Yes, but my point was that weight management needn't involve a condition such as obesity.However far the FDA's head may be up its own ass (or not),they've been able to make that distinction, as shown by their guidelines.You, somehow, have not.
You might try reading with a bit more discernment...plenty of people DO have weight management issues,without it qualifying as a "disorder" or "condition".Further, when you think about it, "weight management" doesn't necessarily imply being overweight -it may simply imply a systematic attempt to avoid that result.
There will be conscientious sophisticates (e.g. NolaMacGuy) who will successfully use this new approach,but I would guess that your approach is the one that will "play in Peoria"...At least until a few major iterations of "Peoria" have evolved.The question then becomes, if providers can make significantly more moneyfrom the newer model, for how long will the old model even be a choice?
Before you applaud yourself out, you might note that, in fact, Amazon gives 35% to authors, 35% to publishers,and keeps only 30% themselves...there was not a time when Amazon was "keeping" 70%, unless you'd like to document that?so, if Apple gives 'only' 30% to authors...hmmm...perhaps "altruism" means something different from what I thought...
...which addresses only the three books unavailable on iBooks but borrowable on Amazon, I think?The reason they would not do as you suggest, or, perhaps, haven't, to date, would be the very great difference in exposure on Amazon...although, with the reported numbers of readers "finding" iBooks- at least experimentally, as they discover it on their devices - there's a chance of that dynamic evolving.