Imagine you wanted to create the Kindle killer, a revolutionary e-book device that matched and improved upon its functionality. What would you do? Well, you could, Mission Impossible-style, break into Amazon's Seattle headquarters and carry off the source code for the Kindle, then copy and extend its functionality to create a competitive device.
Or you could simply download the Kindle's source code from Amazon.com, where Amazon has already released the source code to the Kindle.
In fact, as TechCrunch rightly notes, the Kindle source code has been available since 2007.
Given this fact, why haven't you been doing anything with it? Why hasn't Apple taken the code and built the Kindle's winning technology into the iPhone? Why did Sony bother developing its own e-book reader?
Well, not only is the code in question not directly related to the actual Kindle application experience, as Rod Begbie notes, but instead "just the GPL libraries used to power the Kindle software," but it's also somewhat beside the point.
Apple doesn't use the Kindle code because any e-book it releases will be based on its own design, operating system, etc. Same for Sony and, presumably, for you.
While source code can be useful for learning how to solve complex problems, the actual approach and deployment a developer chooses often precludes her from using someone else's source code, and particularly a big body of code like that used in the Kindle. It could prove to be more work tailoring Amazon's work than simply starting from scratch.
So, bravo to Amazon for living up to its commitments under the GPL and releasing some of the Kindle source code, but don't expect to release a Kindle-killer based on Amazon's code. Amazon has brand, hardware OEM relationships, and other strengths that make its Kindle source code valuable, attributes that you and I almost certainly lack.
Such things are arguably better barriers to competition than patents and copyright.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Last week, Tim O'Reilly called for Amazon.com to open up its Kindle e-reader, or "Amazon will wind up another online pioneer who ends up a belated guest at the party it planned to host."
On Wednesday, Amazon demonstrated that it understands the value of openness, even if it's not yet prepared to embrace open standards for the Kindle, by providing an iPhone application that enables users to read their Kindle content on Apple's iPhone, as CNET reports.
This is a shrewd move. It's unlikely that many will want to trade the Kindle reading experience for the iPhone's, but it should prove a useful complement that drives more Amazon revenue.
As Mozilla's John Lilly opines, the iPhone Kindle application is "useful, if I'm somewhere and forgot my Kindle...and I'm sure that I'll buy books with it to read a snippet, then really read on my Kindle."
In sum, by providing a Kindle for iPhone application, Amazon has opened up a compelling complement to its Kindle device, one that will likely feed more revenue to Amazon while simultaneously crippling rivals' efforts to build a critical mass of iPhone e-book readers.
Genius.
O'Reilly Media founder Tim O'Reilly makes a provocative claim relative to Amazon's successful e-book reader, the Kindle: embrace open e-book standards, or be run over by them.
It's a bold prediction, considering what Apple has demonstrated with the iPhone. It may also be wrong.
Indeed, though I'd like O'Reilly to be right on this, I think that the iPhone, which he uses to prove his point, actually demonstrates against it. O'Reilly writes:
(Apple) seems to have a knack for balancing the benefits of both open and closed architectures that Amazon has yet to discover. While Apple maintains tight control over what goes into the App Store, there's a loophole big enough to drive a truck through: Any Web page can act as an application for the iPhone.
O'Reilly then explains that the Kindle doesn't provide this same loophole (i.e., allowing open-formatted e-books to be read on the Kindle in the same way that the iPhone enables Web applications to run on the iPhone, and in which the iPod encouraged MP3s and other free formats to flourish on the iPod).
I don't think I agree. On my Kindle, I read a variety of books that I downloaded for free from Project Gutenberg, and I suspect that this will only increase as more and more free content is formatted for the Kindle.
O'Reilly's argument is much stronger when denouncing Amazon's "you must buy it from us" mentality, because it by definition limits the size of the market. Some, like Apple, may be able to execute against such a vision, but the odds of getting the world to beat a path to one's door--in the way that Microsoft did for Office and Apple did for the iPod--is difficult, indeed.
O'Reilly is right that Amazon has better odds in going with open standards. Just look at how well Sony has fared in e-books. But that's the risk Amazon is running, and it's one that has the potential to pay off big-time, if the company does it well. I believe that open standards are the right way to go, but Amazon may feel that its up-front investment in creating a device worthy of the e-book market justifies a winner-take-all strategy.
O'Reilly is right to argue this:
Open allows experimentation. Open encourages competition. Open wins. Amazon needs to get with the program. Or, like AOL and MSN, Amazon will wind up another online pioneer who ends up a belated guest at the party it planned to host.
But it's easy to see why Amazon might disagree and why maybe, just maybe, it may succeed to the industry's detriment. Open standards do tend to win over a market. What they don't do is guarantee a winner, which is likely why Amazon is content to play its hand rather than the open-standards hand that has yet to win over the market, just as it failed to win the emerging digital-music market.
Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.
Roy Schestowitz pointed to this post about the Kindle's operating system today: Linux. I didn't know that. Somehow I missed the memo last year when Robert Love wrote about his discovery of Linux at the heart of the Kindle.
I had written about how the Kindle's content strategy reminded me of open source, but I had no idea that the software running the device was open source. One more reason to want my Kindle back.
I left my Kindle on a flight into SFO on Monday night, and unfortunately it doesn't appear that I'll be getting it back. After a two-hour delay to my flight, I think I was a bit brain-dead by the time we touched down, causing me to leave it sitting in my seat.
Feel free to contribute to the "Give a Blogger a Kindle" fund. Just hit "refresh" on this page 1,000,000 times today and my check from CNET should cover a new Kindle. :-)
Seriously, I'm really bummed. It was proving to be such an excellent device. I was going to be giving this one to my parents in Argentina to help keep my mom up-to-date on her books, but the thought of buying another one grates on me. I wish Amazon created a "self-destruct" feature in the device so that I could ensure whoever picked it up gets no enjoyment from it.
If you haven't bought one but have been considering it, I'd encourage you to give it a try. I was skeptical at first but quickly grew to love the device. It feels almost perfect in the hand and the screen is wonderful.
I've become a big fan of the Kindle in a short time. I don't care about its wireless capabilities - downloading updates to blogs is a waste given that I don't like to read blogs unless I'm in an immediate position to comment on them, and the ability to buy directly from the device is not an earth-shattering advancement - and I find its menu interface a bit clunky.
No, what I really like about the Kindle is the reading experience. It's wonderful. The only thing missing is a backlight for reading in low-light conditions, but it's already better than reading a physical book because the screen is comforting to view and the weight/feel of the product is exceptional.
The Kindle
(Credit: Amazon.com)None of which matters, however, without good content. This is where my open-source experiment comes in.
This week I tried downloading Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey from Project Gutenberg. Because the Kindle easily can read .txt, .pdf (i.e., PDF can be converted into a supported format), and other file formats, it's easy to get free content like Northanger Abbey into the Kindle.
The problem, however, is what happens once it's there.
... Read more
The Kindle display...dead after two days
(Credit: Matt Asay)I was planning to write about how much I'm loving the Amazon Kindle. I got one to try to consolidate some of the weight and clutter I routinely carry with me on trips in the form of books/magazines/newspapers, and spent several hours on my Cincinnati to London flight absolutely loving the device.
The wireless connectivity and other technological features of the Kindle are nice, but that's not where it shines, in my view. No, it's the feel of the Kindle that is amazing. I read for hours, surprised by how well it rested in my hands and by the exceptional display.
Well, the display was "exceptional" until it stopped working. I got to my hotel an hour ago and, since I couldn't yet check in, decided to open up the Kindle to read. Despite having used it just two hours ago on the train into London, and having done absolutely nothing that could have physically impacted the screen (Rode in a taxi? Checked in at my hotel? The Kindle was safely protected in my bag all the while...), the screen is apparently dead.
... Read more- prev
- 1
- next
