NYT: Apple Moves to Tighten Control of App Store

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Must be nice. I'm sitting at my computer desk looking out the snowy window.

I hate you right now.

But it won't be nicest home. We are due more snow after we get home and we've already had some today and yesterday. It isn't going to be fun at home.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I blame Sony!

I do feel sorry for you for your misplaced blame. You should know that everything wrong with eBooks is a Apple's fault.

[questionfear]

Originally Posted by taming

Jim Dovey, the Apple Platforms Team Lead at Kobo, has written about this on his Tumblr page: http://quatermain.tumblr.com/post/30...re-vs-the-rest

Earlier he wrote (on Twitter) that the way Kobo does its application (catalog on APP, purchase via the website and Safari) had been suggested to him by Apple. Things change in Apple world, I guess.

Did you read the comments? 0% to Kobo under the in-app purchase method? Is that right?

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But it won't be nicest home. We are due more snow after we get home and we've already had some today and yesterday. It isn't going to be fun at home.

I know the feeling.

[Andrew H.]

/sarcasm.

[rdfry]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If Adobe was supposed to update ADE, and they did not, then how can it be Sony's fault? Also, it is B&N's fault for going with yet another DRM scheme. We didn't need it, but yet we have it. Apple also went with a different DRM for ePub. That I suppose is also Sony's fault?

Because Sony chose not to update their firmware to read the B&N DRM. It is available for both Adobe and Sony to make use of but they have chosen not to.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I am using an iPad sitting on the deck by the pool. Hovering does not work with iOS.

No, it doesn't. I just tried it. In addition, there is no "copy link location" option in the Safari browser on the iPad.

C'mon, Apple!

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Please give us the full non-hidden link. There are some of us that will not click on these hide the link links.

Originally Posted by BuddyBoy

Sure, no problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/te...y/02apple.html

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Thank you!

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I am using an iPad sitting on the deck by the pool. Hovering does not work with iOS.

Well then aren't you screwed. Can't anyone posting a link hide it easily, for example, visit yahoo at:

http://www.yahoo.com

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rdfry

Because Sony chose not to update their firmware to read the B&N DRM. It is available for both Adobe and Sony to make use of but they have chosen not to.

It is in Sony's best interest not to handle B&N's eBooks.

[BuddyBoy]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Sure, I hear you. Each consumer will have his own priorities. One of my priorities is having all my mobile devices on one platform. I'm lazy that way.

That's been the model I've been working towards too. I was also a long-time platform loyal Sony ebook reader guy, and made the deliberate move to Kindle to keep all my books wirelessly in sync on one reading system across platforms.

I have ADHD and am organizationally challenged and was hoping to get away from lugging laptops when I travel. Not to mention the ADD-driven urge to have multiple copies of reading devices "in case one breaks."

If, in the end, I can't use my iPad or iPhone with the kindle app to access my library, it won't be a disaster, but it shreds my "contingency backup" plan and my "everything in one format on one app" plan.

Don't worry, I already know I'm nuts, but I do try to make things easier to make up for it.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

The Sony app isn't the issue, IMO. That brings up a side argument and company baggage that isn't central to my concerns as an iDevice buyer.

Why I will no longer buy Apple devices now:

There's no immediate effect on my access to books even with Apple now enforcing the requirement for app developers to offer buying both inside and outside an app. But I wonder what happens the next time a business dispute crops up between a content provider and Apple. If Apple later decides it wants 31 percent and X company says no, what happens to my access to that company's books? Such possible ripple effects are endless, though my risk is uncertain. But as a consumer, there's no reason I have to risk my access to books over loyalty to Apple. I'm not loyal as a consumer. I look out for myself, so I'll buy another platform.

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Sure, I hear you. Each consumer will have his own priorities. One of my priorities is having all my mobile devices on one platform. I'm lazy that way.

Maggie: I so agree with you here. It is all about letting me use MY content. And while Apple has sold some 15M iPads to date I wonder how much people will warm to them from the far larger Windows based user base if the case indeed one where Apple feels they can police how people use the device they pay for with their hard earned cash. Heck in some parts of the planet the cost of the lowest priced iPad is more than a month worth of wages. So to those people the repercussions of this policy swing is even greater in the long term.

I even question how they can enforce such a policy anyway. One I am not certain it is legal to do unless Apple tries to claim the iPad is a carry around version of the set-top cable or satellite box. And even then since Apple has not been enforcing this policy it could well be that voids the clauses associated with it to begin with. So users who purchased under the original agreement could have a potential case? I dunno, legal stuff always is a rats nest but I have learned over the years one thing about contracts, especially very restrictive contracts which weigh heavily in the favor of the stronger party, such contracts are rarely enforceable and even illegal in some states. I know Apple has a large set of buildings full of liars, errrr, lawyers so the wording is likely as complex as possible to ensure no concrete interpretation.

I am doubly disappointed since for the first time, after playing around with a Touch 4th gen for a couple weeks, I was seriously considering an iPad as my tablet device solution even if I was forced to use iTunes to manage it, assuming I did not jailbreak it but I really do not want to add that layer of fiddling to any device I buy for increased productivity.

BTW, I also agree with you, I want my devices to match OS wise as much as possible. And barring that I want them to be at minimum data compatible with the ability to share data and intercommunicate without any significant barriers. It's one of the reasons I have balked at the iPad to begin with, the whole connectivity issue. Requiring users to use a hardwired connection for even very limited access to my own files or to use some kludgey 3rd party deal like Dropbox to "share data" is not, in my definition very inoperable or acceptable. It's why I am waiting to see the iPad 2.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

At the next meeting I will ask that a prayer be said for the backsliders!

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Lol. Maybe there will be demand for an AA group. Appleholics Anonymous.

Of course the meeting hall needs to be right across the street from the Applestolic Temple, errrr, they Apple Store.

Originally Posted by HistoryWes

What concerns me is that this could spread to other Apple products. They have a Mac App Store now. What if they don't allow access to content bought outside the Mac App store within Mac Apps. There are plenty of other ways to get software for the Mac... now. But as users rely more and more on the app store and as Apple updates their system software, will this continue?

Years ago, at least to the best of my memory, Apple had a lock down on the early Mac OS machines. I seem to remember that Apple had a similar policy about programs written for the Macs of the first decade or so. If it wasn't written with Apple's tools then they threatened users they would void their warranty just by trying to install the application.

But my own memory about this has faded over the years. But I do remember there was something along those lines in place. So this whole thing is not 100% new to The Apple Way.

I wonder if a lot of the return to this behavior can be linked to the ups and downs of Jobs' health. Poor health, especially the sort he is dealing with, can really affect a person's cognitive ability and make a person prone to manipulation by those trusted inner-circle sorts. Or it can cause a person to become quite bitter and angry in which case this could be a case of Jobs sort of acting out to vent on the people he has always loathed, his customers. Of course this decision could simply be from the "new guard" which is not running the show with Jobs on medical leave.

Still, I can see some bean counter getting wood just thinking about trying to enforce the ability to charge sellers of products and services for the ability to let users decide what programs they want to install and what content can be used on the devices those users were under the impression they actually bought. If the situation is really as we out here have inferred from the Apple agreements and news releases, then Apple is really moving to hardware as a subscription and computers "sold" as if they are no different than a cable box. It could be why Jobs was very careful to avoid calling the iPad a computer, instead he seemed to always refer to it as a content consumption device. Playing words games like this would seem very intended to deceive the end user who has been conditioned to understand the hardware, once paid for, is theirs to use as they see fit.

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I am using an iPad sitting on the deck by the pool. Hovering does not work with iOS.

Try tap-and-hold. I see the address in a context menu.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by BuddyBoy

Don't worry, I already know I'm nuts, but I do try to make things easier to make up for it.

hahaha, reminds me of one of my favorite TV show lines of all time. When Judge Harry Stone's dad, played by John Astin, had just come to the show pretty much straight from a mental hospital or "Boobie Hatch" if one prefers, anyway his line after talking about his time there was"

"...but I'm feeling much better now...."

hahaha...I guess one had to actually watch the scene because it was so freaking funny.

Here from the wiki entry:

John Astin as Buddy Ryan (Seasons 3–9), Harry's eccentric stepfather and a former patient in a psychiatric hospital. His catchphrase was the capper to stories involving his hospital stay or past strange behavior: "...but I'm feeling much better now" accompanied by a huge leering grin. He was later revealed to be Harry's biological father, admitting he'd kept it a secret for fear that the truth would bring Harry's judicial ability into question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Court

[WillysJeepMan]

Originally Posted by Caltsar

Kenschunk, in my first post here, I would have agreed with you, and the main issue with Sony's app being rejected seems to be that they made their own in-app purchasing system (with the issues I outlined before that go with it).

However, a statement made by Apple later that day about the issue brings to light the issues with content purchased for applications that we are all enraged over. This isn't in the agreement (yet), and it is basically blindsiding the users and developers.

There are a lot of "official" stories floating around. Here's another:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple...d-182151.shtml

This article claims that Apple hasn't changed anything in their agreement but simply enforcing the existing one.

edit: in that same article there seems to be mention of a new change.


I'll stand by initial assertion... it is still too early to start placing blame. All parties involved are being deliberately obtuse... maybe to gauge the winds of commentary to see who will blink first.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by WillysJeepMan

I'll stand by initial assertion... it is still too early to start placing blame. All parties involved are being deliberately obtuse... maybe to gauge the winds of commentary to see who will blink first.

I can't speak for others, but I'm not interested in assigning blame.

Apple seems within its rights to start enforcing the apps agreements with developers. As a consumer, all I needed to know was that that might limit my access to books, if not now, later.

As snipenekkid says, we buy devices for the convenience of accessing our content. If Apple is undermining that feature, I don't have reason to keep buying.