How long would I keep my Kindle Fire tablet? I’d bought it mostly just to stay in touch with popular e-book tech.
The Fire is hobbled with onerous digital rights management, favors a proprietary e-book format, and in certain ways is just a cash register for Amazon.Regardless of the millions of Kindles purchased over the holidays, many reviewers hate it.
Amazon’s actual hardware isn’t that great for the money if you compare the Fire with the not-so-locked wares from my favorite Chinese tablet store. I sold my Fire on eBay to a telecommunications engineer in Belarus.
But guess what? Having suffered a soul-wrenching case of seller’s regret—and finding that Alexandr still hoped for a deal regardless of a tiny scratch I belatedly found on the screen—I ordered another Fire.
I did so mainly because of the ecosystem that came with the Fire. Via the carousel of images at top of the home screen, I can move almost instantly from a page of a Vonnegut biography to the scene I was watching in a Woody Allen movie. As a K-12 machine, the Fire might actually be a disaster for some young readers, given the opportunities for distraction. But school-friendly versions of the same machine could limit recreational time and address other issues. Meanwhile it helps that the Amazon has significantly improved the Kindle e-book app to give me a greater selection of fonts than on my Kindle 3 WiFi model.
And library e-books? I can read many and perhaps most on my Fire (as well as on other Android-based machines, iPads, Macs and PCs, even if the Amazon applications for them aren’t as advanced as the Fire’s e-reader). I needn’t endure the limited font selection and other flaws of the mediocre e-book software from OverDrive, the company that more or less owns the public library market. In March 2011 I begged a nice OverDrive executive to arrange either for some heavier fonts or a way to boldface everything in a book. Adjustable line spacing would have been nice, too. He promised to follow up personally. But still no results. Nor is OverDrive working as smoothly as it could with vendors such as Bluefire to let them build downloading capabilities into their own applications.
Now some public librarians are looking to 3M as a savior, as their nonOverDrive, astheir new place to store library-owned e-books without the high fees that OverDrive was insisting on.
I say, “Stop it! Build your own ecosystem and reach out to many companies as partners, not just OverDrive or 3M and friends. Use a true national approach with a coherent and comprehensive strategy encompassing everything from e-book standards to connectivity, both directly and through partners. Stop letting the vendors balkanize the public library world or try to dominate it, OverDrive fashion. Don’t let academic librarians at Harvard or elsewhere dictate to you, either, but do swap content with them and share the infrastructure and partnership network and other resources, including a common technical organization, just so it’s responsive to public library needs. No need to roll over and die amid chants of ‘Libraries got screwed.’”
Imagine the possibilities of a more imaginative approach in partnership with the academic world and foundation backers (separate digital systems for academic and public libraries, please). For now, public library patrons must wait weeks to enjoy the most popular e-books; and the very biggest of book publishers are tending either to withhold their digital offerings from libraries or impose nasty restrictions like HarperCollins’s infamous 26-checkout limit. The giants don’t want it to be easy for you to check out library books event though loans often promote sales. But with a popular, librarian-controlled ecosystem in place at the national level to augment the commercial ones, publishers would not be able to bully public libraries so easily. Via publicity and mass distribution, libraries could help turn cooperative small publishers into major houses or at least bigger ones, making it more difficult for the the book world’s mega-conglomerates to dictate terms. I’d much rather that publishers and libraries tone down the current feud, so that everyone comes out ahead by lobbying together on library appropriations, for example, just as the Pentagon so often teams up with defense contractors. But either way, a national digital library ecosystem would help by bolstering libraries’ bargaining power. Libraries shouldn’t give away the family jewels to OverDrive, 3M, or others.
Alas, the risk has arisen that the Harvard-based Digital Public Library of America project, which hopes to include public libraries, not just the academic variety, could move in precisely the wrong direction and perhaps not even include bestsellers and other modern copyrighted content so popular among library patrons. This is just one option. But even the discussion of it shows where the DPLA is coming from, as opposed to going all out to create a genuine standards-based ecosystem for the masses on par with Amazon’s in ease of use. Lip service to “openness” and standards is no substitute for action to allay the public libraries e-content crisis. And the right mix of infrastructure and hardware-and-software related standards could go a long way. “I looked at our OverDrive account the other day and it was very common to see 100-200 holds on 10-20 eBook copies of a particular title,” one librarian told Sara Houghton of Librarian in Black fame. “Unbelievable.”
Some DPLA participants might respond, “Who cares? On standards we’ll just go with the flow, and the private sector will come through on the devices.” Prices on devices like the Kindle Fire and iPad will indeed decline and in time perhaps they’ll become more flexible for users with different needs (even the Fire could offer a choice of bolder fonts and ideally an “all bold” option). But one fact will remain: profit-driven corporations, not libraries, will create the devices and do what they can to link them to proprietary eco-systems. One result, among others? A higher percentage of public domain books could end up with on sale to captive, device-crimped customers, especially the less tech savvy who don’t feel comfortable downloading free files from the Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, and the like. And meanwhile public libraries will enjoy less bargaining power with publishers and retailers since the libraries will be just bypassable middle people, a fear that that I share with others such as Gary Price of Infodocket. The long waits for library e-books could, as Gary points out, make patrons think, “Who needs libraries these days?” Just buy the book.
I badly want public library books to remain available on Kindle’s. But it is wrong, wrong, wrong that, via OverDrive, through which patrons send checkout privileges to their Kindles, so many public libraries are now just marketing affiliates for Amazon—itself now edging into the lending business, via its freebies for Prime customers. What’s more, libraries cannot even protect the privacy of Kindle users, who, when they check out a library book, get marketed to by Amazon. The OpenLibrary project at the Internet Archive is a great alternative to an OverDrive approach but hardly the comprehensive infrastructure solution that public libraries so urgently need to maintain and ideally increase their bargaining power. And I don’t just mean by way of servers.
America’s libraries should even be able to spin off up their own store-and-rental service that could deal directly with publishers without Amazon, Google, OverDrive or any other company controlling so much of the show. The goal here is to make life easier for library users, not hurt the for-profit side. In fact, businesses could actually thrive. For example, Amazon and other companies could partner up with libraries to help usefamily literacy projects to grow the number of readers (well-targeted Amazon promo could help recruit volunteers and encourage donations at the local level, for example). That should the real issue here, as opposed to who dominates the market. Even a high-ranking Amazon executive has more or less said the same. In the interest of freedom of expression and content diversity, I want a mixed model, as opposed to libraries and business offshoots being the only source of books. Furthermore, hardware meeting the standards of national digital library system could still run reading apps from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other companies. In fact, I’d rather that libraries not make or even market tablets.
But as part of an ecosystem libraries, can at least promote the establishment of a store-and-retail service—and:
–Set up their own servers and storage facilities, which the commercial side would be welcome to use—to take advantage of stable links. Libraries can last for decades and, let’s hope, centuries. Most publishers lack the same longevity. With librarian-curated links, publishers could more confidently and economically issue networked books linking to other texts and multimedia.
–Promote technical standards in cooperation with groups such as the International Digital Publishing Forum, home of the ePub format.
–In a related vein, simplify life for e-book-gizmo shoppers and issue Underwriters-style seals of approval, with a logo promoted through aggressive marketing. The approval would not come unless a device were easily usable for library purposes. The okay would be accompanied by plain-English information on the kinds of library-related uses for which the hardware was most fit, and the users for which the machine was best suited.
To sum up the above, libraries need to create an ecosystem working easily with hardware and software from a number of sources, so things are still Kindle-seamless no matter what machine a library user owns.
You should be able to borrow an e-book from a public library, annotate it, and retain your notes after renting or buying it from a library-related organization that would be separate from the actual national digital library system but still interconnect with it and perhaps kick back some of the revenue. I’d much rather that current digital rights management go away entirely, even if libraries depend on it for enforcing expiration. But if DRM remained, then library-related book lockers would be far safer ways of storing books than the current arrangements at Amazon and other companies.
To give one example of the problems, even though the Kindle’s ecosystem is generally seamless as long as you stay within it, I got a good scare after Amazon had transferred hundreds of books from my Fire #1 to Fire #2. Originally every one of them came over. But whatever the reason, all but eight vanished last week, and even with help from Amazon, I had to spend several hours restoring my collection worth probably more than $1,000. Companies like Amazon, Google, and Barnes & Noble might even be able to participate in the book-locker system, just so they honored technical standards. This would free them to spend more time selling and marketing e-books and reading hardware and less time worrying about storage and user-support issues, and beyond that, consider the business opportunities in areas such as cloud storage for the digital library system and related activities such as the rental-and-retail service (IBM and Microsoft are among the other prospective beneficiaries from this and related activities, and 3M itself could also do well with the right strategy).
Under a librarian-overseen locker system, e-books would be far, far more ownable than today, regardless of changes in technology, and both libraries and corporations would benefit. Librarians should stop thinking, “What’ll improve our turnstile counts, both real and virtual?: and start thinking, “How can we help booklovers and other patrons in ways that go beyond traditional institutional roles while actually reinforcing such venerable goals as mass literacy.” I truly loathe the trendy talk of ending libraries’ mission as “book-warehouses.” Damn it, libraries are good for much more than storage of books—but isn’t this among what they do best? How the devil can libraries popularize books and help people absorb them if they stop being a primarily source of them?
I know. Libraries, publishers, and retailers are wedded to current business models, and all kinds of issues come up. Many librarians and academics, for example, look with distaste upon commercial and promo activities, even less pushy ones than typical online retailers use.
And that is one reason why the rental-and-purchase system might be separate from an actual public or library system, even if it operates with heavy librarian participation and with library values in mind.
Whether or not the library world goes for a rental and retail operation and make the ecosystem as far-reaching as I’d like, I hope that librarians will at least understand the need for this ecostrategy for e-books and ideally other media. Don’t use OverDrive, 3M, or any other company as a crutch! If nothing else, librarian-managed book lockers are a concept to explore, both as a help to users and as a potential source of revenue from the public or participating partners such as electronic bookstores or publishers.
Disclosure/reminder: I’m a small Google shareholder, a fact that has never prevented me from speaking out against the proposed Book Search Agreement.
And a Kindle Fire tip: On nonDRMed books, the tech-savvy can use the wonderful Calibre e-book management software to make the text bolder on the Kindle and other devices. Even advanced LCD screens—forget about the E Ink, worse—often don’t give me enough contrast for reading. Same for millions of other readers. Trouble is, most e-book users lack the time and the skills for this to be a solution. So, Jeff Bezos, please think about a simple switch that would enable people like me to “embolden” all of a book if we wanted. This would help sales. By cranking up the perceived contrast via optional bolding, users won’t have to turn up the brightness as much. Result? Less strain on some people’s eyes. And more readability when the ambient lighting is bright.
More for Fire users: Contrary to general belief, you can read nook and Kobo books on the Fire with the right tweaking. You can either jail-break the Fire to get around Amazon’s limitations or find the applications from sources other than Google’s Android Market, which Amazon has blocked.
[Via Library City]
David,
There’s zero need to ‘jailbreak’ the KFire – Amazon has left it so that the setting to use apps from NON-Amazon or “unknown” sources is available to us. They said it would be available
and it still is, unlike with the new update to the Nook Tablet. After changing the setting, just
move a wanted apk file in via a USB cable (I have lots of them). You can even download one with the KFire web and at places like getjar or slideme.org, using either Astro or ES-File Explorer and then just install it.
I can get to Android Market and browse since last week at the least, but it doesn’t allow me to download anything to the Kindle Fire, ‘it’ being Google’s Android Market which is known to be fussy about which devices can use the Market.
Re Kindle fonts and bold facing. I’m as keen on good screen contrast more than most. A good Kindle 3 has excellent black on white, better than you’ll see on paper books, in fact, but if you choose the fontface “sans serif” you’ll get what is essentially all-bolded text.
Some find it too contrasty. On the Kindle Fire, Lucida (not Lucinda) is darker than the others. Ariel is close to that. The usual fonts like Times Roman are extremely light and I don’t know who would even want to use them. However, I dim the brightness considerably and I use Sepia for text background and that helps too, although contrast may be better for some, using a white background. The latter tires my own eyes though.
Andrys, thanks for your thoughts, and, yes, as I wrote, you can either jailbreak the Fire or try an app store that Amazon has not blocked. It’s great that you reminded people to use relevant option within the settings control. I’ll link from LibraryCity to this discussion.
I myself got the Nook and Kobo apps going. Not sure that the performance is a smooth as that of the Bezos-blessed built-in reading app, but hey, the old saying applies—the miracles is that the dog is walking on its hind legs, not how well he does it. I managed to do the Nook and Kobo acts with WiFi. No cable involved. And no file manager needed. I don’t recall the details, but maybe this had to do with the particular app store I used. Just for fun I also got the OverDrive library app running, via the OD site. That could help since some publishers don’t want libraries to allow e-books to be sent to users’ Kindles (too easy!).
From what I can ascertain, the Fire is a much more open machine than the Nook tablet. Shame on B&N. Still, a truly open machine would have allowed Google Android Market access from the start, with cooperation between the two companies. No redirect foolishness at any point! And of course things are still more complicated than with the usual Android-based machine.
On the contrast issue, I’d respectfully disagree with you. Even with the bolder fonts, I don’t see the level of perceived contrast that I’d really like, and that’s true of both the my Kindle 3 and Fire. But this is a matter for individual users to decide for themselves. My belief is that with enough perceived contrast, you can really crank down the LCD so it’s less of an eyestrain. Another strategy is to use white characters against a dark background, which somehow improves perceived contrast along the way.
Meanwhile I hope you’ll spread the word about the need for a decent national digital library ecosystem and for well-stocked collections for public library users and academics alike. Both collections should be universally accessible with the U.S., and as much content as possible should be available outside the country (perhaps some via subscriptions if need be).
Happy New Year,
David
David,
I also would like to see library systems work together to build out shared digital infrastructure as I think that is critical to the long term health of our libraries. I think that library systems have the potential to build fantastic collections of digital content originating in their own service regions – often working with educational institutions and indie publishers. My company is working right now with a library system doing just that in Colorado.
That said, I don’t totally share your negative opinions of Overdrive and 3M. Yes, I’d love it if they would both develop API’s that would enable innovative companies and libraries to more easily integrate with their services – especially to create more seamless workflows for patrons.
But, I do recognize that navigating the license agreements with publishers is hard and expensive work that takes a lot of time and focus, and it takes lots of love and care to keep those relationships strong in this time of great change for publishing. I greatly respect the huge amount of work Steve an team have done on that front over the years. Seems to me that many of the complaints I hear about Overdrive, are really complaints about the requirements of publishers – and sometimes by extension the authors.
I’m not all that optimistic that even a national consortium of libraries would somehow be able to do much better in that regard (negotiating and maintaining better terms on popular titles) – though I’d love to be proven wrong. I’m hopeful that 3M’s different approach to this arena will offer additional options for libraries and highlight different ways of thinking about how to solve some of these thorny problems. Competition is always good in this way.
I personally think that the biggest opportunities for consortia is in solving “different” problems and bringing new and different content into the ecosystem. I think the key to success for everyone will be in creating an ecosystem that enable library systems to offer content from a variety of sources, whether that be from consortia, other individual library systems with regional content, direct from publishers, or the large aggregators. I can see how that could work without too much technical work. The hard part will be getting the parties to cooperate to build such an ecosystem. It will not be easy, but I think it is necessary in order to strengthen the national treasure that is our library systems.
HI, Micah. Nice hearing from you even if we don’t agree on all the specifics about national digital libraries. I continue to be a Bluefire fan and especially appreciate the wrinkles you’ve added to the Android product. This makes me all more frustrated that OverDrive has not come through with the necessary APIs the company said it would offer.
Thanks for acknowledging that patrons’ “workflow” could be more “seamless.” Also, isn’t it interesting to use a term like “workflow” when discussing library users’ oft-recreational reading? Amazon must deal with the same publishers, and somehow it’s greatly mitigated the problem. A strong national digital library system would enjoy considerably more bargaining power with the publishers than OverDrive does for API purposes and others (while at the same time expanding the publishers’ revenue opportunities). It would be the biggest aggregator of them all! Except it could actually host content and offer stable links beneficial to big commercial publishers, not just libraries and nonprofits and small publishers! So, without compromising the public interest, there’d be value given back to the giants who are now in the way.
I have nothing against Steve Potash and his employees, and, in fact, I’d love to see OverDrive compete as a possible vendor for a national digital system. I’m even open to the possibility of a system buying out Steve and leaving him with a nice bundle of cash if libraries come out ahead this way. The company has many positives such as long-term relationships with libraries and content providers. But there are also negatives. Talk to the state librarian from Kansas and you’ll find major disagreements on issues such as jacked-up fees, a major reason for the move to 3M; and as a user, I am very, very grouchy that OverDrive isn’t better integrated with Bluefire and that OD’s actual reading app is so mediocre. These are matters over which Steve has at least some control despite some publishers’ stubbornness. He might even want to consider entrusting at least part of app development to Bluefire–given the vast superiority of your e-reading software over his app. If your just-written note impresses Steve favorably and increases the chances of this happening, I’ll be happy for you both!
But in the end libraries need an Amazon-seamless, tightly integrated approach that would tap the best brains inside and outside academia. Just as OverDrive has disappointed me, so has academia. The Harvard-led Digital Public Library of America should be more willing to use private companies like yours and OverDrive and build on existing talents. I simply want to see librarians in charge rather than private companies, so that, among other things, the former can enjoy the leverage they need.
Diversified sources of content? I, too, want this; and, just like Amazon, the library-ecosystem I have in mind would facilitate it while at the same time providing for stable links and public-mindedness that the library model allows (Amazon lacks the same stability). I don’t want the system to replace bookstores. But if a national digital library system is to enjoy sufficient leverage for it to be economical and effective, it can’t simply be a captive of any one contractor or group of contractors. And, yes, it should be able to run its own rental-retail operation to keep more of the cash on the table than otherwise. One benefit of this would be yet another alternative to Amazon for readers and publishers alike to benefit from.
> I think that library systems have the potential to build fantastic collections of digital content originating in their own service regions – often working with educational institutions and indie publishers. My company is working right now with a library system doing just that in Colorado.
I agree, Miccah! In fact, this is exactly what a unified system could offer with the contractors doing what they do best–just so they’re not lording over our nation’s public libraries the way OverDrive does now. In a related vein, please don’t overlook the point I made earlier—that DPLA so far hasn’t been sufficiently appreciative of the specialized talents on the private side.
One more point. With a national system interwoven closely with regional ones like the innovative system you’re working with, a national system could encourage the development of original content from individual writers and small publishers and promote it aggressively. This would be one way to let the big publishers know that libraries needed to be treated as equals, not as 98-pound weaklings from whom the big houses at will could yank away content.
An aside–a reminder: I actually think libraries and big content providers should spend less time at war with each other on copyright and other matters, and more time lobbying together for bigger library appropriations. Washington is oh so buyable. Content providers have a ton of money to spend on political donations, especially now that the Supreme Court has put D.C. on the auction block via the Citizens United decision. A truly loathsome and corrupt system. But short of a bloody uprising, which I DON’T want, it isn’t going to vanish soon–even with the campaign to strip corporations of “personhood.” And full campaign reform? Not on the horizon. Hence the need for librarians to work the system. Send enough money for content in big publishers’ direction–same for writers–and they may be surprisingly flexible on issues such as open access and the scaling back of DRM.
Happy New Year,
David
(Really really rooting for you to be able to benefit soon from the right API from OverDrive!)
It’s about time the Government set up a task force to oversee the abolition of public libraries over the next ten – fifteen years and the shifting of all borrowing to a market driven online market. Libraries have no place in the future of eReading except as repositories for large and redundant quantities of paper, the vast majority of which should be recycled. Even the very concept of borrowing in a future world of eBooks and eReading is a highly dubious one – one that is really only being implemented with such huge difficult in an effort to mirror the paper reading model.
David,
Thanks much for the kinds words about Bluefire Reader. I also appreciate your other comments. Though I do take some umbrage with the way you call out “workflow,” As I’m sure you know, that is a common UX designer’s way of referring to a sequence of user actions to reach a goal. One might say that in a physical library, a checkout workflow would include browsing the shelves, asking a librarian for guidance, finding a book and inspecting it, taking it to the checkout station, providing account credentials, etc. It is not work, it is fun (well, for me at least.) UX designers just call it a workflow – or “user story”, if they want to be annoying.
But I get why you highlight that term: browsing, checking out, and downloading ebooks is *way* too laborious and complicated most of the time. We agree on that.
Just don’t throw my jargon under the bus.
Yep, Michah, “workflow” and I are old friends–click on the URL below. But after all these years, it’s still weird to hear it associated with reading. Don’t take it personally. I know you’re using a standard term. Good software and interface people like you deserve the best seat on the bus, not to be thrown under it.
I’ve ordered an $80 Chinese Android tablet with an eight-inch screen and 800 x 600 res (sale price), and I can’t wait to see if the bargain is really a bargain and can do justice to Bluefire, Mantano and other goodies. I don’t recall right now if you have the all-bold option or just a heavy font option, but if all bold isn’t there as a choice, that would be great to add. Mantano has “all bold” working for the primary font. To me, this is a core accessibility issue. Most people don’t care, but those of us who do really appreciate options like this.
Meanwhile please keep us posted on the OverDrive API issue. Are there any particular publishers or others you know to be particular obstacles for Steve Potash and crew on the API front? While I want changes in librarydom, I’m all in favor of working to make the present better.
Thanks,
David
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ateleread.com+rothman+%22workflow%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
We don’t have an “all bold” option yet. I’ll put that on the to-do list.