This whole thing is just asinine. Everyone is grappling with the problem of how they can get their piece of the pie. If I were Time, News Corp, WSJ, Conde Nast,

This whole thing is just asinine. Everyone is grappling with the problem of how they can get their piece of the pie. If I were Time, News Corp, WSJ, Conde Nast, etc, there's no way in hell I'd dump any more money in to Apple's curated platform until Apple figures out exactly what the hell "curated" means. The content providers aren't exactly in a favorable position. Producing an HTML5 version of their content means they'd have yet another production channel to support. Publishers want a create once, publish many solution. Adobe's (the biggest name in content creation) current answer to this problem is a horrid mess of gigantic, flat images embedded in a rudimentary framework. Think flat images and image maps. It's a technical shortcut at best. Ideally, publishers should produce HTML5 versions of their content that take advantage of the more competent layout and text options therein. This content would display well on the iPad and future devices that implement the WebKit mobile browser, which looks like it will be the front runner for the time being. Even if Firefox Mobile gains a significant foothold, HTML5 is still a champion of interoperability when compared to native apps. Basically, they're all tripping over their feet because they're unwilling to commit to their own solution. Yes, Apple makes it easy to offload the delivery and payment portion of the process, but they extract their pound of flesh. Who can blame them? Apple's greatest fault lies in the fact that they're making up the rules as they go along. They need to feel a little sting as a result. Until they do, they'll feel entitled to continue with the status quo.