As long as you continue to discuss books as products (WalMart and Target references), as well as works of art, and blend the definition of censorship?trying to say I'm equating a state-run banning with Apple's disapproval of an inoffensive link, which caused Apple to request the link to be removed (censorship of a different sort)?then there isn't much of a shared concept to discuss from.
YOU did that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilgrim850
When China pressures writers, it's called what it is.
A book, insofar as they cost money, are products. Period. You can't not treat them as such. Anyone can write anything they wish. Anyone can publish stuff themselves. Anyone can distribute their thoughts themselves. Anyone can attempt to ease said distribution by going to a publishing company for printings and bookstores for sales or by creating their own.
[QUOTE=AppleInsider;2059331]Entrepreneur and prolific author Seth Godin has accused Apple of blocking sales of ebooks containing links to Amazon's online store after recently finding that his own short manifesto had been ....
This entire episode may simply be a trial balloon by Amazon through Seth Godin (Entrepreneur and prolific author) to determine whether Apple will allow Amazon's kickback scheme into the iBookstore.
And that's the risk a company takes a free market.
You can't tell a company what products to sell and still expect people to see as impartial and accepting a free market system.
You do agree the reason that something is rejected matters. You can choose not to hire a female employee, for example, but if the reason is biased, then there is a problem. The "why" matters.
Apple's reason for rejecting Seth Godin's book was its own personal problem. Apple prevented its customers from reading the book with a "why" which was flimsy, paranoid, and self-aggrandizing.
Generalizing our discussion, so that I'm supposedly telling Apple what to sell, is kinda weak, don't you think? I've been very clear as to why this is a bigger issue than not selling a particular product.
If you don't like the word censorship, then maybe discriminatory is better? A link to Amazon is worth all of this grief? Apple looks small, no matter how you MBA your way out of the ethical aspects.
Apple is not going out of business anytime soon, because a book on a bookstore--that it chose to create--links to a Fortune 100 company that happens to sell some competing products. Seriously.
You do agree the reason that something is rejected matters. You can choose not to hire a female employee, for example, but if the reason is biased, then there is a problem. The "why" matters.
Apple's reason for rejecting Seth Godin's book was its own personal problem. Apple prevented its customers from reading the book with a "why" which was flimsy, paranoid, and self-aggrandizing.
Generalizing our discussion, so that I'm supposedly telling Apple what to sell, is kinda weak, don't you think? I've been very clear as to why this is a bigger issue than not selling a particular product.
If you don't like the word censorship, then maybe discriminatory is better? A link to Amazon is worth all of this grief? Apple looks small, no matter how you MBA your way out of the ethical aspects.
Apple is not going out of business anytime soon, because a book on a bookstore--that it chose to create--links to a Fortune 100 company that happens to sell some competing products. Seriously.
Those of you who are so quick to side with Apple on this one give me the chills.
It's not that we're quick to side with Apple, I'd side with ANY store. It's Apple's store, they choose to sell whatever they want and not sell what they don't want. Apple is not the first and will not be the last company to make these choices. It's done all the time. If you as a consumer don't like it, don't shop at Apple's store. It's really that simple. If the author doesn't like it, he doesn't have to sell his books in Apple's Stores.
Sorry, but in a free market both the consumer and shop owner have rights.
Quote:
Is iBookstore a bookstore or not? Will it respect the work of an author, or censor a book's contents?
Apple would like us to think of iBookstore as a bookstore, and wants us to rely on it for our book purchases. It wants us to use iPads and iPhones to read these books. As consumers rely on digital bookstores more often, we stop going to brick and mortar bookstores, and they go under. (A large Barnes and Noble in West L.A. just closed, leaving only two other B&N within a 20 mile radius.)
So what? Start offering something that just as compelling and convenient then to attract customers in your stores. Why is it up to Apple to make sure brick and mortar stores should remain a viable place to shop? It's not their responsibility.
Quote:
If we bend over backwards to see Apple's "right" to protect its competitive advantage--just some offensive links, after all--we start down a slippery slope. Pretty soon, digital bookstores are all that will be left. As consumers, we protect our own interests by having a zero tolerance attitude toward any company--even our beloved Apple--deciding what is and isn't kosher to be in a book. (And of course this isn't about pornographic, indecent, or hateful speech.) It was information that Apple simply didn't like.
Would you have a problem if a Christian bookstore decided not to sell the Quran? You think the Nike stores sell Reeboks?
Furthermore, it wasn't just information. Information would've been if the author merely referenced that his books were also available at other places, including the Amazon store. He didn't do that though, he provided a direct link to an eCommerce site as if it were an advertisement.
Don't you think Apple would also have an issue if a game had a link to the Android marketplace?
Apple only allows linked ads in content that is given away for free.
Quote:
A book is a powerful example of our free speech system. It just doesn't wash to have non-offensive material rejected, for any reason. And Apple has overreached before in its policies and relaxed them after an outcry, so having an opinion on this could definitely straighten them out.
If Seth Godin--who is a real author--were to have written, "How to use Amazon.com," is Apple saying, as a bookstore it would reject that book? Apple needs to be bigger than that. A company with 95 billion dollars in the bank can afford to respect the free speech that it tries to align itself with. "The crazy ones" in its famous ad campaign would hopefully cringe at Apple's decision.
Actually there are already books about Amazon.com in the iBookstore. Apple has an issue with providing direct links to eCommerce sites in books, and they have a right to.
If you don't like the rules, don't sell your books on the Apple store.
Apple's policy is very clear. If the author chooses to violate it, they shouldn't be whining about Apple dropping their book.
Someone had a good analogy on another site. Would Walmart be happy if you wanted them to sell a book that had a Target gift card taped to the cover? Obviously not - nor should they be.
Exactly.. If you dont like some of these policies, dont sell something like the bar code readers, or have the bar code readers be disabled over GSM so that the iPhone users don't phish around for bargains!
This kind of contradictions are causing this great Apple company to lose moral grounds on its own policies.
I know. It's not just an Apple thing. Soon we'll have publishers and booksellers doing double-duty on the writer, until books are as worked over as today's Hollywood movies. I wish Apple would take the high road here, but 95 billion dollars isn't enough in the bank to put expression over dollars.
I know ... a Seth Godin manifesto is hardly the benchmark of artistic expression ... ha. Cause celebre.
Anyhow, I am looking forward to the new iPad ... (takes target off back.) I'm kinda concerned they are going to sell out in 5 minutes.
As long as you see a book as a product, and I see it as a first-amendment issue, then we will never agree. Safe to say, Apple will continue to view creative expression as merely a widget in which to fill its electronic devices, so your viewpoint will reign with them, and on this site. Good chatting with you.
As long as you equate an ad with "creative expression", we will never agree. I understand your point that they could have just rejected the book, but as others here said, they provided a reason - it had embedded ads. You neglect to discuss that it was rejected over content that financially benefited the author above and beyond what he agrees to in the agreement he makes with Apple, and they gave him some information as to how he could rectify that without removing the books mentioned, just the link to purchased them. Not allowing him to name the books would have been censorship, but this is not.
I know. It's not just an Apple thing. Soon we'll have publishers and booksellers doing double-duty on the writer...
How did writers deal with printed books when they wanted to include coupons for other books at competing bookstores?¡ That right... THEY NEVER DID THAT!
Let's not forget that Apple did not have a problem with him listing book titles, authors, and ISBNs that they don't themselves carry in their store. They had a problem with him linking via his Amazon account to books on Amazon.com. This is not something any book store should tolerate. I can't stand ad hyperlinks on websites I certainly don't want my books to be hyperlinked out the ying yang because someone found a slimy way to to squeeze an extra buck out of me that the expense of usability.
As long as you equate an ad with "creative expression", we will never agree. I understand your point that they could have just rejected the book, but as others here said, they provided a reason - it had embedded ads. You neglect to discuss that it was rejected over content that financially benefited the author above and beyond what he agrees to in the agreement he makes with Apple, and they gave him some information as to how he could rectify that without removing the books mentioned, just the link to purchased them. Not allowing him to name the books would have been censorship, but this is not.
I respect your point of view. You see this as a money grab by the author.
I can be sympathetic to your point. However, you and I both know that Apple has a thing against Android, and Amazon also. It is hardly rational sometimes. So I am more inclined to believe it was the mere basis of the links to Amazon, not that they generated money for Seth Godin, was the problem. A live link is worth rejecting a book over, but the information not linked would be acceptable?
I still find it hard to believe that Seth Godin would "get over" if he were allowed by Apple to include links in his book, which could possibly give him a what, an Amazon affiliates percentage? The heavy hand that Apple played here--treating the book like an app to be approved--is worse, in my opinion, than whatever Apple feels might nefariously happen to allow Seth Godin his links.
You have to try to tell me I'm crazy, otherwise Apple has hurt its standing with a portion of its fan base, given the attention this story has created. I am not the only one seeing the problem. Apple can have its way, but at what cost, is the thing. This links thing is absurd at its base, let's be real.
...but 95 billion dollars isn't enough in the bank to put expression over dollars....
Truly, I don't mean to offend: But this "$95B billion dollars in the bank" argument is fast descending into tiresome BS. It is being trotted out a strawman or solution or panacea for just about anything and everything: let's pay Chinese workers more, let's pay for Foxconn's worker dorms, let's promote free trade, let's promote free speech, let's give it to charity, let's pay dividends, let's bring manufacturing back to the US, blah, blah, blah.....
With the number of solutions that have been suggested for the "$95B" (actually, I think it's $98.6B), it looks like it may have been spent multiple times already!
Please come up with a better argument. And please remember that the money does not belong to Apple or its managers or its non-shareowning stakeholders: Tim Cook and crew are merely stewards of that cash which rightfully belongs to Apple's shareholders.
If the user is reading and buying in iBooks, then iBooks links would probably benefit both readers and authors a lot more anyway!
It does mean having to (slightly) edit two different versions, one with Amazon links and one with iBooks links. I don?t blame the author for not thinking of that until after the fact. Easily fixed, though.
Truly, I don't mean to offend: But this "$95B billion dollars in the bank" argument is fast descending into tiresome BS. It is being trotted out a strawman or solution or panacea for just about anything and everything: let's pay Chinese workers more, let's pay for Foxconn's worker dorms, let's promote free trade, let's promote free speech, let's give it to charity, let's pay dividends, let's bring manufacturing back to the US, blah, blah, blah.....
With the number of solutions that have been suggested for the "$95B" (actually, I think it's $98.6B), it looks like it may have been spent multiple times already!
Please come up with a better argument. And please remember that the money does not belong to Apple or its managers or its non-shareowning stakeholders: Tim Cook and crew are merely stewards of that cash which rightfully belongs to Apple's shareholders.
I have no suggestions for how to spend the money. The dollar amount isn't important. What is important, to me at least, is that Apple stand its ground and be a bookseller without paranoia. Apple isn't the bookseller I would trust with my business, given this ridiculous power play. And when you consider how financially secure that Apple is, it doesn't need to do this stuff to stay ahead.
The one that says you're not allowed to sell third party content in the iStores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilgrim850
Those of you who are so quick to side with Apple on this one give me the chills.
Not our problem that your irrational arguments are making you crazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilgrim850
Is iBookstore a bookstore or not? Will it respect the work of an author, or censor a book's contents?
Of course it's a bookstore. And, like every other bookstore in the free world, it has the right to decide which books it wants to carry. And it chooses not to carry books which drive customers to the competition.
Do you think Walmart would allow a book with a front cover that said "you should buy this book at Barnes and Noble instead of Walmart"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilgrim850
Apple would like us to think of iBookstore as a bookstore, and wants us to rely on it for our book purchases. It wants us to use iPads and iPhones to read these books. As consumers rely on digital bookstores more often, we stop going to brick and mortar bookstores, and they go under. (A large Barnes and Noble in West L.A. just closed, leaving only two other B&N within a 20 mile radius.)
So? Are you suggesting that Apple should stop releasing great products just because someone might not be able to compete in the 21st century?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilgrim850
If we bend over backwards to see Apple's "right" to protect its competitive advantage--just some offensive links, after all--we start down a slippery slope. Pretty soon, digital bookstores are all that will be left. As consumers, we protect our own interests by having a zero tolerance attitude toward any company--even our beloved Apple--deciding what is and isn't kosher to be in a book. (And of course this isn't about pornographic, indecent, or hateful speech.) It was information that Apple simply didn't like.
It's about Apple's terms of service and the common sense notion that a company should not carry products that go out of their way to promote a competitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilgrim850
A book is a powerful example of our free speech system. It just doesn't wash to have non-offensive material rejected, for any reason. And Apple has overreached before in its policies and relaxed them after an outcry, so having an opinion on this could definitely straighten them out.
Just how does Apple have any obligation to support the "free speech" of the author to steer people to a competitor - while violating Apple's rules?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilgrim850
If Seth Godin--who is a real author--were to have written, "How to use Amazon.com," is Apple saying, as a bookstore it would reject that book? Apple needs to be bigger than that. A company with 95 billion dollars in the bank can afford to respect the free speech that it tries to align itself with. "The crazy ones" in its famous ad campaign would hopefully cringe at Apple's decision.
That's called a straw man argument. There's no reason to believe that Apple would reject a book simply because they say they like Amazon (although they would be well within their rights to do so). This one was rejected because it directly linked the customer to Amazon's book store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
It's a bit of a slippery slope though:
What if, instead of a Target gift card taped to the cover, there was a redemption code in the book? What if the book simply recommended Target because the author likes it? What if it was a story which involves shopping at Target at some point?
The same goes for Amazon linking. Maybe a direct link goes too far, but what if it was just a written link? Or just a recommendation because the author likes it?
It is entirely within Apple's rights to choose what books to sell in their store - just like Barnes and Noble and Amazon are free to choose what books to sell. There is no reason to believe that Apple would ban a book just because someone mentions shopping at Target (or Amazon or Android store), though. That's just a silly straw man argument.
In fact, the evidence is quite different. Search for 'android phones' in the Apple book store. There are plenty of selections. Apple does not arbitrarily block products about the competition. They just block the ones that violate their terms of service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
At what point does it become censorship?
Never. Choosing not to carry a product for any reason is not censorship. Censorship means making it impossible for someone to access something from ANY source. In essence, only the government can be guilty of censorship. You're still free to buy the book somewhere else - if anyone else wants to carry it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
There are plenty of movies which have carefully crafted product placements (which help pay for the production of the movie). What's the difference?
It's obvious.
First, the movie theaters do not have TOS which prohibits directing people to other theaters, nor is there a mechanism to do that.
Second, I'm not aware of any movie where the main character walks off the screen, grabs you by the hand and walks you to a competitor's theater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilgrim850
Now we have commercially-motivated censorship, which is what Apple's decision is. The material in question offends no one. It hurts no one. It would meet no prurient standard by any judge in any courtroom. For Apple to make this decision is purely unilateral, based on Apple's perceived fears of competition. It does not benefit the customer, and the precedent that Apple sets here has a chilling effect on the potential for other kinds of subjective censorship in the future.
If you don't see how this could happen, then you might want to a buy a book on history.
Once again, it's not censorship. It's simply a matter of Apple's terms of service not allowing a book which directs the reader to the competitor's book store.
And that benefits the consumer because it was the ability to create a walled garden which encouraged Apple to set up its bookstore in the first place.
BTW, why aren't you out picketing Walmart for their decision not to carry Playboy?
BTW, why aren't you out picketing Walmart for their decision not to carry Playboy?
Because this isn't an issue with vulgar speech. It's an issue with commercial censorship. (And to use the word, it is censorship for Apple's customers. They don't get to read the book because Seth Godin posted a link to a hardcover reference manual, which hurts no real world person.)
The Unofficial Apple Weblog just posted about this. The author points out the many reasons why this decision makes no rational sense. I would post a link to it, but with links being such a disputed issue anymore, didn't think I would risk being censored over it.
Because this isn't an issue with vulgar speech. It's an issue with commercial censorship. (And to use the word, it is censorship for Apple's customers. They don't get to read the book because Seth Godin posted a link to a hardcover reference manual, which hurts no real world person.)
FUCK you're irritating! There is no stopping Apple's customers from reading this book. There is no one preventing Apple's customers from buying the book at any other fucking bookstore. You can even read it on your Kindle app for iPhone/iPad.
FUCK you're irritating! There is no stopping Apple's customers from reading this book. There is no one preventing Apple's customers from buying the book at any other fucking bookstore. You can even read it on your Kindle app for iPhone/iPad.
If you're trying to be an Apple customer, and use iBooks as you do iTunes, then no, you can't access the book. Apple is not providing it to you, for a business-conflict reason that has nothing to do with you. I call that censorship. You can call it whatever you want.
The TUAW article points out that the book Godin linked to isn't even available from Apple, so for Apple to dumbly hide behind a TOS mandate, and deny its customers content, is what is irritating.
Apple's lawyers gonna earn their keep with suing everyone and now dealing with antitrust issues.
Your reality check just bounced!
If any company has monopoly power in the ebook market, it's Amazon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution doesn't force retailers to sell anything you want!!!
Exactly. Freedom of the press assumes it's your press (or forum, or bookstore). And it only means the government can't interfere, not that authors can demand to be published or insist on shelf space (physical or virtual).
Go right now and search Amazon for "iPad". The first result is a link to their ad comparing their Kindle Fire to the iPad 2. So where's all the indignation toward Amazon?
Because this isn't an issue with vulgar speech. It's an issue with commercial censorship. (And to use the word, it is censorship for Apple's customers. They don't get to read the book because Seth Godin posted a link to a hardcover reference manual, which hurts no real world person.)
The Unofficial Apple Weblog just posted about this. The author points out the many reasons why this decision makes no rational sense. I would post a link to it, but with links being such a disputed issue anymore, didn't think I would risk being censored over it.
Why did he have post a link in the first place? (in the bibliography, mind you, not the actual book contents). Common practice is to cite references a la the APA format or post the ISBN. Don't be naive; this isn't about freedom of speech, it's about some author trying to make extra money by including glorified ads in his work of "art". I would argue that a bibliography is little different than a book's cover or back, and you can bet any retail store won't allow product packaging to feature ads for a competing store.
To make an analogy, do you think Barnes & Noble would be ok with a this guy selling a book at their stores, with a QR code that once scanned took you right to Amazon's product page to buy it? Don't say it's not the same because Apple doesn't sell the linked book on question. What of they did down the road? Would the book be changed?
Also, you seem to believe that it's ok for a publisher to edit or "censor" a book, while it's wrong for a book seller to do the same, simply because the publisher provides a service. That's a load of crap. In your world, isn't censorship, censorship? Don't forget that Apple does provide a service by providing "shelf space" and providing a large customer base with an easy-to-use purchasing environment.
"Censorship" as you call it happens all the time, and the world goes on. We just don't call it censorship, because it doesn't have the same meaning as true censorship, as in the book is illegal and banned, or changed by the State to support a world view. Don't forget, if it's the sanctity of the art you're worried about, and uncompromising author can always self publish and sell their work through *their* website instead of riding on Apple's back to make a buck. Or they could freely distribute it online with no DRM.
You're abusing the word censorship and missing the whole point of what it really means. If this is censorship, then you need a different word to describe what happened in Germany, the Soviet Union, and what happens in China.
I know what you mean. Apple recently pissed me off big time. I'd been working hard on this iOS game called Ninja Pussies from Hell HD for over 5 months, and can you believe that they had the nerve to reject my app? They cited some silly rule about offensive sexual content. My pussies didn't even look like real pussies, these were 8 bit pussies and I don't see why Apple didn't allow my app.
I also had a few direct links to the STEAM store in my app, but I'm not sure if that too had anything to do with it getting rejected.
Where the hell is my freedom of speech? I'm so damned mad that I'm about to go outside and occupy something, or at the very least, maybe I'll piss on a cop car.
Dude, Freedom of Speech applies to the government, not a private enterprise. Use a different word than pussies in the App title and it might be approved....
Comments
As long as you continue to discuss books as products (WalMart and Target references), as well as works of art, and blend the definition of censorship?trying to say I'm equating a state-run banning with Apple's disapproval of an inoffensive link, which caused Apple to request the link to be removed (censorship of a different sort)?then there isn't much of a shared concept to discuss from.
YOU did that.
When China pressures writers, it's called what it is.
A book, insofar as they cost money, are products. Period. You can't not treat them as such. Anyone can write anything they wish. Anyone can publish stuff themselves. Anyone can distribute their thoughts themselves. Anyone can attempt to ease said distribution by going to a publishing company for printings and bookstores for sales or by creating their own.
This entire episode may simply be a trial balloon by Amazon through Seth Godin (Entrepreneur and prolific author) to determine whether Apple will allow Amazon's kickback scheme into the iBookstore.
And that's the risk a company takes a free market.
You can't tell a company what products to sell and still expect people to see as impartial and accepting a free market system.
You do agree the reason that something is rejected matters. You can choose not to hire a female employee, for example, but if the reason is biased, then there is a problem. The "why" matters.
Apple's reason for rejecting Seth Godin's book was its own personal problem. Apple prevented its customers from reading the book with a "why" which was flimsy, paranoid, and self-aggrandizing.
Generalizing our discussion, so that I'm supposedly telling Apple what to sell, is kinda weak, don't you think? I've been very clear as to why this is a bigger issue than not selling a particular product.
If you don't like the word censorship, then maybe discriminatory is better? A link to Amazon is worth all of this grief? Apple looks small, no matter how you MBA your way out of the ethical aspects.
Apple is not going out of business anytime soon, because a book on a bookstore--that it chose to create--links to a Fortune 100 company that happens to sell some competing products. Seriously.
You do agree the reason that something is rejected matters. You can choose not to hire a female employee, for example, but if the reason is biased, then there is a problem. The "why" matters.
Apple's reason for rejecting Seth Godin's book was its own personal problem. Apple prevented its customers from reading the book with a "why" which was flimsy, paranoid, and self-aggrandizing.
Generalizing our discussion, so that I'm supposedly telling Apple what to sell, is kinda weak, don't you think? I've been very clear as to why this is a bigger issue than not selling a particular product.
If you don't like the word censorship, then maybe discriminatory is better? A link to Amazon is worth all of this grief? Apple looks small, no matter how you MBA your way out of the ethical aspects.
Apple is not going out of business anytime soon, because a book on a bookstore--that it chose to create--links to a Fortune 100 company that happens to sell some competing products. Seriously.
Looks like you'll running out of bookstores: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/te...amazon.html?hp
Those of you who are so quick to side with Apple on this one give me the chills.
It's not that we're quick to side with Apple, I'd side with ANY store. It's Apple's store, they choose to sell whatever they want and not sell what they don't want. Apple is not the first and will not be the last company to make these choices. It's done all the time. If you as a consumer don't like it, don't shop at Apple's store. It's really that simple. If the author doesn't like it, he doesn't have to sell his books in Apple's Stores.
Sorry, but in a free market both the consumer and shop owner have rights.
Is iBookstore a bookstore or not? Will it respect the work of an author, or censor a book's contents?
Apple would like us to think of iBookstore as a bookstore, and wants us to rely on it for our book purchases. It wants us to use iPads and iPhones to read these books. As consumers rely on digital bookstores more often, we stop going to brick and mortar bookstores, and they go under. (A large Barnes and Noble in West L.A. just closed, leaving only two other B&N within a 20 mile radius.)
So what? Start offering something that just as compelling and convenient then to attract customers in your stores. Why is it up to Apple to make sure brick and mortar stores should remain a viable place to shop? It's not their responsibility.
If we bend over backwards to see Apple's "right" to protect its competitive advantage--just some offensive links, after all--we start down a slippery slope. Pretty soon, digital bookstores are all that will be left. As consumers, we protect our own interests by having a zero tolerance attitude toward any company--even our beloved Apple--deciding what is and isn't kosher to be in a book. (And of course this isn't about pornographic, indecent, or hateful speech.) It was information that Apple simply didn't like.
Would you have a problem if a Christian bookstore decided not to sell the Quran? You think the Nike stores sell Reeboks?
Furthermore, it wasn't just information. Information would've been if the author merely referenced that his books were also available at other places, including the Amazon store. He didn't do that though, he provided a direct link to an eCommerce site as if it were an advertisement.
Don't you think Apple would also have an issue if a game had a link to the Android marketplace?
Apple only allows linked ads in content that is given away for free.
A book is a powerful example of our free speech system. It just doesn't wash to have non-offensive material rejected, for any reason. And Apple has overreached before in its policies and relaxed them after an outcry, so having an opinion on this could definitely straighten them out.
If Seth Godin--who is a real author--were to have written, "How to use Amazon.com," is Apple saying, as a bookstore it would reject that book? Apple needs to be bigger than that. A company with 95 billion dollars in the bank can afford to respect the free speech that it tries to align itself with. "The crazy ones" in its famous ad campaign would hopefully cringe at Apple's decision.
Actually there are already books about Amazon.com in the iBookstore. Apple has an issue with providing direct links to eCommerce sites in books, and they have a right to.
If you don't like the rules, don't sell your books on the Apple store.
Apple's policy is very clear. If the author chooses to violate it, they shouldn't be whining about Apple dropping their book.
Someone had a good analogy on another site. Would Walmart be happy if you wanted them to sell a book that had a Target gift card taped to the cover? Obviously not - nor should they be.
Exactly.. If you dont like some of these policies, dont sell something like the bar code readers, or have the bar code readers be disabled over GSM so that the iPhone users don't phish around for bargains!
This kind of contradictions are causing this great Apple company to lose moral grounds on its own policies.
Looks like you'll running out of bookstores: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/te...amazon.html?hp
I know. It's not just an Apple thing. Soon we'll have publishers and booksellers doing double-duty on the writer, until books are as worked over as today's Hollywood movies. I wish Apple would take the high road here, but 95 billion dollars isn't enough in the bank to put expression over dollars.
I know ... a Seth Godin manifesto is hardly the benchmark of artistic expression ... ha. Cause celebre.
Anyhow, I am looking forward to the new iPad ... (takes target off back.) I'm kinda concerned they are going to sell out in 5 minutes.
As long as you see a book as a product, and I see it as a first-amendment issue, then we will never agree. Safe to say, Apple will continue to view creative expression as merely a widget in which to fill its electronic devices, so your viewpoint will reign with them, and on this site. Good chatting with you.
As long as you equate an ad with "creative expression", we will never agree. I understand your point that they could have just rejected the book, but as others here said, they provided a reason - it had embedded ads. You neglect to discuss that it was rejected over content that financially benefited the author above and beyond what he agrees to in the agreement he makes with Apple, and they gave him some information as to how he could rectify that without removing the books mentioned, just the link to purchased them. Not allowing him to name the books would have been censorship, but this is not.
I know. It's not just an Apple thing. Soon we'll have publishers and booksellers doing double-duty on the writer...
How did writers deal with printed books when they wanted to include coupons for other books at competing bookstores?¡ That right... THEY NEVER DID THAT!
Let's not forget that Apple did not have a problem with him listing book titles, authors, and ISBNs that they don't themselves carry in their store. They had a problem with him linking via his Amazon account to books on Amazon.com. This is not something any book store should tolerate. I can't stand ad hyperlinks on websites I certainly don't want my books to be hyperlinked out the ying yang because someone found a slimy way to to squeeze an extra buck out of me that the expense of usability.
As long as you equate an ad with "creative expression", we will never agree. I understand your point that they could have just rejected the book, but as others here said, they provided a reason - it had embedded ads. You neglect to discuss that it was rejected over content that financially benefited the author above and beyond what he agrees to in the agreement he makes with Apple, and they gave him some information as to how he could rectify that without removing the books mentioned, just the link to purchased them. Not allowing him to name the books would have been censorship, but this is not.
I respect your point of view. You see this as a money grab by the author.
I can be sympathetic to your point. However, you and I both know that Apple has a thing against Android, and Amazon also. It is hardly rational sometimes. So I am more inclined to believe it was the mere basis of the links to Amazon, not that they generated money for Seth Godin, was the problem. A live link is worth rejecting a book over, but the information not linked would be acceptable?
I still find it hard to believe that Seth Godin would "get over" if he were allowed by Apple to include links in his book, which could possibly give him a what, an Amazon affiliates percentage? The heavy hand that Apple played here--treating the book like an app to be approved--is worse, in my opinion, than whatever Apple feels might nefariously happen to allow Seth Godin his links.
You have to try to tell me I'm crazy, otherwise Apple has hurt its standing with a portion of its fan base, given the attention this story has created. I am not the only one seeing the problem. Apple can have its way, but at what cost, is the thing. This links thing is absurd at its base, let's be real.
...but 95 billion dollars isn't enough in the bank to put expression over dollars....
Truly, I don't mean to offend: But this "$95B billion dollars in the bank" argument is fast descending into tiresome BS. It is being trotted out a strawman or solution or panacea for just about anything and everything: let's pay Chinese workers more, let's pay for Foxconn's worker dorms, let's promote free trade, let's promote free speech, let's give it to charity, let's pay dividends, let's bring manufacturing back to the US, blah, blah, blah.....
With the number of solutions that have been suggested for the "$95B" (actually, I think it's $98.6B), it looks like it may have been spent multiple times already!
Please come up with a better argument. And please remember that the money does not belong to Apple or its managers or its non-shareowning stakeholders: Tim Cook and crew are merely stewards of that cash which rightfully belongs to Apple's shareholders.
It does mean having to (slightly) edit two different versions, one with Amazon links and one with iBooks links. I don?t blame the author for not thinking of that until after the fact. Easily fixed, though.
Truly, I don't mean to offend: But this "$95B billion dollars in the bank" argument is fast descending into tiresome BS. It is being trotted out a strawman or solution or panacea for just about anything and everything: let's pay Chinese workers more, let's pay for Foxconn's worker dorms, let's promote free trade, let's promote free speech, let's give it to charity, let's pay dividends, let's bring manufacturing back to the US, blah, blah, blah.....
With the number of solutions that have been suggested for the "$95B" (actually, I think it's $98.6B), it looks like it may have been spent multiple times already!
Please come up with a better argument. And please remember that the money does not belong to Apple or its managers or its non-shareowning stakeholders: Tim Cook and crew are merely stewards of that cash which rightfully belongs to Apple's shareholders.
I have no suggestions for how to spend the money. The dollar amount isn't important. What is important, to me at least, is that Apple stand its ground and be a bookseller without paranoia. Apple isn't the bookseller I would trust with my business, given this ridiculous power play. And when you consider how financially secure that Apple is, it doesn't need to do this stuff to stay ahead.
Which rule was it he broke?
The one that says you're not allowed to sell third party content in the iStores.
Those of you who are so quick to side with Apple on this one give me the chills.
Not our problem that your irrational arguments are making you crazy.
Is iBookstore a bookstore or not? Will it respect the work of an author, or censor a book's contents?
Of course it's a bookstore. And, like every other bookstore in the free world, it has the right to decide which books it wants to carry. And it chooses not to carry books which drive customers to the competition.
Do you think Walmart would allow a book with a front cover that said "you should buy this book at Barnes and Noble instead of Walmart"?
Apple would like us to think of iBookstore as a bookstore, and wants us to rely on it for our book purchases. It wants us to use iPads and iPhones to read these books. As consumers rely on digital bookstores more often, we stop going to brick and mortar bookstores, and they go under. (A large Barnes and Noble in West L.A. just closed, leaving only two other B&N within a 20 mile radius.)
So? Are you suggesting that Apple should stop releasing great products just because someone might not be able to compete in the 21st century?
If we bend over backwards to see Apple's "right" to protect its competitive advantage--just some offensive links, after all--we start down a slippery slope. Pretty soon, digital bookstores are all that will be left. As consumers, we protect our own interests by having a zero tolerance attitude toward any company--even our beloved Apple--deciding what is and isn't kosher to be in a book. (And of course this isn't about pornographic, indecent, or hateful speech.) It was information that Apple simply didn't like.
It's about Apple's terms of service and the common sense notion that a company should not carry products that go out of their way to promote a competitor.
A book is a powerful example of our free speech system. It just doesn't wash to have non-offensive material rejected, for any reason. And Apple has overreached before in its policies and relaxed them after an outcry, so having an opinion on this could definitely straighten them out.
Just how does Apple have any obligation to support the "free speech" of the author to steer people to a competitor - while violating Apple's rules?
If Seth Godin--who is a real author--were to have written, "How to use Amazon.com," is Apple saying, as a bookstore it would reject that book? Apple needs to be bigger than that. A company with 95 billion dollars in the bank can afford to respect the free speech that it tries to align itself with. "The crazy ones" in its famous ad campaign would hopefully cringe at Apple's decision.
That's called a straw man argument. There's no reason to believe that Apple would reject a book simply because they say they like Amazon (although they would be well within their rights to do so). This one was rejected because it directly linked the customer to Amazon's book store.
It's a bit of a slippery slope though:
What if, instead of a Target gift card taped to the cover, there was a redemption code in the book? What if the book simply recommended Target because the author likes it? What if it was a story which involves shopping at Target at some point?
The same goes for Amazon linking. Maybe a direct link goes too far, but what if it was just a written link? Or just a recommendation because the author likes it?
It is entirely within Apple's rights to choose what books to sell in their store - just like Barnes and Noble and Amazon are free to choose what books to sell. There is no reason to believe that Apple would ban a book just because someone mentions shopping at Target (or Amazon or Android store), though. That's just a silly straw man argument.
In fact, the evidence is quite different. Search for 'android phones' in the Apple book store. There are plenty of selections. Apple does not arbitrarily block products about the competition. They just block the ones that violate their terms of service.
At what point does it become censorship?
Never. Choosing not to carry a product for any reason is not censorship. Censorship means making it impossible for someone to access something from ANY source. In essence, only the government can be guilty of censorship. You're still free to buy the book somewhere else - if anyone else wants to carry it.
There are plenty of movies which have carefully crafted product placements (which help pay for the production of the movie). What's the difference?
It's obvious.
First, the movie theaters do not have TOS which prohibits directing people to other theaters, nor is there a mechanism to do that.
Second, I'm not aware of any movie where the main character walks off the screen, grabs you by the hand and walks you to a competitor's theater.
Now we have commercially-motivated censorship, which is what Apple's decision is. The material in question offends no one. It hurts no one. It would meet no prurient standard by any judge in any courtroom. For Apple to make this decision is purely unilateral, based on Apple's perceived fears of competition. It does not benefit the customer, and the precedent that Apple sets here has a chilling effect on the potential for other kinds of subjective censorship in the future.
If you don't see how this could happen, then you might want to a buy a book on history.
Once again, it's not censorship. It's simply a matter of Apple's terms of service not allowing a book which directs the reader to the competitor's book store.
And that benefits the consumer because it was the ability to create a walled garden which encouraged Apple to set up its bookstore in the first place.
BTW, why aren't you out picketing Walmart for their decision not to carry Playboy?
Looks like you'll running out of bookstores: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/te...amazon.html?hp
ROTFLMAO.
BTW, why aren't you out picketing Walmart for their decision not to carry Playboy?
Because this isn't an issue with vulgar speech. It's an issue with commercial censorship. (And to use the word, it is censorship for Apple's customers. They don't get to read the book because Seth Godin posted a link to a hardcover reference manual, which hurts no real world person.)
The Unofficial Apple Weblog just posted about this. The author points out the many reasons why this decision makes no rational sense. I would post a link to it, but with links being such a disputed issue anymore, didn't think I would risk being censored over it.
Because this isn't an issue with vulgar speech. It's an issue with commercial censorship. (And to use the word, it is censorship for Apple's customers. They don't get to read the book because Seth Godin posted a link to a hardcover reference manual, which hurts no real world person.)
FUCK you're irritating! There is no stopping Apple's customers from reading this book. There is no one preventing Apple's customers from buying the book at any other fucking bookstore. You can even read it on your Kindle app for iPhone/iPad.
FUCK you're irritating! There is no stopping Apple's customers from reading this book. There is no one preventing Apple's customers from buying the book at any other fucking bookstore. You can even read it on your Kindle app for iPhone/iPad.
If you're trying to be an Apple customer, and use iBooks as you do iTunes, then no, you can't access the book. Apple is not providing it to you, for a business-conflict reason that has nothing to do with you. I call that censorship. You can call it whatever you want.
The TUAW article points out that the book Godin linked to isn't even available from Apple, so for Apple to dumbly hide behind a TOS mandate, and deny its customers content, is what is irritating.
Apple's lawyers gonna earn their keep with suing everyone and now dealing with antitrust issues.
If any company has monopoly power in the ebook market, it's Amazon.
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution doesn't force retailers to sell anything you want!!!
Exactly. Freedom of the press assumes it's your press (or forum, or bookstore). And it only means the government can't interfere, not that authors can demand to be published or insist on shelf space (physical or virtual).
Go right now and search Amazon for "iPad". The first result is a link to their ad comparing their Kindle Fire to the iPad 2. So where's all the indignation toward Amazon?
Because this isn't an issue with vulgar speech. It's an issue with commercial censorship. (And to use the word, it is censorship for Apple's customers. They don't get to read the book because Seth Godin posted a link to a hardcover reference manual, which hurts no real world person.)
The Unofficial Apple Weblog just posted about this. The author points out the many reasons why this decision makes no rational sense. I would post a link to it, but with links being such a disputed issue anymore, didn't think I would risk being censored over it.
Why did he have post a link in the first place? (in the bibliography, mind you, not the actual book contents). Common practice is to cite references a la the APA format or post the ISBN. Don't be naive; this isn't about freedom of speech, it's about some author trying to make extra money by including glorified ads in his work of "art". I would argue that a bibliography is little different than a book's cover or back, and you can bet any retail store won't allow product packaging to feature ads for a competing store.
To make an analogy, do you think Barnes & Noble would be ok with a this guy selling a book at their stores, with a QR code that once scanned took you right to Amazon's product page to buy it? Don't say it's not the same because Apple doesn't sell the linked book on question. What of they did down the road? Would the book be changed?
Also, you seem to believe that it's ok for a publisher to edit or "censor" a book, while it's wrong for a book seller to do the same, simply because the publisher provides a service. That's a load of crap. In your world, isn't censorship, censorship? Don't forget that Apple does provide a service by providing "shelf space" and providing a large customer base with an easy-to-use purchasing environment.
"Censorship" as you call it happens all the time, and the world goes on. We just don't call it censorship, because it doesn't have the same meaning as true censorship, as in the book is illegal and banned, or changed by the State to support a world view. Don't forget, if it's the sanctity of the art you're worried about, and uncompromising author can always self publish and sell their work through *their* website instead of riding on Apple's back to make a buck. Or they could freely distribute it online with no DRM.
You're abusing the word censorship and missing the whole point of what it really means. If this is censorship, then you need a different word to describe what happened in Germany, the Soviet Union, and what happens in China.
I know what you mean. Apple recently pissed me off big time. I'd been working hard on this iOS game called Ninja Pussies from Hell HD for over 5 months, and can you believe that they had the nerve to reject my app? They cited some silly rule about offensive sexual content. My pussies didn't even look like real pussies, these were 8 bit pussies and I don't see why Apple didn't allow my app.
I also had a few direct links to the STEAM store in my app, but I'm not sure if that too had anything to do with it getting rejected.
Where the hell is my freedom of speech? I'm so damned mad that I'm about to go outside and occupy something, or at the very least, maybe I'll piss on a cop car.
Dude, Freedom of Speech applies to the government, not a private enterprise. Use a different word than pussies in the App title and it might be approved....