Daring Fireball posted a long reply to my article, but I think John Gruber just did not get my point: Apple started thinking about the features probably beginning of 2010 or even earlier. They started implementing the features second half of 2010. The standardization could have started on their proposals at beginning of 2010, and stabilize around them beginning of 2011. It means we could have obtained a Candidate Recommandation for these features in the course of 2011 and then Apple would be shipping today an application with a clear competitive advantage - being the only one on the market - conformant to future standards. On the contrary, Apple has implemented features that are now partly or largely incompatible with the future standards, and I am saying this is yet another burden on the Publishing industry that is fighting with already too many formats and too many bad quality conversions.
The comparison with mobi is irrelevant : I can create a mobi document from a perfectly valid and regular HTML document and get a perfectly valid HTML document from a mobi document. Again, John Gruber did not get my point. I did not say that extending a standard is bad. I did not say that competitive advantages are bad. I did not say that a first mover's advantage is bad. Comparison with App Store is relevant here : more and more use frameworks to create cross-mobile-platform apps for iOS/Android/Web based on the same code. That's exactly the kind of things the Publishing industry needs and wants, and what I think Apple failed to deliver with iBooks Author. In other words, that segment remains open for another actor and I have absolutely no doubt someone will show up.