What do you mean by "buy"?

Since there is no physical medium, I don't think a "buy" model will ever happen. So that probably means no re-selling to, say, used book stores, or donating to libraries (which typically then sell the books you donate).

If you mean, "without any DRM," then there's Baen's Webscription, which offers a variety of formats, all without DRM. And the Apple deal with publishers allegedly allows the publishers to decided whether or not they want the content DRM'd. (Gee, I wonder what the vast majority of them will choose...)

This goes contrary to the degree of control Amazon likes

Forcing an "agency model" on any retailer is going contrary to both history and market standards. The general model for booksellers is to buy wholesale, at somewhere around 40%-50% of MSRP, and then sell at some price between that and MSRP. Amazon has discounts of MSRP all the way from 55%, to only a few percentage points. Barnes & Nobles has similar prices (if you become a "B&N Member," for US$25/year, the prices are pretty much the same as Amazon's. A bit lower sometimes, a bit higher sometimes.)

What's really going on here is power: the publishers have decided they don't want retailers undercutting each other -- that leads to a single player having market dominance, which allows them to try to force concessions (lower prices, content changes, etc.) from the publishers. As examples of this, see Amazon and Wal-Mart.

When Apple joined the ebook market, however, they were able to take the same "we don't care about making a profit on content" attitude they have for music, and offer it to the publishers. And the market share Apple can offer with the iPad is probably at least as large as Amazon's current market share with is Kindle. (And unlike Amazon, Apple won't be paying the end-user bandwidth costs.) This gives publishers who are willing to sign up with Apple enormous negotiation power with Amazon -- over ebooks. Amazon's only negotiation power that can counter that is the physical book market.

Personally, I would certainly be offended if someone said, "You will sell this product at a price we dictate, and only take 15%. You cannot charge more to make more money; you cannot try to maximize profits through selling more by offering it for less. And if 15% of an arbitrary price we set isn't enough for you to make profit -- or even enough for you to run your business, tough." And I'd fight it as best I could.

Of course, that's also pretty much Amazon's attitude towards the publishers. So a pox on all of them, really.

is that it requires that the app approvers know what patents Apple has in the process.

This is of course a possibility; it's also a possibility that there's an IP lawyer looking over every submitted (or even ever just-about-to-be-approved) app, for just that kind of thing. But that doesn't really fit with the workflow descriptions that have come out into the open, so I don't think it's very likely.

(It's also possible that he reviewers are given general directions occasionally, such as, "All Google-submitted apps must be sent to such-and-such for review" or "Any app that uses location services in a social network context must be approved by upper management." Obviously, I made those up :).)

That's only true for the oldest, Series 1 TiVo's sold before a certain date. After that, TiVo requires service. No service, and no manual recording.

And, as I recall, it'll also nag you about the lack of service every time you go into the menus.

I really would have expected more than 62% to vote for the acquisition. Having 38% abstain or vote against it... I will be surprised if some of the nay-sayers didn't file a lawsuit to prevent it from happening.

why would you want return audio via HDMI to your receiver?

Because your TV has more HDMI ports available, or they are easier to access. Or you want the TV to be able to delay the audio enough for the video to catch up. Or the TV does better processing of video than the TV does. And so forth.

HDCP can support DRM but as far as I am aware no one has forced that

I think you are very confused about your terms -- HDCP is DRM -- it's encryption, it's negotiated, and if there's the slightest thing wrong, there will be no signal. (Or there will be a downgraded -- 480p, stereo audio -- signal instead.) And HDCP is certainly required -- try to watch an HD movie or rental on an AppleTV with a non-HDCP-compliant display over HDMI. And while the PS3 currently allows you to watch HD (1080i) over component, Sony has not promised to continue that. And if you want 1080p, you have to use HDMI, and the HDCP is enforced there. DirecTV has enforced HDCP requirements with some of their HD programming at times as well.

And Borland's history with uSoft is a perfect example of why such pacts are put into place.

The "Audio Return Channel" should allow that -- the normal HDCP negotiation can go on. Hopefully, this will let you plug HDMI devices into your TV, and have the receiver be able to handle the audio.

That'll require a new TV and a new receiver of course. sigh

But the main article is fairly wrong. The Audio Return channel doesn't require a different cable, and the higher resolutions and 3D will both work over the high-bandwidth version. The ethernet options will be different cables, as will the automotive, so there will be quite a few new cables, but I don't think that's particularly confusing. (That's normal HDMI; HDMI plus ethernet; high-speed HDMI; high-speed HDMI plus ethernet; and automotive HDMI.)

dvice.com has some analysis and the press release.

The Audio Return thing will allow your display to send audio to your receiver, instead of using a second audio (e.g. optical or coaxial) cable. Why that wasn't there from the beginning is beyond me, since the connection was already bidirectional (to negotiate DRM).

The costs incurred per track do not affect the "supply" -- you seem to have confused "infinite supply" with "free for everyone."

I never said demand was infinite; what I said was that using terms "supply and demand" to justify cost for electronic copies is not accurate. Now, using demand to justify it is another matter, and I'll grant that. But saying that you need to raise prices due to "supply and demand" is a lie.