Adobe Digital Editions 3.0 released

[tomsem]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

''They also hope to unveil a new “always online” form of DRM within the next two years. This will function the same way most games work, that require you to always maintain an internet connection to verify the authenticity of the book.''

http://goodereader.com/blog/electron...lled-e-readers

I could see this as well-suited for corporate applications, to protect sensitive content. Adobe has developed similar DRM for PDF in the past. But definitely not suitable for consumer applications and content.

[Jane12]

Originally Posted by Barcey

... B&N was originally going to use passhash DRM without Adobe so they should be able to do so now.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

... this could provide them [Barnes & Noble] with an excuse to part ways with Adobe.

Thank you Barcey and fjtorres! It will be interesting to see if B&N does indeed abandon Adobe and where that will leave Adobe, especially since Kobo already has one foot out the door and Amazon never joined with Adobe in the first place.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Jane12

Thank you Barcey and fjtorres! It will be interesting to see if B&N does indeed abandon Adobe and where that will leave Adobe, especially since Kobo already has one foot out the door and Amazon never joined with Adobe in the first place.

B&N probably doesn't need to upgrade their servers for the new Adobe servers because they probably aren't using them now. I think the main reasons why they used Adobe's toolkit in the first place was to be able to convince people with existing book readers that they would still be able to read their books on a nook and to have the marketing advantage of spring library books. Since support for the passhash was never made mandatory in the mobile toolkit, B&N's competitors never had to support B&N's epubs, and there's less need for B&N to support Adobe DRM because it only allows their customers to get books from other retailers which is a disadvantage Amazon never had.

While I still think it would be foolish for B&N to drop support for Adobe DRM, I also thought it was stupid for them to drop support for external sd cards.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

While I still think it would be foolish for B&N to drop support for Adobe DRM, I also thought it was stupid for them to drop support for external sd cards.

They don't need to officially drop support for it, just not get around to upgrading it.

On the other hand, Nook did drop support for ereader files and they owned that ecosystem lock, stock, and barrel.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

EDIT: There's actually something pretty interesting in the comment section over at goodereader:

How can the two bolded (by me) statements book true at the same time? If the publisher sets the DRM flag in ACS 5 enforcing the need for RMSDK 10 based readers, then how can they read those books in RMSDK 9 readers? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the quote, but that sounds like an either/or situation the way I'm reading it.

[robko]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

How can the two bolded (by me) statements book true at the same time? If the publisher sets the DRM flag in ACS 5 enforcing the need for RMSDK 10 based readers, then how can they read those books in RMSDK 9 readers? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the quote, but that sounds like an either/or situation the way I'm reading it.

I'd say this is Adobe talking out of both sides of their mouth. If the publisher/reseller wants to used hardened DRM they can (which will screw anyone with a reader on RMSDK 9), but hey, if they want to stick with the old DRM then people will actually be able to read their books. In other words let the publisher/reseller take the heat for the ugly new DRM scheme
Bottom line is that I think you are reading it correctly.

[doubleshuffle]

I also think this is still pretty unclear. There's a later post by Shameer in the goodereader discussion which I also find confusing:

Even if resellers or bookstores sell books with the new DRM, customers with an old RMSDK 9 based reader ( the old Jetbook Lite) can still purchase, download and read these ebooks.

On the other hand, if a customer purchases and downloads a book using the new RMSDK10 based reader, this book cannot then be moved-to or read on an older RMSDK9 based reader. We'll have an FAQ posted on the Adobe Content Server website with a table detailing these scenarios.

I've asked this in reply:

Shameer, you talk about downloading with a reader. What about downloading on the computer per ADE? Will it be possible to transfer books purchased with ADE 3 to RMSDK 9 readers?

Waiting for an answer...

[pietvo]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

pietvo do you think that those devices are compatible with ADE3 only until Sony implements CS5?

Yes, I see no other way.

However, it could depend on what you call "compatible". In a limited sense the older devices are compatible because ebooks with the older DRM can still be transferred to them with ADE3.0. But they are not fully compatible, and that's what matters.

Originally Posted by Graham

Are you looking at this page:

http://blogs.adobe.com/digitalpublis...ported-devices

If so, note that it refers to:

which means that it is a list for the older ADE DRM, not the new ADE 3.0.

Graham

I overlooked that. I came there through the FAQ page
http://www.adobe.com/products/digital-editions/faq.html

and note the first section:

General
What is Adobe Digital Editions 3.0?
What is a typical use case for Adobe Digital Editions?
When is Adobe Digital Editions 3.0 available?
What languages are supported?
Is it a free download?
How is version 3.0 different from Adobe Digital Editions 2.0?
How do I use it with screen reading technology?
Which devices are compatible with Adobe Digital Editions?

As all the other topics are about ADE3.0 you would suspect the last line also to be about version 3.0. Besides, how many users know that Adobe® Content Server 4 software means ADE2, and how many can infer from that remark that their devices may not be compatible? Also the heading is

Digital Editions Supported Devices

without any version, so it is reasonable to assume that it means both versions. I also can't find a list of devices that are fully compatible with ADE3.0 (maybe the list is empty).

I find the information misleading, however probably not intentionally so. On the other hand if they just state "There are currently no devices compatible with ADE3.0" they might shock the customers too much.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by pietvo

I find the information misleading, however probably not intentionally so. On the other hand if they just state "There are currently no devices compatible with ADE3.0" they might shock the customers too much.

Shocking, but true. Adobe haven't even released the RMSDK10 dev kit for Linux/ARM devices, i.e. all E-Ink based ebook readers. They're due to release it in March.

[Akshayy]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Shocking, but true. Adobe haven't even released the RMSDK10 dev kit for Linux/ARM devices, i.e. all E-Ink based ebook readers. They're due to release it in March.

RMSDK 10 has been released, DL Reader on Android and iOS already uses this!

[simond]

Originally Posted by Akshayy

RMSDK 10 has been released, DL Reader on Android and iOS already uses this!

I see what you mean

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Akshayy

RMSDK 10 has been released, DL Reader on Android and iOS already uses this!

RMSDK10 isn't just one product. The version for ARM-based Linux devices (i.e. not Android and not iOS) has NOT been released yet, and isn't due to be released until March.

[pdurrant]

It's occurred to me that Adobe has gone about this in entirely the wrong way. The linking of CS5 with RMSDK10 is ridiculous and unnecessary.

If they wanted to do this damn fool thing (new DRM system), they shouldn't have done it in this damn fool way.

What they should have done was roll out RMSDK10 first. It's a nice update - new features, including better ePub support. They should then have encouraged manufacturers to produce updates to the firmware of existing devices, and required it for approval for new devices. And then, next year sometime, rolled out CS5 and enforced the new DRM. Most users would have already updated, with only a small minority left with orphaned devices still using RMSDK9.



In fact, I can't really see why they didn't do it this way.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

It's occurred to me that Adobe has gone about this in entirely the wrong way. The linking of CS5 with RMSDK10 is ridiculous and unnecessary.

If they wanted to do this damn fool thing (new DRM system), they shouldn't have done it in this damn fool way.

What they should have done was roll out RMSDK10 first. It's a nice update - new features, including better ePub support. They should then have encouraged manufacturers to produce updates to the firmware of existing devices, and required it for approval for new devices. And then, next year sometime, rolled out CS5 and enforced the new DRM. Most users would have already updated, with only a small minority left with orphaned devices still using RMSDK9.



In fact, I can't really see why they didn't do it this way.

I can see two reasons:

The most likely is that this is how they roll. They dictate and customers comply. That is how they handled the pdf DRM switch a few years back, that is how they forced customers to the Suite subscriptions. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-575...subscriptions/)

The other reason is they might think they can't wait another year. The drumbeat for DRM-free is getting too loud. (There is the Tor experiment proving encryption-DRM doesn't reduce piracy in any meaningful way. There is the horde of indie publishers prospering through DRM-free sales. There is the clamor of pundits telling publishers that DRM helps demon Amazon. There is the increasing awareness of the Adobe tax. And there is the alternative of watermark-DRM.) They may be thinking they need to go to hardened DRM now before their customers give up on encryption DRM altogether.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

It's occurred to me that Adobe has gone about this in entirely the wrong way. The linking of CS5 with RMSDK10 is ridiculous and unnecessary.



If they wanted to do this damn fool thing (new DRM system), they shouldn't have done it in this damn fool way.



What they should have done was roll out RMSDK10 first. It's a nice update - new features, including better ePub support. They should then have encouraged manufacturers to produce updates to the firmware of existing devices, and required it for approval for new devices. And then, next year sometime, rolled out CS5 and enforced the new DRM. Most users would have already updated, with only a small minority left with orphaned devices still using RMSDK9.







In fact, I can't really see why they didn't do it this way.

I don't think it really matters. The vast majority of the user's aren't going to make the decision on upgrading the device firmware or their ADE version based on the new DRM. The issue remains that when the new DRM gets enforced it is going to break for some end users. If they do it later it impacts less users.



I suspect that it's a hot potato situation. Adobe has probably been getting heat because the existing DRM is so easy to break. They've come out with a solution to address the concern. They've proposed a timeline to implement it

and now they've been told that's too soon. Now they can toss the hot potato back and say it's not Adobe's problem.

Maybe what I should have said is "Here's the gun, it's loaded and pointed at your foot. You decide when to pull the trigger."