Google eBookstore is opened today to everyone except Kindle users

Google launched earlier today its new and anticipated online bookstore - Google eBooks. According to Reuters, the new store is featuring 3 million titles, from newly released best-sellers to freely available out-of-copyright books, which consumers can store in a personal online library managed by Google and then read on any device.Google eBooks.

"All of your library is there at anytime; any device you pick up, all your books are present," James Crawford, the director of engineering on the Google Books team, told Reuters in an interview ahead of Monday's announcement.

Well, apparently not any device. You can read ebooks purchased in Google eBooks on the iPad, Nook, Sony Reader and about 85 different devices, but not on Amazon's Kindle. According to the Google's store " currently, Google eBooks are not compatible with Amazon Kindle devices, though we are open to supporting them in the future."

At first I thought it's part of Google's effort to fight Amazon's current dominance in the ebook market, but after reading Doug Pardee's comment below, I'm wondering if it might be Amazon that is blocking this relationship. What do you think?

In any case, I think it doesn't make much sense for Google, as the Kindle has the biggest market share in the eBook market right now. So my guestimation is that very soon this is going to change and the Kindle devices will join the rest of the rest of the devices on Google's list, unless of course Amazon won't mind to keep this status quo will see it as an advantage for them. We'll have to wait and see.

The video clip below explains more about Google's new ebook store:

More articles on this topic:

5 reasons why independent bookstores shouldn't count too much on Google Editions

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

Comparing the carbon footprint of a search on Google and a Yellow Pages directory

Following my post on the Yellow Pages directories, I received an interesting question on LinkedIn:

All this is based on the idea that internet & generally dematerialization is more "eco-friendly" that the old paper-way. Are we sure about that? Sustainable business is full of "false good ideas". Is there any comparative LCA (Life Cycle Analysis)?

This is a great question and since I am not familiar with such a life cycle analysis I decided to prepare one of my own. Of course not all the data is available and I made couple of general assumptions on the way, but I hope that you will find the results valuable.

OK, so here we go:

For our comparison we will use the figure 12 billion searches, which is the number of annual searches made using the printed directories as reported by the Yellow Pages Association ("People reference print Yellow Pages directories more than 12 billion times while Internet Yellow Pages sites receive 4.6 billion references each year").

Option 1: Google search
So what's the carbon footprint of 12 billion Google searches?

Following an estimation of Dr. Alexander Wissner-Gross that was published on the Times Online on January 2009 (5-10g of CO2 per a search), Google announced Google that a Google search produces about 0.2g of CO2. Aleksandr Rudkevich, Vice President in the Energy & Environment Practice of Charles River Associates, analyzed Google's input and explained that this is an average figure. He calculated the worst case scenario (from a pollution point of view): "Applying this to the Google spate earlier this year, if the Google search is powered by coal-fired generation, the 0.0003 kWh of electricity it requires will result in about 0.3g of CO2 emissions, or 50% above Google’s average estimate." We'll use this figure for our analysis.

The equation therefore is: 0.3g x 12 billion = 3600 tons of CO2

Option 2: Yellow Pages directory search
1. Every year, according to Paperless Petition, 540 million directories are distributed in North America. I'll take off 30% of this figure, as the sustainability report claims that "The demand for directory paper has declined 29 percent since 2006". 540M X 70% = 378M

2. I don't have the carbon footprint of an average directory, so I'll use available data to get a good estimate. According to the Environmental Trends and Climate Impacts report, the carbon footprint of a book is 8.85 lbs. The Cleantech's report says it's 16.4 lbs per a book. Let's do an average - 12.63 lbs per book, or in grams - 5,729 grams (5.73 kg) of CO2.

To be fair, let's consider the fact that the directories are "containing 40% recycled content. The other 60% comes from "residual chips," a byproduct of sawmills left after logs are converted to lumber.". For our analysis let's calculate it as 100% post recycled paper. Using the EDF paper calculator, we find that we need to deduct 42% of the initial calculation of 5.73kg as usage of recycled paper has a much lower carbon footprint. So, the equation is: 5.73 X 0.58 = 3.32 kg of CO2

3. Our final calculation is: 378 million x 3.32 kg = 1,254,960 tons of C02

[Please note that even if you use the number of 130 million directories that I used initially, based on information on the Yellow Pages website that for some reason I can't find now, you receive a carbon footprint of 431,600 tons of CO2).

Bottom line: Using Yellow Pages directories to make 12 billion searches has a carbon footprint that is 348.6 times higher (!) of using Google on your computer for the same purpose. Again, it's 1,254,960 tons of CO2 vs. 3600 tons of CO2. I believe these figures speak for themselves.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

Will the new collaboration between Google and On Demand Books green up the book industry?

We've got interesting news today - Google signed an agreement with On Demand Books, making its over two million public domain titles available directly to consumers.

The joint press release of On Demand Books and Google explains that Google has agreed to provide On Demand Books (ODB), the maker of the Espresso Book Machine, with immediate access to over two million public-domain titles in the Google digital files.

If you haven't heard yet about these machines, the Espresso Book Machine is a small, patented high-speed automated book-making machine. In about four minutes it can print, bind and trim a 300-page paperback book complete with a full-color paperback cover. Its price as Tom Krazit reports on CNET News ranges from $75,000 to $97,000, depending on the configuration.

Currently you can find the Espresso Book Machines in bookstores, libraries and trade and campus bookstores such as the University of Michigan Shapiro Library Building in Ann Arbor, MI, the Blackwell Bookshop in London, UK, the Bibliotheca Alexandria in Alexandria, Egypt and the Northshire Bookstore in Manchester Center, VT (you can find a full list of the EBM locations here). Wired adds that On Demand Books hopes to sell 60 more printers in the next year, bringing the number of machines globally to about 90.

So our question is of course, is it environmentally friendly?

Let's look first at the FAQ part of On Demand Book's website that is referring to the question Is the EBM an environmentally friendly technology?

Yes. Producing books at point of sale saves tons of CO2 emissions and eliminates returns and the pulping of unwanted books. According to the OECD’s 2008 publication Sustainable Development, “Print-on-demand [the technology used by the EBM and EspressNet] uses an electronic file to produce the book in the country where it is sold, in the exact quantities needed. There is no need to transport the book from one central location, print too many copies ‘just in case,’ or store copies waiting to be sold (or destroyed).” According to a 2007 survey by the Book Industry Study Group and Green Press Initiative, the book sector emits an average of 8.8 pounds (almost 4 kg) of carbon per book produced.

They're definitely right in terms in terms of waste and transportation. As the report they quote is explaining the current model is wasteful - about 1 billion books that were printed in 2006 (or about 25% of the total printed books) weren't sold and then either returned for pulping or reach landfills. At the same time, this report is also emphasizing the fact that paper is responsible for most of the carbon footprint of books (over 60%).

So it means that even though the Espresso Book Machines can save carbon emissions as it provides Print On Demand services on spot at bookstores and libraries, it can generate a significant breakthrough if it will be using recycled paper. Wired reported that On Demand Books suggests that book stores price the books at about $8, leaving retailers with a $3 profit after both Google and On Demand Books collect a buck-a-book fee. I'm quite positive that using recycled paper instead of virgin paper won't increase the price significantly.

Actually it can be done even without raising the price at all - here's an idea: Google, according to Wired, plans to donate its share to a yet-unspecified charity - how about using it to cover any extra cost required for using recycled paper? this way everyone is winning - Google is helping an important cause, readers get to print books on recycled paper at the same price and On Demand Books is making an important step towards making books more sustainable by significantly reducing their carbon footprint.

What do you think? I'll be happy to hear your thoughts about it.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting sustainable reading!

Can you trust the world's largest library? On Google and the privacy of your reading habits

NPR's Morning Edition had this interesting story about the fight over readers privacy in the upcoming world's largest (virtual) library - Google's library.

Google has been working for a while on scanning millions of library books and putting them online. And they are expected to have a lot of information on users' reading habits, just like the information they already know now about your Internet activity.

"They know which books you search for," says Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EEF) to NPR. "They know which books you browse through; they know how long you spend on each page."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, think books should be different and our reading habits should be much more protected than what Google is currently offering. EEF also started a campaign ('Don't Let Google Close the Book on Reader Privacy') calling Google to "build in privacy protections to its Google Book Search, and ensure that reading in the future is as safe and private in the digital world as it is in the analog."

And their timing couldn't be better actually because as NPR reports many of those scanned books are not yet readable, because of a copyright lawsuit filed by authors and publishers, which has been tentatively settled, but is waiting for a judge approval of the deal (expected this fall) to make millions more books will be available to browse through and read. EEF and and the ACLU of Northern California know they have the best leverage now as long as the settlement is currently under court review and want to take a full advantage of it.

What do you think? it's true we already know from the experience with Amazon's Kindle that reading will never be the same in the virtual world and that a lot of information about our reading preferences will be exposed in the minute we're entering this world. But it seems that with Google's library it would be much more extensive.

Do you think it's acceptable? can We trust Google or like the campaign is requesting, Google should pledge never to turn over readers' information unless presented with a warrant? I'll be happy to hear your thoughts here!

You can read NPR's story at http://alturl.com/4ehp

EEF's call for action can be found at http://alturl.com/xk8m

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting green reading!

The Clash of the Titans is coming - Google plans to sell e-books, directly competing with Amazon

I'm back from BookExpo America (BEA) and this week will be dedicated to some of the stories and observations I have following this event.

One of the most interesting news from the BEA was actually released today by the New York Times - Google is getting ready to dive into the e-book market, currently dominated by Amazon.

Yes, we're talking about the Clash of the Titans - On one side of the ring, the current e-book champion Amazon.com, armed with its growing family of Kindles (Kindle 2.0 and Kindle DX). On the other side of the ring, Google, which has already made its 1.5 million public-domain books available for reading on mobile phones as well as the Sony Reader. This is going to be one hell of a battle!

Google is coming armed with two main advantages (besides being Google of course..). Firstly, according to Tom Turvey, director of strategic partnerships at Google, their program will allow readers to read books on any device with internet access, including mobile phones, rather than being limited to dedicated reading devices like the Amazon Kindle.

The second advantage is purely aimed at the publishers - Google would allow publishers to set retail prices, unlike Amazon that offers Kindle editions of most new best sellers for $9.99, which is far less than the typical $26 at which publishers sell new hardcovers. I just wonder if this is also an advantage for the readers who will probably be asked to pay more (and if so is it a competitive advantage at all?)

Unfortunately I wasn't present at Turvey's presentation at the BookExpo, but according to the NYT he said “This time we mean it" and the company is committed to going live with the project by the end of 2009.

So what does it mean? in one word: competition. Is it good for readers? definitely. Is it good for publishers? absolutely. Is it good for the environment? hopefully. If Google will work closely with Sony Reader as their main partner, it might drive both the Kindle and Sony Reader to improve their performance and hopefully it will mean also improvements in terms of footprint reduction.

Moreover, either Amazon or Google might decide to position themselves as a greener solution and will release a version that is clearly more eco-friendly than paper books (backed up with the life cycle assessment we're expecting for for so long).

In any case, this is an interesting move and we'll have to wait and see how it will influence the e-book market in general and its green side specifically.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris
www.ecolibris.net