31–40 of 61 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Check out the Kobo. I got one for Christmas and love the way they do things. I can even pop an SD card, full of PDFS into my ereader with no problems.
You can read PDFs on the Kindle fine.
Just because Apple rejects one app does not mean it is a new policy decision. I think these articles, which are, at their core, based on speculation, are frankly dishonest.
Apple does not give reasons for rejections to anyone other than the submitter of the app. Over the last two years we've had dozens of these articles about apples "draconian" policies, often about apps that were rejected for other reasons. Of course the original article is spread around by anti-apple zealots, but when it later comes out that Apple has no such policy, or the app appears in the store after fixing the bug.... the retractions? there are none!
So called "journalists" feel that they can just speculate on a reason and use it to write a sensational story. Linking to them and giving them the attention they seek is gives them the incentive to continue doing this, rather than go out and get good tech stories. This is why tech "journalism" is so often so lowbrow.
On one hand it is a testemant to the integrity of apple and the lack of integrity of the "journalists" who write these hit pieces that Apple doesn't respond. But now we have a generation of android zealots who think that Apple really is "draconian". I had one complete non-techie tell me that I shouldn't write apps for iOS because Apple is draconian. Of course, my experience actually making apps in the app store does not dissuade her perception of what she's heard from her friends and in articles like this.
Apple's policy is laudable, they figure eventually the truth will get out. I hope they are right, but I fear they are wrong. There are still many people who believe there is a defect in the iPhone 4's antenna, for instance.
As an Apple owner of all their hardware and devices this is pretty lame and really hope it does not affect Amazon/Kindle. I have never owned a Kindle but prefer Kindle books and love them. I read them on PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, but mainly my iPad. If it weren't for Kindle, I may have bought a few more books on iBooks just for the iPad, but there are far fewer books and I like being able to read them on multiple device…
>The whole point of an ebook is to read them on multiple devices. From a publisher's perspective, the point of an ebook is to cut down on manufacturing, storage, shipping, and other costs associated with a physical book. Since publishers own this game, I think we'll start seeing things get played increasingly by their rules as executives catch glimpse of potential savings in an ebook-dominant distribution chain. And…
No, they don't. There is not and never will be an OPEC of books. Publishers did not create the ePub standard. It was all the work of techies and book lovers who pushed for a standard file format. The Big 6 publishers are too busy fighting the future with their price-fixing Agency Model.
As an Apple owner of all their hardware and devices this is pretty lame and really hope it does not affect Amazon/Kindle. I have never owned a Kindle but prefer Kindle books and love them. I read them on PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, but mainly my iPad. If it weren't for Kindle, I may have bought a few more books on iBooks just for the iPad, but there are far fewer books and I like being able to read them on multiple device…
Another slight concern with Kindle is that I'm seeing more and more "this Kindle book is not available in Europe" messages from Amazon. Region coding sucked on DVDs, and sucks even more when you're not even buying physical media.
My app was rejected once for violating the HIG. I really missed out on a PR opportunity to write up a big story about how Apple won't accept apps from gay people! Just because Apple rejects one app does not mean it is a new policy decision. I think these articles, which are, at their core, based on speculation, are frankly dishonest. Apple does not give reasons for rejections to anyone other than the submitter of the…
Should fans of Apple start a campaign of hatred and
dishonesty against android like they have against us?
My app was rejected once for violating the HIG. I really missed out on a PR opportunity to write up a big story about how Apple won't accept apps from gay people! Just because Apple rejects one app does not mean it is a new policy decision. I think these articles, which are, at their core, based on speculation, are frankly dishonest. Apple does not give reasons for rejections to anyone other than the submitter of the…
Should fans of Apple start a campaign of hatred and dishonesty against android like they have against us? No need; Gruber is already on the job.
My app was rejected once for violating the HIG. I really missed out on a PR opportunity to write up a big story about how Apple won't accept apps from gay people! Just because Apple rejects one app does not mean it is a new policy decision. I think these articles, which are, at their core, based on speculation, are frankly dishonest. Apple does not give reasons for rejections to anyone other than the submitter of the…
The really interesting bit is where it says that developers won't be able to "let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store". Amazon has worked around Apple's rules by always kicking users out to the browser to complete the transaction. This apparently kills that.
So where is this new rule coming from?
This seems to be incorrect. Apple is not moving to tighten control; the restriction has been there for a while. I believe Apple banned non-Apple in-app purchases when they launched their in-app purchase system (if not before then). Edit: The article does say Apple "has told some applications developers … that they can no longer … let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store." However, t…