Mike Shatzkin
on Jun 4th, 2009
@ 10:00 am: 

Evan, this is a great post and a great explanation of how the tech works. In that way, at least, better than mine today on the same subject. I am going to write a comment on my blog telling people they should look at this post.

[Reply]

jc
on Jun 4th, 2009
@ 12:47 pm: 

Great post. I think this will be a fantastic move in the right direction. In fact, I may reign in my Kindle book purchase until I get to evaluate the Google solution. As much as I like the Kindle and the reading and buying experience it offers me, the way it tethers me to one device (Amazon’s) and one retailer (Amazon) unsettles me. Google’s platform will undoubtedly be more open than that.

[Reply]

Evan Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

While I understand your sentiment – I am not sure that sitting and not buying ebooks for a device you have made an investment is the way to go. There is a long path ahead for Google Editions and by the time you are ready to upgrade your Kindle, this world will have changed 20 more times… so keep buying and reading and let the market come to you.

[Reply]

Roger Sperberg
on Jun 5th, 2009
@ 8:09 am: 

I’m just wondering … What device would not have a browser based on webkit or gecko? (Or to which a port could not be made?)

So, disregarding cellphones with screens smaller than the iPhone (and possibly too-limited OSes), I’d expect Google Gears and Google Editions to run on any handheld device used for reading, even those like Cybook, Cool-er and Be Book, which lack not only 3G but also WiFi and Bluetooth.

The Kindle OS is Linux underneath and readily hacked, so people will definitely be reading Google Editions on a Kindle, even if non-officially.

The instantaneity of access when interest in a book is roused does indeed generate warm thoughts about the goodness of e-books, Kindle and Amazon. We always speak of Apple’s success in its interface and how it didn’t stop until it made it easy to buy, listen to and navigate your collection of music. Amazon’s device-to-store interface is not in the same class, but Kindle’s success rests chiefly in how minimal the effort is that one must make to buy a book. (Including, of course, the effort to overcome paying uncomfortably high prices; also tackled successfully by Apple.)

[Reply]

Google Enters the Ebook Market | Dear Author: Romance Novel Reviews, Industry News, and Commentary
on Jun 7th, 2009
@ 3:00 am: 

[...] or the life of the computer I used to authenticate the ebook reading software). Google stretches the concept of ownership of ebooks even thinner with its upcoming Google [...]

Cloud Publishing: O que o Google Faria se Fosse uma Editora? | PONTOLIT
on Jun 9th, 2009
@ 4:40 pm: 

[...] este ano, no mercado de venda de livros digitais. Com o lançamento do Google Editions (este é o nome previsto da iniciativa), é bem provável que tenhamos que repensar tanto o conceito de ebooks quanto o de [...]

Karen Carter
on Jun 21st, 2009
@ 8:16 pm: 

Evan, I learned a great deal from this post and link to it in a lengthy article on e-books. I’d appreciate it if (in your spare time, of course) you’d read E-Books: Where Literature and Technology Meet on The Know Something Project (http://www.knowsomethingproject.com) and let me know what you think of it. Thanks so much!

Karen Carter
Denver CO

[Reply]

Carmen
on Oct 23rd, 2009
@ 6:20 pm: 

Es ist eine Sache, ein Buch über einen Computer oder Laptop zu lesen, aber eine ganz andere Erfahrung Bücher zu lesen auf einem Kindle. Der logische nächste Schritt wird die Entwicklung der e-ink/e-book Geräte, die Google Gears und das Google-Content-Editionen. Ich würde mich nicht wundern, wenn Mitteilungen nicht zum Vorschein gekommen …

[Reply]

Bonjour, je m’appelle… « teXtes
on Feb 12th, 2010
@ 11:22 pm: 

[...] Il est prévu que les sites de leurs membres vont travailler en partenariat avec Google, dans le cadre du programme Google Editions, ce qui leur permettra de vendre des livres numériques “on the cloud“. [...]

Gary Arms
on May 11th, 2009
@ 5:43 am: 

As someone who teaches the Online Generation, I think it will happen the way it did with music and the way it is now happening with movies and TV shows. People with no ownership stake will put content on line so that others can “share” it. And so the dike will be breached. I agree completely with Evan’s analysis of the Online Generation and his prediction that they will increasingly ignore anything not in the cloud. Anyone who teaches knows it is increasingly difficult to get students to read books. There is a small but significant young audience for books, but a distressingly large portion of the younger generation will not read entire books unless required to do so by professors. When the online generation does research, they do it almost entirely online. Publishers and authors will continue to squabble. Again, I agree with Evan’s analysis; they will never come to general agreement. Meanwhile, the cloud will expand, gobbling up everything that exists in digital form. In music, it appears that artists will continue to make money but most of their revenue will come from live performance, the sale of tee shirts etc. To a considerable degree, the music industry has lost control of its product. “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” The success of Hulu suggests that TV and movies can make money selling ads on their own site, a site that is easy to use, reliable and free of viruses. A huge amount of print (especially periodicals) is already on line; the magazines sell ad space too. This is the single most important problem facing all content providers. The future will belong to those able to adapt to the new environment.

[Reply]

Another copyright reshuffle that’s in the cards - The Shatzkin Files
on May 12th, 2009
@ 5:11 am: 

[...] Schnittman at Black Plastic Glasses posted the final chunk of a 3-parter yesterday that contained a real shocker (to me) at the end. The 3-part post shows through [...]

Jeroen
on May 6th, 2009
@ 3:04 pm: 

You’re asking two things here:
1) The question is whether we can deliver immersive reading in a manner that is relevant to Generation On-Demand.
2) What will we need to do as an industry to make that happen?

You already gave the answer: put it in the “clouds”. This will automatically lead to a “usage fee” instead of a “buying fee”. For the consumer than it is important to know what they’re paying for. Is it a product I’m paying for or is it the usage of the content? And is the content mine? Can I resell it or lend it to a friend? No, why not? Next to changing the contract structures I think the transition to e-reading involves a lot of communication to the consumer about what is possible and what is not.

[Reply]

Jeff
on May 6th, 2009
@ 8:50 pm: 

Good analysis, though I think issues of reading need separating from issues of access.

Immersive reading might be slippery to define. Those of us who value long-form prose have always been in the minority throughout history. We just hate to confront that reality for fears of being called elitist. As far as “immersive reading” in digital media goes, everyone should look more towards documentary films than print as a content model though there’s obviously not much of a revenue model there. Intellectual property constraints will do more to limit creativity or new forms of “writing” in digital media than on reading and distribution.

I think you’re absolutely right in that the future is about on demand access to material. And that can be in the format of one’s preference (be it digital or print via print-on-demand or even traditional bookstores).

[Reply]

Bradley Robb
on Apr 6th, 2009
@ 8:44 am: 

With all due respect to you(r) position, the belief that pirated content is the source of the decline in the music industry is a flawed one, and one that placing DRM on compact discs wouldn’t have helped. While the finger is often pointed towards Napster and the programs which followed as the cause of the decline, they are more accurately described as a harbinger of change.

The rise of the CD represented the start of a bubble for the music industry in which many people rushed to replace their aging LP collection with a medium that captured the same sonic fidelity, or to upgrade their tape collection. This collector’s motivation was one of the key sources of increased sales numbers.

A second noticeable increase was that the compact disc largely killed off a large previous sales leader – the single. Prior to the early 1970s, the concept of a “full album” was indeed a rare one, the multitude of bands recorded 45 RPM singles, while earning their income from touring. With the rise of the compact disc in the middle 1990s, there was no technical difference between a full length CD and a single, and so bands were encourage to put together entire albums consisting of two or three singles, while padding the rest together with filler material. While returning greater profits for the labels, the perceived value of the album was reduced.

Putting together full albums, however, was more expensive for the record labels. Pair that fact with the number of labels shrinking into four global conglomerates, and there was a drastic reduction in risks that the labels were willing to take. This lead to cyclical trends where each label would push out copycat bands, pitting similar bands against each other in the media in order to enhance sales across the board. During the rise of the blond pop tarts in the late 1990s, it was actually common for a single label to have several essentially identical singers competing for sales. This lead to market place confusion for listeners and a further degraded the value of music.

With the onset of a digital music, listeners were able to once again upgrade their music libraries, and had access to extensive back catalogs. However, this time around, music listeners were able to purchase individual songs, which left record labels footing the bill for continuing to churn out LP-length song collections which only contained a handful of songs which the listener actually cared about.

The real harm which was done to the music industry was not downloading, or even the shift to digital, but rather the belief that the compact disc bubble would extend indefinitely, when since the dawn of the wax tube, music format shifts have been happening at an increasingly rapid rate.

If the record labels had put DRM on the compact disc from it’s inception, one could make the argument that customers would have likewise been forced to repurchase all of their favorite music over again in digital format. However, as the real world has shown, music listeners have grown disinterested with the major labels willingness to pad singles into LPs, and given the option, will purchase just the single.

The other major stumbling block for the belief that placing DRM on the compact disc would prevent people from ripping their own CDs is the very real fact that no DRM scheme has ever lasted. True, some require a certain amount of tech-savvy amongst the user, and current law makes the act of removing DRM a criminal one, but that has yet to stop people. Even the flaunted DRM schemes attached to the Blu Ray disc, claimed to be unbreakable, are broken with rapid success each time the format is updated.

[Reply]

Marshall T. Vandegrift
on Apr 6th, 2009
@ 9:33 am: 

I’m afraid I have to disagree with your assertion that the Kindle’s DRM scheme is “smart,” or that a “smart” DRM scheme is possible. Amazon has made it easier to read a book on multiple devices linked to the same account, but this feature is present in various forms in all the existing commercial e-book formats and viewers. The Amazon system is still DRM, and still contains the two fundamental flaws of DRM: (1) it inherently treats the reader like a criminal and attempts to lock the content into a system which prohibits legitimate fair use and uses possible with print books; and (2) it is inherently ineffective, providing no true barrier preventing actual pirates from decrypting the content and distributing it as they wish.

[Reply]

Kirk Biglione
on Apr 6th, 2009
@ 1:30 pm: 

What you’re talking about in this post is transparent DRM. That’s pretty much the holy grail for anyone trying to sell content protected by DRM. The ideal is that DRM should be so unobtrusive that consumers don’t notice it. To achieve this goal content publishers need to minimize friction during the initial purchase and media transfer process, and provide consumers with freedom to use their legally purchased digital media in a variety of ways. For Apple that meant allowing consumers to transfer songs to a certain number of devices and the ability to burn songs to CD. For Amazon that means the ability to transfer ebooks to multiple Kindles, and now to the Kindle iPhone app.

The problem for consumers is that this freedom is illusory. DRM protected songs purchased from iTunes will only play on an Apple brand media player. DRM protected books purchased from Amazon will only play on the Kindle or Kindle iPhone app. Consumers are not only locked into a specific brand of device, they’re also locked into a specific marketplace where content may be purchased.

The real challenge is not so much creating a transparent DRM scheme (Apple and Amazon have both demonstrated it can be done), but rather creating transparent and *interoperable* DRM in an *open* marketplace. The market leaders aren’t about to provide any assistance.

Apple could have licensed Microsoft’s DRM for use on the iPod, but there was no reason to. Why willingly make your device compatibility with rival digital music retailers when you’ve already built the industry leading marketplace for digital music?

Amazon could easily build support for Adobe DRM into the Kindle. They won’t. Again, there’s no reason for them to.

The real reason iTunes went DRM free is because the recording industry eventually realized that the only hope of overcoming Apple’s dominance in the marketplace for digital music was to eliminate the one thing that locked consumers into iTunes — DRM.

As publishers consider these issues it’s important to fully understand the many ways that DRM shapes the marketplace for digital content.

[Reply]

Aaron Ardiri
on Apr 6th, 2009
@ 7:58 pm: 

As a swede – i had to say something *g*

I think DRM in its current form is flawed because it doesn’t adapt to the changing environment of the end-user. DRM should be transparent; it should not be an inconvenience. Instead of putting anti-copy measures in place; why not turn DRM into a validation environment – is that a real CD you are extracting that song from? are you person X, trying to use item Y – on devices A, B and C?

In today’s model; we are living in a connected world and digital signatures should rule the DRM scene. if the device isn’t sure your allowed to use it; make a network request and validate/generate a new digital signature. if someone copies the file; they’ll have to revalidate and hence, fail validation.

One of the biggest issues is that the audio/video format’s were designed first; then DRM came into play. what needs to be done by these “giants” if they want to provide a fair-play environment is to re-design the audio/video formats so they include DRM. sony tried this; and failed. does this mean doom for anyone else who tries?

i think the minute someone realizes they can make money of something; it’s just too late – proof of concepts are typically DRM free and they form the foundations of anti-DRM (once free, always free)

every DRM system will eventually be beaten – so, there is no ultimate solution; just a delay.

// Aaron Ardiri

[Reply]