Will K2PC 1.19 and KFX alter your ebook purchasing habits?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by jhowell

I think the creation of a new format was less about trying to achieve 100% absolute lock in and more about being able to add new features, even if the features that they add are not the ones their customers have been asking for. Additional lock in is just an added benefit to them.

I disagree. I think the creation of a new format is to keep people locked into Amazon. There's no reason Amazon could not have done the typesetting with the KF8 rendering software. Adobe does the typesetting using ADE and not ePub. So given that Adobe can do it without having to change anything with ePub means there's no reason Amazon could not do it in the KF8 renderer. The reason Amazon went KF8 was to add yet another lock to the door.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by jhowell

Better typography, including hyphenation, was the first new feature out of the gate. Since then there has been page flip (which works great on LCD devices), improved manga reading on e-ink devices, and Kindle in Motion (which allows new kinds of page layouts that are not possible with KF8 or ePub.) I have seen hints of future improvements relating to mixed LTR and RTL text that may be coming. Who knows what else?

Better typography and hyphenation could have been done with KF8 and Mobi. Page flip could have been done with KF8 and Mobi. Improved Manga could have been done with KF8 and Mobi. Kindle in Motion could have been done with KF8. So so far, all these new features did not need a new format and most could have even been made to work with Mobi. So given all of this, it's obvious that Amazon created KFX to lock in customers.

Right now, the only way to get these new features is with KFX (which means buying from Amazon). Amazon could have done all of this with KF8 and some features could even have made it to Mobi for Kindles not able to run KF8. Amazon created KFX so you cannot buy ePub from another vendor, convert to KF8 and get these features.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I disagree. I think the creation of a new format is to keep people locked into Amazon. There's no reason Amazon could not have done the typesetting with the KF8 rendering software. Adobe does the typesetting using ADE and not ePub. So given that Adobe can do it without having to change anything with ePub means there's no reason Amazon could not do it in the KF8 renderer. The reason Amazon went KF8 was to add yet another lock to the door.

I think that you think Amazon is worried about that high of a level of lock in more than they probably are. What percentage of their customers do you really think buy books and read on something other than a Kindle, Fire or App (and/or care about DRM or its removal)?

As jhowell has pointed out they are doing things with layouts in KFX now that aren't possible with AZW3 or ePub, "enhanced typesetting" is just one of the KFX "features".

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

I think that you think Amazon is worried about that high of a level of lock in more than they probably are. What percentage of their customers do you really think buy books and read on something other than a Kindle, Fire or App (and/or care about DRM or its removal)?

As jhowell has pointed out they are doing things with layouts in KFX now that aren't possible with AZW3 or ePub, "enhanced typesetting" is just one of the KFX "features".

Hey can you do a quick calculation for me?
There are roughly 50,000,000 kindle devices, of those we can figure maybe 600,000 are jailbroke. What is that percentage?

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Hey can you do a quick calculation for me?
There are roughly 50,000,000 kindle devices, of those we can figure maybe 600,000 are jailbroke. What is that percentage?

Greater than zero.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

I think that you think Amazon is worried about that high of a level of lock in more than they probably are. What percentage of their customers do you really think buy books and read on something other than a Kindle, Fire or App (and/or care about DRM or its removal)?

As jhowell has pointed out they are doing things with layouts in KFX now that aren't possible with AZW3 or ePub, "enhanced typesetting" is just one of the KFX "features".

As I pointed out, most things can be done using KF8 and some using Mobi. So there's really no need for KFX. So given that all Amazon had to do was modify the software that renders KF8 & Mobi, KFX isn't needed. Adobe can do with ePub what Amazon uses KFX. So no, KFX isn't needed.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

As I pointed out, most things can be done using KF8 and some using Mobi. So there's really no need for KFX. So given that all Amazon had to do was modify the software that renders KF8 & Mobi, KFX isn't needed. Adobe can do with ePub what Amazon uses KFX. So no, KFX isn't needed.

Just because Adobe can do with ePub what Amazon does KFX, it does not mean that Amazon can do with KF8 what Adobe does with ePub.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Hey can you do a quick calculation for me?
There are roughly 50,000,000 kindle devices, of those we can figure maybe 600,000 are jailbroke. What is that percentage?

1.2%
----
I so rarely buy books anymore that even if it ended up being unbreakable, it wouldn't change much for me. At this point it's been ages since I've read on a non-Kindle device, so that's not an issue either.

(I should note here that I don't see things going that way regardless. This one might take longer than previous formats to get into, but I think it's only a temporary setback.)

These days, I've been using KU and my library more, and have gotten into more of a get it - read it - get another one pattern. Sometimes I look at all those books I have in calibre and wonder why I bothered, because I'm fairly certain most of them will never get read.

[rashkae]

The only 'feature' I'm aware of that required a new file format are the properly lined up Dropcaps. If there's CSS out there that can line up the top of the drop crap with the accompanying test at any given text size for any given font, I've yet to see it. I have to agree with JSWolf about the rest being noise.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

As I pointed out, most things can be done using KF8 and some using Mobi. So there's really no need for KFX. So given that all Amazon had to do was modify the software that renders KF8 & Mobi, KFX isn't needed. Adobe can do with ePub what Amazon uses KFX. So no, KFX isn't needed.

Assume Amazon could have implemented these features and the future features it is planning using kf8. It does not follow that the only reason it then chose to go the kfx route was to increase "lock-in". In fact, the numbers suggest that this would at best be a minor consideration. Perhaps it is as simple as kfx performing better on these limited devices. Applying my limited knowledge and using jhowell's compiler analogy it is easy to see how performance of kfx compiled at Amazon would be superior to performance of a "source code" format being run in an interpreter or compiled on the Kindle itself with its limited resources. If this is the case it would itself justify Amazon's decision, with any added lock-in being simply a bonus.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by darryl

Assume Amazon could have implemented these features and the future features it is planning using kf8. It does not follow that the only reason it then chose to go the kfx route was to increase "lock-in".

Yup. It's a bonus. If you want to know why a corporate entity makes a decision then follow the money. When it comes to Kindle, that money trail leads me to the Amazon Newsstand and comiXology. But why would Amazon need a new format when KF8 already covers the necessary features and then some?

The answer is file size. Files with raster content are big. They're orders of magnitude larger than text ebooks. Large files on small devices is a problem. The solution is to split large files into smaller pieces. ePub addressed this before it became a problem by being a multi-file archive format from the start. Of course, Amazon won't adopt ePub so they had to invent their own multi-file format.

Enter KFX.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by darryl

Assume Amazon could have implemented these features and the future features it is planning using kf8. It does not follow that the only reason it then chose to go the kfx route was to increase "lock-in". In fact, the numbers suggest that this would at best be a minor consideration.

Dunno about the numbers. jhowell himself has said he believes a large part of KFX is protect Amazon's wall-garden (correct me if I'm wrong). At the same time, he has listed a number of functions that have been implemented that previous formats and epub would not have supported. Some (or one) poster has chosen to ignore jhowell's post.

Originally Posted by darryl

Perhaps it is as simple as kfx performing better on these limited devices. Applying my limited knowledge and using jhowell's compiler analogy it is easy to see how performance of kfx compiled at Amazon would be superior to performance of a "source code" format being run in an interpreter or compiled on the Kindle itself with its limited resources. If this is the case it would itself justify Amazon's decision, with any added lock-in being simply a bonus.

I doubt that. epub and presumably kf8 which is apparently similar to epub list text "as is." You can open the file and pretty much read the text. You can't get much easier to "interpret" than that. KFX "compiles" the text and the Kindle software will need to "decompile" it to display it. So in that sense, KFX actually adds a layer of work. Not that it should be a big deal.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

I doubt that. epub and presumably kf8 which is apparently similar to epub list text "as is." You can open the file and pretty much read the text. You can't get much easier to "interpret" than that. KFX "compiles" the text and the Kindle software will need to "decompile" it to display it. So in that sense, KFX actually adds a layer of work. Not that it should be a big deal.

That is backwards. Text is easier for people to interpret, but the compiled binary codes of KFX are far easier for a computer to process. The reader software doesn't need to decompile it.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Just because Adobe can do with ePub what Amazon does KFX, it does not mean that Amazon can do with KF8 what Adobe does with ePub.

You are very much wrong here. Amazon can do these things in the KF8 renderer. KF8 is very much like ePub and given that ADE does it, KF8 can do it too. Amazon decided not to do these enhanced features with KF8 and went to KFX. Amazon did not need KFX for these features. They are doable with KF8 as long as the renderer allows it.

So the answer is is that KFX is not needed.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by darryl

Assume Amazon could have implemented these features and the future features it is planning using kf8. It does not follow that the only reason it then chose to go the kfx route was to increase "lock-in". In fact, the numbers suggest that this would at best be a minor consideration. Perhaps it is as simple as kfx performing better on these limited devices. Applying my limited knowledge and using jhowell's compiler analogy it is easy to see how performance of kfx compiled at Amazon would be superior to performance of a "source code" format being run in an interpreter or compiled on the Kindle itself with its limited resources. If this is the case it would itself justify Amazon's decision, with any added lock-in being simply a bonus.

Binary vs. non-binary is not the issue here. The issue is that ADE handles ePub and gives some of these features without the need to have some compiled format. There is NO REASON Amazon could not have done these enhances features using KF8. Prove to me what KFX only features could not have been done with KF8 and upgrades to the KF8 renderer?