If publishers put out official-grade softcopy EPUBs — like O'Reilly used to do until recently — they'd be just as good as the same publisher's hardcopy prints.
Side note: I really hate that I can't buy any EPUBs of O'Reilly's titles. I don't want a non-portable, non-saveable, online-only subscription; and their supported method of getting non-subscription digital copies are all on Amazon and Google Play Books, neither of which provide EPUBS and suffer from the same problems you highlight.
Pragmatic programmers do this and it's an absolute joy to use their digital books, you can have ePub, Mobi or PDF format. The quality of their eBooks over that available from Amazon is much higher.
But the market didn't actually behave that way. They had trouble selling ebooks and piracy was a huge issue.
The next one to watch will be Tor. If they back off of their DRM free stance we'll know that its basically an untenable model.
I disagree with a lot of your Kindle paragraph. It isn't nearly as bad as you portray.
I mean, you're paying money for something you never actual own, what's that?
Not really, the issue is that with digital, there are different formats and readers, some just suck and others are better. You can't just put all e-books under one umbrella because the experience varies greatly.
For example, I've totally boycotted Kindle format and devices, it's horrible for so many reasons, if I want an eBook, it's now PDF or nothing.
Kindle for me was always missing or broken TOCs, bad user interfaces, no copy and paste (if you have digital, why not?),no portability between devices (Linux etc), hard to share, dynamic page numbers, missing or poorly formatted images and diagrams, no off-line backup (you never own the media), no thanks.
I was also a person who, in earnest, wanted to go completely digital with my library, I just loved the idea of it and gave away a lot of printed media, I regret this now. I really gave it a good try, but give me a hard copy any day.