9 ms·

Absolutely not. This is where the line is drawn. I've grown to accept Apple's App Store policies for the sake of keeping app quality high. However, when it com

Absolutely not. This is where the line is drawn. I've grown to accept Apple's App Store policies for the sake of keeping app quality high. However, when it comes to distributing content that people actually use to learn new things and enrich their lives, there is absolutely no room for this type of policy. To anyone who is selling their books via Apple: GTFO right now.

prodigal_erik 14y ago
That line was crossed when you dealt with a vendor who could actively interfere with your dealings with other vendors, even before they chose to.
- lukifer 14y ago
  Not that this defends Apple, but strictly speaking, couldn't Amazon choose to do the reverse?
  - prodigal_erik 14y ago
    For Kindle users that's true, which is the one and only reason I didn't buy.
    - tjoff 14y ago
      You don't have to buy your kindle-books from amazon.
      - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
        And you don't have to buy your iBooks books from Apple. In fact, I rarely (maybe never) have, but I prefer it's reading experience to the Kindle apps (for whatever reason). I just use Calibre to convert.
        mikecane 14y ago
        >>>And you don't have to buy your iBooks books from Apple. Um, wut? OK, you probably meant ebooks, but iBooks -- created by iBooks Author -- can be bought only from Apple.
        SoftwareMaven 14y ago
        Good point. I meant "books you read in iBooks".
  - antidoh 14y ago
    Interesting thing is, traditional book publishers could do the same. Maybe they have, and we wouldn't be aware of it. My impression is that they mostly haven't and mostly wouldn't. I think Apple, Amazon et al. are particularly extractive, and they come at anything firstly from the point of view of how they can control and channel the experience, the level of focus being unique to them.
    - tjoff 14y ago
      Relevant: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/06/barnes-and-noble-e-reader-war-and-peace.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/06/barnes-a... ...Barnes and Noble’s budget electronic edition of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” had searched for and replaced all incidences of the word “kindled” (a variant of the name of Amazon’s e-reader, of course, but also a legitimate English word) with the word “Nookd.”...
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - mikecane 14y ago
        That wasn't by B&N. It was by a cheapass public domain parasite who did a search to replace "Kindle" (probably as in "Kindle Edition") and wound up FUBARing the book before submitting it to B&N.
inerte 14y ago
This is the place where the line is drawn, but not when. Check https://www.google.com.br/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=apple+cartoon+censorship https://www.google.com.br/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=4&sou... Apple can, and will, decide what expression will be published. It's not a platform, it's more like a newspaper classified section, with bias.
- rrbrambley 14y ago
  The difference to me is that they're calling this a "bookstore," and the thing that they're selling is supposed to be a new way of consuming the thing that we traditionally know as "books." That's what I used to believe their business was. Now, it's clear that an iBook is not a book. It is a digital material sold to people who like to consume content via their pretty and pricy devices. I agree that Apple makes it fun to consume content their way. And I'm sure that for the most part, people can still mostly absorb all the same knowledge that they would from a traditional paper book. But, this content has to be approved and modified to be consumed and therefor, it is not a book. So the reason I am not comfortable with all this is for the reason I stated above. I was essentially tricked into believing they were selling books. Now that probably sounds extreme. But, the truth is that I am an educated "tech person" who looks at this stuff every day, and I did not think about this problem until now. The people they are trying to sell to are those in education, who are going to be raising and educating young people by reading these iBooks. When I was a kid, we were taught that books were magical and that the more we read, the more open our minds would become. In elementary school, we made us sing songs about books to make reading seem more fun and appealing. If schools are adopting this form of content, then they are telling young people that the best way to learn things is via a model that is filtered (simply to increase Apple's profits).
  - chc 14y ago
    How is this different from a legacy bookstore? Apple is way more permissive than they are. You can't just walk into a legacy bookstore with a manuscript and say, "Here, sell this." Major distribution has always meant going through filters. The publishing houses reject most of the stuff that comes through their doors, and bookstores only buy a fraction of the stuff that the publishing houses put out. If you are scandalized that Apple rejects one book out of millions, I can only suppose it's because you aren't familiar with legacy publishing. Traditionally, only a tiny fraction of books ever had a chance to be seen by readers. (I say this not to defend Apple, per se, but to illustrate how good writers have really got it now if this is considered a subject of outrage. Just ten years ago, getting rejected was the expected outcome of trying to get a book published!)
georgemcbay 14y ago
"This is where the line is drawn." Really? I mean, yes this is clearly terrible, but if you're surprised by Apple doing this then you haven't been paying much attention the past few years. I don't begrudge people who choose to use Apple products, they certainly have their charms, but I do get slightly annoyed when they are suddenly offended when Apple does something like this because post-App Store Apple pulls crap like this all the time.
- rrbrambley 14y ago
  Please see my response to inerte's comment, if you have not already. It's not that I'm surprised that Apple would do this. I am just shocked that the definition of "book" could change in front of everyone's eyes and the common person will ignore it because they enjoy Apple's "magical" devices.
  - antidoh 14y ago
    Licensed media as "books" and "recordings" have been a wet dream for years. This is the happy ending.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    Shocked? Really? We've been seeing the Reality Distortion Field in effect for years now.
- domador 14y ago
  Not everyone has been following Apple as closely, nor does everyone open up their eyes at the same time. Better late than never, though. (And the more people that do this, the merrier. Maybe this way things will improve some day...) It's sad to see the awful attitudes a company can get away with when it makes such sleek and wonderful products.
- rimantas 14y ago
  > pulls crap like this all the time. Please tell. There are hundreds of thousands apps in App Store, but of course only those who got rejected matter, right?
ralfn 14y ago
Where in the world do you get the idea, that Apples Walled garden has anything to do with quality? Its about one thing: extorting content producers, by limiting access to consumers. And they will eventually get into legal trouble. Its textbook anti-competitive, and if they ever get big enough to be a "monopoly" every aspect of their policy would need to change.

prodigal_erik 14y ago

That line was crossed when you dealt with a vendor who could actively interfere with your dealings with other vendors, even before they chose to.

lukifer 14y ago
Not that this defends Apple, but strictly speaking, couldn't Amazon choose to do the reverse?
- prodigal_erik 14y ago
  For Kindle users that's true, which is the one and only reason I didn't buy.
  - tjoff 14y ago
    You don't have to buy your kindle-books from amazon.
    - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
      And you don't have to buy your iBooks books from Apple. In fact, I rarely (maybe never) have, but I prefer it's reading experience to the Kindle apps (for whatever reason). I just use Calibre to convert.
      - mikecane 14y ago
        >>>And you don't have to buy your iBooks books from Apple. Um, wut? OK, you probably meant ebooks, but iBooks -- created by iBooks Author -- can be bought only from Apple.
        SoftwareMaven 14y ago
        Good point. I meant "books you read in iBooks".
- antidoh 14y ago
  Interesting thing is, traditional book publishers could do the same. Maybe they have, and we wouldn't be aware of it. My impression is that they mostly haven't and mostly wouldn't. I think Apple, Amazon et al. are particularly extractive, and they come at anything firstly from the point of view of how they can control and channel the experience, the level of focus being unique to them.
  - tjoff 14y ago
    Relevant: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/06/barnes-and-noble-e-reader-war-and-peace.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/06/barnes-a... ...Barnes and Noble’s budget electronic edition of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” had searched for and replaced all incidences of the word “kindled” (a variant of the name of Amazon’s e-reader, of course, but also a legitimate English word) with the word “Nookd.”...
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - mikecane 14y ago
      That wasn't by B&N. It was by a cheapass public domain parasite who did a search to replace "Kindle" (probably as in "Kindle Edition") and wound up FUBARing the book before submitting it to B&N.

inerte 14y ago

This is the place where the line is drawn, but not when. Check https://www.google.com.br/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=apple+cartoon+censorship https://www.google.com.br/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=4&sou... Apple can, and will, decide what expression will be published. It's not a platform, it's more like a newspaper classified section, with bias.

rrbrambley 14y ago
The difference to me is that they're calling this a "bookstore," and the thing that they're selling is supposed to be a new way of consuming the thing that we traditionally know as "books." That's what I used to believe their business was. Now, it's clear that an iBook is not a book. It is a digital material sold to people who like to consume content via their pretty and pricy devices. I agree that Apple makes it fun to consume content their way. And I'm sure that for the most part, people can still mostly absorb all the same knowledge that they would from a traditional paper book. But, this content has to be approved and modified to be consumed and therefor, it is not a book. So the reason I am not comfortable with all this is for the reason I stated above. I was essentially tricked into believing they were selling books. Now that probably sounds extreme. But, the truth is that I am an educated "tech person" who looks at this stuff every day, and I did not think about this problem until now. The people they are trying to sell to are those in education, who are going to be raising and educating young people by reading these iBooks. When I was a kid, we were taught that books were magical and that the more we read, the more open our minds would become. In elementary school, we made us sing songs about books to make reading seem more fun and appealing. If schools are adopting this form of content, then they are telling young people that the best way to learn things is via a model that is filtered (simply to increase Apple's profits).
- chc 14y ago
  How is this different from a legacy bookstore? Apple is way more permissive than they are. You can't just walk into a legacy bookstore with a manuscript and say, "Here, sell this." Major distribution has always meant going through filters. The publishing houses reject most of the stuff that comes through their doors, and bookstores only buy a fraction of the stuff that the publishing houses put out. If you are scandalized that Apple rejects one book out of millions, I can only suppose it's because you aren't familiar with legacy publishing. Traditionally, only a tiny fraction of books ever had a chance to be seen by readers. (I say this not to defend Apple, per se, but to illustrate how good writers have really got it now if this is considered a subject of outrage. Just ten years ago, getting rejected was the expected outcome of trying to get a book published!)

georgemcbay 14y ago

"This is where the line is drawn." Really? I mean, yes this is clearly terrible, but if you're surprised by Apple doing this then you haven't been paying much attention the past few years. I don't begrudge people who choose to use Apple products, they certainly have their charms, but I do get slightly annoyed when they are suddenly offended when Apple does something like this because post-App Store Apple pulls crap like this all the time.

rrbrambley 14y ago
Please see my response to inerte's comment, if you have not already. It's not that I'm surprised that Apple would do this. I am just shocked that the definition of "book" could change in front of everyone's eyes and the common person will ignore it because they enjoy Apple's "magical" devices.
- antidoh 14y ago
  Licensed media as "books" and "recordings" have been a wet dream for years. This is the happy ending.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  Shocked? Really? We've been seeing the Reality Distortion Field in effect for years now.
domador 14y ago
Not everyone has been following Apple as closely, nor does everyone open up their eyes at the same time. Better late than never, though. (And the more people that do this, the merrier. Maybe this way things will improve some day...) It's sad to see the awful attitudes a company can get away with when it makes such sleek and wonderful products.
rimantas 14y ago
> pulls crap like this all the time. Please tell. There are hundreds of thousands apps in App Store, but of course only those who got rejected matter, right?

ralfn 14y ago

Where in the world do you get the idea, that Apples Walled garden has anything to do with quality? Its about one thing: extorting content producers, by limiting access to consumers. And they will eventually get into legal trouble. Its textbook anti-competitive, and if they ever get big enough to be a "monopoly" every aspect of their policy would need to change.