‘Times Reader’ is part of Microsoft assault on Adobe–and a setback for independent-minded publishers
“Microsoft and The New York Times unveiled software on Friday that would allow readers to download an electronic version of the newspaper and view it on a portable device.” - New York Times. Also see CNet and Microsoft news release and Gates speech and AP item.
The TeleRead take: Wow, that’s right smack in PDF territory and notches up the battle between Microsoft and Adobe. “The software would allow The Times to replicate its look–fonts, typeface and layout–more closely than its Web site now does,” says the Times. But should the goal be a digital imitation of the paper Times or a usable electronic newspaper? And how is this effort going to differ that dramatically from those of outfits like Newsstand or Olive Software? Yes, there will be resizing features to help the software work on a variety of screens, but that’s hardly a Microsoft-only breakthrough.
Evil, evil, evil: Linking of content and OSes
Meanwhile the Times story unwittingly raises another issue–the linking of reader software to operating systems like Vista: “With Microsoft’s new Windows Vista software, to be available in January, virtually any newspaper, magazine or book can be formatted into an electronic version and read online or off.” If nothing else, I doubt that Times Reader will be in linux.
Jeeze, are the Sulzbergers really that blind to the downside? Adding to the fun is the fact that Bill Gates’ wife sits on the board of the Times’ arch rival, the Washington Post. Let’s hope that the Times will keep offering alternatives to Times Reader, which I expect itself. Either way, however, it’s a wasteful use of resources and adds to the software industry’s leverage with content-providers–helping to increase the chances of gouges in DRM and other areas.
A more clueful Washington Post?
Meanwhile I’d hope that Melissa or not, the Post itself would still be more clueful than the Times and downplay risky proprietary approaches about which John Blossom has warned.
Bad move, Sulzbergers. You’ve done some great things in recent years–I love the Times’ site–but this isn’t one of them.
While I understand that Microsoft will offer kits to help other newspapers use the software, this is far from true openness.
Also, I’m curious what this means for the Origami-class machines. Will they miss out on the Vista software? Or will we see Origamis running Vista early one?
Related: E-book biz headed toward a replay of the word-processing battle between Microsoft and WordPerfect? In the Times’ case we’re talking about something other than e-books, but it’s still part of a stepped-up battle between Microsoft and Adobe. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the newspaper-related software can do with e-books.
MobileRead’s take: Here.
Updated: 10:54 p.m., April 29.
[...] NYT gets in bed with Microsoft to deliver e-content Here is a tantalizing piece of news from the New York Times, reporting that the newspaper will partner with Microsoft to work on the Times Reader, an e-book software that will make reading news digitally a lot more like flipping through a paper. According to CNet, The new software, which uses the Windows Presentation Foundation engine built into Vista, maintains the look of the New York Times’ print edition using the same fonts, but aims to capture some of the flexibility that software can enable. The software allows for the inclusion of hyperlinks within the text, as well as the ability to play multimedia or annotate a story with comments. The content can be stored on the PC for offline viewing, but can also be updated continuously when a computer is connected to the Internet. The software won’t be limited to the New York Times. By end of summer, other newspapers and magazines will be able to download developer kits to work on their own Vista onscreen reader editions. It’s only too bad that most dedicated e-book readers wouldn’t run Windows Vista. Related: TeleRead’s take on how this partnership notches up the battle between Microsoft and Adobe. [...]
Uhm - I love teleread, but why the anti-MS bias that’s so clear in this article? I checked all the links - not a single mention of DRM in this new thing.
Sure, right now it runs on Windows. I wouldn’t really expect MS to go out of their way to promote rival OS’s. This is ‘evil’? But what’s to stop others from developing a function-alike, or an alternate reader for this same format? Again looking through the linked articles - not a single mention of any plans to lock this tech to Windows-only.
MS is trying to advance the field by coming up with another ‘take’ on electronic presentation of reading material. Shouldn’t we wait for actual *evidence* of sinister motives before labelling it ‘evil, evil, evil’ ?
Why does the reader need to be part of the OS - oh yes, to support a dead trees policy. OK - got it. Next.
David - Well said! So, are you ready to get on board the IDPF bandwagon and really help achieve a unified open ePublishing platform, instead of banging the “let’s invent a new OpenReader format” drum?
Microsoft can only rub their hands in glee at the prospect of splintered efforts leaving them with a clear field for their closed, proprietary, single-platform solution. The spirit of OpenReader does not necessitate your ad hoc collective trying to wrest control from IDPF of the evolution of OEBPS. IDPF is surely not perfect but it’s the only formalized publishing-centric industry forum we’ve got, and it’s once again demonstrating the ability to move fast and do good work in standardizing an open alternative to Microsoft’s “Metro” packaging technology: http://www.idpf.org/doc_library/informationaldocs/ocf10-20060421.pdf . And we have bigger fish to fry: as your colleague Roger Sperberg noted last week, OEBPS itself is just one piece of the puzzle.
For Bryan and Bill…
Bryan: Appreciated your thoughts. Far from being prejudiced against Microsoft, I’ve been among the biggest cheerleaders for the Origami. I call ‘em as I see ‘em. If Microsoft avoids a DRM gotcha for newspaper software and doesn’t make it more complex than needed to create reading clients in linux, etc., then I’ll be very open-minded.
An open approach to standards development would help as well.
But it would still be best to build on OEBPS and take it from there–in other words do OpenReader.
Bill: Thanks for your note. Jon is busy with the draft OpenReader spec, but I’ll give you a quick answer reflecting my personal perspective.
I’d still feel better seeing standards work happen outside the IDPF under the rules of a group better suited for developing open publication standards. I’d also like to see new blood among the standards setters.
BTW, I’d prefer that the main chair not be Jon, and he would be delighted to step aside if the right alternative were found–someone neutral who knows the subject matter and is a good leader.
Just remember that Jon is the guy who beat the standards drum when no one else with IDPF connections was willing to speak out. That itself justifies the existence of the Consortium.
Let IDPF do the trade organization routine while standards works moves into a neutral, established place for publications standards. Let’s rub shoulder with the big boys.
What’s really cool is that this will get you, Jon and me in the standards mainstream–rather than having IDPF exist as a splinter standards group.
Thanks,
David
To David’s point, I’m a retired British accountant who believes in the value of SaaS, Web 2.0 (I hate it too as an expresson) for professional accoustants in both practice and industry. I want a vibrant MSFT but to me they’re stretched so thin you can see through the Blue Bubble.
I want an OS that competes. I want them to thrill me like they did when Office came up on Win 3x for the first time. I want them to bite the bullet and cut all the Win 98 users off. Heck, in XP half the drivers I need are uncertified anyway so who gives a damn?
I want them to welcome Apple with open arms. I recently moved to Apple after 24 years. It’s not always easy with all those Word docs out there but hey. It’s more efficient to share and store in Writely. Dabble DB gives me great power and NumSum - what can we say? For the vast amount of time I spend using spreads, it cuts it for me. (Shrug)
Wiki is changing my life and those around me. I’m excited about technology for the first time in 8 years. Come on MISFT - get rid of thhe bureaucracy and give us all something to smile about - for a change.
This, unfortunately, doesn’t do it for me.
Hi, Dennis–I couldn’t agree with you more about Apple and Microsoft. Too bad the anti-trusters weren’t more successful in forcing Microsoft to separate the app and OS sites. The biggest beneficiaries would have been MSFT stockholders. Just my opinion. You are very welcome to disagree. David
David - IDPF a “splinter standards group”? Surely you don’t mean as compared to the OpenReader splinter-in-progress? That would be too rich even for you. If you mean that IDPF is a “second-class standards group”, as compared to say W3C and OASIS, that’s another story.
I would agree that as much as possible, core general-purpose standards work should occur in dedicated standards groups like W3C and OASIS. The majority of Adobe’s standards contributions take place in these organization, because they can influence the whole IT industry. But these groups can also move very slowly, and are definitely not focused on the needs of the publishing community.
The model I believe IDPF is evolving towards is OMA - Open Mobile Alliance. Primarily a trade group, they also define profiles of underlying core standards to meet the specific needs of their industry. They act as a prod to these groups, and forge relationships with them whenever possible in preference to doing core work themselve. But they also have enough technical working group capabilities to not put the ability to move their industry captive to the broader priorities of these groups.
With regard to “neutral” leadership of standards-body working groups, that’s a great principle when it doesn’t run afoul of the need for “commitment”, which at the end of the day trumps “neutrality”.
Paper standards mean nothing without robust, widely-distributed implementations, and implementors are the ones more directly motivated with regard to the details of standards. So it makes sense that implementors, rather than those with more theoretical interests, are often the ones who step up to provide leadership. If you look across first-class standards groups like W3C and OASIS I think you’ll find that, more often than not, the leadership are in fact implementors, who are by definition not “neutral”.
However implementors are usually also strapped for resources and inclined to put their money into development in preference to committee work. So volunteers (neutral or not) are, as I’ve said before, always welcome. But just being negative and suggesting that certain people step away leadership because they have a stake in the outcome, without such volunteers even being in evidence, is naive at best. That is, assuming you actually want to see IDPF succeed, which is not at all clear given your other writings.
In fact David - let me just ask it directly. Do you want to see IDPF succeed in creating OEBPS 1.3 and having it become the basis for the broadly-accepted standard for reflowable eBook content? Or are you trying to undermine it in the interests of OpenReader (which, unfortunately, are also those of Microsoft and other proprietary alternatives)?
Heck, Bill, if IDPF is such a model standards group, why has it gone eight years or so without the originally promised consumer format?
As for the risk of “neutral” person not being committed, I recall that Dr. Allen Renear, a past chair of PSWG, was most dedicated to the task at hand. Alas, however, the business side of IDPF interfered with his mission and harmed IDPF as an impartial standards-setting group. That happened under IDPF’s current president, who is an admirable person in many ways, but hardly the kind to oversee standards setting directly or even indirectly, especially since his business is at the mercy of companies such as Adobe and is heavily into DRM services. The withering of the standards effort in the then-OeBPF is what spurred Jon and others to form the OpenReader Consortium. Egotistical splintering not! The business side of IDPF left Jon and me with no choice. I personally called up IDPF President Steve Potash and begged and pleaded for the him to let the standards-setters do their job. No luck. My distrust of the IDPF was well-earned. Steve could help by learning from the past, letting go and recommending that IDPF spin off the actual work elsewhere.
For other reasons, too, it would be most constructive if you yourself stopped focusing on the IPDF as an actual standards-setting venue. If it’s so great, why must Adobe and ETI be so dominant? Yes, I very much want both companies to participate. It’s a matter of involving enough other truly top-notch technical folks who (1) don’t work for either company and (2) don’t fear reprisals from them, since Adobe is no small part of e-bookdom. The IDPF supposedly is to view publishers as major stakeholders; yet it lacks the resources to vet suggestions from the technology providers who are dominating the standards process. With the heavy involvement in a neutral standards body, such as OASIS, there would be far, far more technical talent to draw from to balance out Adobe and ETI influences.
Jon himself would actually prefer a qualified neutral person to lead the standards effort within the structure of a mainstream group–that’s the ultimate reply to your splinter statement–and it would be wonderful if Adobe adopted a similar attitude. He in fact does not want to be in the running. If Allen Renear can’t chair, another neutral academic can. As noted, one can be committed without having ties to the likes of Adobe. Let’s upgrade the standards-setting process rather than contenting ourselves with the status quo. Beyond that, while good leadership matters, keep in mind that the commitment of followers counts as well. An OASIS-style approach would broaden the range of potential talent and actually speed up the process. This should be an open, voluntary effort with many potential participants; we’re not talking about corporately mandated change from the top.
In defending the current Adobe-ETI-dominated approach, please don’t cite the container working group as proof that it works. Container format creation, according to what Jon tells me, is among the easier tasks. It’ll be fascinating to see what IDPF does not just with the core format but also the thorny DRM issues. And to what extent will it commit to reduced DRM fees? Jon and I want them slashed to the bone. Will Adobe adopt a similar policy? If you’re worried about your current business model–well, that’s a great example of why you should not dominate standards-setting. Make your valuable contributions instead in a more neutral setting than simply the Adobe-ETI-dominated IDPF.
Remember, the issue isn’t just standards per se but the effect on consumers and publishers, and within IDPF there just isn’t the detachment these issues require.
Over at Adobe, you’ve been most enlightened on issues such as reflowable text, and I hope you’ll now see the advantages of a more objective standard-setting process. Let’s help e-book formats gracefully evolve without one company or a duo being in effect the keepers of the standards. That will build confidence in the e-book industry and help grow revenues for Adobe–a win-win for both your company and the world at large. I don’t have to tell you how dismal e-book revenue has been with just a few companies having to be trusted on the standards front for DRMed books. By supporting a neutral, professionalized standards-setting process, including a gotcha-ridden area like DRM, you’ll come across as a true statesman and gain moral leverage against Microsoft.
Thanks!
David
(Speaking for himself)
David, I have no idea what happened at IDPF in years past, and frankly don’t care all that much. Obviously the job of advancing OEBPS to meet current requirements wasn’t completed in a timely manner.
But when I see unfinished, unimplemented specs and Working Groups with so little energy that they don’t even meet, blaming the business folks contradicts Occam’s Razor. Your unsupported complaints don’t really shed any light on this: the business side interfered *how*? And left you no choice *why*?
Regardless, at this point IDPDF has a head of steam up and are getting things done, both at the Board and Working Group levels. I guess if you want to stay focused on what was or wasn’t done properly some years ago that’s your perogative. But I’d rather help the industry move forward and I hope some of your erstwhile OpenReader colleagues feel likewise.
Bill, I’m amazed you’d be so bold in your rewrite of history. Jon will be along with the details. You really should put down the hatchet and join us OpenReader types in having standards work happen in a neutral setting, as oposed to Adobe-ETI-controlled working grouops at the IDPF. That’s the issue, control. We prefer a distributed approach, not a Billcentric or Joncentric one. Of course, as usual, you’re ignoring the pesky question of what you will be charging distributors or publishers for DRM, or the extent of control you envision having over it. Thanks. David
This isn’t about putting a replica of the newspaper online. It is about making a more effective digital newspaper or news experience.
This is technology that is helping move the user experience forward. Today, were you to buy a new Laptop with a beautiful cinema display screen, you’d get a reasonably good experience for photos and video. The text content experience though would be one long, ugly scrollable region of choppy text huddled on the left-hand side of the monitor. No one enjoys reading that. Until now this has been a serious obstacle for onscreen reading.
What Microsoft is providing here are the presentation tools that enable professional content designers (as well as anyone who wants to provide content in this format) to provide great content experiences that work across a wide range of screens and sizes. What are those tools? Here are a few:
Columns - the basic unit of a reading layout
Pagination - no manipulation of scrollbars needed
Dynamic reflow (for laying out text to fit the screen)
Layout controls and Template technology - for indicating layout at different resolutions and screen sizes
Dynamic Hyphenation and Justification
ClearType - optimal text clarity particularly on LCD screens
Optimal paragraph
OpenType with ligatures and other font features
Kerning
Figures and Floaters
Fonts as resources (so designers can make use of real fonts)
Browser hosted (works with the browser’s navigation, is linkable, etc.)
Multimedia integration
Animation
3D elements (pull in 3D)
And a bunch more stuff. This technology is part of the Windows Presentation Framework. In this first release, it will be downloadable on XP and is part of Vista.
The Times Reader is not about bringing an exact replica of the print newspaper to the screen. It’s about bringing readability, design and fidelity to the screen.
Pagination and columns are not about making a more effective digital newspaper experience, because they are exactly the cruft that was carried over from print. If these are the things that Microsoft is introducing, then the claim that this is about putting a newspaper replica online is warranted.
No sir, Columns and pages aren’t cruft. And your post, I’ll point out, is in a column. It’s just one looonng (and too narrow - for my screen and resolution anyway) column which forces people to consume the content a few lines at a time. A good reading experience consists of appropriately sized columns of text. On the screen today, content authors are forced to do one of three things: either let the text flow wild and wide - as wide as the screen will permit OR constrain the text to one narrow column (either centered or on the left) OR provide a bitmap (PDF or other) of some print publication. Folks with different devices and resolutions have to make do.
The claim that this was a “replica” of the newspaper would be warranted (maybe even interesting…) if it were true. It’s not. The columns and layout and packaging (and content even) are distinct. The content is dynamic comes over the Web via URLs and RSS. The reader has video, 3D, animation, Search, data visualization, annotations etc. So, beyond the fact that it actually is able to use decent reading layout and typography of a well-honed design tradition, it’s a completely different animal than the newspaper of the print world.
Tell us more, Kevin. What other features are on the way? When will it be downloadable on XP? And will similar technology be used in e-book versions? I assume so. - David
Sure. First of all, you don’t need to wait to check it out. There’s a beta of the Windows Presentation Framework (WinFx - downloadable on XP) and several presentations on the technology online. Second, you don’t need an app. Once you have WPF installed, you can simply click on the sample xaml files and view them in the browser. You only need to create an app if you want to code special controls or store content on the desktop. The layout controls, font presentation, animation, video and 3D elements, etc are all part of WPF. With some properties, you can control columnwidth, justification, hyphenation, figures, floaters, etc etc in xaml markup. With some style markup you can customize the viewer UI.
WinFx Download: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=F51C4D96-9AEA-474F-86D3-172BFA3B828B&displaylang=en
Fil Fortes’ Blog: http://fortes.com/work (check out the Chocolate post and the videos of Fil’s presentations)
Thanks for the further information, Kevin. I’m curious. Do you work for Microsoft or otherwise have a relationship with the company? Details of possible relationship? I ask this not to embarrass you but because it might be good for you to take questions from TeleBlog readers if I can establish that you’re speaking from the “inside.” One of the biggest questions would be, of course: “Can’t much of this be done without Vista? Why should e-reading systems be so OS-dependent?” I hope you’ll stick around. Many thanks. David
Kevin wrote:
Thanks, Kevin, for taking the time to describe the Windows Presentation Framework.
Of course, being curious, I downloaded and installed WinFx for my XP system (all 42 megs !) I then downloaded the Chocolate demo. Unfortunately, trying to view the Chocolate demo I got the error:
Anyway, it’’s probably an easy-to-fix error. In the meanwhile, I would like to find some other XAML demos representing more book-like publications. Pointers to them would be most appreciated.
One question I have — which can be partially answered once I get some book-works in XAML where I can inspect the markup myself — concerns accessibility. It is important that the textual content in XML-based publications, such as XAML, be accessible. What this means is that the important document structures are identified in the markup, so text-to-speech engines can associate text with document structure. It is not sufficient to just be able to read the text when the context of how the text fits into document structure is missing. Structural identification includes paragraphs, chapter/section headers and their hierarchy, and several other structures and recognized content semantic constructs.
Also, in a question related to accessibility, how will NIMAS support be addressed within the XAML/Windows Presentation Framework? The current NIMAS spec is based upon DAISY’s Digital Talking Book, an XML framework based on the OEBPS paradigm. Because of the Federal legal mandates behind NIMAS in the K-12 educational arena, it would seem important for Microsoft to address NIMAS support head-on. But I’m concerned that the general paradigm behind XAML does not allow, or easily allow, compatiblity with NIMAS and with any OEBPS paradigm format. I hope you can allay my concerns.
Again, Kevin, thanks for the pointers to info on the Windows Presentation Framework, and look forward to looking at some (working) XAML demos of book-like works.