|
The main point what Apple reps on these forums are not able to recognize (for ovious reasons) is that when you buy content then you buy content. Content is the product. Not content on a platform not the purchase of the content but content itself in its pure disembodied form. All platforms are just tools for accessing the content. And of course most of us expect the content to be accessible on all platforms we have.
Most times we have more than one platform used to access content and in many cases more than 3. Which means that we access content from 4-5 platforms, always from the one which is at hand when we feel like enjoying the content. In many cases we access the very same content (the same book, the same film etc) from all our platforms. The same goes to buying content. It is extremely irrelevant on which of our platforms we actually buy the content because we will access it from all of our platforms. Once again: the product is the content. Any one platform from the many we have is not worth mentioning in itself for it is just replacable tool because we have a lot of other ones.
Also there is a very clear indicator whether a company has anything to do with a content transaction. If the transaction (e.g. selling an e-book or magazine) is covered by a contract between the company in question and the publisher of the content then yes, the company is entitled for money (and most probably it is the retailer). In the case of Apple it is very clear that selling Amazon and B&N books are covered by contracts between Amazon and publishers and B&N and publishers. So it is also clear that Apple adds nothing to the story and is not entitled for anything. Because Apple is not selling the content which is - again - is the product. And once again we pay for the product in a transaction not for something else.
|