Apple e-book price fixing trial set for 2013 - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Try logic. Your statement is a classic strawman.

It's not a strawman at all. Your entire argument is based on assuming that the story the DoJ presents in it's filings is the absolute, complete and entirely in context truth. Without that assumption, you don't even have an argument. But, since all it is right now is a story, told to the advantage of the party telling it, you haven't offered a shred of proof to back up the claims you are making. All you've done is repeat someone else's claims as "proof" that your claims are correct. That particular fallacy is called "Begging the Question". You need to go back to school as far as logic is concerned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

That wasn't what was presented...

THERE

IS

NO

EVIDENCE

FOR

THE 

ENTIRETY

OF

YOUR

CONJECTURAL

RANT.

None, the DoJ has nothing except hearsay and conjecture, Apple are innocent they will be exonerated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Please address this particular complaint and why you believe it overstates the case for Apple. I would say every major publisher invalidating all prior agreements with all prior e-book retailers

No agreements with Amazon were "invalidated" they expired due to an elapse of time.

Any renegotiations of expired contracts had nothing, whatsoever to do with Apple.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of this, it is pure conjecture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by myapplelove 


Jesus after that thread on this you dominated with 30+ posts and there wasn't anyone agreeing with you, no one person, you still come back with the same delusion...I got to give it to you man, you're as persistent as they get...even if in denial that's a good thing.

So, say the DoJ terminates the legally binding and obtained agreements between the publishers and the group of independent resellers whose market share has grown from 10% to 40% of the eBook market since the widespread adoption of the agency model.

How will wiping out the independents with a GOVERNMENT MANDATED price fixing scheme help the consumer?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 
 Apple exclusively determined pricing on the iTunes store for the first several years. $.99 singles and $9.99 albums were the only way to get on the iTunes store. It is no different than what Amazon was doing for books. Apple finally allowed some bit of price variation when moving content to be free of DRM restrictions. Don't make shit up.

Apple, using the leverage of iTunes already being on millions of devices and computers, forced the record labels to lower prices on which Apple made a small percentage for providing the platform. Amazon on the other hand is supposedly selling books and the reader at less than cost, so it does appear to be different. 

Amazon has never lost money on their book sales. They may have had a few loss leaders or even some books sold at cost but they make their money. They were not purchasing marketshare by taking losses in their book sales. Apple offers sales, sets, free singles, and what have you as well. They are the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Try logic. Your statement is a classic strawman.

 

It's not a strawman at all. Your entire argument is based on assuming that the story the DoJ presents in it's filings is the absolute, complete and entirely in context truth. Without that assumption, you don't even have an argument. But, since all it is right now is a story, told to the advantage of the party telling it, you haven't offered a shred of proof to back up the claims you are making. All you've done is repeat someone else's claims as "proof" that your claims are correct. That particular fallacy is called "Begging the Question". You need to go back to school as far as logic is concerned.

It is a classic strawman because no one in here declared what you stated and knocked down. One isn't even related to the other. I cited the complaint that was filed by the DOJ. I have not begged the question at all. I have not at all claimed the complaint is true simply because it was filed by the DOJ and granted them any particular authority above other things. I have stated in the court of public opinion Apple will be a huge loser. I have also said that when an entire industry and all prior participants in it are forced to change their behavior in a uniform and sudden fashion, that it follows that it was a colluded upon action. We also have as proof the fact that multiple parties who were among those who colluded have already settled. When the settled they did not agree to a wholesale or agency model for future contracts but were expressly forbidden to agree to the most favored nation clause (put in by Apple) that forbid other retailers from competing on price. Those aren't claims. Those are actual settlements and they settled because the claims against them were true and they decided to take the easier way out.

Try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

That wasn't what was presented...

 

THERE

 

IS

 

NO

 

EVIDENCE

 

FOR

 

THE 

 

ENTIRETY

 

OF

 

YOUR

 

CONJECTURAL

 

RANT.

 

None, the DoJ has nothing except hearsay and conjecture, Apple are innocent they will be exonerated.

The DOJ has phone records, emails, and the testimony of the publishing companies that settled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

No agreements with Amazon were "invalidated" they expired due to an elapse of time.

 

Any renegotiations of expired contracts had nothing, whatsoever to do with Apple.

 

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of this, it is pure conjecture.

Really?

"So we told the publishers, ‘We’ll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30 per cent, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway.’ They went to Amazon and said, ‘You’re going to sign an agency contract or we’re not giving you the books.’” - Steve Jobs

You just called Steve Jobs a liar. Great job!!! That is from his official biography by the way. That way after you piss yourself some more you can declare yourself unilaterally truthful again "because you said so."

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArchAngel21x 

How can they possibly be accused of price fixing when Apple lets the publishers choose the price?

collusion is a fun game

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Amazon has never lost money on their book sales. They may have had a few loss leaders or even some books sold at cost but they make their money. They were not purchasing marketshare by taking losses in their book sales. Apple offers sales, sets, free singles, and what have you as well. They are the same.

Perhaps I have misinformation but just to be clear we are talking about E-BOOK sales, right? I thought that Amazon was buying the e-books at a certain price from the publishers and then selling them a lower cost. If that is not true then my information was apparently incorrect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Somehow, I think that selling books below cost to try to make up hardware losses isn't much of a strategy.
The real concern is that after Amazon has monopolized the market, they can drive the prices as high as they want.

Except at some price point  it allows competitors to enter the market, which is as it should be. Apple has as deep of pockets as Amazon.Fortunately for investors they aren't spending it on a ridiculous space exploration project

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 

 

 I give up.

Promise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Perhaps I have misinformation but just to be clear we are talking about E-BOOK sales, right? I thought that Amazon was buying the e-books at a certain price from the publishers and then selling them a lower cost. If that is not true then my information was apparently incorrect.

No one has ever shown evidence that Amazon sells eBooks as a category below their costs AFAIK. What I have seen claimed is that some specific best-sellers were sold at or below cost. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Except at some price point  it allows competitors to enter the market, which is as it should be.

Not if Amazon's monopoly allows it to dictate to the publishing industry, which is what the DoJ action facilitates; practically demands, in fact. That's the thing about monopolies, they also allow you to keep potential competitors from entering the market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


You misunderstand how a monopoly works. If Amazon manages to achieve a true monopoly, they would be able to create barriers to entry which would prevent competitors from entering the market-or at least make it extremely expensive.

Curious on your opinion: If Apple (or Google, or Kobo, or Diesel or B&N) chooses not to compete on price but instead on "user experience" and fails, would that be the fault of Amazon's marketing practices?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Curious on your opinion: If Apple (or Google, or Kobo, or Diesel or B&N) chooses not to compete on price but instead on "user experience" and fails, would that be the fault of Amazon's marketing practices?

Monopoly power includes the power to erect barriers to entry by potential competitors.  For example, the monopolist could tell the publishers that if they sell to others, then they must delay new titles for 6 months, and that they cannot sell any bestsellers via the competition.  Or whateverr will work to keep competition at a huge disadvantage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 

 

 

Monopoly power includes the power to erect barriers to entry by potential competitors.  For example, the monopolist could tell the publishers that if they sell to others, then they must delay new titles for 6 months, and that they cannot sell any bestsellers via the competition.  Or whateverr will work to keep competition at a huge disadvantage.

Amazon increasingly acts as a publisher, with more and more exclusive book deals, and seems intent to expand that strategy. At some point, if Amazon is successful at consolidating and expanding it's monopoly, the sheer number of its exclusive deals will effectively make it impossible for anyone to enter, or even stay in, the market. That's the problem with the DoJ's action in this case. It makes a future where Amazon not only controls, but is, the publishing industry ever more probable, ultimately resulting in higher prices across the board (let's not be naive and think Amazon won't raise prices once the competition is cleared from the field), less choice (because books simply won't get published if Amazon decides they aren't profitable enough) and, most disturbingly, fewer voices heard.

The counter argument would be that, if that happens, the DoJ would take Amazon to court and break up their monopoly. Even assuming that were true, and that the DoJ were "successful" in such future action, by the time that happened, the publishing/bestselling industry as a whole would already have been laid waste. Irreversible damage would already have been done. That's the road the DoJ is taking consumers and authors down with this action. In short, the DoJ's action is stupid, short-sighted, pig-headed and will destroy an entire industry, causing infinitely more harm to consumers than a small rise in cost of a few e-book titles ever could.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 


But its for Apple to dictate terms to the music industry? That you'll bend over for.

Apple doesn't dictate terms to the music industry. In fact, the music industry today is much healthier (despite grumblings of music executives who would like to return to the good old days of physical only sales) than it was the day the iTunes store opened, at which point it looked like it might be overwhelmed by piracy. But, if Apple, or any company, were seeking to dominate the music industry in the way Amazon seeks to dominate books, I would certainly oppose it.

Being a big player doesn't have to mean taking over the world. Apple's focus has never been to take over the world, despite it's products -- like the iPod -- sometimes being so successful that it has that appearance. Amazon, on the other hand, like Microsoft and Google, has consistently demonstrated that it's driven by a desire to dominate and control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Depends. If Amazon is using its market power to create a price low enough that B&N or the others can not afford to compete on price (such as predatory pricing), then it could well be illegal. Look up 'predatory pricing' and educate yourself.

It's very hard to have a polite discussion when you feel the need to drop a veiled insult into every reply, as tho you're the only one here that has researched any legal issues. But since you brought it up, could you be bothered to explain how Amazon's pricing is illegal "Predatory pricing"? To go a step further how would you personally determine if another eBook retailer could afford to run sale prices on some items or simply chose not to? Could Apple for instance? How about Kobo?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

It's very hard to have a polite discussion when you feel the need to drop a veiled insult into every reply...

It's very hard to have a polite discussion when you feel the need to drop FUD, disingenuous questions and other misrepresentations into every thread.

We know that's what you are paid to do, but it's tiresome, to say the least, and reflects poorly on your Google paymasters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

... It is a classic strawman because no one in here declared what you stated and knocked down. ... I cited the complaint that was filed by the DOJ. I have not begged the question at all. ...

You appear to be very confused. The "strawman" argument is that I questioned your citing of the DoJ claims as proving your points on the basis that prosecutos are well known to make grandiose claims regarding the strength of their cases in filings and that, therefore, they hardly serve as an authoritative source for anything. Now you are denying that you did so, while stating in the same post that you did and your posts throughout the thread continually cite the DoJ's filing as evidence that Apple is going down. It's not even clear what it is you are claiming that I "stated and knocked down," if its not what you've actually been doing, which it must not be since you're insisting it's a strawman argument.

You not only appear to be confused, you appear almost incapable of writing coherently. You question my citing of DOJ claims based off your strawman that you set up and knock down. I understood it. Prosecutors are known for making grandiose claims and your citation for this is what.... belly button lint? Not only that but the fact that one prosecutor anywhere could make a grandiose claim makes this particular claim a grandiose claim in exactly what way and for what reason.....

See you don't answer those. You don't understand you are using "grandiose claim of prosecutors" to knock down and dismiss and entire complaint filed by the DOJ. That isn't even rationale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 


Really?

"So we told the publishers, ‘We’ll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30 per cent, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway.’ They went to Amazon and said, ‘You’re going to sign an agency contract or we’re not giving you the books.’” - Steve Jobs

You just called Steve Jobs a liar. Great job!!! That is from his official biography by the way. That way after you piss yourself some more you can declare yourself unilaterally truthful again "because you said so."

Hearsay.

Unfortunately the dead can't be called to testify.

Any lawyer worth his salt will have this "evidence" thrown out in no time.

The complaint (which again you clearly haven't read) has all sort of claims involving calls, meetings, assurances and other actions by Apple VP of Internet Services Eddy Cue. He happens to be alive and well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

Hearsay.
Unfortunately the dead can't be called to testify.
Any lawyer worth his salt will have this "evidence" thrown out in no time.

He's also missed the point were Jobs is quoted as saying "where you set the price..." How anyone can say that is Apple/Jobs with publishers to set prices is a remarkable leap.

In the end, now that Amazon's monopoly and predatory control of the market has been broken up we, the consumer, can benefit from real competition.

Publishers set the price within the tiers that Apple allows. When the complaint notes the agency agreements it notes how Apple initially wanted an upper price limit of $12.99 but that after they negotiated Apple ALLOWED the publishers a higher tier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Amazon has never lost money on their book sales. They may have had a few loss leaders or even some books sold at cost but they make their money. They were not purchasing marketshare by taking losses in their book sales. Apple offers sales, sets, free singles, and what have you as well. They are the same.

Perhaps I have misinformation but just to be clear we are talking about E-BOOK sales, right? I thought that Amazon was buying the e-books at a certain price from the publishers and then selling them a lower cost. If that is not true then my information was apparently incorrect.

The complain isn't about Amazon or even losses. The real issue is that publishers were watching their market for books change. It is almost a perfect analogy to what happened in the music industry. Amazon was buying the books and making minimal profit on them. The publishers considered the $9.99 problem with Amazon (which is cited in the DOJ complaint) as being harmful to their business of selling hardcover books for much more than that price. If the next John Grisham book comes out in hard cover and it is $28 and Amazon is selling it at $9.99, it doesn't mean they are taking a loss on it. It means it is much harder to get people to go to a book store and buy a hard cover book that exists in physical reality and thus has higher costs. Digital media simply costs less. There's no store front. There's no building. It is indeed true that we will see Borders, Barnes and Noble have happen to them exactly what happened to Tower Records, etc. It's progress. You don't use collusion to stop progress and if you do, then you are wrong, even if you are Apple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

No one has ever shown evidence that Amazon sells eBooks as a category below their costs AFAIK. What I have seen claimed is that some specific best-sellers were sold at or below cost. 

Exactly! This is also true of the physical hardcover books as well though. All the Harry Potter books were sold as sets and as loss leaders from what I recall. They were just used to get traffic into stores.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Except at some price point  it allows competitors to enter the market, which is as it should be.

 

Not if Amazon's monopoly allows it to dictate to the publishing industry, which is what the DoJ action facilitates; practically demands, in fact. That's the thing about monopolies, they also allow you to keep potential competitors from entering the market.

There is nothing stopping the publishers right now from offering their own books in an open e-book format. The ONLY way Amazon could ever hold sway over them is because Amazon has digital rights management and that is what they demand. If there ends up being a monster, it will be because they themselves created it by demanding DRM instead of matching an impulse buy price and going with open formats. This was the exact argument made against Apple. Apple argued that open standards and convenience would win out over everything else including piracy.

Amazon has clearly taken a page out of Apple's playbook. They are doing exactly what Apple has done. They are even helping people publish and are pushing all sorts of novellas and short stories as "Kindle Singles" where they typically are $.99-1.99. One click buy arrives wirelessly on your Kindle or Kindle app. Convenience beats everything else. It is exactly the argument Apple used to make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 

Nice tiddybit from the bio (chapter 38):

With the iPod, Jobs had transformed the music business. With the iPad and its App Store, he began to transform all media, from publishing to journalism to television and movies.
Books were an obvious target, since Amazon’s Kindle had shown there was an appetite for electronic books. So Apple created an iBooks Store, which sold electronic books the way the iTunes Store sold songs. There was, however, a slight difference in the business model. For the iTunes Store, Jobs had insisted that all songs be sold at one inexpensive price, initially 99 cents. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos had tried to take a similar approach with ebooks, insisting on selling them for at most $9.99. Jobs came in and offered publishers what he had refused to offer record companies: They could set any price they wanted for their wares in the iBooks Store, and Apple would take 30%. Initially that meant prices were higher than on Amazon. Why would people pay Apple more? “That won’t be the case,” Jobs answered, when Walt Mossberg asked him that question at the iPad launch event. “The price will be the same.” He was right.
The day after the iPad launch, Jobs described to me his thinking on books:
Amazon screwed it up. It paid the wholesale price for some books, but started selling them below cost at $9.99. The publishers hated that—they thought it would trash their ability to sell hardcover books at $28. So before Apple even got on the scene, some booksellers were starting to withhold books from Amazon. So we told the publishers, “We’ll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway.” But we also asked for a guarantee that if anybody else is selling the books cheaper than we are, then we can sell them at the lower price too. So they went to Amazon and said, “You’re going to sign an agency contract or we’re not going to give you the books.”

Jobs acknowledged that he was trying to have it both ways when it came to music and books. He had refused to offer the music companies the agency model and allow them to set their own prices. Why? Because he didn’t have to. But with books he did. “We were not the first people in the books business,” he said. “Given the situation that existed, what was best for us was to do this akido move and end up with the agency model. And we pulled it off.”

They haven't pulled it off. That is why the DOJ is investigating and it is also why Apple will not be successful with the iBookstore. They have forgotten what made it work the first time for them. First of all, why can you not even read an iBook purchase on your Mac? Could you imagine buying a video or music album and only being able to listen to it on your iPhone and not your Mac? This makes no sense. Amazon has this right and Apple doesn't. Kindle books can be read on your computer, phone, web browser and stand alone Kindle device. When you think about Apple with music, movies and how they let you access them. The model is almost exactly the same playbook only Kindle does it best with books. That is a great quote which shows how Apple basically had to turn it's back on what they used to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Except at some price point  it allows competitors to enter the market, which is as it should be. Apple has as deep of pockets as Amazon.Fortunately for investors they aren't spending it on a ridiculous space exploration project

You misunderstand how a monopoly works. If Amazon manages to achieve a true monopoly, they would be able to create barriers to entry which would prevent competitors from entering the market-or at least make it extremely expensive.

How can they do this when the publishers could sell their own intellectual property by themselves at whatever price they want, on their own website and make it a standard that would work with everything?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Curious on your opinion: If Apple (or Google, or Kobo, or Diesel or B&N) chooses not to compete on price but instead on "user experience" and fails, would that be the fault of Amazon's marketing practices?

Depends. If Amazon is using its market power to create a price low enough that B&N or the others can not afford to compete on price (such as predatory pricing), then it could well be illegal. Look up 'predatory pricing' and educate yourself.

The DOJ complaint noted that competitors had no problem matching Amazon pricing. The publishers in fact saw this as part of the problem as Amazon was basically hitting $9.99 and everyone else was matching them no problem. The larger problem was no one would want to buy $28-38 hard coverbooks when they could stay home and buy it for $10.

If this were ten years ago and music companies were complaining that no one wanted to go to Tower Records and buy their skipping CD's with various crappy attempts at copy protection for $12.99 because Apple was selling albums for $9.99 and all the other music e-tailers were matching their price and on top of it, people were buying the good songs for $.99 instead of albums full of filler, I know how everyone here would have come down and on who's side. We know because the big record stores, crappy attempts at music copy protection and other problems are largely gone and music companies now make their money best when they make their music high quality and quickly and easily downloadable at the prices that are fair and that we want to pay.

Apple did the opposite. They are not the good guy just because they are Apple. They are the good guy when they take the right actions and they have not taken them here. In fact Amazon has done them and that is why I own a Kindle instead of an iBook reader because Apple doesn't make one.  EPUB is a format much like MP3. Every publisher could start selling their books in that format tomorrow at $9.99 direct and keep every cent without even having to worry about Amazon. iBooks and just about everything other than Kindle easily reads it. However publisher could just as easily convert it to an unprotected AZW format. (Just like Apple has done with AAC.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

You not only appear to be confused, you appear almost incapable of writing coherently. You question my citing of DOJ claims based off your strawman that you set up and knock down. I understood it. Prosecutors are known for making grandiose claims and your citation for this is what.... belly button lint? Not only that but the fact that one prosecutor anywhere could make a grandiose claim makes this particular claim a grandiose claim in exactly what way and for what reason.....

 

See you don't answer those. You don't understand you are using "grandiose claim of prosecutors" to knock down and dismiss and entire complaint filed by the DOJ. That isn't even rationale.

 

 

The complaint (which again you clearly haven't read) has all sort of claims involving calls, meetings, assurances and other actions by Apple VP of Internet Services Eddy Cue. He happens to be alive and well.

Publishers set the price within the tiers that Apple allows. When the complaint notes the agency agreements it notes how Apple initially wanted an upper price limit of $12.99 but that after they negotiated Apple ALLOWED the publishers a higher tier. ...

 

Yet, you continue to wield the DoJ complaint like a blunt instrument while denying that you are doing so. It isn't necessary to show that the DoJ engaged in grandiose claims to invalidate your entire argument. It's enough to point out that a) this often happens and b) that none of the DoJ's claims have, to date, been proven (that's the nature of this sort of document, by the way, that's why they are called "allegations") to invalidate your argument that depends entirely on assuming that the claims are proven. You don't have anything else but the DoJ filing to back up anything you are saying, and you are using the DoJ filing to prove that Apple did do the things alleged in the filing. There is no straw man here. And there is definitely, on your part, an apparently endless loop of circular reasoning.

This doesn't even make sense.

And, I believe my writing is quite coherent, just a few grade levels above your comprehension skills. Sorry about writing over your head, but I hate to have to dumb things down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

Yet, you continue to wield the DoJ complaint like a blunt instrument while denying that you are doing so. It isn't necessary to show that the DoJ engaged in grandiose claims to invalidate your entire argument. It's enough to point out that a) this often happens and b) that none of the DoJ's claims have, to date, been proven (that's the nature of this sort of document, by the way, that's why they are called "allegations") to invalidate your argument that depends entirely on assuming that the claims are proven. You don't have anything else but the DoJ filing to back up anything you are saying, and you are using the DoJ filing to prove that Apple did do the things alleged in the filing. There is no straw man here. And there is definitely, on your part, an apparently endless loop of circular reasoning.

Dude, get help, seriously. The complain is a "blunt instrument" exactly how and why again? It is standard procedure. It is regular due process. You are making a norm sound like something to be distrusted.

You claim that grandiose claims by all prosecutors are a norm. That again is not at all true. Most DA's are judged by and re-elected due to their rate of conviction. The norm is to settle because that raises your success rate. Going to trial by definition is more risky and thus they only prosecute what they know they can get convictions on.

Read the complaint and stop trolling. It names people, places, dates, emails, phone records. It isn't just a nice little story. Also we have the actions that took place. Amazon was forced into an agency model. Apple conveniently did sign all the publishers within three days. The entire way the market place did business suddenly and radically changed. That isn't just made up nonsense. It isn't just a grandiose claim. Stop denying reality with bullshit.

Yes, your written word says more right there than I ever could implicate. Hahahahahahaha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

First of all, why can you not even read an iBook purchase on your Mac? Could you imagine buying a video or music album and only being able to listen to it on your iPhone and not your Mac? This makes no sense. Amazon has this right and Apple doesn't. Kindle books can be read on your computer, phone, web browser and stand alone Kindle device. When you think about Apple with music, movies and how they let you access them. The model is almost exactly the same playbook only Kindle does it best with books.

Why would anyone want to read a book on their Mac? You read it on the device on which you buy it; an iPhone or an iPad. This makes sense.

Well considering that if it isn't the iBookstore, you HAVE to buy it outside of the device, or at a minimum within a web browser on the device, the point you make about using a Mac is a bit silly. Apple has declared that cloud based services cannot be purchased through their apps. They cannot even link through their apps to web browsers. You must go outside the apps, likely to a Mac with web browser, purchase the content or service, and then access it through your iOS device. So you don't automatically access it on the device on which you buy it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 

Why would anyone want to read a book on their Mac? You read it on the device on which you buy it; an iPhone or an iPad. This makes sense.

Not being able to see a situation in which it would be done doesn't immediately discount the proposal itself. Though in many cases the questioner is very much in the right, I'm not 100% here. While I also don't see why anyone would bother reading books on their computer, particularly when that setup is terrible, that doesn't mean it's not a valid desire.

Thanks for at least imagining the possibility. It isn't hard to try considering they have a browser based app. It can be quite nice. People watch videos on their laptops and listen to music. Why wouldn't they read a book, especially if they can read it within a tab while occasionally web browsing? Considering Amazon has whispersync, when you pick up your iPhone or iPad, it will be right where you finished off on the computer. It is very convenient, actually very Apple-like. Considering Apple just wised up and added notes, reminders and other iOS features to the next version of Mac OS, I suspect some of the other iOS apps and stores will need to get better about cloud synching and sharing on the Mac as well.