Apple Event - Live Blogging/Streaming Coverage

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And you make a bunch of points, but...if you're right, why did they go to the expense of making their own deliberately incompatible DRM scheme? They have plenty of scope for stopping other readers, by simply rejecting them from the appstore. Again, they did it to Google without blinking.

What expense? They already had FairPlay for their iTunes Music store so I'm sure it was very easy to apply this same encryption scheme to book files.

Even though DVD Jon cracked Fairplay years ago.

BOb

[DawnFalcon]

Um, no. While it may have the same name, the way "Fairplay" on MP3's works won't simply translate directly to a XHTML wrapper. And if you think the big books would approve a new DRM scheme which was already broken? Dreaming...they'll put up with ADEPT being broken because it's an existing standard...it'll be a new DRM scheme.

[kilron]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Again, this is mobileread.com. Not ereader.com. We have subforums for PDAs and Smartphones which aren't ereaders specifically, but rather are devices which do a bunch of stuff but also can display e-books.

sorry.. i've not been to ereader.com. you're trying to differentiate between an ereader and the definition of "mobileread"? aren't we splitting hairs here??

ok... as a general consumer, if i had to guess, i'd say "mobileread" is implying being able to read things (implying books most likely) on any kind of mobile device (that includes laptops, phones, smartphones, ebook readers, etc.).

an eBook reader is a device that has a display for eBooks and an interface dedicated for reading eBooks. by that definition, i'd say an eBook reader is not only a dedicated, single purpose device, but also multi-purpose devices that easily translate to eBook readers like large-screen smartphones and tablet pc's.

i fully expect others to have differing opinions, but i'm sure we'll be splitting hairs and ultimately, i think the point is somewhat moot. its not a question of what you or I believe to be correct, its a matter of general public perception. and i guarantee you that the general public will see the iPad as a multi-purpose device and one of those purposes will definitely be as an eBook reader. case closed.

Dedicated readers need to be judged solely on their capabilities as an e-reader as that's all they do.

uhh... sure. how would we judge them otherwise?

Smartphones, PDAs, Tablets etc. need to be judged on all their capabilities. We should discuss what the reading experience is like on them. But people shouldn't bash them for shorter battery life, screens not as easy on the eyes etc.--at least not to the same standards you would something like the Jetbook (an LCD dedicated reader).

And that's because really no one with their head on straight is going to buy a tablet primarily to use as a reader, and will be aware that they're making tradeoffs on the reading front to get the net access, HD video, games, Apps etc. So know one EXPECTS it to be as good for reading straight text as a dedicated reader, because they're NOT buying it to be a device they mainly use for reading in most cases.

no one with their head on straight would by an iPad to use as an eReader? can you explain why exactly? you make such a big statement but don't back it up with any reasoning. also tell me why such a device would have such tradeoffs? you say that as though its common knowledge in some way, but i'm contending that the average joe would look at a kindle and iPad and see no advantages to the kindle other than batter life and that its slightly smaller and lighter (though smaller screen too), and then look at the iPad and see many many more advantages beyond being a great eBook reader.

a single device will never be perfect for everyone. someone who is a TRULY hardcore reader will probably have very very specific needs in an eBook reader and thus the majority of eBook readers won't be good enough. but something like the kindle and the nook and the iPad are marketed and were built with the average person in mind that likes to read, NOT the super hardcore reader. these are companies that want to make money and lots of it, thus they have to market and design towards the biggest audience possible. my contention simply becomes, the average person will look at both devices and see so many pluses in something like the iPad, most (not all) other eBook readers will seem dated in comparison.

discounting a multi-function device as an eBook reader simply because its a multi-function device is like saying that smartphones are bad phones and bad PDA's simply because they have the capability to do both.

i hear some people on here (who haven't seen an iPad in person yet), automatically discount it as an eReader because it doesn't have an e-Ink display. so my question is this... if Amazon or Barnes & Noble or Sony could produce high quality, color, backlit LCD displays with the same battery life and cost of an e-ink display, don't you think they would have that in all of their eReader devices instead of the eInk display?

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Um, no. While it may have the same name, the way "Fairplay" on MP3's works won't simply translate directly to a XHTML wrapper.

Sigh... encryption is encryption. The implementation might change a bit... but it would not be a HUGE EXPENSE which was my main point. Compared to the $8000 per year that they would have to pay to license the Adobe Mobile SDK (a figure RoberB at Astak has mentioned several times in these fora.)

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And if you think the big books would approve a new DRM scheme which was already broken? Dreaming...they'll put up with ADEPT being broken because it's an existing standard...it'll be a new DRM scheme.

Well gee... they sell books protected under Mobipocket, eReader, Adobe, MS Reader DRM and ALL of those are knowingly "broken".

BOb

[kilron]

Originally Posted by CCDMan

Actually, they said "The iPad will run almost all of the apps designed for the iPhone.". What they may have meant was all the apps EXCEPT Kindle.

I just can't see them selling books and then allowing Kindle books to also run.

that's complete BS. there is NO WAY that happens. can you buy music on amazon and play it in iTunes? of course you can!! and apple allows this??!!

apple would run into anti-trust issues most likely if they didn't. trust me, you're just piling on conspiracy theories if you think apple is going to take their already approved Amazon Kindle app and yank it from the app store. its simply not going to happen.

personally, i think it will be a big selling point for apple for people looking at the kindle vs. the iPad. the iPad can display books from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, within the popular app Stanza and the big new iBooks bookstore in iTunes. how about the Kindle? only amazon. which gives you better choice there?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Compared to the $8000 per year....

Good joke. That's penny change. You're looking at five times that for a single engineer writing your own DRM, let alone the additional support costs you're taking on.

And no, encryption is not "encryption". Some DRM products are wrappers which can go round anything, yes, but that tends to be slower and more CPU intensive to process than more narrowly defined, smarter solutions.

Well gee... they sell books protected under Mobipocket, eReader, Adobe, MS Reader DRM and ALL of those are knowingly "broken".

They were not broken when they started selling them, though, were they? This makes a difference. Look at the differences in K4PC encryption to Kindle encryption for an example of what they'll do to avoid that scenario.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by kilron

no one with their head on straight would by an iPad to use as an eReader? can you explain why exactly? you make such a big statement but don't back it up with any reasoning. also tell me why such a device would have such tradeoffs?

I meant to refer to people on sites like this, not people in general.

The majority of people on here are wed to e-ink, and won't buy something like this to use mainly as an e-reader.

And for the avid readers, there will be tradeoffs in eye strain, ability to read in sunlight, battery life etc. Just the nature of the screen tech, added power needed for the other functions, vs. a dedicated reader with an e-ink screen.

discounting a multi-function device as an eBook reader simply because its a multi-function device is like saying that smartphones are bad phones and bad PDA's simply because they have the capability to do both.

Agree 100%. My post asking for a tablet subforum etc. was railing against this--as was my point about the name of the site.

Any thing that can display e-books is valid to be discussed here. And I get tired of hearing the same tired bashing from the e-ink lovers--which is why I didn't post here for a few weeks before the iPad announcement yesterday. It's just the same crap, from the same old bookworms over and over who can't see that others have different needs and reading habits than them.

i hear some people on here (who haven't seen an iPad in person yet), automatically discount it as an eReader because it doesn't have an e-Ink display. so my question is this... if Amazon or Barnes & Noble or Sony could produce high quality, color, backlit LCD displays with the same battery life and cost of an e-ink display, don't you think they would have that in all of their eReader devices instead of the eInk display?

I think that's part of the worry of the e-ink lovers. They fear that as time goes on stuff like this will kill off e-ink displays and they'll have nothing they can read e-books on for hours and hours with minimal eye strain anymore. So I think that fear builds up some of the resentment towards tablets and multifunction devices--vs. them just ignoring such devices and focusing on the devices that suit their needs.

I think the fear is misplaced, and as as long as there's a niche of people who want e-ink, some company will put out an e-ink model to make money off than niche. Even is Amazon for instance, puts out some LCD model, not reason they can't keep selling an e-ink model that does less for cheaper to tap into that portion of the market that wants e-ink.

So I think the fear should die down and people should quit being so gung ho in going around bashing the hell out of every multi function table that's discussed with "if it glows it blows" and the same tired arguments about eyestrain, battery life etc.

Those aren't major concerns for everyone, and if they are for you, then you're free to stick to e-ink devices and shouldn't be wasting so much time and effort going around posting negatively about tablets as they do fit other peoples needs.

[CyGuy]

I bet every person reading and commenting in this very thread are doing so on a computer. I have yet to hear anyone complain about how difficult it is to read this thread, or that it is hurting their eyes. Computer screens are legitimate as readers!

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by akira28

I don't think Apple will do this for a few reasons:

• I haven't read of Apple disallowing apps that compete with theirs if Apple introduces its app after the fact.
• Apple would alienate users who have already purchased Kindle or B&N books
• Disallowing established apps by major corporations like Amazon could draw addition focus by the FCC

All good points.

There's another dimension to the question, though - will the other booksellers allow their apps to be used on the iPad?

The obvious question is the Kindle. The iPad is a direct competitor with the DX. The price points are the same. Putting the Kindle app on the iPad turns the iPad into a DX. So...does Amazon maximize its profits by selling books for the iPad, or by restricting books to the iPhone?

As for Apple, I think that it will allow the other reading apps, with or without DRM, onto the iPad. It might not sell books, but it sells iPads. Once you have an iPad, the iBook store is going to be in your face as the all around easiest way to buy an ebook.

I've been thinking about how beautifully Apple has positioned the iPad to grab off portions of a number of other products' business. The iPad presents a challenge to netbooks, larger ereaders, gaming platforms, and portable movie players. The pricing structure lops off the top of the reader & gaming platforms, and the bottom of the netbook & movie platforms.

The business strategy seems to be to absorb the functions of all those other platforms, and to me, that means that they are not so much selling content themselves, as cannibalizing the other platforms' content - including pbook content.

So my bet is that Apple will allow ebook apps onto the iPad, because that furthers the objective of capturing content, and selling iPads.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I bet every person reading and commenting in this very thread are doing so on a computer. I have yet to hear anyone complain about how difficult it is to read this thread, or that it is hurting their eyes. Computer screens are legitimate as readers!

Yep. I think that for most people, eyestrain on computer screens is a function of whether the brightness &c are properly adjusted. I know, for example, that Readibility makes my Macbook screen very comfortable.

It's just that computers themselves have a bad form factor for any kind of extended reading.

[kilron]

Originally Posted by charleski

Apple could have worked with Adobe to cross-licence the technology and integrate FairPlay's book DRM just as B&N did with their variant. This would have allowed the iPad to work with books using current schemes at the very least, while using FP for new books bought from Apple's store. It wouldn't have given Adobe control over Apple's store, and it would have benefited the consumer.

But no, Apple wants it all. To quote Apple COO Tim Cook, "We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products we make." Their megalomanic obsession with vertical integration will merely harm the market they claim to be promoting.

it's called quality control. "megalomanic"? hardly. and how exactly are they harming the industry? why on earth would apple pay adobe to license something they can very well do themselves? its smart business which the typical end-user will never care about. and that's somehow a universal bad thing? bear in mind that some folks who read these forums may be "typical" end users, but many may not. i don't think big businesses like apple and amazon care about the extreme users. they care about making something simple and easy to use and approachable for the masses. that's their bread and butter.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

The majority of people on here are wed to e-ink, and won't buy something like this to use mainly as an e-reader.

And for the avid readers, there will be tradeoffs in eye strain, ability to read in sunlight, battery life etc. Just the nature of the screen tech, added power needed for the other functions, vs. a dedicated reader with an e-ink screen.

Eye strain is caused by visually concentrating on one thing or one distance for too long. There is no basis to the claim that LCD displays cause eye strain. However, as with any light source, if it is set too bright it can cause discomfort. Heck, just the act of reading can cause eye strain. But low contrast screens (as in e-ink) can be a source of eye stain.

[scottjl]

apple had minimal investment in adapting their already working DRM to protect ebooks. the benefit for them was huge (maintain control) and the are not tied to another companies technology. if you look at the history of apple they do not license out others technology. do you even know where the itunes application came from? i'm an original purchases of soundjam. which apple bought up and made into the application you use today. no. apple would never license adept from adobe and pay them royalties for years to come, nor anyone else and their DRM scheme. and why should they? it makes no business sense to apple.

also, as many have pointed out, users of this forum are focused on the ebook capabilities of the device. that is just one segment compared to everything else apple wants people to do with this device. music from itunes. movies from itunes. television shows form itunes. applications and games from itunes. apple is going to make far more money off of those segments than just ebooks. so they put in minimal investment, wrap it up in their own DRM, and get a bunch of publishers on-board. would we have cared much if sony came out and said "yes our latest artists play fine on the ipad" or dreamworks said "you can watch our latest movies on the ipad"? no. yawn. nothing new to see here. apple did have to show off ebooks because it's new for apple, and to show they've got yet another media segment to start peddling to the masses. (personally i think the itunes store is in desperate need of a rebrand. movies? applications? books? and it's still called iTunes? huh?) apple had to show off ebooks because to not show a tablet device and not show off books would have made people wonder why apple was missing a natural segment.

this device is a media player and apple wants to push media in any format it can so it can make money off of all of it. plain and simple.

[kilron]

Originally Posted by Harmon

It's just that computers themselves have a bad form factor for any kind of extended reading.

bingo!

[kjk]

Originally Posted by scottjl

(personally i think the itunes store is in desperate need of a rebrand. movies? applications? books? and it's still called iTunes? huh?)

ahahah, totally agree.