I believe you already hit on the answer. If Apple has iBooks as just another app, they can improve it any time they want to. Since this is a new business model, they may want to respond as quickly as possible to their competition. If Amazon or B&N have a feature that everyone loves, SJ will put his engineers on it right away to duplicate it. Apple will not have to wait until an iOS update to make the change. Its a good business decision on their part. They can always feature the iBook store on the main page of the App store for everyone to see. No one has to go and look for it.
They either reject this right away on the grounds of competing with existing core functionality
Or they let it stay, knowing that it will be impossible to ban later with a lot of users now on a rival (Amazon's) eco system. This course of action will limit apple's ability to set prices on their ebooks, because amazon would be able to just drop the price on the iPad and there would be nothing apple can do.
Being a fan of Amazon myself (mostly buy and sell text books and some other things) I would like to see kindle stay, but I doubt it will happen.
I believe you already hit on the answer. If Apple has iBooks as just another app, they can improve it any time they want to.
If it's bundled it's still an app, and not intertwined with the OS. Even if the app is in the box and on the device out of the box Apple could update the app via the app store no problem. That's not the issue. I happen to think the reason they didn't bundle it is they are playing a psychological game into getting more users to buy books. And buy more books.
If it was bundled and empty perhaps some users wouldn't buy books and the app would sit there with an empty bookshelf: "Oh cool, what does this do?" "Ah nothing it's an empty bookshelf, you have to buy books to put them on it." "Ah I see, that's annoying." Apple didn't want this. Instead they are playing a psychological game where users who do download the app are very likely to purchase a book, and if they buy one they won't want an empty looking sparse bookshelf so they'll buy some more. Also without the empty bookshelf app the device is further simplified.
My solution was to display a cool looking UI and message that sort of hides the bookshelf and displays a message when you open the empty app:
"Your bookshelf is empty, visit the iBookstore to purchase books. Even free ones." With an additional "Visit Store" button front and center.
This solution makes more sense. I think they are simply making a bad decision. And by doing it my way no user would ever see an empty bookshelf, they'd know what they need to do to add books, and they'd be just as likely to purchase a book for the shelf, and I'd argue even more would cause they'd see the app on home screen page 1.
- - - - -
Then again the American (US) website is the only one that talks about "iBooks" the app, and other countries don't even have it mentioned in their features page. So it could actually be a licensing issue, and they don't want international users to become jealous when they see US iPads with the app on the home screen. Perhaps users outside the US won't even see the iBooks app on the store at all until the licensing gets worked out?
Comments
I believe you already hit on the answer. If Apple has iBooks as just another app, they can improve it any time they want to. Since this is a new business model, they may want to respond as quickly as possible to their competition. If Amazon or B&N have a feature that everyone loves, SJ will put his engineers on it right away to duplicate it. Apple will not have to wait until an iOS update to make the change. Its a good business decision on their part. They can always feature the iBook store on the main page of the App store for everyone to see. No one has to go and look for it.
Hmm, makes sense
They either reject this right away on the grounds of competing with existing core functionality
Or they let it stay, knowing that it will be impossible to ban later with a lot of users now on a rival (Amazon's) eco system. This course of action will limit apple's ability to set prices on their ebooks, because amazon would be able to just drop the price on the iPad and there would be nothing apple can do.
Being a fan of Amazon myself (mostly buy and sell text books and some other things) I would like to see kindle stay, but I doubt it will happen.
Don't feed the trolls. You would be wise to block (using the Ignore function) Extremeskater and TECHSTUD. You can thank me later.
Feed the Trolls- Tuppence a bag!
I believe you already hit on the answer. If Apple has iBooks as just another app, they can improve it any time they want to.
If it's bundled it's still an app, and not intertwined with the OS. Even if the app is in the box and on the device out of the box Apple could update the app via the app store no problem. That's not the issue. I happen to think the reason they didn't bundle it is they are playing a psychological game into getting more users to buy books. And buy more books.
If it was bundled and empty perhaps some users wouldn't buy books and the app would sit there with an empty bookshelf: "Oh cool, what does this do?" "Ah nothing it's an empty bookshelf, you have to buy books to put them on it." "Ah I see, that's annoying." Apple didn't want this. Instead they are playing a psychological game where users who do download the app are very likely to purchase a book, and if they buy one they won't want an empty looking sparse bookshelf so they'll buy some more. Also without the empty bookshelf app the device is further simplified.
My solution was to display a cool looking UI and message that sort of hides the bookshelf and displays a message when you open the empty app:
"Your bookshelf is empty, visit the iBookstore to purchase books. Even free ones." With an additional "Visit Store" button front and center.
This solution makes more sense. I think they are simply making a bad decision. And by doing it my way no user would ever see an empty bookshelf, they'd know what they need to do to add books, and they'd be just as likely to purchase a book for the shelf, and I'd argue even more would cause they'd see the app on home screen page 1.
- - - - -
Then again the American (US) website is the only one that talks about "iBooks" the app, and other countries don't even have it mentioned in their features page. So it could actually be a licensing issue, and they don't want international users to become jealous when they see US iPads with the app on the home screen. Perhaps users outside the US won't even see the iBooks app on the store at all until the licensing gets worked out?
- - - - -
SHIT, I HAVE DISCOVERED IT (the reason):
Feed the Trolls- Tuppence a bag!
Amazing. He didn't even moan that time.