I understand, its position as the world-beating, dominant device, the one that people actually use to buy books, guarantees nonsense. But, I’m sorry, “best-practice” guidelines explaining what else it is that Amazon’s doing wrong, and how they, once again, need to be better are… interesting, thanks for sharing, sure that’ll work out as well as the global demand for Adobe Mobile has.
However, though it has not the “standards compliance” of Atom, fact remains that an ability to work with Amazon’s RSS feeds has been one of the key qualifiers for a career in low-end internet commerce. You’re going to the installed base, again, and telling them they’re wrong, again, and we’re talking credibility here.
Look, I don’t deny that a decade ago, when a lot of the current ebook experts first started talking about “what we needed to do,” publishing industry execs did jump on the buzzword bandwagon. Heck, I remember one, at Elsevier, hired a ton of consultants, spent huge sums, spoke ad nauseum about online b2b, b2c, b2z, etc.
But while the same “experts” are still around, at least the ones that proved incapable of getting real jobs, last I heard that Elsevier exec bombed completely after ’01 and was most recently seen teaching 2nd grade at his prep school alma mater in the Northeast. “Getting away from the rat race of Washington.” Similar purges have happened elsewhere. Content providers aren’t stupid or fooled; they’re just polite, and only willing to go along for some free PR if it doesn’t cost them anything.
Bigger issue, non-absolute, is: you have to choose. Are you going to actually produce something, or just try to control somebody else? ‘Cuz the treatise on legit competition was written millenia ago.
Everybody loves a good rivalry. They just want to see it on the playing field.