[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

The Sony app isn't the issue, IMO. That brings up a side argument and company baggage that isn't central to my concerns as an iDevice buyer.

Why I will no longer buy Apple devices now:

There's no immediate effect on my access to books even with Apple now enforcing the requirement for app developers to offer buying both inside and outside an app. But I wonder what happens the next time a business dispute crops up between a content provider and Apple. If Apple later decides it wants 31 percent and X company says no, what happens to my access to that company's books? Such possible ripple effects are endless, though my risk is uncertain. But as a consumer, there's no reason I have to risk my access to books over loyalty to Apple. I'm not loyal as a consumer. I look out for myself, so I'll buy another platform.

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Sure, I hear you. Each consumer will have his own priorities. One of my priorities is having all my mobile devices on one platform. I'm lazy that way.

Maggie: I so agree with you here. It is all about letting me use MY content. And while Apple has sold some 15M iPads to date I wonder how much people will warm to them from the far larger Windows based user base if the case indeed one where Apple feels they can police how people use the device they pay for with their hard earned cash. Heck in some parts of the planet the cost of the lowest priced iPad is more than a month worth of wages. So to those people the repercussions of this policy swing is even greater in the long term.

I even question how they can enforce such a policy anyway. One I am not certain it is legal to do unless Apple tries to claim the iPad is a carry around version of the set-top cable or satellite box. And even then since Apple has not been enforcing this policy it could well be that voids the clauses associated with it to begin with. So users who purchased under the original agreement could have a potential case? I dunno, legal stuff always is a rats nest but I have learned over the years one thing about contracts, especially very restrictive contracts which weigh heavily in the favor of the stronger party, such contracts are rarely enforceable and even illegal in some states. I know Apple has a large set of buildings full of liars, errrr, lawyers so the wording is likely as complex as possible to ensure no concrete interpretation.

I am doubly disappointed since for the first time, after playing around with a Touch 4th gen for a couple weeks, I was seriously considering an iPad as my tablet device solution even if I was forced to use iTunes to manage it, assuming I did not jailbreak it but I really do not want to add that layer of fiddling to any device I buy for increased productivity.

BTW, I also agree with you, I want my devices to match OS wise as much as possible. And barring that I want them to be at minimum data compatible with the ability to share data and intercommunicate without any significant barriers. It's one of the reasons I have balked at the iPad to begin with, the whole connectivity issue. Requiring users to use a hardwired connection for even very limited access to my own files or to use some kludgey 3rd party deal like Dropbox to "share data" is not, in my definition very inoperable or acceptable. It's why I am waiting to see the iPad 2.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

At the next meeting I will ask that a prayer be said for the backsliders!

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Lol. Maybe there will be demand for an AA group. Appleholics Anonymous.

Of course the meeting hall needs to be right across the street from the Applestolic Temple, errrr, they Apple Store.

Originally Posted by HistoryWes

What concerns me is that this could spread to other Apple products. They have a Mac App Store now. What if they don't allow access to content bought outside the Mac App store within Mac Apps. There are plenty of other ways to get software for the Mac... now. But as users rely more and more on the app store and as Apple updates their system software, will this continue?

Years ago, at least to the best of my memory, Apple had a lock down on the early Mac OS machines. I seem to remember that Apple had a similar policy about programs written for the Macs of the first decade or so. If it wasn't written with Apple's tools then they threatened users they would void their warranty just by trying to install the application.

But my own memory about this has faded over the years. But I do remember there was something along those lines in place. So this whole thing is not 100% new to The Apple Way.

I wonder if a lot of the return to this behavior can be linked to the ups and downs of Jobs' health. Poor health, especially the sort he is dealing with, can really affect a person's cognitive ability and make a person prone to manipulation by those trusted inner-circle sorts. Or it can cause a person to become quite bitter and angry in which case this could be a case of Jobs sort of acting out to vent on the people he has always loathed, his customers. Of course this decision could simply be from the "new guard" which is not running the show with Jobs on medical leave.

Still, I can see some bean counter getting wood just thinking about trying to enforce the ability to charge sellers of products and services for the ability to let users decide what programs they want to install and what content can be used on the devices those users were under the impression they actually bought. If the situation is really as we out here have inferred from the Apple agreements and news releases, then Apple is really moving to hardware as a subscription and computers "sold" as if they are no different than a cable box. It could be why Jobs was very careful to avoid calling the iPad a computer, instead he seemed to always refer to it as a content consumption device. Playing words games like this would seem very intended to deceive the end user who has been conditioned to understand the hardware, once paid for, is theirs to use as they see fit.