There are two ways to approach the singles/album issue. The typical pop thing was to go for singles and release an album full of filler. People heard the single on the radio and usually bought that. Any albums sold were gravy. Or folks like the Beatles recorded complete albums and fans knowing that 80% would come out as singles would usually go out and buy the album. Singles sold just added to the revenue. Same thing occurs today.

Books are a bit different. I don’t compare the iTunes/Kindle price of a book with the paperback version (where the price is near equivalent), I compare it to the hardcover where the e-book is a price advantage. Granted if I go into back catalog those titles are typically on paperback for roughly the same price, but at that point I also look at the convenience. I had shelves filling up with paperbacks. If I ever thought about re-reading a book, I had to put it somewhere. Now it’s all on iCloud and I just keep special books on the shelves.

It would always be great to get things cheaper, and if a more efficient system can be put in place that does that, great. But writers still need editors (read any blog, including this one to see typos, awkward grammar, and lack of fact checking) which is a major part of the publishing business, besides just printing and binding.

Apple has created a walled garden that almost no one else can play in. Their book policy seems to be designed similarly to their music policy, with the prime aim of getting people to buy ianything as a content consumption device. Thereby locking them into an apple only ecosystem and so locking them down pretty much forever. Not exactly an open market ideal

Nice try but fail,

DoJ might get someplace with the book companies, but seriously(!) Apple has like 10% of the e-book market. This is bogus. I was around for the AT&T, IBM, and MicroSoft suits, and this one doesn’t _begin_ to measure up.