> What's there to complain about?
When Microsoft does it, It's A Trap. When Apple does it, "It's a Walled Garden" which sounds positive in the sense of perhaps being more secure or promoting higher quality.
And it's true. Apple looking at the source code of apps sold on its store make me feel safer. I wouldn't be looking for a firewall for my iPhone as quickly as I am now for my HTC. And Apple makes good products; I love my MacBook Pro. An iPad is a useful device.
But look at what happens with iTunes and music. How do you share iTunes purchases made by two family members in a family with more than five PCs, iPhones and iPads? I'm not sure I solved that question on winter vacation for my own family.
I am not aware if Apple does this, but I am sure I don't want the same thing to happen for books or for it even to be possible.
Do you want books to be redefined as proprietary bits of code? How do you make libraries?
The scheme is designed to make another Walled Garden. It is not "just a proprietary platform, they are honest about it." It is in fact a spearhead aimed at students under the guise of "lower priced textbooks" while requiring the use of expensive technology and purchase through them alone. So it is the opposite of Open Courseware a la MIT.
In other words, Apple could pay professors to write books for their Walled Garden but they are not contributing to general education due to artificial limitations on ability to sell and distribute them. Apple is making most of their money now not by making tools but by controlling sales and distribution. I feel it is highly inappropriate for the manufacturer of my computer to attempt to tell me where and how I can sell products I make with it.
Yes, Apple will use this to draw authors and publishers to their Walled Garden. The combination of a proprietary format, a closed storefront, and a closed platform will still be enticing based on simple economics - it may be easiest to sell there. As titles accumulate at lower prices than for printed books, it will look better and better regardless of content quality or accessibility in terms of academic freedom. It might have a good effect in terms of lightening the economic burden on students and making it easier to carry books around.
But No, it is not acceptable to paint this as being altruistic or as supporting scholarship. It is not just a proprietary format and free tool. It also includes poisonous restrictions on what you do with the creations. It is very clearly an attempt to corner the publishing market and to poison publications from the point of authorship by making it difficult or illegal to stray from their store. In particular there are many schools that are spending huge amounts of money to introduce iPads. That books could be produced for these devices and not be available to students who do not have iPads is neither ethical nor to be allowed. I believe there is a huge danger that a company which is making billions upon billions of dollars through sales of music copyright could destroy open scholarship by attempting to roll over the next closest market it has not yet occupied, which is academic publishing: an industry which has a strong impact on how the next generation thinks.