Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Jul 2011 21:14 UTC
Apple Petty Apple is petty. Amazon, Kobo, and others have changed their applications to conform to Apple's App Store rules, and if there's one word that describes the situation these booksellers are in, it's petty. Still, it's leading to good things: Kobo has announced it's going to bypass the App Store by writing an HTML5 e-reader for iOS (and thus, for other HTML5-capable mobile devices).
Order by: Score:
Business Process Patent
by fretinator on Tue 26th Jul 2011 21:36 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

1. Dangle sparlkley items in front of customers.
2. Abuse customers.
3. Own the market

It's sounds wierd, but it seems to work. Unfortunately, prior art from the U.S. colonization may invalidate the patent.

Reply Score: 16

RE: Business Process Patent
by fmaxwell on Fri 29th Jul 2011 15:55 UTC in reply to "Business Process Patent"
fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

Apple didn't take anything away from me. They told the ebook sellers that there were to be no more sales which circumvented the app store, which they were doing in order to deprive Apple of their cut of the sales.

It's no different than the rules on ebay. You can't sell an item on ebay and then circumevent ebay when selling more items to the same customer.

Why is Apple always portrayed as the bad guy? For f***'s sake, they allowed competing vendors (Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, etc.) to to put their ebook apps on the iPad and now people are bitching because Apple wants a cut of the book sales? Do you see Amazon allowing Kindle owners to buy books directly from Apple's ebook store? Yeah, didn't think so.

So rather than Apple selling an ebook for $10, they get $3 when it's sold through one of their competitors. In return, the competitors get access to a huge market of iPad owners.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Business Process Patent
by fretinator on Fri 29th Jul 2011 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Business Process Patent"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

You are right, it's not as bad as it sounds. However, I think the issue is they tell EVERYBODY what they can and can't do. Users, here's all you can do. Developers, you can only do A, B, C. Vendors, you can only do this. The list of do's and don't they require from the whole ecosystem starts to get a little creepy. You start to think they have a bit of an over-inflated image of themselves. At some point, everyone might just move on to friendlier confines. But probably not. Doesn't mean we can't all whine about it!

I think the defining moment for me was when the first Mac Mini came out. You could choos a Combo Drive (DRD-Rom/ CDRW) or a Super Drive (DVDRW). Coming from the Windows world, I thought I might get the combo drive and later upgrade it to the Super Drive. Only that was not allowed. No one was allowed to upgrade it to a Super Drive. If a user, a 3rd-party, or even an Apple Store did so it voided the warranty. Instead, your only option was to sell yours and purchase one with a Super Drive. I thought line of reasoning was REALLY strange. I also felt the same about non-relaceable batteries in many of their devices. You had to pay someone to replace the battery for you - at a high premium. Wierd!!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Business Process Patent
by fmaxwell on Fri 29th Jul 2011 17:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Business Process Patent"
fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

There are two models that have emerged in the tablet market: The curated model that Apple uses, where they review apps, weeding out those that are malicious, unstable, or just poorly done. I realize that this has been an imperfect process, but, to me, it's a lot better than the Android alternative, which appears to have been modeled after the wild west.

Apple can only deny warranty repairs if a modification, aftermarket service, or third party part has caused the failure. That's federal law (FTC has info on the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act) and it's the same one that prevent GM from "voiding the warranty" on your car when you install tires you buy from Tire Rack, spark plugs you buy from AutoZone, and have your oil change by Jiffy Lube.

I bought a Mac Mini. Within two days, I had upgraded the hard drive, RAM, and combo drive. But I understood that I'd be on my own if my workmanship, or the parts I chose, caused a failure.

As to batteries, given some of the shoddy cr*p that's being sold on ebay, I understand Apple's desire to not have that stuff put into their products. Guy buys a Chinese battery pack. It fries the contacts in his MacBook's battery connector, he plugs the Apple battery in, takes it for service. The other issue is that making the batteries replaceable increases the size and weight of the device.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Business Process Patent
by fretinator on Fri 29th Jul 2011 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Business Process Patent"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

But I understood that I'd be on my own if my workmanship, or the parts I chose, caused a failure


I wonder who would win in that argument, me or Apple?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Business Process Patent
by fmaxwell on Fri 29th Jul 2011 20:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Business Process Patent"
fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

I wonder who would win in that argument, me or Apple


I'm an electrical engineer who builds satellites for a living. I'm guessing that I'd do alright if Apple wanted to argue.

Edited 2011-07-29 20:46 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Not surprising, really!
by Athlander on Tue 26th Jul 2011 22:15 UTC
Athlander
Member since:
2008-03-10

This isn't really a surprise. I suppose Amazon and the others should be grateful that Apple lets them play in their playground at all.

I don't know what's the more remarkable - the ease with which Apple can treat another company like their bitch, or the queue of companies willing to be Apple's bitch.

Of course, this is the real world and business is business, but still... wow.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Not surprising, really!
by danieldk on Wed 27th Jul 2011 07:12 UTC in reply to "Not surprising, really!"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

This isn't really a surprise. I suppose Amazon and the others should be grateful that Apple lets them play in their playground at all.

I don't know what's the more remarkable - the ease with which Apple can treat another company like their bitch, or the queue of companies willing to be Apple's bitch.


Even more remarkable is the ease with which Apple can treat customers as their bitch. I have an iPhone and an iPad, but d*mmit Apple, these are my devices, and would like to have a button to the Kindle store in the Kindle app.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Not surprising, really!
by kenji on Wed 27th Jul 2011 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Not surprising, really!"
kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

I have an iPhone and an iPad, but d*mmit Apple, these are my devices, and would like to have a button to the Kindle store in the Kindle app.


It just goes to show that in fact they are NOT your devices. Apple is simply leasing them to you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not surprising, really!
by phoudoin on Thu 28th Jul 2011 00:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Not surprising, really!"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

You didn't get the memo, did you?
Your iDevices are leased, not sold.
And your user experience is a leached walk, not a free walk.

People should reads the memo a bit better before opening their wallet. It's not that hidden [agenda] anymore by Apple, really.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not surprising, really!
by Laurence on Wed 27th Jul 2011 11:56 UTC in reply to "Not surprising, really!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I suppose Amazon and the others should be grateful that Apple lets them play in their playground at all.

Why should they be grateful? Any other handset would welcome those updates with open arms so Apple are clearly abusing their position.

In fact I think Amazon et al have grounds to complain about anti-competitive practices. The only sticking point would be whether handset market share is critical - what with iOS devices not being nearly as dominant as Apple like to publicise.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Not surprising, really!
by Athlander on Wed 27th Jul 2011 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Not surprising, really!"
Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10

Well you've taken that quote out of context with the rest of my post, but anyway, duly noted to self: not everyone is aware of rhetorical devices.

In fact I think Amazon et al have grounds to complain about anti-competitive practices. The only sticking point would be whether handset market share is critical - what with iOS devices not being nearly as dominant as Apple like to publicise.


No-one is forcing Amazon to put a Kindle app on Apple devices yet they willingly do so knowing Apple's record and knowing the terms and conditions (which Apple may change at will).

So, if there are grounds to complain about anti-competitive practices, does Amazon:

A) report Apple for anti-competitive practices

B) obey Apple and make the following mild announcement on the forum for the Kindle app: "In order to comply with recent policy changes by Apple, we've also removed the "Kindle Store" link from within the app that opened Safari and took you to the Kindle Store. You can still shop as you always have - just open Safari and go to www.amazon.com/kindlestore. If you want, you can bookmark that URL. Your Kindle books will be delivered automatically to your iPad, iPhone or iPod touch, just as before."

Hmm... tricky, I know.

(this comment includes rhetorical devices. Deal with it - or not, if you can't or don't want to. There are still some freedoms we have and we should cherish, celebrate and take advantage of them while we can!)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not surprising, really!
by phoudoin on Thu 28th Jul 2011 00:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not surprising, really!"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

No-one is forcing Amazon to put a Kindle app on Apple devices


Correction: on Apple's *customers* devices.

Apple devices are sold. They aren't Apple property, except when they are in Apple Stores or in their stock.

But maybe Apple consider their customers are their property, who know. Maybe it's written in their EULA, somewhere: all you customer are belong to us!

I predict a big surprise, then. Smartphones owners and geeks are far less brand belovers and far more hype followers (or makers, for some). For a company making now near half of its revenue from this kind of customers, they should care more...

B) obey Apple and make the following mild announcement on the forum for the Kindle app: "In order to comply with recent policy changes by Apple, we've also removed the "Kindle Store" link from within the app that opened Safari and took you to the Kindle Store. You can still shop as you always have - just open Safari and go to www.amazon.com/kindlestore. If you want, you can bookmark that URL. Your Kindle books will be delivered automatically to your iPad, iPhone or iPod touch, just as before."

Hmm... tricky, I know.


What would be more funny is to add this notice not on their website but... on the second page of every Kindle electronic books they deliver to Apple devices
;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not surprising, really!
by _txf_ on Thu 28th Jul 2011 00:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not surprising, really!"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17


No-one is forcing Amazon to put a Kindle app on Apple devices yet they willingly do so knowing Apple's record and knowing the terms and conditions (which Apple may change at will).


True. But users of Apple devices and of Kindle get crippled apps. Where the required operation to buy a book becomes more complicated. If the user still wants it then they can go trough the website; The question is that apple is deliberatly adding annoyance where there previously was none.

Sure, both amazon and the users may accept this. But it still does not make it right or particularly fair.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not surprising, really!
by fmaxwell on Fri 29th Jul 2011 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not surprising, really!"
fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

There's a simple solution: Quit trying to cheat Apple out of their cut from the ebook sales. Every game vendor seems capable of providing in-app purchases that don't circumvent Apple. It's not the user's fault that Amazon wants access to Apple's entire iPad customer base without paying a percentage when they sell books to those users.

How about bitching about something substantial? Amazon won't allow Kindle owners to purchase books from Apple to read on their Kindles. They aren't just demanding a cut from Apple's sales. They want to be the monopolistic provider of ebooks to every owner of a Kindle.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Not surprising, really!
by Laurence on Fri 29th Jul 2011 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not surprising, really!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

There's a simple solution: Quit trying to cheat Apple out of their cut from the ebook sales.

It's not Apple's cut though. Apple aren't owed a cut of every sale of every single file that gets loaded onto iOS.

The whole thing is a little like Microsoft demanding a cut for every spreadsheet I save in Excel or report I typed in Word.

I mean, where do you draw the line? Should the manufacturers of the capacitive touch screen also get a cut for every book that's loaded because the iPad would be nothing without one. How about Dennis Ritchie getting a cut for inventing C - the grandfather of the language that's central for the iOS. Surely if Apple can claim rights to an income for a book they had no part in, then Ritchie can have a cut for an OS he had no part in developing?

I know they're absurd examples but the point I'm making is Apple have already charged their commission. Consumers have already bought the device and thus paid for the OS and hardware costs plus mark up. Then the developers have paid for the service to have their apps available on Apples App Store. Both of these I wholeheartedly agree with. However then expecting a percentage of every file loaded and deliberately crippling functions that offer alternative loading mechanisms is completely wrong.

Edited 2011-07-29 20:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Not surprising, really!
by Athlander on Fri 29th Jul 2011 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not surprising, really!"
Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10

The whole thing is a little like Microsoft demanding a cut for every spreadsheet I save in Excel or report I typed in Word.


But if those are the terms & conditions for using Excel, then you have to adhere to those terms & conditions if you wish to use Excel.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Not surprising, really!
by Laurence on Sun 31st Jul 2011 09:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not surprising, really!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


But if those are the terms & conditions for using Excel, then you have to adhere to those terms & conditions if you wish to use Excel.

Where in Apple's T&C's does it say that you cannot link to your own website in your own application?

Besides, terms and conditions cannot override law.
If Apples T&Cs are stifling fair competition then Apple should be held accountable.

Edited 2011-07-31 09:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Not surprising, really!
by fmaxwell on Sun 31st Jul 2011 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not surprising, really!"
fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

"There's a simple solution: Quit trying to cheat Apple out of their cut from the ebook sales.

It's not Apple's cut though. Apple aren't owed a cut of every sale of every single file that gets loaded onto iOS.
"

It's their App Store. They set the terms and conditions. If they say that they are owed a cut, then they are owed a cut. If you don't like it, then don't distribute your app through Apple's App Store. What is so confusing about that?

With the iPad having outsold the Kindle at 20 to 1 (and growing), I'm sure that Amazon wants to sell books to Apple's customers. But Apple already sells books through their iTunes store. Amazon didn't pay Apple to distribute their Kindle app. Amazon didn't help to pay for the cost to develop the iPad or to set up the App Store. And now they want to use that app to lure Apple's customers away from the iTunes store for ebook purchases -- and you're angry that Apple wants some compensation? Amazing.

This is no different than a brick and morter store situation. You can't go into a Walmart and hand out ads for your competing business, while not compensating Walmart in any way.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Not surprising, really!
by Laurence on Sun 31st Jul 2011 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not surprising, really!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


It's their App Store. They set the terms and conditions. If they say that they are owed a cut, then they are owed a cut. If you don't like it, then don't distribute your app through Apple's App Store. What is so confusing about that?

But that's the point: Apple are also trying to get a cut from products not sold via the App Store.

I don't have a problem with however much they choose to charge for use of their distribution mechanism. The issue I have is charging people not to use it as well.

With the iPad having outsold the Kindle at 20 to 1 (and growing), I'm sure that Amazon wants to sell books to Apple's customers. But Apple already sells books through their iTunes store.

...and? There is this thing call "competition".
Just because someone builds a stall on my road selling lemonade, it doesn't mean I can't do the same as well.

Amazon didn't pay Apple to distribute their Kindle app.

Why should they? It's Apples app.
Furthermore, Apple didn't pay Amazon to distribute their app either. So your point is moot.

Amazon didn't help to pay for the cost to develop the iPad or to set up the App Store.

No, but the former is covered in iPad sales and the latter should be covered in app sales.
Sales of ebooks et al does not come under either of those two categorise you described.

And now they want to use that app to lure Apple's customers away from the iTunes store for ebook purchases -- and you're angry that Apple wants some compensation? Amazing.

Again, how does buying a book harm Apple's hardware sales or App sales? It simply doesn't. So your logic is flawed.

This is no different than a brick and morter store situation. You can't go into a Walmart and hand out ads for your competing business, while not compensating Walmart in any way.

Well actually legally you can.

However the situation is a little more complicated than your example as walmart don't charge you entry into their supermarket nor dictate that rival shops pay them a percentage for sales that didn't even take place in walmart.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not surprising, really!
by fmaxwell on Fri 29th Jul 2011 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Not surprising, really!"
fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

The Kindle came out three years before the iPad and you think that Amazon should sue Apple? For what? Making a more appealing product -- something that can do more than just display books in greyscale?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not surprising, really!
by Laurence on Fri 29th Jul 2011 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not surprising, really!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

The Kindle came out three years before the iPad and you think that Amazon should sue Apple? For what? Making a more appealing product -- something that can do more than just display books in greyscale?

I couldn't think of anything worse than buying an iPad as an eBook reader:
* a backlit LCD would is a horrible strain on the eyes compared to the Kindles eInk.
* a glass screen is a nightmare to read from in bright light where as the Kindles matted display is perfect.
* the battery life on the Kindle runs circles around the iPad.

Sure the iPad is a better multi-functional device than the Kindle, but then the Kindle was never meant to be a tablet PC. However if you're comparing like for like then the iPad is a much worse eBook reader than the Kindle.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not surprising, really!
by fmaxwell on Fri 29th Jul 2011 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not surprising, really!"
fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

I couldn't think of anything worse than buying an iPad as an eBook reader:
* a backlit LCD would is a horrible strain on the eyes compared to the Kindles eInk.

Studies have shown no evidence to support that claim.

* a glass screen is a nightmare to read from in bright light where as the Kindles matted display is perfect.

And the Kindle's display is unreadable in a dark bedroom, which is where I often read at night before going to sleep.

* the battery life on the Kindle runs circles around the iPad.

My house has electricity. I have a charger that works in my car and on my boat. Not an issue for me.

However if you're comparing like for like then the iPad is a much worse eBook reader than the Kindle.

Much of what I read is either technical books with color photos and illustrations, or full color magazines about the hobbies that interest me. The Kindle is worthless for either of those activities, which is why I had no e-reader prior to the iPad. Not everyone's reading it Tom Clancy fiction or romance novels.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Not surprising, really!
by Laurence on Sun 31st Jul 2011 10:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not surprising, really!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Studies have shown no evidence to support that claim.

On ageing eyes (~40+) that's true, but on younger eyes I am lead to understand that there is still a potential issue.

However trying to use an LCD on the move with bright light reflected and so on would me several magnitudes worse than simply just reading from an LCD in a darkened room

And the Kindle's display is unreadable in a dark bedroom, which is where I often read at night before going to sleep.

So turn a light on like you'd have to do with an old fashioned book.

I managed that when I was a kid. In fact I thought all bedrooms these days came equipped with a piece of technology called a "bed-side lamp" which is ideal for your sort of problem.


My house has electricity. I have a charger that works in my car and on my boat. Not an issue for me.

Regardless, it is still a portability issue that the Kindle wins against the iPad when comparing like for like.
Plus many people like to read on holiday when at the beach, or on the train / plane or even in the bath.
You don't see many electrical hook-ups in those locations.


Much of what I read is either technical books with color photos and illustrations, or full color magazines about the hobbies that interest me. The Kindle is worthless for either of those activities, which is why I had no e-reader prior to the iPad. Not everyone's reading it Tom Clancy fiction or romance novels.

No, but most people are. You're usage is pretty specific and pretty rare compared to most peoples eBook requirements. Thus eInk makes much more sense for the majority of people.

Edited 2011-07-31 10:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Not surprising, really!
by fmaxwell on Sun 31st Jul 2011 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not surprising, really!"
fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

On ageing eyes (~40+) that's true, but on younger eyes I am lead to understand that there is still a potential issue.

"Lead to understand" by whom? Please cite your sources for that claim.

"And the Kindle's display is unreadable in a dark bedroom, which is where I often read at night before going to sleep.

So turn a light on like you'd have to do with an old fashioned book.

I managed that when I was a kid. In fact I thought all bedrooms these days came equipped with a piece of technology called a "bed-side lamp" which is ideal for your sort of problem.
"
Unlike you, I do not sleep alone. I don't want to keep my significant other awake if I decide to read in bed for another half an hour or so after she's ready to drift off.

Of course you can put on a "bed-side lamp" to read. It's not like you're going to keep anyone else awake. You know what's "ideal for your sort of problem"? Single serving frozen dinners.

Plus many people like to read on holiday when at the beach, or on the train / plane or even in the bath.
You don't see many electrical hook-ups in those locations.

The iPad has a 9-10 hour battery life. How long do you spend reading in planes, trains, or the bath?

"
Much of what I read is either technical books with color photos and illustrations, or full color magazines about the hobbies that interest me. The Kindle is worthless for either of those activities, which is why I had no e-reader prior to the iPad. Not everyone's reading it Tom Clancy fiction or romance novels.

No, but most people are. You're usage is pretty specific and pretty rare compared to most peoples eBook requirements. Thus eInk makes much more sense for the majority of people.
"
Reading magazines is rare? Do you stop and gawk when you see someone reading Popular Photography, Smithsonian, Rolling Stone, Car and Driver, Boating, Motorcyclist, or Wired? The National Directory of Magazines lists over twenty thousand different magazine titles just in the U.S. and Canada. There are far more magazines sold than books.

You are claiming that it's rare for people to read non-fiction books with color photos, drawings, graphs, and charts? Is it shocking to you to learn that normal people read things like travel guides, auto repair manuals, books about photography, and textbooks, all of which contain color photos and/or multi-color illustrations?

Normal people are living life; they are enjoying travel, sports, and hobbies, and reading about those things in full-color, glossy (like the screen of an iPad) magazines and richly illustrated books. That's partly why 29 million iPads have been sold while only 1.5 million Kindles have been sold -- despite the Kindle being sold for twice as long and at a fraction of the price.

P.S. With only 61% of the pixel count of the iPad, the Kindle suffers from the small amount of text that fits on its tiny screen. Coupled with page turning that New York Times columnist David Pogue described as "a bizarre, black-white-black flashing sequence," it is annoying to anyone who reads faster than the typical six year old.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Not surprising, really!
by fmaxwell on Sun 31st Jul 2011 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not surprising, really!"
fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

Sorry for the formatting, but OSnews hosed the nested quotes. They looked fine in the preview, and, in fact, I adjusted the line spacing to make everything neat and readable. But after submission, it italicized nested quotes rather than showing them as quotes.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Not surprising, really!
by Alfman on Sun 31st Jul 2011 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not surprising, really!"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

fmaxwell,

Clearly an ereader isn't for you, that's fine. But there's no sense in denying the strengths it has over other tablets including the ipad.

If apple sold an e-ink tablet, chances are you would immediately change your tune just because apple was behind it. I'm getting really tired of this kind of behavior, where people are overly proud of their favorite companies and fail to think objectively, though I suppose it is human nature.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Not surprising, really!
by Laurence on Sun 31st Jul 2011 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not surprising, really!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"Lead to understand" by whom? Please cite your sources for that claim.

You mean like how you cited your sources? lol

Unlike you, I do not sleep alone.

No need to get catty. I have a girlfriend ans she likes to dress up. We share a bed and occasionally have sex too.

I'll assume you wanted to know all these details seeming as you brought up my personal life. ;)


I don't want to keep my significant other awake if I decide to read in bed for another half an hour or so after she's ready to drift off.

Surely the back light on an iPad is just as bad as having a bedside light on in that respect?!

I can't speak for your "significant other", but my girlfriend can't sleep if I'm playing on my phone and that chucks out half the light that a tablet would.

Of course you can put on a "bed-side lamp" to read. It's not like you're going to keep anyone else awake. You know what's "ideal for your sort of problem"? Single serving frozen dinners.

Lay off the oestrogen will you; I'm trying to have a mature discussion here.

Reading magazines is rare? Do you stop and gawk when you see someone reading Popular Photography, Smithsonian, Rolling Stone, Car and Driver, Boating, Motorcyclist, or Wired? The National Directory of Magazines lists over twenty thousand different magazine titles just in the U.S. and Canada. There are far more magazines sold than books.

There is this little thing called "context".
As far as I know, (and I'm open to being proved wrong if you can provide hard statistical evidence), magazines are seldom bought and read on eBook-like devices compared to novels.
These devices are built and sold to people who are heavy readers. It might be quite a specific niche, but it's still a huge market. eMagazine sales, in comparison to eBook sales, are significantly lower.

You are claiming that it's rare for people to read non-fiction books with color photos, drawings, graphs, and charts?

No, I said it's rare for people to read technical manuals (which you specified) in comparison to novels.
Again, please don't drop the context to just win an argument as you'll ultimately just make this whole discussion pointless.

Normal people are living life; they are enjoying travel, sports, and hobbies, and reading about those things in full-color, glossy (like the screen of an iPad) magazines and richly illustrated books. That's partly why 29 million iPads have been sold while only 1.5 million Kindles have been sold -- despite the Kindle being sold for twice as long and at a fraction of the price.

Most people who bought an iPad didn't buy it because they were specifically just after an eBook reader. Again, you're failing to compare like for like.

If you wanted something that could read magazines AND surf the internet, then yes a tablet such as the iPad is a better purchase. However if you JUST want to read books then it isn't.


I appreciate your specific usage means you happen to prefer the iPad. That's fine. We all have a preference in these things. However don't think that just because you prefer LCD to eInk that everyone else should or would. And, most importantly, don't lower discussions to personal jabs as you just undermine your whole credibility - as a wise man once said: if you can't reason with logic then you have no reason to begin with. ;)

Reply Score: 2

And how would Amazon treat Apple?
by Sabon on Tue 26th Jul 2011 23:10 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

And how would Amazon treat Apple? Do you really think that Amazon would let Apple create a bookstore on their Kindle with links back to Apple so that Amazon got zero profit on books bought through an iBook for Amazon store?

If you think they would, I have ocean front property in Iowa that I'd love to sell you.

What about Google? Would they start letting Apple place ads on Google pages that Apple gets paid for but not Google?

If you do, I'll sell you more of the waterfront land in Iowa.

Edited 2011-07-26 23:14 UTC

Reply Score: 5

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

What about Google? Would they start letting Apple place ads on Google pages that Apple gets paid for but not Google?


Well, I don't believe Google places the same kind of restrictions on their app store that Apple does, in that they don't demand that all apps MUST have purchases done inside the app so that Google gets a cut. So yeah, in this case, Apple is the more 'evil' of the two.

The author of this piece is right... the ones that suffer the most from this is iOS users, which is really dumb, when you consider that app developers are just removing purchasing options altogether (as opposed to paying the Apple tax), so it's not like Apple is going to accomplish anything out of this, except pissing off its customers.

Edited 2011-07-26 23:29 UTC

Reply Score: 11

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ezylstra,

"And where would these users be without Apple and their products. Do you remember the world before iPhone? There would not be an Android without iPhone."

Nonsense!

Would you say "there would be no personal computers without microsoft"?

The personal computing revolution was the result of a combination of things: increasing purchasing power of the consumer, discovery of new CPU fabrication techniques, dropping electronics prices, good education, long term investment, etc. Microsoft was a product of it's environment more than the other way around. As much as MS enjoys having been there to take the credit, the personal computing revolution would have arrived whether or not they were on board.


In the same sense, apple products are a product of today's environment as well. Don't forget that apple's first tablets 1.5 decades ago were a total flop.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad apple's here to the extent that more competition is better. But as controversial as it may seem to some, the tech world doesn't rotate around apple. All else being equal, had apple gone under in the dot com bubble, there's absolutely no reason to think that others would be unable to bring tablet computers to the masses today.

With apple out of the picture, former apple fanatics would need some other entity to latch onto. Conceivably that could be google.

Reply Score: 5

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


And where would these users be without Apple and their products. Do you remember the world before iPhone? There would not be an Android without iPhone.


Apple was just the first to take use of the new hardware that was coming commercially available at the time (touch screens, mobile gpus, faster cpus). Without Apple, someone else would have been first.

As it stands, it looks like Apple invented everything, but in reality they have very little stake in designing the hardware that runs it all. Kudos to Apple for making it a nice software package, but they hardly deserve all the credit.

Reply Score: 6

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

What Apple did do, is anticipate that these products could be made for X amount of dollars before any other company even looked at it.

It almost looks like Apple already had their products ready before they could be produced.

That is why it feels (or felt like) the rest is playing catch up.

Reply Score: 2

fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

The pioneer in this field was Palm. Think of those first Palms - a home screen with rows of icons, touch screens, gestures to write. Apple merely polished things, which they are very good at. The innovation award goes to Palm. Everyone is still copying them. It is a shame what happened to the company. The lost their way around version 5.0 of the OS. My last Palm, the Centro, was a wonderful device. Sony was the real pioneer in bringing multimedia capabilities to PalmOS devices. Their line of Clie devices caused everyone to rethink the PDA. How quickly people forget.

ps - I think Handspring also brought innvovation in terms of storage cards and the Visor phone.

Edited 2011-07-27 20:17 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Vinegar Joe Member since:
2006-08-16

And where would these users be without Apple and their products.


They'd have a life?

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I think you confuse "sense of reason" with "in my opinion".

Reply Score: 6

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

It's very telling that every comment BUT yours has high moderation despite the fact that your link is the only one that offers a sense of reason. I gave you a point. Enjoy it while you can.

Are you reading the same comment as everyone else?

His comment not only lacked any links, but his arguments are also very easily disproved (not that he even made any concrete arguments; it was mostly speculation)

Reply Score: 3

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Except Amazon doesn't have a device as robust and app-friendly as the iOS devices (yet; I know they are rumored to have an Android tablet on the way). We can't pass judgement on them until we see what they do.

As for Google...as others have pointed out, they do indeed allow such things as in-app purchases via third party payment processors, in-app account management, and in-app links and ads by the app publisher. Anyone with an Android device can attest to that. Not only that, you don't even have to use Google's Android Market app store if you don't want to. Amazon's app store works great and has an amazing selection (and free paid apps daily), and there are other app stores too. With iOS, short of jailbreaking you are locked in to Apple's store and the limitations that come with it.

I've always been a big fan of Apple's OSes (and their hardware to a lesser extent) but their business practices have always rubbed me the wrong way. This is becoming ridiculous. I know what you might say, that it's their App Store and they have a right to do what they want with it, including heavy-handed restrictions. And you would be right; as they are not a monopoly they can get away with a few anti-competitive things for now. And with the strong and growing presence of Android, I doubt iOS will ever be the dominant mobile platform. In the end, this will only hurt the consumers first, and Apple second.

Edited 2011-07-27 01:10 UTC

Reply Score: 8

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I would rather Amazon concentrate on the Kindle which is pretty ACE ... Going to buy one as soon as I can afford one.

Reply Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I bought a Kindle for my girlfriend a few months ago, and as an e-book reader they are very nice. In fact, I'd say they are the one to beat in the standalone reader market, and they intentionally left out flashy features so there is no distraction from reading your books.

I have a friend with a Nook Color, and while he did buy it with the intention of using it as a cheap Android tablet, I couldn't imagine using it for its original intent. All the notifications and the poor battery life (compared to the Kindle) would be too much of a distraction from reading. I know this because I try to use my Android phone as an e-book reader and it happens to me. I just can't stay focused on the content.

I'm waiting for the new Kindles to come out so I can get one of the current generation for $99 (if that rumor pans out anyway).

Reply Score: 2

MattPie Member since:
2006-04-18

I bought a Kindle for my girlfriend a few months ago, and as an e-book reader they are very nice. In fact, I'd say they are the one to beat in the standalone reader market, and they intentionally left out flashy features so there is no distraction from reading your books.

I have a friend with a Nook Color, and while he did buy it with the intention of using it as a cheap Android tablet, I couldn't imagine using it for its original intent. All the notifications and the poor battery life (compared to the Kindle) would be too much of a distraction from reading. I know this because I try to use my Android phone as an e-book reader and it happens to me. I just can't stay focused on the content.


That's kind of an apples (NPI) and oranges comparison. Take a look at Nook Touch (Nook 2) vs. kindle and the nook comes out pretty well. Which is why I have one.

Reply Score: 1

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Hmmm. Looking at B&N's Nook comparison page, it seems there are really no advantages over the Kindle apart from memory expansion and battery life, and a few shortcomings (no 3G internet, no audio books, no landscape support). Given the comparable price, I think it comes down to personal preference rather than "one is better than the other".

As a pure reading device, I maintain that the Kindle (and the Nook Touch for that matter) are far better than any "do everything" tablet like the Nook Color or any other Android based phones/tablets. You get a Kindle or other e-ink unit to read, not to play games or browse the web or check your email.

Anyway, I got her what she wanted, not what I wanted her to have. If she had wanted a Nook Touch she would have gotten one.

Reply Score: 3

senshikaze Member since:
2011-03-08

And, really, that is the important thing, am I right?

:)

Reply Score: 1

smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

And how would Amazon treat Apple? Do you really think that Amazon would let Apple create a bookstore on their Kindle with links back to Apple so that Amazon got zero profit on books bought through an iBook for Amazon store?

If you think they would, I have ocean front property in Iowa that I'd love to sell you.

What about Google? Would they start letting Apple place ads on Google pages that Apple gets paid for but not Google?

If you do, I'll sell you more of the waterfront land in Iowa.

Way to try and create a straw man argument there. The fact is these same apps are available on Android, so we know exactly how Google would react in the same situation. It's quite different than the path Apple chose.

Reply Score: 9

Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

WAIT...

So it is like this:
Step 1:
Software, Apple gets 30%.

Step 2:
Media content, Apple gets 30% (currently under implementation).

And you are actually ok with this, because someone else might do the same.....

Reply Score: 4

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

And how would Amazon treat Apple? Do you really think that Amazon would let Apple create a bookstore on their Kindle with links back to Apple so that Amazon got zero profit on books bought through an iBook for Amazon store?

AFAIK you're not locked into Amazons book store on the Kindle. Thus you could download from Apples online portals and equally have links in books that reference back to Apple.

What about Google? Would they start letting Apple place ads on Google pages that Apple gets paid for but not Google?

Why not. It's been proven time and time again that Google Market is very loosely (too loosely in fact) moderated.

Furthermore, you're not locked into Google's Market on Android. In fact Amazon (for example) already have their own Android repository.

If you think they would, I have ocean front property in Iowa that I'd love to sell you.

If you do, I'll sell you more of the waterfront land in Iowa.

Given you've been wrong on both counts, can I assume that you're also wrong about having a property for sale :p

Reply Score: 3

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

And how would Amazon treat Apple? Do you really think that Amazon would let Apple create a bookstore on their Kindle with links back to Apple so that Amazon got zero profit on books bought through an iBook for Amazon store?


Durr, last I checked the Kindle's an ebook reader & not a general-purpose tablet or smartphone that runs 3rd party apps.

Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but Amazon will happily sell you an iPad and they don't seem to care that they don't get a cut of any "iBook" sales that happen as a result.

What about Google?


What about them? I doubt they'd give two shits if Apple decided to release a fullblown Android version of the iTunes store... or hell, a version OF Android with the iTunes store integrated into it. A far cry from the "waaaah, it's our sandbox and we're going to tweak the rules endlessly so we get our way" BS that Apple loves.

Would they start letting Apple place ads on Google pages that Apple gets paid for but not Google?


Probably not... too bad that isn't at all analogous to Apple's actions here. Clearly you started that paragraph to make a comparison with Android, then realized how badly Apple would look in that comparison, and posted some non-sequitur BS about ads instead.

If you do, I'll sell you more of the waterfront land in Iowa.


Oh, hyuck, hyuck, hyuck. Don't quit your day job, Chuckles.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by moondevil
by moondevil on Wed 27th Jul 2011 05:33 UTC
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

It only goes to show how dark the computing age would be if Apple would be in charge.

I like their products. MacOS X (NextStep actually) is a very nice operating system.

But if I look at how Apple behaves, I am glad it doesn't own that much products in the IT world.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 27th Jul 2011 06:20 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Apple is paranoid and twisted.

Reply Score: 4

nothing to do with lodsys?
by broken_symlink on Wed 27th Jul 2011 06:21 UTC
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe this has something to do with Lodsys?

Reply Score: 1

v This is SO hard
by wocowboy on Wed 27th Jul 2011 07:00 UTC
RE: This is SO hard
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 27th Jul 2011 17:17 UTC in reply to "This is SO hard"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Wow, as an iPhone user I am so frustrated. This is SOOO hard. I have to use a web browser (Safari, Firefox, iCab/whatever I have installed on my iPhone) to buy a book on the Kindle/Nook/whatever website, and then when I launch my Kindle/Nook/whatever application that book is magically there so I can read it. Wow! That was so hard to do! I feel so hobbled and my apps are so crippled that they just almost do not function at all any more.

The iPhone is going DOWN because of this, I just know it.


Sweet merciful crap, get some new material already. If you're going to rely so heavily on obviously fallacious arguments, at least try for some variety instead of ALWAYS resorting to reductio ad absurdum & hand-waving melodrama.

Good grief, people, when I woke up this morning the planet was still turning, despite this horrible thing happening. Amazing.


So the only problems that matter are those that literally impede the planet's rotation? Congrats, you've just preemptively invalidated nearly every complaint you could ever possibly make... about anything.

(See? Two can play at the "ridiculously stupid exaggerations" game.)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: This is SO hard
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Jul 2011 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE: This is SO hard"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

TBH, he was just pointing out the work around was soo fucking easy that Thom had blown it out of proportion ...

Yay ... anyone who makes anti apple comments gets voted up for shit like "Apple is twisted" ... however someone does a little sarcasm and makes light of it and they get down modded to hell.

Group think ...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: This is SO hard
by Morgan on Thu 28th Jul 2011 11:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is SO hard"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

TBH, he was just pointing out the work around was soo fucking easy that Thom had blown it out of proportion ...


Except it's not exactly easy compared to the method on Android (and Blackberry/WP7/webOS for some apps). For example: On my Android device I have the Kindle reading app. From within the app, I can browse for books, buy books, and download them. I never have to leave the app, and as soon as the book is purchased and synced (usually just a few seconds on either "4G" or WiFi) I can start reading.

On the iPhone/iPod touch I have to open Safari, go to Amazon (and log in if not already), resize the page to suit my screen, find a link for the Kindle store, resize the page again, search, resize, read a summary about the book (possibly dragging the screen around to accomplish this), zoom out to find the purchase button, tap it, tell it to sync to my iDevice, go back to the Springboard and open the Kindle app. This frustrating process is probably less laborious on the iPad due to the screen size. But it's still a hassle compared to just buying through the reader app, which (on other devices) already has an integrated store perfectly adjusted for the screen, and no need to switch apps.

And I'm not making that process up. I did exactly that on an iPod touch and it was annoying as hell. It's much easier to just use iBooks since it works the same way Kindle reader does on Android devices. Do you see now why this might be a big deal for a lot of folks, especially those who are not technically inclined (the target iDevice market)? To them, "Kindle on iPhone is hard, I'll just use iBooks" which automatically makes Apple money and possibly turns a person off of Kindle altogether. Smart, but shitty tactics if you ask me.

Yay ... anyone who makes anti apple comments gets voted up for shit like "Apple is twisted" ... however someone does a little sarcasm and makes light of it and they get down modded to hell.


It truly depends on the article at hand. I've seen on more than one occasion those of us who like Apple products (raising my hand here) get modded down for expressing that sentiment. Thom himself gets accused of being an Apple fanboy in nearly every thread that the company is mentioned, but I think he is a jaded former fan if anything.

Group think ...


Because a lot of us don't agree with you this week? That's life; one day there will be a discussion here that goes along exactly with your way of thinking, and you will get all butthurt because one person doesn't think the way everyone else, including you, does. It goes both ways, my friend.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: This is SO hard
by lucas_maximus on Thu 28th Jul 2011 13:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This is SO hard"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Because a lot of us don't agree with you this week? That's life; one day there will be a discussion here that goes along exactly with your way of thinking, and you will get all butthurt because one person doesn't think the way everyone else, including you, does. It goes both ways, my friend.


I am not butt hurt ... I was commenting this place has a problem with group think ... that is my opinion and as you have pointed out, not everyone will agree with me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: This is SO hard
by BallmerKnowsBest on Thu 28th Jul 2011 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is SO hard"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

TBH, he was just pointing out the work around was soo fucking easy that Thom had blown it out of proportion ...


And good thing that Apple fanboys aren't known for harping on about minor usability differences, otherwise the comment would have been hypocritical to boot.

Yay ... anyone who makes anti apple comments gets voted up for shit like "Apple is twisted" ... however someone does a little sarcasm and makes light of it and they get down modded to hell.


Or maybe it got modded down because it was an obvious cop-out by a well-known fanboy, trying to ridicule & dismiss a criticism of Apple (rather than actually address it). And given how fond iFanboys are of that tactic, it could practically be a dictionary definition.

Group think ...


Yes, it certainly is... the delusions/fantasies of persecution that iFanboys are prone to, that is.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: This is SO hard
by lucas_maximus on Thu 28th Jul 2011 13:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This is SO hard"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18
RE[5]: This is SO hard
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 29th Jul 2011 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This is SO hard"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02



I'm sorry, is there something about that comment that we're supposed to find objectionable...?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: This is SO hard
by lucas_maximus on Fri 29th Jul 2011 07:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: This is SO hard"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Yeah, it totally non-constructive ... not remotely amusing ... and that is okay ... however someone with what is a fairly well written bit of sarcasm to make a point ... gets voted down ...

Edited 2011-07-29 07:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: This is SO hard
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 29th Jul 2011 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: This is SO hard"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Yeah, it totally non-constructive ... not remotely amusing ... and that is okay ...


All of which apply equally (if not more so) to this comment:

http://www.osnews.com/thread?482309

And yet it's modded up to +9, go figure.

So delusions of persecution propped up by confirmation bias, then.

however someone with what is a fairly well written bit of sarcasm to make a point ... gets voted down ...


Only if you define "well written bit of sarcasm" as paint-by-numbers Strawman arguments combined with lazy, obvious attempts to dodge the point.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: This is SO hard
by Lennie on Wed 27th Jul 2011 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE: This is SO hard"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Actually, Apple doesn't allow Firefox, iCab/whatever on their phone.

Just Firefox Home, which uses Safari and just gets your bookmarks from 'the cloud' where your Firefox stored it with Firefox Sync and Opera Mini which uses Opera's proxy-servers to generated interactive-images of webpages.

There is only one browser on iPhone and iPad, that is Safari (AFAIK, I don't own such a device so I didn't check. This is just want I read/know about).

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: This is SO hard
by _txf_ on Thu 28th Jul 2011 00:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is SO hard"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

There is only one browser on iPhone and iPad, that is Safari (AFAIK, I don't own such a device so I didn't check. This is just want I read/know about).


Actually I think Opera mini uses the presto engine ( they did have a massive campaign daring apple to block them).

Another browser is Skyfire (whose claim to fame is being Opera mini but with flash).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: This is SO hard
by daveak on Thu 28th Jul 2011 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is SO hard"
daveak Member since:
2008-12-29
HTML5?
by Carewolf on Wed 27th Jul 2011 08:55 UTC
Carewolf
Member since:
2005-09-08

There is no such thing as a HTML5 compatible device. Not iOS, not anything else. HTML5 is not finished, and no browser is even close to implementing even half of it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: HTML5?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 27th Jul 2011 09:01 UTC in reply to "HTML5?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There is no such thing as a HTML5 compatible device. Not iOS, not anything else. HTML5 is not finished, and no browser is even close to implementing even half of it.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2268/2255581637_a59a956bfe.jpg

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: HTML5?
by thavith_osn on Wed 27th Jul 2011 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE: HTML5?"
thavith_osn Member since:
2005-07-11

Thom, your best comment yet :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: HTML5?
by righard on Wed 27th Jul 2011 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: HTML5?"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

...I don't get it :$

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: HTML5?
by Morgan on Thu 28th Jul 2011 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: HTML5?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Really? It's a blade splitting a hair. "Splitting hairs" is an expression that is quite common here in the States (and apparently in Thom's corner too). It's another way of saying someone is being pedantic, or that they are arguing incessantly about a minor detail while ignoring the bigger picture. In other words, they don't have a real argument but still want to argue.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: HTML5?
by Carewolf on Wed 27th Jul 2011 15:49 UTC in reply to "RE: HTML5?"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Sure.. okay, but the word HTML5 is still annoyingly overused. I predict a lot of confusion from the misuse of the concept.

Reply Score: 2

Shameful
by Drunkula on Wed 27th Jul 2011 12:57 UTC
Drunkula
Member since:
2009-09-03

It really is a shame. I love my iPod Nano. The only sticking point so far is that I am [more or less] saddled to iTunes. The way Apple has been behaving lately I'm seriously going to have to reconsider buying any of their products. I've already boycotted Sony. I guess adding Apple to the mix won't hurt me too much.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Shameful
by ezylstra on Wed 27th Jul 2011 16:52 UTC in reply to "Shameful"
ezylstra Member since:
2010-07-16

You are not required to buy your music on iTunes to load it onto your iPod.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Shameful
by Drunkula on Wed 27th Jul 2011 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Shameful"
Drunkula Member since:
2009-09-03

You are not required to buy your music on iTunes to load it onto your iPod.

I'm well aware of that.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Shameful
by marcus0263 on Thu 28th Jul 2011 04:49 UTC in reply to "Shameful"
marcus0263 Member since:
2007-06-02

My two bits for what it's worth, I've been a long time fan of Cowon. Much better quality than Apple, my last from them is the iAudio J3. Major perk with Cowon is it'll play everything from mp3 to FLAC/OGG.

Reply Score: 2

Apple
by Dr-ROX on Wed 27th Jul 2011 13:36 UTC
Dr-ROX
Member since:
2006-01-03

Feel the competition power! ;)

Reply Score: 1

Amazon forces publishers to cripple prices
by ccraig13 on Wed 27th Jul 2011 14:39 UTC
ccraig13
Member since:
2011-05-31

I know it's popular to hate Apple now a days, because they're making headlines ( I certainly don't agree with what they're doing here, though it is their choice and If I don't like it I can go elsewhere ). I don't even remember the last time I felt the need to hate M$, since they barely do anything anymore ( Besides their Android "Licensing" nonsense ). However, when it comes to eBook publishing Apple is the publishing industry's hero. Do any of you actually know what how Amazon treats us? "Apple takes 30% of everything we sell!". Boy do I feel sorry for you. Oh wait, I don't. That's because Amazon takes 70% of all books priced over $9.99, which most of ours are. Let's do math. If I sell a book for $9.99 then i get $7, that's fine. However, if I sell a book for $10.99 I get $3.30! Obviously, I would never sell at $10.99. So when does it change? Well I'd have to sell a book for a little over $23 to get the same royalty as I would for selling the same book for $9.99. Luckily, we have a choice and can sell the books that need to cost over $9.99 on iTunes and those that don't will be sold on both.

PS. If you're one of those people who think that eBooks should cost almost nothing because there's no printing ( wow a whole dollar ), shipping or storage then you should go talk to that guy selling property in Iowa. Too many people think eBooks must have no costs associated with project managers, artists, copy editors, proof readers, indexers, typesetters, and author royalties.

Reply Score: 1

nirishdave Member since:
2008-09-03

If you're one of those people who think that eBooks should cost almost nothing because there's no printing ( wow a whole dollar ), shipping or storage then you should go talk to that guy selling property in Iowa. Too many people think eBooks must have no costs associated with project managers, artists, copy editors, proof readers, indexers, typesetters, and author royalties.


I have no objection to paying a fair price for an ebook. I do object with being charged the price of a hardback for an ebook. Yes there are project managers, artists, copy editors, proof readers, indexers, typesetters, and author royalties. The discount should come from the lack of printing costs, distrubition costs and so on... You cant just claim you are due the same figure for an ebook becuse the costs are not the same. (I am not saying the costs are zero as that would be stupid)

Reply Score: 2

ccraig13 Member since:
2011-05-31

I agree and we always sell our eBooks for less than the cost of our print editions.

Reply Score: 1

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

The last time I got a book ?

I just download the ebook 'illegally' (which it isn't in my country) and donate my money directly with a PayPal button to the author on his site.

It was cheaper for me.

And the author got more money from me (the publisher didn't, sorry O'Reilly !)

Edited 2011-07-27 22:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v False argument
by ezylstra on Wed 27th Jul 2011 16:50 UTC
v I have an Apple fetish
by Vinegar Joe on Wed 27th Jul 2011 20:39 UTC
Comment by OldTimeyJunk
by OldTimeyJunk on Wed 27th Jul 2011 22:10 UTC
OldTimeyJunk
Member since:
2010-04-29

If I was a developer of mobile applications, I would never choose Apple.
You have to pay a overpriced charge to actually get your damn app on the store before Apple complains to you about it not being suitable.
I can remember when I made an RSS Reader for iOS, spent all that time to find out I had to pay some money. WTF Apple?
These companies spend all this money developing apps for Apple for Apple to turn them down, I don't understand how these companies havne't quit.

Reply Score: 1

Thanks Apple...
by phoudoin on Thu 28th Jul 2011 00:02 UTC
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

... for helping Android platform to offer a better user experience by reducing your own platform's one.
Seriously.

1) First, they will ignore you.
2) Then, they will laugh at you.
3) Then, they will fight you.
4) And then, you win.

Apple, step 3 already. Care to give a look at next one?

Edited 2011-07-28 00:06 UTC

Reply Score: 4