Overreaction to Apple iBook Author

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I am the last person on earth you would call an Apple supporter, but in this case they did nothing wrong. Obviously it would not be good for the general public if this was widely adopted, but we can't blame Apple for trying...

Wait so they did something that you say would not be good if it succeeded, and yet, we must not blame them for doing it? That's like saying, this robber is incompetent, let him keep trying to rob things, he wont succeed anyway and in the meantime we cant really blame him for wanting to get rich.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by elcreative

IT'S a FREE tool, it takes away nothing that previously existed, it adds another option to the way product is made... IT'S FREE and people do nothing but moan about something they don't have to have/use or even acknowledge... It really is true, you can never satisfy some people...

It's a free tool, which if widely adopted will fragment the ebook space and prevent interoperability, and yet, just because it is free (which incidentally is a tactic to promote its wider adoption), we are not allowed to criticise it?

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

It's a free tool, which if widely adopted will fragment the ebook space and prevent interoperability, and yet, just because it is free (which incidentally is a tactic to promote its wider adoption), we are not allowed to criticise it?

It has NOT taken anything away that previously existed... it has provided a FREE tool to produce content for their iOS system... it doesn't stop you repurposing your content with other tools for other systems... bad people...

Fragment the eBook space... it could hardly be more fragmented but it's "hate Apple" time again...

I give up... prejudice rules again...

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by elcreative

I
Fragment the eBook space... it could hardly be more fragmented but it's "hate Apple" time again...

Ah so you would say the world is already so polluted, lets just keep polluting it some more.

I give up... prejudice rules again...

Glad to hear you give up. Hopefully, more apple apologists will follow in your footsteps.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Wait so they did something that you say would not be good if it succeeded, and yet, we must not blame them for doing it? That's like saying, this robber is incompetent, let him keep trying to rob things, he wont succeed anyway and in the meantime we cant really blame him for wanting to get rich.

Apple is responsible to their shareholders and customers only. Closed systems are not good for society as a whole but good for the companies that successfully run them. It is just business, can't blame the hawk for trying to kill the chicken.

You are right to make people aware of the pitfalls of using this software, but blaming Apple makes no sense.

[kovidgoyal]

I dont care whom a corportation is responsible to. When they do something that is bad, I will call them on it. Corporations dont posses a get out of jail free card, just because they are corporations.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Ah so you would say the world is already so polluted, lets just keep polluting it some more.



Glad to hear you give up. Hopefully, more apple apologists will follow in your footsteps.

Now I won't give up as you obviously ignored the point about prejudice to resort to attacks... I object to personal attacks just because I point out the illogicalities of your Apple hatred... because I disagree with you, you then call me an "Apple apologist." Maybe you should look at the list of some of the hardware I use but like most "Apple haters," you don't believe in letting the facts get in the way of the insults... Just because someone defends something that doesn't make them an "apologist," quite often it makes them someone who is trying to be objective and deal with facts rather than blind knee jerk reactions...

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by elcreative

I object to personal attacks

Let's see, I said:

It's a free tool, which if widely adopted will fragment the ebook space and prevent interoperability, and yet, just because it is free (which incidentally is a tactic to promote its wider adoption), we are not allowed to criticise it?

To which you said:

I give up... prejudice rules again...

And you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of making personal attacks.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Apple is responsible to their shareholders and customers only. Closed systems are not good for society as a whole but good for the companies that successfully run them. It is just business, can't blame the hawk for trying to kill the chicken.

You are right to make people aware of the pitfalls of using this software, but blaming Apple makes no sense.

Well, there goes the concept of corporate responsibility. Companies shouldn't complain when the state comes down on them to curb their Standard Oil behaviour with that sort of attitude. Unfortunately there always is someone who will justify even the most predatory business practice. I guess that they would even find some sort of excuse if there were some hidden clause in the terms that in exchange for using the software you have to work for free as a cotton picker.
Providing software for free isn't something so particularly special. There is excellent software available that doesn't come with any onerous clauses attached to them, e.g. Calibre, Sigil, Irfanview, the Open Office Suite etc.
Apart from that "Apple ibook author" isn't "free". It is exceedingly expensive for anyone who creates successful products with it.

What we are currently seeing is the war on electronic devices as powerful tools in the hands of their users. Corporations want them to be dumbed down as mere devices to consume commercial media while the content providers are being shackled into "ecosystems". Together with Amazon Apple is at the forefront of this development and deserves whatever criticism is being directed at it.

BTW, whining about people who criticize one of the world's richest corporations as "bashers" and "haters" is just pathetic.

[rdfry]

The criticism that Apple gets is well deserved, they have proven that they will do anything to get rid of competition. Steve Jobs created this attitude with his need to have control over Apple's products even after they have been sold.

Originally Posted by elcreative

I object to personal attacks just because I point out the illogicalities of your Apple hatred...

Most of these "Apple haters" have pointed out time and time again that they disagree with Apple's policies. Many of those people also disagree with other entities that pursue the same tactics.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Let's see, I said: "It's a free tool, which if widely adopted will fragment the ebook space and prevent interoperability, and yet, just because it is free (which incidentally is a tactic to promote its wider adoption), we are not allowed to criticise it?"
...and I replied "Fragment the eBook space... it could hardly be more fragmented but it's "hate Apple" time again... '

before the comment below

To which you said: "I give up... prejudice rules again..."



And you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of making personal attacks.

Actually that was not personal in the slightest, it was aimed at all those who criticise any group or individual because of their own blinkered viewpoints... but if you want to take the criticism as personally accurate...

It would also clarify things if you didn't mix'n'match and cross quote from several postings...

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by elcreative

but if you want to take the criticism as personally accurate...

Still continuing with the personal attacks. Why am I not surprised. You are now on my ignore list, so you will get no more responses from me. Talking to you is an utter waste of time.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

I dont care whom a corportation is responsible to. When they do something that is bad, I will call them on it. Corporations dont posses a get out of jail free card, just because they are corporations.

How about a "welcome to reality" card that so desperately needs to be handed out around here.

Reality: innovation and standardization are both good for society and yet are typically opposing forces

Reality: What companies do to make money is not always in the best interest of the customer....and yet....it's in the best interest of the consumer for companies to be trying to earn their money.

We would not be better off if the iPad didn't exist. We would not be better off if these new interactive text books do not come into existence.

If Apple is successful in creating this market then iPads will sell even more...which isn't bad for anybody...because at least they EXIST.

People have been trying to get education computerized since the dawn of computers. It's a tough nut to crack. Lots of pieces all have to come into play, and basically haven't up until this point.

If Apple has finally go the product (iPad), the major content producers (text book companies, and content creation software that will bring text book creation to a MUCH larger audience....and can get schools to buy in....then that's a great societal good.

That Apple hasn't spent all this time, money and effort to launch this business...and then said to it's competitors...here the keys you need to jump in and take the market away from us without having had to innovate yourself....is NORMAL. Here's your reality-check card.

Yes, you can complain....but it doesn't mean your complaints have merit.

Just take your wonderful Calibre product and reverse engineer the new Apple iBook format so that folks can swap back and forth as they do between epub and mobi now.

Lee

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by leebase

How about a "welcome to reality" card that so desperately needs to be handed out around here.

Here's some reality for you:

Supporting epub 3 while "innovating" is absolutely not mutually exclusive, for Apple or anyone else. I have described, in detail, how it is not mutually exclusive here:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=112

Apple absolutely did not choose to not use epub 3 because they needed to "innovate". To claim that they did, is naive at best, disingenuous at worst.

To summarize: Apple could have implemented their interactive textbooks as a subset of epub 3, or in a fashiion that was supportive of epub 3, without sacrificing anything.

Reality: What companies do to make money is not always in the best interest of the customer....and yet....it's in the best interest of the consumer for companies to be trying to earn their money.

I'll ignore the fact that that is a sweeping generalisation that is impossible to prove and just provide an alternate sweeping generalisation, without an equal lack of proof:

"It's never in the best interests of the consumer if companies focus only on making as much profit as they can, to the exclusion of everything else. That's why we have governments and regulations."

That Apple hasn't spent all this time, money and effort to launch this business...and then said to it's competitors...here the keys you need to jump in and take the market away from us without having had to innovate yourself....is NORMAL. Here's your reality-check card.

If they think that obfuscating their format is actually going to prevent another company from competing with them, they are even stupider than I thought. You seem to realize that when you say:

Just take your wonderful Calibre product and reverse engineer the new Apple iBook format so that folks can swap back and forth as they do between epub and mobi now.

Now there's some actual reality for you.