Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
And think about it this way: why should we have e-readers with a browser? You need extra hardware to access the internet, the battery runs out faster, the device is heavier and more expensive and all for people who need assistance if they would have to download a book on their PC and then transfer it to the reader.
|
The answer to this is: So that the book sellers who currently subsidize the cost of eReaders (Amazon, B+N, Kobo, Sony) can make money from your in-device purchases at their store.
I have an "exempt" Kobo, and while it does have a legally defined browser, unless I hack the configuration files if the device, that browser only goes to one place: Kobo's store. Any bookstore app must, by limitation of the current technology, fall under the legal definition of "browser".
This word has different definitions based on the context of use. You and I don't necessarily call the Kindle app on our Android phone a browser because, for one, it doesn't have an address bar. Well, that isn't the definition in all circumstances. Some situations consider any program that accesses other servers and displays the resulting data visually (what that Kindle app does) as a browser, with no mention whatsoever of destination freedom of choice.
I also think you are getting caught up in the tautology of the term eReader. People will surely develop color eInk (and perhaps faster refresh rates, microphones, and speakers though those are very heavy battery drains) and the resultant device won't be allowed to be legally defined as an eReader. So bloody what? Call it a kerfuffle for all you want, so long as I can buy it.
eReader companies haven't forced themselves to produce just eReaders, they stray all the time. Kobo Vox, Nook Color, Kindle Fire, etc. Their marketing terminology has little to do with the legal status of those devices.