which format will win?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

A backup is no good if it can't be read. With DRM, if the device the ebook is authorised for breaks, and the authorisation server is no more, no amount of backups will do you any good.

Two instances recently spring to mind:

• Overdrive dropping Fictionwise
• Adobe dropping support of older DRM servers

That's a different issue, Paul, from "not being able to make backups". You're talking about being able to read the book on a device other than the one you bought it for. With the greatest respect, that has absolutely nothing to do with being able (or unable) to backup the original file. That is a simple archiving process.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the greatest respect

Always a bad sign!

Originally Posted by HarryT

that has absolutely nothing to do with being able (or unable) to backup the original file. That is a simple archiving process.

We are clearly talking about different things. Of course, bytes are bytes and can be backed up for later retrieval when the original bytes get corrupted or lost.

BillSmithBooks argument (with which I agree) is that with DRMed ebooks this backup process is pointless - it is not a true backup in the event of data loss. You can get the bytes back, but not necessarily the data.

For example, suppose you have some DRMed Mobipocket books bought from Fictionwise for your Mobipocket reader installation on your PC. Your PC suffers a catastrophic hard disk failure, which also takes out the motherboard. You do, of course, have a good backup of all your user data, including your ebooks. But you have to re-install Mobipocket Reader. On a new motherboard/hard disk. Which gets you a new PID.

Oh dear, all your ebook backups won't work with this new PID. And you can no-longer re-download half of them from Fictionwise, because they were from the overdrive server, which no longer works with Fictionwise.

DRMed ebook == no backup possible.

One reason why I didn't buy DRMed ebooks for several years, until a certain shadowy individual posted some python scripts...

[Kevin2960]

I know this idea i9s very Left Field and all that, and it's a rather retrograde idea, but for sheer Readability, and Format simplicity, How about using ........ RTF .....Yeah I know it's Wacky, but just think about it, ........ To my very poor eyes, SIMPLE is always Best !

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

ePub is already THE standard. Of course, Amazon has yet to realize this.

What john said.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

We are clearly talking about different things.

We are. You are talking about transferring your books to a new device. I am talking about getting your books back in the result of (say) a disk crash on your PC. That, to me, is what "making a backup" means. Transferring your books to a device that you may buy at some future date is indeed important, but it has nothing to do (IMHO) with "making backups".

[K-Thom]

@ frabjous & cmdahler:

You both still don't get it, do you? Stick to books, really. Honestly. Do yourself that favor.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We are. You are talking about transferring your books to a new device. I am talking about getting your books back in the result of (say) a disk crash on your PC. That, to me, is what "making a backup" means. Transferring your books to a device that you may buy at some future date is indeed important, but it has nothing to do (IMHO) with "making backups".

There's short-term backups and long-term backups. For short-term backups DRM is not a problem, because if you can read it now, you can read it next week. For long-term backups DRM is death, because it's not in your hands to make sure they will be useful in, say, 5 years.

[GhostHawk]

Kevin as much as I truly hate to say it, I agree with you.

*.rtf is my preferred choice.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's a different issue

No it's not. Without the ability to ensure it'll work, you might as well take a peanut and call it the backup. You'd be nuts to rely on it, either way!

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Sorry, but ePub already HAS become the defacto standard.

That's all down to how you define "de facto standard", though. In e-publishing, it's the "de facto standard" for...what? 30% or so, depending on the estimate? of the market. If you're basing it on real-world usage, the de facto standard is .azw/.mobi, because that's currently the most widely used. It'll be interesting to see what impact Apple's entry into the market has.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

That's all down to how you define "de facto standard", though. In e-publishing, it's the "de facto standard" for...what? 30% or so, depending on the estimate? of the market. If you're basing it on real-world usage, the de facto standard is .azw/.mobi, because that's currently the most widely used. It'll be interesting to see what impact Apple's entry into the market has.

Is it? Do you have numbers? I'm skeptical.

[frabjous]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

@ frabjous & cmdahler:

You both still don't get it, do you? Stick to books, really. Honestly. Do yourself that favor.

Was there an argument in there? I haven't a clue what you're trying to say. You're telling me not to use ebooks? Why not? There are lots of programs that will convert fairly easily any ebook format the kind of typography I like. It's not difficult. In fact, I already do this. Only DRM stands in my way of doing it with everything I read. With a small upgrade in processing power, surely viable soon, this software could be put on our readers. Experiments are already being done for using latex on ebook readers to reflow on the fly, but well. The latex algorithm is decades old, and very efficient. It, or something like it, could be adapted to handle almost any file format, including ePub.

Why are you advocating in favor of ugly, unreadable books?

*.rtf is my preferred choice.

The .rtf format has its uses, but it is clearly unsuitable for much beyond the simplest of books.

[BillSmithBooks]

pdurrant: Thank you! You clarified my point exactly.

HarryT: quote: "I'm sorry - how does DRM "prevent you from backing up your books"? An eBook is just a file; it can be backed up, regardless of what it contains."

My jaw hit the floor.

I'm confused:

Do you really not understand how being unable to decrypt a DRM file (even though you can theoretically back it up) is an impediment to the book being usable?

Or are you deliberately misinterpreting my point to avoid refuting the argument?

Non-open formats are going to be a significant issue to long-term usage and adoption of ebooks. Yes, yes, I know, epub is an open format...but that doesn't mean ANYTHING when the epub book is shrink-wrapped in DRM to prevent the average person from using the book in the manner they see fit.

To the average person who does not bother to look into the details, the epub format will be blamed. If publishing does not get its act together, in the consumer's mind the equation will be "ebook = crippled, tied to a specific machine, can't use on other devices I own, time to go search the torrents."

Publishing refuses to acknowledge that, I really don't want to see it happen because it hurts everyone, but that is what IS going to happen if publishers don't get it.

And Epub, open standard and all that, is irrelevant--and will be blamed for this mess, even though it is DRM's fault--if you can't back it up, read it on your other devices, and use the book you bought (and not licensed, no matter how much publishers want to cram the word license down our throats).

I would LOVE to be able to decouple the Epub discussion from the DRM discussion -- and if you read my earlier posts, I do distinguish between a plain vanilla epub reader and a DRM-enabled epub reader -- but I CANNOT at this time because the publishers WILL NOT ALLOW IT.

It's like trying to discuss bacon while ignoring the fact that it comes from pigs. At this time the two are intertwined and big publishing shows no signs of changing that. THAT is harmful to readers and harmful to the original poster's objective:

"about the ebook format that would be the standard in next future. I know it its a stupid question, but, i would buy an ereader, and i want to be sure it will support the 'standard' of ebook."

The main issue is, as I see it, "I want a way to read ebooks now and in the future. What is the best way to do that?"

I've posted my lengthy arguments in favor of plain old HTML -- and I do support non-DRMd epub -- but the only argument shooting down HTML is "DRMd Epubs CAN be backed up." But if you can't actually read them after backing them up, the point is irrelevant.

[LCF]

Originally Posted by Zetmolm

Depends on which part of the world you're talking about.In Russia, fb2 is the de facto standard.

for FB2! It's not only Russia!

I know, I know, this might not be the eBook format, but there are whole countries, where this is pretty much the only available eBook format.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Is it? Do you have numbers? I'm skeptical.

Lots of numbers. Problem is, like 87.2498% of all marketing statistics they were made up on the spot. As far as I know nobody is actually releasing real sales numbers, which makes accurate measurement tricky.

The lowest estimates I've seen of the Kindle's market share put it at around 60% of the market, with some skyrocketing as high as 90%, which seems rather excessive. I don't think there's any real doubt it's the current 800 lb gorilla, though - if you look outside the geek blogs "kindle" is becoming a generic word for "electronic book", which is usually a fair indicator of market dominance. Analysis base on anecdote isn't much help either - virtually nobody I know uses Internet Explorer, but that doesn't mean it isn't the market dominant Web browser, regardless of how well it holds up to paper standards.