Slashdot Mirror
Google Working To Make 'iPod/iTunes for Books'
nettamere writes to mention an initiative by Google to take the library online. The end result of the Google Book Search, the company hopes to see a future where they are not merely referring customers to Amazon, but instead offering them the ability to download books directly. According to the Times Online, Google hopes to 'do for books what the iPod did for music.' From the article: "One of Google's partners, Evan Schnittman of Oxford University Press, said he foresaw a number of categories becoming popular downloads: 'Do you really want to go on holiday carrying four novels and a guide book?' The book initiative would be part of Google's Book Search service and its partnership with publishers, which will make books searchable online with publishers' approval. At present, only a sample of each book is available online."
Today's tech just makes for a not very pleasing alternative to a paper-based book. And who want a book that withholds its content because the battery has gone dead? I am glad Google is working to digitize books that have not yet been digitized. And more text online makes a more showcases for Google ads. But I do not see digital book tech being there any time soon. The technology of paper-based books is just too difficult to exceed while pleasing the regular reader.
'Do you really want to go on holiday carrying four novels and a guide book?'
Yes, I'd much rather have a guide book in my hand that screams "I'm not from here" than a digital version that could run out of batteries leaving me stranded and lost or, worse yet, the look of "I'm not from here" (generally obvious for tourists, anyways) and focusing all of my attention on an expensive looking toy, which is likely to draw in more problems.
I'll take a good old guide book any day, thanks. The novels, however, we can talk about.
From the summary:
I'd rather have a book and not have to worry about internet connectivity, worrying about dropping a laptop or other reader into the bathtub or a pool or a sidewalk, battery life, rain, leaving it behind at a restaurant, getting it stolen, and "sorry, you can't take that in here".
Books "just work" - and if you lose it, you only have the cost of a paperback.
And no, I don't want to read a book on my cellphone, either, even though I watch 3gp ripped episodes of The Simpsons on it when I have to kill some time.
Until there is decent hardware to read books on, projects like this aren't going anywhere beyond niche markets.
I love books, I own a few thousand of them and buy new ones every few months. I don't own a single ebook and I doubt I ever will because I've yet to see an ebook reader that was superior to an actual book. The only benefit to ebook readers over physical books are portability and storage capacity. The problem with this is that neither of these are big problems with physical books - if I'm going on a long trip it's not a big deal to bring even a few full sized hardbacks along to read. I don't need to have a library of books on my person at any time, the most books I've ever needed to bring with me anywhere at one time (since high school) was 4, and that was to read on a flight to the other side of the planet. I don't often fly to the other side of the planet.
Ever notice that whenever you read an article in the newspapers about something you know about, it's always riddled with errors? This article made me think of that. In my not so humble opinion, this is just a really, really bad piece of writing. Where do we even start?
I guess he means fair use, not fair dealing. I'm not sure why he thinks Google is paying for music. This is news to me ...
The ability to quote or use small parts of a work as fair use has always been there as far as I know. This is a new way to use it, that's all. Is this post a looming intellectual property issue now?
Given that the author points out elsewhere that the American libraries are the first to allow digitization of copyrighted books, I'm not sure why he is surprised by this.
I don't even know what to make of this paragraph. The net doesn't educate? Teachers will dictate how we read books in the future? If students only read books for information, we're doomed? It seems like a random collection of ideas that aren't backed up with logical argument, but exists only to give a punchy ending paragraph.
I admit, I never cared much for The Times, but this sort of writing is below even their standards. It jumps all over the place, gets the facts wrong, generalises too much and is sensationalist in style. Poor show guys.
MP3 players are already making huge volumes of information available to us. Openculture http://www.oculture.com/weblog/2006/10/free_univer sity_1.html is a site dedicated to making that information available to us. There is currently more information available via electronic media than has ever been available to an individual ever before. I include public libraries in that statement. Reading a book requires a certain amount of attention; you can't drive while you read etc. but listening to a lecture, or a audio book is able to be done while you do other things.
Sure, video books will be good too, but making this information available is hugely significant. If Google and others can make learning as easy as plugging in your MP3 player, that is very cool for those of us who would like to learn this way.
Much content is valid as audio only, and while there are those that prefer their reference materials to be on paper (not dependent on batteries), technology is making the possibility of not having power/batteries a much smaller likelihood. Lack of batteries is becoming a lame excuse, so to speak.
I predict that there will be a trend of teaching with audio/video download files. Imagine if everything you wanted to know about your hobby could be downloaded in a instructional form on audio or video/audio formats? So you want to learn about testing an alternator for a 73 Ford pickup: download the file. You want to learn about the latest in Hollywood gossip; download the file. Why should we be dependent on carrying a book, or sitting in front of a tv, or waiting for the radio station to tell us what we want to hear. Why can't we choose to hear it or view it when we want?
This type of service and technology will empower a great many people. Think of what home schooling can now do. Think of how this could impact training at work. Think of how this could bring author's content to millions more people!
Its a good thing, IMO.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
a) I don't like reading off a screen as much as off paper. b) There is a thing about turning the page, the smell of a book - for me - is something important.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Call me crazy, but I think iTunes is more likely to be 'iTunes for Books'. Here you have this hugely popular downloadable content store that already sells every other kind of media, versus Google, which, bless their hearts, has never had much success selling anything but ad space.
I don't think it's such big leap--the store is all ready there. iTunes already distributes some PDFs with music albums, and even supports them in podcast feeds. I assume PDF would be used because it's not yet-another-proprietary format, is extremely versatile, supports content protection, and is easy to produce.
The other part of the equation is the devices -- e-reader devices have traditionally sucked much ass through some combination of being bulky, low-resolution, greyscale, poor format support, poor battery life, and by virtue of being yet-another-device-to-carry-around. Regardless of what you think of the iPhone, I don't think you can argue that it's lacking in any of these areas: It'd make a damn-near perfect ebook reader. It already supports PDF, already syncs with iTunes -- it's begging for content. And I'm begging for a page-flipping gesture.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe Apple isn't planning to start selling ebooks -- but unless Google can make buying from them not suck (Google Video, I'm looking at you in disgust), and bring something more than a Blackberry as a reader, I still say Apple is in a much better position than Google is.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
*runs*