They mention the philosophical (if sometimes harder to realize) advantage of Adobe's DRM solution allowing books to be read on any compatible system. They compare this to Kindle, somewhat poorly:
While that's possible with Amazon.com's Kindle, which uses its own file format and Digital Rights Management (DRM) scheme, it requires more hassle. And it's unclear whether it will be possible at all with e-books purchased for the iPad from Apple Inc.'s coming iBook store, due toApple's reported plan to use its own FairPlay DRM.
I'm not really sure what they mean by "that's possible with Amazon.com's Kindle" unless they mean "since Amazon owns the Kindle and the DRM they apply to it, they could in theory modify it to be more open although nobody really expects them to do that." Kindle books don't work on other eReaders due to technological limitations in their DRM, they don't work because Amazon wants it that way.
On its Web site, Adobe openly admits that e-books sold by Barnes & Noble should "initially" not work on other Adobe-compatible e-readers. That's because Barnes & Noble is using a new, more liberal form of ADEPT that requires users to enter in a password to read the e-book.
The article goes on to cite user complaints over this; which are valid. Adobe needs to get the new SDK in the hands of every major eReader manufacturer and provide them assistance in moving towards this format. This "available later this year" business is bad business for Adobe - it's available now, since nook owners use eReaders with the technology baked in. It's giving the solution a bad eye. They also should do a better job of differentiating ePub and PDF file formats, and ADEPT encryption, since many people see the iBook/iPad situation as another failure of ePub. ePub hasn't failed - it's a file format that works on virtually every reader not manufactured by a vendor whose name starts with an 'A' and ends with an 'N'.
Apple has just chosen, like that other vendor to use their own DRM in lieu of Adobe's. Given Apple's relationship with Adobe and desire to control content to ensure it plays back on their own players this should be neither a surprise nor a shocker. Even in music, once DRM was dropped, they do use a format while widely available, and in theory playable on any number of players - is not MP3 and not quite as ubiquitous.
They quote Paul Biba and Teleread:
"Everybody, except Amazon, is practically lying through their teeth by telling consumers that they are using the so-called 'standard' Epub format and how this is a great benefit to everybody. Hogwash!" Biba wrote earlier this week. "The whole thing is a fraud."
I'm not quite as harsh. Quite honestly, ePub is a standard, open format. The DRM layers above it are not quite a complete train wreck. If your device is supported by Adobe Digital Editions (3 of the 4 in my house currently are, the fourth being the non-ePub compatible Kindle 2), you can load books from Sony, Kobo, and other fine eBooksellers, Barnes and Noble not YET included. I have no reason to believe Sony won't update their Reader line to support the newer version once available - they made a big investment in switching to ADE and a big push to update their existing hardware to support the format.
The article cites Nick Bogarty, Adobe's business development manager:
"There are contractual obligations for interoperability between stores and devices -- that's the whole benefit of our platform."
This means it will happen, if vendors wish to continue using ADEPT/ADE/ACS versions they will have to continue to be interoperable. That's not the same as saying running a later version should leave you 100% compatible with older versions.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment