Comments on: Google’s Colonization of e-Book Devices Continues Apace

By: Cool-er Adds Google Books | Kindleberg

Cool-er Adds Google Books | Kindleberg — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:43:16 +0000

[...] Google, on the other hand, continues to tie up device makers in its bid to colonize the entirety of the e-book industry. [...]

By: What We’re Reading | On the Radar...

What We’re Reading | On the Radar... — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:33:57 +0000

[...] out of a private litigation, the settlement only covers Google, meaning that – according to an analysis by Gigaom – they have de facto exclusive rights to these out-of-print books. So Amazon primes the market and [...]

By: For e-Book Readers, the Price Is Not Right

For e-Book Readers, the Price Is Not Right — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:01:46 +0000

[...] Kindle has brought new price competition to the market. The launch of Sony’s $199 Reader and Interead’s $249 Cool-er prompted Amazon to drop the price of its introductory-level Kindle 2 to $299 from $359 within [...]

By: Paul Sweeting

Paul Sweeting — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:39:58 +0000

I kind of liked the idea of being “slightly married” actually, but that’s another story. As for this story, I’m afraid I have to disagree that “There is absolutely nothing preventing Amazon or Microsoft (who are incidentally litigating against Google) from doing similar scans of books and hosting them on their sites.” There is nothing stopping Amazon or Microsoft other than the need to secure the rights to each individual work they scan. Only Google would get a automatic license to scan *any* orphan work under U.S. copyright because only Google is party to the negotiated settlement with the publishers. It is (or would be if approved) for all intents and purposes an exclusive blanket license. Also, just to clarify, Amazon and Microsoft aren’t actually litigating anything against Google. They’ve merely asked the court not to approve the proposed settlement in the litigation brought by publishers and the authors guild against Google.

By: Cheese

Cheese — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:08:31 +0000

LL, thanks for the clarification. It is not my intention to point fingers at any camp in the book fight. However, as a consumer, I wish this format war is settled sooner than later. I would like to have a choice when it comes to buying ebook readers as well as ebooks. I don’t want to be held at ransom by an evil empire that dictates where I should buy my ebooks from or which devices I can use to read them. Of course this is not going to be an easy format war to settle…but my concern is that the camps in question are not thinking from a consumer perspective yet – they seem to be too busy working out their own business models. While I donot dispute the importance of business models, I still wish due importance be given to the greater (consumer) good.

By: Libran Lover

Libran Lover — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 04:52:19 +0000

Cheese,

I’m sure that Google won’t publish their scanned books with DRMs, the way Amazon is doing. I can also be pretty sure that Google will make their scanned versions open so that they can be read on as many different devices as possible – not just e-book devices, but also computers, netbooks and cellphones, again unlike Amazon.

On a side note, I have been extremely surprised by Amazon’s shenanigans in this whole e-book business: DRM’d publications, somewhat of a closed device, and now litigating against Google Books. I expected them to be more enlightened than this.

By: Libran Lover

Libran Lover — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 04:47:58 +0000

I meant, “slightly marred”. Not, “slightly married”!

By: Libran Lover

Libran Lover — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 04:47:18 +0000

A good article which is slightly married by this statement: “Google’s effectively exclusive license to exploit that vast library commercially could be enormous competitive advantage over other e-book providers, including Amazon.”

You are not the first publication to use the phrase “effectively exclusive” when reporting on this topic. I have seen other publications use that exact phrase, and it is highly misleading for readers. “Exclusive” means something to which nobody else has access. Statements such as these make readers think that Google is getting access to these books exclusively and that nobody else (like Amazon, etc.) will have access to them. It is making readers (and a few publishers and writers) panic, thinking that Google is getting some kind of monopoly rights. Instead of writing that Google gets effectively exclusive license, you should have clearly reported that Google is getting a license that any other publisher or store can also get. There is absolutely nothing preventing Amazon or Microsoft (who are incidentally litigating against Google) from doing similar scans of books and hosting them on their sites.

By: Cheese

Cheese — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 03:30:30 +0000

Well thought out article. Indeed Google is planting the trojan horse for it’s API – elaborately concealed by the plethora of free books on offer. However, aren’t we witnessing the prelude to a “format war” for books here? There is no rocket science to getting book content displayed electronically – and sooner or later consumers will want these book business guys to cleanup their act – and offer books that are readable on all different readers. Google needs to grow up (or go back to good old Google days) and take leadership in defining an open standard for e-books. This of course does not mean that books have to be for free. What it does means is to have an open standard between e-book devices and e-books while allowing a revenue model for e-books (and probably also for devices that claim to render them) – in much the same way as DVD standards evolved.

The trojan horse game and “do no evil” do not belong in the same sentence.