On Feb 17, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Benjamin Krueger wrote: > Frankly, the consolation that Apple is "protecting" users rings extremely > hollow. I have never, ever heard a single consumer complain that things just > aren't fair because they can only buy a Kindle book on Amazon's website and > not through Apple. There are already many competitors in the eBook market > that consumers could choose from. As far as the consumer is concerned, Apple > taking a slice of other competitors' pie is completely transparent. Consumers > aren't being protected from anything.
First off, iOS is already the biggest platform for Kindle, and you've been able to buy Kindle books and put them on your iOS device for a while. Same with other e-book platforms. That process isn't going to change. What's new is the subscription handling system, so Kindle subscriptions to magazines or a series of books would be affected. But you weren't previously allowed to do subscriptions on iOS, so this isn't a change from free to paid, this is a new service that is being rolled out. > iPads and iPhones are not Apple's property. They do not belong to Apple. They > are not storefronts. No, but the supporting systems underneath them are Apple's property, and they are storefronts. And if you bought a subsidized iPhone with activation and you're still subject to ETFs, then the phone in your hand isn't your property, either -- just like your house isn't really your property so long as you owe payments on it to your bank. Your wallet is your property. But the credit cards inside do not belong to you -- you get the right to use them from your credit card company, but you don't actually own the credit cards outright. > They are privately owned consumer devices that Apple maintains an undeserved > deathgrip on thanks to the epic legislative catastrophe known as DMCA, which > consumers only put up with because Apple makes some great software. Apple has > taken great measures to ensure that there is no distribution competition on > these devices, and we now know why. It was a malicious ploy to ensure that > Apple can hold the users of those devices ransom to other potential > competitors. You're welcome to make whatever wild unsubstantiated (and unprovable) claims that you like. After all, it is your opinion, and we all know the truth about opinions. My opinion is that Apple cares much more about delivering the perfect customer experience with their products and services, and they get magnitudes of order closer to doing so than any other company currently in the business -- and as well or better than any other company in the world, and as well as or better than most any other organization throughout the entire history of our species. IMO, the biggest part of the reason why Apple manages to get so much closer to this ideal of delivering the perfect customer experience is that they are willing to do whatever it takes to get there, and they literally do reinvent the wheel or anything else that is required. In a sense, Apple is a multi-billion dollar multi-national company built to support the seriously OCD perfection needs of one of the wealthiest guys on the planet, and he is kind enough to allow the rest of us to come along for the ride. > Allowing other distribution channels? Really? So I'll be able to install the > Kindle app from the Amazon iPad store now? No, I will not. Because the > distribution channel has always been and will continue to be curated, > controlled, and dictated by Apple. This doesn't offer any new distribution > channels to consumers. It only inserts Apple in their competitors' revenue > stream under threat of expulsion from the iOS ecosystem. If you want into the iOS ecosystem, which Apple designed and built, then you have to play by their rules. However, it is not a fundamental basic human right to have completely unfettered and unlimited access to that ecosystem -- you don't see that written into the Bill of Rights, or any other such document. Windows is no different -- if you want into that ecosystem, then you have to play by Microsoft's rules. And a lot of their rules are literally illegal -- I've spoken to the company CEOs who have written proof of that fact in their personal archives, where the Microsoft sales representatives were stupid enough to actually write their crimes down on paper and threaten said CEOs with personal bodily harm, in the presence of multiple other individuals. > Price equity? I just finished pointing out that Apple's own competing > products will *not* be paying the 30% fee. That's an instant anti-competitive > advantage that no other content provider can match. You seem to fail to grasp the concept that distribution channel (i.e., conduit) is not the same as content generator. So far as I know, there aren't any toll road operators in the world that also make their own cars. -- Brad Knowles <[email protected]> LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
