Just because Apple doesn't say it's a general purpose application doesn't magically stop it from being a general purpose application.
That combined with the proprietary output file format does.
Would Microsoft Word stop being a general purpose tool if Microsoft renamed it "Thesis+" and said it was just for writing that one kind of document? Of course not!
A WP's main purpose has traditionally been to print the resultant document. Maybe less so now. So if you removed or deemphasised it's printing and sharing capabilities and made it only output a proprietary format that is only understood by one of Microsoft's services, and they were still ditributing MS Word as a different app, then yes that "Thesis+" fork would stop being a general purpose tool.
Not that Apple did any of that. iBooks Author is a new app.
You can't be serious. "It's not an epub! The file extention is totally wrong!"
That's not what I said, so don't put it in quotes. The extension, the mimetype and other parts of the content are different. Not just the extension. It's an implementation detail that iBooks format started as ePub. It's not ePub any longer.
It's okay to *not* defend Apple here. Embrace and Extend isn't exactly the nicest tactic.
If you think this is embrace and extend, then you don't understand what that phrase means. This is exactly why it's significant that the file extension and mimetype is different. Apple is not embracing epub. They are not forcing their extensions into epub. They have forked off their own proprietary format. What happens in that format doesn't effect epub in any way.
I agree. But you've heard "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The claim is that people are committing suicide due to the conditions in those factories. And that requires extraordinary evidence.
I'm, making the case that they need more evidence than >, because the general rate for that number of people is higher than that.
Put it another way, the same as in a courtroom the accused doesn't have to prove his innocence. The prosecution have to prove his guilt. And the defence barrister/advocate only has to show the reasonable doubt in the evidence presented.
As things stand there is absolutely no statistical evidence there is a suicide problem at the Foxconn factories.
I'm not misusing statistics. It's for the people making the accusations to make their case. They haven't even mentioned the normal expected suicide rate let alone narrowed it down by demographic category. I point out the general Chinese rate because it's easily available and shows that those making the accusations have some work to do before they show that there is anything out of the ordinary at Foxconn.
I'm being honest. Those alleging that iPhone manufacturing conditions are causing suicides without any evidence of that are either not being honest or are just ignorant.
With the exception of satanist supplies and heavy metal, people don't buy because the supplier is evil. So let's drop that bit of over-enthusiasm on your part.
Good products and good marketing. Yes, those are the reasons. It's not because there are a group of fanboys that will buy anything Apple.
I think being a worker at Foxconn would be no better, maybe worse, than being a 19th century slave.
That's irrational. It's vastly overstating the problems at Foxconn and understating the issue of the 19th century slave trade.
Those slaves were either forcibly removed from their home country, or were descendants of the same. They were forced to work for their owner. They had no choice of leaving.
Foxconn employees chose to work there. They are all paid. They are free to leave.
And even if you don't consider the suicides, you must admit that worker conditions at Foxconn are beyond horrid.
Not really. I've seen plenty of footage of India sweat shops, where lots of other products exported to the west are made. The conditions at Foxconn are vastly more pleasant.
Worker conditions in western countries improved over many decades. It's idiotic to imagine that other countries will do it overnight. The influence of western countries outsourcing their manufacturing to those countries is making things improve faster than they otherwise would. That's a good thing.
Of course if your only thought is how to bash Apple, then your mind will be too narrow to see any of this.
Looks like someone doesn't know what the exponential growth is...
Looks like someone hasn't been looking at Apple's results...
The market is growing and they're a well-known brand. That's not too complicated for you, is it?
So you mean it's not just fanboys that will buy anything Apple puts out. i.e. You're repeating my point.
Hell, RIM's subscriber base grew more than 40% last year. Not too bad for a supposedly dying company! How exactly do you image that Blackberry manages to keep on getting all these new fans?
No one claimed RIMs results were as a result of fanboys buying anything RIM put out.
Sure it is, it's given away as a general purpose document creation application (there was a topic on this the other day about how its format is epub3 and that almost all of it can be read and interpreted correctly by any epub3 reader)
No and no. Nowhere is Apple describing it as general purpose document creation application, or anything that could be construed to mean it's general purpose. It's explicitly for creating content for iBooks, and Apple is clear about that. And nowhere has Apple ever said that iBooks Author outputs epub. It doesn't output epub. It outputs a proprietary format that was clearly forked from epub. That's all.
I can download it for free and view the output in whatever I want
No. It has the wrong file extension and the wrong mime-type to be seen as epub by any other app. And even if you changed those, the other app isn't going to understand any Apple specific extensions. Again, Apple never released this as a general purpose tool it's specifically for iBooks.
So of course the question is what happens if i take that output and convert it to another format and sell it?
IANAL. My point is only that there is no comparison between this task specific free tool, and a general purpose word processor.
For me, the breaking point came when my next-gen iPod couldn't use the $1 cables I'd had with my previous-gen iPod, and now I was expected to buy Apple-branded chip-locked cables for $50. FIFTY DOLLARS!
When I went to uni, I was required to have a Windows PC as the required software was only made available as EXEs. This would be no different.
However, there's no reason that a textbook need only be available on iBooks. There is nothing stopping publishers putting out the same taxtbook on iBooks and other stores. And in print too. They just use a different formatting tool for the non-iBooks version.
The non-iBooks version will be missing the interactivity. But no reason why it wouldn't be enough for the essentials of the course.
Sure. But the word processor produces very, very little output. Most is produced by the person on the keyboard.
So you do think they should own the output? (by 'own' of course it means you cannot sell it on your terms)
It's irrelevant. Word processors are sold (or given away) as general purpose document creation applications. iBooks Author isn't.
If a company wanted to create a brand new word processor, that only produced documents for a specific purpose, and they stated that's what it is for, then there would be nothing wrong with that.
If Microsoft did it for Word, then it's be a big problem because it would be bait & switch. But that doesn't apply to this new tool from Apple.
Apple does not want to be the sole distributor of your work. Only the output from the authoring tool.
That is your work.
No it's not. It's mostly Apple's work. Your work is preparing the text and photos. Most of what is added to that by iBooks Author is Apple's Template.
But that's by the by. Apple is not selling a general purpose ebooks editor. They are neither selling it nor describing it as such. They have an ebooks store and are specifically supplying the tools needed for preparing content for that store to suppliers. There's no valid argument that they shouldn't do that.
ebook authors are not restricted to only sell in the Apple Store. They can also put their text and photos into other tools to prepare them for other stores.
You're talking about different things. Revenues are independent of costs, and the GP was talking about costs.
Of course. But he was offering up the low costs of downloads as the reason for Apple's profits. I'm pointing out that downloads are too small a part of Apple's business for that to be the case. They are making the bulk of their profits on hardware.
It wasn't Exxon's excessive profits, it was Exxon's "windfall" profits.
Windfall: A piece of unexpected good fortune, typically one that involves receiving a large amount of money.
Exxon's profits came about because oil is fungible, and the world oil price soared due to events in the middle east. Not because they became more successful at selling oil. It was unexpected good fortune.
Apple on the other hand were successful at selling more product. It wasn't unexpected good fortune, it was expected (by them) earnings.
Slashdot Mirror
Never mind the fictionalized version. Here's the reality. Listen to those boos!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY&feature=youtu.be&t=4m30s
The "Chip-locked" part. And the part where you are comparing third party cables on Amazon to Apple's own cables.
Get a 3rd party cable on Amazon with a dock connecter on one side and AV and USB on the other for $4.99.
http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Video-Cable-Connector-iPhone/dp/B00418UBLA/ref=sr_1_65?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1327506635&sr=1-65
If HTML5 was already capable of doing the interactivity of iBooks TextBooks, then Apple wouldn't have needed to extend it.
Javascript can do interactivity. It can't do Core Animation levels of interactivity.
Just because Apple doesn't say it's a general purpose application doesn't magically stop it from being a general purpose application.
That combined with the proprietary output file format does.
Would Microsoft Word stop being a general purpose tool if Microsoft renamed it "Thesis+" and said it was just for writing that one kind of document? Of course not!
A WP's main purpose has traditionally been to print the resultant document. Maybe less so now. So if you removed or deemphasised it's printing and sharing capabilities and made it only output a proprietary format that is only understood by one of Microsoft's services, and they were still ditributing MS Word as a different app, then yes that "Thesis+" fork would stop being a general purpose tool.
Not that Apple did any of that. iBooks Author is a new app.
You can't be serious. "It's not an epub! The file extention is totally wrong!"
That's not what I said, so don't put it in quotes. The extension, the mimetype and other parts of the content are different. Not just the extension. It's an implementation detail that iBooks format started as ePub. It's not ePub any longer.
It's okay to *not* defend Apple here. Embrace and Extend isn't exactly the nicest tactic.
If you think this is embrace and extend, then you don't understand what that phrase means. This is exactly why it's significant that the file extension and mimetype is different. Apple is not embracing epub. They are not forcing their extensions into epub. They have forked off their own proprietary format. What happens in that format doesn't effect epub in any way.
Everyone who writes software already has a Windows or Linux PC.
No they don't. There are plenty of Mac developers that don't own a PC.
I didn't have to buy any new computer when I started programming iOS. Cost of XCode: 0. Code of development kit: 0.
What makes you think Google cares how many music players ship?
What makes you think it's about whether Google cares?
I agree. But you've heard "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The claim is that people are committing suicide due to the conditions in those factories. And that requires extraordinary evidence.
I'm, making the case that they need more evidence than >, because the general rate for that number of people is higher than that.
Put it another way, the same as in a courtroom the accused doesn't have to prove his innocence. The prosecution have to prove his guilt. And the defence barrister/advocate only has to show the reasonable doubt in the evidence presented.
As things stand there is absolutely no statistical evidence there is a suicide problem at the Foxconn factories.
And I'm not misusing statistics.
I'm not misusing statistics. It's for the people making the accusations to make their case. They haven't even mentioned the normal expected suicide rate let alone narrowed it down by demographic category. I point out the general Chinese rate because it's easily available and shows that those making the accusations have some work to do before they show that there is anything out of the ordinary at Foxconn.
I'm being honest. Those alleging that iPhone manufacturing conditions are causing suicides without any evidence of that are either not being honest or are just ignorant.
With the exception of satanist supplies and heavy metal, people don't buy because the supplier is evil. So let's drop that bit of over-enthusiasm on your part.
Good products and good marketing. Yes, those are the reasons. It's not because there are a group of fanboys that will buy anything Apple.
I think being a worker at Foxconn would be no better, maybe worse, than being a 19th century slave.
That's irrational. It's vastly overstating the problems at Foxconn and understating the issue of the 19th century slave trade.
Those slaves were either forcibly removed from their home country, or were descendants of the same. They were forced to work for their owner. They had no choice of leaving.
Foxconn employees chose to work there. They are all paid. They are free to leave.
And even if you don't consider the suicides, you must admit that worker conditions at Foxconn are beyond horrid.
Not really. I've seen plenty of footage of India sweat shops, where lots of other products exported to the west are made. The conditions at Foxconn are vastly more pleasant.
Worker conditions in western countries improved over many decades. It's idiotic to imagine that other countries will do it overnight. The influence of western countries outsourcing their manufacturing to those countries is making things improve faster than they otherwise would. That's a good thing.
Of course if your only thought is how to bash Apple, then your mind will be too narrow to see any of this.
Looks like someone doesn't know what the exponential growth is...
Looks like someone hasn't been looking at Apple's results...
The market is growing and they're a well-known brand. That's not too complicated for you, is it?
So you mean it's not just fanboys that will buy anything Apple puts out. i.e. You're repeating my point.
Hell, RIM's subscriber base grew more than 40% last year. Not too bad for a supposedly dying company! How exactly do you image that Blackberry manages to keep on getting all these new fans?
No one claimed RIMs results were as a result of fanboys buying anything RIM put out.
Android ships more units. Apple makes more money.
Actually iOS ships on more devices than Android.
Windows does ship more units though.
Funnily enough no one ever adds the cost of a PC when quoting the price of DevStudio.
Without buying an appropriate computer you can't program. Period.
It's a good question. But not one that appears to have been investigated by any of the journalists reporting the story.
Even less thought has been put in by the posters that refer back to the story as if suicides only happen at Chinese factories producing iPhones.
Sure it is, it's given away as a general purpose document creation application (there was a topic on this the other day about how its format is epub3 and that almost all of it can be read and interpreted correctly by any epub3 reader)
No and no. Nowhere is Apple describing it as general purpose document creation application, or anything that could be construed to mean it's general purpose. It's explicitly for creating content for iBooks, and Apple is clear about that. And nowhere has Apple ever said that iBooks Author outputs epub. It doesn't output epub. It outputs a proprietary format that was clearly forked from epub. That's all.
I can download it for free and view the output in whatever I want
No. It has the wrong file extension and the wrong mime-type to be seen as epub by any other app. And even if you changed those, the other app isn't going to understand any Apple specific extensions. Again, Apple never released this as a general purpose tool it's specifically for iBooks.
So of course the question is what happens if i take that output and convert it to another format and sell it?
IANAL. My point is only that there is no comparison between this task specific free tool, and a general purpose word processor.
So how come it says free on the web page?
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/xcode/id448457090?mt=12
It is free if you're using XCode to produce Mac apps.
Yes. Except of course the formatting and interactive extensions that Apple made have no equivalent in epub. So it will be a lossy conversion.
For me, the breaking point came when my next-gen iPod couldn't use the $1 cables I'd had with my previous-gen iPod, and now I was expected to buy Apple-branded chip-locked cables for $50. FIFTY DOLLARS!
Which is not even slightly true.
When I went to uni, I was required to have a Windows PC as the required software was only made available as EXEs. This would be no different.
However, there's no reason that a textbook need only be available on iBooks. There is nothing stopping publishers putting out the same taxtbook on iBooks and other stores. And in print too. They just use a different formatting tool for the non-iBooks version.
The non-iBooks version will be missing the interactivity. But no reason why it wouldn't be enough for the essentials of the course.
Sure. But the word processor produces very, very little output. Most is produced by the person on the keyboard.
So you do think they should own the output? (by 'own' of course it means you cannot sell it on your terms)
It's irrelevant. Word processors are sold (or given away) as general purpose document creation applications. iBooks Author isn't.
If a company wanted to create a brand new word processor, that only produced documents for a specific purpose, and they stated that's what it is for, then there would be nothing wrong with that.
If Microsoft did it for Word, then it's be a big problem because it would be bait & switch. But that doesn't apply to this new tool from Apple.
Apple does not want to be the sole distributor of your work. Only the output from the authoring tool.
That is your work.
No it's not. It's mostly Apple's work. Your work is preparing the text and photos. Most of what is added to that by iBooks Author is Apple's Template.
But that's by the by. Apple is not selling a general purpose ebooks editor. They are neither selling it nor describing it as such. They have an ebooks store and are specifically supplying the tools needed for preparing content for that store to suppliers. There's no valid argument that they shouldn't do that.
ebook authors are not restricted to only sell in the Apple Store. They can also put their text and photos into other tools to prepare them for other stores.
You're talking about different things. Revenues are independent of costs, and the GP was talking about costs.
Of course. But he was offering up the low costs of downloads as the reason for Apple's profits. I'm pointing out that downloads are too small a part of Apple's business for that to be the case. They are making the bulk of their profits on hardware.
Or at least beleagured.
It wasn't Exxon's excessive profits, it was Exxon's "windfall" profits.
Windfall: A piece of unexpected good fortune, typically one that involves receiving a large amount of money.
Exxon's profits came about because oil is fungible, and the world oil price soared due to events in the middle east. Not because they became more successful at selling oil. It was unexpected good fortune.
Apple on the other hand were successful at selling more product. It wasn't unexpected good fortune, it was expected (by them) earnings.