Barnes & Noble announces intent to release iPad e-reader app - Page 3

Upgrading the firmware to 1.1 was like night and day and 1.2 firm is even better

Really? Well, that's good. Maybe I'll swing by my local B&N and see if it's worth the $ now.

That may be the reason why I didn't have a problem. The first thing I did was installed the 1.2 firmware after unboxing my friend's Nook. I borrowed it for a week. I still can't say whether I want to buy it or not. The display is awesome. But somehow even with it's comfortable size, I couldn't use it in one hand and read. I may be able to get used to it. But I don't want to pay $250 for the e-reader and pay more for the books (that I read). Or at best almost as much as paperbacks. But I must say that after seeing the e-ink display, I can see why so many book lovers are converts.

Then they added that with the updates, because it couldn't be done before. But you still can't buy from Amazon.

It was actually both.

The Nook is terrible. I haven't found one decent review.

That goes for the 1.2 software update. The best that's been said is that is fixes some of the problems.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/18886..._the_nook.html

Okay so what you are saying is this...

"You can BUY a book from WITHIN the Kindle App (and B&N App) so long as you don't BUY the book from the APPs but instead go tru Safari to (officially?) BUY the book.

Oh okay gotcha... I can see where **I** was playing with words.

End of discussion...

dupe..

The menu lag in the navigation screen (at the bottom of the device) is abysmal. Click (wait) click again (oh damn, the first click just "took", I wonder where is the second click is going to take me). And they sure didn't build it for ease of use (though you do eventually adjust to what it wants you to do). It's also the only dedicated e-book reader I've ever had crash on me (Android error), and it happened more than once.

Phew... you had be going for a second. And yes we can both agree that the 'engulf and devour' corporations who are merging and or buying each other and as a result are owning greater and greater numbers of titles (be they books, movies, TV & radio stations, newspapers, etc) all under a single mammoth corporation needs to be looked into and looked into with an impartial eye (yea right, like thats gonna happen).

Unfortunately as you stated above, there isn't anything that can be done about it short of the FTC stopping/denying additional mergers before they happen and they don't exactly have a great track record in recent history. But this topic for another thread.

No, since you started the discussion, you can't simply end it with a remark like that.

You totally miss the point. The fact that you can buy books for the device that will work on the device, through the device, is what's important.

You're vainly attempting to set a situation that's so narrowly defined that no one can win but you.

As I said, its a minor inconvenience to do it that way, thats all. But it can be done.

And you've refused, I see, to respond to the facts that neither Amazon or B&N will allow you to buy from each other, or from Apple's App Store.

No answer for that, is there?

Why should Apple be different, even though they do allow it?

Exactly.

Apple allows you to jump from the app to a web page to complete the transaction; which is better than you'll get from either Amazon or B&N.

But that doesn't fit with his "Apple must be the bad guy" scenario, does it?

No, it was there from firmware 1.0.
You can't buy from Amazon because Amazon books are Mobipocket books. But, if in your country it's allowed circumvect DRM, you can buy the book, convert it with Calibre and sideload it in the Nook (or Sony)


Well, do you have used one? Because it have still some flaws but it's not the apocalyptic panorama you are painting.


Firmware 1.2, almost instantanely.

Regarding Sony and B&N, they allow to buy the book anywhere you want. The only limit it's that they have to be ePub or PDF and with Adobe or B&N DRM if they are protected.

That remark was indicating that I was done beating this dead horse but okay I only end my comments with your permission.


I THOUGH I was poking fun at Apple based on the fact that they would never allow either ebook app BUY CONTENT FROM WITHIN THE APP. I'm glad to see you knew the point I was trying to make better that I did. How can I ever thank you for setting me straight. Please let me know how I should respond in the future so I don't screw it up again and simply go with what I wanted to say.


Okay so being able to buy books from with an ereader is not something I should comment or express displeasure about because its just a vain attempting to set a situation that's so narrowly defined that no one can win but you. You got it boss!


Because my argument had to do with the APP store rules and regulations since these Apple devices are marketed as a device that people can add functionality to (something that the other 2 products don't even claim to do). And developer are not able to provide all the features they want, not based on the app abusing the devices finite battery supplies, and not based on the apps vulgar or illegal content, but simply because Apple objects for reasons they don't want to share.


Chearly there was since I you just read it...

Ooops I did it again... expressing my own thoughts instead of the ones you desire... No I have no answer for that you sir are right again.


Because Apple is marketing a device that is not simply Apple controlled (like AppleTV or the iPod video) and those other devices doesn't make claims about 10s of thousands of developer who are all adding additional programs to make said devices even MORE useful, like Apple does.

So now I am (all by myself) choosing to not reply to any additional posts... I've made my statements and did my very best to explain them... You have chosen to ignore my comments because they were true and instead replace my concerns with something of your own creation and have gone far away from the the basic point I wanted to discuss. So I'm not wasting any more time on this.

You win, you are right and I am wrong... Please forgive me for ever second guessing it.

Your original post was not nearly as clear as you think it was. It does mention in app purchasing, but not under the reason for rejection. Debating whether Apple should allow third parties to perform in app sales using their own servers instead of Apples is a big can of worms. Much bigger than Apple not rejecting this app, which seems to be the likely outcome.

Personally I'm glad that every app isn't asking me to set up an account with them (and asking for my credit card number) to make in app purchases. There are a few notable exceptions where it would be nice, but I feel that it would also significantly degrade the overall feel of the iPhone, while exposing some unassuming users to a greater level of risk. That's about as deep as I want to dive into that topic.

I agree... it is a can of worms but my initial post was trying to make that point an issue that should be discussed and I specifically chose the B&N app since it was an APP the would clearly want to implement in APP purchasing AND also a product that could never be sold if it had to pay Apple a processing fee... A fee that first of all is totally unnecessary since B&N clearly have all the infrastructure and finally the products they'd be selling simply couldn't tolerate a 30% up-charge that B&N would need to put on top of its normal web price sale since the ebook margins aren't large enough for them to hand over 30% to Apple and still make any money at all.

Let's get away from ebooks... Lets use an example of something that the "Apple Defenders At All Cost" won't put up their shields for. Supermarket Groceries..

Yes its a great replacement. Wouldn't it be nice to have an APP available that you can browse and shop for all of your groceries and then submit the order and depending on the service pick up the groceries (for a small fee) or have them delivered for a slightly larger fee? We don't need to argue over this service being 'worth it or not' its a fact that they exist AND people use them... And for reasons I'd rather not delve into I'm one of them.

This APP simply couldn't exist.. Because like ebooks groceries are usually sold on razor thin markups (mostly) and to think that any of the online grocerie services (PeaPod and others) would even develop an iPhone that in turn would require them to give Apple 30% of each and every order that was made... again they simply couldn't do it and the app goes unwritten.

How about a fast food example? McDonald's maybe? Lets say you've got 3 kids who always order the same thing and the McDonald's near you is always busy. Now imagine an APP that could remember and maintain a food order for you (since the kids always get the same stuff anyway) and you would be able to wirelessly xmit the order (no fool at the register screwing it up) to the people preparing the meals and also pays for the food.

You'd simply have to show your paid screen to the counter person when the order comes up..

Again this could never be a reality if Apple forded McDonald's to tack on 30% to each and every order that was placed with the iPhone app.

I could go on but THIS (if people want to believe it or not is no longer my concern) is the point I'm making... but then again maybe I just came up with all of this on the spot and prior to this never gave the subject any thought and maybe I'm just really good at thinking on my feet.

Oh and the reason for me not putting the in app purchasing in the rejection text is because Apple never comes out and says why something was rejected when its potentially a controversial issue... So i mockingly used the one that Apple used to kill the Google Voice App. But heck, for all you know I just came up with that now (again thinking fast on my feet maybe?) but then again I've always been negative about the GV rejection... but MAYBE I made all those negative posts up back then because I KNEW I'd need them now for my excuse...

Best bet is to check with melgross, he knows better than me what my intentions were, are and will be in the future... I for one am beside myself in excitement as to how I'm going to feel next... I certainly hope he fills me in...

Briefly I used one. I don't remember being able to buy books that way.

And don't talk about getting around DRM, because that's not what we're talking about.

It's still not very good. As has been pointed out in several reviews, it's like a device in early beta. Even 1.2 has come only a short way.

I'm not talking about Sony.

And the fct that they need Adobe or B&N DRM means you cant buy a book anywhere.

And Amazon, the only big book seller is left out.

I've got several apps on my iPhone that lets me also buy books from all sellers as far as I can tell, including BOTH Amazon and B&N.

None of the others can do that.

Apple is the most open of all.

An App that quits itself and opens a link in Safari to a specific product page isn't my definition of 'being able to order products from within the an iPhone App' but I'm guessing you are going to say differently.... I guess it all comes down to what the definition of IS is..

You were beating your own horse. Not the horse of the discussion.

If you want to just leave the conversation, then just leave. Otherwise we can just say that we disagree, and leave it at that. But when someone makes a smarmy remark and then says they are leaving, that's not right.


You keep saying that, but you don't seem to understand why it works the way it does.

I'm sure that Apple would be very happy to allow it for them, but then they would have to pay the 30% as everyone else does, going by the accepted rules of the app store. So it;s the choice of Amazon and B&N to not do that, not Apple.

But the reason why it doesn't matter, and why it's a semantic argument, is because the same purpose is accomplished by jumping to Safari, at the cost of a sight inconvenience.

I wasn't saying that purchases were made WITHIN the apps, but that it didn't matter, as the result was the same. But you don't want to admit that.


You see, you're being snarky again while refusing to deal with the question.


I undertand that. But we all know that the App Store is Apple's turf, and if a developer wants to be there, they have to obey the rules. In app purchases, as you know, have been allowed for a while now. Both Amazon and B&N can do that if they want, but they've got to pay the 30% as everyone else does. By not doing that, they avoid the 30% clip. It's their choice. Apple isn't saying they can't do it.

Lok at how the other book programs manage to sell content.



Now you're going beyond snarky, and moving into the land of fantasy, and I'm being nice.

You can eliminate those kinds of comments in later posts.

[quote}
Because Apple is marketing a device that is not simply Apple controlled (like AppleTV or the iPod video) and those other devices doesn't make claims about 10s of thousands of developer who are all adding additional programs to make said devices even MORE useful, like Apple does.[/quote]

And what Apple says is true. There are tens of thousands of apps that make the devices more useful, and a lot of developers, at least the ones who charge, are making money. There are a half dozen book programs which allow you to buy books through them, or get them free.

The fact that you can't do this with the other players in the game doesn't make them better, it makes them worse, and far less useful.

If Apple didn't allow these other book programs, then you would be here complaining about that.


Good for you! You're an amazing fellow.

Wrong again.

While these programs are new, and there are bugs to be worked out with the companies involved, they are there. I'm sure they will get better in the new category.

http://www.ordermapper.com/

You'd find others, if you just took the time to look.


Any more of this junk from you and I'm going to start deleting posts.

No, it comes down to Apple allowing purchases to be made, which Amazon doesn't, and B&N only does in a limited way. Apple could prevent those apps completely, but they don't, even though they work around the app store.

My God, you don't read if it doesn't say what you want to hear.

It's clear that from the Nook or Sony you can't buy from any vender, because it doesn't have 3rd party apps, it doesn't have browser so it can't access other merchants. But you can buy the book from a computer and then load it on the readers.

Exactly the same way it works in the iPhone, you have to go to the browser to buy it, you can't buy it from the app directly. The advantage it's that iPhone have a browser and you don't need a computer.

And I haven't say they need DRM, I have said that if it has DRM it have to be Adobe (the standard used in any of the readers with ePub) or B&N (Adobe is integrating it in Adobe Digital Editions).

Another app that doesn't allow you to buy and pay for something in app that you are using to make a point that I'm not arguing? Okay fine this is clearly getting redundant beyond words.

We seem to have a hard time coming to an agreement on this but on one hand you did admit that Apple would not allow any developer to provide a program that made in app purchases unless they submit to Apples 30% payment service but then your quickly rush to show lots of random apps that don't do in app purchases.

I agree Apple does allow apps to force quite and launch a safari web browser so the user can make a manual web based order.
I agree Apple does allow developer to submit to Apples order processing service and pay them a mere 30% up charge on every sale.
I also declare that Apple will not allow developers to utilize in app purchases that use their own fully established accounting and order processing services.


You can clearly choose to censor and or delete everything I write if you so choose but I don't see anything in the forum rules that would indicate I'm guilty of a posting violation. If you want to make up rules on the fly thats also within your authority but just be adult enough to indicate why you are censoring or at the very least say 'because I can, and nobody needs a better answer like it or leave it!'.

Look we clearly have different attitudes on the limits Apple imposes on developers.

- Using undocumented APIs (is wrong)
- Using inappropriate content (might be wrong?)
- Abusing the device, battery drain , etc (is wrong)
- Implementing something over 3G that is against the carriers rules (is wrong)

Forcing every single App that wants to implement a in APP purchase to pay Apple a 30% payment fee and force all developers to use Apples own payment processing service is going too far. Why should Apple have any involvement in someone else's business when said business is large enough to do its own processing?

Yes it's the law as handed down by God above but that doesn't mean I can't voice my displeasure of it does it?

And where does it end?

Should Apple try to claim a 30% cut on what you pay your ISP?
Should Apple try to claim a 30% cut on the electricity cost used to charge your device?

Absurd you say? How is it any more absurd that forcing developer to not do something that is clearly CONDONED in the SDK (sending SSL packets) simply because those packets involve payment information that is actually no business of Apples in the first place. That SHOULD be private personal information between the BUYER and SELLER.

And if we really want to get down to it APPLE should be FORCED to inform the user of an APP that does use the 30% Apple payment process service that your order details will not be a private transaction between YOU and the SELLER but Apple too will be informed and recording all the orders you make! That is unless, all concepts of personal privacy as provided for under the law (in the US anyway) get thrown out the window but only when you pick up and Apple branded device?

Or are we going to be censored or banned if continue to do so?

If thats the case you can simply delete my account now...
[/quote]

I have no interest in deleting any "information" or opinions you post. I will delete any more insults you decide to throw.

No. We were talking about Amazon and B&N. Sony's got less than 5% of the market, and isn't likely to get much more, so whatever they do isn't that important.


I know why. So, are you telling me that now that Amazon is supposedly looking to make some simple apps for the Kindle, that you expect it to allow purchases from B&N? Somehow, I doubt that very much. They've got their own format. Why would they bother to do that if they wanted to be warm and fuzzy with other major vendors?


The Kindle does have a browser. Some Kindle users here were making a big deal about that.


While Amazon allows self published books to be sold on the Kindle with or without DRM, they require publishers to use it.

I'm sorry if I posted an insult... I clearly don't remember doing so but if you found something insulting I extend my apology sometimes I hit post before totally thinking out what I wrote. My posts can be aggressive at times but I usually don't resort to name calling.