TeleRead: Bring the E-Books Home

Archive for October, 2002

By

In our October 28 discussion of PDF vs. Open eBook Format, we said: “OEB, though much influenced by Microsoft, is evolving with input from many other companies.” True, true, true. In 1998, I personally was at the first Open eBook-related meeting at the National Insitute for Standards and Technology where Steve Stone, Bill Gates’ e-book director, introduced the OEB idea to various vendors. Almost immediately I pushed the OEB concept to the E-Book Community List, noting that e-book folks should be open-minded even though the initiative came from Microsoft.

That said, I’m pleased to pass on format guru Dorothea Salo’s rather vehement assertion that OEB is far more than Microsoft. In other words, yes, the idea has lived up to my hopes in that respect. Would that I were a format maven and had the resources to track the issue as closely as she has. Dororthea and other volunteers deserve credit for their many hours of work on OEB, a cause, not just a standard.

As grateful as I am, however, I remain grouchy that even after several years of OEB, e-book users still lack a common format at the consumer level. We’re still in Beta-vs-VHS Land. Yes, there are technological complexities. But I’m still convinced they can be overcome, especially for the many books that, except for their covers, are text only–without the .jpg-bloat issue. As for the lack of a common consumer format, no, it isn’t an evil Microsoft conspiracy. I just wish that the hardworking volunteers would try harder to fill the void. Perhaps their employers need to give them the time.

Meanwhile, as promised, more perspective will eventually come on the format question. Later this year you’ll hear from a TeleRead participant with both his own opinions and his own format approach. An official TeleRead position? No, but he’s entitled, and who knows–the existence of yet another conversion-related standard just might prod OEB folks into faster action on a common format at the reader level.

By

The New York Times recently discussed the tradeoff that libraries must make between completeness and trendiness. Research libraries aren’t as comfy or trendy as neighborhood branches–but contain oh so much more. TeleRead, of course, would empower local branches and their readers with a much wider variety of books. What’s more, TeleRead would be a godsend to readers without the space for truly decent-sized home libraries.

By

Verbatim, here’s the explanation from Fictionwise on “Why some eBooks not available in Rocket/REB1100 format”:

Fictionwise is both a publisher and a distributor of eBooks. The eBooks that we publish (over 550 now with new titles added weekly) will continue to be offered in Rocket format.

However, ereads and ElectricStory (both are also eBook publishers and we distribute their eBooks at Fictionwise) recently learned that their contracts with Gemstar are exclusive and prevent Fictionwise from distributing them in RB format (we still sell ereads and ElectricStory eBooks in all of our other formats). PocketManager eBooks are also not available in Rocket format for contractual reasons.

Fictionwise will continue to support the Rocket format whenever possible.

* * *

The TeleRead take: Given Gemstar’s fine understanding of good business practices–sarcasm alert–we can understand Gemstar-TV Guide’s SEC woes.

Too bad. Some very talented people have worked for Gemstar, which had the wisdom to purchase the designs for the RocketBook and SoftBook.

Henry Yuen, deposed as Gemstar boss, could have scored some major successes in the e-book world if he hadn’t tried so hard to create a Microsoft-style monopoly in e-books. One hopes that News Corporation, picking up the pieces, won’t have the same delusions and will move to make licensing arrangements less restrictive.

Meanwhile, in character, Yuen got a nice good-bye present at the expense of shareholders. “Even though Gemstar was largely responsible for News Corp’s $US6.6 billion ($12 billion) loss for the 2002 financial year,” the Sydney Morning Herald reports, “News Corp still agreed to give Dr Yuen a $US22 million termination payment after he was dumped. Gemstar chief financial officer Elsie Leung, who was also replaced, was paid out $US7 million.”

By

So what’s better for e-books? The Open eBook format or Adobe’s PDF?

Like many other e-book boosters, we prefer OEB’s philosophy over PDF’s even though OEB is far from perfect. At least as of now, it won’t let consumers take e-book files for, say, the Microsoft Reader and display them on all other systems that build on OEB.

Still, in “Why PDF sucks,” OEB booster Dorthea Salo finds much to like in the OEB format compared to PDF.

For one thing, Open eBook at least lets publishers convert files easily to different software companies’ variants. Plus, OEB isn’t as tied to page numbers the way PDF is. It’s high time that Adobe stopped confusing the computer screen with the printed page.

Above all, as Dorthea points out, PDF is a proprietary format. OEB, though much influenced by Microsoft, is evolving with input from many other companies.

Is OEB the be-all and end-all? Well, in the near future, we hope to be presenting yet other perspectives. Stay tuned.

Update, Oct. 29, 2002: Several weeks from now–it may be longer–a detailed essay will appear from a TeleRead particpant giving his personal views on the format issue. He’s caught up in his own projects and needs to find time to do the job right and also gird for the inevitable replies. Meanwhile Dorothea Salo, one of the OEB folks, wants to make clear that she and other volunteers have influenced the evolution of OEB. Agreed. This ain’t billg’s people alone. See my further thoughts. – DR

By

Is Microsoft’s Tablet PC design too expensive? Yes. “If a reverse Moore’s Law could apply to price (prices halving every 18 months), it would take about 54 months for today’s tablet PCs to get to $400,” writes PC Magazine columnist John Dvorak.

He concludes: “Success of the Tablet PC depends on it hanging on until it gets to $499. It’s that simple.”

TeleRead, of course, as we see it, could accelerate the process by increasing the demand for the TabletPC and similar book-friendly portables, whatever the operating system. The tablet approach has been part of the TeleRead proposal since the early ’90s.

By

Colin Powell thinks that Google, online dictionaries and the like can substitute for reference materials in libraries. Imagine, however, what real libraries online could do for the U.S. secretary of state and the rest of Washington–not to mention ordinary people in the States and elsewhere. (Via librarian.net.)

By

More evidence for the necessity of cheap, available books for students: a girl in Greeley, Colorado has been denied the right to check out library books because her parents did not pay the required $40 library fee. The fee is used to supplement the school’s budget for software, computer maintenance, and new books. Students who do not pay the fee are not allowed to check out books from the school library. (Via Copyfight.)

Update: See related item on Massachusetts libraries planning to charge for various services. (Via LISnews and librarian.net.)

By

TeleRead isn’t just about technology. It’s also about a business model that would rely less on marketing and more on the actual merits of books.

For eons, the U.S. publishing industry has been a marketer-dominated creature. What’s new is the extent to which it is. One indication comes from a favorite site of ours, Electronic Book Web, where a publicist named R. Scott Penza is offering writers a chance to pay “$2K-$3K per month plus expenses.” He’ll then help the writers find literary agents and publishers. I’d hope that the full $2-$3K a month would actually be the post-pub bill. But apparently an author could end up spending some real money even before the signing of a contract with a publisher. Presumably we’ll soon need a grant program for writers who can’t afford PR flacks.

Is Penza’s operation a scam? Not if he doesn’t guarantee results. Penza and other pre-agent PR people are a symptom, not a cause, of a sick industry. Penza correctly says: “Many of these houses have severely cut back on their editorial departments. The day of the assigned editor who sticks with the unknown author from query to rewrite to galley is vaporizing like yesterday’s dot.com. So when an agent gets the call from the PR guy or PR gal, s/he is more likely to take a look at your book because, after all, there’s a PR firm behind it. There must be something here worth looking at.”

As a writer-editor, I myself have assisted clients in the preparation of book proposals. But a PR service to help writers find agents? Oh for the days when the writing of actual books was more important than the writing of proposals. Isn’t it possible that the actual content of a proposal might suffer because a PR agent deemed them to be too honest for public consumption? It’s happened to me on a project where a flack–not Penza–was involved.

Meanwhile, yes, this is just one more reason why U.S. book sales aren’t growing as fast as they should. The marketers and the accountants matter more these days; the editors, less. Ideally, small publishers of both e-books and pulped-wood ones can keep old publishing values alive. But that’s not always easy in the era of the super store.

The AOL division of AOL Time Warner, of all outfits, might serve as a positive role model. It’s focusing more on content than before, having suffered disastrous consequences when the bean-counters prevailed even more than they do now. A lesson for the book business?

By

Are you a 501c3 nonprofit–library related or not?

You may be able to enjoy some spectacular savings on software, according to an article in the Oct. 21 New York Times–for example, Microsoft Office Professional for just $60.

Is there a catch? Of course. Beyond the tax breaks, Microsoft and the rest want to keep the world hooked on their software to the max. The bargains and giveaways might not last forever. You might find that Linux and freeware are a much better alternative over the long run if you or your people have the technical expertise.

Still, if you’re interested in discounts on Microsoft products and the like and qualify, then catch up with DiscounTech.

By

Great thread in Slashdot on the role of librarians in the information age. How many of ‘em Get It? And how about one librarian’s article on the stereotypes?

The opinions of the Slashdot readers toward librarians wildly vary. Should a librarian spend $100K on new technology and nothing on books? A Slashdotter correctly zeroed in on certain librarians’ distorted priorities. Others took on the opposite extreme, technophobic librarians. What’s needed–just as in copyright law–is balance. On the positive side, a reader noted that a local library staffer shows up regularly for meetings of HoustonWireless.org and that his city’s local libraries are well on the way to becoming Wi-Fi hotspots.

What’s most encouraging is that many librarians are picking up highly practical Net-related skills in schools of library science (or schools of information science). Let’s hope that in another decade, and perhaps long before, the debate about librarians’ tech savvy will be obsolete. In fact, as librarian John Hubbard points out in his essay attacking the stereotypes, librarians have come up with many of the info-sci concepts that you might think have originated elsewhere. What’s more, some designers and programmers are, gasp, becoming librarians.

Surprise of surprise, at least one participant in the Slashdot thread expressed frustration at the obstacles that copyright laws have created for librarians interested in e-books. That issue, of course, is much of what TeleRead is about.

(Found via LibraryStuff. Thanks, Steve.)

By

Thomas Greene’s essay in The Register calls for a balanced approach to copyright, and he’s on target. Copyright per se is a good idea, a way to give creative people at least a shot at decent compensation. The problem arises when Hollywood and the other standard suspects war against concepts such as fair use and try to criminalize normal behavior such as sharing movies, books and CDs with a reasonable number of friends.

Under TeleRead, there would be ways to track books when they were passed on, so that creators could receive payments from a national digital library fund or from readers themselves. A perfect solution? No, but far better than the alternatives of no copyright at all or the oppressive, Draconian approach favored by Jack Valenti and friends.

By

Looking for fresh information? Check out the links on InfoAnarchy. Meanwhile Aaron Schwartz has posted the transcript from the Supreme Court. You can also get the lowdown straight from Larry Lessig. So far, not so good.

By

“A controversial portion of digital copyright law will get a public airing next month. Starting Nov. 19, the United States Copyright Office will begin taking public comments on the section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, known as the DMCA, which prohibits people from breaking encryption technologies.” – Wired News.

The TeleRead take: Not an abstract matter. What if you want to make an extra copy of an e-book for your own use? You might well have to break the encryption used in copy control. Right now if you do so, you’ll be violating the law.

By

Adobe’s new ebookware for libraries will make e-books will vanish when due, and NetLibrary will be among the users. Trouble is that this ignores one of the advantages of the medium–the ability of many, many users to be able to read the same item at once.

Under TeleRead you could keep a library book as long as you wanted–on your own machine. Would the writer or publisher miss out on payments from the library? Not at all. The system would track your accesses to provide for payments from a national digital library fund.

By

The $100 TeleReader isn’t here yet, but progress goes on. Dell will introduce a $199 PDA at Comdex (via Lockergnome). More details from eWeek. Meanwhile Jenny “Shifted Librarian” Levine is warning Palm to try harder.

By

Libraries are a hotspot for e-book growth, according to Publishers Weekly (via Library Stuff).

By

“The bookmobile is a print-on-demand-mobile. It changes the notion that books are a limited resource. It changes the basic concept of what libraries do, as well as the idea that schools need large book budgets. In a print-on-demand world, where the cost of creating a book runs about $1 and the capital costs run under $10K, libraries don’t lend books, they give them away. Schools aren’t dependent on the textbook readers the state board of education buys at a cost of millions of dollars — every district, every school, every teacher can create their own reader at minimal cost.” – Richard Koman, Salon, Oct. 9, 2002.

The TeleRead take For years TeleRead has advocated print on demand for e-books, including those from a national digital library. Paper books won’t come with the power of hyperlinks, but not everyone will want to read books off screens. Libraries should allow for this. What’s more, copy shops and commercial establishments might also offer print-on-demand services. Ultimately the machinery might even be in use at home. And that might happen faster than you’d think. According to Koman, a binding machine to turn computer printouts into books costs all of $1,200.