ZDNET: Apple sabotaging ePub?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Is there some rule saying that an epub3 file has to use all the things that epub3 can use?

No. But the ePub 3 standard has a long list of things that a reader is required to support - far more than Apple need for what they've created iBooks Author for. ie, to create a reader which they could call an ePub 3 reader would have needed a far, far greater investment, with little or no benefit in return.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No. But the ePub 3 standard has a long list of things that a reader is required to support - far more than Apple need for what they've created iBooks Author for. ie, to create a reader which they could call an ePub 3 reader would have needed a far, far greater investment, with little or no benefit in return.

I wasn't talking about the reader, but the ibook format.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I wasn't talking about the reader, but the ibook format.

I'm afraid I don't understand the meaning of your question. You asked if an ePub 3 file had to use all the features of ePub 3. No, of course it doesn't, but why did you ask?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid I don't understand the meaning of your question. You asked if an ePub 3 file had to use all the features of ePub 3. No, of course it doesn't, but why did you ask?

I quoted the reason for the question:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I strongly suspect the opposite: that ePub 3 does too much. There is no ePub 3 viewer in existence at the current time. Apple simply wanted a format to support interactive multimedia books - the kind of thing that's currently done with book Apps.

You said that Apple made the format because it wanted a format to support interactive multimedia books. But there is epub3 for that already, so your argument doesn't make any sense.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I quoted the reason for the question:

You said that Apple made the format because it wanted a format to support interactive multimedia books. But there is epub3 for that already, so your argument doesn't make any sense.

Yes, it does; you didn't read my post properly. Apple could not call iBooks an ePub 3 reader unless it supported the mandatory set of features required by the ePub 3 standard. Given that they had no commercial need for this feature set, they had no reason to adhere to the ePub 3 standard for iBooks.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, it does; you didn't read my post properly. Apple could not call iBooks an ePub 3 reader unless it supported the mandatory set of features required by the ePub 3 standard. Given that they had no commercial need for this feature set, they had no reason to adhere to the ePub 3 standard for iBooks.

I didn't say that they should have called the reader an epub3 reader. I wasn't talking about the reader. I was talking about the file format. Why do you keep pretending that I was talking about the reader?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I didn't say that they should have called the reader an epub3 reader. I wasn't talking about the reader. I was talking about the file format. Why do you keep pretending that I was talking about the reader?

Because you're not making any sense to me.

Let's suppose that Apple had made iBooks Author produce files that were fully ePub 3 compliant. What application is available to read those files?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because you're not making any sense to me.

Let's suppose that Apple had made iBooks Author produce files that were fully ePub 3 compliant. What application is available to read those files?

I'm not making sense to you because you won't actually read my posts. I didn't say that Apple should have made iBooks Author produce files that were fully ePub 3 compliant.

I can repost what I've said, but you could also read the posts (I would say again but you didn't read them in the first place).

[HarryT]

We seem to be having difficulty communicating here. I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because you're not making any sense to me.

Let's suppose that Apple had made iBooks Author produce files that were fully ePub 3 compliant. What application is available to read those files?

I think the point is that you seemed to argue from technical reasons that they could not have used ePub3. But they could have uses a subset of ePub3 and not called there reader an ePub3 reader. So you technical reason for creating a new format was not valid.

Of course there are business reasons to not follow a standard but that is obvious and was not what you seemed to say.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tompe

I think the point is that you seemed to argue from technical reasons that they could not have used ePub3. But they could have uses a subset of ePub3 and not called there reader an ePub3 reader. So you technical reason for creating a new format was not valid.

Are any of us technically qualified to say whether everything that is available in iBooks Author could be done in valid standard ePub3? You have just stated that as a fact.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Are any of us technically qualified to say whether everything that is available in iBooks Author could be done in valid standard ePub3? You have just stated that as a fact.

But that is not relevant for the given argument (I should have said might have been able to). The argument seemed to be that just because they could not make a full fledged ePub3 reader they had to make their own format. And that is not a valid argument since it assumes without any evidence that a subset would not have been enough.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

But that is not relevant for the given argument (I should have said might have been able to). The argument seemed to be that just because they could not make a full fledged ePub3 reader they had to make their own format. And that is not a valid argument since it assumes without any evidence that a subset would not have been enough.

Since I don't seem to be explaining myself very well, I'm going to type this very slowly, in the hope that it will be easier to understand .

Yes, I agree that Apple could probably have achieved what they wanted with ePub 3. I don't know for certain, but from what I've read about ePub 3, it seems like a reasonable assumption to make.

They would then have required a app to read what they had created. They clearly didn't want to produce a full-fledged ePub 3 reader app, because ePub 3 has all sorts of mandatory requirements that were of no interest for the specific commercial purpose they had in mind. So they could not have claimed that what they produced was an ePub 3 reader - it would still be "a reader for iBooks files", not "an ePub 3 reader".

So, we have a situation where we have an iBooks reader app, and a tool which produces files which can only be read by that app. In this circumstance, is there any commercial benefit to be gained from using ePub 3 at all? I would argue that there is no benefit, because by using ePub 3, Apple are opening the gates to other people to develop apps which could also read those files, and hence taking sales away from Apple. In this situation, it makes sound commercial sense to make the format proprietary, so that yours is the only platform that can display the books that your tool produces.

QED.

Amazon have made exactly the same decision with their "KF8" multimedia format.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So, we have a situation where we have an iBooks reader app, and a tool which produces files which can only be read by that app.
In this circumstance, is there any commercial benefit to be gained from using ePub 3 at all? I would argue that there is no benefit, because by using ePub 3, Apple are opening the gates to other people to develop apps which could also read those files, and hence taking sales away from Apple. In this situation, it makes sound commercial sense to make the format proprietary, so that yours is the only platform that can display the books that your tool produces.

QED.

I'm confused. You appear to be saying that, in your opinion, Apple delibrately chose not to use a subset of epub 3, so as to prevent other people from interoperating with their .ibook format. In other words, they delibrately chose to fragment the ebook space, for their selfish benefit. This is precisely the behavior I and others are complaining about. I somehow doubt that's what you intended the QED to prove.

Amazon have made exactly the same decision with their "KF8" multimedia format.

Yes, and they are equally to blame for making a choice that harms the ebook community at large, for their selfish, short term gain. Something I have said when KF8 was first announced.

[CommonReader]

Amazon and Apple are two peas in a pod; creating their own standards to suppress competition.