put into it.

I does mention that a Linux version will be available soon and since the Sony is running Linux I would guess they're planning on running this. It mentions desktop Linux though so hopefully the footprint isn't too large.

They also mention development for other platforms so they might be porting something specific for the Sony.

[micomicon]

Originally Posted by Barcey

They also mention development for other platforms so they might be porting something specific for the Sony.

This is a comment from Ric Wright, who I believe is one of the members of the Adobe DE development team, over at the Adobe DE blog:

Better would be to support the Sony Reader directly. As you may be aware, the current PDF support in the Sony Reader was written by the Digital Editions team. We cannot announce future plans, but let's just say our team is very busy.

This was written on Nov 2. It seems like a pretty good hint that they are, in fact, working on enabling DE on the Reader.

[taralon]

True the current format does not include any DRM. However that is not why publishers are currently backing the system. As with the original pdf format they are backing it because it allows them one filesystem that they can send to printing houses and or distributors. Most publishers adopted .pdf as the final file format they sent to the printers because it gave them a WYSWYG file format. They also did not have to deal with the multitude of propriety file formats that printers had been demanding up to that time. Pretty much exactly where they are now. Reflow, that nevertheless protects internal formating, is pretty much necessary in a digital publication format, especially one that may need to be converted into other formats. None of the .pdf -> other format converters I have ever tried deals with indented text such as inserted poems or music, or even instered pictures, figures, charts and grapsh, very well, and all of them require far too much fiddling by a human to get the output to look consistent across the conversion.

You are also reading to much into the standard. Specifications for containers to package all the necessary files, and specifying how that container and included files is parsed by reading systems is a necessary component of making a standarized filesystem in the publication industry. Look at the standard for .pdf sometime, you'll see exactly the same things outlined in it, as you will for various chemical dispensers, fasteners and other things that also meet ISO compliance. Just because it is there, and could be used by private parties does not mean it is intended for such use.

Moving to a single file system saves publishing houses money, which means increased profits from digital sales. That is why they are doing it. If they wanted a single format to distribute to the end user then you would have seen much more of an effort by Amazon to meet this need.

Originally Posted by jbenny

I don't see anything in the specifications or on the IDPF web site that states that epub is not for use by the end-user. The fact that the standard also includes a specification for a container (Zip) to package all of the various files, as well as specifying how that container and included files are to be parsed by reading systems, tells me that the IDPF does indeed expect end-user devices to use epub. If epub was only for publishers, none of this would be necessary and the IDPF would not have wasted many hours on this part of the standard. Why should they care how publishers deal with multiple files internally? Having a standard format like epub does indeed make things easier for publishers, but that doesn't preclude the use of the format for end-use.

We already have three reading systems that directly support epub: Digital Editions, FBReader and Lector. A fourth, DotReader, claims support, but I haven't seen it work yet. Assuming that DotReader gets epub working, that makes two commercial entities (one very large one - Adobe) and two Open Source entities. I'd say that's not too bad for a standard that is only a few months old. And as we all know, Digital Editions is being ported to the Sony Reader. I would be very surprised if Adobe dropped epub support in the process.

And as for vivaldirules question about why he should care, I think we all should care. Pushing epub for the end-user and not just the publisher holds the promise of reducing the myriad of ebook formats that we have to deal with today. The more widespread epub becomes, the better for all of us. It certainly isn't a perfect standard, but it is a good start.

Another very good reason to want epub for the end-user is that the standard currently does not include DRM. This may be added to the standard later. If it does, at least it will be one standard way of doing it, and not the incompatible, different DRM schemes that each format has. Besides, if epub gets widely popular on reading systems before a standardized DRM method is approved, that would be one more nail in the DRM coffin.

We all bitch about having to deal with multiple ebook formats and DRM. These are the two primary reasons why everyone should care about epub use by the end-user. Sure, it doesn't do much for you as an end-user today, but what about tomorrow?

[jbenny]

Originally Posted by taralon

True the current format does not include any DRM. However that is not why publishers are currently backing the system. As with the original pdf format they are backing it because it allows them one filesystem that they can send to printing houses and or distributors. Most publishers adopted .pdf as the final file format they sent to the printers because it gave them a WYSWYG file format. They also did not have to deal with the multitude of propriety file formats that printers had been demanding up to that time. Pretty much exactly where they are now. Reflow, that nevertheless protects internal formating, is pretty much necessary in a digital publication format, especially one that may need to be converted into other formats. None of the .pdf -> other format converters I have ever tried deals with indented text such as inserted poems or music, or even instered pictures, figures, charts and grapsh, very well, and all of them require far too much fiddling by a human to get the output to look consistent across the conversion.

You are also reading to much into the standard. Specifications for containers to package all the necessary files, and specifying how that container and included files is parsed by reading systems is a necessary component of making a standarized filesystem in the publication industry. Look at the standard for .pdf sometime, you'll see exactly the same things outlined in it, as you will for various chemical dispensers, fasteners and other things that also meet ISO compliance. Just because it is there, and could be used by private parties does not mean it is intended for such use.

Moving to a single file system saves publishing houses money, which means increased profits from digital sales. That is why they are doing it. If they wanted a single format to distribute to the end user then you would have seen much more of an effort by Amazon to meet this need.

I think we'll have to disagree on whether epub is intended for end-users as well as publishers. As I already pointed out, Adobe already supports epub for the end-user in DE. In case you don't know, Adobe is a member of IDPF and was a major player in the development of the specification.

Using Amazon as an example isn't very convincing, as far as I am concerned. Besides their heavy investment in the Mobipocket format, I think they also have other motives for staying proprietary (at least for now).

It would be helpful if someone from the IDPF would comment on this issue, to clear things up. If any IDPF members are reading this, please comment.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Barcey

I does mention that a Linux version will be available soon and since the Sony is running Linux I would guess they're planning on running this. It mentions desktop Linux though so hopefully the footprint isn't too large.

They also mention development for other platforms so they might be porting something specific for the Sony.

For the PRS line, DE will have to be ... adjusted to accommodate the limited number of controls, I expect. From the bits I've heard it sounds like it'll have to be a pretty different ported version.

[Hadrien]

http://www.teleread.org/blog/2007/12...ards/#comments

Jon Noring Says:

Speaking with first-hand knowledge, having been a technical contributor since 1999 to all versions of OEBPS and the new OPS/OPF (which underlies EPub), Joseph is right.

Prior to the release of OPS/OPF 2.0, which replaced OEBPS 1.2, OEBPS was termed an “exchange format.” This was mainly, but not entirely, done for political expediency since there were major players in the Open eBook Forum (OeBF, the prior name of IDPF) who did not want OeBF to advocate a particular end-user format.

However, in all our internal working group deliberations and decision-making we certainly considered native OEBPS for use as an end-user format, in addition to it being an intermediary format (go back to the OEBPS/OPS specs and carefully note the definition of a “reading system.”)

Importantly note that, in a sense, native OEBPS has already been used for a number of years by end-users: Microsoft LIT. LIT is essentially an OEBPS 1.0.1 Publication wrapped into a proprietary container.

In summary, EPub makes an excellent e-book delivery format. Hopefully this reply will finally put to rest the misconception that EPub is not appropriate as a universal reflowable e-book format.

Joseph, feel free to forward this comment to MobileRead since you’re following that particular thread.

[Hadrien]

No reaction ? That's a clear statement that epub is an end-user format too, and a much more capable one than these old formats based on OEB.

I expect these things to settle a bit in the upcoming months...

[jbenny]

Hadrien, I saw that you had posted this info (thanks). I didn't respond previously, as I didn't want to seem like I was gloating. Jon Noring's post does indeed support what I was saying earlier about epub being an end-user format, as well as a backend format.

I guess no one else replied because the question has been settled and there is no point in saying otherwise

[Bob Russell]

To summarize my understanding of ePub format as it relates to Sony Reader:
* It is a reflowable format appropriate for showing content on a variety of screen sizes
* It is an open standard from the IDPF that allows and encourages widespread cooperative industry adoption
* There is an associated container format based on .zip archives, which allows all associated files to be bundled. This is especially useful for publishers
* The standard is also intended to be used by end users
* Sony and Adobe are "working" on supporting it on the Sony Reader. There may be a certain level of support they hope to achieve on Windows Digital Editions before they port to the Reader, but they have intent to work on it and are probably busy (more reasons to think they are busy on it follow, but the comment in a previous post from the team also hints at it).
* Sony and Borders have already announced a partnership for selling books. I think they said it was a Connect store based partnership, but I don't remember the specifics. At any rate, one almost has to come up with the conclusion that they intend to expand e-book sales to include Borders.com, and base it on DE/ePub not Sony's BBeB (although maybe BBeB will be used in the short run). Whether it's an expanded store or just Borders getting to use the Connect engine is not clear. But surely Borders doesn't intend to commit to another closed system with the Reader, and instead expects to sell ePub e-books to multiple future devices with complete interoperability. We can hope so anyway.
* So, ultimately, the hope is that ePub becomes a popular and the majority-implemented standard just like Adobe Acrobat, but with its flowable format advantages for varied screen sizes. That would mean simplicity for epublishers and consumers if everyone is using the same format. (Avoiding some of the Tower of eBabel incompatibility problems.) If sellers adopt an interchangeable DRM, then we could see e-books for many devices sold by many booksellers. That would be sort of a holy grail of bookselling for consumers, and potentially would also be a boon for publishers because of the potential it has to expand the e-book market.
* ePub would then also provide a very nice alternative to the closed Kindle system and format from Amazon.

(Feel free to correct/adjust the statements above as appropriate if I've missed or mistated anything.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hadrien

No reaction ? That's a clear statement that epub is an end-user format too, and a much more capable one than these old formats based on OEB.

I expect these things to settle a bit in the upcoming months...

Does ePub support DRM? Without it, I suspect that it doesn't have much future as an "end user" format.

[edsohsmith]

At any rate, one almost has to come up with the conclusion that they intend to expand e-book sales to include Borders.com, and base it on DE/ePub not Sony's BBeB (although maybe BBeB will be used in the short run). Whether it's an expanded store or just Borders getting to use the Connect engine is not clear. But surely Borders doesn't intend to commit to another closed system with the Reader, and instead expects to sell ePub e-books to multiple future devices with complete interoperability. We can hope so anyway.

This sounds a bit optimistic to me, but I certainly hope you are right. Seems that if the DE is not ready for the Sony Reader by the time Borders.com and Sony partnership is launched (Jan, Feb?) initial offerings would be in the BBeB format. I am afraid they would stay that way.

By the way what does BBeB stand for?

[HarryT]

"Broadband eBook" apparently.

[Michele]

If the DE format is introduced to the Reader, does anyone think there's a chance the 500 would get it? That would sure be a nice way to thank us early-adopters for our votes of confidence.

[johnmcelfresh]

If the DE format is NOT supported on the PRS-500, Sony will risk losing a large number of customers to competitors. Whenever users are forced by obsolecence to buy a new platform, manufacturers run the risk of losing their base (think PS3 vs. Wii). Since the bulk of the money made long-term in Digital Readers is based on content sales, trying to force users to buy a new reader would be a foolish decision, IMO.

That said, Sony has screwed up more format wars than any other company (Beta, Minidisc, SACD, Memory stick, etc.) with little apparent success, so they may be willing, once again, to take the risk.

My PRS-500 is only a few months old. If they try to force me to buy a new reader to support DE, they can kiss me goodbye as a customer. Period.