E-book formats: Why profit vs. nonprofit matters
How long until the myths about e-book formats die? One old canard is that Adobe’s PDF format is nonproprietary. Not so. And other forms of confusion and corpo-spin abound, including variants of the Adobe myth.
The other day on the eBookCommunity list, a techie who should know better said: “Sure, PDF is controlled by a corporation, but so is XHTML, and so is Unicode.” They’re all “proprietary,” he wrote. Adobe is for profit and the W3C Consortium and Unicode Consortium are not, but he said the end user should not care. Mistake. Big mistake.
The actual facts
Here, slightly edited, is a reply from Jon Noring, moderator of the eBook list and director of the OpenReader Consortium, of which I’m a cofounder:
…With regards to “corporations,” this legal construct covers a whole gamut of entities: for-profit companies, non-profit foundations, trade organizations, city governments, etc. Even the U.S. Postal Service is a Federal Corporation. Adobe is a directed, for-profit, public company, beholden to its shareholders. Its goals are driven by profit–it makes decisions based on what maximizes its profits, both for the short-term and for the long-term.
Non-profit and trade-type organizations, such as W3C and the Unicode Consortium, even though they are incorporated under the same laws as is Adobe, are organized and governed quite differently (some even acquire non-profit status such as IRS 501(c)3 in the U.S.) They are beholden to quite different constituencies, and for quite different goals and purposes. That they may support the goals of for-profit corporations does not make their goals and purposes the same as those of individual for-profit corporations like Adobe.
The differences in goals and purposes are important when we discuss ebook format standards. Without going into it further, there are profound long-term civil liberties issues with regards to ebook and other multimedia formats since these formats are the vehicles by which society’s collective thoughts and ideas (both past and present), necessary to the maintenance of our freedoms and to encourage social progress, are transmitted and preserved for future generations.
This is one reason I take the topic of open standards very seriously since I look at the bigger picture of both the free flow and long-term preservation of information. From this perspective, things do look a whole lot different than just focusing on the flash and splash of the immediate (promulgated by the “fast buck,” for-profit 800 pound gorillas we all have come to know and love).
If you want a trustworthy format, which won’t change at the whim of a single corporation, and which provides for graceful evolution, rather than disruptive surprises, then a nonprofit approach like Open Reader’s should matter immensely.
Open Reader is intended to draw on the expertise of experts from a number of companies and put techies, not impatient marketers, in the driver’s seat. Marketers too often thrive on thrive on secrecy. Technological progress in matters like e-book formats thrives on openness–and we don’t mean the kind prevalent within the Open eBook Forum, a badly misnamed creature that Adobe and friends bought up a long time ago. Despite some past PR the OeBF after all these years is still settling for the proprietary approach at the consumer level. That puppy should have been put out of its misery many months ago. It is anti-change except on Adobe’s terms, or Microsoft’s or Power by Hand’s.
Why e-book standards from a nonprofit group would be pro-competitive
Let’s instead encourage innovation in ways that count. E-book software companies should compete in such areas as interface, not expensive proprietary standards that reduce competition in both technology and publishing and jack up prices. Pity the poor consumer–and the poor publisher, what with format charges as high as 15 percent of e-book revenue in some cases.
The proprietary approach is a major reason why the e-book industry suffers global sales of a mere $30 million or so a year, rather than living up fully to its multibillion-dollar potential. Let change that–while keeping in mind the nuances of organizational governance; all too often can harm the technology itself if the proprietary mindset prevails. For an example of a better approach, check out a nonprofit organization called Digital Radio Mondiale. That’s our model for OpenReader.
Leave a Reply