Scribd launches new platform and iPaper(readwriteweb.com)
readwriteweb.com
Scribd launches new platform and iPaper
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/scribd_launches_new_platform_and_ipaper.php
14 comments
I wouldn't applaud them for marginalizing PDF so much as applaud them for providing a better alternative for online content.
OS X's support for PDF is phenomenal, and Foxit's launchtime on Windows is lightning fast. I can't speak for Linux (as I haven't opened a PDF on linux in some time), but I agree that where embedded content is concerned, PDF's browser integration is terrible across the board.
Reading the description, my thought process was "So don't we already have pdf and Acrobat for that?"
Looking at the actual demo, my thought process was "Wow, Acrobat really sucks."
Looking at the actual demo, my thought process was "Wow, Acrobat really sucks."
This is really impressive - if only they could add .eml and .msg files to the mix of supported files! :)
The PDF with ads didn't show any ads on my system.
I'm not sure what iPaper is all about, other than making my web browser view documents slower. iMyReinventedWheel sounds more like it (that's a joke).
I'm not sure what iPaper is all about, other than making my web browser view documents slower. iMyReinventedWheel sounds more like it (that's a joke).
You sound like you never used macromedia flash paper. Scribd have just unlocked all the value in documents, rewritten an adobe product in 6 months which sucked, and done a deal with google to monetize them.
I guess the ads would depend upon what you uploaded.
I guess the ads would depend upon what you uploaded.
What I meant about the ads was that the example from that link didn't show any.
As for Flash Paper, I didn't know about it, but reading up on it, it sounds like Scribd have a good API going.
One point is that they recently got sued for putting up books, etc. My gripe is that Word documents can be put on the web as HTML, so I don't see the need for a centralised repository (Scribd) when the Web suffices (decentralised).
As for Flash Paper, I didn't know about it, but reading up on it, it sounds like Scribd have a good API going.
One point is that they recently got sued for putting up books, etc. My gripe is that Word documents can be put on the web as HTML, so I don't see the need for a centralised repository (Scribd) when the Web suffices (decentralised).
uh, actually this makes it easier to be decentralized, since it allows you to put a word document in iPaper on your own site (and looks a hell of a lot better than .doc -> HTML)
Very nice guys! Scribd is my favorite company to come out of yCombinator. I think you guys have really done some great stuff, and you use Rails, which just makes it better!
This isn't meant as a troll, but what exactly is the difference between this and FlashPaper?
They're using flashpaper on the backend I believe. Or possibly print2flash, which is what we use for uploaded screenplays at massify.com.
As a matter of fact, we're not. We built iPaper starting from scratch because there wasn't anything good enough to build it on top of. Both FlashPaper and Print2Flash are Windows print drivers designed as consumer applications. They were never intended for something like Scribd that processes millions of documents. The iPaper back-end is built for web-scale use.
I'm not trolling, just genuinely curious: How do you support word/excel/powerpoint 100% if you're not printing from the app themselves?
Also, for the developer API, do you add advertising to the documents you convert? Are you approachable about private licensing?
Also, for the developer API, do you add advertising to the documents you convert? Are you approachable about private licensing?
I think I'm actually going to use this on my site...
Very cool!
Very cool!
Way to go Scribd! I think this one is going to be big, guys
People really shouldn't lie outright in marketing materials:
iPaper Requires Download: No iPaper Requires Installation: No
Last time I checked, Flash was still a plugin, not a built in feature of the web. I'm just as likely to not have flash on my system as a PDF reader.
Cost to create documents is perhaps the most misleading:
iPaper: Free, PDF: $299, Office: $150
There are a billion ways to create PDFs for free, including built in support in every application in Mac OS X. There are also free ways to create office compatible formats.
Most of the rest of this is distasteful, but less of an outright lie. Certainly PDFs can be embedded as links, not to mention, there are ways to embed on the page itself, with the supporting plugins. "Size of the application" is silly, given that you download Acrobat Reader once (and pretty much everyone has it), instead of downloading iPaper on every page load. Of course, again, Mac OS X has this all built in.
iPaper Requires Download: No iPaper Requires Installation: No
Last time I checked, Flash was still a plugin, not a built in feature of the web. I'm just as likely to not have flash on my system as a PDF reader.
Cost to create documents is perhaps the most misleading:
iPaper: Free, PDF: $299, Office: $150
There are a billion ways to create PDFs for free, including built in support in every application in Mac OS X. There are also free ways to create office compatible formats.
Most of the rest of this is distasteful, but less of an outright lie. Certainly PDFs can be embedded as links, not to mention, there are ways to embed on the page itself, with the supporting plugins. "Size of the application" is silly, given that you download Acrobat Reader once (and pretty much everyone has it), instead of downloading iPaper on every page load. Of course, again, Mac OS X has this all built in.
1. Actually this shows that practical people, not lawyers, wrote the product description. Flash's widespread adoption means that a vast majority of Internet users don't have to install anything to use iPaper. http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/vers...
2. There are tools for free to create PDFs, just as there are tools to do almost everything for free versus its paid alternative. That does not mean iPaper has to compete with the free tools. They are competing with Adobe Acrobat which remains a paid application.
2. There are tools for free to create PDFs, just as there are tools to do almost everything for free versus its paid alternative. That does not mean iPaper has to compete with the free tools. They are competing with Adobe Acrobat which remains a paid application.
"Flash's widespread adoption means that a vast majority of Internet users don't have to install anything to use iPaper"
I could argue the exact same thing about PDF. Although Adobe does not seem to have published adoption statistics, I would bet that they roughly equal that of flash. Not to mention, I haven't come across a computer that didn't understand PDF files in many years. Beyond the obvious distrust of statistics coming directly from Adobe, there are new platforms, like the iPhone, where flash is not even available, and PDF is.
"There are tools for free to create PDFs, just as there are tools to do almost everything for free versus its paid alternative. That does not mean iPaper has to compete with the free tools. They are competing with Adobe Acrobat which remains a paid application."
They are competing with Acrobat Reader, which is a free application. This is not a tool for generating documents, its a tool for viewing/embedding them. That's why you have to create PDF, DOC, TXT etc. to get anything into iPaper in the first place.
I could argue the exact same thing about PDF. Although Adobe does not seem to have published adoption statistics, I would bet that they roughly equal that of flash. Not to mention, I haven't come across a computer that didn't understand PDF files in many years. Beyond the obvious distrust of statistics coming directly from Adobe, there are new platforms, like the iPhone, where flash is not even available, and PDF is.
"There are tools for free to create PDFs, just as there are tools to do almost everything for free versus its paid alternative. That does not mean iPaper has to compete with the free tools. They are competing with Adobe Acrobat which remains a paid application."
They are competing with Acrobat Reader, which is a free application. This is not a tool for generating documents, its a tool for viewing/embedding them. That's why you have to create PDF, DOC, TXT etc. to get anything into iPaper in the first place.
Scribd takes that into account by stating PDF "sometimes" requires download. I think that is fair--most marketers would just say "yes" instead of "sometimes."
Also, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume the penetration of Flash as greater than Acrobat Reader.
"This is not a tool for generating documents, its a tool for viewing/embedding them."
Let's back up to the original goal of PDF: fixed-layout document sharing with built-in security. To generate PDF files, Adobe SELLS Acrobat to general PDF files.
iPaper seems to be a) implementing the original goal of PDF, b) with better usability, and c) with no cost to convert.
Also, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume the penetration of Flash as greater than Acrobat Reader.
"This is not a tool for generating documents, its a tool for viewing/embedding them."
Let's back up to the original goal of PDF: fixed-layout document sharing with built-in security. To generate PDF files, Adobe SELLS Acrobat to general PDF files.
iPaper seems to be a) implementing the original goal of PDF, b) with better usability, and c) with no cost to convert.
How are they beating PDF on cost? Acrobat Reader is free, and they don't put ads in there.
On top of that, they say that the cost of creating documents is "free". What? Are they handing out free Word licenses with this thing or something? Because last time I checked, the price of creating a document for iPaper is the cost of the program that makes the original document for iPaper. As you stated yourself, "converting" to iPaper is free. So yeah, if all your documents are TXT files then this thing is free, but if you want any semblance of structure in your document then you're probably using... you guessed it, DOC or PDF. There are plenty of free PDF converters out there (plugins for Word, built-in support in Mac OS X, standalone programs, etc etc). So I think at best iPaper is even with PDF in this regard.
Tangentially, PDF is not "bulky and painful". It just happens that Acrobat Reader is a ridiculously awful reader. Mac OS X handles PDFs like a breeze, they feel incredibly light weight as they open instantly and any application can output to them. So I whole-heartedly agree that Reader is a bad program, but don't extrapolate that to the format.
On top of that, they say that the cost of creating documents is "free". What? Are they handing out free Word licenses with this thing or something? Because last time I checked, the price of creating a document for iPaper is the cost of the program that makes the original document for iPaper. As you stated yourself, "converting" to iPaper is free. So yeah, if all your documents are TXT files then this thing is free, but if you want any semblance of structure in your document then you're probably using... you guessed it, DOC or PDF. There are plenty of free PDF converters out there (plugins for Word, built-in support in Mac OS X, standalone programs, etc etc). So I think at best iPaper is even with PDF in this regard.
Tangentially, PDF is not "bulky and painful". It just happens that Acrobat Reader is a ridiculously awful reader. Mac OS X handles PDFs like a breeze, they feel incredibly light weight as they open instantly and any application can output to them. So I whole-heartedly agree that Reader is a bad program, but don't extrapolate that to the format.
Usability is one of Scribd's biggest selling points, which might resonate more with PC users long tired of Reader's unstability.
Technically PDF as a format might rock, but most users just care about how their experience is. People's idea of PDF is attached to their experience with Acrobat Reader.
Technically PDF as a format might rock, but most users just care about how their experience is. People's idea of PDF is attached to their experience with Acrobat Reader.
"Can Acrobat Reader convert/read documents not in PDF format"
No. As such, this is a legitimate point for iPaper to make. They support more formats. Of course, many of the document creation programs do support conversion to PDF, but this is still a nice thing about iPaper.
But, it has nothing to do with the cost of creating documents. The cost to create an iPaper document is not zero, its undefined. You cannot create a document in iPaper, period. You must create that document some other way, be it MS Office, Adobe Acrobat, or one of their free alternatives, or a text editor.
If anything, they're advertising the cost to share a document. Which is free for every other type of document too, unless that person doesn't have a program to read the given file format, which is obviously the real thing iPaper should be trying to sell users on.
No. As such, this is a legitimate point for iPaper to make. They support more formats. Of course, many of the document creation programs do support conversion to PDF, but this is still a nice thing about iPaper.
But, it has nothing to do with the cost of creating documents. The cost to create an iPaper document is not zero, its undefined. You cannot create a document in iPaper, period. You must create that document some other way, be it MS Office, Adobe Acrobat, or one of their free alternatives, or a text editor.
If anything, they're advertising the cost to share a document. Which is free for every other type of document too, unless that person doesn't have a program to read the given file format, which is obviously the real thing iPaper should be trying to sell users on.
I can't speak for Windows, but Mac OS X has always had PDF viewing and creation built in. It's as easy as selecting the "Print to PDF" button in any print dialog. 100% penetration on OS X.
Personally, I prefer a straight up link to a PDF. My browser can display it inline, and if I want to save it to my hard drive I just option-click.
Personally, I prefer a straight up link to a PDF. My browser can display it inline, and if I want to save it to my hard drive I just option-click.
Acrobat Reader on Windows remains slow and unstable. Also, it hasn't ever come pre-installed for me.
Don't forget Mac's market share is still tiny compared to Windows, especially with businesses where PDF is used most.
Don't forget Mac's market share is still tiny compared to Windows, especially with businesses where PDF is used most.
Yeah, but if you care about the mobile market at all, then PDF is the way to go, given that Mobile Safari is the number 1 mobile browser and it supports PDF natively (as well as .doc)
"Scribd takes that into account by stating PDF 'sometimes' requires download. I think that is fair--most marketers would just say 'yes' instead of 'sometimes.'"
My original point still stands. If its okay to say PDF requires a download sometimes, you really ought to be saying Flash requires a download sometimes. Anything less is dishonest.
My original point still stands. If its okay to say PDF requires a download sometimes, you really ought to be saying Flash requires a download sometimes. Anything less is dishonest.
Super sick.
I still wonder though, is the trend to share information through PDF style formats or to convert it to true HTML.
I still wonder though, is the trend to share information through PDF style formats or to convert it to true HTML.
Anyone know how you would go about creating such a player?
Also curious if anyone knows if docstoc and pdfmenot are simply using flashpaper or a customer player like scribd.
Also curious if anyone knows if docstoc and pdfmenot are simply using flashpaper or a customer player like scribd.
I love the demo but my small 4mg PDF which I converted to ipaper runs really slow on my site.
A little late to the party, right (http://pdfmenot.com/)
Doesn't matter! Sometimes it's not the tool that's important but how you utilize it. Scribd guys are doing something smarter with the tool!
I used to dislike both Flash plug-in launches and PDF Reader launches equally. Now, the combination of Adobe's work on making the Flash Player launch faster (helped along by the format's ubiquity -- it's probably already running in another tab), plus FlashBlock, means Flash is much less annoying than PDF.
So: bravo, Scribd, for marginalizing PDF even further.