Found another thread on the same topic. Sorry for the duplication, but when I searched for "Vox", nothing came up. It wasn't until after I posted my question that I found another thread listed under "More Like This".
By the way, I tried online chat with an Adobe support person, who after about 20 minutes suggested I buy another ereader. Not a very helpful response, IMO. I said I liked the Vox, and wouldn't be using Digital Editions. Not al publishers force you to go through Adobe for licensing ebooks, although it would be nice if Adobe supported the Vox. Maybe some day.
To your last point: new ereaders and devices that claim that you can load
and read ebooks come on the market all the time. ADE is sort of an orphan
product at Adobe, and I think that they could devote more resources to it
to make it support more current devices. That said, Digital Editions has
been adopted as a 'de facto standard' by the publishing industry for
independent ereader support, which puts more pressure on Adobe to support
more new devices. Amazon, B&N and SONY have decided to do it differently,
so they deal with a much more limited set of devices.
Some publishers allow you to choose from two or three different formats. For example O'Reilly (http://www.oreilly.com) allows you to download in PDF, ePub or Mobi formats (or all three, if you want), and you don't need Adobe's permission to read the material you purchase. Once you've paid for the content, it's yours. That's the way it should be. Hopefully, more publishers will come around to that way of doing business.
Your closing comments need some clarification, because today's digital
publishing world is quite different from that of hardcover paper books.
This isn't a lecture, nor am I disagreeing with you, but the world has
changed a lot.
The publishing community got together in the 1980's and tried to establish
an approach to the digital world that did not fall apart as did the music
industry, with Napster and others offering webspace for the redistribution
of copyrighted materials. They came up with the specifications encoded in
the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 2000 (DMCA), and the software
industry went to work on implementing those specifications. Several
software manufacturers have products that implement the digital rights that
adhere to the DMCA, including Adobe, Bluefire and Overdrive. The results
are that the industry seems to feel that the copyright laws have been
implemented well - there's no clarion call for the basics of digital rights
to be overhauled.
What we have is a system where publishers, resellers and distributors
(including libraries) have the ability to restrict how many digital copies
of epublications you can make, whether you can print portions or all of it
and whether you can share them among several people. That system is much
more restrictive than paper publishing, but it deals with many issues that
paper doesn't have, such as the ability to make humongous numbers of copies
of digital works - and make a profit from selling them without paying
royalties or copyright fees. Sorry - there ARE crooks out there that do
Some large distributors have decided to go farther, and implement the
standards of DMCA in even more restrictive fashion. Amazon has bound its
ereaders to its site, while Barnes and Noble has created a slightly less
tight linkage with its Kindles. SONY has a loose version tied to its
Readers. Other distributors, such as WH Smith, Borders and libraries, use
the 'standard' formats for the materials, but set the digital rights
according to their interpretation of how the end use is allowed to use the
material. If you go to mass media, such as newspapers, you get similar
strata of tightly-bound to 'standard'. The New York Times doesn't want you
printing a version of their newspaper, for example, so they set digital
rights so that you can't do that.
All of this may not be to your liking, but welcome to the digital world of
epublications. Until we change as people from the mindsets that allow
violations of somebody's rights to be common - and go unchallenged, we're
going to get such structures.
(soapbox mode off)
How does restricting the types of devices (not the number of devices) you can copy an eBook to, help to protect anyone's rights? I don't think this is about DRM, it's about the conflicting interests of two parties, Adobe and Google (the creator of the Android OS). I don't think it's a technical issue either. The Kobo Vox is perfectly capable of displaying PDF documents. Is it just a coincidence that the non-Android Kobo models are supported, and the Kobo Vox isn't? Does Kobo have to pay Adobe some sort of fee in return for their support of the new model? I'm not trying to cheat anyone out of their copyright fees, I just want to be able to view an eBook I legitimately purchased on the device of my own choosing. Is that too much to ask?
I think you're off on a tangent here. You have intermixed two subjects -
digital rights management (which seemed to be the topic you closed your
last message with) and technological interfaces.
Adobe Digital Editions is designed to interface with two types of operating
systems - Windows and MAC. Android devices work very differently, and they
require additional interface software for ADE to interoperate with them.
The transfer of epublications from ADE to an Android device requires that
the two interoperate. Adobe has not yet indicated that they have this
interface software in place.
I have no idea whether there is some sort of fee paid to Adobe by device
manufacturers. Maybe someone else who works/worked for Adobe could address
that question. Personally, I doubt it, from my 35 years of experience in
the software arena.