"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.