Boss Bill vs. e-book standards

Adobe e-book boss Bill McCoy just can’t stop. This is a hoot–a giant Proprietary Formatter like Adobe going on a jihad against the OpenReader Consortium for supposedly not being open enough. As a board member of the clubby International Digital Publishing Forum, the Smoke-Filled Room of e-bookdom, Bill should quit before he embarrasses himself yet again.

Thanks to Bill, however, for thousands of dollars in PR. Buddy, you’ve crossed the Rubicon. No longer can you credibly deny now that OpenReader counts. Meanwhile latecomers should check out earlier posts from OpenReader founder Jon Noring and me.

We’re talking about a very dark pot calling a white kettle black. For one of Adobe’s e-book bosses, Bill’s posts on OpenReader have been just plain bizarre, not to mention hypocritical. Remember the purpose of standards–to increase interoperability, encourage competition and drive down costs. Is Adobe a paragon? If so, why does the world need both PDF/A and the continued existence of a proprietary format?

Openness vs. today’s Real McCoy

By contrast, OpenReader is–well, open–and will slash production costs and allow DRM options far cheaper and more flexible than present ones for publishers. We’re looking for a respected, mainstream standards body without all the silly politics of today’s IDPF and the cumbersome bureaucracy of some other bodies. Careful, Bill. We may have a surprise up our sleeves–an unexpected brand-name choice that will make the whole cosmos feel very comfortable, maybe even the Real McCoy.

The above is just my personal opinion, not in the least an official OpenReader response. I know Jon will be far more diplomatic. I’m not so shy, especially about Boss Bill’s relentless Catch-22 strategy of insulting us for encouraging implementers, while on the other hand acting as through we don’t count because we supposedly lack traction among real-life companies.

Implementers are part of how standards become standards, as Jon himself noted in addressing the Catch-22ish damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t approach from Bill. And we’d love Adobe to be among The Setters and implementers, just so it does not sabotage the standards process.

Adobe/IDPF vs. the commonweal

The more I hear from Bill, trying to herd OpenReader into the Proprietary Formatters’ pen and taint the standards movement to benefit Adobe’s short-term commercial interests, the more I personally wonder why the dysfunctional IDPF exists–at least in standards terms. Jon’s welcome to be tactful; I’ll welcome myself not to be.

Bill’s blog post is another example of some IDPF biggies being more responsive to certain tech companies’ short-term fixations than to the needs of the publishing world as a whole. The e-book industry is toy-sized with less than $25 million or so in annual U.S. sales. Jon and I and the other OpenReader folks want to help e-bookdom raze the Tower of eBabel–thereby ending consumers’ expensive confusion over the maze of formats.

Even BusinessWeek can’t keep up with the babblers.

But, yes, if you want to stick to Mobipocket or another TOE denizen, a publisher will be easily able to convert it from the OpenReader format. After all, OpenReader will be more or less based on the IDPF’s own production spec! The container format Bill talks up has its purposes but is no substitute for a true consumer-level format–both the wrapper and “the creamy core” as Jon calls it. I doubt that Bill in his current state of mind will want standards to go ahead quickly unless they’re Adobe-optimized rather than for the benefit of the e-book industry as a whole. Far, far more neutrally, our standards setters will be updating the existing OEPBS production standards in an expeditious way.

Years of e-book standards talk–and no results at the consumer level

Remember, the IDPF alternative. It’s been years since the big boys promised to end VHS vs. Beta. I think that some, including Microsoft’s Dick Brass and Steve Stone, acted in good faith. Too bad that less visionary people sabotaged them. My strong sense is that the current IDPF is a social gathering place for Adobe-style execs and certain big publishers–not all–rather than a true standards organization advancing the publishing industry as a whole. But I’d love for the group to reform and turn things around. The longer Bill wages his campaign against OpenReader, the less confidence both the e-book and technical worlds will have in both him and IDPF.

One compromise solution, as I see it, would be for IDPF board members to agree to spin standards off to OpenReader with the understanding either (1) we join an established standards organization or (2) the standards process happen by a pre-defined and mainstream set of rules. Meanwhile the IDPF could what it does best–being a social club. We’re eager to benefit from the input of the true techies, including those from Adobe, and let them control the standards without Adobe’s business side corrupting their valuable work. I’d hope that Bill would not be vindictive enough to cut off this feedback if the IDPF farmed out standards under the conditions mentioned above.

Maybe it’s time for Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen or one of Bill’s other overseers to tell this Boss to stop interfering with the standards-setting process, wherever it takes place. To delay the razing of the Tower of eBabel, in a fair-minded way, is to harm Adobe’s long-term commercial interests. What good does it do for Adobe to dominate such a small, badly run industry? Better for the Adobe shareholders that Boss Bill & friends have a somewhat smaller slice of a much bigger and healthier industry.

So there you have it–my read on the Adobe/OpenReader debate. The floor is now Jon’s, for an official and diplomatic reply, if he cares to follow through.