Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
If it was the free market at work, the app would have failed in the marketplace because people refused to use it. This situation quite different. The revenue generating component of the app was disabled because a vocal group of people decided that they did not like what they saw.
|
The app is failing in the marketplace. A number of people discovered the app, and wrote/talked about it. They stated their opinions about whether or not this app was a good thing.
As a consequence of those discussions, a number of publishers have decided not to supply content to the distributor of the app. This is the marketplace in action.
The makers of the app are still free to distribute that app.
However, it's entirely possible that the publicity will inform a lot of people who want this kind of app and they will then buy the app. In which case the marketplace will also be working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
I don't see much of difference between that and removing books from libraries. In both cases you have a group of self-righteous people who claim that they know what's good for everyone trying to restrict access to a product. In both cases those people are attempting to ensure that other people do not have the right to make their own decision.
|
The difference is that with the app, no one is denying the ability to distribute that app. Anyone who wants to get the app and use it, can.
Currently the app doesn't work with DRMed content, which will greatly limit its usability. However, the makers of the app can get a licence from Adobe and include DRM into their app. The fact that Adobe's licencing costs are great enough to effectively prevent this from happening says two things: Adobe (and therefore the marketplace) is charging too much for this functionality, and the makers of the app don't sufficiently believe in their app to take the risk and spend the money to get the DRM module.
Regardless of how you look at this, if the app fails, it is because the makers/distributors of the app are unable to deal with the marketplace. Or have insufficient belief in their product to ensure it survives in the marketplace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
The right to make their own decision, are the key words here. In this case, the users of Clean Reader had to make all of the decisions: they decided to obtain this software, they decided to use it, and (judging from the screenshots on Google Play) they determined the amount of filtering while reading.
|
And the still do.
The copyright holders of the content have also exercised their rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
If you don't like it, fine. You don't have to use it. I don't use it because I don't think it's a terribly good idea. Yet that does not give me the right to prevent other people from using it. I wouldn't want to prevent other people from using it anyhow, because I understand that there are uses for the software.
|
No one is preventing anyone from using the app.
Anyone can download the app and use it.
If the current distributors of the app make a commercial decision to not carry that app, the makers of the app can put it into the Google app shop (if it already isn't there), or the Amazon app shop, or any number of places that will distribute their app.