PDF is not an eBook format

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Sonist

I'd suggest asking your non-ereader equipped acquaintances, if they have ever heard of ePub. Then ask about PDF.

Their answers might give you a different idea of what is the standard....

And I suggest you log onto any number of book selling sites in Europe and try to purchase anything 'but' ePub. PDF is PDF, it is not an ebook. Here's a link to the Bookstore I use... if you can buy a PDF ebook from there, then we can chat a bit more

http://www.waterstones.com

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And I suggest you log onto any number of book selling sites in Europe and try to purchase anything 'but' ePub....

Why would I want to?

I just did a quick search on www.waterstones.com for several authors, and the ebook selection is laughably poor. Their site also has visual errors with webkit browsers. So much for standards-setting....

And if such was the criteria for standards, then .azw would be king.

Oh, and were you of the opinion, that .lrf was the standard, just because Sony supported it until recently?

And another "oh": Sony also supports PDF - now, just as it did a year ago.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Why would I want to?

I just did a quick search on www.waterstones.com for several authors, and the ebook selection is laughably poor. Their site also has visual errors with webkit browsers. So much for standards-setting....

And if such was the criteria for standards, then .azw would be king.

.azw would be and probably is King in North America, but let's not forget that most of the world doesn't live in the USA and own a Kindle.

You can keep your fixed, inflexible, looks-like-a-book but doesn't act how we expect things to act in a digital age, format. And I'll have my standards compliant, scalable, one-file-fits-all, based on web technologies ePub standard.

The one thing you never seem to grasp in all these arguments is that I, and many other people, don't want to 'replicate' a book with our file format. We want a format that 'fits' how we read now, not how we used to read in the non-digital world. Same can be said for the web itself. I can't replicate a 'magazine' layout on the web, not with any accuracy, but why would I want to? The principles of design change dependent on the medium and the media used. Blogs are the equivalent of magazines on the web, note that word, 'equivalent'. Not the same, but equivalent.

[RobbieClarken]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And I suggest you log onto any number of book selling sites in Europe and try to purchase anything 'but' ePub. PDF is PDF, it is not an ebook. Here's a link to the Bookstore I use... if you can buy a PDF ebook from there, then we can chat a bit more

http://www.waterstones.com

Citing one ebook store isn't very scientific... what about WHSmith:

• EPUB: 14,069
• PDF: 74,010
• MOBI: 28,242
• LIT: 28,688

Waterstones only has 13,551 ebooks. Most libraries with an ebook collection have the majority in PDF.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by RobbieClarken

Citing one ebook store isn't very scientific... what about WHSmith:

• EPUB: 14,069
• PDF: 74,010
• MOBI: 28,242
• LIT: 28,688

Waterstones only has 13,551 ebooks. Most libraries with an ebook collection have the majority in PDF.

Good job I'm not a scientist then, isn't it? PDF has been around a long time comparatively, of course it has the jump on ePub (a newer standard) but I just don't see any buzz around PDF in publishing, or in new media. The buzz is ePub, the standard is rapidly becoming ePub. It's exciting and modern and interesting people are shouting its virtues from the rooftops (well some of them are, especially when they're drunk).

You can keep this argument going forever, but we'll only know the real winner in a year or two from now when we have colour e-ink readers and bigger readers.

EDIT: and if you go to WHSMITH and click on say...Dan Brown's latest crud on the front page, guess what format it's offered in as an ebook? Is it PDF?

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

.azw would be and probably is King in North America, but let's not forget that most of the world doesn't live in the USA and own a Kindle.

You can keep your fixed, inflexible, looks-like-a-book but doesn't act how we expect things to act in a digital age, format. And I'll have my standards compliant, scalable, one-file-fits-all, based on web technologies ePub standard.

The one thing you never seem to grasp in all these arguments is that I, and many other people, don't want to 'replicate' a book with our file format. We want a format that 'fits' how we read now, not how we used to read in the non-digital world. Same can be said for the web itself. I can't replicate a 'magazine' layout on the web, not with any accuracy, but why would I want to? The principles of design change dependent on the medium and the media used. Blogs are the equivalent of magazines on the web, note that word, 'equivalent'. Not the same, but equivalent.

Sure, there are people who only want content delivered to them in whatever ugly but convenient way possible.

There are many different ways to categorize "us" and "them", and while basically all of them are fallacious and largely irrelevant, here's a fun one.

You're in a bookstore looking for a classic book you've read before and liked and decided to purchase (to read, not to invest in or build a library with). You see 5 copies of the book by different publishers in different sizes and grades of quality. Let's just imagine the following:

Book A) A bit bigger than the rest, classic cloth hardcover with stitch binding, good quality and design, $30
Book B) Almost same size as Book A, but perfect-bound (glue bound) trade paperback, good paper and design, $20
Book C) Mass market paperback, passable paper and OK printing, but not particularly good. Fairly compact, $10
Book D) Somehow-legal txt file printed with an inkjet in a big font on low-grade recycled paper, in a cheap D-ring binder, A4 sized $2
Book E) Another mass-market-sized paperback but from a different publisher with much better paper, cover art, and typography than Book C. $18

Which one would you buy? No shuffling like "depends on what kind of book..." allowed.

I'm a Book E type usually, but I enjoy A for my favorites and will buy B when E is unavailable. If my only choice is C, then I'll have to think twice before purchasing.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

Sure, there are people who only want content delivered to them in whatever ugly but convenient way possible.

There are many different ways to categorize "us" and "them", and while basically all of them are fallacious and largely irrelevant, here's a fun one.

You're in a bookstore looking for a classic book you've read before and liked and decided to purchase (to read, not to invest in or build a library with). You see 5 copies of the book by different publishers in different sizes and grades of quality. Let's just imagine the following:

Book A) A bit bigger than the rest, classic cloth hardcover with stitch binding, good quality and design, $30
Book B) Almost same size as Book A, but perfect-bound (glue bound) trade paperback, good paper and design, $20
Book C) Mass market paperback, passable paper and OK printing, but not particularly good. Fairly compact, $10
Book D) Somehow-legal txt file printed with an inkjet in a big font on low-grade recycled paper, in a cheap D-ring binder, A4 sized $2
Book E) Another mass-market paperback but from a different publisher with much better paper, cover art, and typography than Book C. $18

Which one would you buy? No shuffling like "depends on what kind of book..." allowed.

I'm a Book E type usually, but I enjoy A for my favorites and will buy B when E is unavailable. If my only choice is C, then I'll have to think twice before purchasing.

None. I don't buy physical books any longer, just as I don't buy newspapers, magazines or anything printed on paper. I just don't see the need of a physical object, not when I can have the convenience and virutal limitless space afforded to me by technology.

But...let's say it was me four or five years ago you're talking about. And let's say I was looking for this classic book. And let's further say you didn't add the choice I would have made back then.

Choice F: Walk out of the bookshop, go to the local second-hand bookshop. Sit down with the nice lady there, Alice, have a cup of tea and a chat, buy a second-hand copy from her no matter what the binding or anything else.

I will still buy an ebook that has a good cover, but as long as the story inside is readable, I couldn't give a gnat's chuff how it's layed out, or what typographical jiggery-pokery is going on (the same with web pages. Good design is good, I want it, but I'm much more interested in getting to the meaning of the content.)

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

None. I don't buy physical books any longer, just as I don't buy newspapers, magazines or anything printed on paper. I just don't see the need of a physical object, not when I can have the convenience and virutal limitless space afforded to me by technology.

But...let's say it was me four or five years ago you're talking about. And let's say I was looking for this classic book. And let's further say you didn't add the choice I would have made back then.

Choice F: Walk out of the bookshop, go to the local second-hand bookshop. Sit down with the nice lady there, Alice, have a cup of tea and a chat, buy a second-hand copy from her no matter what the binding or anything else.

I will still buy an ebook that has a good cover, but as long as the story inside is readable, I couldn't give a gnat's chuff how it's layed out, or what typographical jiggery-pokery is going on (the same with web pages. Good design is good, I want it, but I'm much more interested in getting to the meaning of the content.)

Pretty poor cop-out trying to avoid the constraints of the exercise, but it does still illustrate your way of thinking.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

Pretty poor cop-out trying to avoid the constraints of the exercise, but it does still illustrate your way of thinking.

A cop-out? How can I make a decision on something I will never do again? You may as well have replaced those books with diamond encrusted eggs and eggs that are encrusted with rhinestones for all the relevance it has to my reading situation.

The physical, object-based world of entertainment and information is dying. From music and movies to books and magazines and everything between. With books I want something that I can read on my 'reader' my phone, my music player and then read on my computer screen as well whether it be a 7" netbook or a 32" desktop monitor. I can't get that with PDF and I'll never be able to get that one-file-fits-all portability with pdf.

When I read a blog online I don't expect it to be a magazine, as I've said before, so why should I expect an ebook file to be the same as a book?

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I couldn't give a gnat's chuff how it's layed out, or what typographical jiggery-pokery is going on

And your philistinism doesn't matter at all. There is a right way to do books, and the fact that some people have delusions that it doesn't matter is irrelevant.

Just the same way as your lack of concern about colour-coordinating interior design shouldn't make those who maintain public spaces start painting everything purple and neon-green.

Just the same way that your lack of concern about cinematography shouldn't make editors start doing a shittier job of cutting TV shows and movies.

Just the same way that your lack of concern about architecture shouldn't make the contractors building your house ignore the building code.

Be proudly contrary if it makes you feel good... but it would be better not to pretend that your "I don't give a shit about typography" view on the subject is somehow insightful or enlightened.

Typography is inseparable from books, and despite what the embarrassingly shitty eBook technology of today might make people believe... typography will not become any less relevant in our lifetime--not for any readership publishers actually care about.

But then again, in 2 years everybody will be publishing books themselves in the cloud from helium balloons with publishers long-disappeared in a puff of ill-conceived logic... I guess that's why I'm wrong about all of this.

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I will still buy an ebook that has a good cover, but as long as the story inside is readable,

And the fact that you profess caring about the most insignificant aspect of book design while you proudly couldn't care less about the significant aspects is... fascinating, if nothing else.

- Ahi

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

...
Choice F: Walk out of the bookshop, go to the local second-hand bookshop. Sit down with the nice lady there, Alice, have a cup of tea and a chat, buy a second-hand copy from her no matter what the binding or anything else.
...

And those water stains on it, are from when its previous owner placed the book on the floor of the bathroom, so he could pull up his pants....

But, I guess, some like Prada, others are happy with Walmart. Some like fusion cuisine, other are happy with fish and chips. Some like well-crafted PDFs, others are happy with barely formatted text, as long as it reflows....

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by Sonist

And those water stains on it, are from when its previous owner placed the book on the floor of the bathroom, so he could pull up his pants....

But, I guess, some like Prada, others are happy with Walmart. Some like fusion cuisine, other are happy with fish and chips. Some like well-crafted PDFs, others are happy with barely formatted text, as long as it reflows....

And people who spend Prada prices for Walmart goods are...well...

They're ebook buyers.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

And people who spend Prada prices for Walmart goods are...well...

They're ebook buyers.

[BillSmithBooks]

Originally Posted by ahi

And your philistinism doesn't matter at all. There is a right way to do books, and the fact that some people have delusions that it doesn't matter is irrelevant.
- Ahi

This attitude reminds me very much of the people who insist that the ONLY way to see a movie is with a behemoth screen HD television with surround sound stereo and a $20,000 home theater investment.

It's like arguing that people without such systems shouldn't be allowed to view movies at all.

There are a lot more people with modest televisions who are perfectly happy with what they have than there are compulsive experiencers who have the "perfect" setup.

If a given creator will not create content to suit the audience's needs because the creator insists on dictating exactly what the viewer/reading experience should and MUST be, please step aside. There are a multitude of creators behind you who would be happy to sell the majority of consumers content in a format that suits their needs.

PDF. Meh.