I don't like Apple's proprietary tactics (not any proprietary format for ebooks for that matter), but greed and incompetence on the side of the publishers killed the viability of ePub as a standard a long time ago.
It's virtually impossible to publish anything other than simple text without running into all kinds of trouble with the different interpretation and implementation of ePub in various readers.
Apple should have just completely created their own format instead of extending ePub, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Now Apple has become the convenient scapegoat for ePub's failure, whilst others, most notably Amazon, get a free pass for doing exactly the same.
I would argue the same as Gruber and say that they did create their own format. Whether or not it looks like ePub under the surface is irrelevant, since it's a .ibooks file, not a .epub. Since it's Apple's format, they can do whatever they want with it without having to worry about how other readers interpret the format.
(Unless you mean it would have been easier from their point, in which case I also disagree, since this allows them to use their existing ePub code.)
> Apple should have just completely created their own format instead of extending ePub, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Now Apple has become the convenient scapegoat for ePub's failure, whilst others, most notably Amazon, get a free pass for doing exactly the same.
That seems like a terrible reason to head off on your own and create a totally new format. Case in point, look at audio/video CODECs. Under the hood, many of them have startling similarities. The consumer has no idea they're similar, because they're named differently.
More directly, what is wrong with extending ePub, provided you don't represent it as ePub. Gruber's best points are made on a technical basis, not a business basis. Apple isn't calling the iBooks Author output ePub. That would be egregious.
As is typical in the technology space, everyone is conflating arguments. They're pissed about Apple's business tactics, and so the argument spreads like fire in a field of dry grass.
From a black box perspective, iBooks files are proprietary. Whether their "based on" ePub is no more relevant than the fact that VP8 bears similarities to H.264 and many other video CODECs [1].
I think the bigger point is unrelated to the format per se, and that is the idea that you can't sell the content you produced without going through apple.
If someone were to write a custom reader by reverse engineering the apple proprietary format, I would still not be allowed to sell my content to them without giving apple a cut.
> Apple should have just completely created their own format . . .
I don't think being scapegoated for ePub's eventual fate is going to affect their bottom line very much, so it probably wouldn't have been worth creating a new format over one that already works.
It's virtually impossible to publish anything other than simple text without running into all kinds of trouble with the different interpretation and implementation of ePub in various readers.
Apple should have just completely created their own format instead of extending ePub, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Now Apple has become the convenient scapegoat for ePub's failure, whilst others, most notably Amazon, get a free pass for doing exactly the same.