Opinions about Apple's announcement today?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by elcreative

There are textbooks and other books already out which are interactive and made as apps (see Alice), now anyone can do it more easily for iOS with a FREE tool...

My point was that the free tool is meant for people who haven't made book apps before and aren't used to Apple's business model.

[John F]

Originally Posted by heySkippy

...

So... Opinions? I'd love to hear what people who have actually created ebooks have to say.

I am a little surprised that Apple isn't going with a standard. Couldn't HTML5 be used for these interactive books (and wasn't HTML5 what Apple said content creators should be using)?

[Edit] And I'm not an author.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Why does everybody act like this is a new concept... there have been plenty of software tools that are free for personal use but need to be paid for if used commercially... same difference...

1) How much does one have to pay Apple to sell one's iBooks elsewhere?
2) How much does one have to pay Microsoft to sell .lit books through a store not run by Microsoft?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by John F

I am a little surprised that Apple isn't going with a standard. Couldn't HTML5 be used for these interactive books (and wasn't HTML5 what Apple said content creators should be using)?

This format is based on HTML5, as is ePub3, as is KF8.
One difference is how to handle things that can't be done with HTML5. ePub3 has chosen javascript for that, Apple have chosen their own solution.

[heySkippy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

With these books it is Apple store or free distribution. That is less restrictive than with iOS apps.

I'm not sure that's true. I believe I can create an iOS app and sell it outside the Apple app store without running afoul of the dev kit TOS.

Of course, it's crazy hard to distribute outside the app store since you're restricted to people who have jailbroken their device or people who can connect their device directly to a computer running the dev kit, but it's possible.

After thinking about it a few days, I believe Apple will eventually back down on this requirement for iBooks Author. It doesn't matter much to me personally, but I would like to see that happen.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by heySkippy

I'm not sure that's true. I believe I can create an iOS app and sell it outside the Apple app store without running afoul of the dev kit TOS.

Only 100 copies, I believe.

[speakingtohe]

If I was a student who wanted an iPad and had no iPad, a school that recommended or provided an iPad would be more attractive as it would either provide me with one or give me a reason to ask my parents to get me one. Trivial it might seem, but big marketing strategy.

I am more concerned about the misuse of IOS devices and other phones or tablets in the schools and workplaces. Too easy to facebook or Twitter your day away, ignoring what you should be doing already.

Helen

Originally Posted by elcreative

Why does everybody act like this is a new concept... there have been plenty of software tools that are free for personal use but need to be paid for if used commercially... same difference...

Big difference. Apple is saying that you can use their tool for commercial use if and only if you use them as the vendor. Even though this is not an entirely new concept, it is not an entirely accepted concept either. As others have pointed out: it is like Microsoft telling you that you can only sell your Word document through their store. It is like Adobe saying that you can only publish your Photoshop documents through their store. And so on.

And, for what it's worth, a lot of software is cheaper for commercial use than it is for personal use (through things called site licenses). Simply put, most businesses would not tolerate what most consumers embrace.

[wannabee]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

. . . . . As others have pointed out: it is like Microsoft telling you that you can only sell your Word document through their store. It is like Adobe saying that you can only publish your Photoshop documents through their store. And so on.. . . . . .

It's nothing of the sort. Since when has Microsoft and Adobe been giving away their software for free.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by wannabee

It's nothing of the sort. Since when has Microsoft and Adobe been giving away their software for free.

If you work in the right industry, they do precisely that in order to grow their brand. I got a nearly-free copy of Office 2007 and a free copy of Photoshop Elements through my Day Job.

[wannabee]

Here's how much bang you get for no bucks.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by wannabee

Here's how much bang you get for no bucks.

Pretty nice!

Lee

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by wannabee

Here's how much bang you get for no bucks.

It's like powerpoint.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Big difference. Apple is saying that you can use their tool for commercial use if and only if you use them as the vendor. Even though this is not an entirely new concept, it is not an entirely accepted concept either. As others have pointed out: it is like Microsoft telling you that you can only sell your Word document through their store. It is like Adobe saying that you can only publish your Photoshop documents through their store. And so on.

It is like Microsoft saying that games developed for the XBox 360 can only be sold with their approval and giving them a cut, or Sony saying that for the PS3, or Nintendo saying that for the Wii and DS.
All of which are true.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

It is like Microsoft saying that games developed for the XBox 360 can only be sold with their approval and giving them a cut, or Sony saying that for the PS3, or Nintendo saying that for the Wii and DS.
All of which are true.

The analogy would be true if you change "can only be sold with their approval and giving them a cut" with "can only be sold by MS/Sony". Which is false.