Please remember this is the same Apple that forced ebook prices higher because they wanted to take a larger cut than places like Amazon, but Apple forced publishes to set retail prices the same for all outlets.
Apple High School Textbooks: Max price $14.99, own forever, gets any updates for free.
This is not nearly the same as a good digitizer/stylus. With my tablet PC I had near pen/pencil level of precision and detail. I own an iPad and a stylus, and it is laughably inferior.
The Apple products are end-user consumer devices. They have almost no utility for content creation.
Same goes for any phones or tablets. In cases that involve significant text input or workflow with multiple creative apps you're better off creating on a Mac or PC.
That Apple appreciates the distinction is shown well in today's announcement. iBooks is for consuming. iBooks Author is for creating. iBooks 2 is an iOS app. iBooks Author is a Mac application.
With the way things would go, we would end up paying $175 for an e-book that would get denied access to upon the end of the semester, or at least pay $150 for something that cannot be resold.
And the reality is: Apple is doing High School textbooks for now.$14.99 and you own them forever, and get free updates.
No, which demonstrates that you do indeed fail to understand the context of the discussion, I'm comparing the workings of the companies with regard to updating their devices, not the features of the phone or the OS.
Again, I understand that perfectly. It's blatantly obvious. Seems like you're trying to be obtuse, so no point continuing this.
"Sounds scary enough, but if you look at the detail of the complaint there isn't a whole lot of evidence to back it accusations of conspiracy"
Apple sells ebooks with the same business model as apps. The uploader sets his own price. Including free if he wants. With apps that has resulted in lots of 99c and free apps. Why on earth would it make ebooks be more expensive? That doesn't make sense.
Well no, you obviously didn't otherwise you wouldn't have posted such a nonsensical answer. There is no 'game', I'm not comparing phone specs, so you obviously did fail to comprehend the context of the discussion. Like I said, if you're going to compare Apple to an Android device maker the obvious choice is to compare them to Google, because Google - like Apple - controls OS development/updates as well as having a handset (even if though building of that handset is contracted out to someone else).
Again, I understood you perfectly. The obvious choice to compare is with the Android that you own or are considering buying. My point is that when people are trying to argue in favour of Android, they always pick a different "obvious model to compare", depending on what they are trying to argue.
But people only own one Android phone. They don't get the best of all worlds that is the sum of their comparisons.
Your part in this is only arguing for the model with the best updates. But there are others that do the same with a different Android model for screen resolution... etc.
I can't explain it any clearer than that. If you don't get it fine. But my point is definitely in reply to yours and yes I did understand perfectly the point you were making.
The game manufacturers are the one that have the real power, and getting snubbed by them for not locking down the users.
In turn, open consoles look shitty because game vendors won't contribute to the game library, which obviously hurts selection.
PCs got plenty of support from the game vendors. But still the consoles won.
Lack of support for open consoles wasn't anything to do with ideology on their part. It's simply that they were unlikely to sell well. Selling well requires a lot of money on R&D, a high spec, and marketing, on a console that's not too expensive. That combination requires a walled-garden to finance.
There's no moving of goalposts. To open you said said:
"No, I don't remember ever having to pay to get pictures off my phone, and my "walled garden" phones have had "app" markets and "music" markets since about 2000 for prices that were comparable to the iTunes and the Android markets."
"app markets", not "applets". They are not the same. If they were the same they wouldn't have different names.
In my response to you I mentioned app 3 times. Thus we were both talking about apps, not applets.
If there was any moving of the goalposts it was at the point you wrote imode/i-appli.
Definition of a smartphone is easy. A smartphone allows native 3rd party apps. Native meaning using the same language and APIs as the built in apps. If it only offers WAP, J2ME or the like, it's a feature phone. If it doesn't offer that it's a dumb phone, or just a phone.
I know this game. If you want updates like Apple you have to get the Samsung Nexus. If you want a higher res screen you have to get an LG Atrix One. If you want something cheaper than Apple then you have to get a Sony Ericsson Vivid 4G+ XT 3D. If you want smooth scrolling then you need a Acer Nitro Black Plus. If you want...
If the Samsung Nexus was a panacea, when it'd be more popular than it is.
The parts I said weren't true weren't true. And I don't assume I know what my experience is good enough for, I know what my experience is good enough for.
There were no mobile platforms before the Apple App Store that offered automated purchase-download-install workflow, and there were no mobile platforms that offered 99c as a common price point.
If you have an example of either, feel free to present it. I say that in the full knowledge that you don't have an example of either. Because what you said was not true.
No, I don't remember ever having to pay to get pictures off my phone, and my "walled garden" phones have had "app" markets and "music" markets since about 2000 for prices that were comparable to the iTunes and the Android markets.
That's simply not true. I used to be a Symbian developer. Around 2002-2005, I charged $10 for an image warping app, that seemed to be about the right price from looking around at what other apps were out there. The same kind of thing goes for 99c on the iPhone.
And the app used to be sold in a zip file, which the user had to download, unzip and then install from their PC. Again, standard practice for the time. There weren't any platforms that had the automated purchase-download-install workflow that the Apple App Store has.
In another post you asked me what a freetard is. This is a good demonstration. Not only are they fans of "open", "free", GPL etc. (the free bit) They also say things that aren't true in their trying to persuade everyone of their point of view (the tard bit).
the overpriced electronic gadget company that charges people almost annually for minor updates.
That's strange, I have 4 Apple products and they aren't charging me annually for updates. Could it be you are mistaking the availability of new models in the shops for "charging people annually".
If that's your problem, could you point me at the electronics company that doesn't put out new models of products?
the hard part is the human writing and editing, not which software you do it on. Apple could have a slick program with a "make pretty" button, and people like me would still have to do all the same work to create the content.
That's true. But there doesn't seem to be a shortage of textbook authors. Just a shortage of such content being made into quality etextbooks.
Slashdot Mirror
Please remember this is the same Apple that forced ebook prices higher because they wanted to take a larger cut than places like Amazon, but Apple forced publishes to set retail prices the same for all outlets.
Apple High School Textbooks: Max price $14.99, own forever, gets any updates for free.
This is not nearly the same as a good digitizer/stylus. With my tablet PC I had near pen/pencil level of precision and detail. I own an iPad and a stylus, and it is laughably inferior.
Nonsense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-ksEyg4cj8&feature=related
The Apple products are end-user consumer devices. They have almost no utility for content creation.
Same goes for any phones or tablets. In cases that involve significant text input or workflow with multiple creative apps you're better off creating on a Mac or PC.
That Apple appreciates the distinction is shown well in today's announcement. iBooks is for consuming. iBooks Author is for creating. iBooks 2 is an iOS app. iBooks Author is a Mac application.
With the way things would go, we would end up paying $175 for an e-book that would get denied access to upon the end of the semester, or at least pay $150 for something that cannot be resold.
And the reality is: Apple is doing High School textbooks for now.$14.99 and you own them forever, and get free updates.
That's true. The biggest mobile gaming platform is now iOS, which is still a walled-garden.
You'll find your life improves if you learn to accept new knowledge graciously.
No, which demonstrates that you do indeed fail to understand the context of the discussion, I'm comparing the workings of the companies with regard to updating their devices, not the features of the phone or the OS.
Again, I understand that perfectly. It's blatantly obvious. Seems like you're trying to be obtuse, so no point continuing this.
Neither. As your own link says:
"Sounds scary enough, but if you look at the detail of the complaint there isn't a whole lot of evidence to back it accusations of conspiracy"
Apple sells ebooks with the same business model as apps. The uploader sets his own price. Including free if he wants. With apps that has resulted in lots of 99c and free apps. Why on earth would it make ebooks be more expensive? That doesn't make sense.
Well no, you obviously didn't otherwise you wouldn't have posted such a nonsensical answer. There is no 'game', I'm not comparing phone specs, so you obviously did fail to comprehend the context of the discussion. Like I said, if you're going to compare Apple to an Android device maker the obvious choice is to compare them to Google, because Google - like Apple - controls OS development/updates as well as having a handset (even if though building of that handset is contracted out to someone else).
Again, I understood you perfectly. The obvious choice to compare is with the Android that you own or are considering buying. My point is that when people are trying to argue in favour of Android, they always pick a different "obvious model to compare", depending on what they are trying to argue.
But people only own one Android phone. They don't get the best of all worlds that is the sum of their comparisons.
Your part in this is only arguing for the model with the best updates. But there are others that do the same with a different Android model for screen resolution... etc.
I can't explain it any clearer than that. If you don't get it fine. But my point is definitely in reply to yours and yes I did understand perfectly the point you were making.
Well, if "app" means something else than an abbreviation of "application" in your world.
I said app != applet, not app != application.
And you know full well that I'm correct in that, just like the rest of it.
Bye.
They fail because producers hate them.
The game manufacturers are the one that have the real power, and getting snubbed by them for not locking down the users.
In turn, open consoles look shitty because game vendors won't contribute to the game library, which obviously hurts selection.
PCs got plenty of support from the game vendors. But still the consoles won.
Lack of support for open consoles wasn't anything to do with ideology on their part. It's simply that they were unlikely to sell well. Selling well requires a lot of money on R&D, a high spec, and marketing, on a console that's not too expensive. That combination requires a walled-garden to finance.
I understood it perfectly. It appears you didn't understand my answer.
That's applets on a feature phone, not apps on a smartphone.
There's no moving of goalposts. To open you said said:
"No, I don't remember ever having to pay to get pictures off my phone, and my "walled garden" phones have had "app" markets and "music" markets since about 2000 for prices that were comparable to the iTunes and the Android markets."
"app markets", not "applets". They are not the same. If they were the same they wouldn't have different names.
In my response to you I mentioned app 3 times. Thus we were both talking about apps, not applets.
If there was any moving of the goalposts it was at the point you wrote imode/i-appli.
Definition of a smartphone is easy. A smartphone allows native 3rd party apps. Native meaning using the same language and APIs as the built in apps. If it only offers WAP, J2ME or the like, it's a feature phone. If it doesn't offer that it's a dumb phone, or just a phone.
I know this game.
If you want updates like Apple you have to get the Samsung Nexus.
If you want a higher res screen you have to get an LG Atrix One.
If you want something cheaper than Apple then you have to get a Sony Ericsson Vivid 4G+ XT 3D.
If you want smooth scrolling then you need a Acer Nitro Black Plus.
If you want...
If the Samsung Nexus was a panacea, when it'd be more popular than it is.
Apple forced ebook prices higher for the consumer.
No they didn't. Publishers set prices, not Apple.
What are you talking about "dancing around with words"? I'm being specific, you're not.
The topic is apps for smartphones, not applets for feature phones.
Try again.
The parts I said weren't true weren't true. And I don't assume I know what my experience is good enough for, I know what my experience is good enough for.
There were no mobile platforms before the Apple App Store that offered automated purchase-download-install workflow, and there were no mobile platforms that offered 99c as a common price point.
If you have an example of either, feel free to present it. I say that in the full knowledge that you don't have an example of either. Because what you said was not true.
No, I don't remember ever having to pay to get pictures off my phone, and my "walled garden" phones have had "app" markets and "music" markets since about 2000 for prices that were comparable to the iTunes and the Android markets.
That's simply not true. I used to be a Symbian developer. Around 2002-2005, I charged $10 for an image warping app, that seemed to be about the right price from looking around at what other apps were out there. The same kind of thing goes for 99c on the iPhone.
And the app used to be sold in a zip file, which the user had to download, unzip and then install from their PC. Again, standard practice for the time. There weren't any platforms that had the automated purchase-download-install workflow that the Apple App Store has.
In another post you asked me what a freetard is. This is a good demonstration. Not only are they fans of "open", "free", GPL etc. (the free bit) They also say things that aren't true in their trying to persuade everyone of their point of view (the tard bit).
the overpriced electronic gadget company that charges people almost annually for minor updates.
That's strange, I have 4 Apple products and they aren't charging me annually for updates. Could it be you are mistaking the availability of new models in the shops for "charging people annually".
If that's your problem, could you point me at the electronics company that doesn't put out new models of products?
No I didn't think so.
the hard part is the human writing and editing, not which software you do it on. Apple could have a slick program with a "make pretty" button, and people like me would still have to do all the same work to create the content.
That's true. But there doesn't seem to be a shortage of textbook authors. Just a shortage of such content being made into quality etextbooks.
Sprite is lemon and lime, and it's the answer to 7 Up, not lemonade. And 7 Up was originally a patent medicine, just like Coke was.
Not that it matters, but it does reflect on your equally mistaken summation of the pointlessness of better ebook authoring tools.
BTW when is the paperless office going to be here?
I got a document scanner a couple of months ago. Already a couple of boxes of documents have been scanned, shredded and recycled.
The paperless office is here as soon as you want your paperless office to be here.
A change of price isn't guaranteed with a change of format. But I can't think of an example when it hasn't meant that.
I have no doubt Apple will make eTextBooks cheaper than paper text books.
BTW, If we get rid of publishers, we lose the editor. Get ready for 1,000 page epics about cats.
That's fine. If it's a bad book it'll get lousy reviews.