iPad What will iPad do for e-books?

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by RedHeadPeter

(Time we took steps to stop all those from outside the UK accessing for free stuff I have paid for. )

Already been done (thus the market for VPNs that make Auntie Beeb think one is in the UK).

[Yoshi 1080]

Originally Posted by emellaich

Sorry that I'm responding late to this, but I don't have the same opinion that you do Calvin-c. Apple was in the game before Microsoft and the IBM PC and the reason that apple lost was the same reason that (I hope -- no bias here - grin) they will lose the current market.

The beginning of the computer industry is absolutely not comparable with today's situation.

Apple has always had more polished products because of their tight control of their products. But, as much as people like to bash Microsoft about its closed system, MS's openness is what won it the market. You could buy any hardware from any manufacturer and run windows. There were many more app's available on Windows machines.

That was not the reason for Microsoft to take over the PC market. Microsoft did not succeed because of so-called ”openness”, but because of clever business strategies. It began when IBM agreed to license Microsoft's not-yet-existent operating system (MS-DOS) instead of buying it, because it wrongly believed that the money was earned with hardware and not with software anyway (there is a very famous quote, don't find it currently). The IBM-PC quickly gained market share through low quality at low prices, not through openness or anything else. It was simply cheaper, partly due to its components and partly due to the competition between PC-clone makers.

The next big hit for Microsoft was to basically give PC manufacturers Windows for free, which led to a market penetration with Windows PCs. Then they abused their monopoly by making adhesion contracts. Again, openness had nothing to do with it. The industry was stupid enough to catch the bait and the costumer didn't really have a chance anyway.

Apple lost market share because it could and would not compete at these low prices.

I'd recommend watching the movie Pirates Of Silicon Valley.

Todays situation is vastly different from then. The main differences are that Microsoft is carefully watched by the EU and other organizations and therefore can't dictate the market anymore as they did in the past; consumers have also (finally) become aware of the often mediocre quality of MS products; and, lastly, Apple products have become much less expensive than they used to be.

Superior ergonomics + good technology + competitive prices = win

This is all speculation, but my prediction is that android will be the long term winner in the field because of its openness. I'm watching the same thing I saw with the Apple/Mac versus IBM-Dos/Windows. Android is cruder, there is fragmentation in the Android market, but there is choice.

That's funny considering that Android has been in the market for some time now and until this day could not gain any significant market share. The future doesn't look any better either, the growth of market share in pretty low. Even the techblog Engadget questions the current situation of Android.

I'm sure it will stay for a long time and will be adopted by several manufacturers (Sony-Ericsson with Rachael being a prominent example), I just don't see it at the top. In the long term I predict the smartphone market to be led by Apple, followed by Palm, and then by Android devices. Google would have to overhaul Android substantially to change this situation. I don't think Windows Mobile can recover from the past years, especially if Microsoft cuts backwards compatibility.

For example, where is the iphone with a keyboard (for my kids)? I believe there will be a Android/Chrome or possibly a Windows7 tablet from (Acer/HTC/HP/Dell/Archos/Toshiba/Samsung/LG/Sony/Hanlin/Netronix/Someone) that is better for me than the single solution from Apple. Although, no doubt, Apple will be near the top.

Apple has never served everyone. They pick out markets they are interested in and ignore the rest. In my opinion that is a better strategy then to flood the stores with ”me-too” products. But obviously because of that, Apple products can't satisfy everyone.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Yoshi 1080

Apple has never served everyone. They pick out markets they are interested in and ignore the rest. In my opinion that is a better strategy then to flood the stores with ”me-too” products. But obviously because of that, Apple products can't satisfy everyone.

Exactly. I think what puzzles/infuriates/irritates people the most about Apple, is their misunderstanding of who Apple designs products for.

Other companies are very concerned about appealing to the widest markets possible, providing any and every possible feature that they think their customers want to use them (Dell's site is a great example).

Apple, at least under Jobs, have always designed the products the way they want to use them.

[tomsem]

Originally Posted by krischik

Indeed a good point - and I expect so as well. Only it does not warrant the word "draconian" as used in the original post.

Of course I hope they go to use ADE. Not because it is cracked but because it already almost standard for everybody ∉ Amazon corporation.

But I read the first posting that this might not be the case .

Martin

Can't Adobe 'just do' an iPad app version of ADE? This would finesse the need to tether to get content on iPad, or somehow twist Apple's arm to make iPad interoperate with the existing ADE application for win/mac, which I can imagine, will never happen.

[Kolenka]

Originally Posted by tomsem

Can't Adobe 'just do' an iPad app version of ADE? This would finesse the need to tether to get content on iPad, or somehow twist Apple's arm to make iPad interoperate with the existing ADE application for win/mac, which I can imagine, will never happen.

Hmm... they should be able to. It'd take some work as right now ADE is built on the Air platform (which I don't think they've ported to the iPhone yet). But if Adobe wants to show Apple how it's done in this space, they've got an SDK to do it with.

Excellent idea though.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by tomsem

Can't Adobe 'just do' an iPad app version of ADE?

Absolutely. Problem is, that's the wrong question. Anybody with the coding skills can write any app they want, within the limits of the device. The question is whether or not Apple will let you install and run it, and the answer to that question we probably won't know for another month or two, depending on how fast developers submit apps to Apple for approval and how long it takes before those application applications are approved or rejected.

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by tomsem

Can't Adobe 'just do' an iPad app version of ADE?

There is already a mobile ADE-based iPhone app. See Get txtr on your iPhone, and txtr has announced an iPad version.

[tomsem]

Originally Posted by BWhite

I intend to purchase an iPad. Once that is in my possession I intend to subscribe to New York Times. The goal is to use the New York Times 'reader' software they have (uses Adobe AIR technology - whatever that is); hopefully that NYT Reader will be up and working for the iPad. The NYT presentation at the Apple Event made use of this Reader software.

FYI: iPad doesn't run Flash, and therefore AIR. The app shown in the NYT is therefore not AIR-based, but just a regular iPhone SDK app that they're working on.

[tomsem]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

There is already a mobile ADE-based iPhone app. See Get txtr on your iPhone, and txtr has announced an iPad version.

Even better!

[tomsem]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Absolutely. Problem is, that's the wrong question. Anybody with the coding skills can write any app they want, within the limits of the device. The question is whether or not Apple will let you install and run it, and the answer to that question we probably won't know for another month or two, depending on how fast developers submit apps to Apple for approval and how long it takes before those application applications are approved or rejected.

The number of apps Apple has rejected is infinitesimal compared to those they have not. Where there are conflicts with 'core functionality', yes, there are barriers. But iBooks is just another iPad app, not core functionality, and they have allowed these things on the iPhone, so I don't see any indication that would change with iPad. But given the opacity of the approval process, I agree that we'll have to wait and see.

[EowynCarter]

Guess what the iPad might bring, is some more peaple e-reading;

Right now, e-reading a still stuff reserved to people reading a lot, some would not pay that much for something you can only read on it.
iPad being a totally differant beast than e-reader will attract different people. Even peaple not reading that much, who, because they've bought an iPad for one of it's other function, will find themselves using it as e-reader, just because they can.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by tomsem

Where there are conflicts with 'core functionality', yes, there are barriers. But iBooks is just another iPad app, not core functionality

Unless you're in charge of app approvals at Apple, that's your opinion. Not to say you're wrong (I hope you're right, in fact), just to say that it's not your call on what is or is not 'core functionality' any more than it is mine.

and they have allowed these things on the iPhone

They never had an iBook app with its own iBookstore either, which may change the picture. It may not, too, but right now we don't know.

In a month or two the txtr app (and the Kobo app, and the Kindle app, and Stanza, and the multitude of other options I haven't mentioned) will, or will not, have been approved. Until we know, I don't think that phrasing opinion as fact is really terribly helpful.

[kovidgoyal]

I propose the title of this thread be changed to:

What will e-books do for the iPad

E-books and e-reading in general are much bigger phenomena than the iPad and they will take over people's reading habits, even if Apple never existed.

IMO, the iPad is in far greater need of a reason for existence, than e-books.

[elpheaba]

I do actually own a Kindle DX. I bought it because I read a lot and I read fast and frankly my thumb could not keep up with my eyes. I also bought if because I have a retinal eye disease and backlight is very hard on my eyes. So, I agree that those of us who have a dedicated ereader to just be able to read aren't going to be the ones interested in the iPad. Even owning a Kindle DX, I do not regret the purchase or wish I waited, in fact, iShrugged.

[fugazied]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

What will e-books do for the iPad

E-books and e-reading in general are much bigger phenomena than the iPad and they will take over people's reading habits, even if Apple never existed.

IMO, the iPad is in far greater need of a reason for existence, than e-books.

Agreed... Kinda. It's a two way street, many people have been looking at e-readers recently and will be thrilled that the iPad can operate as an e-reader so will buy one.

At the same time, others will simply be buying this device for games, comics, internet, video or so they can use it to read color cookbooks. Those people will suddenly have an e-reader device and may begin to purchase e-books.

Beneficial both ways. I am particularly looking forward to how companies like Amazon will respond to a $500 color touch screen tablet with the itunes stores distribution power behind it. Products like the Kindle DX (which I own) are effectively dead in the water to all except the most hardcore readers who either hate apple or hate LED backlit screens.