Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonist
Nope. A few million users "broad compatibility" do not make.
Plus, yeah, the apps on the iPhone would have to be cheap, because most users would not pay any significant amount to read a paper or a magazine on a 3" screen. I don't think publishers have the same thing in mind for the iPad.
If they wanted compatibility, they should have gone Air.
|
You may be right about cost on the iPad. That remains to be seen.
I don't see what "Air" has to do with it. Not that you're wrong, I just don't get the significance.
What is broad compatibility? Major eBook marketers (publishers) now limit their compatibility to their device. What is the "broad compatibility" to the printed version of the NYT or WSJ or any other print publication? There is always going to be selective compatibility for every source. This is capitalism and the motive for profit.
A book publisher can make a version for Kindle and another for Sony. If that publisher develops an app for the iPad that provides another version of "compatibility." All of these eBook readers and "pads" will not survive and the ones that do will not necessarily be the "best" reader. It will be the one with the most market saleability or put bluntly, the most pizzaz.