Opinion: Five things that worry us about Apple's textbook push

by John Gillooly | Tuesday 24 January 2012

Textbooks need to be revolutionised, but we have serious concerns about the way in which Apple is going about it.

Last week Apple made a big song and dance about reinventing the textbook with the launch of iBook 2 and iTunes U. Currently this is a US-focused project, but there is little doubt that Australia is a prime candidate for expansion, given our high technological uptake and common language. There have been no plans announced beyond the launch of iTunes U though, so it is important to keep in mind that this is based upon what is happening in the US.

In many ways it makes a lot of sense, getting rid of those hefty lumps of dead trees that many of us carried on our backs for 20 odd years of study is in and of itself wonderful. As is the reduction in cost of textbooks, which has been limited to $US14.99 and guarantees fresh, unsullied copies of what are still the most expensive books this writer has ever purchased. No more will one have to fork out huge amounts of cash for second hand texts, or avoid scrawling notes on the pages to ensure the ability to resell something that will be used for a semester at best. It also makes things easier by speeding up the ability of publishers to revise their texts, without it turning into a massive logistical and budgetary nightmare for schools.

But, Apple being Apple, the entire program is a closed ecosystem. Inputs into iBook 2 are done with Apple formats, not commonly used ones based on open standards. Outputs from iBook 2 can only be published through iTunes, and the resulting format can only be read on an iPad.

Being fans of the open standards on which computing has been built, this kind of lock-in goes against our very nature here at PC & Tech Authority. Which brings us to our list of our five major concerns with textbook reinvention Apple-style.

It mangles the ePub format

Given the rise of eReaders and tablets, more and more people are reading on handheld devices. One of the most frustrating things at the moment though, is that books aren’t universally available. Currently no matter how good the quality of the various devices out there, the widest range of books is available to Kindle owners. Given Amazon’s stranglehold on the ebook market there is a need for a consolidation around a single open standard to allow other booksellers to compete.

This is coming in the form of ePub 3, which adds a lot more rich media functions to the open format. It is important to remember that this format refers to the design of books themselves, and any DRM is overlain on top of this. This allows books to be authored from a single file and then packaged to work with various readers. Apple’s format, while based on ePub 3, is sufficiently different from the common standards to kill the author once, publish many times philosophy behind ePub. This isn’t an issue for Apple though, which brings us to our second concern.

It is platform exclusive

Much has been said about the obfuscated EULA of iBooks 2, which limits the sale of books created with the utility to iBookstore. This means that any work done with Apple’s iBook Author utility can either be given away or sold with Apple getting a 30% cut of the profits. This makes it not so much a textbook revolution as it is an iBookstore revolution. You can bet that we won’t be seeing non-Apple software being able to author in the iBooks 2 format, which eliminates the traditional desktop publishing solutions on the market (companies like Adobe are working on much more eBook friendly publishing software as we speak).

So for those laying out textbooks the options are going to be doubling up on work designing for both ePub and iBooks 2 or just giving in and using a single publishing platform (we can guess which of the two Apple wants to see). But it isn’t just publishing that is locked into Apple’s ecosystem, the really insidious thing in our minds is our next concern.

It is a gateway drug to iTunes

Want to access this textbook revolution? Then you’ll need an iTunes account. This is the case even if the iPad used for iTunes U access is supplied by the school. While iTunes is one of the best options out there for purchasing digital content, there are plenty of people who still happily avoid signing up and go with other digital distribution solutions. Thankfully Apple has instructions on how to set up an iTunes account without putting in credit card details, but once a student is having to purchase textbooks and the like through iTunes then it predisposes them to use the store for purchasing other digital media as well.

iTunes as a choice is fantastic, but iTunes as a compulsory part of schooling is worrying to say the least. Of course, not only will they need an account, but each student will also need to have an iPad in their hands while at school. Which brings us to the next issue.

Tablets suck for long periods of reading

Several of us in the PC & Tech Authority editorial room have both tablets and ebook readers, actively preferring the non-backlit nature of e-ink for long periods of reading. So when you are poring over the pages of words that make up the majority of most textbooks you would be much better off doing it on an eReader. The corollary to this is that currently colour e-ink exists largely as a proof of concept solution, there have been few actual product releases (the most prominent actually uses a completely different technology to e-ink, called mirasol, which has the same non-backlit nature).

The one area where colour e-ink is perfectly suited for is textbooks, but there is still a way to go before the kind of rich video features work with the technology. While tablets are currently a better solution, we cannot envision a world in which Apple would produce eReaders for students, especially when it can keep pumping out the same old iPads without the massive expensive of tooling up a new factory and product line. This is core to our final concern.

It puts Apple’s interests ahead of students

Make no mistake about it, the whole iTunes U and iBooks 2 push is about selling more Apple products, and reaping in that sweet, sweet cut that comes from iTunes sales. Whether iPads are purchased by the school or the student, it keeps the production lines rolling and products selling. Given that Apple is notorious for cutting off support for older devices when it releases new operating systems, we’d expect that a student would end up going through a few iPads over the course of their schooling.

Students would also be locking themselves into a long period of spending on iTunes, where Apple would develop a stranglehold on the textbook market. This seems the natural result of the ‘only publish through us’ EULA on iBook’s, and the deliberate use of a non-standard version of ePub 3. It basically makes it so that there can never be a mix of reading devices. If an iBookstore textbook is mandated reading, then you will have two options – carry around a lump of dead tree, or buy an iPad.

The one saving grace we have here in Australia is that by the time the inevitable push comes we’ll have the US to watch as a case study. It will also likely be a lot tougher to entrench the Apple ecosystem inside the school system, although we’d expect that private schools would already be eyeing off what Apple is doing.

If anything this is justification of the need for open standards. While the iPad has the considerable advantage of consistency with screen size, the textbook market is so potentially huge that you can imagine both tablet and ereader makers bending over backwards to comply with a ‘textbook ePub’ standard.

Readers of this article also read...

genericstufff 24 January 2012	Actually Calibre (http://calibre-ebook.com/)converts most ebook formats to whatever format you wish to use. I have no trouble transferring Kindle format to iPad 2. I would think it wouldn't take long for it to handle ePub3. Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article: Opinion: Five things that worry us about Apple's textbook push? Textbooks need to be revolutionised, but we have serious concerns about the way in which Apple is going about it. What do you think? Join the discussion.
amcmo 24 January 2012	This opinon piece contains the usual tripe. It will be possible to use content that you import into iBooks2 with any other eBook publishing program. The only issue at present is that iBooks2 appears to be the easiest way of doing it. You mention Adobe are developing eBook software, without pointing out that once using that program you are locked into it. Also the obscene costs involved with the Adobe system. We were in the Adobe beta program and bailed out when we realised how locked in and how expensive it was all going to be. What else? Quark - also damned expensive. There are other more limited functionality alternatives, however that's for another thread. Your reviewer seems to have got all offended that Apple, a commercial company is providing this free software (which it costs to write and maintain, plus the costs of running the itunes infrastructure) and doesn't want you selling the resultant output through other providers. They will allow you to give it away. Now from business 101, (increasingly looks as though that's beyond the education level of most of your 'reviewers'), if you provide free tools to develop a product, at some point you want payback, unless you're state funded or a charity. As for the eBook readers being better, I have an iPad2 and Kindle Touch. Reading a black and white book, yes the Kindle is easier, however for interactive content, which is a centrepiece of the iBooks2 process, the iPad is streets ahead. As for the anti iTunes. As a system it works fine (Windows was a little iffy at first, though now just fine. Sorry, you reviewer has gone off on another freetard rant and overlooked the commercial reality of any company providing such a product/service - they want to make money. Unless they make money how do they pay the development costs? Don't slag Apple for doing the right thing for themselves (and benefitting education), slam the other's for sitting around not doing something similar. Adobe could well have, Google likewise - just didn't have the vision to have a go at it. iBooks2 is not for us, and we are actively looking at alternatives that allow cross platform publishing, however you can't fault Apple for their strategy. If everyone else continues to sit and navel gaze - it will be their own fault if Apple locks the market. Edited by amcmo: 24/1/2012 05:09:22 PM
amcmo 25 January 2012	Would appear that not too many consumers and authors agree with the opinion piece with 350,000 textbooks downloaded in 24 hours and 90,000 downloads of iBooks Author. Edited by amcmo: 25/1/2012 11:42:21 AM
cootified 25 January 2012	What's funny is that the concearn is becoming abit repetitive. The same concearn everyone had when iTunes came out, when movies on iTunes came out, when iBooks came out and now.
ory_zm 25 January 2012	I think this piece was more about where is this "iTextBook" thing going, less about Apple who would obviously try to capitalise on their vision. I too would rather this evolved to a more open system, where I can purchase E-TextBooks and use them on any platform of my choice.
amcmo 25 January 2012	It's a nice theory, however every current 'open' platform tablet alternative has significant issues with with piracy. The text book writers and publishers are going to be extremely loath to expose themselves to that issue if they have any smarts. It's bad enough for casual app writers losing their potential income, however in a multi-$Bn market, damn all chance of any open source traction unless an app store evolves that places significant security in place.
ory_zm 25 January 2012	Oh and I suppose Apple have no piracy issues? http://www.funkyspacemonkey.com/7-sites-download-cracked-ipa-files-iphone-itouch
amcmo 25 January 2012	ory_zm Pretty well any program can be cracked with enough determination by skilled hackers. Saying that it is possible to crack an app store application with enough determination does not come close to equalling an eco that has ZERO controls on either piracy or malware. As for the guy responsible for the post you point to. " I don't condone all this cracking, but here's every place I can find that hosts them" He's no better than the people who crack and list the apps. At least Apple are making a determined effort to prevent as opposed to turning a blind eye. Again, If I were the developer of a text I would far prefer an eco that did it's best to protect my work and provide the income I were entitled to, rather than one that allowed copying, infecting with malware at every turn. My point was not that Apple were perfect, just that until an alternative eco evolved that provided significant protection for publisher's IP alternatives would likely be shunned by publishers. If you read my original post, you will see that I state ibooks2 is not for us. We will use open source alternatives for internal work and content provided directly to our customers. If we were selling to the public, or education,we would make a different decision. Edited by amcmo: 25/1/2012 07:42:58 PM
ory_zm 25 January 2012	OK I suppose our views probably differentiate at the point of is open source software less secure than propriety SW. My answer: "not necessarily". I think it largely depends on implementation. And my point was to show that propriety (AppStore apps in this case) do get pirated anyway. Looking at eBooks, I don't know if the ePub format (which is supposed to be more open), gets pirated more than the Amazon MOBI format. Like genericstufff says above, at least with eBooks, this is a null point as it is easy enough to convert between formats using Calibre. Re-reading your comments, I can see that you look at it from the publishers point of view. However I look at it from the consumer point of view, and as such I would rather have access to content I purchase on more than one platform (as an example it would be cool to be able to read the text on an eBook reader, view the interactive stuff on a tablet, and have access to quotes etc. on a pc when preparing an assignment). BTW nothing of what I say has anything to do with the respect I have for Apple for having the vision and pioneering what looks like another digital revolution.
amcmo 25 January 2012	I'm not saying that open source has to be less secure, my point is aimed at the current potential alternatives which apart from Amazon revolve around Android. The IMPLEMENTATION of the Android app store is currently insecure and open to easy copying. Content creators are not likely to wear that. Being in business of creating and distributing end product to sell for a fair profit, I have to look at the argument from the content creator's point of view (as distinct from the established publishing houses, more on that later). They are in the business of investing their lives in producing content and deserve the right to make reasonable profit, with the minimum achievable level of theft. Part of the Apple vision here is a downward spiral in the cost of accessing this content, much as they led the way with music. Remember when we all had to pay stupid prices for complete CD's to get the 1-2 tracks we really wanted? The end user gets to benefit from reasonable prices in what was one of the last bastions of exorbitant overpricing and, as with the music business, corporations who had no part in the creation, monopolising distribution and screwing over the content creators. No more double royalty on all A/NZ books? Obviously much has been made of Apple's 30%. It's MUCH less than the publishing houses take and is not too much more than their cost of providing the infrastructure, software and maintaining same. The significant benefit is that creators who might struggle to get publishing houses to even read their work can now easily create and publish themselves and make use of as secure a marketplace as you can reasonably get.. If the alternatives can get off their backsides and provide a reasonably secure solution, they may give Apple a run for their money. They don't have that much time to contemplate their response. As for the established crooks such as Adobe with what when we looked was going to be an overpriced solution with per issue fees etc, hopefully their systems will fall even further behind. Edited by amcmo: 25/1/2012 09:54:22 PM
ory_zm 26 January 2012	I agree with most of what you say. The only problem (for me that is) is that I don't own any Apple products and do not like iTunes hence I am left out of this. Apple's response to me is: "You want in? Sure! buy an iPad, install iTunes, and you are good to go!"... And to that I say: thanks no thanks sir.
amcmo 26 January 2012	Yes, In an ideal world Apple would make iBooks2 available for other platforms, however, while the alternatives seem to be locked in navel gazing mode, no incentive for them to even consider that.
willtell 26 January 2012	amcmo... While I agree that content creators deserved to be paid for their efforts, your posts imply that the only way to obtain any real profits is via the Apple proprietary approach. However industry statistics state otherwise. Those content creators that publish via the Android Marketplace have found it to be extremely profitable, despite the concerns of piracy. I agree with ory_zm in that the focus should be on open standards so that cross-platform interoperability is possible. As consumers this is something that we should all be supporting. Despite your claims, Apple's intent isn't to protect the content produced by creators. Their intent is to protect their own profits and market share by locking users into their ecosystem thereby ensuring loyalty.
DJ... 26 January 2012	"Being fans of the open standards on which computing has been built, this kind of lock-in goes against our very nature here at PC & Tech Authority. " Sorry, is this written by a reporter for PC & Tech Auth?? When did the magazine change? I thought the historical background of this magazine was the support of all things Microsoft, including the many closed 'standards' that they use? And there is so little information about Linux and other open systems in this magazine. Sounds like another case of jealousy for Apple. Apple have never said they aren't a commercial concern, in business to make a profit, the same as MS. But at least Apple leads the field and offers new and innovative products to the masses. Once a market place is established by Apple, because they have the resources to fund such a new market place, we will see others such as Adobe (who will also provide a closed shop for their own benefit) and maybe Microsoft jumping onto the "me too" bandwagon (whilst saying that they thought of it first) to provide some competition. Coming up the rear will be the 'open source' community that will provide something free and by definition, 'open'. And this will be GREAT! By then though Apple would have moved on to the next thing - firstly for their benefit but also for us.
amcmo 27 January 2012	Wiltel, The stats on the Android marketplace are undeniable. Developers on Android make significantly less than the Apple App store. Check the number of copy Android app stores around, many nothing more than providing copied apps and/or apps with Malware. The number of blatant rip-offs of apps on Android app stores is stunning. Having said that, the Apple App Store made a stuff-up just recently, slipping through an app that was a blatant copy of another. Was taken down quickly when pointed out. I'm not saying the Apple way is the only way, for text books, however at present the Android marketplace has insufficient controls to tempt publishers. Everyone is going on about the need for open standards. Would have no issue with that, once there are sufficient controls. You want Open Standards? Where are the 'open standard' suppliers of textbooks? Currently bleating about Apple and doing nothing to address the matter. One possible exception, a group of German publishers is forming a group to provide content,though whether it will be an open standard or just their own closed environment remains to be seen. As I've said previously, until others get off their arses, negotiate with content providers and set up their own SECURE system, it is Apple's by default. You can say as consumers you should support an open standard, however there is no such standard, and none reported on the horizon. What should the educators do? Sit around and just hope, or go with the one that is available, with a proven track record? I've also never said Apple is altruistic about this. Of course they are out to make profits and lock in market share. That's what successful businesses do! Reality is, Apple is the business that caught everyone else napping. Part of the process is they had to negotiate (quite rightly) with content providers to secure their content as far as possible, and provide a secure environment for new content developers. DJ, you're right, PCA&T_ used to be all about things M$ and slagging any other alternative (32 reasons... That didn't stand scrutiny). Now it seems all things Google/Android and the odd sop to M$ & Apple. Of course most reviews and opinion pieces seem to come from the equally second rate UK publication often only half-arsed edited for Australia, leaving in UK specific content. And when was anything about open standards in the PC world? Ok, manufacturers successfully cloned the IBM PC, despite IBM's attempt to keep in their own closed environment. M$ DOS and Windows is the most closed environment going. M$ went to obscene lengths to make certain any potential competitor wouldn't work on a PC (DRDOS, GEM). They still have a closed environment, and their UEFI based attempts to lock it up again on WIN8 systems are certainly everything but open. Then there's Intel locking out competing chipset manufacturers and doing their damnedest to lock out video card mfr's. Soon your motherboard will contain only Intel and be only from their anointed Mobo mfrs, or will they strangle them also? It's only since their conversion to all things Google/Android that PC&T_ has begun beating the Open Source drum, ignoring the fact that Android is substantially less than truly open source. A cynic could be excused for wondering if the miraculous 'open source' conversion relates to advertising revenue, after all, how many adverts for Samsung/Android eco products feature when opening any news/opinion piece? Could it be it's Apple's own fault for not giving PC&T_ enough advertising $$:-k Edited by amcmo: 27/1/2012 06:53:18 AM Edited by amcmo: 27/1/2012 06:58:16 AM
skarpethinn 27 January 2012	Trust photohounds to come out swinging when Apple is mentioned, and trust amcmo to blindly defend them. Every time. This set of posts was even better than usual, sprinkled with such gems as "navel gazing" & lamenting the lack of "controls" and "security". Sigh. Quote: "Sorry, you reviewer has gone off on another freetard rant and overlooked the commercial reality of any company providing such a product/service - they want to make money. Unless they make money how do they pay the development costs? Don't slag Apple for doing the right thing for themselves (and benefitting education), slam the other's for sitting around not doing something similar..." i can't believe that you can't see how wrong this comment is, along with mentality that produced it. It is attitudes like this that allow Apple to keep closing the constrictions on what we euphemistically call their "ecosystem" - and it completely misses the point this article was making in the first place! "Open Source" is about so much more than free software or 'copying apps' for your own benefit; i don't expect anybody on this forum to see beyond their own prejudices, though. Edited by skarpethinn: 27/1/2012 03:20:31 PM
amcmo 27 January 2012	I have no issue with open source. We use O/S apps in house, however my points remain valid. I have no issue with valid criticism of Apple, however the constant, because it's Apple, and because they impose terms on use of their software, it's somehow wrong or inferior to open source quite frankly shits me. Nothing blind about it, just a valid discussion, but then, to use your analogy, I wouldn't expect you to see the validity of those statements, being hidebound in an O/S defence. Facts: 1. Everyone else seems to be sitting doing nothing. 2. The security issues are valid. 3. I have no issue whatsoever if someone else brings out an alternative that provides a secure system for authors to release their text's and receive the benefits they are entitled to. I don't give a toss if it's proprietary or O/S, whatever works. 4. Too often the tag open source is used by those who really mean 'free to take' As I've already said, if open source groups do get off their arses and bring out a viable secure alternative - great, however no point in moaning about Apple securing a huge lead in their legitimately locked environment, while everyone sits around complaining it's not open source. Theres, no mentality as you put it in enabling Apple to keep closing their 'eco' If you bothered to read the whole thread, you might have noticed we will NOT be using iBooks Author, but something else, because as we will be distributing to a small and controlled environment, we don't need rights management or a secure store (and we don't need to give away 30% for the managemnt of the downloads). Just to stess the point overlooked by those who claim I'm blindly following Apple. I own the company and make the decisions on the software we use. We use Linux, OSX and Win. We use O/S applications. We use Win Apps, and we use OSX apps. I WILL defend Apple's right to have their own eco and to control it and make obscene profits. I will also defend M$'s right to control their eco, insist on Win compatiblity ratings, whatever they like. I will defend Samsung's right to make good products (I will also comment on what look like barely disguised copies to rush to market), thankfully being replaced by far more worthy products. So Skarpethin, perhaps you should read the posts with an open mind before you start labelling. Acually, I can prove I'm open minded - I ride Triumph - the little company that takes it to the Japanese, BMW, Ducati! So there! Edited by amcmo: 27/1/2012 06:35:38 PM
skarpethinn 28 January 2012	Well, you really showed me, didn't you?
amcmo 28 January 2012	Not a matter of 'showing you' just pointing out you made assumptions and statements about my reasons for posting that had nothing to do with reality.
ory_zm 29 January 2012	The only thing is that I don't think I've ever read a post of yours that criticised Apple... Of course fanbois never think they are fanbois... doesn't mean they aren't. (I don't specifically mean you, just trying to make a point)
rubaiyat 29 January 2012	It doesn't seem to be an issue to be a PC or Android fanboy, or even to be bigotted anti-Apple, that's taken to be "natural". It's the context. Here in PCAuthority where the usual post is critical of Apple in my case the response is to counter those. In Apple's forums or Mac forums I counter the gushing adoration of the innocents. amcmo I gather would be in a similar position, even though not a regular, long term Mac user like myself.
willtell 29 January 2012	I don't know if this really is an Apple vs whatever debate. I think its more of a concern that Apple is intending to control text books as a medium. From what I've read of the Apple EULA (I might be wrong on this), but once it has been published via iBooks, the work can't be sold using any other medium. If the major text book publishers decide that the Apple method will be the most profitable process for them, then it will force students into buying into the Apple ecosystem - iTunes, iPad, etc, etc. You can bet that if it was Microsoft of Google doing this, people would be up in arms. From what I can see, Apple's intention is to monopolize educational works. In this instance, you could substitute Apple for any other major corporation and it's still a concern. I wouldn't like any major corp (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Adobe, etc) having complete control over the distribution of text books.
petergaskin 29 January 2012	Universities have previously handed oput ipads for their students to sue while at uni - in SA. So the changes are already taking place. Too late to change the rolling stone now!
amcmo 29 January 2012	Perhaps you should go back and read them all. Many have been in response to inaccurate posts attacking Apple, address poorly thought out opinion pieces or reviews that read like the Kogan/Samsung, whoever press release. This mag in particular has a habit of glossing over shortcomings in some products from Samsung, Acer, Sony, whereas the same issue in an Apple product would be inexcusable example of design over function. Headlines trumpeting ultrabooks, that have a lower spec than an Air as taking the fight to Apple, for example. Go back over some of the 'reviews' and compare the headline to reality with an open mind. It's hard not to respond. Or 'news' up to a week late taken from stuff.tv, PCPro uk and poorly Australianised. Others have been in response to the usual suspects who cannot help but turn any thread into an excuse to have a go at Apple, usually without foundation (you want me to ignore them?), and of course, the odd post is just to wind up those usual suspects. As with any company, Apple do dumb things from time to time, and Jobs could be an absolute arsehole (all I've mentioned in the past), however they do have a damned good track record over the past decade of new products. You cannot post honestly and not support their wins. I've already posted that I believe the transformer may be the first real iPad competitor, perhaps even opening a new tablet segment. I've already stated we will be getting one to test. Just for the record, we've tested two models of Samsung, the Xoom 1, Lenovo and I don't believe they are worthy competitors. Will have a Fire next week to check out for a specific limited functionality requirement. For a supposed Apple Fanboy I have one hell of a lot of non-Apple kit in the lab and company overall.
rubaiyat 29 January 2012	willtell wrote: I don't know if this really is an Apple vs whatever debate. I'm probably with you on this one. I'm in two minds. The easy dissemination of textbooks is a plus. The strangled method of distribution is not, because it doesn't let the consumer simply choose the best for themselves. I'm not a fan of iTunes either, except as player of content. I hate the store itself. IF this turns out to be an easy and cheap method of eTextbook creation this could potentially stir everyone else into countering with software and distribution methods of their own. Unfortunately, as we have seen with Android, merely being an alternate choice does not end up as a better choice. We may end up with cheaper, more convenient, junk.
MikeTheBike 29 January 2012	The one issue that neither amcmo & ory_zm skirt around but is a big issue is monopoly. If Apple do get the text book market to the exclusion of other players then we the consumers are denied the freedom of choice as to hardware and competitive pricing to which we are entitled. A free market is the best area to achieve this and Apple has a nasty way of cornering or at least attempting to corner markets and prices accordingly.
rubaiyat 29 January 2012	amcmo I guess you can sum it up as having tried the rest, you go back to the best. For me Windows is a poison pill, no matter what advantages there may be with the hardware. Android still doesn't stir me, it seems a muddled mess. Damned if I am going to gamble my hard earned dough on the slim chance that something that is no cheaper, by accident manages to finally get a few things right in the mix of dross. Apple is certainly not perfect, and growing less so each day, I just wish somebody would actually take the fight to them. Samsung may be the closest to doing so, but still lacks real design skills. How things work is the key to today's complex technology, not what it could do if you could only work out how.
amcmo 29 January 2012	Willtell, Under the EULA, you can only give away or sell through the App Store any publication completed using iBooks Author. You are free to convert it to another format and sell via another channel. iBooks Author is just a program that takes input from Word, Pages etc and converts to Apple's version of ePub. Absolutely nothing to stop you pulling that same content into another publishing program (many open source, or Apple alternatives). Just don't do it with Adobe or Quark - the licence fees are obscene up front, and you are TOTALLY locked into their system. Of course Apple's intent is to dominate the market. No company goes into a business with the intent of handing part of their market to competitors. That's an easy way to go out of business in a hurry as once you do that, there's no way to control what portion of your market they take. History is littered with companies that developed a market, however failed to lock it up and ended up being the loser. Take Google with Android. They gave it away to get established, now they are trying to exert greater control. What they have NEVER given a cent of is their advertising stream. In that respect, they are the Apple of the on-line advertising business. You play search engines and on-line advertising to Google's rules, or not at all (almost). Yes, it can seems unjust for one company to control a market so totally, however that's commercial reality. I've already said in this thread that I am happy to see a true alternative to Apple in the text market, provided it secures writer (as opposed to publishing companies') rights and prevents stealing of their work. Edited by amcmo: 29/1/2012 04:07:05 PM
rubaiyat 29 January 2012	MikeTheBike wrote: The one issue that neither amcmo & ory_zm skirt around but is a big issue is monopoly. If Apple do get the text book market to the exclusion of other players then we the consumers are denied the freedom of choice as to hardware and competitive pricing to which we are entitled. A free market is the best area to achieve this and Apple has a nasty way of cornering or at least attempting to corner markets and prices accordingly. Apple can't corner the market unless the others let it by simply being crap. Apple only recently has dominated certain categories and it only did that because frankly the whole industry is in a seriously mediocre funk. If you put up with Microsoft's far longer, much more mediocre and tighter monopoly of computer OSes and office software I think Apple's efforts won't be a big concern. MS sucks a fatter percentage from its strangle hold on PCs than Apple manages in its own niches.
amcmo 29 January 2012	MikeThebike, Actually as consumers we're not 'entitled' to competition. If a company develops a new product/market, they can do their utmost to lock competitors out via patents, copyright, etc. We're 'entitled' to chose not to buy, however have no entitlement to force them to allow a competitor into the market (at least during the currency of patents etc). Might not seem fair, and yes pushes prices up (Dysons for how many years?), however that's often commercial reality. I should add, once a market's established, there's gov't controls on reducing existing competition- in theory (Woollies/Coles???) Of course something can be developed in the open source community, however at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, there's not a great record at protecting artists rights in that environment (IMHO). Edited by amcmo: 29/1/2012 04:16:19 PM
rubaiyat 29 January 2012	There is an irrational sense of entitlement here. Somebody innovates and all the cheapskates demand they get it cheap! I was a very early adopter of computers in design and I still remember a particular client who having discovered we had done their job on a computer demanded a discount. I asked them when exactly had they contributed to the cost of the hardware, software or training. Also was there any other method of creating work that they felt entitled them to take away from our income. I doubt they ever made the same demands of their accountant for having done their books on a PC. Once you get on that slippery slope, there is nothing that is cheap enough. Quality or how much work was actually done gets totally ignored. Edited by rubaiyat: 29/1/2012 04:30:56 PM
MikeTheBike 29 January 2012	amcmo How pedantic and mean spirited you are. An apologist for the corporations no less. If we all had your narrow perspective on monopolies the world would be a sorry place. There are laws both here and in the US that makes it illegal to monopolize a market. There is also a more insidious aspect to Apple marketing that smacks of product brainwashing. Apple's ad from the 90's that had the "Big brother" theme was closer to the mark than they expected; but big brother was really Apple themselves. Yes they make good kit(supposedly) but if one spends some in an Apple store and watches the amount of iPhones and iPads that get exchanged under warranty I have some serious doubts as to the quality(sic). No I'm not your usual Mac basher as my household has 1 x iMac, 2 x iPads, 1 x iPod Touch, i x iPod Nano & 2 x Iphones as well as 2 x PCs, 2 x laptops, 1 x ASUS tablet, 1 x B&N Nook Color & 2 x Android phones. Now as to your comment about "we have the choice not to buy"; if Apple does corner the market re: text books and uses a propriety version of epub 3 please explain to me how that gives us a choice. Now saying we have the choice to buy a normal book is a cop out as the electronic books will have interactive content and the last time I looked books didn't have this function. Maybe if you got off your lofty perch and lived in a real world you could be a tad more objective. Now Mr rubiayat I'll have to assume you're some pretentious Persian mathematician & philosopher though your ravings preclude both I imagine. Fanboy are we? Enough said!
MikeTheBike 29 January 2012	OH and by the way rubiayat, MS doesn't monopolize the PC market. There are now multiple options for operating systems for PCs. Yes the manufacturers load Windows by default but Linux machines are available and Golly,Gosh you can even run a PC on shock,horror OS Lion. I have done so myself, not easy per se but do-able. So get off the ho hum, old MS bash it's becoming very yesterday.
amcmo 29 January 2012	Mike the Bike, so down to personal insults. There's nothing pedantic, nor mean spirited about me, not that you would have a clue on that score. I run a business in 4 countries and know the reality of competing and making a dollar as opposed to demanding that the world give me something I'm not entitled to, even if it's competition. Despite your claims, anyone can invent and patent technology and there is NOTHING in Australian and US law that forces them to allow others to compete. There is NOTHING that prevents you from monopolising a market if there are no competitors, no one comes up with a competing tech.... etc. If a competitor can come up with a competing product that does not infringe, then that is fine and competition ensues. My stance on the eBook thing has been consistent. I suggest you read my posts properly instead of jumping to totally incorrect conclusions. If others get off their arses and stop whining about Apple and come up with a competing etext system that education adopts, (and one that secures authors rights) they will succeed and Apple may not. Demanding that Apple be forced to open their system to competitors is a lazy person's approach to the issue. demanding that education not adopt the Apple system is liekwise a lazy person's approach. If no-one else does anything to compete in their own right and Apple controls the market, that's life - get used to it, instead of whining, or perhaps be the one that does get off their arse to come up with the competing product. Your claims about warranty returns are not backed up by the stats. Yeah.... someone I know knows someone who saw..... Yes, we do have a choice not to buy. If people don't buy, a product fails, simple as that. Edited by amcmo: 29/1/2012 06:46:02 PM
rubaiyat 29 January 2012	MikeTheBike wrote: OH and by the way rubiayat, MS doesn't monopolize the PC market. There are now multiple options for operating systems for PCs. Yes the manufacturers load Windows by default but Linux machines are available and Golly,Gosh you can even run a PC on shock,horror OS Lion. I have done so myself, not easy per se but do-able. So get off the ho hum, old MS bash it's becoming very yesterday. Microsoft has currently 87.1% of all Internet clients, only whittled down by Apple's recent success with iOS, and has, when able, forced PC manufacturers to pay for Windows even when not installed on PCs. In just the PC market it has over 90% of the global market. Apple has nowhere ever had that degree of hold even on tablets or smart phones, nor has it ever forced anyone to pay for software they haven't sold. Apple even has made provision for users to install Windows on Macs with their free BootCamp, but in my long experience of Microsoft and Microsoft trained IT staff there has been a relentless campaign to sabotage and keep Macs out. Going back to those golden days when Microsoft told their rather gullible users that GUI, mice and WYSIWIG desktops were actually bad for you. Apple is deemed to make an excessive profit of 26% on its revenues. Microsoft squeezes 32% from its clients, voluntary or not. You seem to be both poorly informed and extremely sensitive to any close examination of your prejudices. I can be extremely critical of Apple, probably in matters you wouldn't understand, but here I am only pointing out obvious errors on your part. Believe me Apple would never rate me a fan boy. Someone whose interests can coincide, but I seriously doubt Apple would ever consider me one of theirs.
amcmo 29 January 2012	MiketheBike, 80+% of any market is considered by most commentators to be an effective monopoly, so M$ do have an OS market monopoly and have been called on their monopolist practices in recent years in the US and Europe. Google, likewise are under investigation in multiple countries. Apple have also been looked at over iPod/iTunes. Edited by amcmo: 29/1/2012 07:25:28 PM
MikeTheBike 29 January 2012	Amcmo Fell into my trap old son but I do apologize if I hurt your feelings. I surmised from your defense of corporations that you probably were of that type yourself but needed proof and a barb always works. Objectivity, I sincerely doubt. Oh, and by the way, I may not know you personally but I know the type intimately as you don't have the market on corporate endeavour. With regards to the monopoly laws you are wrong in the fine print but I'll be typing for a month to get to the nitty, gritty on that score. I'll grant you the comment on the ebooks to the point of what is happening now but the fact remains that with the introduction of the text books Apple will be using a propriety version of epub 3 which is open source. This goes against the spirit of open source. Where's the rant against this. Now it is quite OK to create a propriety file version but to use open source is a bit rich. Please don't infer that one can simply(sic) convert the file to another format as I'm sure they will include some form of DRM protection. Correct me if I'm wrong here but DRM protection was created to stop people from copying copywrite material. Yes we can bypass DRM and use calibre! to convert but that in itself opens yet another can of worms. Where did I say Apple should open their system to all and sundry? I bridge too far I think. Also please point out the whining as I'd be interested to see where I did so. Or is this you getting personal old son. Gets the blood flowing though doesn't it hahahahahahaha
amcmo 29 January 2012	My comment about whining has been about the large number of posters and the original opinion piece who somehow think that Apple should not be entitled to try to lock this market, and that education should not buy Apple, despite the lack (currently) of a viable alternative, not you specifically. Apple's extensions to ePub for interactive content allow it to lock it. There is no right for the open source community to Apple's extensions. One could argue that it would be a publicity coup for Apple to release them to the community, however nothing to force them. My comments about alternatives. If you write your text in Word, Pages, Scrivener etc, you can import that content into any number of publishing programs, giving you the choice of the platform you support. OK, most others probably don't have the interactive features. You could write all your content then publish on multiple platforms. We have done that to test alternatives. Monopolies. I have four degrees in business and business law, (all paid for out of my own pocket I might add, no govt, nor parent handouts/loans. My parents were very poor, so my perch is anything but lofty.) and believe me there are myriad ways to legally monopolise a market, especially if there is patented tech involved and/or you are first to market. If you establish a market and an effective monopoly, apart from extreme cases (Bell) you can't be forced to divest business units or open the market if there is something about your patented tech or cost of entry that effectively prevents competition. You can be prevented from acquisitions that generate a monopoly in an existing market. Edited by amcmo: 29/1/2012 07:58:44 PM
Deonast 29 January 2012	To be civil I'm not going to write the expletive when I saw amcmo accusing the author of having "gone off on another freetard rant". This is an opinion piece if you don't agree with it, sure state your reasoned case as to why you don't. Don't call someone a 'freetard' that is insulting which you quite well knew. I'm sure I'm not the only one who got that reaction from you posting that manner. You make some valid arguments just remember that your opinion is just as valid as the author of the article, when you slag someone off you reduce your credibility I hope you don't deal with people in that manner in your work place. Treat these postings as you would treat a person you meet face to face have some tact and civility.
Fatboy 29 January 2012	AMCMO sounds like you are having a go at Adobe for doing the same thing as Apple which is look after their own business.
Fatboy 29 January 2012	Well said Deonast.
amcmo 29 January 2012	We'll agree to differ on that one. I stand by my comment, as I draw from his opinion piece an unjustifiable expectation that Apple should not be entitled to attempt to secure this market, that they should be blocked or that it all should be open source. That the company that spent the time and money developing the application, negotiating to get publishers to accept terms to make this content available, should not be allowed to profit from this effort. The post ignores the fact that solely due to Apple's efforts there will be reasonably priced and easily updates texts available and the huge benefit that provides. The unreasonable expectations - Freetard while strong seems fairly close to the mark. And Fatboy, my comments about Adobe are about the significant costs involved. If they can get people locked in and paying those exorbitant costs, more power to them. Apple's fees anyone can afford - free software and a 'sort of' reasonable percentage, Adobe/Quark, expensive software/expensive fees. Or would you prefer I not bring this to people's attention? Edited by amcmo: 29/1/2012 08:33:19 PM
photohounds 30 January 2012	Long tired debate, but naysayers have not really addressed the points made - they have merely demonstrated that knocking a closed, greedy approach is some for of heresy. Backlit screens suck for long reads and the light keeps you awake long after you are tired. That same light quality is being piloted in truck stops and truck cabins- TO KEEP DRIVERS AWAKE. Are the tablet makers going to pay your eye doctor in later life? The iApproach reminds me of an old anti-cigarette ad - the one with the fish hook: Mash the standard, dominate, shove it down everyone's throat, force itunes on another unsuspecting part of the community. Apple is little more than the MS of the new millennium - with slightly better products and a religion to follow. As for competing tech? Fat chance with all that market power. Misusing market power in this way IS illegal as several antitrust cases have show us. It just takes people a while to wake to the fact that the 'new saviour' is merely another satan :) And Apple Antitrust is probably not far away. Remember the Getty case? The vertical integration, refusal to include others? Maybe the iDefenders just don't see it yet, maybe they never will as it is against their religion. Antitrust lawyers are apparently less religious and note that when someone CONTROLS 75% of the tablet market, ignoring apple and using ONLY alternatives will cost you dearly. Any app publisher wishing to join the tablet business has no choice but to join the fruity 'ecosystem' for the iPad. This FORCES developers to invest serious money to join an 'ecosystem' operated in a discretionary and opaque way, with unclear and changing rules. In other words DEVELOPER money supports Apple's business only Proof? Apps that compete with apple have simply been removed. Sauron at the helm ...
skarpethinn 30 January 2012	This is the only thing of substance that has been said this entire thread: "The easy dissemination of textbooks is a plus. The strangled method of distribution is not, because it doesn't let the consumer simply choose the best for themselves..." The rest is just dross. It is a shame that this thread degenerated (almost immediately, in fact) into an "Apple vs Everybody Else" slinging match (as usually happens whenever someone mentions Cupertino). It has detracted rather successfully (and insidiously, if i may say so) from the real issue at hand. Edited by skarpethinn: 30/1/2012 12:58:12 PM
photohounds 30 January 2012	Open (as far as possible) dissemination of knowledge is a good thing. Knowledge shouldn't be delivered on a 'my platform only' basis. That is the central thread running through many approaches - and not just the fruity branch ...
amcmo 30 January 2012	Skarpthin, So Photo's diatribe against Apple is the only thing of substance in the discussion? All his crap about how backlit screens etc, is only a thinly veiled introduction of a semi technical aspect to cover his consistent Apple hatred. The simple fact is, for active content in colour, at present, that's the tech that works. There is nothing substantive whatsoever in Photo's post other than anti-Apple half truth techno babble. 75% of the tablet market owned by Apple, latest stats show 56%. Granted the greatest portion of the non-Apple is the Fire which is not a vaiable alternative for this market. Apple are in no danger of anti-trust in that market as others have had 2 years to come up with viable alternatives (in consumers eyes) and have generally failed. Don't bring up Samsung - Apple sued one company for copying, while others have had multiple chances to come out with alternatives. Buggered if I can see where he gets the bit about developers being forced spend 'serious' money to join the Apple eco. There's no up front cost involved, assuming you have a graphics program and word processor, which need not be from Apple, so his statement is an outright lie. Developers money does not prop up Apple, for every text sold they get 30%, which people more in the know than I suggest is not much greater than the cost of managing the infrastructure, (Let's not deny that, yes Apple will make good dollars on the hardware) so the pople making the $ off the text sales are the developers/authors. As it should be. Again, the Anti-Apple naysayers, have ignored a substantial part of my posts, that being, if people do not want Apple to have a stranglehold, someone needs to get off arse and initiate an alternative, which will include negotiation with rights holders etc. I'd be happy for alternatives to be available. Simply demanding it not be so is not the answer. None of my statements have been against such, just against the wish of some that education should sit on it's hands until someone possibly (if ever) developes an alternative option, (or that possibly Apple should be forced to open their system?) The real issue at hand is, there is presently no alternative. All the complaining does not change that. Part of my discussion on the thread has been that the opinion piece and most posts disputing mine have been based on the premise that Apple's Ibook2 system is somehow bad, which may or may not be so, however consistently ignoring the absence of a viable alternative. The endless bleating about closed being wrong , does not change the fact that if there were a valid open, secure system, it would (should) suceed, but where is it? In the absence of alternatives, Apple has the right to make $$. And for the umpteenth time, I'm not blindly defending Apple, simply stating facts of the case, being, in the absence of a viable alternative, what option do educators have? Don't blame Apple (or the messenger i.e. me) for that, blame those who could and should be offering that viable alternative. There have been enough clues that Apple was headed in this direction for someone else to have tried to get there before them. Skarpethin, Apple will only have a stranglehold in the absence of alternatives!
Deonast 30 January 2012	amcmo how old are you. You belittling of everyone with a different option seems to indicate a lack of maturity "All his crap about how backlit screens etc.." I actually see that as a valid point, as someone with glasses I know the importance of eye sight when constantly staring at backlit screen. So you don't agree with his opinion you immediately dismiss legitimate concerns with technical merit as crap. You must be a bundle of joy in meetings at work when you find a differing view point. Again you seem to have no issue with your use of "freetard" to describe the author of the story. You are so single minded you missed the point he author was talking about open standards which is not open source or free. Open standards can be used by commercial and non commercial it makes it easier to interoperable on different platforms whatever they may be. Open standards are not the domain alone of open source. Adobe has pushed and participated in a number of open standards they are definitely a for profit company and they had commercial reasons for doing so. Open Document format, PDF etc are examples of this. So 'freetard' is hardly relevant or appropriate. I'm not even sure how you equate in your later post freetard as being "The unreasonable expectations" I think you are rewriting your own personal dictionary as you go along. I'm really not sure why I'm bothering, you won't learn or gain any ounce of understanding by reading this post as that is your mind set. Perhaps it will enlighten others as to your nature if they have somehow missed it already. Sadly this doesn't add a thing to legitmate debate. I don't think I'll bother in future. Must be dismaying as an author to look at the postings and see reactions like mine and yours.
willtell 30 January 2012	rubaiyat wrote: willtell wrote: I don't know if this really is an Apple vs whatever debate. I'm probably with you on this one. I'm in two minds. The easy dissemination of textbooks is a plus. The strangled method of distribution is not, because it doesn't let the consumer simply choose the best for themselves. I'm not a fan of iTunes either, except as player of content. I hate the store itself. IF this turns out to be an easy and cheap method of eTextbook creation this could potentially stir everyone else into countering with software and distribution methods of their own. Unfortunately, as we have seen with Android, merely being an alternate choice does not end up as a better choice. We may end up with cheaper, more convenient, junk. Well rubaiyat, you've summed it all up nicely in this post. I couldn't agree more. You are right, Apple is far too good at the content delivery system with a solid foundation of existing customers to build upon that it's not likely that another could produce a better product. As you say, the current track record of competitors speaks for their competence. Apple's ability to deliver elegant, hassle-free products keeps customers loyal. Perhaps Amazon might step up but with their lack of interest in any market outside the US, Kindle's won't be the rage throughout schools and universities here. Apple's ability to offer a neat, one-stop-shop for students will keep them ahead of the curve. Edited by willtell: 30/1/2012 11:12:59 PM
amcmo 30 January 2012	Deonast, Well, you have me totally wrong. I'm late 50's been Divisional Mgr/GM/CEO with 3 multinational companies, and had offices in 9 countries at one, with staff in the thousands. I've been GM of 2 family companies, being brought in to take them from local companies to selling internationally. I've also turned around 2 failing companies. I currently own a smallish company with business units in 4 countries. (semi retired) I also do short term contract management/mentoring. I've never lost a staff member due to conflict, and consistently retained staff despite frequently being a poaching target due to policy of developing internal talent. Staff in companies I own and have managed have ALWAYS had the right to disagree with me, provided they back it up with fact. Spirited discussion has always been encouraged. Staff current and past, seem to feel comfortable dropping in or calling for a chat or advice, hardly the mark of the unreasonable tyrant you suggest. Pointing out a couple of patently incorrect posts is not belittling the poster. So your attempt at dissing me is far from the mark.. Points, Backlit screens, read my post. While I agree completely that for text only, ePaper is best, for interactive colour, which is a substantial part of the iBooks 2 platform, and any interactive text, there is not a viable alternative yet. So where's the crap? Belittling no one for wanting open standards, etc, however you and others seem intent on belittling me for daring to support Apple's right to insist that sold content developed on their free software be sold through their App Store. That is their commercial right. I have pointed out more than once, that anyone working on content can also use any number of alternative programs to publish in other formats. repeating for the hard of understanding, we've developed the same content on multiple platforms to test this. I've also pointed out that I have no issue with that and we will be using an alternative to Apple in house. Also discussed that at present, only Apple has spent the time and money on getting content providers lined up. That the only obstacle preventing a successful alternative is someone getting out and negotiating agreements and providing a secure process. You use Adobe as an example, initially, PDF, the example you use could only be generated by purchasing a VERY expensive Adobe program. Eventually good alternatives came to market, however initially, the open standard was open as long as you paid Adobe. OK you could read it anywhere, however to develop and publish... Go back and read the posts again. I clearly SUPPORT the availability of other options, and cross platform if someone/group chooses to get out there and develop that alternative platform, along with security for content developers. What I don't support is the rabid attacks on Apple from some quarters for providing free tools and demanding that content developed using those tools be sold through their channel. I also do not support the demand that it be open source/platform if no-one else has had the smarts to get out there and get it happening. Just as a side note, I also pointed out that Apple could generate great pr if they chose a more open path, but it was their commercial right to not do so. I point out that everyone is dissing Apple and demanding open standards/source, whatever, however NO_ONE has yet bothered to develop such an alternative and that there were enough pointers in advance for an industry group to get such a discussion off the ground before Apple released. Wait until someone else has done the hard work, then demand it should be opened to all.. There's a point in there for anyone with an open mind. (Now I am dissing someone/s!) Willtell, Nice summation Edited by amcmo: 30/1/2012 11:33:43 PM
rubaiyat 31 January 2012	Has anyone seen the reports that these eBooks are huge! You may not be carrying kilos of textbooks around in your backpack but at 1 - 3 Gb per textbook the collection will not be any larger than what could traditionally fit in the pack. I can only surmise they all have extensive video and multi-media to bulk up that much, so the publishers are assuming that just making them the equivalent of static textbooks is not going to garner them a new market. I have a hunch this may also be an anti-piracy measure, making them harder to disseminate and convert to other versions.
amcmo 31 January 2012	Certainly one of the major selling points is that, while many current ones are little more than electronic versions of the old text. the development focus is on interactive colour. Figure a medical text that shows the function of body internals, rather than just a cutaway pic. This is what currently differentiates the iBook2 system from alternatives, and why if groups want an open standard, they need to get moving VERY quickly on a viable alternative. Given the typical inertia in standards groups and industry bodies, I wouldn't bet on them succeeding. What's next, 128-256GB tablets to store all this info?
photohounds 31 January 2012	While the idea contains sparks of merit (other companies see it too), I see this 'initiative mainly as a gimmick to sell more ipads to schools than they need. Replacing information with toys - I have seen it at my son's year-old school. They have all the electronic toys and a VERY small library indeed. The kids (you know the ones we are building the entertainment revolution for?) know far more about how the TOYS work. Asking some boys to describe the operation of a very simple machine (a differential recently) reveal little ability to THINK without a toy and a moving picture of it. The imagination should be in the kid's heads NOT on a device. If these ebooks were to support that, good. So far they seem to stifle imagination, not encourage it. That may or may not change. I think Amazon have been working on this concept, too. Let's see if they cab de-gimmick the process, make it economical, or if like the fruity one, they just can't help themselves in making it a proprietary vehicle to sell more toys, we shall see. .
rubaiyat 31 January 2012	photo Surely Apple is just copying everyone else, stealing their ideas, so we can safely ignore them and just use all the other software? Apple can't force anyone to do anything. Their extremely good Quicktime technology, which became the accepted open standard mpeg, was widely ignored by just about everyone else in the industry who instead turned to proprietary formats such as wma, real, flv, avi, divx etc. because despite all having problems, they weren't Apple, the single most important feature (to avoid). So if Apple decides to keep its technology largely to itself who's to blame them. Why bother throwing pearls before swine?
amcmo 31 January 2012	Photo, I disagree, the interactivity will hopefully spark imagination, as opposed to the 'flat' texts. Of course the aim is to sell iPads to schools. Apple make next to nothing on the text at 30% of $15. That's the creative approach, provide the content at next to nothing and lock in a generation of users. Their approach is the opposite of Amazon, who (almost) give away the hardware at cost, then nickle and dime you for life on the content. Both approaches work. I've seen it many times before, Intel for example, giving CPU's and development software to uni engineering classes, part of the reason why they succeeded over the 6802/6502/6809, which were technically better than the 8080 family etc. (Showing my age again) Result a whole generation committed to Intel CPU's, though we did manage to steal many deals back with the Z80 family (code compatible)
photohounds 31 January 2012	Ruby, no problem with QT - it seemed pretty good to me if you must compress .. The selling of electro toys places costs way out of proportion to the benefits ON THE TAXPAYER for a theft-desirable appliance. A very significant cost at BOTH ends. Why do we need top bleed the taxpayer to address some 'problem'. Anyone think that the TAXPAYER should be financing the exclusion of other solutions to benefit only one entity, in this case the richest company in the world, which continues to abuse its market power? That's the effect, short and long term. Think of the teacher training (and weeding) that the necessary loot of THAT order of magnitude might provide. Now that might actually benefit kids. No problem with cheap hardware, either - it's for KIDS who often do not treat gear well (or pinch it). I can't see Amazon content being more costly than fruity stuff, judging by current similar content prices, so the cheap hardware would represent a WIN for the taxpayer and maybe even the kids as they could afford more? As I said as long as it isn't completely locked in ... . AM, 30% of twenty million $15 books isn't 'next to nothing' - if you persist with this belief, I'll trade you an orange peel for that amount any time.
amcmo 31 January 2012	As already pointed out, (and not just by me) the 30% is considered to be close to the cost of running the infrustructure, so bugger all money for them. Cheap hardware might be a fine theory, however current view is the Fire is not up to the demands of interactive textbooks. Juice it up to the right size and a suitable spec and you're looking at iPad pricing territory. You can guarantee there would be an Apple education price in those volumes. There's still one MAJOR stumbling block as I've tried (nicely) to point out, at present there is not even a rumour of any alternative. Continued criticising Apple for having a locked system that benefits them only, ignores the obvious lack of anyone else spending the time and money to generate choice. Of course, there is free choice and no lock-in of sorts - Apple's iBooks2, or the competing open platform consisting of - NOTHING! (well, carrying textbooks) Despite all claims, Apple is NOT abusing power in generating this system, just being a normal company focussed on their profits, not on generating profit for Samsung, Acer, Amazon etc. (A cynic could suspect that the real agenda for some poster's is, 'we don't mind anyone making profit as long as it's not Apple') As for the Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for a monopoly, what the hell do those people think the current text book system is? I am amused by the strident DEMANDS for open platform, when the current texbook system that people have been used to paying for is a totally closed system. You pay exactly what the publishers demand or look for second hand books and hope there's been no significant revisions. At least the Apple system opens up the option for Authors to publish direct with Apple, bypassing the greedy publishing houses, and significantly reducing costs over time($14.95 vs $$$$ upwards). Ok, there's the cost of the platform, however there is nothing in current tablet pricing to suggest that any alternative would be any cheaper, and the tablet can be used for more than just text's.
rubaiyat 31 January 2012	photohounds wrote: Think of the teacher training (and weeding) that the necessary loot of THAT order of magnitude might provide. Now that might actually benefit kids. Ah the old "they could spend their money on better things" argument. So why aren't they? There is no "Apple monopoly" in place. Have you had a problem with the Taxpayer paying for Windows and all its associated shit. What about any Samsung device that could be used to read eText? I know you've been working very hard to conceal it but I think you just don't like Apple. Did a Mac fall on your head when you were a baby?
photohounds 31 January 2012	Market power being abused is never amusing. Getty, IBM, MS, Apple etc. The other inferences are demonstrable bollocks.
rubaiyat 31 January 2012	Can I see your discard pile photo? The one that has anything that isn't irrefutable evidence that Apple is evil.
photohounds 31 January 2012	You think I spend much time on THAT? I only counter Apple-only BS where I see it, and it was everywhere up to the about middle of last year. Never said 'evil' - that's the anti Google mantra as far as I know. On that subject WHAT does Apple or M$ provide for that's even remotely as useful as Google Earth (and associated stuff)??? FOR FREE. A bit of hot water because of military and people caught where they shouldn't be, but otherwise NOT evil at all. Where does this 'evil' come from, of yes it is that quaint iReligion that states no one can do as well. Bollocks.
rubaiyat 1 February 2012	Apple has provided an enormously long list of things that you enjoy but, like the Jewish rebels in The Life of Brian, so take for granted that they are unconnected to their author. The first off the shelf personal computer was nothing I suppose. Amongst an enormous list of contributions, Apple has provided you with the means to have easily alterable legible text, Truetype, with which to post in these forums and browse Google Earth. Then to print it accurately. When you watch digital media or TV you are watching mpegs courtesy of Apple. But most of all it has given us all the the GUI interface and the principle of simplified interaction with computers, picked out of the discard bin of Palo Alto and materialised into what you enjoy today, whether it is the derivative copies of either Windows or Linux or direct from Apple itself. To deal with the Apple "conspiracy" you seem to have taken your model from Goebbel's Jewish Conspiracy theories; "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Edited by rubaiyat: 1/2/2012 12:39:52 AM
rubaiyat 1 February 2012	The lies have become so pervasive and repeated by the ignorant that they are self referenced. The evidence is that someone else repeated them before you. I read the response to the Guardian's obituary for Steve Jobs and amongst them were the same shit buckets of misinformation. Including such nonsense claims that Palm invented tablets back in the '80s. Amazing for a company that wasn't launched till the '90s after Apple's Newton hit the streets. It is just like the climate conspiracy theorists, bury one lie and it sprouts a dozen more to take its place. There are plenty of morons around who work back from the conclusion to pick and choose "the facts" to fit.
amcmo 1 February 2012	Photo, You cannot seriously claim to only refute Apple-Only BS. Since I have been on here, you have been one of a couple of posters capable of turning a thread on the mating lives of cane toads into an Anti-Apple rant. All the BS of Apple abusing market power. Come on, give a VALID example. As for your 'Google gave us Earth for free', yes, however they also invaded our privacy and build a monumental business off it for free (to them). This is the same company that stole data over WiFi, then tried to blame one of the development staff. The list of their theft of personal information is legendary, as is their total lack of care for your personal privacy. Talk about abusing market power. Let's not forget their twisting of search engine results to suit themselves and their advertisers. This same wonderful company is being investigated in numerous countries for abuse of market power. This same company fined $500M for continuing to accept illegal adverts from shonky drug outlets for several years after being officially warned. This same company that made allowance for eventually getting fined while they continued with the adds. Yes, I can see how you conclude that Apple is so abusive of it's power while Google is wonderdog. You (and a few others) fling unsubstantiated claims of abuse of power against Apple, while ignoring the real abuse of Google. But they gave us Earth (wonder who's tech they stole to achieve that), and stole from Oracle and Apple to give us Android. They have to be the innocent underdogs..... NOT! Edited by amcmo: 1/2/2012 09:13:58 AM
skarpethinn 1 February 2012	amcmo wrote: As for your 'Google gave us Earth for free', yes, however they also invaded our privacy and build a monumental business off it for free (to them). This is the same company that stole data over WiFi, then tried to blame one of the development staff. The list of their theft of personal information is legendary, as is their total lack of care for your personal privacy. Talk about abusing market power. Let's not forget their twisting of search engine results to suit themselves and their advertisers. This same wonderful company is being investigated in numerous countries for abuse of market power. This same company fined $500M for continuing to accept illegal adverts from shonky drug outlets for several years after being officially warned. This same company that made allowance for eventually getting fined while they continued with the adds. Yes, I can see how you conclude that Apple is so abusive of it's power while Google is wonderdog. You (and a few others) fling unsubstantiated claims of abuse of power against Apple, while ignoring the real abuse of Google. But this article is not about Google, is it? It's about Apple. 'Supporting' Apple by shooting down other companies is a crude line of attack, and actually diminishes your argument rather than bolstering it.
rubaiyat 1 February 2012	skarpethinn photo was the one who raised google as the good example, which it isn't. Apple is no great philanthropic enterprise and I'm only too happy to go into its faults at length given half a chance, but accusing it in isolation of looking after its own commercial interests is massively hypocritical. Is this based on some crazed notion that Apple alone should create and distribute its creations for free, to people who seem to suffer from a congenital hatred of anything and everything Apple? People who sip on a viciously stupid cocktail of disparaging envy. For them Apple is an over-achiever and the target of every endless misspelt, unresearched, misinformed, post that can barely rub two words together to make sense, wishing they could tear Apple down to make them feel taller. To those who have convinced themselves that Apple creates nothing, what is there to have? Why lust after something you consider worthless? The loopy thinking just has me watching with my eyes rolling out of their sockets.
skarpethinn 1 February 2012	amcmo wrote: Skarpthin, So Photo's diatribe against Apple is the only thing of substance in the discussion? ... There is nothing substantive whatsoever in Photo's post other than anti-Apple half truth techno babble. i didn't reference the whole of "Photo's diatribe against Apple," did i? i quoted one point - and it was Rubaiyat, not Photohounds - that pointed out several ethical grey areas in the way Apple are proceeding with the distribution and control of this software. For someone who is writing the longest posts in this thread, you are doing a terrible job of properly reading the posts of others. amcmo wrote: ... as others have had 2 years to come up with viable alternatives (in consumers eyes) and have generally failed. Don't bring up Samsung - Apple sued one company for copying, while others have had multiple chances to come out with alternatives. Firstly, Apple have not sued only one company - they have sued several; Samsung is only the most public, and they weren't even completely successful with it - the case went Samsung's way in Australia. As for others trying to "come up with viable alternatives" - every time someone tries, and gets close to Apple's territory, Apple will sue them; and not just for 'copying' - as i mentioned in another post, Steve Jobs himself publicly said he had a personal mission to - in his words - "destroy Android." That is not the stance of a professional who is happy cmompeting in an open market. amcmo wrote: ... if people do not want Apple to have a stranglehold, someone needs to get off arse and initiate an alternative... ...I'd be happy for alternatives to be available. Simply demanding it not be so is not the answer... ...the real issue at hand is, there is presently no alternative. All the complaining does not change that. ...however consistently ignoring the absence of a viable alternative... ...does not change the fact that if there were a valid open, secure system, it would (should) suceed, but where is it? ...In the absence of alternatives, Apple has the right to make $$... ...simply stating facts of the case, being, in the absence of a viable alternative, what option do educators have? Bit of a broken record here; alternatives to Apple do exist and more are in the offing; to say the Apple is the most secure, and the rest are not is so close-minded - are you forgetting about the virus that shipped in Apple products last year? The one they tried to blame on Microsoft? The problem with these alternatives is not that they are not there, but that Apple is trying to muscle them out of the market; that is really what the fight with Samsung is about - Apple ignored them til that Samsung tablet came out; and as i said earlier, not every legal system in the world agrees with Apple about how much Samsung "slavishly copied" them. Lastly, amcmo - if you are going to single me out by name in a post, at least have the decency to spell my fukking name right; it's right there on the page - how do you get it wrong twice in the same post? Edited by skarpethinn: 1/2/2012 03:49:49 PM Edited by skarpethinn: 1/2/2012 04:14:51 PM
amcmo 1 February 2012	Skarpethinn Touchy, I regulary abreviate member's names, so far you're the first to get a little thin skinned. So F.cking Sorry! You're getting two subjects confused here. Tablets Ok, they sued a small company in Spain in addition to Samsung. BTW as I understand, Samsung only got the injunction lifted in Australia, there is more to be settled. As for slavish, have you actually seen an iPad and the Samsung in question side by side? I have and the similarities are extreme, including packaging. Whether they legally copied or not, it was a slavish copy to grab market share! A good number of industry specialists thought the same. They haven't sued Lenovo, ASUS etc who make great tablets, though ones that couldn't be confused for an iPad. Virus, Typical Android apologist - refer back to ONE incident last yr, as opposed to the how many viruses out there in Android land, and how many infected aPhones? eText / ibooks2 Much as you wish to dream, at present htere is NO alternative, with a negotiated agreement with textbook companies and a system that includes ability for animated colour texts. If there were the alternatives you mention (remember I am talking about alternatives to the iBook2 system), why would Apple's 'closed' system be such a threat to you all? The Open Platform alternatives would win by default. Sorry, I couldn't condense it any further for you.
amcmo 1 February 2012	Skarp btw, I've previously posted that Jobs could be an arsehole. That was obviously one of these arsehole moments.
amcmo 1 February 2012	skarpethinn 'Bit of a broken record here' There have been 4 pages of anti-Apple Zealots bemoaning the fact that Apple seem to have locked up the iText market and demanding an open platform, though completely ignoring the fact that there does not seem to be a viable open platform alternative to market. Please point me in the right direction if there is one! What do they want? - Apple to give them free access to their hard work developing and negotiating? Short enough for you?
rubaiyat 1 February 2012	amcmo wrote: What do they want? - Apple to give them free access to their hard work developing and negotiating? Times change, Free beer and Chicken was heaven according to the John Lee Hooker album.
photohounds 1 February 2012	Education should not be a proprietary venue for those who operate like black marketer profiteers, particularly in today's 'era of low cost communication'. If Apple can't change its spots, then they themselves should perhaps taste a lock out. Oh yes that would take MARKET POWER. Roll on the antitrust suits - can't come too soon for this exclusionary lock-out pedlar. Hopefully governments will be intelligent enough to see: 1) What this really represents for the future of education 2) What alternatives there are (not necessarily aping iFunctionality gimmicks). Lets try for something needed and beneficial instead. Other than the Apple zealots, many of us here see beyond the interests of ONE corporation, and are considering the needs of education itself. Simple once you take off your fan boy hats, really.
amcmo 1 February 2012	Photo, 4 pages later you're still locked into 'no proprietary', despite the fact that almost everything in education is, from M$, to the textbooks. Obviously in your mind, that's ok, as long as it's not Apple, the focus of so much irrational hatred/dislike. Black market profiteers. Let's see, $14.95 text' mmm no black market or profiteering there. iPad, probably continue to be around the same price as anyone else can sell a similar spec device, no black market profiteering there... The death of the publishing house monopoly - that's the death of the only black market profiteering I've seen thus far.... So to follow your demands: Education should now sit on it's hands and wait for some non-existent industry group to haggle over some as yet non-existent open platform, haggle of which company (Google obviously, with judicious use of adverts) will develop the software platform, wait for development of said software platform, then wait years for said non-existent group to finally agree on a common approach to negotiation with the current monopolistic publishing houses. Probably stuff up the negotiations and end up with more expensive content because the said group don't have the negotiation smarts or clout to get the deal Apple did. Did I miss anything? Meanwhile the monopolist publishing houses will continue to fleece the public and screw over the authors, Australian students will continue to pay the double royalty which both parties continue to support. You and your like will be happy, because, while education here suffers, at least Apple won't be making any money (in Australia at least)! Meanwhile, in countries not populated by Apple hating lemmings, they will take up the perfectly useable and reasonable cost Apple platform, with free or low cost texts, and once again Australian education will be playing catch-up. Certain percentage of tongue in cheek.... Hopefully I didn't go over the allowed word limit! Edited by amcmo: 1/2/2012 10:09:56 PM
rubaiyat 1 February 2012	photo Is it just you Apple is supposed to give away things for free or below cost, or are we all invited to the Apple Closing Down Sale?
photohounds 1 February 2012	Commercialisation and a lock-our greed situation. Just great for education and just great for kids generally. I suppose some people's world really IS about fat corporate profits, taken from those least able to afford it. Have shares in a tobacco company, do we boys?.
amcmo 1 February 2012	Let's see, $14.95 texts or even free if the author chooses, IPad no more expensive than similar alternatives. Buggered if I can see the 'greed situation' you rail against. Of course whoever supplies in that volume is going to make large profits, Apple, Samsung, ASUS, whoever. So you'd be ok if it were similar or more expensive but Android? Each kid might have a different brand/model of tablet, with different capabilities and some programs might have to be re-written to work on some tablets due to forking of Android or different mfr's 'skins' Thus far not a hint of any cost saving for 'those who can least afford it' We're still assuming that this non existent open standard group can get the publishers on board at all, or with a similar cost to Apple. (not a given) To this point all we've established is that any profits would go to one or more companies other than Apple. Nothing to suggest that the as yet un-thought of software platform would perform as well as iBooks2 or offer any other benefit other than not being Apple. This about sums all the anti iBooks2 posts to this point. Don't give shit if it's non-existent, more expensive, less capable, as long as it's not Apple! Edited by amcmo: 1/2/2012 11:21:37 PM
amcmo 1 February 2012	Just an additional thought, could always make a Windows tablet standard. M$ would continue their education lock-in, the hardware profits would be split between 3-4 mfrs. The software would be bloatware and blue-screen once a week, and it still wouldn't be true open platform, other than hardware and an OS and program that don't yet exist. M$ would probably set a text price of $55. But at least it Wouldn't be Apple. That at least should keep Photo and friends happy!
photohounds 2 February 2012	This is not a apple fan boy brand issue, AM. Your statements perplex me: On the one hand: You (rightly) deride the "monopolistic" ways of old (but to be fair, they originated in the days when it cost a substantial amount to actually deliver content and there was a lot of waste - AND there were THOUSANDS of publishers, not just ONE. (many are going to the wall most likely) On the other: You're apparently happy for this "initiative" to inflict a FAR MORE CONCENTRATED MONOPOLY as long as it is your favourite company. A company who can instantly deliver content on a PUBLIC, FREE internet they did not create for minuscule cost, but charge what they like. It would seem universally beneficial for all players to be able deliver content in a public format, and that will benefit the most people at the lowest cost because there will be something that ALL large companied talk about but truly hate: COMPETITION. I also detest public information held in the proprietary WORD format. Luckily there are free readers. If that takes some time to deliver an obviously superior universal result it will generate long term benefits for humanity, not just the weasels at your favourite company. Such a wait will generate value - to share holders, but more importantly to humanity. As for your other hobby horses - I doubt Samsung would get involved in this, especially in a 'me only' way. We shall see. Sony, Amazon and other electronic content providers, would be better candidates. You are right, M$ would want to monopolise, like Apple monopoly is also their history.
amcmo 2 February 2012	Simple Photo, Until some group get together and possibly agree on an open platform you have a choice of the current monopoly with obscenely priced texts, or the Apply system with very low priced texts. Given that it is easy to use the same information used to generate the Apple iBooks 2 text, once another standard is finally agreed upon(if ever)the author could publish on that also. End of Apple monopoly. Instead of bitching about some possible Apple monopoly on reasonable priced texts that they make not more than the cost of infrastructure on, (so they are more or less storing the authors books and then passing them to the customer over your 'free' internet, for free - they make money on the iPad!), you should be complaining about the rest of the industry sitting around doing nothing. Of course, you're also missing the fact that Apple, from the reviews thus far, has developed a VERY sweet system for generation interactive colour texts from input from any number of sources. Your attitude to Apple is summed up by your weasel comment. My position thoughout this discussion has been stop bitching about Apple doing what companies do - ie, trying to make $$, rather bitch about the total lack of foresight on the part of the rest of the industry as far as these electronic texts are concerned. As with music, I suspect the shortsighted companies are sitting waiting to see if it gets off the ground before spending their time and money. If it does, we can expect to see a rush of other (possibly also locked) offerings trying to ride Apple's coat tails. I guess it's just easier for everyone to take the lazy way and comfirm their prejudices, slag Apple and wish for some other as yet non-existent alternative. btw, Apple's not my favourite company by far (obviously mine is first, then there are others ahead of Apple). I just hate the constant anti-Apple bullshit (which is what most of it is, totally unsubstantiated and unsupportable bullshit) on this forum.
amcmo 2 February 2012	Actually Photo, at present my favourite company is Honda. The 2 x 2KV generators from the motorhome are keeping all our systems running (and my beer cold) while Energex replace the cables in the street - Typical insufficently thick cable layed when they developed the street and everyone losing high priced UPS's PSU's etc from constant brownouts. Everyone else in the street closed for the day. You don't have an irrational hatred of Honda also do you? Edited by amcmo: 2/2/2012 10:37:47 AM
skarpethinn 2 February 2012	amcmo wrote: skarpethinn What do they want? - Apple to give them free access to their hard work developing and negotiating? YES!! This is the 21st century, not the Middle Ages or Victorian England - education should not be restricted to only those with the money to afford the resources for it. i'm not just talking about Apple here - i mean across the board; i also have a problem with the exhorbitant cost of hardopy text books, high school fees, the restrictions of private schools, etc. i graduated from university 12 years ago, and i am still in debt paying back the costs of my degree. i know at least one person on this forum is going to respond with the "businesses have the right to make money" cliche, but that is getting very tired as a point of argument. But as usual, amcmo, you have missed the point being made - the contention is not Apple charging for their services, it's sandboxing the technology, so that you can not use App A without System B and Device C. Removing the option of choice from the consumer is what is limiting alternatives being made available - and Apple know this and are capitalsing on it (like Microsoft did to the PC in the 80s and 90s; like i said, it is not just Apple i have a problem with - just that this is an Apple article).
rubaiyat 2 February 2012	How much do your textbooks cost now in the 21st Century? And do the publishing houses that print them make them available only exclusively from them? ie Can anyone else print and distribute them? Can the authors of the textbooks who have signed with the publishers then take their work and distribute/sell it to anyone else? Do you actually know how publishing works, so that you can intelligently compare it with what Apple is proposing? Edited by rubaiyat: 2/2/2012 01:32:40 PM
amcmo 2 February 2012	But skarp..you have missed the point. By your reasoning, anything to do with education should be an open platform. Immediate end to innovation by public and private companies. Who is going to innovate when your competitors get a free ride on the back of your investment. This is indeed not the middle ages and we live in a democracy where companies are free to develop their own ideas, without being forced to make them available to the lazy ones who sit and wait for someone else to come up with the next great idea, then try to make money off someone else's hard work. Education is not restricted. Those at the bottom of the socio get government assistance and loans if they choose. I, as said, have 4 degrees (and several post grads) and paid for them all myself (myself, not parents or government). That to me is how it should be. All my children (6) have paid their own way through uni, all like me, going out to work for a year to get a leg up. (and none of them went to private schools) They are all extremely successful in their own field, in my view from having to do it themselves rather than through handouts. As Australia (and the US) is not a communist dictatorship, yes businesses do indeed have the right to make money, and should not be forced to give the results of their hard work to their lazy competitors (or lazy interest groups). Competitors or interests groups are likewise free to develop alternatives. No one has to use Apple's system, they can continue to pay for text books and all that entails or someone else can get off arse and develop an alternative. Apple have come up with what is by all accounts a great eText system. Education can use it now, or wait for someone else. I don't give a rat's if it had been M$ or any other company that came up with it. He who develops the software (costs money and time), negotiates the deals with the publishers (also money and time) gets to choose to sell for themselves only, make it a public platform, whatever. I cannot think of any company that would have freely made it a public platform. Don't anyone suggest Google, they only made Android (sort of) open source because they completely locked up advertising revenue, which is their main business. Bit difficult to advertise in a text book?? Edited by amcmo: 2/2/2012 02:47:13 PM
amcmo 2 February 2012	Rubaiy, The naysayers don't care how locked in the current system is. Because the new system involves computers the old 'everything for free mentality' comes to the fore. Because it's Apple involved they're always against it, no matter what the benefits. Edited by amcmo: 2/2/2012 02:35:22 PM
photohounds 2 February 2012	Most people acknowledge the old system was somewhat locked and want something better. Not 'free' as Ruby keeps incorrectly jiving, but an open format. For the deliberately deaf, the FORMAT should NOT be proprietary so that there can be multiple suppliers. What YOU are proposing is akin to forbidding more than ONE company to possess and operate a printing press. Everyone who sees/hears something MUST PAY and PAY and PAY. Currently you can borrow a book. Bad? Only in the eyes of a greedy monopolist. If these mongrels were to have their way, soon I wouldn't be able to invite music loving friends around and play music without charging them per listen. What a completely convoluted (and fan-boy off the point) crock is being woven here!
amcmo 2 February 2012	No Photo, You (and others)are getting it totally F.cked up. No one is proposing that there must be a locked system, simply that Apple should not / can not be forced to give their hard work away to competitors. Yet again for the hard of understanding/deliberately deaf (how many times before it gets through?). If some open standards group wants to design a publishing system, negotiate with publishers etc (and not spend the next 10 years doing it) then you will have your Open Platform system. Simple as that! Stop bitching about Apple simply doing what any commercial company would do - maximise their chances of being the supplier.
amcmo 2 February 2012	photohounds wrote: If these mongrels were to have their way, soon I wouldn't be able to invite music loving friends around and play music without charging them per listen. Where you got that total crock of shit from I do not know. Whatever it is, stop sniffing it!
rubaiyat 2 February 2012	photo For the deliberately bigoted I accused you of wanting it at below cost or free. No matter what Apple charges you want it for less. At one stage suggesting iPads should be sold at the sum total cost of the parts, or close to it. How are we proposing there be only one company owning and operating a printing press? What you are suggesting is that Apple hand its printing presses over to its competitors, along with its authors. In today's pirate dominated world people effectively have their own printing presses and are stealing copies of copyrighted material and distributing it ad naseum, to eventually kill the author's incentive to create. Apple is proposing a substantial discount on the textbooks or even free. Even my son's textboxes (senior high school) are roughly $75 each and can't be borrowed because everyone must have one and they are set each year by the teachers. Borrowing will be handled by libraries just as they are clumsily trying to do at the moment with various badly knocked together half baked systems. If Apple achieves what it achieved with the iTunes store they will get people to pay at a substantial discount where they have been previously stealing. A side benefit/drawback is that less trees will be cut down and carted around the world and the barrier to publishing will largely be removed. Don't invest in commercial Printers even digital operations, they are about to go the way of the Video Store. Amazon is probably going to be the first to see the threat and respond with a competing product and publishing ecosystem. Others hopefully will follow. Even Samsung who will charge more for copies that are mostly not as easy to use, but will be praised, sight unseen by you photo. Because they meet your sole criteria. They are NOT Apple.
willtell 2 February 2012	There's been some interesting discussion here... not repetitive and similar to every other thread here. A couple quick comments though: How do we know that textbooks will be cheaper? With all the extra work required to make them "revolutionary", surely the authors will adapt their pricing to match? Also, unlike the sale of music via iTunes, it's not as if you can purchase single chapters of a book.
petergaskin 2 February 2012	As my daughter finished her 2 uni degrees 14 months ago, I know that text books cost a crazy amount of money! Generally starting at over $100 each. So being able to get the text book for only $15 would be a huge saving. As I have stated previously on this post, some SA unis have actually given students an ipad to use for the length of their degree. The ipad is to be returned at the end of the degree. So I am not sure how anyone can not back a scheme that will save students hundreds of dollars per year in text book savings. Even when I went to uni, there was a reluctance to buy every assigned text book. Instead, I would borrow some text books from the library. The market for buying second hand text books is there, but when authors keep updating their books, there is little point in buying a second hand text book! So the question that has not been answered, what happens when text books are updated? Do students have to buy the new edition of the text book or will text books be updated like normal software?
amcmo 2 February 2012	Petergaskin, That's a damned good question. I'd be hoping for minor updates it would be free, though with current texts, if there's a major revisin that effects your course, you're up for the $70-120 all over again. I'm guessing the $15 for a new copy download would be easier to stomach than the print price. Willtell, Apple have so far set a max price of $15.
rubaiyat 2 February 2012	willtell wrote: There's been some interesting discussion here... not repetitive and similar to every other thread here. A couple quick comments though: How do we know that textbooks will be cheaper? With all the extra work required to make them "revolutionary", surely the authors will adapt their pricing to match? Also, unlike the sale of music via iTunes, it's not as if you can purchase single chapters of a book. We can go on Apple's other online stores and what Apple has stated as to pricing. $15 appears to be Apple's target price for books. Apple has moved to much more consistent pricing around the world, now that most of their stock is being distributed from central servers. Their differential pricing on music and film was largely forced on them by copyright owners, we'll see if Apple can break their grip on books. Apple offers a wide range of free educational Vodcasts already, not to mention the enormous amount of material, including videos, it offers for free on its support website. So looks like it takes this seriously. Both the iOS store and the Mac App Store have offered a lot of free material and driven down the price of everything else. I expected more squeals from developers getting the squeeze between prices and Apple's cut, but actually they almost all like what they are getting and are enjoying the almost zero costs of marketing and sales. When amateurs hear that Apple will take a 30% cut and are shocked, pros go "What! You mean I get ten times my usual cut!" The truth is authors generally get bugger all. Many bugger nothing. Lots go backwards. Apple in my experience has kept its word, and prices of everything including software, even their Pro range, have in the last ten years been radically cut and never raised. Publishing a traditional printed textbook can be very costly and involved with a high percentage of risk at the final stages of the print run and distribution and promotion In-Store. The vast majority of books end up being pulped after living out an unwanted existence on bookshop shelves around the world. Bookshop shelves which are disappearing at a frightening rate. The actual cost of writing and design fades in comparison. Everybody is sweating when deciding on print runs. Go long and get the price down but get stuck with lots of remainders, or go short and push up prices that will actually discourage purchasers and miss out on the windfalls of a blockbuster? This is going to actually lighten the load for designers and drive down prices further as only small graphics quickly edited, easily controlled and composed on cheap workstations will be needed. The entry bar will be set lower and flexibility raised exponentially, because corrections can be made as they come up, no wait for second press runs, if they ever happen at all. Multi-lingual versioning will get a huge boost as 99% of that will be only at the text level and it costs what it costs, not burdened by print costs for short runs. FrameMaker may live again, yea!! Authors have been actually creating a lot of books themselves in suitable software, but lacking the publishing skills and finance this has largely been wasted as the publishers scrap their work and start from scratch. Authors may not bring polish to the final result but the software will at least let them be legible. If Apple can establish a standard this will cut out a lot of other versioning and the current systems which work badly at best. The more I think about it the bigger this gets. Amazon had better move fast. That Apple has come more or less out of the blue on this one means they have been putting in serious effort behind closed doors. Yes you can buy individual chapters of a book and currently they are given away as samples, which generally lead to a full purchase as most books are the sum of the parts. Dickens sold most of his books in instalments. The Yanks used to wait on the first clipper to come in from Europe with the latest on what had happened to Little Dorritt. Actually that wasn't sales for Dickens. The Yanks stole everything he ever wrote. Edited by rubaiyat: 2/2/2012 08:55:15 PM
amcmo 2 February 2012	Rubaiyat, You've come up with a damned good example of why the whole eText revolution stands to be just that, a revolution. You've also put the lie to many of the naysayer complaints about Apple. Yes, they are a bloody profitable company, however their lead in music help bring down our music costs as it seems will their iBooks2. Rather than bitching and demanding Apple give it away/ope up to freeloaders I'd think more people should be embracing the change. I would have been just as enthusiastic if Amazon or B&N had come out with the idea.
rubaiyat 2 February 2012	The more I think this through the more reason to go buy Apple stock, even if it is massively overpriced. It's going to look dead cheap by comparison once this gets rolling. To think that Apple was being described as "embattled" in virtually every press release not long ago. Damn! This means I have to install Lion just to get iBook Author! Edited by rubaiyat: 2/2/2012 09:48:15 PM
rubaiyat 2 February 2012	amcmo You can kiss this goodbye soon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NjGtkvac04 It is what made Amazon. The physical distribution centre. Not what they sold. PS What does it take to get the YouTube link to work here? Edited by rubaiyat: 2/2/2012 09:36:38 PM
photohounds 3 February 2012	The max price of $15 will be until the market is sewn up. This has happened in other businesses - supermarkets for one. The ebooks will go out of date MORE frequently than they currently do, but at a cheaper price you won't need to resell. Here's an already viable alternative. Pity they can't play nice with others ... YET. http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/288933,gooreader-provides-offline-access-to-your-google-books-collections-for-free.aspx?eid=19&edate=20120202&utm_source=20120202&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter
rubaiyat 3 February 2012	By then there will be something else. Apple hasn't done it with either the iTunes Store or M.A.S. and they slashed the prices of their Pro Applications as well as their iWork and iLife suites. That is the way of capitalism, Apple style. You have probably lost the battle already, before it even began: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/tablets/ipad-therefore-i-am-and-keeping-a-wired-open-mind-20120201-1qtgl.html Who is THEY anyway? Are you referring to the Windows only GooReader that doesn't play nice with anyone else either? Edited by rubaiyat: 3/2/2012 06:43:37 AM
jonmark14 3 February 2012	Would arise that not too abounding consumers and authors accede with the assessment section with 350,000 textbooks downloaded in 24 hours and 90,000 downloads of iBooks Author.
amcmo 3 February 2012	What with the school trial referenced by Rubaiy, SA unis, and some of the other trials in process, sounds as though all the naysayers, with their, 'mustn't let Apple get control of this market' woke up 6 months too late. I don't believe the armageddon put forward by the anti-Apple crowd will ever happen as, based on prior experience, I can't see them ever having (or any suggestion they are going to) increase price once a market is established. Edited by amcmo: 3/2/2012 10:34:49 AM
photohounds 3 February 2012	Yep once the others are locked out, just milk the cash cow forever and squeeze the (real) content providers (as opposed to gimmick adders) - their standard MO - just like your hated M$.
amcmo 3 February 2012	Despite Apple having a substantial lead in music, they have continued to work on lower prices, DRM free, via iTunes. The end customer has been the beneficary of that work. Hardly anything like the evil empire you continue to claim them to be, despite every argument you make being shown to be short on fact. Rubaiyat was right you seem to have set your end position (Apple being evil, will ruin textbooks etc etc), then worked backwards to try to create arguments in support, sadly lacking even the impression of fact.
photohounds 4 February 2012	ONE publisher bad - simple, really. Never said evil - those are words that you and Ruby continually spruik ...
willtell 4 February 2012	I'm all for digital distribution. I've been using Steam for years and happily enjoy the benefits. The benefits from a digital distribution system for text books will be tremendous. Steam is a good example of my point so I'll focus on that. If a developer chooses to release a game either via Steam or via the traditional retail method, the content does not change. So from the development point of view, they only need to produce one version of their product. However this changes with Apple's method. From what I can gather from Apple's marketing, the whole point of Apple's propriety ePub format is interactivity. The ability to integrate various mediums into the eBook. This is great and I'm all for this, in some contexts. Looking at my daughter's school text books, there would be a tremendous amount of work to turn that text into something that was truly interactive. Once Apple take their 30%, it won't leave much motivation to develop all that interactivity. Apart from the time (therefore cost) required, in a lot of text books, interactivity isn't necessary. Perhaps at the primary or middle high school levels, but beyond that it would be irrelevant. So that leads to my second point... What's the beauty of non-proprietary standards? It's allowing a choice as to what it's played on. Any Windows or Mac machine can download and install Steam, create an account and enjoy the benefits of digital distribution. However Apple's method will ONLY allow their publications to run on Apple devices. So if a student doesn't own an iDevice, they will need to get one to access a text book. If Apple (or any other company for that matter - Apple's the target here because it's been started by them), wants to apply this to music, etc, no big deal as these aren't essential. However it's different for text books as many students will not be given the choice. They will be required to purchase a device that they may not want nor can afford. I know there are reports of institutions embracing this method by proving their students with an iPad to use, but what about the others that don't?
photohounds 4 February 2012	Agree - none of these fan boys would be happy if the local petrol station decided to refuse to serve you unless you drove up in a Hyundai ... Those that don't 'embrace' are left out in the cold - precisely the essence of a Monopoly position. Maying someone else's work interactive and adding some bling has been done before in many fields. The fan boys love to use 'revolutionise' when describing the object of their desires.
rubaiyat 4 February 2012	willtell wrote: I'm all for digital distribution. I've been using Steam for years and happily enjoy the benefits. The benefits from a digital distribution system for text books will be tremendous. Steam is a good example of my point so I'll focus on that. And I HATE how Steam works. Launching every single time I start my Mac, just because I took a look at Civilization V, ONCE! Getting rid of it is a major undertaking and I will have to go through the same crap to look at something else that relies on it. Quote: If a developer chooses to release a game either via Steam or via the traditional retail method, the content does not change. So from the development point of view, they only need to produce one version of their product. However this changes with Apple's method. From what I can gather from Apple's marketing, the whole point of Apple's propriety ePub format is interactivity. The ability to integrate various mediums into the eBook. This is great and I'm all for this, in some contexts. Looking at my daughter's school text books, there would be a tremendous amount of work to turn that text into something that was truly interactive. Once Apple take their 30%, it won't leave much motivation to develop all that interactivity. Apart from the time (therefore cost) required, in a lot of text books, interactivity isn't necessary. Perhaps at the primary or middle high school levels, but beyond that it would be irrelevant. So that leads to my second point... Not quite. iBook Author allows the building of interactivity into an eBook but doesn't require it. In fact it is largely built on Pages. The reason we are seeing a great deal of interactivity is because all the initial samples are there to show the potential. Regular textbooks don't require heavy interactivity if any at all. Apple supplies enough other tools, outside iBook Author, to easily add what does make sense. Quote: What's the beauty of non-proprietary standards? It's allowing a choice as to what it's played on. Any Windows or Mac machine can download and install Steam, create an account and enjoy the benefits of digital distribution. However Apple's method will ONLY allow their publications to run on Apple devices. So if a student doesn't own an iDevice, they will need to get one to access a text book. I certainly agree the media should be non-proprietary, but so far virtually none of it is and we are not getting a single standard to even base a non-proprietary format on. Maybe it will take Apple's initiative to scare everyone into creating one. Quote: If Apple (or any other company for that matter - Apple's the target here because it's been started by them), wants to apply this to music, etc, no big deal as these aren't essential. However it's different for text books as many students will not be given the choice. They will be required to purchase a device that they may not want nor can afford. I know there are reports of institutions embracing this method by proving their students with an iPad to use, but what about the others that don't? They'll need something to view this material on. Nobody yet has beaten Apple's offerings and that is the problem. When they have, we can talk about alternatives.
amcmo 4 February 2012	As I have said for 6 pages now. I have no issue with open standards that protect writers rights. The point that all those complaining about iBooks being an Apple monopoly is, that as the developers of the system, they have the right to keep it to themselves. They have no obligation, legal or moral, to give the results of their investment to competitors. The simple answer is for someone to come out with an open platform to compete,if they are prepared to see their competitors steal half their lunch, or for an industry group to sit down and spend the next how many years coming up with the platform. Until such time, if educators choose to go with Apple, that's life, stop bitching and get used to it. You don't have to like it, but don't try to blame Apple. Much as Apple under Cook has given $100M to charity, they are not a charitable institution and should not be expected to develop a product and market at their own expense to just had over to others. Yes, open standards for education would be ideal and if one were quickly developed for this market, it may get off the ground. Remember, there are already ways to generate all except the interactivity with other, open standard products. Even the interactivity may be possible. The one area that no one else has touched is negotiating with the content providers, setting prices and an appropriate app store. Again, stop complaining about Apple and their system and write to Amazon, B&N, whoever and tell them to get act together. It is strange how after decades of closed standards, only now that Apple is looking to steal a march, is everyone demanding the open standard, while they have been prepared to ignore how closed the system has been until now. Willtell, With Steam, do the publishers of Steam take a cut for every game sold through their system? That would make it no different to Apple. To run through Steam, I'm guessing there are hooks they need to program, I don't see any alternative system, so that makes Steam proprietary, just like iBooks2. As for 'after Apple's 30%' at present authors get a miniscule (single digit?) percentage, despite having to research, do drawings, etc, all the content of a normal textbook. With Apple, the author get 70%. Goes from glass almost empty to glass 2/3rds full any way I see it. As before, it's calculated that Apple's 30% doesn't cover much more than the cost of tools, hosting, provision of service. Edited by amcmo: 4/2/2012 10:32:12 AM
photohounds 4 February 2012	rubaiyat wrote: And I HATE how Steam works. Launching every single time I start my Mac, just because I took a look at Civilization V, ONCE! Getting rid of it is a major undertaking and I will have to go through the same crap to look at something else that relies on it. A bit like getting rid of itunes,eh?
rubaiyat 4 February 2012	You can just trash iTunes if you want and make the media it opens simply open with something else. It certainly doesn't open on boot, although that is an option. True the way you are forced to go via iTunes to your iDevices is equally as annoying as Steam. Edited by rubaiyat: 4/2/2012 12:34:32 PM
rubaiyat 4 February 2012	amcmo You made me think about what else the Education system uses now as standards. I have yet to see them use open document, they all use MsOffice even when there good free or cheaper alternatives, particularly on the Mac. They also mostly push schools onto Windows, again for no good reason other than conformity with what parents supposedly have. When they buy equipment they buy HP or Dell, both of which do not make it easy to modify the hardware, and conspire to inflict an expensive support and maintenance program on the schools.
photohounds 4 February 2012	Absolutely agree with you Ruby, I said something like 'public info held in proprietary file types is unacceptable' above. EG: Your hospital reports (any gov data) - unreadable long term if MS went belly up we'd be stuffed - unlikely as MS seems stable for now and luckily there are plenty of free readers and open/libre office etc. Still ... An open format, free of any encumbrance would be better and far more appropriate for all public info (and much education is public, unless someone is proposing to 'reform' that). It shouldn't BE about someone's favourite brand, it should be about what's proper with all we've learned from proprietary systems over the years. I certainly am not saying that Apple is trying something unlike what MS has been lumbering us with for decades ... Edited by photohounds: 4/2/2012 02:32:16 PM
petergaskin 4 February 2012	The majority of businesses and Government departments still use Windows and Office. So would the eduction department be relevant if it changed from teaching with MS and Offcie to Linux / Open Offcie/Libre? So what will lead to the eduction changing its procedures - increased use of Linux / Open Standards software? Or does business have to change their computing usage? I still remembe rthe change from Lotus and Word Perfect to MS Office and the change4 from DOS to Windows. So I guess there si still a chance that business will change - but nobody has any idea what they will change to and when!
willtell 4 February 2012	rubaiyat wrote: And I HATE how Steam works. Launching every single time I start my Mac, just because I took a look at Civilization V, ONCE! Getting rid of it is a major undertaking and I will have to go through the same crap to look at something else that relies on it. That's a shame. Must have something to do with the Mac version. I've never had a problem with the Windows version of Steam. rubaiyat wrote: Not quite. iBook Author allows the building of interactivity into an eBook but doesn't require it. In fact it is largely built on Pages. The reason we are seeing a great deal of interactivity is because all the initial samples are there to show the potential. Regular textbooks don't require heavy interactivity if any at all. Apple supplies enough other tools, outside iBook Author, to easily add what does make sense. So there's really no other reason for their own propriety version of ePub outside of making sure the published books can only be used on an iDevice? rubaiyat wrote: I certainly agree the media should be non-proprietary, but so far virtually none of it is and we are not getting a single standard to even base a non-proprietary format on. Maybe it will take Apple's initiative to scare everyone into creating one. Yes there is, it's called ePub. It's an open standard that can allow various forms of DRM to protect the work of the author. rubaiyat wrote: They'll need something to view this material on. Nobody yet has beaten Apple's offerings and that is the problem. There are lots of ePub readers out there, including the iPad. It doesn't have to be presented in a way which locks the user into an iPad.
willtell 4 February 2012	amcmo wrote: As I have said for 6 pages now. I have no issue with open standards that protect writers rights. Good then. So you'll support the current open standard ePub over Apple's proprietary version? amcmo wrote: The point that all those complaining about iBooks being an Apple monopoly is, that as the developers of the system, they have the right to keep it to themselves. But does that make it right? Isn't this the problem that we've faced so far from Microsoft, Adobe, Google, etc? Isn't this just business as usual then? I thought it was in the best interest of all consumers to move past this model? By using an open standard they won't be giving their investment to their competitors. People will still be buying ebooks from iBooks. Authors will still be publishing via their system and they'll still be collecting their 30% cut. They'll also continue to sell iPads by the truck load as those that want the complete ecosystem will buy into it. It does however allow those who for one reason or another do not want to purchase an iPad so they can read a required text book in school. Let's be honest, they collected nearly $1.5bil last year from the iTunes store. Surely they are making some dollars on that? With a higher cost of books and therefore a bigger cut, to say that they'll barely be covering costs is a little silly. Not to mention all the potential iDesciples to be indoctrinated into the faith ;)
willtell 4 February 2012	rubaiyat wrote: amcmo You made me think about what else the Education system uses now as standards. I have yet to see them use open document, they all use MsOffice even when there good free or cheaper alternatives, particularly on the Mac. They also mostly push schools onto Windows, again for no good reason other than conformity with what parents supposedly have. When they buy equipment they buy HP or Dell, both of which do not make it easy to modify the hardware, and conspire to inflict an expensive support and maintenance program on the schools. They use MS Office because that's what over 90% of the world uses. You're talking about educating young people to exist in current society. The same with Windows. Not to mention what the educators have been trained to use. Switching to alternate systems, regardless of the system cost, will be expensive due to the retraining. Apart from that, whenever any of the large education systems decide to do a roll-out, they request tenders based on their requirements. Apple has the opportunity to tender just like every other large vendor. As for expensive maintenance, the NSW DEC has a contact with Lenovo for all desktops and laptops. The service is next day with a fixed repair cost regardless of what the problem is (if it's outside warranty). Once again, Apple had the chance to tender but refused to do so.
rubaiyat 5 February 2012	willtell Not an excuse but more of an explanation. I have been playing with iBook Author and discussing it with a few other users with more insight into the coding. It is an offshoot of Apple's Pages, sharing not just a great deal of user interface but code as well. Pages uses OSX frameworks extensively which precludes it being available for anything except Mac OSX and iOS. Similarly it looks like the document format is derived from .pages with additional formats for interactivity and embedding the media. So it sounds like it is a bolted together mod of Pages. It appears to have features beyond what epub currently offers, so they are not mutually transferrable. Apple may do what it did with iTunes and Safari, which is ultimately bring out PC versions. But we know what the PC users reactions to those have been! Given the welcoming committee's tendency to turn to firebrands and pitchforks maybe that explains the reluctance to come round and play. :)
photohounds 5 February 2012	A PC version - oh we're saved! The PC version of itunes runs appreciably worse than on a mac from my experience - 2 of each as my samples. Accident, or a revision of Peter Norton's mantra "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run."? MS 'got there' by monopolistic 'me only' methods and other dirty tricks. What's in it for humanity to tolerate (and FUND) yet another monopolistic approach?
rubaiyat 5 February 2012	I don't think there is a conspiracy behind the performance of iTunes on the PC. Most OSX software makes great use of OSX's excellent frameworks, which simply don't exist on PCs. The programmers would have to rewrite them as best they could and would never be able to get the same degree of integrated polish as they have on the Mac. There is a reason why OSX is as smooth as it is. Microsoft put enormous resources behind trying to recreate the OSX experience on Windows Vista and 7 and ended up with usually bloated code that used far more resources to get a less polished result. Apple has neither the same resources, and definitely not the same motivation. They may not have the programmers either. PC programmers prefer to work with PC companies and anyone drawn to work for Apple would feel they drew the short straw to be back programming for PCs. Microsoft's Mac software suffers from the same problems, even though their Mac division acts more like Apple fans in exile.
rubaiyat 5 February 2012	willtel The brief and selection criteria for the school laptops was heavily skewed towards PCs, just on price alone since there did not seem to be a floor under the quality. Many parents and children complained that what they got was woefully under powered for the software installed and it was a dogs breakfast of hardware and software. The typical PC Bucket o' Stuff, only worse. The procurement procedure dragged out with the usual bureaucratic foot dragging, so by the time the laptops reached the students they were well and truly out of date. Apple simply does not make cheap junk, so have nothing to fit the criteria set. Apple has previously gone through similar experiences with government departments and got burnt trying to price match computers in a completely different category to Macs. Given their highly successful consumer sales they are not desperate to low ball some shonky government deal with virtually no margins. As to support, good luck getting it. My wife's chief complaint in her department was that the contracted support and services just dried up once the contractor deemed there to be no money left. It was never stated as such, just getting it was like drawing teeth, support people seemed hard to reach or gave such non-responses that people just gave up. I worked for a large very successful design agency in North Sydney. We didn't like tendering for government work because the specification never addressed quality, not even that it should do the job it was supposed to do. We were spectacularly unsuccessful getting government bids and only did it in breaks between other jobs. I still remember laughing my head off over one bid we did get, on a 3 color job, when I found out one of the 'colors' was white. The paper itself! As the other tenderers hadn't bothered to check we walked away with the job and a fat profit. As a boss of mine used to say about the most of the pointless briefs we used to get. "So you want the ceiling painted? Two coats white or the Sistine Chapel?" Like most people, clients will tell you 2 coats white then try and get the Sistine Chapel.
willtell 5 February 2012	rubaiyat wrote: Similarly it looks like the document format is derived from .pages with additional formats for interactivity and embedding the media. So it sounds like it is a bolted together mod of Pages. It appears to have features beyond what epub currently offers, so they are not mutually transferrable. The iBooks Author is a modified version of Pages, however the format in which it outputs is completely up to the discretion of Apple. Yes it does have the interactivity (which is great for the few text books that will take up those features) however for the rest it simply excludes an iDevice from being compatible with the standard. This is my problem with it. Apple could have chosen to go with the open ePub model, but instead decided that it was in their best interest not to. rubaiyat wrote: Apple may do what it did with iTunes and Safari, which is ultimately bring out PC versions. But we know what the PC users reactions to those have been! Given the welcoming committee's tendency to turn to firebrands and pitchforks maybe that explains the reluctance to come round and play. :) Apple can control the tools for publication. It's the access that's got people dusting off their pitchforks - iDevice only text books. From my experience, the majority of Windows users are happy with iTunes. It allows them to do what they want with their iPhone, iPod, etc. It's the power users that are generally up in arms about it. From my experience on Windows, it's a complete resource hog that tries to take over your system. Similar to many well-known "security" packages. But the functionality for what it's intended is great and as a result most users don't care about the rest. On that note though, one of Steve's greatest masterstrokes was to release a Windows version of iTunes. It empowered previous non-Apple users to see what the iTunes/iDevice combo offered and opened up a huge market for Apple. In fact I would equate a large proportion of the rising number of Mac sales stemmed from this.
willtell 5 February 2012	Ruby, I don't know what your experience with DEC procurement is but I can assure that you're incorrect in a number of facts. I'm directly connected to the whole process by my employment. As a result, I can't go into the details. I'm not sure where your wife works or for what system, however the NSW DEC technical support with their Lenovo agreement is far better than I've seen for any organisation approaching that size. Students and teachers will have a repaired or replaced laptop the next day (unless their TSO isn't doing what they have been employed to do) regardless of the fault and support is available onsite, everyday. How much do you think Lenovo/Microsoft/Adobe are making from their products included in all this? It's nothing. Actually, most likely less than nothing once they cover the support costs. The trade off is a whole generation of people that are used to using your products and will happily pay to do so for the rest of their lives. It's all about market saturation and brand loyalty. This is something that Apple could not understand about the tender process. They have a fixed margin ideal and won't budge, even if it's to get over 250,000 new customers that will become loyal servants. As for the performance of the systems, I completely agree. They are netbooks with Atom processors. But they will be used as web browsers and word processors 95% of the time. For their purpose, they fit beautifully and can run a full day without needing to be charged. It would be the same if schools decided to roll out iPads as a book reader - it has an intended purpose and as long as it achieves that then it's suitable. Apple could have met those requirements but decided not to. But all of this is completely off topic. Edited by willtell: 5/2/2012 12:32:20 PM
rubaiyat 5 February 2012	epubs are static. Apple's .ibooks have a great deal of media and interactivity built in. They also have multiple choice questions and other educational requirements. I can't see anything covering that in .epubs. Not to mention the considerable difficulty get layout right in epubs. Apple would argue that they have built a tool to make use of the abilities of the iPad. Not a tool to simulate an older product, the printed page. Apple took a while to produce PC versions of first iTunes, then Safari, simply because it was a case of writing from the ground up. Pages users are themselves still waiting for upgrades to Pages '09. It is now 2012 and all we have got is minor upgrades to tap into newer OS functions in Lion and to allow export to epub. The later was supplied with Pages v4.03 last year, and fits what you have asked for. Apple can take its time with software development and has many fish to fry. Taking the Pages code and adapting it to iBooks Author may have been the fastest to get what they wanted out on the street. Can you suggest an open standard that does what .ibooks does? Because epubs isn't that.
rubaiyat 5 February 2012	My wife worked as Systems contract manager in several Federal departments. Happily she has got out of it now. She was totally fed up with how bad it had got, starting with the outsourcing under Howard, which effectively handed over work that was well handled in Australia to large mostly US corporations. Apple was forced to supply underpowered, under performing school computers in the past. It left an unpleasant impression on a generation of school children whose only experience was the old, badly set up school equipment. Apple could not have met the price point for netbooks and still maintained their reputation for quality. PCs have virtually no reputation so have little to lose. The kids will use and diss these school netbooks and lust after iPads or iMacs. Tactically Apple will have won. As an aside, netbooks with Photoshop on them? Really! Whose bright idea is that? What educational purpose does that serve except to introduce the children to the same powerful tools for time wasting that their parents use/misuse. There are things that I disagree with in Apples productivity and Lifestyle software, but not the notion of refining trim tools (without the featureitis of Microsoft and Adobe) to just get the job done, and done well.
amcmo 5 February 2012	School kids with Photoshop on their netbooks, there's a whole new opportunity to take cyber-bullying to the next level. One does have to ask, why not a GIMP or similar, if everyone wants OS/OP? Then they can be open source/platform bullies. Several posters ask why Apple didn't put iBooks output as straight ePub. Apart from the fact they had to tweak it for the interactivity, therefore no longer a straight ePub, that would have opened it up to the books being used on everyone else's hardware, and we have a rush to the bottom to see who can supply education with the cheapest and nastiest tablet. Apple spends the money developing the platform, gives the software away then watches 'The East Is Red Tablet Company' or some such abominable Chinese tablet make all the money from their hard work. Now that would be a DUMB thing for any company to do.
rubaiyat 5 February 2012	It's not that Photoshop is being offered to schoolkids, although that is pretty silly, it that on a netbook it is the equivalent of hauling bricks on your Vespa.
amcmo 5 February 2012	Hey, I've seen some weird things being hauled on a Vespa (or similar),in my travels, such as the 5-6 foot wide mirror being held by the pillion. One of my daughters has one in London, I figure 10-12 bricks at a time. But then she has taken a Nespresso machIne home from the office on it.
rubaiyat 5 February 2012	Did the office know? :)
skarpethinn 6 February 2012	There are 3 people in this forum who have made extensive posts saying effectively the same thing, over and over again - in one case, the exact same point made 11 times in this thread alone. If you really felt you'd made a valid point - one that had substance, that you beleived in - you wouldn't need to keep making it ad nauseam, would you? Whether or not you think we are "getting it" is irrelevant - if the point was actually valid, made sense, and seemed at least fundamentally logical, it's first iteration wouldhave been sufficient. Wouldn't it? Edited by skarpethinn: 6/2/2012 01:58:05 PM Edited by skarpethinn: 6/2/2012 01:59:54 PM
amcmo 6 February 2012	One might think so, however in the case of this particular thread, when a good number of posters keep on or jump on the open platform mantra and/or slagging one company for not giving away the fruits of their labour, one suspects that either they are choosing to ignore reality (and perhaps need it explained more clearly), or may have jumped in part way and not have read the previous post/s. You're effectively telling posters to shut up and ignore any subsequent posts they feel either don't get it or are incorrect. There have been any number of threads where no matter how logical a point was made it get's drowned out under a sea of sometimes hidebound political, or pro one company/anti another, posts. Under your suggestion, the content of a thread would would end up being stacked entirely towards whichever group had the largest number of posters, and in the case of this particular thread that would have been a litany of abusing Apple, promoting Open Platform and ignoring commercial rights and reality. If the forum ever gave way to the censorship of post once per thread it would become a waste of space, however that might suit some. Of course, anyone is free to totally ignore a thread. Rubaiyat, It was a Christmas pres sent to the office as no-one home during the day.:d
willtell 6 February 2012	amcmo... I'll put this issue to you in another way (borrowing an analogy from someone else): Let's just say that Toyota makes a deal with BP, Caltex and Shell. All three decide that they are going to make a new type of fuel that's going to be more efficient but is only slightly different to regular unleaded. The deal means that the new fuel will suit only Toyota cars from now on. So if you drive a Holden, Ford, Honda or any other car you won't be able to fuel up at any of those three service stations or their subsidiaries. Anyone without a Toyota will have to stick with the old way of doing things or buy a Toyota. I know that Toyota would be well within their rights to do so (if they have worked to put the deal together, put the R&D into making it happen, etc, etc) but how is that a win for consumers? What real benefit does that provide everyone? It's this type of thinking that's got the IT industry where it is right now. Remember Microsoft and their attempted control of web content by using non standards compliant version of HTML with Internet Explorer? This will be worse than all of the above as it will affect those who simply cannot afford it - students. How many high school kids do you know that can afford to buy an iPad? Sure there are some, but what about those less fortunate? If all the publishers migrate over to the iBooks system, they will be excluded. EVERYONE has heard your point - Apple is well within their rights to profit anyway they want, but do they have a right to control how our kids are educated?
amcmo 6 February 2012	Willtell, At the risk of being abused for posting again on this thread. I like the analogy, however it misses the point. Because of the number of cars on the road of other brands, the fuel companies would never consider an agreement that effectively shut them off from over 60% of the market. They, like Apple are commercial operations. I'm not saying that Apple has the right to control how kids are educated. Remember, Apple are not stopping authors from submitting the same content with other eText applications that are out there and coming., whether for iPad or other hardware. The only difference is they are first to market and have negotiated rights, all of which does not prevent others doing same. They have come up with one way of doing it that at present seems about the best and have negotiated rights. Education can take them up on it or not. No one is being controlled. Anyone else is free to come up with their version and offer in competition to Apple. There are alternatives from Adobe and no doubt soon others, however Adobe has a tremendous up front and ongoing costs. I don't see publishers dropping books completely for some time, so there would presumably be that option. As for your cost argument, exactly the same applies to Android tablets. Any tablet worth using (refer the fact that the Fire, which is not suitable - too small and performance issues, is selling below cost and gutting Amazon profits) is going to cost similar to an iPad, so you're effectively also shooting the open platform alternative down with that argument Apple (and Apple dealers such as Myer) do offer finance, including interest free, so the cost could be spread over say a couple of years which brings the cost close to the cost of texts over that time, possibly getting around one of the hurdles. I know Harvey's etc offer the same on Android equipment. Some state governments wasted millions on providing netbooks, perhaps they could look at a substantially smaller amount via a subsidy to get the ball rolling (if eText is the way edcation decides to go) There is precedence for standardising on one set of hardware (and one OS) in education, makes support that much easier. I'm certain that there will be other eText offerings once everyone else catches up, and they will probably run on iPad (and other platforms). On the other hand education could ignore Apple iBooks2 and standardise on one/some Android tablets and whatever alternative program/s come along. Willtell, EVERYONE has heard all the open platform supporters points, - open platform is a very fine theory, all they have to do is get a platform together, get authors interested in writing for same and get rights to publish current texts in eText. Simple really, and does not involve Apple giving away their lunch, just on others rising to the challenge, competing and beating Apple in open competition. With true competition you get innovation. When you try to coerce a company to hand it's work over to competitors the result will always be that companies stop wasting their time and money innovating and all sit around waiting for someone else to do the work. With that attitude, we'd still be in the Dark Ages. REPEAT YET AGAIN - I am not in any way suggesting that education has to go with Apple, just that alternative mfr's/software companies should not expect a free lunch and get off their arses and compete. And to the Open Platform supporter/s who suggest I should shut up etc. If your argument 'were at least fundamentally logical', you might have convinced me/others.
rubaiyat 7 February 2012	The fuel in cars analogy is wrong because it works on the premise of the status quo after the technology has been long established. We are at the point where petroleum internal combustion engines are challenging coal fired steam engines. The single great advantage of liquid fuels over solid fuels is that they can be delivered automatically as required without human assistance. Solid coal fuel has to be clumsily stored and hand delivered by stokers to the engine, resulting in exceptionally slow start up times, extremely heavy engineering and a lot of manual labor. The internal combustion engine was invented by Jean JosephÉtienne Lenoir in 1858 and patented in 1860. The diesel engine was invented by Rudolf Diesel in 1893 and patented in 1894. The Victorians of the time saw these men as introducing exclusive technology that relied on a hard to get unusual fuel. Both men did not own the fuel, just how it was used in their inventions. There was considerable resistance from the coal industry and those reliant on the coal industry against adoption of the fuels and engines. The British navy particularly resisted for a very long time as Britain had no home resources of oil. Apple has brought about the electronic equivalents of coal to oil, not once but many times. Apple has no interest in giving the fruits of their efforts away any more than any other company. It creates so that it will be rewarded. If it wasn't rewarded it wouldn't bother and it too would hang around for someone else to come up with the goods. To the barroom critics may I suggest it pays to stand on something a little taller than your pet hobby horse if you want to put events into their real perspective.
photohounds 7 February 2012	Bulldust - books that only certain people can read being funded by PUBLIC money is wrong on ever level except abject greed.
amcmo 7 February 2012	If it became the standard, then they would be books that everyone could read. If people are buying their own tablets and text's where is the funding by public money you are whinging about? That would only be the case if there were a subsidy, and to put it bluntly, there have countless examples of public money being used for sole source items in government and education. The exact same as would apply if it were an open platform, just there would potentially be a myriad of different brand devices, not all of which might play nicely with any particular text. The more I read on this thread, the more I am convinced it comes down to an irrational anti-Apple at all costs belief thinly veiled under a 'public concern' smoke screen for at least some of the posters, and for others, a Public Platform / Open Source at all costs, even if the result is markedly inferior. People with Linux computers would/could have used exactly the same argument against the adoption of M$ software. To take it to your level of ........ (insert your own word as fits, I know which one I'm thinking of). The same could/would have applied to the introduction of slide rules to replace tables, the approval of the HP scientific calcs, the upgrade of a texts, almost any technology step change in business or education. Beginning to sound somewhat like a Luddite there Photo, or an irrational Apple must never win postition per almost every post.
rubaiyat 7 February 2012	photohounds wrote: Bulldust - books that only certain people can read being funded by PUBLIC money is wrong on ever level except abject greed. That is bulldust perpetuated day to day by governments' general insistence on using PCs and MIcrosoft's proprietary software and formats. Which also mostly applies in schools as well. For over 12 years we have had to put up with even their websites being tailored for Internet Explorer and stuff everyone else. I've had a chance to read Apple's revised Terms and Conditions. The requirement to use the .ibooks format is only for books sold in Apple's iTunes Store. The user is free to use whatever format they want outside of the Store. In fact the free iBooks Author software will export to both pdf and text, as well as to the iTunes' .ibooks. A situation much akin to Apple standardising on the higher standard AAC file for iTunes tracks but including all the filters for saving and converting to other formats such as .mp3, .wav and ALAC which is now an open standard. What alternate standard do you propose photo? If this takes off I am sure other developers will write software that uses the same format, or if that proves unpopular another format that meets the market's taste.
amcmo 7 February 2012	Rubaiyat, What it comes down to with Photo and I suspect some other posters is NOT APPLE under any circumstances, no matter how good. For Photo in particular, stone tablets may be a preference to anything with an Apple logo.:d
rubaiyat 7 February 2012	That's odd, for me its Apple if it's good enough. The others just make it easier to say no.
skarpethinn 7 February 2012	rubaiyat wrote: That's odd, for me its Apple if it's good enough. The others just make it easier to say no. Agreed. i still use an iPod, simply cos it provides the greatest range & balance of benefits i am looking for in an MP3 player. Initially, i was not happy at being locked into iTunes (ie, the closed ecosystem i've been complaining about), but SharePod solved that problem for me, & it is waaaay easier to use than iTunes (& doesn't even require installation in order to use it!).
amcmo 7 February 2012	I Use Xilisoft iPod RIP and a couple of other pgms they sell, video converters, etc. They are paid programs, hwoever good quality.
jamecleark 8 February 2012	I think this element was more about where is this "iTextBook" element going, less about The apple company who would obviously try to develop on their perspective. I too would rather this developed to a more start program, where I can buy E-TextBooks and use them on any foundation of my option.
photohounds 8 February 2012	The mind is like a parachute, only works when it is open. - Frank Zappa I've always said apple make good stuff, but they DO try to lock you in. Education is no place for such a battle to occur - especially with public money. And .. I agree the MS monopoly did it before. So the 'logic' od some platform warriors is: "the brand I hate did it, and that makes it all right for MY brand to do the same thing, even thought I still complain bitterly about 'them' having done this"???. NO ONE should ever have been allowed to get away with it - not then, but especially not now with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Nope.
amcmo 8 February 2012	Photo, I suggest you try taking the Zappa quote to heart. Your relentless attacks on Apple regardless of the topic of a thread suggest otherwise. It's already been shown that the Apple system is not a lock in and that authors can also publish in PDF and can use the files for generating in other eBook formats. It's only a lock in in the minds of those who object to Apple at any cost. Having said that, if the Apple system is the best, then Open Platform apologists should not be able to force educational institutes to not use it. Forcing education to accept second best is a disservice to students and smacks of a socialist 'lowest common denominator' policy. I'm not saying Apple will end up being the best, however until someone offers a viable alternative, it's the only game in town.
willtell 8 February 2012	Education rarely ever selects what's best. It selects whatever is in demand within the community. Hence why schools tend to be a Windows only domain. If schools are prepared to provide the hardware necessary, then I don't see a problem with it.
photohounds 8 February 2012	Only "relentless" against monopolistic actions - their products are fine. I've said it a zillion times, you conveniently ignore that. Time to learn the difference between what you IMAGINE I object to, and what I ACTUALLY object to - and stop being a apple apologist. "the only game in town"? Your words make a good, simple definition of monopoly.
rubaiyat 8 February 2012	Oh we learnt long ago what it is you object to. Anything with Apple in it. Apple pie, apple strudel, apple turnover, appletini, etc One fell on your head when you were a child and instead of coming up with gravity, you came up with dull seething unrelenting resentment. After all Newton, didn't invent gravity, it was there before he thought of it, and it was really obvious. Everybody knows that! Right! See, that idiot next to you agrees with you, so you must be right! Right!
photohounds 8 February 2012	Nope you manufacture that to bolster your argument using words like 'hater' and 'evil'. These are the words you choose and aptly demonstrates what's on your mind.
rubaiyat 9 February 2012	"Apple." Now off you go photo, don't hold back! I think a Rorschach test with you would be absolutely hilarious. Dark swirling ominous fruit attacking you in every blotch.
amcmo 9 February 2012	Again, Photo, twisting the facts to suit your preconceived notions. As any author can publish direct to PDF and RTF, or export the end result (apart from interactive features) to any other potential eText program THERE IS NO MONOPOLIST ACTION. The only game in town simply means at present everyone else is sitting on arse doing nothing! That, even to the blindly anti-Apple, surely cannot be a monopoly. It's simply the failure of others to compete, something that is not illegal, nor unethical. No Apple apologist, just seething at the stupidity of those who attempt to blame Apple (and have education banned from adopting their platform) because no-one else is offering a viable alternative YET. Edited by amcmo: 9/2/2012 09:43:04 AM
photohounds 9 February 2012	'hater' and 'evil' - your words - repeated ad nauseum
rubaiyat 10 February 2012	When it "appleies"…!