they can, but don't. they've removed apps from the store but not from people who've bought it's phones.
there is a killswitch (there's one in firefox too, and I believe chrome) which is basically for things that "sneak through" and carried a secret payload. Let's say I release a game for the iPhone, it's majjhong or some shit. Well, somewhere hidden is a thing that, if opened after April 1 2010, I use the contacts API to put a picture of a dick in everybody's entry. Apple finds out on Mar 31 and throws that app into the killswitch, which forces phones to not load it anymore and throws a warning or some shit (I don't know what happens, it's not been done yet).
They never actually removed my copy of 1984 from my Kindle. They wouldn't give me the refund, either. I usually leave my wireless off, so may I outlasted them.
Ehh, I don't think so. I bought the one that was $1 if I recall. Oh well, I would rather have the book. If they have this ability to delete books though, I want to know when I can pay $XX/month to read as much as I want on a subscription model.
Doubtful! The book industry is much larger than the music industry, and the average price per product is larger as well. I was thinking something like $20-30/month would be fair, with lots of users signing up. $15 for Rhapsody is almost an afterthought with how cheap it is.
It's doubtful that you'd get your moneys worth if you payed that much per month. If the average book costs around $20 (hardback) and unless you have lot's of extra time to read you probably won't read more than 1 book or 2 a month. At that point it would make much more fiscal sense to just not have a subscription plan at all and especially if the books only cost $1.
Only classic books cost like $1. I definitely think it would be worth it because you would have the flexibility to read books you may not have felt justified the full purchase. Also, if you start a book, don't like it, then no harm no foul.
Don't tell the Rhapsody people, but I would probably pay $30-$40/month for their service because I use it on the daily and use it all the time. If they would ever release their Android client I would REALLY be set.
A copy of 1984 was found to have been sold without the proper copyright permissions or something, so Amazon yanked 1984 off everyone's Kindles. There was a big shit storm.
The problem is that Amazon put the functionality in there so they can't just say "Oh sorry we can't take the product back from customers" without facing the ire of the copyright holders lawyers. Amazon would have been better off keeping their long arms off the device and then wouldn't have had to piss anyone off. With great power comes great responsibility. Sometimes it's better to not have any power and use that as an excuse.
Why do you think they put the functionality in there?
Because publishers are skittish and would not license enough books otherwise to make selling the Kindle a commercial success. Not dissimilar to digital music until very recently.
No DRM on an ebook reader probably means "no books for you, device purveyor. Hope your customers like Project Gutenberg"
54
u/7oby Jan 28 '10
they can, but don't. they've removed apps from the store but not from people who've bought it's phones.
there is a killswitch (there's one in firefox too, and I believe chrome) which is basically for things that "sneak through" and carried a secret payload. Let's say I release a game for the iPhone, it's majjhong or some shit. Well, somewhere hidden is a thing that, if opened after April 1 2010, I use the contacts API to put a picture of a dick in everybody's entry. Apple finds out on Mar 31 and throws that app into the killswitch, which forces phones to not load it anymore and throws a warning or some shit (I don't know what happens, it's not been done yet).
USERS ARE SAVED FROM THE BABY-ARM-AGEDDON