OpenReader eBabel issue: Standards-harmful promo from DigitalPulp store—owned by OR leader Jon Noring’s new partner

By David Rothman

Q. What’s wrong with the way DigitalPulp Publishing has used a big dotReader logo on the home page of its retail store? Click here and you’ll see: “DPPSTORE is bringing you innovative fiction and non-fiction in this exciting new format…new in dotReader.”

A. For moral reasons and maybe more, the store home page should be able to read instead: “We’re bringing you dotReader-readable fiction and nonfiction in the exciting new OpenReader format.” If this is not possible, because of software-related delays, then the DigitalPulp’s dotReader promo should mention OpenReader as “being on the way” and include a link to a regularly updated page giving the full story. OSoft, after all, the software company behind dotReader, explicitly promised the OpenReader Consortium to link the reader software to OpenReader. Pegged to Halloween of 2005, an OSoft-approved news release couldn’t have been more emphatic. OSoft, developer of ThoutReader, later changed to dotReader, led me to believe it would aggressively support the OpenReader standard for e-books.

Buying e-books can be Halloween-scary. They come in many electronic formats — everything from Microsoft Reader to obscure ones cooked up by hobbyists. You can buy ‘em online, only to discover you’ve paid for the wrong format. Have you ever tried to return an e-book?

But what if you could download an e-book and know the format was right for your PDA, cell phone, tablet or desktop computer system? Suppose an orange logo on the box reassured you: “OpenReader compatible”? And what if you saw a similar logo at an online retailer, so you could confidently buy the book?

“That’s our vision for OpenReader—to help e-publications be as compatible and easy to buy and use as music CDs,” says Mark Carey, president of OSoft.com. “We’re modifying our existing ThoutReader(TM) technology to adopt XML, an international e-document standard that no one owns and everyone can use.”

I loved the language of the news release OSoft distributed; and why not? I was its main author. The release and the renaming of the software from ThoutReader to dotReader were part of the tens of thousands of dollars in free services that I donated to OSoft for several reasons. First, I wanted to see a nonprofit e-book library built around nonproprietary format standards. Second, as the unpaid director of strategy and external relations at OpenReader, I wanted a good, strong first implementer, and OSoft fit and can still fit the bill. And third, OSoft agreed to make technology donations, among others, to the library. I actually gave OpenReader more attention than I did LibraryCity, because I believed that the library should be built around open standards.

More than just generic XML

So the alliance seemed the perfect solution. The October 2005 news release even said OSoft will “turn its XML-based ThoutReader(TM) into OpenReader by next May” (although later everyone would agree that OpenReader should not be in the name, even as “OSoft OpenReader,” lest this discourage other implementers). Clearly OSoft was talking about more than just generic XML—it would honor the OpenReader standard.

Now, however, as I write this post on New Year’s Day 2007, major questions about the alliance have arisen in the wake of OpenReader founder Jon Noring’s recent announcement. He said he would serve as vice president of business and technology for David Cote, who, with his wife, Genene, founded companies operating under the DigitalPulp name.

Jon and the DigitalPulp-OSoft duo

Jon’s announcement promised he would be fair-minded in moderating the eBook Community List. Isn’t it appropriate, then, in an OpenReader context, too, to consider Jon’s new role—especially when OSoft and the DigitalPulp store have close relations, and when the promotion of a dotReader-related “format” is happening on the store’s site without any mention of OpenReader? Will Jon and OSoft CEO Mark Carey ask DigitalPulp to take corrective steps in regard to this format mention? And will DigitalPulp respond?

No, the DigitalPulp home page does not use the exact phrase “dotReader format.” But 99 percent of the people reading the page will interpret “this exciting new format” in such a manner. The tricky wording on the store’s home page is a long way from straightforward consumerist approach—just look for the OpenReader logo!—that I wrote into the news release in full expectation that reality would catch up in a timely way.

I won’t buy the argument that because software development is unpredictable, it is fine to talk up dotReader branding without mention of OpenReader. I’ve heard that a quick module will allow dotReader to read dotReader. Whether that’s true or not, I can live with the positioning of dotReader’s internal format as a temporary fix, and I’m happy that the finished dotReader will be able to read many formats. But with the library in mind, I donated my services in the expectation that OSoft’s preferred format would be OpenReader and that in any event the dotReader/ThoughtReader promo would not diss the standard.

Still uneasy about the Noring-Cote relationship

Not knowing exactly what transpired among the people involved, I can’t quantify blame for the standards-harmful home page at the DigitalPulp store—just how much of the fault is OSoft’s or the store’s? All I know is that I continue to feel uneasy about Jon’s involvement with the Cote family. Catherine Hodge, David’s daughter, has not helped the discussion with the claim that DigitalPulp is “format agnostic,” the very phrase that the Open eBook Forum, now the International Digital Publishing Forum, used to justify its long-time neglect of consumer e-book standards. No, not at all, Catherine—you’re not “agnostic” with your store’s home page puffing up dotReader without a mention of OpenReader. Standards are created not just by technology but marketing and branding factors, including timing, and wittingly or not, the store’s home page is harming the OpenReader standard’s marketing plans. I know. The store carries books in the Adobe, Microsoft Reader, Mobipocket and Palm formats, understandably; but dotReader, minus OpenReader, is the product that DigitalPulp is promoting most heavily on the home page.

Meanwhile I also remain concerned about:

1. DigitalPulp’s news release from November 2006 that said without a word about OpenReader: “OSoft’s vision is to create a documentation standard through which publishers, authors, potential authors, and readers can share, collaborate, and exchange information in one common format.” Will OSoft ask DigitalPulp to fix this? Better still, will DigitalPulp fix it on its own?

2. A post Catherine made to the eBook Community list—Another Format? Yep, and it’s worth looking into!. Will she follow up with a strong correction?

Fit for public discussion

As for complaints that I’m saying too much in the TeleBlog, consider that I’m commenting mostly on rather public statements and events. For example: (1) The DigitalPulp store is public. (2) So are DigitalPulp’s news release and Catherine’s unfortunate posting to the eBook Community list. (3) And so, finally, is Jon’s now-formal relationship with DigitalPulp. I think he means well but just does not appreciate all the questions the relationship raises. I myself thought it would be a snap to reconcile OpenReader and the TeleBlog—given Jon’s excellent intentions in founding the consortium. Little did I know that Jon would go to work for David Cote despite the damage that the DigitalPulp store’s dotReader promo was doing to the OpenReader standard. I’ll be a team player but not let e-book standards suffer. Team OR has disappointed me, even allowing for all the unknowns of software development.

So what’s the solution? It’s not that complicated. Jon could create a polished page (updated through forms, or in blog format?) explaining OpenReader—and linked from from “OpenReader coming” logos on the home pages of OSoft and DigitalPulp. He could give status reports in plain English in different areas, such as creation tools and dotReader’s ability to display OpenReader files. OSoft, DigitalPulp and David Cote’s other companies would also win points with me by promoting the OpenReader standard as often and as vigorously as possible while sticking to the facts. I’d also like to see some new tentative deadlines given respectively for creation and display of genuine OpenReader books. Jon’s multiformat BookX creation project, while valuable, could drag on; but an OpenReader template for Word or OpenOffice or a similar arrangement needn’t take forever.

Hey, everyone, let’s truly team up on OpenReader to make e-books a lot less scary by Halloween 2007.