E-book publisher tests iLiad: ‘Long odyssey away from epic success’
Moderator’s note: I’m more upbeat about the iLiad e-paper machine—still in beta—than Genene Miller Cote is. Even so, she’s a tech-savvy publisher and very much worth paying attention to. Meanwhile, for a fascinating examination of the potential of iLiad-style tech for the academic world, see Peter van de Graaf’s PowerPoint. – David Rothman
E-book acceptance has been a long time coming. Viable hardware, interchangeable formats and a universal standard would go a long way towards bringing e-books into the mainstream. iRex has an opportunity to push the reading public towards a real e-reading solution. The iLiad in its present form is a long odyssey away from epic success.
Before buying my iLiad, I read everything I could find about the device, talked to the iRex people and actually held one in my hands last May. One of the main attractions was the promise of reading PDF eBooks on a large screen. I am, after all, an e-book publisher and have lots of PDF files to read.
After a seemingly endless wait, my iLiad arrived. The packaging is beautiful and the form factor is exactly right—slim and light. The reader as currently shipped, however, has three significant limitations:
The documentation
The documentation did not come with the device. The only paper was a 5×7 sheet that welcomes you to the world of electronic reading and then warns you that if the iLiad runs out of power your unit will be irrevocably damaged. Interestingly enough, there is no indication that you should charge the machine before turning it on, or indeed, how to do that.
Screen readability
The PDF reading software shows a full page in approximately a five-point typeface. The software does not allow the user to adjust the font size. The E-Ink technology shows a clean crisp image that is virtually impossible to read because the font is so small.
The PDF reader
It might be possible to persist in reading the very small type face, but the real killer is that the device will not read protected PDF files. All of the literature, packaging and documentation clearly state that the device reads PDFs. There is no mention that it won’t read protected files. Incidentally, there are no search functions available; an unexpected weakness.
The overall implementation has other noteworthy flaws: the unit freezes on a regular basis, there is no power management and an exceedingly slow screen-refresh rate occasionally leads to ghosting.
As a long time software and hardware developer, my view is that this device is barely at beta quality and yet it is being sold as a finished consumer product. The documentation and the Web site both state that new software will be regularly released. Obviously iRex realizes that it has work to do, but the company never uses the word beta in describing the product.
All of the problems I encountered are eminently fixable. None of them are serious enough to damage the long term prospects for the device. Unfortunately, they have done the consumers and themselves a disservice in the short term.
It is hard to figure out the iRex management strategy. iRrex is on a short timeline with Sony and Jinke at its heels. On one level it makes sense to rush to market. On the other hand, all the advantages of being first to market stand to be obliterated by the poor implementation.
While this incarnation is certainly a disappointment, it is too early to write it off. The E-Ink screen is a true breakthrough technology. It is important to remember that e-books are about the reading experience and not about technology.
————-
Genene Miller Cote is a publisher, software developer and a marketer with a decade of experience in e-commerce and Internet-based marketing strategies. Her company (DigitalPulp Publishing) and its DPPstore were created to help authors, self publishers, and independent press take advantage of the e-book opportunity.
(iLiad PowerPoint found via Paul Miller’s comments in the IWR Blog.)
September 6th, 2006 at 7:03 am
Well, she is right with most her oservations, BUT she fails to mention, that iRex clearly state (even if they do not use the word beta) that the software implementation of the device is far from ready. It is even mentioned, that no DRM protected files can be read and that the search and zoom functions are not available yet.
Knowing that, the evaluation moves to a different perspective. If iRex was right allowing the broad public to buy their device at this point is questionable, but i for my part am happy, because i love it and use it frequently. Maybe they should have sold it only to “severe” geeks to avoid bad publicity. Remeber, their official release date was September, and that was without the expected delays for an innovative device.
We will have to wait till december (thats just my personal deadline for iRex
) to see how the power management and the promised software has improved, and if they meet their expectations then.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:33 am
As noted, I myself think that iRex was absolutely right. From what I understand, the software will make all the difference, and meanwhile the company is getting valuable feedback.
Hey, any Sony Reader betas out there? I’d love to hear from you as well. Or did Sony make you sign a confidentiality agreement?
David
September 6th, 2006 at 9:17 am
“It is hard to figure out the iRex management strategy. iRrex is on a short timeline with Sony and Jinke at its heels.”
I do not think Irex is competing with Sony, and though it is competing with Jinke, the competition isn’t necessarily in the same market. The only overlap I can see is the educational market, which seems to be Jinke’s main market, and a side-market for Irex.
This isn’t a consumer device right now, but from what I understand it was never meant to be a consumer device.
Having said that, even businesses expect good documentation, and you’re right on the money there. Odd that they cannot even get a technical writer to write a one-page introduction to ship in what I expect to be a largely empty box.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Rereading my previous comment I realize it sounds like I think the only flaw of the Iliad is lack of a printed documentation. I don’t, but that’s just the thing that stands out the most to me, because that is the one thing that can be easily solved, and that could have been solved months ago, right after the first Iliads had shipped and the first comments about this problem had started trickling in on the Mobileread forums.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Hmm, documentation is not that bad. Its a PDF file on the iLiad. The package just needs a piece of paper telling you, how to turn on the device and how to read that intro (or where you can download it). They should even do something that the iLiad opens that document automatically when you turn on the device for the first time.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
>The documentation
>The documentation did not come with the device. The only paper was a 5×7 sheet >that welcomes you to the world of electronic reading and then warns you that if >the iLiad runs out of power your unit will be irrevocably damaged. Interestingly >enough, there is no indication that you should charge the machine before turning >it on, or indeed, how to do that.
This statement is not accurate as the 5×7 sheet states that in the process of SOFTWARE DOWNLOADS, ie. firmware updates, the iLiad could be damaged. Not during normal or initial usage.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
I agree with some things, and disagree with others, just like Branko, Tribble and David…:-)
The Software is very buggy, and things aren’t improving quickly…but I think the device could still become a winner. Also, I don’t get the “teh device breaks if the battery runs flat” part and neither do I get the thing about the device being sold as finished. iRex first sold the devices for invitees only, then, after the first wave arrived and the graves shipping problems were solved, they opened up a bit. But…everybody still has to “sign” the “software is not done” agreement sometime during the signup or order process…
September 6th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
In response to Roland’s statement: “But…everybody still has to “sign” the “software is not done” agreement sometime during the signup or order process… ”
Usually I would not get back into the discussion but in this case I would like to point out that I do not remember having to “sign” anything about the software not being done. I am pretty sure I did not — they just took my credit card info, charged the card a month before shipping the product (I wasn’t going to even mention that little slip up) and that was that.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:37 am
Regarding the PDF comment… not really savy tbh.
Most PDF documents are made for A4 size, if you try to view this on a 8,1 inch screen than as a long time software and hardware developer with half a brain you should now that the result is far from perfect.
Try an ebook from http://www.manybooks.net which are very nicely customized for the iLiad.
Regarding the software, which version was reviewed? I have to admit version 2.4 was pretty buggy but I see a big improvement with version 2.6.1.
Anyway I am pretty happy with my iLiad but like mentioned by Tribble, its maybe more for the geeks under us at this moment and in the current state.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Seriously, before someone write a review they need to spend more than 30 seconds using the machine. And actually have a clue about basic computer usage. Genene Miller Cote may be “respected” but she is clearly not “tech-savvy”.
This review is so full of holes it’s unbelievable.
It’s embarassing that somewhere as respected as Teleread would publish such utter tripe, no matter how “respected” may be.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Just to clarify what I actually meant to say in that paragraph:
It’s embarassing that somewhere as respected as Teleread would publish such utter tripe, no matter how “respected” the author may be.
For anyone interested I have listed the holes, and rebutted some of the inaccurate statements made in this article in my post on the subject over at the mobileread forums:
http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showpost.php?p=37443&postcount=3
September 7th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Point-by-point reply to this “review” is at http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?p=37445#post37445
September 7th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
“Seriously, before someone write a review they need to spend more than 30 seconds using the machine. And actually have a clue about basic computer usage. Genene Miller Cote may be “respected” but she is clearly not “tech-savvy”.”
Come on Lee, these devices are intended to replace paper. If Irex were to believe that average users are tech-savvy, they desperately need to re-do their usability studies. For crying out loud, they plan to sell these things to law-firms!
September 8th, 2006 at 3:35 am
iRex never claimed to replace paper, its an eReader and I fully agree with Lee. If you do a review please take the time to get your facts straight.
She fails to mention many things, I know that this article does more discredit to the writer and the site hosting it than iRex.
I have seen many better reviews on the iRex community forum and although they are far from positive and sometimes downright negative they still capture the whole picture better, but than again those people might not be “respected” “tech-savy” and “long time software and hardware developers”
September 8th, 2006 at 7:49 am
“iRex never claimed to replace paper”
I never claimed that Irex claimed to replace paper. They claimed that it is their goal to replace paper. I have the e-mails and notes from my interviews with them to prove it.
“I have seen many better reviews on the iRex community forum and although they are far from positive and sometimes downright negative they still capture the whole picture better, but than again those people might not be “respected” “tech-savy” and “long time software and hardware developers””
It is Lee who claimed that Genene Miller Cote is respected, so you are using a strawman here. And it was David Rothman who claimed that she was tech-savvy.
September 8th, 2006 at 7:50 am
Collin, now now, there is no need to malign law firms I know 2-3 who know how to use a computer .
September 8th, 2006 at 8:13 am
Heh, that’s funny, we know the same law-firms!
September 8th, 2006 at 9:32 am
“It is Lee who claimed that Genene Miller Cote is respected, so you are using a strawman here. And it was David Rothman who claimed that she was tech-savvy.”
When I said “respected” I was refering to David Rothman’s opinion that she was “very much paying attention to”. Which indicated his respect for her.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
I have a simple question?
Was this review using August 2006 R6.2 software?
The reason I ask is that some of the author’s concerns (such as slow PDF page flips) have been addressed in R2.6.
In my mind – and by reading forums such as http://www.mobileread.com – the complaint levels have dropped since R6.2.
Refering to that Tech marketing handbook “Crossing the chasm”, by Geoffrey Moore, the iLiad early releases were definitely targeting the ‘innovators’. Now they are targeting ‘early adaptors’ who typically also tolerate some of the “beta” nature of this device.
I am really interested in seeing how this crosses the chasm into the ‘early majority’ users through applications such as book clubs and subscriptions to publishers of newspapers and magazines.
September 13th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
This review of the Iliad shows a remarkable similarity with the complaints I sent to the Irex team, after i received my Iliad. Although I almost was in the postoffice to send the whole thing back, i decided to keep it, i felt in love with the design and e-ink technology and hope that necessary improvements will come. To me it also was a great disappointment that not all PDF’s were readable, not even the Google books are. While all over the world libraries start large digitization projects to bring knowledge to the people anytime and everywhere (Unesco’s slogan), this is done mostly in pdf, and why then has the Iliad restrictions on the kind of PDF they like to handle? Without saying so, nowhere in the advertisements it is said that they cannot handle all pdf’s. How could a customer know that there are differences in pdf’s?
By the way, I thought the review a balanced one and the comments of some respondents unfaithful and impolite.
February 10th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
[...] Half a dozen specialized e-reading devices — the Iliad, the Sony Librie, and others* — offer e-reading off a carryaround screen, a need that FBReader and Plucker Viewer** meet wonderfully well on the Nokia tablets, at a lower price. [...]
February 10th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
[...] Half a dozen specialized e-reading devices — the Iliad, the Sony Librie, and others* — offer e-reading off a carryaround screen, a need that FBReader and Plucker Viewer** meet wonderfully well on the Nokia tablets, at a lower price. [...]