Referring to their decision to go print-only as "DRM" is inflammatory.
It's a book, dude. Not a piece of technology that allows publishers to control your access. It has it's limitations, which are fairly well known at this point in history.
It's a book, dude. Not a piece of technology that allows publishers to control your access. It has it's limitations, which are fairly well known at this point in history.
(my reading of their statement is that print only was mostly because of piracy)
I did purchase this book because the last version has so many good reviews and I too would have preferred a digital copy but to me, calling it DRM is technically incorrect and smells like bait. I'm mostly disappointed that I fell for it.
If physical only was done to prevent piracy, it is at the least a "RM" move.
Now, not only they made themselves look bad, show they misunderstand the digital world but they will also pass on a whole market.
"Creating and proofing each ebook format is not a trivial effort. It involves reformatting every code sample to work on every ebook reader, accounting for differences in screen contrast, accessibility testing, and proofreading the text and code samples several times on each device. Instead of spending our time struggling with reformatting, we're choosing to focus on improving the technical material."
Why not just release a PDF? Why make the choice every format or none?