Study: No technical and functional reasons for proprietary e-book formats

[Anak]

There are no technical and functional reasons that Amazon and Apple lock their e-book worlds with proprietary e-book formats.
The two scholars have pointed out that the proposed standard format EPUB3 offers every possible option, it needs nowadays for e-books — including multimedia and interactive elements to integrate. To date, Amazon and Apple use for their e-books formats that are incompatible and thus tie the user on the e-book dealer once elected. (source: Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz)

A study into interoperability of e-book formats unveiled at the EIBF Annual Conference, Brussels, 16 May 2013, commissioned from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz by the European & International Booksellers Federation
The study was conducted by Professor Christoph Bläsi and Professor Franz Rothlauf of Johannes Gutenberg University, who said: "There is no technical or functional reason not to use and establish EPUB 3 as an/the interoperable (open) ebook format standard.
One short term obstacle is the non-availability of reader applications able to display all EPUB 3 features. However, this problem should be fixed soon by the IDPF Readium initiative which is developing an open source reference system and rendering engine for EPUB 3."
Vice-President of the European Commission, Neelie Kroes, in charge of the Digital Agenda, praised the study: "My wish is that booksellers in Europe can take initiatives and benefit from the growth in the ebook markets. This is why I welcome this study by the European Booksellers Federation. Interoperability is a major requirement to build a truly digital society. This applies to ebooks too. This study provides interesting insights on ways to reach true interoperability in the ebook market, through both interoperable ebook formats and interoperable DRM schemes. Now is the time for open standards regarding ebooks, just like has happened in other areas of the digital economy."
John Mc Namee, President of the European Branch, EBF, said: "The lack of interoperability between formats and platforms has been identified as one of the major obstacles hindering the Digital Agenda and is a real problem for booksellers in their daily contacts with their customers. On behalf of my colleagues from all Booksellers Associations in membership with EBF, I am very pleased that this study provides clear scientific evidence that interoperability is achievable. It also shows that there are alternatives to DRM's and that content portability is feasible. Booksellers are keen to promote business models which make digital content easily accessible to the customers they are in touch with on a daily basis in their terrestrial or e-bookshops, the European readers.
Equally, booksellers are keen to sell e-books across borders and make as many customers as possible happy. They strongly support an open market, without territorial restrictions, in the full respect of copyright".
The 48-page study on the interoperability of e-book formats was today officially Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission for the Digital Agenda passed, and should help the medium to create a single market for e-books. (source: European Booksellers Federation)


Report (PDF): "On the Interoperability of eBook Formats" — Studie von Univ.-Prof. Dr. Christoph Bläsi und Univ.-Prof. Dr. Franz Rothlauf

[DiapDealer]

I'm fairly sure no technical or functional reasons were claimed. Surely it's no secret that proprietary formats are primarily maintained to increase dependence--which in turn translates to monetary benefits.

Is it really news that closed systems are the enemy of interoperability? Nobody needs a study to figure that one out.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Surely it's no secret that proprietary formats are primarily maintained to increase dependence--which in turn translates to monetary benefits.

There are many reasons for proprietary formats. Proprietary formats are often developed before standards based formats, and inertia is often reason enough for the proprietary format to continue being used: users are already familiar with the format, and companies may not want to invest the time and money into developing new software. Proprietary formats also give the vendor more control. This is important on several fronts. The software supporting the proprietary format doesn't have to be as robust since people are usually using a common set of tools to generate and render the files. (Consider how different software renders ePubs differently. Consider how different web browsers render web pages differently, particularly in the early days of the web. And so forth.) It is also possible to unilaterally adapt proprietary formats, which is desirable while adding new features to differentiate your product from the competitor's product.

On the whole, I agree anti-competitive practices is a major reason behind proprietary formats. On the other hand, the issue is much more complex than that.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

There are many reasons for proprietary formats. Proprietary formats are often developed before standards based formats, and inertia is often reason enough for the proprietary format to continue being used: users are already familiar with the format, and companies may not want to invest the time and money into developing new software. Proprietary formats also give the vendor more control. This is important on several fronts. The software supporting the proprietary format doesn't have to be as robust since people are usually using a common set of tools to generate and render the files. (Consider how different software renders ePubs differently. Consider how different web browsers render web pages differently, particularly in the early days of the web. And so forth.) It is also possible to unilaterally adapt proprietary formats, which is desirable while adding new features to differentiate your product from the competitor's product.

On the whole, I agree anti-competitive practices is a major reason behind proprietary formats. On the other hand, the issue is much more complex than that.

The reason Amazon and Apple use proprietary formats has nothing to do with what you described here. Epub2/3 were already defined when the K8 or whatever is called and ibooks were introduced. The only reason proprietary formats are used by these 2 companies is as a means to lock you into their ecosystem and hold you there milking your money for as long as they can. They don't want open standards that would let you shop for the best price.

Brought to you by Captain Obvious.

[Fat Abe]

While open standards and architecture have a lot of long term advantages, they hinder rapid prototyping and the addition of extensions to a format or language. The 'S' in Standards committees should really stand for SLOW. Let the marketplace decide with respect to formats. Ebooks are very different from Vhs or Beta tapes. As long as you can remove DRM and convert from one format to another, you can't be held prisoner to one standard. I voted for epub with my wallet, and other than dictionaries, I see no reason to lug around a Kindle.

[teh603]

I wonder when studies like these are going to take greed into account?

Then again, if they did then we'd have permanent no-register copyrights and patents, so I guess its better that they don't.

[frahse]

This reminds me!

HELP! HELP!

Is there a good simple "lit" reader?
I have a tremendous number of "lit" books and since I lost my system disk a year or so ago, I haven't been able to read them. Microsoft doesn't support it any more.

I don't want to have to convert them, and I loved the "lit" format itself. It was my format of choice!

[teh603]

Originally Posted by frahse

This reminds me!

HELP! HELP!

Is there a good simple "lit" reader?
I have a tremendous number of "lit" books and since I lost my system disk a year or so ago, I haven't been able to read them. Microsoft doesn't support it any more.

I don't want to have to convert them, and I loved the "lit" format itself. It was my format of choice!

Try either the Android or Apple app stores?

[alansplace]

Originally Posted by frahse

This reminds me!

HELP! HELP!

Is there a good simple "lit" reader?
I have a tremendous number of "lit" books and since I lost my system disk a year or so ago, I haven't been able to read them. Microsoft doesn't support it any more.

I don't want to have to convert them, and I loved the "lit" format itself. It was my format of choice!

Microsoft Reader

[latepaul]

I read the report. Pretty much "so what?" as expected. I suppose these big bureaucracies have to produce reports like this because they can't just say "everyone knows X". So essentially they've produced a report to say that proprietary formats exist and closed ecosystems dominate ebook sales but that it would be a good idea if everyone adopted an open standard, EPUB3 specifically, and interoperable DRM systems would be good too.

It's not so much whether this "research" has uncovered anything new (it hasn't) it's what they're going to use it to support - at the one end it could be some vague campaign trying to get vendors to support standards, at the other maybe legislation mandating that they need to provide mechanisms to transfer ebooks (indeed digital goods in general).

I was curious to come across this in the section about KF8:

In addition, Kindle’s terms of use explicitly forbid transferring ebooks sold through Amazon to other non-Amazon devices.

Is this true even for non-DRM'd books sold through Amazon?

[medard]

Studies like this one are important to convince politicians.

If you want a change you need support of politicians and governments. You can't tell these guys »Hey I read something on an internet forum«, these people need studies like this one.

[DiapDealer]

So it's for morons, then.

[medard]

Yes. Exactly.

So, thank you very much for this nice study, University of Mainz. Thx. Well done.

[susan_cassidy]

When the Kindle was first released, ePub did not exist as a format. Only later did ePub come out.

[ApK]

I'm not sure whether the term 'red herring' or 'straw man' is more applicable here.

Make similar arguments about DRM rather than format and I'd almost care.