3 ms·

On the surface, ebooks as a category of content make sense to allow direct sale as you described. However, your use of Amazon also serves as an illustration of

On the surface, ebooks as a category of content make sense to allow direct sale as you described. However, your use of Amazon also serves as an illustration of Apple’s case. Among kindle enthusiasts, Amazon had notoriously neglected the Kindle product hardware and software platform. From neglecting Goodreads to stagnation, to not including USB-C on its very expensive Oasis product, the whole brand is a picture of “we don’t improve it because we don’t have to.” Kindle ebooks do offer interactive behavior like showing commonly highlighted passages and other light features. But in most of the hardware, the interfaces are very laggy in comparison to iOS. As much as text selection on iOS still isn’t great, it is certainly better than what you get on Oasis right now. If Amazon cared to create a stronger social experience around goodreads and kindle for iOS users any time soon, it will leverage a huge amount of investment Apple has made in their software and hardware. This is money Amazon had failed to invest themselves and it shows.

ineedasername 5y ago
If you're making a usability case between an Apple product, you have to use the comparable Amazon product: Kindle Fire. Amazon's eink readers are a completely different product class than anything from Apple. And on a Kindle fire the experience isn't dramatically different than any other android based system, and the kindle reader apps between Apple and Fires are nearly identical. Comparing an eink interface to iOS is simply not at all appropriate. Eink technology does not optimize for interface speed. It is not part of its primary design goals.
- bredren 5y ago
  How do you account for Amazon's investment in making the Kindle Fire OS updated and valuable? Haven't they paid their own expense to deliver a comparable application? My point on e-ink was to show that Amazon has not invested in the Kindle product line. Kindle readers can't support any modern interaction. And that part of the reason the interface speed is bad is because Amazon has neglected to invest whatsoever in the technology. But to focus on the Kindle Fire app and its comparison, if you look at the most negative recent reviews, they generally focus on device incompatibility. If you look at the App Store reviews for the kindle reader, they do not focus on that. They focus on other common issues between the platforms. Device compatibility and support is a real value that Amazon Kindle users on iOS get.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Amazon has produced 11 generations of Fire devices, but they all serve a very specific purpose: a portal to purchasing things from Amazon. That means their innovation has come in the form of having the absolute lowest cost devices for their level of build and hardware quality. They've innovated in that direction, investing quite heavily. You seem to want them to innovate in terms of features: That's fine as an opinion, but that is not the only direction for innovation, and Fires already have the most important feature Amazon wants for consumers: a smooth integration to buying stuff. Eink readers, as I said, are a completely different product class, not at all comparable to iOS. And if you chart the progress they've made since their original eink devices there have been significant improvements. The kindle app on Android has a 4.7 star rating. On iOS it's 4.8. A few negative reviews don't mean anything when their ratings are that high. Whatever issues people have, they are outliers. I'm no Amazon fanboy-- I don't like them very much as a company. But they have absolutely innovated, you just disagree with the directions they have chosen to go with that innovation.
    - bredren 5y ago
      It is fine to say Amazon has innovated. Some further ideas: - Amazon has not seriously invested in Kindle or its ecosystem. Amazon does not because it does not face competition. - Amazon does not allow apps or a HW sdk for eBook readers, which might make the products much more useful. (such as offering a wireless page turning device) - Apple should charge for eBook purchases through the kindle app, because iOS does provide value that Amazon realizes. - Amazon makes major financial investment in their own Android ecosystem. Amazon charges 70% itself for "in-app products" to cover all of their innovation in that area. - While my original comment's parent focused on the security of the App Store as a value, it is only a contribution to the innovation Apple also has made into that ecosystem. I disagree that the negative reviews can be equated. It would take analysis, but it appears to me that device incompatibility which is a platform problem is the main source of negative reviews on Android. Whereas on the iOS side, the negative reviews are related to product features that affect both Android (Google and Amazon marketplaces and iOS. If this is true, then it suggests that iOS users of the Kindle app are getting even more value out of the iOS platform than Android users. This would be greater underlying reason Apple should be compensated for the sale of eBooks from Amazon. Sort of separately, but worth mentioning: our local library uses Overdrive to distribute and handle eBook loans and their licensing. Overdrive has a native app and it integrates with Amazon. The Overdrive app is free, and so is the use of Amazon to perform this loaning process. So eBooks can be readily had in the App store for free.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

ineedasername 5y ago

If you're making a usability case between an Apple product, you have to use the comparable Amazon product: Kindle Fire. Amazon's eink readers are a completely different product class than anything from Apple. And on a Kindle fire the experience isn't dramatically different than any other android based system, and the kindle reader apps between Apple and Fires are nearly identical. Comparing an eink interface to iOS is simply not at all appropriate. Eink technology does not optimize for interface speed. It is not part of its primary design goals.

bredren 5y ago
How do you account for Amazon's investment in making the Kindle Fire OS updated and valuable? Haven't they paid their own expense to deliver a comparable application? My point on e-ink was to show that Amazon has not invested in the Kindle product line. Kindle readers can't support any modern interaction. And that part of the reason the interface speed is bad is because Amazon has neglected to invest whatsoever in the technology. But to focus on the Kindle Fire app and its comparison, if you look at the most negative recent reviews, they generally focus on device incompatibility. If you look at the App Store reviews for the kindle reader, they do not focus on that. They focus on other common issues between the platforms. Device compatibility and support is a real value that Amazon Kindle users on iOS get.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Amazon has produced 11 generations of Fire devices, but they all serve a very specific purpose: a portal to purchasing things from Amazon. That means their innovation has come in the form of having the absolute lowest cost devices for their level of build and hardware quality. They've innovated in that direction, investing quite heavily. You seem to want them to innovate in terms of features: That's fine as an opinion, but that is not the only direction for innovation, and Fires already have the most important feature Amazon wants for consumers: a smooth integration to buying stuff. Eink readers, as I said, are a completely different product class, not at all comparable to iOS. And if you chart the progress they've made since their original eink devices there have been significant improvements. The kindle app on Android has a 4.7 star rating. On iOS it's 4.8. A few negative reviews don't mean anything when their ratings are that high. Whatever issues people have, they are outliers. I'm no Amazon fanboy-- I don't like them very much as a company. But they have absolutely innovated, you just disagree with the directions they have chosen to go with that innovation.
  - bredren 5y ago
    It is fine to say Amazon has innovated. Some further ideas: - Amazon has not seriously invested in Kindle or its ecosystem. Amazon does not because it does not face competition. - Amazon does not allow apps or a HW sdk for eBook readers, which might make the products much more useful. (such as offering a wireless page turning device) - Apple should charge for eBook purchases through the kindle app, because iOS does provide value that Amazon realizes. - Amazon makes major financial investment in their own Android ecosystem. Amazon charges 70% itself for "in-app products" to cover all of their innovation in that area. - While my original comment's parent focused on the security of the App Store as a value, it is only a contribution to the innovation Apple also has made into that ecosystem. I disagree that the negative reviews can be equated. It would take analysis, but it appears to me that device incompatibility which is a platform problem is the main source of negative reviews on Android. Whereas on the iOS side, the negative reviews are related to product features that affect both Android (Google and Amazon marketplaces and iOS. If this is true, then it suggests that iOS users of the Kindle app are getting even more value out of the iOS platform than Android users. This would be greater underlying reason Apple should be compensated for the sale of eBooks from Amazon. Sort of separately, but worth mentioning: our local library uses Overdrive to distribute and handle eBook loans and their licensing. Overdrive has a native app and it integrates with Amazon. The Overdrive app is free, and so is the use of Amazon to perform this loaning process. So eBooks can be readily had in the App store for free.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]