Scribd has a lot of value in sharing documents online. The scribd API is implemented in a business application that I built and run. The documents automatically upload to scribd and appear as iPaper on the page. So not only can you download the file, you can view it with out having to leave the browser. The users love this feature.
It compliments the files... not replacing the format or w/e the argument here was.
I like to post videos to youtube, as do millions of other people do, to share with other people in a quick and easy way. If it was meant to be downloaded I would of hosted the file and done both. They both serve different purposes.
At the same time the proprietary nature of the formats are expect if these companies are ever going to make money. Apparently that's been a problem for these companies.
Anyway, lets not take an angry rant too seriously.
That's the problem. The original author/publisher DID mean to have the PDF downloadable, and people posting to HN DID mean to link to that PDF.
HN/Scribd throw themselves into the middle of that. They redirect you to their online version, and ask you to register before you can download. It's annoying and not what people want.
Scribd is pretty nice, I like it. But the autolinking at HN is a bum idea.
There's also the issue that people submitting the link to HN rarely own the copyright to the content, but HN will silently ask Scribd to make a copy anyway and serve it to the internet at large. Needless to say, there are authors who dislike that approach:
> So not only can you download the file, you can view it with out having to leave the browser. The users love this feature.
Perhaps your users should get a browser that supports plugins to allow in-browser viewing of PDF. Then again, since _all_ browsers support these plugins and even ie/windows users can get a good pdf handler like foxit I really don't see why you would want to use scribd.
Foxit works with ie6. Foxit works with windows 95 systems. It just works. Seriously, save yourself a lot of pain and install foxit on every windows box you possibly can.
I will suggest Scribd talking with Macromedia or some PDF style company; they should just convert documents in PDF like format instead of trying to reinvent the toothbrush.
I've lurked here for months, but this article and the responses has led me to register and comment.
If you're debating the merits of scribd vs a pdf file, you've missed the whole point. That's like debating youtube vs. [insert video format here].
Who cares if you can do more with the pdf or .avi file? Scribd is a service that hosts files. The same logic that says pdf files are 'better' would lead you to host the raw DV capture on your own server instead of uploading it to youtube. When the goal is sharing your video/document with other people, does that make any sense?
Also as many have pointed out every argument made in the article is pretty much wrong. Downloading works, copy paste works, etc.
No they're not in competition with adobe, adobe doesn't host files...
Ultimately scribd is about sharing, and it pretty much whips ass at that.
You miss the point PDF files don't need a common platform. IT IS a common platform. PDF is ubiquitous and full featured, there's no need to change file format in order to share it.
The author's argument is ff scribd is a service to host files then do it - host the files, don't convert them to an inferior format. Heck instead of iPaper why not just convert them to PDF to begin with and save the intermediary.
"You miss the point [avi] files don't need a common platform. IT IS a common platform. [avi] is ubiquitous and full featured, there's no need to change file format in order to share it.
The author's arguments is if [youtube] is a service to host files then do it - host the files, don't convert them to an inferior format. Heck instead of [flv] why not just convert them to [mpeg2] to begin with and save the intermediary.
See how ridiculous that sounds?
Also, Scribd doesn't just host pdf files, they host others too. If you had to write software to translate multiple source languages to one language, would you compile down to a language you control every aspect of (ipaper) or one you do not control (pdf)?
Awesome you waited all this time to comment on a post, just to not argue the authors point? I read the article it never seemed to argue the point of the service its whole point was about the necessity of changing file formats. Nice Red Herring, you're even getting points for it.
As near as I can tell the authors point is "all [scribd] does is strip me of basic functionality...So some engineers could do some flash-based masturbation & feel web 2.0". It's just an ignorant rant. Plenty of other people pointed out that scribd has the features he claims it lacks, I didn't feel the need to echo that. What I did feel was important is that the author of the article missed the point of why scribd exists entirely. It does not exist to strip functionality or demo flash skills, or to "lock things up by placing it in their own jackass format". Scribd is a service that allows people to share documents. I thought pointing out the parallels between the service youtube offers and what scribd does, and the compromises inherent in implementing such a service would be illuminating, but apparently it's not helping you. I also said that since scribd basically translates all the various formats uploaded to one standard display format, it makes sense that they have total control over the end format. I thought that shed some light on why they chose to use ipaper instead of pdf or any other format, but apparently you don't agree. Whatever.
p.s. Let me know when i can turn my points in for a prize.
Hmmm, let me get this straight. The author wants a service that allows developers to quickly and programatically convert proprietary format documents (MS Office, etc) to standard easily viewable formats (pdf, flash) for FREE to 'die' because he has somehow missed the obvious text-selection tool in iPaper (even same icon as Adobe uses), the obvious ways to download the document as pdf, and somehow has mysterious double-scrollbars that no one else seems able to duplicate. Better vote this post up!
I'll try to counter the rant with one of my top reasons Scribd should not die:
Have you ever been to a corporate site that has loads of links to Microsoft Office documents? (Ex: http://www.humanrights.coe.int/equality/Eng/WordDocs/Documen... ) I have, and it's such a pain to have to download and open the documents manually. Then I also have the documents that I downloaded cluttering up my hard drive - when all I wanted to do was take a quick look at it. So I find myself not even bothering with the Office documents - which I'm sure is not what the company trying to promote themselves wants. If you look at http://www.scribd.com/platform/documentation - you'll see Scribd has provided a solution to this problem with their QuickSwitch service. Once this is used, all of those proprietary format documents on the site are 'magically' converted into standard formats you can view easily: pdf and flash. Nice.
Hmmm, let me get this straight. The author wants a service that allows developers to quickly and programatically convert proprietary format documents (MS Office, etc) to standard easily viewable formats (pdf, flash) for FREE to 'die' because he has somehow missed the obvious text-selection tool in iPaper (even same icon as Adobe uses)
No, the author wants a service that converts from open and easily readable formats like HTML, Office and PDF into hard-to-use junk format of Flash, partly because it doesn't do select/copy/paste via browser and re-implements the wheel in process and he wants it to die because it's a fucking pain whenever someone sends you a link to THAT as opposed to a normal HTML page or a more consumable PDF/doc/etc.
They should have written a high-quality converter of "everything-to-HTML". I haven't seen a single Scribd "document" that couldn't benefit from being a normal HTML.
I don't touch Scribd links. Reading text in Flash it's not convenient, it's slow and plain moronic: it's like filming a video of a page and uploading it to youtube (analogy not mine).
Yes, I want them to die too, because I see Flash as a proprietary and badly implemented anchor that's pulling us back, into "platform" days, when instead of developing software for people you had to "target a platform". I want no freaking "platforms" from nobody.
I am happy Apple doesn't put this plague on their phone.
There are startups that change the world, make it better. Then there are those that simply make money without doing anything impressive, just helping people out here and there. But then there are companies that try to profit at someone else's expense, and Scribd is one of them - Scribd is clearly in Adobe's army of flash developers, and they're looking to ruin the web for all of us, because they're imposing "Adobe tax" on everything web-connected: crawlers need to understand that junk, new hardware needs to have a "player" for it, new browsers, new OS'es, etc.
I'm a heavy scribd user and i think that is great to share documents, you can create groups and start discussions, find similar books and people that share your tastes.
No, you can't do that with acrobat reader, but you can do that with this fancy thing we call "the web". You can even create a site in which users can submit documents they would like to share with other people so that the group can discuss the contents of the documents; the documents themselves can stay in their native pdf format and remain hosted on the authors site. Alternatively, you can decide to annoy your users by filtering attempts to share such documents through another site you are trying to pimp...
Am I missing something obvious on scribd? I saw no way to download the original PDF on the scribd page. I was as annoyed as the original poster when this paper (HPL-2007-193) was on HN and I tried to save it so that I could read it later. I ended up doing Print->Save As PDF from scribd. When someone later posted a link to the original PDF, it was much nicer looking, smaller in size (4MB versus 164KB), and had the original metadata (e.g. authors, description).
The "site" I was describing was HN, so I guess my sarcasm was a bit too subtle. Additionally, you can only get a copy of the original PDF if you register. I can understand why they went with this sort of bait-and-switch tactic, but it is slimy.
When scribd loads a pdf as a flash only page (the links from Hacker News for example go to the flash only) there is no way to download it. But I have seen scribd pages where they have a row of icons above the embedded flash and one of them is a download link.
Personally, the only problem I have with scribd is the use of Flash. I think I would actually use the site if it presented pdfs using javascript and images, much like Google books. You could still search the book, just as Google books does, because it searches the text on the server side and returns images of the pages with highlighted text. I think this does add something new to PDF in that it makes it possible to share a book online without allowing easy download if there is interest in doing that.
29 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 74.2 ms ] threadIt compliments the files... not replacing the format or w/e the argument here was.
I like to post videos to youtube, as do millions of other people do, to share with other people in a quick and easy way. If it was meant to be downloaded I would of hosted the file and done both. They both serve different purposes.
At the same time the proprietary nature of the formats are expect if these companies are ever going to make money. Apparently that's been a problem for these companies.
Anyway, lets not take an angry rant too seriously.
That's the problem. The original author/publisher DID mean to have the PDF downloadable, and people posting to HN DID mean to link to that PDF.
HN/Scribd throw themselves into the middle of that. They redirect you to their online version, and ask you to register before you can download. It's annoying and not what people want.
Scribd is pretty nice, I like it. But the autolinking at HN is a bum idea.
http://notes-from-a-sticky-wicket.blogspot.com/2007/12/scrib...
Perhaps your users should get a browser that supports plugins to allow in-browser viewing of PDF. Then again, since _all_ browsers support these plugins and even ie/windows users can get a good pdf handler like foxit I really don't see why you would want to use scribd.
Its a business application. All my users still use IE6. Nothing like enterprise IT.
I've managed to convince 5 of them to FF3 at a meeting yesterday.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=223195
The author's argument is ff scribd is a service to host files then do it - host the files, don't convert them to an inferior format. Heck instead of iPaper why not just convert them to PDF to begin with and save the intermediary.
See how ridiculous that sounds?
Also, Scribd doesn't just host pdf files, they host others too. If you had to write software to translate multiple source languages to one language, would you compile down to a language you control every aspect of (ipaper) or one you do not control (pdf)?
Awesome you waited all this time to comment on a post, just to not argue the authors point? I read the article it never seemed to argue the point of the service its whole point was about the necessity of changing file formats. Nice Red Herring, you're even getting points for it.
I'll try to counter the rant with one of my top reasons Scribd should not die:
Have you ever been to a corporate site that has loads of links to Microsoft Office documents? (Ex: http://www.humanrights.coe.int/equality/Eng/WordDocs/Documen... ) I have, and it's such a pain to have to download and open the documents manually. Then I also have the documents that I downloaded cluttering up my hard drive - when all I wanted to do was take a quick look at it. So I find myself not even bothering with the Office documents - which I'm sure is not what the company trying to promote themselves wants. If you look at http://www.scribd.com/platform/documentation - you'll see Scribd has provided a solution to this problem with their QuickSwitch service. Once this is used, all of those proprietary format documents on the site are 'magically' converted into standard formats you can view easily: pdf and flash. Nice.
No, the author wants a service that converts from open and easily readable formats like HTML, Office and PDF into hard-to-use junk format of Flash, partly because it doesn't do select/copy/paste via browser and re-implements the wheel in process and he wants it to die because it's a fucking pain whenever someone sends you a link to THAT as opposed to a normal HTML page or a more consumable PDF/doc/etc.
They should have written a high-quality converter of "everything-to-HTML". I haven't seen a single Scribd "document" that couldn't benefit from being a normal HTML.
I don't touch Scribd links. Reading text in Flash it's not convenient, it's slow and plain moronic: it's like filming a video of a page and uploading it to youtube (analogy not mine).
Yes, I want them to die too, because I see Flash as a proprietary and badly implemented anchor that's pulling us back, into "platform" days, when instead of developing software for people you had to "target a platform". I want no freaking "platforms" from nobody.
I am happy Apple doesn't put this plague on their phone.
There are startups that change the world, make it better. Then there are those that simply make money without doing anything impressive, just helping people out here and there. But then there are companies that try to profit at someone else's expense, and Scribd is one of them - Scribd is clearly in Adobe's army of flash developers, and they're looking to ruin the web for all of us, because they're imposing "Adobe tax" on everything web-connected: crawlers need to understand that junk, new hardware needs to have a "player" for it, new browsers, new OS'es, etc.
Fuck Scribd.
You can't do that with acrobar reader.
Personally, the only problem I have with scribd is the use of Flash. I think I would actually use the site if it presented pdfs using javascript and images, much like Google books. You could still search the book, just as Google books does, because it searches the text on the server side and returns images of the pages with highlighted text. I think this does add something new to PDF in that it makes it possible to share a book online without allowing easy download if there is interest in doing that.