http://www.cnet.com.au/apple-policy-forces-iflow-ebook-app-to-shut-down-339314907.htm
Hmmm. Every time I sell myself on the idea of getting an iPad another big negative sways me not to.
Will this development have any effect for Logos on iPad?
So, how is the Logos Android app coming along? [:D]
If Apple goes through with this, there will be a lot of used iPads on eBay on July 1st!
Remote desktop connection apps on iPad may become quite useful.
Reading https://www.iflowreader.com/Closing.aspx was informative about publisher agency model. Noticed business model is bit different than Logos.
Thankful for "Bible +" iOS update by Logos Bible Software; not know what to expect soon (e.g. July 1st).
Couple threads have older observations and speculations => If in app purchasing added to iOS app, wonder about Logos resource licensing change ? and No more access to purchased content
Hmmm. Every time I sell myself on the idea of getting an iPad another big negative sways me not to. Will this development have any effect for Logos on iPad? So, how is the Logos Android app coming along?
So, how is the Logos Android app coming along?
Reading about Google's in-app billing (IAB) for Android => http://mashable.com/2011/04/20/android-in-app-purchasing/ noticed: "Don’t grumble about the fees that Google or Apple will take from the transaction. These markets offer distribution to an enormous audience, and is well worth the 30% revenue share"
Keep Smiling [:)]
"Don’t grumble about the fees that Google or Apple will take from the transaction. These markets offer distribution to an enormous audience, and is well worth the 30% revenue share"
And I thought that the 3% that the credit cards collect on every transaction was high. 1/3 of the final sellers markup maybe but 1/3 of the price?? [Or have they killed the goose that lays the golden eggs?] [What is next? if you use ''them'' to go to a web site to buy anything do they want a cut of that sale too?]
EDIT ADD MORE
Please RE READ ALL POST IN THIS THREAD – did I miss something – from what I THINK I see in this thread is that BOTH Apple (ipad & iphone) and Google (Android) want to COLLECT 30% on each Ebook sale for any APP running on their operating systems. Will there be any E-readers on them after July 1?? [Have they killed the goose that lays the golden eggs or do they just want all of the action for themselves?] [Will they see Logos as an E-reader?? And if they do will they NOT allow Logos on the phones because Logos sells books for PC / MAC that might also be read on the phones?] [Are they trying to get back to the pay for use on every system you read the book on? [one license for each cpu you use it on and not the Logos plan of one license per user and use it on all of the cpu’s you own] [where one cpu is one computer or one phone or one other device]]
And I was getting all set to order an iPad. This reminded me of Apple's pulling the Manhatten Declaration app and the Exodus app. There is a totalitarian control that seems intrinsic to Apple that really bothers me. The primary reason I would hold my nose and buy an iPad is Logos 4. I think I'll wait a bit and see how the Android app comes along.
I think it is just a matter of time before the Justice Department Anti-Trust division comes down hard and buries Apple on this. If the folks at Cupertino think that they have more resources and hope than Redmond, they are kidding themselves.
I would not be surprised if a few years from now a settlement is made that requires Apple to sync Androids with iTunes and carry Android apps in the App Store.
"Don’t grumble about the fees that Google or Apple will take from the transaction. These markets offer distribution to an enormous audience, and is well worth the 30% revenue share" And I thought that the 3% that the credit cards collect on every transaction was high. 1/3 of the final sellers markup maybe but 1/3 of the price?? [Or have they killed the goose that lays the golden eggs?] [What is next? if you use ''them'' to go to a web site to buy anything do they want a cut of that sale too?] EDIT ADD MORE Please RE READ ALL POST IN THIS THREAD – did I miss something – from what I THINK I see in this thread is that BOTH Apple (ipad & iphone) and Google (Android) want to COLLECT 30% on each Ebook sale for any APP running on their operating systems. Will there be any E-readers on them after July 1?? [Have they killed the goose that lays the golden eggs or do they just want all of the action for themselves?] [Will they see Logos as an E-reader?? And if they do will they NOT allow Logos on the phones because Logos sells books for PC / MAC that might also be read on the phones?] [Are they trying to get back to the pay for use on every system you read the book on? [one license for each cpu you use it on and not the Logos plan of one license per user and use it on all of the cpu’s you own] [where one cpu is one computer or one phone or one other device]]
Apple and Google have their own Book apps with purchasing on devices. Apple set the 30 % cut for all digital content purchases purchased using Apple devices (includes songs in iTunes); Google copied and Amazon lowered their cut to match Apple. Also Apple requires in-app content purchase price to be the same or lower than available elsewhere.
Currently not know App store future for non-Apple E-readers after July 1. Likewise not know Google's plans for non-Google E-reader applications.
Also cognizant Apple action(s) being monitored => http://www.tuaw.com/tag/department+of+justice/
I think it is just a matter of time before the Justice Department Anti-Trust division comes down hard and buries Apple on this. If the folks at Cupertino think that they have more resources and hope than Redmond, they are kidding themselves. I would not be surprised if a few years from now a settlement is made that requires Apple to sync Androids with iTunes and carry Android apps in the App Store.
With over 40 lawsuits about smart phones currently in progress worldwide, have no idea about future rulings and ramifications (including impacts to Logos apps).
Observation: both Apple and Google exercise dominant control over their respective platforms (which is also true for several other companies and corporations, including Microsoft).
Noticed article about Google and Justice Department => http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_GOOGLE_ADVERTISING_INVESTIGATION?SITE=COCAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Keep Smiling
Thanks - [by the way I don't recall seeing a party for you when you crossed the 3000 post mark - a little late but thanks for being you]
Keep Smiling Thanks - [by the way I don't recall seeing a party for you when you crossed the 3000 post mark - a little late but thanks for being you]
Thankful to use God given talent to help others; personally have learned a lot from many forum threads and wiki pages along with using Logos software.
Thankful for friendly Logos forum discussions, Thankful for Logos Bible Study software (multi-platform), Thankful for Logos (company), and Thankful for Logos, the Word (John 1:1-18).
Well, my iPad 1 is my only Apple purchase, and I was expecting to maybe buy an iPhone 4 or 5 later this year. Now I'm concerned that even Logos on iPad might be at risk. Not that Apple is looking here in this forum, but if they mess up eBooks, they wont get much more money from me. For that matter, I would spend less with Logos if I can't read them on my iPad. Voting with my Credit Card!!!
Apologies: crystal ball cloudy; not know about future of non-Apple and non-Google e-book apps (on iOS and Android) after July 1. If Apple evicts non-Apple e-book apps from their App Store (e.g. Kindle, Kobo, Nook, ...), would leave Apple with the only e-book app that can be used offline on iOS devices, which may be good for Apple's e-book store profits, but bad news for Apple's consumers. If Apple profit increases by being the primary (only) e-book agent on iOS devices, anticipate Google doing the same thing on Android (possibly including remote deletion of non-Google e-book apps, like Google has already done to malware Android apps).
For business $ profit, Amazon (Kindle), Barnes & Noble (Nook), Borders (Kobo), and Sony (Digital Reader) have same primary e-book agent motive for their respective devices as Apple (iOS) and Google (Android). Wonder about Microsoft's e-book agent plans for Windows Phone 7.
Hindsight 20/20: appears Apple waited for competitive e-book devices to flourish worldwide before changing app guidelines (avoids some anti-trust issues).
Personally hoping and praying for Logos Bible Software apps on iOS and Android devices, with feature improvement beyond e-book readers.
if, again if, Apple is not going to play nicely here, it will not stop your app from working, just that it won't be upgraded....
If Apple pulls it from the store, you are just one reset or system upgrade away from losing the app forever.
Trying to make sure I understand... Does the new Apple policy state that apps that sell ebooks MUST sell them through in-app purchase, or they just have to provide in-app purchase as an OPTION?
If the former, that's unreasonable and will drive almost all other ebook sellers out of the Apple app store.
If the latter, then Logos only has to add an in-app purchase option inside the iOS app, and can use marketing techniques to drop customers to buy their ebooks through the Logos website. Olivetree is basically using this approach (they have frequent sales events but only through their website and not through the in-app book store).
All this discussion is meaningful only IF it's determined that the Logos app falls under Apple's new policy. Like others have pointed out, Logos is still primarily a desktop PC/Mac app, with a free iOS reader for its users. Arguably Logos is substantially different from, say, iFlow Reader. It is, however, similar to Kindle, Kobo, etc. -- Users purchase ebooks primarily for other devices, it just happens that they also offer a free reader for iOS for convenience.
Peter
Page 4 of No more access to purchased content discussion => http://community.logos.com/forums/t/29373.aspx?PageIndex=4 includes:
"Apple wants to create convenient electronic store for all digital content using Apple mobile devices that has over 100,000,000 million shoppers. If consumer choses easy one click purchase in-app on Apple device, then Apple wants 30 % of new purchase revenue. If consumer chooses to purchase externally, Apple gets nothing (while consumer can download new purchase to Apple device). Apple wants all iOS content applications to have same or better pricing as external store along with prohibiting iOS content applications from linking to external web site on iOS device. Also, Apple can block digital content from being downloaded to iOS application that does not offer in app purchasing (started this thread)."
Apple's press release on February 15, 2011 => http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html includes subscription (content) philosophy:
“Our philosophy is simple—when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app. We believe that this innovative subscription service will provide publishers with a brand new opportunity to expand digital access to their content onto the iPad, iPod touch and iPhone, delighting both new and existing subscribers.”
Page 5 of No more access to purchased content discussion => http://community.logos.com/forums/t/29373.aspx?PageIndex=5 includes Apple public confirmation on Tuesday February 16, 2011:
"Later Tuesday, Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller confirmed that those rules apply not only to newspaper and magazine publishers, but also to content sellers like Amazon.com, which offers a Kindle app for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad."
Apple changed the requirements for 'In-App Purchases", requiring them to sell the "app" for the same amount as it cost in the iTunes App store. This was due to many App developers were putting a free 'Lite" version on the iTunes store. After the person downloaded the free app, and since it was 'free' Apple was paid nothing for providing a portal for these developer's apps. After the person started using this 'Lite' version they would be able to do an 'In-App Purchase' upgrade. Because Apple's rules never specifically included 'In-App' purchasing as part of their iTunes business model, they were forced to revise this specific issue. Many of the App Developers were using the 'Lite Version' with 'In-App' purchase option to get around paying Apple its portion. The "Lite Version" concept was created by Apple to encourage developers to let customers try their product before purchasing the full App, However, MANY App Developers abused this system and it has created this new process. Also, Apple's requirement that the product they sell must cost the same via iTunes or In-App purchase as it does via other providers, primarily directed at eBook providers Amazon & Barnes/Nobles due to they were charging more for a book purchased via their iPhone/iPad Apps then what it cost to purchase directly from Amazon. Apple changed this policy to keep them from this practice. Whether anyone agrees with the percentage Apple takes, everyone should look at it from the perspective that Apple is bringing an entire market of potential customers to these 'App Developers' and anyone who purchase an iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad, you already know you have to use their software (iTunes) to utilize these products. It is no different from Logos, which developed a software platform, which they require any resources you wish to use with it must be purchased via Logos.
As far as the new guidelines affecting Logos, it should not affect their Apps. Logos' Apps are classified as a 'Portal' to a 'Parent' software program and not an 'ebook' reader and that the products they sell are unique and specific to that 'Parent' software program and Logos does not sell 'ebooks' outside of this specific 'Parent' software.
Sounds like unscrupulous sellers on eBay who sell a $30 item for $3 and charge $50 S&H to get around paying seller fees. But Apple's response is also heavy-handed. Requiring compliance with a price-fixing scheme is illegal. Even doing it voluntarily is illegal. We saw similar monopoly & extortion in eBay's requiring all transactions be paid for through PayPal after eBay bought out PP.
The love of money is the root of all evil.
That is encouraging, unless the Vyrso release makes Apple fight dirty.
<<A>> If the former, that's unreasonable and will drive almost all other ebook sellers out of the Apple app store. <<B>> If the latter, then Logos only has to add an in-app purchase option inside the iOS app, and can use marketing techniques to drop customers to buy their ebooks through the Logos website. <<C>> Olivetree is basically using this approach (they have frequent sales events but only through their website and not through the in-app book store).
<<A>> If the former, that's unreasonable and will drive almost all other ebook sellers out of the Apple app store.
<<B>> If the latter, then Logos only has to add an in-app purchase option inside the iOS app, and can use marketing techniques to drop customers to buy their ebooks through the Logos website. <<C>> Olivetree is basically using this approach (they have frequent sales events but only through their website and not through the in-app book store).
<A> that may be the intent of Apple. And drop the 'almost'. If you read a book on iApple then they seem to want you to buy it through Apple.
<B> part of the policy states that the price in the App Store can not be more then the sale price elsewhere - By by App when Apple sees the web price.
<C> Will Olivetree (or anyone else) be able to continue that policy?
Logos is the leader in Buy once use everywhere - all others are Buy it for each platform you read it on. Yes, you can read nook and kindle books on the PC but only by using the PC program that THEY provided so that they could sell you ebooks before you bought their device.
Apple changed the requirements for 'In-App Purchases", requiring them to sell the "app" for the same amount as it cost in the iTunes App store. This was due to many App developers were putting a free 'Lite" version on the iTunes store. After the person downloaded the free app, and since it was 'free' Apple was paid nothing for providing a portal for these developer's apps. After the person started using this 'Lite' version they would be able to do an 'In-App Purchase' upgrade.
I see where this makes sense and Apple should be able to stop developers from using the Apple App store as a free place to sell their products. This is a tough situation to sort out none the less!
I searched for Apple Apps and found none except in the Apple App Store. Do you HAVE to get an app from Apple only? [Or risk voiding your warranty? [i.e. 'jailbroken']]
Looking at Wikipedia article => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store noticed: "The App Store is accessible from the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad via an iOS application by the same name. It is also the only way to directly download native applications onto an iOS device without jailbreaking the device. Web applications can be installed on these devices, bypassing the App Store entirely, but they tend to have less functionality. The store is also accessible through iTunes, and then on any operating system for which iTunes is provided (Mac OS X and Windows)."
Observation: developers can load their own apps for testing on iOS device(s).
Left with jailbreaking as the only option? For Logos it will be a question of knowing what is right and doing what is right even if it means not supporting Apple! Mine will be the first in the dumper! It is the difference between ethics and morality - he who is ethical know not to cheat on his spouse, but he who is moral won't cheat on his spouse.
Mine will be the first in the dumper!
I'll take your iPad off your hands... [:D]
Alabama24, your comment made me laugh and I appreciate that. [:D] If you are actually from AL, I was in your state a few weeks ago. What a beautiful place it is with each person I met more concerned about his neighbor's situation than his own. Really impressive!
Kaye
I am "from Alabama" in a way, but do not live there now. My folks are from there and we spent our summers there. All of my extended family lives there. I can pick up and drop my accent at will. [:)] I will be taking my family down to the Gulf Shores area in a couple of weeks. Alabama has been hit hard the last couple of years with the oil spill and now the tornados.
Apologies: crystal ball cloudy; not know about future of non-Apple and non-Google e-book apps (on iOS and Android) after July 1. If Apple evicts non-Apple e-book apps from their App Store (e.g. Kindle, Kobo, Nook, ...), would leave Apple with the only e-book app that can be used offline on iOS devices, which may be good for Apple's e-book store profits, but bad news for Apple's consumers. If Apple profit increases by being the primary (only) e-book agent on iOS devices, anticipate Google doing the same thing on Android (possibly including remote deletion of non-Google e-book apps, like Google has already done to malware Android apps). For business $ profit, Amazon (Kindle), Barnes & Noble (Nook), Borders (Kobo), and Sony (Digital Reader) have same primary e-book agent motive for their respective devices as Apple (iOS) and Google (Android). Wonder about Microsoft's e-book agent plans for Windows Phone 7.
Apple has sold 200 million iOS devices with Apple's iBookstore recording more than 130 million downloads => http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/11/06/06/mac.app.store.already.main.venue.for.software/
Wonder how many iOS device users are reading books and not using Apple's iBookstore ? In contrast, 15 billion songs have sold thru iTunes.
KS4J -
I know that at least 10 of those 130 million downloads are the free books I downloaded. Did you download any of the free books as well? I will admit, the App UI and the resources typography are superior in my opinion to noon & kindle.
I believe the vast majority of iPad users have purchased an equal or greater amount of books through the nook & kindle readers. The iBookstore is a distant third.
To be fair, 15 billion song downloads is not a fair comparison with iBooks. First, iTunes has been around much longer. Second, it would be more fair to compare album sales to book sales. You can't download individual chapters for .99!
KS4J - I know that at least 10 of those 130 million downloads are the free books I downloaded. Did you download any of the free books as well? I will admit, the App UI and the resources typography are superior in my opinion to noon & kindle. I believe the vast majority of iPad users have purchased an equal or greater amount of books through the nook & kindle readers. The iBookstore is a distant third. To be fair, 15 billion song downloads is not a fair comparison with iBooks. First, iTunes has been around much longer. Second, it would be more fair to compare album sales to book sales. You can't download individual chapters for .99!
Personally have downloaded couple dozen free books (including some from Apple). Also have noticed Apple's bookstore lacks many titles available on Kindle and Nook (e.g. "10 Life Choices").
Concur comparing books to albums would be more appropriate. Average number of songs sold per iOS device is 75 (several albums). In contrast, volume of book downloads is significantly smaller (average is under 1 book per device). Wonder about number of iOS devices without any books downloaded from Apple.
The free iOS 5 upgrade this fall has many new features => http://www.apple.com/ios/ios5/ Newstand is part of highlights (but noted books missing).
There's a simple answer -- don't have anything to do with [6][6][6][6][6]Apple[6][6][6][6][6]
The Financial Times is ending/killing its IPad app rather than paying Apple 30%:
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/07/financial-times-wont-give-apple-a-cut-drops-ios-for-web-app/
It will be interesting to see what other content providers say no. . .(good for them).
Perhaps Logos' effort to develop biblia.com is the right direction to go. With html5's offline storage capabilities, the "app" can just bring out an instance of the browser and run everything there. This way it is not controlled by Apple or Google, and is one app for all platforms.
Sure, 25 piecesI suppose?
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/09/apple-gives-in-to-publishers-changes-policy-on-in-app-subscript/
It appears Apple decided it wasn't worth the fight. If I'm reading it right, Kindle/Nook/Logos/whatever apps can work as they have previously, except they might have to remove any "buy now" links from their app (unless those point to iTunes somehow). Previously purchased content should be downloadable without issue though.
Well, it appears that the Logos app is safe, then...
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/09/apple-gives-in-to-publishers-changes-policy-on-in-app-subscript/ It appears Apple decided it wasn't worth the fight. If I'm reading it right, Kindle/Nook/Logos/whatever apps can work as they have previously, except they might have to remove any "buy now" links from their app (unless those point to iTunes somehow). Previously purchased content should be downloadable without issue though.
A similar thing seems to be reported here as well:
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/09/apple-reverses-course-on-in-app-subscriptions/
especially '11.14 Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app ....
[:D]
[Y][Y][Y]
That is good news, but isn't this what Mark Barnes was saying in this thread?
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/09/apple-gives-in-to-publishers-changes-policy-on-in-app-subscript/ It appears Apple decided it wasn't worth the fight. If I'm reading it right, Kindle/Nook/Logos/whatever apps can work as they have previously, except they might have to remove any "buy now" links from their app (unless those point to iTunes somehow). Previously purchased content should be downloadable without issue though. That is good news, but isn't this what Mark Barnes was saying in this thread?
Let me quote the relevant passage from Apple's press release: Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.
Let me quote the relevant passage from Apple's press release:
Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.
Apple's revised iOS guidelines effectively removed "that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app." from Feb press release 4 months ago. Engadget article also notes in-app purchase price can be higher to include Apple's 30 % cut.
Boy, there's been a bunch of vitriol and misdirection in this thread! And I was wondering about the tone of a posting I made in the General forum about iPads and Android.
Bring out the pitchforks! Here's some representative comments:
"settlement is made that requires Apple to sync Androids with iTunes and carry Android apps in the App Store."
and then there's this one. Apple — the devil incarnate...
"
Apple"
Phew!
There were two separate components content owners and/ or application writers were complaining about.
These essentially were the two issues — the point about not allowing buttons in apps to go to external stores for purchasing is pretty obvious.
Now actually, in terms of the end consumer, these terms were for the benefit of the customer. What content owners complained about, actually, was a threat to their ability to rip off customers, and the prospect of not getting their mitts on people's person details for resale to every direct marketer they can (Financial Times).
Yes it can be argued that a 30% cut was 'a percentage too far', but on the other hand the content owners don't have to do anything, they didn't create the platform, the iPad, they don't maintain the costly infrastructure, the App Store, but I'm sure they'll squeal like stuck pigs if there is even a hint of the App Store being offline.
Plus I didn't (and still don't) see them rushing to offer digital subscriptions at 10-30% off paper subscriptions as they should because for digital they don't have anywhere near the creation & distribution costs.
So, they complained, they got their way, and in the end end consumers will pay. The funny thing is that eventually paper magazines will disappear but... the price will stay the same, and the content owners will pocket the extra percentages as profit. Customers won't be any better off.
p.s. BTW the Logos iOS application was never at risk, even before the change.
BTW the Logos iOS application was never at risk, even before the change.
Patrick -
I like reading your Apple posts (and agree with most of them) but how can you say that "the Logos iOS application was never at risk"? How is Logos different than any other provider of resources (i.e. Amazon's Kindle; Barnes & Noble's Nook)? Logos is in the business of selling resources, which is what Apple was trying to tap into!
BTW the Logos iOS application was never at risk, even before the change. Patrick - I like reading your Apple posts (and agree with most of them) but how can you say that "the Logos iOS application was never at risk"? How is Logos different than any other provider of resources (i.e. Amazon's Kindle; Barnes & Noble's Nook)? Logos is in the business of selling resources, which is what Apple was trying to tap into!
Hi there
Well the key point for Logos (which I will grant you was made even better/safer with the recent changes), revenue wise, was that their whole infrastructure was outside the application and they had no buttons/links in the application to shop. The application has function of book reader + obviously many other specific functions. Unlike Kindle which has buttons to go off to the Kindle web store to browse for books + if you download a sample book there are buttons in it to complete the purchase.
The impractical (not malicious) thing in the original Apple wording, using Logos as the example, was the whole point about (all?) the same content having to be offered in the app. So? That means that the Logos iOS application would have had to have a complete infrastructure to allow people to browse and purchase all Logos titles. That I believe would not have flown — would have been not logical.
Even if the original plan had gone ahead (and I agree as it stood it shouldn't have, but for different reasons then those stated by some other persons) it would have had to have been fine tuned to be able to realistically cater for all the different models. Logos is not the same as the Economist magazine (or Financial Times) which has a simple subscription renewal requirement, it is closer to, but still not the same as, Amazon.
So basically something would have had to happen. But to paint Apple ideologically as having horns and a pitchfork — that I don't believe. They're not Mother Theresa, but neither are they as they were being painted. And to say things like that they should be forced to carry Android apps in the App Store is to say that Ford should be forced to sell Chrysler cars in Ford showrooms — and service them under warranty for free to boot.
We still have, unfortunately, the situation that the content owners have got off scott free and, mark my words, we will see the situation that pretty well all magazine content will go digital, and 'conveniently' all the content sellers will 'forget' to lower prices to reflect their lower delivery cost.
[soapbox] Logos gives us anyway, quite frequently, fantastic pricing deals on books, God bless 'em — they have a different motivation to all other content providers. Even though I get frustrated with the performance of Logos 4 Mac from time to time I still think they are working on the system, it will improve, and we are blessed to have access to the resources we do. [/soapbox]
Well the key point for Logos (which I will grant you was made even better/safer with the recent changes)
Those "recent changes" did not come out of the goodness of Apple's heart. Those good changes would not have been necessary if Apple had not tried to implement bad changes. I do not praise Apple for cleaning up a mess that Apple created. It just tipped their hand and alerted me they are not to be trusted.
I grew up drinking Coca-Cola. One day, out of the clear blue sky, some marketing genius at Coke decided to take the #1 selling soft drink in the world and change the formula. When the "new Coke" was not so well received the arrogance of the genius prevented him from admitting his mistake. We were offered his "new Coke" and the old "classic" formula. The half-hearted admission of error came too late. I had sampled the competition and developed a taste for Pepsi.
I was on the verge of buying a Kindle when Amazon stole back the Orwell books from Kindle owners.
It takes a bit of trust to get me to commit for the long haul. Today is my 30th wedding anniversary so you know I trust my wife [:D]. And I am all-out committed to Logos (~about 3 years now.) I just hope Apple, Asus or somebody pulls ahead in the race and convinces me to make a leap.
Well Matthew as I said to someone else "we'll have to agree to disagree" because I believe the crux of your statement is incorrect. Anyway I don't believe "goodness" or not of Apple's heart is not the main point in question. Also as I have already said in various postings, none is "good" except God alone.
Some historical facts bear considering:
Now in these situations who do you think proved to be the "neighbour" of end customers/consumers?
Then we come to the present situation. Same Apple, different content owners:
Apple, in principle, wants to provide the best and most seamless experience for customers, and yes, make a buck. And they know the big content owners — if they can get away with it — will work to shaft Apple and customers. Make Apple do all the work, provide all the infrastructure, and customers pay through the nose while they keep total control. And let's not forget what they consider (cough) is their 'god given right' right to sell your private address details to whomever they wish (and they do) to squeeze more money out of the customer.
And short sighted people have just given that to content owners on a plate.
You see also there is something you guys — who I am guessing are majority American — don't experience with 'content owners', living as you do in that country called America. If Americans had to put up with the behaviour of content owners that non-Americans (e.g. myself) have to well golly gosh you'd be onto your lawyers faster than anyone could say "class action lawsuit". For example there is virtually no movie, no book that you can't snap your fingers and get. The rest of us have to put up with sort of morally reprehensible rubbish like DVD & Blu-Ray region coding working against us. Now with digital books we are being blocked from buying digital titles from Amazon Kindle USA, and have to buy them (if they are available) from Amazon Kindle UK at, hey check it out, 40% more cost. Buying software like Photoshop which has a markup of around 90% over the US price — and it's got nothing to do with distribution (all electronic) and support (most likely all goes to the same outsourced shop in India).
So if you ask me about content owners, unlike my wife who I've been married to almost as long as you to yours, I wouldn't trust them an inch — for good historical reason.
With respect to Apple — well the worst I could say of them is that from time to time they drag users into new technologies where initially users scream about the change and who then, after a very short time, try to say the new thing was their idea in the first place!
Bless you and happy anniversary!
