Publishers dont drive change in the ebook industry: Shatzkin on Apple's move

[kjk]

Originally Posted by khalleron

You have the option of purchasing other tablets, too.

That doesn't answer the question - why would it be bad for MS to charge 30% of all Internet sales, but it's not bad for Apple to charge 30% of the same sales for doing absolutely nothing?

Why are the rules different for Steve Jobs? Why is he special?

Try to separate the corporation (Apple) from their CEO. It isn't personal. The rules aren't different for one person in particular.

Why make it a personal attack?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DMB

I don't have an iPad and in fact haven't had an Apple computer since about 1993, so can someone please put me right if I've got it wrong, because I'd quite like to get a tablet some time in the next 12 months and was vaguely thinking of an iPad.

Here's what I think it would give me. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

1. It's a nice platform for a huge variety of apps, mostly the work of third parties.
2. Basically, it works like a laptop without a lid but with some bells and whistles.
3. I can use it to browse wherever I please on the web without extra charge from Apple.
4. I can, if I feel so inclined, use the browser to go to an Amazon website, download Kindle for Mac (or some such) and buy ebooks for Kindle, all without extra payment to Apple.

If that is correct, I don't think I'd be too worried about iBooks, unless Apple also bombards iPad owners with lots of publicity about iThis and iThat.

1- Yes
2- No, it is not as flexible or powerful as a laptop. Think of it more as a PDA on steroids. It is very good for games and great for media but substandard for productivity apps.
3- Yes, no charges from Apple; no on surfing everywhere as the iPad doesn't support Flash-based sites.
4- Yes, you can. It is the only way to buy ebooks, aside from Apple's iBook app.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by khalleron

That doesn't answer the question - why would it be bad for MS to charge 30% of all Internet sales, but it's not bad for Apple to charge 30% of the same sales for doing absolutely nothing?

Because Apple does not have the MONOPOLY that MS has.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by DMB

....Here's what I think it would give me. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

1. -
2. Basically, it works like a laptop without a lid but with some bells and whistles.
3. I can use it to browse wherever I please on the web without extra charge from Apple.
4. -

If that is correct, I don't think I'd be too worried about iBooks, unless Apple also bombards iPad owners with lots of publicity about iThis and iThat.

- No, it isn't even remotely as flexible and capable as a laptop. I cannot understand how people can claim this for the iPad.
With the iPad you have to get all applications through Apple's app store and Apple may refuse apps as they consider fit. This is like having to get all software from a proprietary Microsoft store with MS reserving the right to approve or reject any software as they see fit.
You also cannot simply add/swap data via USB or an SD card. Everything has to go through Apple's proprietary interface. I personally wouldn't even consider buying a device that cannot exchange data by copying it from one drive to the other. Obviously Apple can't allow an SD card slot because how would they manage to milk their customers for additional memory if these customers could simply expens it with a 40 EUR fast 32 GB SD card?

- Yes, you may surf wherever you like but you can't use Flash or any other format that Steve may decide to ban because of some vendetta in the future.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Because Apple does not have the MONOPOLY that MS has.

MS does not have a monopoly, but Apple's actions are certainly monopolistic. Imagine the hue and cry if you could only buy software from MS to run on a PC.

Originally Posted by kjk

Try to separate the corporation (Apple) from their CEO. It isn't personal. The rules aren't different for one person in particular.

Why make it a personal attack?

Because Jobs IS Apple - so much so that the company went to great lengths to hid Jobs's cancer from its own stockholders. He's the face of Apple in ways Bill Gates is not for MS. Do you really believe the company makes any policy that Jobs does not sign off on?

But my question isn't why Jobs would do this - it's why so many people here think it's A-OK for Apple to do something they'd be screaming about if Microsoft did it.

So far, the answer seems to be 'because they're not Microsoft' which makes no sense.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

- No, it isn't even remotely as flexible and capable as a laptop. I cannot understand how people can claim this for the iPad.
With the iPad you have to get all applications through Apple's app store and Apple may refuse apps as they consider fit. This is like having to get all software from a proprietary Microsoft store with MS reserving the right to approve or reject any software as they see fit.
You also cannot simply add/swap data via USB or an SD card. Everything has to go through Apple's proprietary interface. I personally wouldn't even consider buying a device that cannot exchange data by copying it from one drive to the other. Obviously Apple can't allow an SD card slot because how would they manage to milk their customers for additional memory if these customers could simply expens it with a 40 EUR fast 32 GB SD card?

- Yes, you may surf wherever you like but you can't use Flash or any other format that Steve may decide to ban because of some vendetta in the future.

Funny, my friend has no trouble with using SDHC cards and USB memory sticks... simply add interface to card or USB connector... and as for Flash, well I've got an Android tablet and a smartphone and try to disable Flash or use a mobile site version whenever possible as the Flash content is usually someone being clever at the expense of wasting my time...

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

- No, it isn't even remotely as flexible and capable as a laptop. I cannot understand how people can claim this for the iPad.

Laptops have multiple uses, and for some people an iPad does indeed fill their needs as a replacement.

With the iPad you have to get all applications through Apple's app store and Apple may refuse apps as they consider fit.

99.9989% of all submitted apps make it onto the store. And no one gets viruses or malware from them. That is the unmentioned upside.

You also cannot simply add/swap data via USB or an SD card.

Not true. I do this with my iPod Touch quite often.

you may surf wherever you like but you can't use Flash

http://www.skyfire.com/en/product/iphone

[kjk]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

- No, it isn't even remotely as flexible and capable as a laptop. I cannot understand how people can claim this for the iPad.

Actually, what you mean is, you cannot understand how people can claim this for the iPad for how you use a laptop.

My wife used her laptop for email, browsing, eBay, and Facebook. Now she uses her iPhone and iPad for all of those things. For her, the iOS devices are exactly as flexible and capable as a laptop, plus even more portable and with better battery life.

I cannot understand how people can claim there is only one way to use their devices-their way.

(And FWIW, I still use my laptop for a few things-like manage my iTunes library, sync my iPad and iPhone, etc. But I haven't traveled with my laptop since getting an iPad.)

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by khalleron

MS does not have a monopoly

The courts ruled differently...and in different countries at that.

Originally Posted by khalleron

Because Jobs IS Apple - so much so that the company went to great lengths to hid Jobs's cancer from its own stockholders.

What is Steve Ballmers most recent blood pressure reading, and can someone please tell me what Zuckerbergs blood sugar level is?

[kjk]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Do you really believe the company makes any policy that Jobs does not sign off on?

Do you believe that Facebook, Amazon, and Google make any policy that their CEO's don't sign off on?

But my question isn't why Jobs would do this - it's why so many people here think it's A-OK for Apple to do something they'd be screaming about if Microsoft did it.

So far, the answer seems to be 'because they're not Microsoft' which makes no sense

Lol! There are many people here who don't think it's A-OK for Apple to do what they are doing, and haven't been shy about saying so.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by kjk

I cannot understand how people can claim there is only one way to use their devices-their way.

And they do it while sneering at Apple users who they say can only do it one way -- Jobs way.

Hilarious.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by kjk

Lol! There are many people here who don't think it's A-OK for Apple to do what they are doing, and haven't been shy about saying so.

Even uber-Apple fan and pundit John Gruber said:

This is the result of Apple putting its own interests ahead of those of its users. It’s certainly not drastic (as it would be if Amazon had pulled the app from the store entirely), but in no way can it be argued that this is an improvement for users.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by khalleron

But my question isn't why Jobs would do this - it's why so many people here think it's A-OK for Apple to do something they'd be screaming about if Microsoft did it.

Microsoft do do it, on their closed-platform XBox 360 devices. They only run code approved by Microsoft, for which Microsoft takes a cut. Ditto Sony with the PlayStation 3 and PSP, and Nintendo with the Wii and various DS devices.
With those devices this is considered completely normal.
The question is whether you view the iPad model as more like that, or more like a PC model?

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This is just wrong. *Of course* there is a business case for Apple to not charge for e-books bought through Amazon and others. The business case is that it makes the iPad better and brings in more customers. This was Apple's policy until recently, and it seemed to work fine. It's also the policy of Android tablets. And it's also how computers, including macs, work.

Indeed, while they make profits from apps and other content their main profits are from the actual hardware sales and by making it less convenient for people to use an ios device for reading they will make it a less appealing purchase for people in the future.

Personally, I can't ever remember buying any books via my ipad as it is much more of a secondary device for me when it comes to reading, but even taking that into account I would still be dubious about getting another ipad since who is to say that they won't use this as just a first step with the next one being to block other reading apps, it might seem unlikely now, but most thought that about the previous situation too.

[DMB]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

- No, it isn't even remotely as flexible and capable as a laptop. I cannot understand how people can claim this for the iPad.
With the iPad you have to get all applications through Apple's app store and Apple may refuse apps as they consider fit. This is like having to get all software from a proprietary Microsoft store with MS reserving the right to approve or reject any software as they see fit.
You also cannot simply add/swap data via USB or an SD card. Everything has to go through Apple's proprietary interface. I personally wouldn't even consider buying a device that cannot exchange data by copying it from one drive to the other. Obviously Apple can't allow an SD card slot because how would they manage to milk their customers for additional memory if these customers could simply expens it with a 40 EUR fast 32 GB SD card?

- Yes, you may surf wherever you like but you can't use Flash or any other format that Steve may decide to ban because of some vendetta in the future.

Does this mean that if, say, I wanted to install MS Office on my hypothetical iPad, I would have to buy it from the Apple store?