Apple generer jailbreakere m/ e-læsevilje

Som om at sælge ebøger til sine håndholdte apparater
er blevet industrien, Apple skal passe mest på?

Det er ikke ulovligt at jailbreake sin iPhone, iTouch eller iPad – det har både Apple og ejerne rettens ord for. Men siden iOS 4.0 har Apple systematisk gjort det sværere for jailbreakers – datoptrevlerne, der sætter iOS-håndholdte apparater fri af båndene til iTunes og Apple – at bruge alle apps uden problemer efter et jailbreak.

Senest er et oprindeligt problem med iBooks tilbage med greenpois0n jailbreak til iOS 4.2.1:

Ved forsøg på åbning af bøger, der er købt i iTunes Store, får brugeren besked om, at der er problemer, som fordrer en geninstallering af systemet.

Det forlyder, at der er en løsning på vej, så læselystne jailbreakers kan få lov at bestemme over deres egen telefon.

via Apple cripples iBooks for jailbreakers – Updated | Social Apples.

Author: krabat

digter. webmaster på menneske.dk. oversætter. EPUB-kritiker.

11 thoughts on “Apple generer jailbreakere m/ e-læsevilje”

  1. @Henning Wettendorff: Ikke skeptisk. Bare sådan: “Jamen, så få det dog overstået, frem for at gå rundt om dén grød!” (Og okay, frustreret over, at Apple med sin grådighed ødelægger mulighederne for regulær konkurrence *uden for*. Men måske handler deres prispolitik netop om det her med mergers – at tvinge de store til at træde i karakter?)

  2. Øh, jeg troede du var lidt skeptisk over for Apples eller andres køb af Google, Europaparlamentet etc. – undskyld, jeg har misforstået snakken – som sagt er mit synspunkt sikkert antikveret!

    “Hvorfor køber Apple ikke bare Google eller Google Apple eller Apple Google og Amazon og Sony og Microsoft og den amerikanske regering og Europaparlamentet?”
    Posted februar 17, 2011 at 3:57 PM

  3. @Henning Wettendorff: Taler vi om det samme? Kun aktiejere har fordele af disse mergers? Måske. Hvis vi taler penge og arbejdspladser. Men set fra i evolutionært perspektiv er der intet til hinder for, at Amazon ELLER Google kan komme til at sidde på alt væsentligt bogsalg i verden, til gavn for **generel distribution**. Den “onde” pengepuger, eller den “gode” “det skal bare løbe rundt”. Hvis det sker, og det ikke fungerer, evt. som følge af transportrestriktioner, afgifter, strømudfald, datatab, manglende overskuelighed osv., opstår bare en ny subkultur for dét, som mastodonten ikke magter. Men at de store æder hinanden for at blive større/bredere/mere versatile end de andre store, så de ikke bliver ædt af DEM… forekommer mig helt naturligt, og er også det, jeg ser ske. Vender man det om, kunne man sige, at dem der ikke bliver opkøbt/overtaget, enten er ufarlige, usunde eller ubetydelige firmaer og derfor ikke værd at beskæftige sig med. Heller ikke på idéplanet/idétyveri.

  4. Måske mit synspunkt er antikveret, uanset tidsstemplet?

    De firmaer er allerede ophørt med at være persondrevne, det er aktieselskaber, og jeg er enig i at der ikke er etiske personrestriktioner på hvad firmaerne vil gøre for at overleve. Ingen hædersmænd har dér mandat til at aftale fx at lade være med at æde hinanden – kun hvis alle ved, at en overtagelse ville udløse en monopolsag.
    Men hvis en teknologisk forretningsmastodont undlader at overtage en anden, selvom de er i stand til det og måske ser en umiddelbar økonomisk logik i det, tror jeg som sagt også at både firmaets egne folk og vi andre tit glæder os over, hvis fx Amazon ikke bliver overtaget af Googles direktion og bestyrelse. Uden aktier i porteføljen ville vi som (for)brugere næppe have nogen glæde af det.

  5. @Henning Wettendorff: Hvordan kan din kommentar til mit indlæg komme FØR mit? (se tidsstemplet) Men… det kan godt være, at du tror, at forretningsverden bare er forretninger, men når Apple ophører med at være persondreven og Google gør det, og Microsoft er det næsten (Balmer står i vejen) og Amazon og så videre, så bliver der ikke etiske personrestriktioner på, hvad firmaerne kan gøre for at overleve. Så bliver det virkelig: Size matters.

  6. Aftaler at lade være med at æde hinanden? Jeg tror du gør dig for høje tanker om erhvervslivet, selv om det muligvis passer dit dystopiske/konspirationsteoretiske billede af firmaernes virke her.
    Sagde blot at vi som (for)brugere ville komme til at savne konkurrenter til Apple – eller Microsoft – eller Google – hvis de fik held til at monopolisere fx e-bogsmarkedet.. men jeg vil så nøjes med at tale for mig selv.

  7. I følge mange konvergensberegninger bliver firmaerne de nye “regeringer” og nationer. De æder sig ind på alt, for ikke at lade de andre tage over, og til sidst aftaler de at lade være med at æde hinanden eller forsøge på det, for – som du siger – at have modstand. I dystopierne er modstanden ophørt og samfundet er fascistisk, i utopierne er modstanden ophørt og samfundet er… pænt. Begge er syge. Friktion er godt. Ikke for meget, ikke for lidt. Bare en lille smule mere end man beder om… 😀

  8. Fordi firmaerne ville komme til at savne hinanden – inspirationen, motivationen – og fordi ‘forbrugerne’ ville komme til at savne konkurrenten når denne først var købt op (efter at være kommet i vejen for en eller anden monopolplan).

  9. Hvorfor køber Apple ikke bare Google eller Google Apple eller Apple Google og Amazon og Sony og Microsoft og den amerikanske regering og Europaparlamentet?

  10. For folk uden adgang til NY Times, hér en genudsendelse:
    Google Announces Payment System for Digital Content
    By CLAIRE CAIN MILLER
    Published: February 16, 2011

    SAN FRANCISCO — A day after Apple stirred up online publishers by announcing a digital subscription plan that some called too restrictive and financially burdensome, Google on Wednesday announced its own payment service for digital content that aims to be more publisher-friendly.

    (Related: Media Decoder Blog: Apple Offers Subscriptions for Apps, for a Price (February 15, 2011))

    Google’s service, called Google One Pass, is a way for online publishers to sell digital content on the Web and through mobile applications using Google’s existing payment service, Google Checkout. Readers will be able to get access to that content on many devices using their Google e-mail address and password.

    “The overall goal is to bring publishers a simple way to charge for content they choose to charge for, and for readers to have simple access without any restrictions on which devices they use,” said Jeannie Hornung, a Google spokeswoman.

    Google’s service seems to directly respond to some publishers’ concerns about Apple’s plan.

    “This is purely a shot across Apple’s bow at a critical point in time,” said James L. McQuivey, a digital media analyst at Forrester Research. “That’s what the industry wants right now, to know there is an alternative to Apple and someone willing to talk about a more reasonable rate.”

    Under Apple’s plan, the company will keep 30 percent of any sale of digital content, like books, music and magazines, within its App Store and will own the subscriber information, like names and e-mail addresses. Users can choose to share that information with publishers if they want.

    When publishers use One Pass, which for now is limited to online newspapers and magazines, Google will keep 10 percent of the sale price and share the customer’s name, ZIP code and e-mail address unless the customer specifically asks Google not to.

    “We are allowing the publishers to transact directly with their customers,” Ms. Hornung said.

    The move steps up the competition between Google and Apple over digital content and the devices people use to read, watch and listen to it.

    Phones running the Android software from Google have been adopted at a rapid clip, and now Android accounts for 25.8 percent of the smartphone market, just behind the iPhone operating system from Apple, with 28.6 percent, according to Nielsen. But iPhone and iPad users have been more likely to pay for apps and other content than Android users, and the Android app store was slower to thrive. Google has been trying to turn that around, most recently with a redesigned store and in-app subscriptions.

    Google One Pass aims to offer a broad solution for online publishers grappling with how to charge readers. Google has not yet signed up any big-name United States publishers, but it has announced some large European partners like Axel Springer in Germany. It will allow publishers to avoid having to build their own payment or sign-in systems, and can identify readers logging in across various devices.

    Unlike Apple’s service, Google’s is aimed more for use on Web sites than in apps, making it similar to services like Journalism Online’s Press+, which offers log-in and payments technology to online publishers. Ms. Hornung said publishers could use One Pass in an app only if the mobile operating system’s guidelines allowed it.

    Publishers selling content within an app running on the Android operating system, for instance, would have to comply with Android’s revenue split, under which Google gets a 30 percent share. However, unlike Apple, Google allows publishers to avoid selling within the app and instead to send customers to a mobile Web browser to make a purchase. There, the publishers can use Google One Pass and keep 90 percent of the revenue. Apple’s rules would not allow publishers to use One Pass in apps offered through its App Store.

    Google’s payment system, which works across Web sites and mobile apps, is a boon for publishers that want a more comprehensive solution than Apple provides, said Joshua Benton, director of the Nieman Journalism Lab.

    “If you’re a decent-sized American newspaper, the number of people who are Android users who are interested in buying a subscription to your publication is pretty small,” he said. “But along with that, you can also take care of the paid content on your Web site, which is something you’ve been fretting about for years.”

    But Mr. McQuivey of Forrester said One Pass would be of little use to Web publishers until Android is built into many more phones, tablets and other devices, like televisions. “No publisher in their right mind would sign up to give away 10 percent of Web-based revenues,” he said.

    Google suggested that publishers use One Pass to try with different models, like subscriptions, so-called metered access and selling single articles. The service also lets publishers give free access to existing subscribers.

    Bonnier, the magazine publisher, plans to sell annual subscriptions to the digital version of Popular Science for Android users but will not charge for articles on its Web site. Readers’ top complaint about the digital magazine has been the inability to subscribe to it, said Sara Öhrvall, who leads research and development for Bonnier.

    Rust Communications, which publishes 50 newspapers, plans to use One Pass to sell monthly subscriptions and single articles, along with metered access to several of its Web sites, under which visitors can read a certain number of free articles before being asked to pay. When the company begins selling content on mobile apps, it will most likely work with Apple as well, but not happily, said Jon K. Rust, co-president of Rust and publisher of The Southeast Missourian. “We’re not happy with the terms of the deal at this point,” he said of Apple’s payment plan.

    For Google, befriending publishers may be the main point. “Google has been trying to convince the news business that Google’s on their side,” Mr. Benton said. “Apple has taken the opposite tack, which is, ‘You really need us, so we’re going to take the 30 percent.’ ”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Note: Commenter is allowed to use '@User+blank' to automatically notify your reply to other commenter. e.g, if ABC is one of commenter of this post, then write '@ABC '(exclude ') will automatically send your comment to ABC. Using '@all ' to notify all previous commenters. Be sure that the value of User should exactly match with commenter's name (case sensitive).

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.