Kelly’s e-book horrors: Why publishers should beware of Sony-style proprietary approaches
Are you a publisher, large or small? Then heed a warning from Kelly Applegate, an e-book reader who spent thousands on Gemstar books that she cannot read without great difficulty on today’s machines.
You’ll want to consider Kelly’s horror story especially if you’re planning to do books for Sony’s new e-book machine. Deal with Sony with eyes wide open. We don’t know all the details, but apparently Sony will rely on at least some elements of Gemstar’s consumer-hostile business model.
Just please look out for Number One. Like Tennessee Williams’ Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire, you need the kindness of strangers, book-buyers. Otherwise you’ll go bankrupt. You earn your money through the goodwill of your customers like Kelly Applegate, a healthcare worker in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. She loves romances and has bought 400 e-books over the past dozen years from just one publisher alone, Ellora’s Cave. Luckily Ellora’s has helped Kelly kept up with changing formats in that time, including those more recent than Gemstar’s; but she says it hasn’t been easy for her. Kelly would much prefer durable e-book standards. “If publishers had one format and stuck to it,” she told me, “that would be great.”
Keeping Kelly happy–or at least mitigating her pain
Pleasing consumers with convenient standards will be especially essential if you favor digital rights management for your books. I don’t like DRM. But like the others at OpenReader, I understand the need for compromise and good-faith execution of DRM. In fact, DRM technology will fare better and cause consumers far less grief if standards are in place for copy protection, not just the core formats. Otherwise your DRMed books won’t be as easily readable as you’d like. More on Kelly later on. But first here’s some background for publishers.
For either format standards or consumer-friendly DRM, Sony would be an odd place to turn, even as it is about to introduce an American equivalent of the Librie. Sony will undoubtedly point to the use of PDF as an example of openness and protection against obsolete formats. If only that were the case! Most PDF documents are fixed-page formats, usually designed for a larger sized page. Even if the PDFs are partly reflowable, however, real world experience has shown PDFs to be pretty poor for general electronic reading (as opposed to printouts at which PDFs do excel).
Resisting temptation
Publishers may be tempted to optimize a PDF for the Sony screen, but then the PDF will not be optimum for other screen size hardware such as PDA, cellphones and other tablet-size machines. That’s why Sony’s proprietary format and even PDF are no substitute for OpenReader. At the very least, in digitizing texts for the Sony machine, publishers should make certain they master their books using XML, so they may be easily and inexpensively converted (”repurposed”) to a large range of user formats such as OpenReader and even PDF.
That, of course, raises the question of why consumers should invest in the first place in either (1) books in Sony’s proprietary format or (2) inflexible PDF books optimized for the Sony. For people like Kelly to own e-books for real, they need an OpenReader approach. Moreover, yet another issues come up. What about the visually impaired people who will enjoy less control over type sizes with PDF, at least without having to scroll horizontally?
So much for the basic concepts. Now here’s Kelly’s story as posted today to the eBook Community list:
I have numerous ebooks I have purchased and cannot read anymore because they are encrypted. I purchased them before this drive was installed and now they cannot be read on this machine. I have several ebook readers and there are books I purchased prior to my ownership of the readers that I cannot convert to read on the reader. I am really hot about it.
I started the ebook craze years ago when you received a disk from the publisher. I have those with encryption that I cannot format to my readers. As the ebooks had the ability to download, I continued purchasing them. Then I bought a Nuvomedia Rocket EBook Pro. I loved it. My library climbed to well over 500 purchased books and slowly I got rid of my paper books except the “keepers”. (I would love to be able to get those in electronic form because I prefer it but it is way too expensive at this point.)
I have written to several authors about my dilemma and many of them have sent me unencrypted or in some cases replacement encrypted ebooks to replace the ones I cannot either load on my ebook reader or to enable me to read them on my computer with the new drive. The ones that refused my request, I don’t bother with anymore.
At this point, I have invested a large amount of money in my electronic library. I have been through the Gemstar fallout and they still have MY books that I paid for that I can ONLY read on ONE ebook reader (I have several). Because of the protections that have been placed on the ebooks I purchased and not being able to read them on the reader of my choice, I REFUSE to by any ebook that is protected. And, I REFUSE to buy any ebook that I cannot get to load on my ebook reader. I will contact a publisher before I purchase from them and find out exactly what their books are made of. I, also, insist that I be able to test drive the formats at their site because I have found that often I order the HTML version of a book to convert to my reader and it comes out with gibberish. So, I get another version and convert it to HTML (Most often it is MS Reader converted to HTML)and it is perfect for the reader. I have an Excel spreadsheet that I maintain with the publishers and the formats I must purchase from them to get the best copy readable on my ebook reader. A few publishers have told me they will not replace ebooks and will not accomodate me in any way. It’s their loss. I was going to buy 15 books from one of the sites that would not allow this so they lost a chunk of change.
I wouldn’t mind the secure books if only they had a way to be secure but so if I shell out $15.00+ for an ebook, I would be able to read it in any way I choose to on whatever device I choose to. Until then, I am finding many authors I like better than the old one’s that use to grace my shelves because they give the consumer what they want. I feel this is going to be the make or break point for ebooks.
Kelly, OpenReader folks will do their best to help. Along the way, we’ll do our best to make it possible for you to enjoy E Ink and similar technologies. We’ll soon be showing the OpenReader flag in E Ink’s developer forums, and we’re already corresponding with an important vendor in that area. Quite sensibly E Ink is selling developer kits so different companies can build E Ink machines. We like that openness, and, if it’s applied to the e-book-format question, customers will feel the same way.
Conclusions
To sum up:
1. There needs to be an open-standard, flexible, XML-based format that will optimally display on a large range of hardware devices. Publishers will win because their customers do–people like Kelly.
2. Publishers and important users of books, such libaries and the accessibility community, should be the major forces in the evolution of e-book-related standards. Tech companies should not single-handedly call the shots and ignore open e-book standards, including those at the production level. All in all, it appears that Sony couldn’t care less about the standards developed over the years by the International Digital Publishing Forum, formerly the Open eBook Forum. The IDPF standards aren’t quite up to date, an issue that the OpenReader Consortium will address, but they shouldn’t be tossed out wholesale. What kind of a message will book publishers send to Sony if they let the company merrily thumb its nose at the publishers’ own standards group? Publishers need to unite to enforce the standards on which they have spent many thousands over the years to develop. Publishers hold the aces; they should play them!
3. If at all possible, publishers and other content people should administer DRM, so there’s no central choke-hold through which any high-tech company or companies can effect gouges, holding publishers hostage. DRM should be by and for the publishers (with help from librarians and other stakeholders). And for publishers to succeed, then consumers need to be happy as well. Just with standards, consumer happiness is paramount–even if that irks tech companies. As strict as publishers can be about control of content, it’s baffling why some are letting Sony be format boss. Would publishers allow printers to wield such authority? Yes, the control issues are the same as in Number 2.
4. Stop being deaf to people like Kelly–that’s where your money is. She’s in pain right now. And how many other customers will bother with spreadsheets to track format-related details associated with different publishers stuck on different proprietary technologies? Don’t add to existing e-book horrors.
Popularity: 2% [?]
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:59 pm
We already have an “open-standard, flexible, XML-based format that will optimally display on a large range of hardware devices”. It’s called XHTML and it’s been in use for quite some time now. But you can’t DRM it.
Assume that a paper book today costs $10 in the store. That means that the eBook version should cost no more than $5 (since the vast majority of the cost of a paper book is the physical-ness of it and that cost is effectively eliminated with an eBook). Part of the value of a book is the fact that if I don’t like it, or I stop being interested in it, I can sell it to someone who likes it. If the eBook is DRMed, the value of the book immediately drops to $1 - effectively the “throw away” cost to most people. And, as most publishers will tell you, they can’t make a profit selling eBooks for $1.
Now, let’s run with the idea of a universal DRM. That means that the DRM scheme will have to be made publically available. That means that like DVD Jon, someone can write a program that will eliminate the DRM - effectively rendering the DRM useless. Open DRM simply will never happen because of this.
January 2nd, 2006 at 11:55 pm
Although it would take too long here to go into the gory details, what is not being proposed is an open DRM (if David mentioned it as “open”, that’s a slip of the keyboard.) Rather, it is a DRM system (with associated technical protection measures) which is controlled by a non-profit “consortium” operated by and for publishers large and small, and other stakeholders such as librarians and archivists. The details of how the DRM works could be “closed” in some fashion, and disclosed to developers with appropriate non-disclosure agreements and similar legal protections.
Anyway, it’s important to note that all DRM/TPM schemes I know of, most of which are “ultra-sooper-dooper-secret-proprietary,” have been cracked (e.g., Adobe, Microsoft LIT.) There goes the advantages of proprietary DRM — evaporated in a puff of smoke.
So, the purpose of DRM is not to assure Fort Knox “it will never be broken — never ever never”, but rather to provide a reasonable level of protection (when combined with legal protection mechanisms like the DMCA), that someone will consciously have to decide to break the law, and then actively scrounge around the “underground” to find a cracked ebook, or to locate a cracking tool.
Interestingly, despite the plethora of pirated books on P2P networks, and various cracking tools easily found doing a Google search, we still see significant ebook sales. I think it boils down that those who will not pay for books will find some way to get their books for free, while those who are honest will pay for ebooks — even if there’s no DRM applied at all (note, I sell my quite popular, and higher-than-average-priced ebooks without any hardware-specific DRM, and they’ve not yet been pirated!) This tells me that heavy-duty, hardware-oriented DRM (which leads to the kinds of problems Kelly is experiencing which, in turn, costs publishers and retailers a lot of $$$ to handle) is totally unnecessary.
A simpler and gentler DRM/TPM system, oriented towards the user rather than hardware-specific, is, in my opinion, more than sufficient to maximize profits for publishers for nearly all types of books. If publishers believe that draconian hardware-oriented DRM is necessary to maximize profits, they are greatly mistaken, in my opinion. If a publisher tells me they must have “sooper-dooper” DRM tied to specific hardware, my question to them will be “Will this maximize your profits?” They won’t be able to answer this because they’ve not even considered/studied it, as far as I know (I know of no Book Industry Study Group report addressing this important issue, although maybe I’ve missed it.) I believe if they look at this rationally, they would conclude that light/gentle-DRM, not tied to specific hardware, will maximize their profits for most types of books.
So, I guess publishers have to decide what’s more important: 1) heavy-duty hardware-specific DRM that reduces their profits and causes their customers, like Kelly, to hate them with a passion, or 2) use very light DRM and maximize their profits and generate happy customers.
Let’s see, that’s a hard one to decide … maybe publishers should ask their shareholders which choice makes more sense?
January 3rd, 2006 at 4:42 am
Hi, Ron. I wrote, “In fact, DRM technology will fare better and cause consumers far less grief if standards are in place for copy protection, not just the core formats.” This would not preclude the scenario Jon’s described. As Jon said: “The details of how the DRM works could be ‘closed’ in some fashion, and disclosed to developers with appropriate non-disclosure agreements and similar legal protections.” Bottom line: This would be a standard indeed, implemented in a way to avoid a choke-hold and related gouges, but for reason already discussed, it would not be open to the extent the format per se would. I’d personally prefer that no DRM be used–especially since people can scan and OCR copies of best-sellers. But if publishers insist on this technhology, then it’s important, as Jon noted, that it be consumer friendly. - David
January 3rd, 2006 at 5:49 am
It makes no difference whether the DRM is owned by a corporation or by some standards group. Closed DRM means that sooner or later, my eBooks become worthless, therefore they only have “throwaway” value and are not worth anything over the throw-away price. A standard DRM would be better than we have today, but in the long run it’s still bad for the consumer.
Thereis no such thing as a “simpler and gentler DRM/TPM system”. Any system that prevents me from accessing the content that I legally own is bad. If the system breaks, I am unable to access my content. If it’s poorly implemented, I am unable to access my content. And don’t get me started as to what happens when the copyright runs out (can that even happen anymore?) and we are unable to access the content because it’s locked up.
Yes, all DRM has been cracked so far, but that’s so far and the content providers paid for their law to make it illegal to create tools that allow us to access our legally owned content (i.e. bypass the DRM).
January 3rd, 2006 at 6:18 am
Ron, I share your concerns about DRM. But guess what? It’s gonna happen whether or not OpenReader does it. We’re going to help the industry do it right so customers can own books for real. This is a concept very dear to all of us. Meanwhile, for my thoughts on DRM Bypass Number One, scannning of paper copies, see a post I’m about to make. - David
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:39 am
Another DRM story…
And I’m still waiting for OpenReader to actually SHOWCASE their DRM on a public domain title. Lets see if its really all that user friendly!
In prinicple, a DRM system can be “open”, if it’s based on strong principles. By “open”, this would mean that you could write open source applications, and have the source code to the entire thing — BUT not modify the rendering portions of the code.
However, doing this requires that you have an organization which digitally signs the rendering code. Second, you need a mechanism which can obfuscate binary code (through shuffling, block-at-a-time-decryption, and so forth), which will implement the license mechanism. This needs to share the memory space with the renderer so it can verify the renderer has not been tampered with.
Since DRM isn’t about actually protecting copyrighted works (no matter what “they” say), it’s about the DRM provider getting a piece of every transaction. And THAT requires a propietary scheme.
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:07 am
It sounds like you’re still trying to produce square circles with OpenReader (one of the hazards that comes with the territory when you indefinitely put off releasing a spec, which would otherwise force you to declare for one shape or another). If the specification for using the book (including any DRM that gets in the way of using it) isn’t open, neither is the format. And I don’t “really own” the “Open”Reader books that I buy if I depend on the continuing cooperation of some other group, whether a single vendor or a single “standards” organization, to use them in the ways I expect to be able to use books.
There are in fact a couple of ways you *could* provide some of the aspects of DRM and still keep a usable, essentially open standard.
— Go ahead and make an open specification of the DRM access control. Sure,
that means that people could write a program to bypass it based on the
specification. But it’s going to be reverse-engineered anyway, if the format
catches on like you hope. Maybe not perfectly, but most users of pirated
good don’t care about perfection, whereas many legitimate customers of
books *do* care about getting it as right as possible, and in some cases
may have legitimate needs for bypassing DRM on a given title. So you might
as well keep your customers happy and your publishers’ expectations realistic
by opening the “DRM” access control spec from the get-go.
(If you don’t, you create distrust between real customers and publishers–
the cusomers are reluctant to commit to a non-open format, and the publishers
are reluctant to stick with the format once it’s cracked, as it will be. In the
latter case, publishers would then have a natural tendency to go beyond to
a new “secret” extension– a la the copy protection attempts of CD
manufacturers– and we’re back to the tower of eBabel again.)
— Allow non-open “DRM” data, but only for auditing purposes, not for
the purposes of content gatekeeping.
For example, it would be acceptable in my opinion to have a”bookstamp”
assigned to an ebook at the time of sale (and not necessary to read the book)
whose details were publisher-specific (and possibly secret), just for the purposes
of telling whether a particular copy is authorized or not. That is, if a book doesn’t
have a stamp when it should, or doesn’t have a well-formed stamp, or had the
same stamp that lots of other people’s copies also had, it isn’t authorized.
The stamp or its absence wouldn’t prevent the book from being used, but it
could help honest customers, vendors, and auditors determine whether they
were dealing with legitimate copies.
These are “DRM” methods that are still compatible with having a truly open format for reading electronic books. Is the “OpenReader” group willing to commit to limiting DRM in its standard to these? (Or to releasing at a specific time some other concrete specification of its DRM and other format details?)
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:54 am
To clarify what John Mark Ockerbloom noted, the OpenReader format itself will not specify any DRM — it will essentially be DRM-agnostic. This means the OpenReader Publication format may be used in open fashion, just like HTML. But the design of the container/encapsulator of the OpenReader Publication file set (which actually does NOT define the format!) will certainly allow adding an encryption layer.
The DRM issue is still being worked out, but this has zero impact on the fundamental design of the OpenReader Publication framework. We’re moving full steam ahead to finalize the framework. The only thing that we need to resolve is the final design of the “orp:” URI/IRI scheme for intra- and inter-publication linking into and between OpenReader Publications. All this talk about DRM tends to obscure the other important and exciting capabilities we are designing into OpenReader.
(Btw, to address a related issue which John brought up, we are discussing the aspect of digital signature of files within the OpenReader Publication framework, but that probably won’t be implemented in version 1.0. We’ll just make sure it can be seamlessly added later.)
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Thanks, Jon, for your comment, but it still sounds like you’re trying to have it both ways.
If you want to be able to say things like “This ebook is in OpenReader format” in a way that’s meaningful to customers, you *can’t* be purely agnostic on DRM. You have to take a stand. You can say “OpenReader books have no DRM”. Or you can say “OpenReader books can include DRM that meets these requirements and/or specifications”. But if you just say “OpenReader books can include any kind of DRM” then you don’t have an open format in any sense that’s meaningful to the customer, any more than OEBPS was.
Remember, OEBPS is an open standard, and from what I recall many books in MS Reader and other proprietary formats in fact encapsulate books that conform to that standard. But no one here seems to think that OEBPS has solved the tower of eBabel problem, because few if any publishers have released books directly in OEBPS format
(or OEBPS in a trivial container like zip.)
That’s because of the proprietary containers that have been built around OEBPS and similar formats, and that’s enough to create lots of the problems that OpenReader is supposed to be responding to. A similar thing will happen to OpenReader if you let it, asuming the format goes anywhere commercially.
Of course, if you’re content with having OpenReader just be a “next generation” version of OEBPS, carry on. But don’t then pretend that it’s going to solve the “tower of eBabel” problem, or do much about the problems of multiple formats, proprietary dependencies, ebooks with short usable lives, or ebooks that you can’t own or use in the ways you want to.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:47 pm
As I read John Mark Ockerbloom’s comments, I note an overall pessimism that the commercial ebook industry will be able to settle upon a single, open standards format that will also be fully acceptable to consumers. Is this because of the DRM issue itself? That is, will the use of DRM — any DRM — lead to a format impasse that is not resolvable?
Or is it more a semantic issue? That is, when a DRM layer is applied to an encapsulated OpenReader Publication framework, that the resultant package is no longer “open”?
In my book, TPM (“technical protection measures”) will always be an optional part of the OpenReader environment. And it is my hope that the use of TPM will disappear for most digital publication uses as publishers learn that it won’t really solve anything — I believe its use will not maximize profits. So the emphasis on the OpenReader format is to bring OEBPS (a next-gen version) to the end-user for all kinds of digital publication uses (and this includes for public domain books, and yes, “online” books.) And it will provide the means by which all OpenReader formatted publications can be interlinked and deeplinked in powerful ways through the use of the “orp” URI/IRI scheme. OpenReader will also support the “web” paradigm, in addition to supporting the OEBPS paradigm, and this is a new feature which I think is also quite powerful.
Anyway, this discussion is fruitful, even if displaced since the comment area of a blog is usually not a good place to conduct ongoing discussions — John’s Book People and The eBook Community groups would be better.
I appreciate John’s candid and informative comments.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:09 pm
The Jon with the missing H can deal with the technical arguments, but I myself will focus on a remark he made earlier in this conversation:
“So, I guess publishers have to decide what’s more important: 1) heavy-duty hardware-specific DRM that reduces their profits and causes their customers, like Kelly, to hate them with a passion, or 2) use very light DRM and maximize their profits and generate happy customers.”
The same idea would apply to the issues of semantics and procdedure. I think the two Jo(h)s are much closer in spirit than either would be to Microsoft or Adobe or, shudder, Sony. Let’s keep our priorities straight.
In the end the bottom issue should be, “Will Kelly be happy? And will the publishers avoid choke-holds and the current DRM gouges?” Let’s worry more about freedom of speech and a level playing field than about 100 percent technical purity on the issue of “open” vs. “closed” in regard to DRM for publishers wanting it. Otherwise Adobe will call the shots for now, and Microsoft later. If, on the other hand, we can pre-empt them with a reader-and-publisher-friendly approach, then the greater good will be served.
Significantly, we’ve drawn VERY favorable comments from librarians, who, yes, know aobut the DRM approaches being considered. The word “considered” is important, given that standard-setters will make the decisions in the end.
David
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:55 pm
The bottom line with discussing DRM/TPM (where TPM is “technical protection measure”) is that it is a quite emotional topic, and understandably so (made even worse by the recent Sony rootkit debacle.)
From my perspective, and fully agreeing with John Mark Ockerbloom’s suggestion, I would rather open up the TPM spec. John correctly noted that whether a TPM scheme is non-published or published (“open”) is pretty much irrelevant since any non-published TPM system will be cracked fairly quickly, especially when the system becomes quite popular (e.g., refer to “DVD Jon”.)
So, as David noted, the important thing is to focus on the bigger issues of DRM as they currently exist (and to learn from them), particularly the problems Kelly and others like her are facing having to deal with ebooks protected by heavy-duty, hardware specific TPM. It is clear, and as the Sony rootkit debacle shows, that such “Fort Knox” level TPM is destined to fail — not only will it be cracked/bypassed, but it will piss off a large number of consumers. (This is especially true in that best-selling books are now being pirated as ebooks primarily derived from paper copies, and this will continue regardless of what TPM is deployed for digital versions.)
January 5th, 2006 at 9:23 am
“In the end the bottom issue should be, “Will Kelly be happy?””
I am glad you were keeping your eye this, because it was getting lost in the discussion.
DRM is a lock. It is the only type of lock that it is illegal to break, even if you own it. If the lock stops working, you are locked out from what you own. That is what Kelly is now experiencing, and there is no type of DRM that could prevent that. After all, if Kelly could somehow legally circumvent the lock, it wouldn’t be worth much as DRM, would it now?
This is the thing that even the moderate DRM-proponents (”OK, we don’t like it, but we see it as inevitable”) just don’t get.
Here’s a possible solution, based on how the custom software industry works: if somebody sells you a program, they put the source code into escrow, with the promise that when the publisher no longer wants to support the software, you get access to the rights and the source code. Similarly, with ebooks the publisher can put their key into escrow. In the case that a buyer can no longer read a book for whatever reason, they can obtain the key and a personal license. Since the dealings between publishers and readers are typically those of companies and consumers, there should be extra protections in place for the consumers beyond regular contract law.
January 5th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Branko makes a lot of good points, and I agree with many of them.
I do believe there is a big difference between TPM oriented to an individual, and TPM oriented towards a particular machine. Nearly all the DRM/TPM systems deployed these days use the heavy-duty, machine-specific approach, and I believe these are the ones which Branko has in mind. They are bad. Less used is TPM based on the individual.
After all, individuals buy ebooks, not specific hardware machines. With a people-specific TPM, the individual may move the ebook to any hardware device under their control without need to go through an elaborate activation process (no need to communicate with the “mother ship.”) And such TPM can be made general — it need not even be platform-specific (e.g., it will work on Windows, Linux, Mac, etc.)
Of course, there are certainly problems and issues even with TPM oriented to the person, and best discussed in another thread (or maybe even a blog article.) And this TPM will also be broken — all TPM can and will be broken in some manner. Even the most draconian TPM systems will eventually be broken and the content transfered to a non-protected form. In the worst case it will be no different than print (which is currently the source of nearly all pirated ebooks!), since the content has to be exposed so the end-user can read it. All TPM is futile if the goal is zero piracy, but this does not mean TPM is therefore futile. This, I believe, is a very important distinction.
I agree that using any TPM, except maybe for specialized applications, is a lesson in futility if viewed as a way to prevent piracy. But until publishers come to realize this, they will continue to want TPM systems (today they will not even listen to arguments by non-compromising activists like Cory Doctorow that all TPM is futile and even dangerous.)
From a pragmatic viewpoint, then, it makes sense to at least advocate a much more consumer-friendly TPM approach — that is, something publishers (especially the smaller, independent publishers who are at the cutting edge of the ebook industry) are more likely to accept. I tend to be a zealot, like Cory Doctorow, on many topics (like my views on how public domain texts should be digitized), but on this particular issue I currently take a more pragmatic position. We are not only dealing with large mega-publishers, but with a lot of the smaller, independent ebook publishers, who I appreciate a lot, and some of whom currently take a pro-TPM position. Fortunately the indies are much more sensitive to the needs and wishes of their customers, and so a gentle “person-specific” TPM will greatly appeal to them.
Who knows? Sometime in the future I may change my mind and become an “all TPM-based DRM is pure evil” zealot like Cory Doctorow. But today I take a pragmatic, middle ground, and I’m striving to focus on TPM which meets the needs of both the indie publishers who still want TPM and the customers who buy their books. And I have reason to believe this will work, based on a proposal for a “person-specific” TPM I’ve seen — it’s really cool. We’ll see what happens…