View Single Post
Old 01-15-2011, 10:27 AM   #27
snipenekkid
Banned
snipenekkid can understand the language of future parallel dimensionssnipenekkid can understand the language of future parallel dimensionssnipenekkid can understand the language of future parallel dimensionssnipenekkid can understand the language of future parallel dimensionssnipenekkid can understand the language of future parallel dimensionssnipenekkid can understand the language of future parallel dimensionssnipenekkid can understand the language of future parallel dimensionssnipenekkid can understand the language of future parallel dimensionssnipenekkid can understand the language of future parallel dimensionssnipenekkid can understand the language of future parallel dimensionssnipenekkid can understand the language of future parallel dimensions
 
Posts: 760
Karma: 51034
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoversAU View Post
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news...114-19q3i.html

I just don't see how Amazon can hold the line on this. There must come a time, and soon, when they provide Epub capability on Kindles.
the real problem is ADE devices require exclusivity for DRM content. But the original argument could be flipped into "why don't other reader device makers work with Amazon to get Amazon's reader software on their devices?" Of course the same roadblock applies to Amazon as well, they require no other DRM content reader(s) embedded in the device, I assume, firmware. Or am I thinking those were just the MOBI requirements after Amazon's acquisition of Mobipocket?

No matter this entire tying of a device to a given store and format is going to eventually lose out. And why? Because tablets all but eliminate the matter as B&N, Amazon and who knows who else all have reader software for about any OS platform which works around the whole exclusivity inanity.

So maybe the question is, which online store will move first and release a TABLET device rather than a dedicated reader. This is what Apple did and why? Because it makes sense and ironically is one of the few times Apple ever did not limit their users from accessing content to the point of inducing compromise for the end user.
snipenekkid is offline   Reply With Quote