The Morning Coffee – 19 August 2013

9521745146_4c9385de08_c1[1]Here are a few stories to read this morning.

  • 10 of Literature’s Most Unreliable Narrators (Flavorwire)
  • Amazon restricts students from bringing certain textbook rentals across state lines (Inside Higher Ed)
  • Apple e-book judge: 'I don't need to go into that further' (Fortune)

  • How the Strand sells print books to ebook readers (Boing Boing)
  • Medium: One year of publishing 'things that matter' (
  • Millions Qualify for E-book Refunds (PW)
  • New figures show people “snack” on tablet news apps, too – but for longer than on mobile (PandoDaily)
  • What we think about ebooks, as suggested by Google Instant (eBookFriendly)
  • About Nate Hoffelder (10600 Articles)
    Nate Hoffelder is the founder and editor of The Digital Reader:"I've been into reading ebooks since forever, but I only got my first ereader in July 2007. Everything quickly spiraled out of control from there. Before I started this blog in January 2010 I covered ebooks, ebook readers, and digital publishing for about 2 years as a part of MobileRead Forums. It's a great community, and being a member is a joy. But I thought I could make something out of how I covered the news for MobileRead, so I started this blog."

    7 Comments on The Morning Coffee – 19 August 2013

    1. New Name Same Guy // 19 August, 2013 at 2:09 am // Reply

      Seems to me the judge is the best thing going for Apple’s appeal as she comes across as more than a bit of an idiot.

    2. I just don’t get PE-D’s love for Apple in this suit. While I found his coverage interesting and thorough, his editorializing was just too much for me.

      Every single real life attorney I know (none in anti-trust) believed Apple was going to lose big time including the Apple fans. Why was the decision such a surprise to so many people?

      • Amazon Derangement Syndrome.
        Based on the religious conviction that Amazon sells everything below cost (because Bezos is eeeevile!), they believe that it is Amazon’s fault that six companies conspired to break multiple laws and ripoff Amazon.
        Note that in Apple’s appeal, they are *still* trying to get even more Amazon documents into evidence as if anything Amazon may or not have done has any bearing on the well-documented deeds of Apple’s executives.
        It is all part of a concerted spin campaign: since the facts are against them and the law is against them, they are resorting to a campaign of impugning the integrity of the judge.
        Which will be as effective as the “blame Amazon” defense was at trial.

        • Don’t forget the Apple Reality Distortion Field. At the moment the RDF is mutually reinforcing the ADS.

          • Oh, I didn’t forget either of those and I agree, that these attempts to impugn the integrity of the judge will get them nowhere.

            I just find it really sad that someone who is supposed to be covering a trial, i.e. educating his readers, could not see beyond the RDF and ADS. If a site has a name with mac or apple in it, I would expect they might be blind to the facts of the case but a reporter/editor for Forbes? PE-D should have put his editorial bits in a separate column or Forbes should have had someone else do the reporting. I think the way this was handled calls into question the accuracy of any reporting done.

            • New Name Same Guy // 19 August, 2013 at 1:40 pm //

              You mean like a site giving unconditional love to all things Amazon wouldn’t be basking in the glory of the obviously biased and intellectually limited judge? True!

    3. New Name Same Guy // 19 August, 2013 at 12:36 pm // Reply

      LOL the only thing distorted is the judge’s brain. Soon enough her verdict will be thrown into the digital judicial don’t recycle bin.

    Leave a comment

    Your email address will not be published.


    %d bloggers like this: