“Book publishers, newspaper publishers and magazine publishers are experiencing unprecedented revenue compression and are looking at transforming their businesses away from print as a factor of mere survival,” Gewirtz writes. “If Apple’s iPad has the effect on our print reading matter in the way iTunes did on our music consumption, Apple could wind up the dominant channel by which we get published ‘print’ information.”
“That’s why the issue of Apple picking and choosing what we can and can’t read is so disturbing. If they’re forcing magazines to edit their contents in order to get distribution, then whatever Apple’s then-current (and thus far completely arbitrary) rules would determine what you get to read,” Gewirtz writes. “It might even determine the political, religious, or ideological slant of what you’re permitted to read.”
Gewirtz writes, “Because Apple has indicated that it intends to censor published works that it distributes digitally and because Apple has been absolutely non-forthcoming about any details, we as members of the press are, essentially, obligated to point out what’s happening.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Even if Apple does wind up being “the dominant channel by which we get published ‘print’ information,” it’s quite the stretch to imagine it becoming the only channel. That said, Gewitz is perfectly correct that it’s the obligation of the free press to point out what’s happening. With that, we totally agree.