tytr

This kind of thing only works when users looking for "ebooks" are channeled through Amazon. Paid placement on Google may help them in that regard. What happens when users learn they can download ebooks elsewhere?

It's nonsensical to pay a fee for distribution when the distribution channel is the internet.

Project Gutenberg's and Archive.org' ebooks are better than this e-paper or super hi-res screen nonsense. Reading books on these devices is dog slow and awakward. It is just text. It should be searchable using Boyer-Moore algorithm. Fast. searchable ebooks.

Just view the source of the webpage. Links to the .mov file are there for Safari, iPhone, iPad and Windows. Search for "_350".

If you view source of the webpage, you will see links for the iPad and iPhone as well. Search for "_350".

Alas, getting actual links to video is not always so easy.

Thank you Adobe, Brightcove and others for making video such a PITA.

But then you have a corporation like Google adopting "Don't be evil" as its value statement.

It's obvious that software nerds do have some concept of "evil" as it applies to software, and they like to label things as "evil" or not.

Nerds believe the potential for "evil" exists through software. Even if they are not fanatics.

Yes. I too am dismayed.

There used to be something called MIME. There used to be separate specialised applications for different tasks.

Guess what? There still are.

Browsers have long had the ability to decode image formats. That much we expect from the browser.

But audio? Video? "Web sockets"?

There are better applications to handle these formats and tasks than a web browser.

When I want to listen to audio, I use an application that is designed for that.

When I want to watch video, I use an application that is designed for that.

When I want to open sockets for peer-to-peer communication, I use an application that is designed for that.

Everyone knows browsers suck for downloading. So why are we using them to download content (whether to a file or to a buffered cache)?

Download the content using a program that is designed for downloading.

View/play the content with applications designed for those tasks.

Anyone who would criticise this approach is criticising the "UNIX way". Do one thing well. But watch how people will criticise it.

Yes, it is insanity.

These browsers are always going to have performance issues. If you want the best audio, video, peer-to-peer, etc., use applications that were designed for those purposes. As simple as possible. Simple applications. That is how you achieve performance, reliability and security.

"Do-everything" browsers and Javascript are not not worth the risks they present.

Yet people criticised the VAX. I guess every computer has its flaws (nothing is perfect!), but was the criticism of the VAX justified? (Assuming uptime and reliability means anything, and compared to what followed it. Windows NT? C'mon.)

It is just one more bit of evidence that tells me that many of the supposed "experts" on matters of computing are anything but. There's FUD and then there's just people who just have no idea what they're saying. (Of course the CEO of DEC got caught making the dumbest comment ever. No one is immune.) Maybe we should just focus on results and not what people say?