Now that Apple Owns the Tablet Space …..

When the iPad was launched, there was a widespread view (and I shared it) that soon, and not more than a year or two later, there would be some highly competitive and lower-priced tablet alternatives for customers to choose from. The iPad had opened a new hardware category, but competitors would quickly crowd into this new opening… there would be lots of choice and most of it would not be for Apple hardware.

Whilst dissecting a review of one of the best Android competitor’s to the iPad, Marco Ament notes:

Translation: Android tablets have managed to copy the iPad’s hardware well enough — the easy part — but have failed to provide good software and significant third-party app choice — the hard part. The Android Tablet Problem

For any ‘head-to-head’ competitor tablet to get into the market for a face off with the iPad there is the possibly insuperable problem that the new tablet lacks a coherent body of developers and of tablet-primed media. Apple has been building its iOS developer community and media resources for four years (arguably more). Apple has huge momentum and capability behind its iOS platform and this cannot be matched by any competitor. I don’t think that a ‘head to head’ competitor to the iPad can emerge in the next five years. The competitive threat if it comes, will be from a completely new approach, an external threat not a mid-size device like the iPad. We should look to a paradigm shift as radical and disruptive as the iPhone/iPad surge that Apple has produced to disrupt the mobile phone and the laptop computer.

Harry McCracken reviews the state of iPad competition and concludes that it is very hard to see why anybody in the market for a tablet would buy something other than an iPad 2.

And yet no Apple competitor has started selling anything that clearly answers a fundamental question: “Why should somebody buy this instead of an iPad?” Sure, it’s easy to point at specific things that other devices do better (or at least differently) than the iPad, and some of the people reading this article can explain why they chose another tablet and don’t regret the move. (If you’re one of them, please do!) Still, sales figures for tablets show that when consumers compare the iPad to other choices, an overwhelming percentage conclude that the iPad is the best option. .…Instead of an iPad (Technologizer)

If the ‘competitors’ to the iPad cannot emerge now, a year after the first iPad was launched, why should it be feasible that the direct competition will be stronger in a year or two’s time? The iPad eco-system is getting richer and stronger at an amazing rate and that is the problem any direct tablet competitor faces. The fundamental point about the iPad and the iOS range of devices is that Apple is not really selling a hardware solution; Apple is offering a software and services solution, and it is the whole package that customers are buying into. This is something which no competitor to Apple is plausibly positioned to challenge. Not Microsoft (they don’t really do manufacturing), not Google (they don’t truly understand selling), not Amazon (who are best placed to have a shot at it, but do not have deep consumer-device engineering DNA).

We will come back to Amazon in a minute. But first let us consider what are the consequences of Apple owning the tablet category for the next three, four years — by which I mean that Apple has a good chance of being the supplier of most of the tablets bought for the plan-able future.

  1. Apple will sell a lot of iPads and will certainly offer a modicum more choice (high-end, low-end, high-res, medium res). Moore’s law says that Apple should be able to produce a sub $200 iPad for Christmas 2012. Apple will do that.
  2. The degree of device choice will be constrained by the requirement that as many apps as possible should run across all iOS devices. So no new aspect ratio, but quad pixel density. The coherence and interoperability of the range of iOS devices is already another source of lock-in. That gets stronger as the differentiation within the range is gently increased.
  3. The lead that Apple has in the deployment of apps for tablets will grow. Enormously, and become even more of an obstacle to ‘internal’ disruption from iPad-like competitors.
  4. Android, or maybe Windows, phones may well provide very strong competition at the ‘low end’, at the small format end of the market. There will be plenty of apps for non-Apple phones. These non-Apple phones will also be well-placed to produce competitive applications which are not tablet-sized and which do not necessarily require the full range of touch interface.
  5. Apple’s competitors will increasingly throw their weight behind web standards and ‘open’ technologies.

Amazon already has the Kindle platform and has sufficient strength in books, music, film and periodicals to mount a competitive challenge to Apple with its likely Android tablet — they need to launch it soon or Apple will own the holiday season device market in 2011. Amazon may be able to launch a somewhat credible Kindroid alternative to the iPad, but I think Apple has played a very clever move here in the last couple of weeks. It relaxed its e-commerce terms so that the soft Kindle can stay on the iPad/iTunes platform. This might have looked like a concession to Amazon (and to the millions of iPad owners who run the Kindle app on their iPad) but it was in fact an astute and decisive blow to the hardware side of Amazon’s business. Not having your Kindle library on the iPad would have been a decisive reason for many Amazon customers to switch to the Android tablet that will soon be launched by Jeff Bezos. Now there is no compelling reason to buy the Kindroid, no reason not to buy the iPad which will hold your library. Apple will not be getting 30% from the sale of Amazon ebooks, but those books can be used on iOS and Apple’s selection of music, film and apps is so much better than Amazon will be able to offer on the Kindroid. Apple will not be letting Amazon deploy film or music apps within iTunes either. So who has the upper hand in that trade? Apple never actually applied the e-commerce rules that it has just relaxed (they were meant to come in force at the end of this month). Perhaps they were told by lawyers that the proposals would attract monopolies sanctions, but rescinding/withdrawing them now was a stroke of genius and a sign of confidence. When push comes to shove, Apple owns the tablet space and there is not a lot that Amazon or anybody else can do about that.

Advertisements

Book Pricing, the iPad, and the Bvlgari Book

Some months, shortly after the iPad was announced, John Sargent, CEO of Macmillan published a much discussed and influential blog on the pricing of books and the ‘agency model’. This was influential because it articulated the reason why Macmillan (and most of the other large publishers) were going to use the advent of the Apple iPad as an occasion for reasserting publisher control over the pricing of books. Digital books that would be sold through the iPad’s iBook store, but also for reasserting control over the pricing of books that would be sold by Amazon through their Kindle. Publishers through the agency model would set the price of the book to be sold to end users and allocate a set percentage of that price to the distributor/retail channel, or technology partner (30% is becoming the norm for distribution share). Amazon by implication would no longer be allowed to set, and to lower, prices to $9.99. Amazon would have to put up with some loss of control and a higher but pre-determined margin.

The ructions caused by this blog posting are on-going, but the comment that most struck me in Sargent’s blog was an aside and a promise:

I have not addressed illustrated books or books for young children. That will be a topic for the future as the technology advances beyond e-ink screens. John Sargent Macmillan Blog

We have not heard any more about the special case(s) of illustrated books or books for young children. But why should they be different? Why should the pricing and availability of books of different types be subject to quite different considerations? Well no doubt a part of the answer is that illustrated books (and many children’s books are essentially illustrated) will not work well on e-ink screens. Mind you the iPad is not an e-ink screen, but I suppose one could say that the iBook store does appear to be catering for books that would otherwise be suitable for e-ink screens. Illustrated books and some other types of high-design books are evidently not suitable for the iBookstore or the e-Pub format used by most e-ink devices. So illustrated books do seem to be a bit of a special case and more suitable for deployment as free-standing apps directly in the iPad system.

It is surprising that we have not yet seen more high-design books implemented as free-standing apps in the iTunes system. The iPad is eminently suitable for rendering beautiful illustrated books. How will the pricing work when they arrive? Will beautiful virtual books on the iPad be priced higher or lower than other books?

There is an argument for saying that beautiful illustrated books will be much cheaper as digital books on the iPad (or on Android tablets etc) than they will be in print. Perhaps the clever strategy now for a publisher of beautiful books would be to move rapidly up-market, towards a luxury option for printed books, whilst simultaneously making digital versions of the books available at highly competitive prices. This strategy would chime in with a prediction from Alberto Vitale that printed book prices should rise as digital book prices inevitably fall:

“a book that sells today for $27, $28.95 may be selling within the next two to five years at anywhere between $37.95 and $45.”

“Eventually, I believe the market will bear the higher price — publishers will have to experiment with the price. The economics of book publishing are not very good now,” Vitale said, adding he did not expect “appreciable resistance” from consumers to higher hardback prices.

Vitale further predicted that the cost of e-books will drop …….. “E-books will become the equivalent of the mass market. Mass market is not down market, it’s just a market accessible to a larger number of people. That’s why I believe e-book prices have to be lower than they are today. The consumer is not stupid, he knows the e-book is a lot more economical to produce than a regular paper book,” (See full article from DailyFinance).

This is pretty cogent thinking. I think it is especially persuasive for highly illustrated beautiful books. For the following reasons:

(1) Whatever publishers say, the pricing of printed books has something to do with the costs of producing and manufacturing them (the official line is that pricing should be set by market expectations, but in practice all publishers pay attention to unit costs when setting print prices). The costs of printing and manufacturing the marginal, or run-on copies matter to the traditional publisher. Especially is this true for high quality illustrated books which have very good paper and complex printing. Good colour costs if the book is to be manufactured. Colour costs nothing in the digital case. In fact the marginal cost of another digital reader or licensee is essentially zero as it is with any digital book. The run on cost of all digital books is essentially zero. There is no reason that big and beautiful digital books should cost more than any other kind of book, mass market or otherwise. There is no cost penalty for being a big book, or having full colour throughout if the book is digital.

(2) Furthermore the perceived value of a print book will be increased if the standard of production and of reproduction is increased. From which it should follow that the price of the print product should be increased to the point that the ‘exclusive’ and ‘exceptional’ value of the physical object is enhanced. Physical books of high quality should increasingly be priced according to the rules of Bvlgari and Gucci, not according to the standards of Marks & Spencer or the Gap. Publishers of such books: Thames &Hudson, Phaidon, Yale, Rizzoli and so on will find it profitable to improve the quality and reduce the print runs for their best books, because

(3) Selling relatively cheap digital editions will not only increase the market reach of beautiful books, it will also help to sell the more expensive printed books. There are potentially large markets for beautiful digital books at prices in the region of $5-$10, merely for reading, even though the printed book may cost $50-$100. Very attractive physical books will be very attractive digital books, especially as the quality and fidelity of electronic devices surpass that of the iPad, which they will. Larger digital sales will in effect promote the desirability of exclusive and less affordable printed editions. Customers who might like to possess a very expensive book, and to handle it, to put it on their shelves, or to collect it, are more likely to do so if they have already seen and probably purchased a digital version of the book.

(4) For as Vitale so eloquently observes, the consumer is not stupid. The consumer knows that the marginal cost of a digital book is close to zero, just as she knows that the cost of beautifully produced printed volume may be close to the manufactured cost of a Gucci handbag (ie quite possibly less than 10% of the price that may be charged, but a lot more than zero).

Of course this argument does not completely follow if there is a significant degree of substitutability between beautiful printed books and the same book as a digital edition. But there surely is not? If a physical book is valued because it is expensive, because it can be handled, because it is potentially rare and collectible it will not be substituted by a digital edition which is none of these things. I suspect that we shall soon see some quality art publishers putting this thesis to the test and they will do so, because for many of the best illustrated books there is quite a large audience that merely wants to read or consult the beautifully produced virtual object. For the beautiful book that is merely going to be read there is no case for charging more than $5 or $9.99 or whatever becomes the ‘normal’ price for a digital book. I agree with Vitale that this ‘normal’ price will soon be coming down. Partly because consumers are not stupid, but also because competition is at work and lower prices will sell more books. Always has done. Always will. But there still should be a very nice market for the beautiful physical book. Why not? We also like beautiful handbags.

Is Apple Opening Up?

Apple has been accused of building a ‘walled garden’ in the iPad. That is not a metaphor that I trust too much; first, because Apple’s garden seems to be rather subtler than that: it is more like a ‘hedged’ garden because the iPad has always and will always have a web browser, one that allows you to see any web page and you can’t get much wilder and freer than that; second, because, unlike most publisher ‘walled gardens’, a large part of the Apple garden is ‘free to access’, and developers and publishers do not have to pay to offer stuff for free through apps running on the Apple systems. So using the ‘walled garden’ metaphor as a weapon to beat Apple with, seems to be both inaccurate and a touch unfair to Apple, which is really creating a hedged ‘pay for access’ inner garden with a large fringe of ‘free’ public park access. Good for Apple, Amazon and even more Sony, should have thought of this first: provide the space in which other ebook systems can be viewed and read, even the opposition. Apple does not get the credit it deserves for this third-party openness. We did not see Amazon creating the space for developers to produce third party apps to run on the Kindle until the on-rushing iPad chariot made this belated ‘openness’ a reactive move.

Furthermore it is at least arguable that Apple, in creating the e-commerce environment for the iPhone and the iPad (the app store) has the obligation to vet these products. Some of this is about making sure that malicious programs do not pollute the environment (there is so far no sign of viruses or malware on the iPhone platform), but also a matter of civic duty — Apple no doubt sees itself in the role of a Walmart, or at least of the landlord of retail properties. So it may feel a need to regulate the type of services and products that can be offered through its pay-platform.

In a thoughtful piece at GigaOm Kevin Kelleher writes that Apple is already “losing control–and that’s a good thing”

I’m willing to accept that Apple is trying doing the right thing for its customers. In one sense, Apple is like Walmart, or any retailer that excludes magazines and books with content it deems too sexual or politically controversial. But Apple is more than just a retailer — it’s the provider of a platform, and a wildly successful one. Apple can control its platform on a small scale, but as success expands that platform domain, the company’s control inevitably breaks down as it starts to create more problems than it solves.

The problems affect developers, content partners and consumers. To avoid having to explain its capricious approval system, Apple has retreated into an opaque cloud of inscrutability, making telepathy a vital skill for successful developers. As publishers large and small bring their content to the iPad, Apple’s murky morality may give them pause — or worse, lead to self-censorship. And curating controversial content in a way that leaves all parties unhappy is hardly a savvy way to market a hot new product to consumers.

So the company is likely to reassess its control-freak tendencies as well. It has three choices: One, hold to the status quo; two, curate its platform, but add a set of clear guidelines as to what’s allowed and what isn’t, or maybe a curtained-off section for controversial apps; or three, adopt an open environment where apps are rejected only on technical considerations. The first will only add to confusion. The second might work if the guidelines are explicit enough. The third is the simplest, but involves giving up a lot of control.

My guess is Apple will go for option No. 3. Not right away, but in increments…..

I am not sure that Apple yet sees things this way but I reckon that they will soon have to do so. The second option (issuing clear guidelines as to what is or is not allowed) is going to be much trickier than one might suppose. Let us take the Walmart analogy seriously. Walmart operates supermarkets in the USA and the UK and it naturally sells different magazines and newspapers in those different chains. There is no doubt that the magazines and newspapers that pass as normal in the UK (or in Sweden or in the Netherlands) would be quite unacceptable in the USA. Is Apple going to develop different product ranges for these different markets? Is Apple willing to make the Sun available in the UK (its the biggest selling news tabloid, but with more nudity than is acceptable to Apple, or the US popular newspaper market)? But to ban it in the US? Will Apple really wish to maintain different cultural offerings for each regional market in which it operates? What about expatriates, will the Sun be purchasable by the Cupertino resident who has a UK iTunes account and credit card? Will there be a Saudi option as well as a mid-Western option, perhaps a Californian level of permissibility a bit lower (higher) than that for Arkansas? Once Apple starts looking at the detail of the discriminations that would be needed to service cultural and religious sensitivities in different parts of the world, I suspect that they will hastily withdraw to the high-ground of technical neutrality. “We are only a platform provider. Not an arbiter of morality.”

But there is an even trickier problem for Apple to think about if they maintain this detailed control and vetting of content. Apple to its credit supports Kindle and Kobo and other generic ebook reader apps for free. Apple is most unlikely to withdraw its support for these rival ebook systems (and it would attract a great deal of hostile attention, perhaps from regulators, were it now to do so). These apps are freely available from the Apple iTunes store (perhaps with an age-related warning) but they can of course be used any ebooks from Amazon or Kobo (was Shortcovers) that the user cares to purchase direct from those suppliers. If the best, but steamy, edition of the The Perfumed Garden is available as an ebook to the Amazon Kindle user, it can be read on the iPad and the iPhone. These Amazon-sponsored ebooks are not being sold through the iPad or the iTunes store, but they are being read on the device. Is it conceivable that Apple is going to prevent Signet from selling its edition of The Perfumed Garden through iTunes whilst the very same translation by Sir Richard Burton can be purchased from Amazon? If Apple were to be seen to be banning books from the iBooks store which are widely available from other ebook retailers it would be grievously undermining its position as a book retailer. Its not taking a commission from the Perfumed Garden, but it is close to encouraging its loyal customers to shop elsewhere. The more books that will not be stocked the more customers will think to shop elsewhere. This reluctance is also damaging the publisher who is, on all the other titles sold through iTunes, paying Apple a 30% royalty (or agency commission). So far from being a ‘walled garden’ the iPad/iTunes system that enables users to deploy banned ebooks purchased from other suppliers is on the way to becoming a tunnel to the rival plantation. I reckon that Kevin Kelleher hits the nail on the head when he says “Apple can control its platform on a small scale, but as success expands that platform domain, the company’s control inevitably breaks down as it starts to create more problems than it solves.” (GigaOm) These are problems for Apple itself.

Why John Battelle really should Like the iPad

John Battelle wrote one of the best, first, books about Google and I usually read his stuff. But he is underestimating and mireading the iPad over at his Searchblog

….the iPad, just like the iPhone, is designed for vertical integration and distribution lock in. Apple is building its own distribution channel, just as it did with iTunes, and media companies are falling over themselves to make an app for that. Why? Well sure, for once, it’s sexy and cool and hip. That’s why everyone loved the Wired demo. But the real reason media companies love the iPad is the same reason I don’t: It’s an old school, locked in distribution channel that doesn’t want to play by the new rules of search+social. Sure, you can watch a movie on it. Sure, you can read a book on it. And sure, you can read a publication on it. But if you want to use the web natively, with all the promise that the web brings to media? Not so much. I dont like the iPad because….

About some of this John is right. Apple is trying to build its own distribution channel for books, magazines and movies. As it has already succeeded with music. Of course they are. Furthermore the iPhone does work well for users by both facilitating the web, and standing back from it. The iPhone/iPad has convenient and clever way of cushioning or separating our media experience from the amazing, distracting, open-ness of the web. One of the key points of the app framework which a book or magazine has on the iPhone: it is easier to read the magazine as a seamless and integrated publication. The web may be only a click away, but a properly designed app feels more branded, more integrated, more immersive and more secure for the reader than a set of web pages (tables of contents, archives, page-navigation, credits, layouts, supplements, search etc are supplied within the app cocoon). And I suspect that Battelle is right in that Apple and the big media companies are hoping that the iPad is going to be a relatively tame, safe and biddable media platform: “A sexy version of a portable DVD player-cum-Kindle”.

The idea that the app store is destined to be a vast media repository into which old media can simply pour their old wine (and from which Apple draw a fat 30% commission) whilst new consumers charge up flash memory on their iPads, is wrong in one important particular. Apps are different. Books and magazines, at least, are not like tunes. Apps will be much more dynamic and much more transformative of the media landscape than this reassuring picture of the tablet allows. The publishers who get this will make a new vintage for these new bottles.

To see why this is so, we need to focus on two points. Book (or magazine) apps will use the internet in essential ways, even if they are ‘self-contained’ apps. As we noted in the last post, a local newspaper, is full of valencies to local business and context. A new millenium newspaper should not merely tell you a phone number, the phone number should itself be click-to-call. That is why you need a touch interface on a newspaper now. You do, nobody wants to cut and paste a phone number. Most worthwhile publication apps will be cloud-served, for obvious reasons (currency, communication, search and reference). Book apps will not be like tunes that once synced one simply listens to, or not. They will reference and be referenced. They will engage and they will have to offer services which integrate them with the web. Even if Apple wants to isolate media from the web, no carrier can now do that. You cannot get away from search. No publisher will want to avoid Facebook or Twitter. The web is fundamental. Second, Battelle’s picture of the iPad as merely a device for consuming media is fundamentally wrong in ways that he understands. Media on the iPad will be much more enactive, much more intentional (to use one of Battelle’s key categories) than traditional media consumption. Media consumption on the iPad will be much more social, more shared and more communicative than traditional media devices. Do you remember the surprise that you had when you first saw youngsters sharing an iPod with two kids each having one bud from the same device? There will be a lot more of that with the iPad — mostly virtual, mostly over social networks. The intra-device buzz amongst millions of rich media consumer tablets is going to be truly deafening. A book on the iPad will not be merely a book, when it is easy to find out where is the nearest person who is also reading your book, when it is easy to find out what your ‘friends’ and ‘followers’ are reading and when it is easy for the book to tell you where you are in relation to where the book is….

Uniquely Attractive Invitations

So the question arises: how are publishers to make their offerings uniquely attractive in the multi-media maelstrom of the iPhone/iPad space? Keep in mind that we are operating under two constraints: first, the shop is a media hypermarket — iTunes is an ecommerce environment in which all types of media product and service can be purchased (Apple are going to have to do something about that name, ‘iTunes’ is off-key for most other media). The competition will be naked and ruthless, although slightly less naked this week than last. Second, the iPad (and its iPhone, iPod Touch, companions) will be fully capable of showing all media in gorgeous and slick reproduction and playback. The capacity of the system as a media player is going to be very impressive and will be getting better fast (Moore’s law applies). How does a publisher make his wares gorgeously attractive in this fiercely competitive environment?

If you are a media-owner or a publisher-proprietor, you are not allowed to dodge this question! Nor are you allowed to postpone it by forming consortia or by hiring consultants to tell you how to build a new cultural format. Newspaper owners who think that their best future is to build a new kind of Text-TV-PressWire news channel are on a voyage to nowhere (TV channels can and will make their own elegant transition to the iPad, whilst print journalists are still finding out how to clip on their microphones). Magazine owners who think that their future lies in building brand-oriented, vertical, communities, with multi-media components, had better ask themselves why these new sort-of-maybe-products did not work as web-sites, because they will otherwise be making the same expensive mistake with the iPad that they have been making these last five years with their web services.

By and large book, publishers have avoided the temptation to think that the right response to a multi-media maelstrom is to build muti-media products and services. The Vook team may have located a viable niche, but no publisher thinks its a big niche, or that a lot of books are going to become vooks. Book publishers know that there is a digital future for books. Magazine and newspapers show much less confidence about the enduring validity of their format. But they should give it a try. Because putting your magazine, or your newspaper directly on to the iPad has a lot to recommend it. And now for the first time it can be done in a way in which the traditional print format actually looks and works very well. The iPad is going to be very friendly to publications in the traditional print formats.

Getting the book, magazine or newspaper on to the iPad and into the iTunes competitive environment pretty much as it is, is the first, but very necessary step. The second requirement is that the iTunes audience should be able to find your product in the iTunes e-commerce environment and it would be better that they should be able to find it directly, by which I mean that it is very much second best that iPhone users who want to read Business Week or the Independent, currently have to buy their subscription via Amazon’s Kindle. Finding magazines and newspapers in the iTunes maelstrom is not going to be too much of an issue once the publication is there. Magazines and newspapers have tremendous brand recognition, tied up in the name, perhaps supplemented by the location (there is more than one Independent). These first two steps are really surprisingly easy.

The third requirement is that potential customers should be able to sample or try your product before they buy it or subscribe to the service provided. Sampling is really the answer and the Apple system also makes this surprisingly easy. Films (with their trailers) and music tracks (with their lead-in samples) are already showing how sampling, try-before-you-buy, works in the iPhone economy.

At Exact Editions we have now realised that the Free App Sample to Paid App subscription is an enormously powerful part of the Apple e-commerce system (and it did take us a few months to recognise how this should work and how to tie the ‘free’ element in with ‘in-app purchasing’). We are now re-positioning all the Exact Editions apps so that they will use this freemium approach. The first of these new-style apps will be released in the next week or so. The user will be able to freely acquire a branded app in the iTunes service. The app will give the user some free pages from the magazine issue in full, the publisher deciding how much, and the rest of the content will be available as a searchable resource — but only viewable in thumbnail pages. This way of arranging matters for a periodical is especially compelling because it means that the magazines key contents pages, and cover pages can be delivered through the free app as a kind of alert service. The freemium approach is also very compelling with books, and I suspect that this is one way in which book publishers can be highly aggressive in competition with other forms of media. Film makers and music owners will be wary of giving away sizable samples. But book publishers can be very generous in offering chunky samples without undermining the value of ownership.

Books of real quality (and books of marginal, minimal or even questionable quality) will be able to make themselves available as free apps in the Apple system, with generous content chunks being for each book a uniquely attractive invitation to its potential readers. Amazon has already shown with its Kindle, how powerful it can be to promote by digital sampling (hub pages). The interesting thing about the app store is that the publisher, who has to take responsibility for how much to offer by way of a sample, will be in direct control of these decisions and will be seeing the very immediate impact of decisions through the sales reported, day by day. Again the Apple way of doing things is giving publishers/developers more control than they are used to having with Amazon. Publishers will be getting immediate and very measurable feedback from their promotional decisions about sampling. It is also a strong plus that the ‘free samples’ that can be sync-ed with a book/magazine app will be on the consumers iPhone or iPad, even when they have not yet bought. This puts the publishers sample directly in the consumer’s pocket (when did anybody think of downloading a movie trailer to their iPhone?). I suspect publishers will soon learn that it pays to be very generous with samples for publications available through the iPad.