Apple's mind-bogglingly greedy and evil license agreement(zdnet.com)
zdnet.com
Apple's mind-bogglingly greedy and evil license agreement
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/apples-mind-bogglingly-greedy-and-evil-license-agreement/4360?tag=nl.e539&h=1
18 comments
They are using their dominance in the tablet market to own another market, exclusively on their terms. Similiar to what Microsoft did when bundling IE with Windows. I would not be surprised to see an antitrust case against Apple in the near future.
If you don't like the iBooks Author EULA, don't use it. iBooks Author isn't the only way to publish books on iBooks. You could use any other authoring tool to generate EPUB books and sell them on iBooks. And heck, that's if you want to sell on the iBookstore.
In fact, since ePub is just a superset of html, you can even author everything in a text editor.
I'm still struggling to see what the uproar is all about.
In fact, since ePub is just a superset of html, you can even author everything in a text editor.
I'm still struggling to see what the uproar is all about.
Only you can read Kindle books on the iPad with the Kindle app, also with the Stanza app and tons of others. Also plain ole PDFs with the built-in viewer.
And iBooks is not bundled, you have to download it.
And even if it was, bundling IE was not what got MS in trouble in respect to antitrust laws. It was things like pushing computer makers in under the table deals and such.
Actually lots of programs are built-in to any modern OS, from browsers to ftp to pdf viewer to text editors. Nothing anti-trust about it.
And iBooks is not bundled, you have to download it.
And even if it was, bundling IE was not what got MS in trouble in respect to antitrust laws. It was things like pushing computer makers in under the table deals and such.
Actually lots of programs are built-in to any modern OS, from browsers to ftp to pdf viewer to text editors. Nothing anti-trust about it.
Others can do it because they don't have a monopoly. Windows still must be distributed without its media player in Europe.
And Apple already tried to abuse its position with the Kindle app by forcing a distribution commission for books it didn't sell. Also a guaranteed lowest sales price. They've hardly been kind to competition on their platform.
And Apple already tried to abuse its position with the Kindle app by forcing a distribution commission for books it didn't sell. Also a guaranteed lowest sales price. They've hardly been kind to competition on their platform.
"""And Apple already tried to abuse its position with the Kindle app by forcing a distribution commission for books it didn't sell."""
Well, regarding Apple forcing Amazon to play a distribution commissions for books sold through the iPad, it was either that, or allowing other companies a free ride to sell on Apple's platform, the Apple spend tons of R&D on, without Apple getting anything.
Apple puts those restrictions because it considers not just the hardware of the iPhone, but also the App Store as a platform that it have invested money, engineering and infrastructure in, and wants to profit from it too. Apple doesn't believe in the old mantra "apple only makes profit from the hardware". With multi-billion app/song/book/etc sales, why should they?
Allowing others to sell stuff in your platform without paying you makes sense if your platform is an operating system.
It does not make sense if your platform is an application market.
Now, regarding "being kind to competition on their platform", indeed they have been not. But they would have been foolish to be. They invest in building a game changing phone device, then a game changing app store AND a game changing mobile platform, why would they invite competition in their own platform? Let competition exist between multiple platforms.
Well, regarding Apple forcing Amazon to play a distribution commissions for books sold through the iPad, it was either that, or allowing other companies a free ride to sell on Apple's platform, the Apple spend tons of R&D on, without Apple getting anything.
Apple puts those restrictions because it considers not just the hardware of the iPhone, but also the App Store as a platform that it have invested money, engineering and infrastructure in, and wants to profit from it too. Apple doesn't believe in the old mantra "apple only makes profit from the hardware". With multi-billion app/song/book/etc sales, why should they?
Allowing others to sell stuff in your platform without paying you makes sense if your platform is an operating system.
It does not make sense if your platform is an application market.
Now, regarding "being kind to competition on their platform", indeed they have been not. But they would have been foolish to be. They invest in building a game changing phone device, then a game changing app store AND a game changing mobile platform, why would they invite competition in their own platform? Let competition exist between multiple platforms.
In practice, it doesn't seem that bad. It's no worse than having to rewrite parts of your app to submit it to other mobile stores. You just have to make sure you write the actual book outside their tool, in order to be able to sell your book in case Apple rejects it.
In theory, it's an appalling way of doing it. They could have simply put in the eBooks Store rules that you couldn't sell the book anywhere else if it was accepted by them.
In theory, it's an appalling way of doing it. They could have simply put in the eBooks Store rules that you couldn't sell the book anywhere else if it was accepted by them.
They aren't saying you can't sell your book anywhere else; you just can't, for example, take the Author export file and go sell that on the Kindle store - you'd have to lay it out again.
No, this would be like Apple legally prohibiting you from porting any code you wrote in Xcode to other platforms. It is highly abusive, and sets a dangerous precedent if we allow them to get away with it.
This seems to be a misreading. My read is "If you sell the output of this, you grant us exclusivity. If you breach exclusivity, we have a variety of options in dealing with you, including refusing to carry your work on our platform. In the event we do this we don't owe you anything even if you think it sure would have been a swell thing if we had distributed through our platform and are inclined to sue us over the imputed lost revenue."
Exclusivity is still a very cruddy contractual term for authors, if viewed against the universe of "all possible contractual arrangements", but it is far from uncommon in the publishing world. I mean, everyone is pretty much in the business of exclusive distribution towards channels they control. If you sign with a dead-tree publisher, they're going to want exclusive rights to be your only dead-tree publisher in a geographic, cultural, or linguistic territory, even if you could get someone else to kill trees on your behalf and double your sales that way.
You'd have to weigh access to the Apple megaphone versus the sales you could be making through other platforms/channels. If I were (hypothetically) going to get into ebook publishing, I'd take note that Amazon is much more generous (off the top of my head standard Kindle publishing requires no exclusivity and one of their programs wants just a 90 day exclusivity window for e-publishing). This would allow you to simultaneously sell through e.g. your own site to a pre-existing fanbase and avoid the 30% (or whatever) rake, or do things like "Hiya I'm the author of five novels and counting in this sci-fi universe I created. The first one is $0.99 on Amazon or totally free if you sign up for my email list."
Exclusivity is still a very cruddy contractual term for authors, if viewed against the universe of "all possible contractual arrangements", but it is far from uncommon in the publishing world. I mean, everyone is pretty much in the business of exclusive distribution towards channels they control. If you sign with a dead-tree publisher, they're going to want exclusive rights to be your only dead-tree publisher in a geographic, cultural, or linguistic territory, even if you could get someone else to kill trees on your behalf and double your sales that way.
You'd have to weigh access to the Apple megaphone versus the sales you could be making through other platforms/channels. If I were (hypothetically) going to get into ebook publishing, I'd take note that Amazon is much more generous (off the top of my head standard Kindle publishing requires no exclusivity and one of their programs wants just a 90 day exclusivity window for e-publishing). This would allow you to simultaneously sell through e.g. your own site to a pre-existing fanbase and avoid the 30% (or whatever) rake, or do things like "Hiya I'm the author of five novels and counting in this sci-fi universe I created. The first one is $0.99 on Amazon or totally free if you sign up for my email list."
In the publishing world an author provides exclusivity in exchange to something. Usually the author gets some type of advance and the commitment from the publisher to publish and market the book.
Here you are supposed to give up commercial exclusivity merely for the ability to use a piece of software. And there really isn't anything special or expensive about that software either, there are plenty of free ebook creation software options.
Furthermore, in the usual publishing contract if the publisher that has exclusivity declines to publish something, the author can usually shop the work to other publishers. Not here. Here apparently if Apple says no, you are pretty much screwed, you cannot sell your work anywhere.
And by the way, I do not think that the original article authors are misreading anything. The agreement says:
"Apple may determine for any reason and in its sole discretion not to select your Work for distribution"
This means they can refuse distribution for any reason, and you do not need to do anything wrong to be refused. And of course if they refuse you do not have the right to sell your work anywhere else.
Here you are supposed to give up commercial exclusivity merely for the ability to use a piece of software. And there really isn't anything special or expensive about that software either, there are plenty of free ebook creation software options.
Furthermore, in the usual publishing contract if the publisher that has exclusivity declines to publish something, the author can usually shop the work to other publishers. Not here. Here apparently if Apple says no, you are pretty much screwed, you cannot sell your work anywhere.
And by the way, I do not think that the original article authors are misreading anything. The agreement says:
"Apple may determine for any reason and in its sole discretion not to select your Work for distribution"
This means they can refuse distribution for any reason, and you do not need to do anything wrong to be refused. And of course if they refuse you do not have the right to sell your work anywhere else.
Exactly. It's the inclusion of an exclusivity clause inside a "click-through" EULA that's the, er, "innovative" aspect here. And like others I find this pretty borderline immoral. Contract law is about two parties on equal standing coming to a negotiated agreement, it's not well suited to the "take it or leave it" metaphor of software use.
"Here you are supposed to give up commercial exclusivity merely for the ability to use a piece of software. And there really isn't anything special or expensive about that software either"
If that is true, what is the fuzz about?
If that is true, what is the fuzz about?
"Apple may determine for any reason and in its sole discretion not to select your Work for distribution"
You wouldn't find this in Amazon's EULA? They would publish anything? There's no way Apple would leave that door open.
"And there really isn't anything special or expensive about that software either, there are plenty of free ebook creation software options."
You're selling a different experience here. If you're writing a static book then there is no reason to go this route right now. If you're creating something interactive then this might be something to look into.
You wouldn't find this in Amazon's EULA? They would publish anything? There's no way Apple would leave that door open.
"And there really isn't anything special or expensive about that software either, there are plenty of free ebook creation software options."
You're selling a different experience here. If you're writing a static book then there is no reason to go this route right now. If you're creating something interactive then this might be something to look into.
Here you are supposed to give up commercial exclusivity merely for the ability to use a piece of software. And there really isn't anything special or expensive about that software either, there are plenty of free ebook creation software options.
Then USE THOSE. The only exclusivity you give is of the file output you made with that software.
Not of your literary work itself.
Then USE THOSE. The only exclusivity you give is of the file output you made with that software.
Not of your literary work itself.
Unfortunately, that depends on the definition of 'Work' in this context which is far from clear.
The exclusivity clause is being misinterpreted. They aren't demanding exclusivity for the content of the book, only for the Author-provided layout.
With my reading of this, you are free to sell your book in as many places as you like, as long as you don't use Author to publish for those other platforms. Since Author is being distributed for the express purpose of publishing to iBooks, I can't see why this would be a problem.
With my reading of this, you are free to sell your book in as many places as you like, as long as you don't use Author to publish for those other platforms. Since Author is being distributed for the express purpose of publishing to iBooks, I can't see why this would be a problem.
I agree. The demos all show text being imported from some other text file (likely whatever the writer has already written to distribute elsewhere). Then Author is just used to add an additional level of interactivity for iBook distribution.
A writer could write their whole book in Author, but that's misusing the tool. Author is a great tool for adding additional interactive content to an already written book. It's a lousy tool for writing content you want to also put elsewhere. It seems like most complaints come from the assumption that the writer will be using Author as their primary writing tool. That's not how to get the most out of Author.
A writer could write their whole book in Author, but that's misusing the tool. Author is a great tool for adding additional interactive content to an already written book. It's a lousy tool for writing content you want to also put elsewhere. It seems like most complaints come from the assumption that the writer will be using Author as their primary writing tool. That's not how to get the most out of Author.
People who misuse Author still deserve fair treatment.
Yeah, and they still can get their text out of the program, and format it again in some other program.
Nobody demands or will demand the literary rights of the content of people writing primarily in iBooks Author.
Just that they don't use the output file of that program for selling it elsewhere.
Nobody demands or will demand the literary rights of the content of people writing primarily in iBooks Author.
Just that they don't use the output file of that program for selling it elsewhere.
The license terms are not clear as to whether they lay claim to the output or to anything you create with the app, which would include the content if you use it as your word processor. Certainly a lot of people are giving them a charitable interpretation of it, but if that was their intent, I don't see why they didn't state it explicitly.
I don't know, this sounds very clear-cut to me:
> if your Work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or service), you may only distribute the Work through Apple
What do you base your interpretation on?
> if your Work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or service), you may only distribute the Work through Apple
What do you base your interpretation on?
Remember, it is a contract. It only looks like English language.
I don't have a full copy of the EULA, but in another article they state that "Work" is "any book or other work you generate using this software". They are talking about the output of the program, they are not restricting your original content.
So, if you want to sell a PDF of your book through other channels, you better not make the PDF with this software. Use the "Print to PDF" popup in your regular software or something.
I don't have a full copy of the EULA, but in another article they state that "Work" is "any book or other work you generate using this software". They are talking about the output of the program, they are not restricting your original content.
So, if you want to sell a PDF of your book through other channels, you better not make the PDF with this software. Use the "Print to PDF" popup in your regular software or something.
Oh, of course. The discussion is about the output of this program, though. If you format your book with it, you lose all the formatting if you want to publish on other channels, as the article said.
> Exclusivity is still a very cruddy contractual term for authors, if viewed against the universe of "all possible contractual arrangements", but it is far from uncommon in the publishing world.
It is common in the publishing world to only tell the author about the exclusivity after they've completed their book?
It is common in the publishing world to only tell the author about the exclusivity after they've completed their book?
I can't imagine them defining "Work" so vaguely if they were trying to write a clear contract. More likely Apple wants to wait and let the courts decide how much they can get away with. God knows how that will turn out. I guess either the license will be ruled invalid or some ludicrous precedent will be set.
I can't think of any sensible way to decide whether or not data was "generated by" a piece of software. If you export your book to plain text, is that not "generated by" the app? Why not? It's the app's output. But it's also your own copyrighted work in a more or less rudimentary form.
Imagine you first write your book in Apple's app and save it to an iBook file that falls under Apple's restrictions. Then you retype your entire book in a 3rd party app that can export iBooks perfectly. The 3rd party generated iBook is bit-for-bit identical to Apple's. Now you have "two" files that are subject to different licenses, except of course they are the same file.
That's already absurd. But what if instead of retyping your book, you just import it into the 3rd party app from the Apple generated iBook file. You should be able to do that, right? Surely the legal status of the data can't depend on whether or not you typed it by hand. But again, this is absurd because you are importing and exporting to the same format. It optimizes to a file copy.
And this isn't a reductionist argument. The above is an entirely realistic scenario that will inevitably come up whenever an iBook author wants to sell their book outside of Apple's store.
I can't think of any sensible way to decide whether or not data was "generated by" a piece of software. If you export your book to plain text, is that not "generated by" the app? Why not? It's the app's output. But it's also your own copyrighted work in a more or less rudimentary form.
Imagine you first write your book in Apple's app and save it to an iBook file that falls under Apple's restrictions. Then you retype your entire book in a 3rd party app that can export iBooks perfectly. The 3rd party generated iBook is bit-for-bit identical to Apple's. Now you have "two" files that are subject to different licenses, except of course they are the same file.
That's already absurd. But what if instead of retyping your book, you just import it into the 3rd party app from the Apple generated iBook file. You should be able to do that, right? Surely the legal status of the data can't depend on whether or not you typed it by hand. But again, this is absurd because you are importing and exporting to the same format. It optimizes to a file copy.
And this isn't a reductionist argument. The above is an entirely realistic scenario that will inevitably come up whenever an iBook author wants to sell their book outside of Apple's store.
This interesting article ("What Colour are your bits?") goes in depth on some of the reasons that different licenses on the same bits can happen:
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
They define "Work" vaguely because they're lawyers. Yes, the legal status of the data can depend on how you produced it. No, it's not a problem. Don't first write your book in Apple's app and all your imaginary problems go away. Do anyway and export it as text, your imaginary problem is still there but still imaginary; Apple won't bother you. They just don't want you to sell software produced with their tool on other platforms.
TL;DR; Tempest in a teapot.
The author missed the definition of "Work" until after they published the article. "Work" is clearly defined in the EULA as the output of the Apple software.
The Apple software in question is the last encoding step in a workflow to publish iBooks. If you aren't publishing an iBook, use a different tool for that last step.
The author missed the definition of "Work" until after they published the article. "Work" is clearly defined in the EULA as the output of the Apple software.
The Apple software in question is the last encoding step in a workflow to publish iBooks. If you aren't publishing an iBook, use a different tool for that last step.
Bingo. You own the content you give Author, Apple gets exclusive distribution rights to the output of the software they provide free for the sole purpose of creating proprietary files for Apple's distribution service. There is nothing in the agreement claiming exclusivity to the content you put INTO the software, only what comes out of it.
Where is that clear definition of "Work"?
"If you charge a fee for any book or other work you generate using this software (a “Work”)"
Second paragraph of the EULA. Unless my English is bad, that defines a "Work", capital W, to be the generated output of the software.
Second paragraph of the EULA. Unless my English is bad, that defines a "Work", capital W, to be the generated output of the software.
That's just an informational note. It does not appear to carry any legal weight, but is just a tl;dr for what they think is an important clause.
I don't really see the problem. This is not a word processor, this is - as the name suggests - a software which lets you create interactive eBooks in a proprietary format which is only compatible with the iPad.
It is its sole purpose.
Apple as a publisher provides you this software for free specifically to help you publish on their own store. And they restrict you to use it only for that. They don't own your content.
You can create ePub documents with Pages (for example), which are readable with any ebook reader, and you are not limited in any way in how you choose to distribute them.
I don't think this is comparable to restricting the use of a Word or PDF document.
It is its sole purpose.
Apple as a publisher provides you this software for free specifically to help you publish on their own store. And they restrict you to use it only for that. They don't own your content.
You can create ePub documents with Pages (for example), which are readable with any ebook reader, and you are not limited in any way in how you choose to distribute them.
I don't think this is comparable to restricting the use of a Word or PDF document.
An important detail:
"Updated to add: By “it,” I am referring to the book, not the content. The program allows you to export your work as plain text, with all formatting stripped. So you do have the option to take the formatting work you did in iBooks Author, throw it away, and start over."
This is about format, not content. Nothing to see here.
"Updated to add: By “it,” I am referring to the book, not the content. The program allows you to export your work as plain text, with all formatting stripped. So you do have the option to take the formatting work you did in iBooks Author, throw it away, and start over."
This is about format, not content. Nothing to see here.
The problem is the combination of this evil clause and Apple's general attitude and evilness.
First on the EULA: even if you used a program to do a formatting, said formatting is still your work, and the EULA recognize that by using the term work, so Apple is basically saying: if you use our "free" tool you have to give us a part of your work. So how exactly is that free? i don't know.
Then what happens if you use something else to do the formatting then just convert using Apple program (if that is possible)? Or if you can't convert redo exactly the same formatting, or something really near. Apple risk to argue that you breached the agreement even if you technically might not have.
And then what happens if they recognize that you used another tool to publish on other platform, but the too version are still too close to their taste? That's when Apple's general attitude and evilness will enter the game. They will say: I don't publish you, and I don't have to give any reason for that. You might say, yeah it is the game, it is their right. Except two things: the kind of people who object that typically also fake a taste for liberalism and free markets and so on (they are more probably thinking about something anarcho-capitalism style and how it could be great to make a lot of money fucking people all around you just because you can). I recognize that given the current laws, it is not obvious that Apple's don't have the right to do that, they even might have. But I found this way of doing business highly disgusting. The second thing is that a numerical publisher in Apple style has nothing in common with a real publisher. Their marginal cost for publishing you is absurdly low, their margins guaranteed, and they don't help you with you work (well yeah they kind of help you by "giving" you a program, ok in that case i suppose buying a fancy pen gives the builder some right on the story you wrote with? -- in any case this "help" as nothing in common with the help of a real publisher).
It all can be summarized with: Apple is constructing a giant monopolistic market, because well it is obvious that monopolies works and brings an absurd amount of money. And now every other giant multinationals find how brilliant this is and are trying to do the same, even for PC. They might even say it is not monopolies because they are multiple of those, and if they turn their sentence to say that "well" people might even believe them.
If this is the kind of world you want and like to live in, good for you. On my side, it makes me vomit.
First on the EULA: even if you used a program to do a formatting, said formatting is still your work, and the EULA recognize that by using the term work, so Apple is basically saying: if you use our "free" tool you have to give us a part of your work. So how exactly is that free? i don't know.
Then what happens if you use something else to do the formatting then just convert using Apple program (if that is possible)? Or if you can't convert redo exactly the same formatting, or something really near. Apple risk to argue that you breached the agreement even if you technically might not have.
And then what happens if they recognize that you used another tool to publish on other platform, but the too version are still too close to their taste? That's when Apple's general attitude and evilness will enter the game. They will say: I don't publish you, and I don't have to give any reason for that. You might say, yeah it is the game, it is their right. Except two things: the kind of people who object that typically also fake a taste for liberalism and free markets and so on (they are more probably thinking about something anarcho-capitalism style and how it could be great to make a lot of money fucking people all around you just because you can). I recognize that given the current laws, it is not obvious that Apple's don't have the right to do that, they even might have. But I found this way of doing business highly disgusting. The second thing is that a numerical publisher in Apple style has nothing in common with a real publisher. Their marginal cost for publishing you is absurdly low, their margins guaranteed, and they don't help you with you work (well yeah they kind of help you by "giving" you a program, ok in that case i suppose buying a fancy pen gives the builder some right on the story you wrote with? -- in any case this "help" as nothing in common with the help of a real publisher).
It all can be summarized with: Apple is constructing a giant monopolistic market, because well it is obvious that monopolies works and brings an absurd amount of money. And now every other giant multinationals find how brilliant this is and are trying to do the same, even for PC. They might even say it is not monopolies because they are multiple of those, and if they turn their sentence to say that "well" people might even believe them.
If this is the kind of world you want and like to live in, good for you. On my side, it makes me vomit.
I don't know if it costs anything to sell a book in the iBookstore, but to sell on the App Store, one needs to pay the $99 annual program fee.
Suppose there is an annual fee to join the iBookstore. Would there be a different reaction to this EULA if Author was hidden behind that "paywall"? Or what if Apple just charged $99 for this app instead of making it free?
The reason everyone is so upset about the EULA is that Apple filled a huge void in the eBook creation software market and Apple filled that void but is rightfully limiting the tool for their own benefit. Everyone was hoping Apple would swoop in an create an awesome tool for making eBooks, but instead they made an awesome tool for making iBooks. Are non-iBook creators worse off today than they were a week ago? Nope.
A better solution (from a PR standpoint, not from a technical standpoint) would have been for Apple to make Author output a proprietary format. After all, no one is crying out because Xcode can't produce Android binaries or standards-compliant webpages. Still, an open format is the best solution for this type of product. You don't want authors having to learn how to cryptographically sign their books or be able to generate ad hoc builds just to get a book to a student. Apple is enforcing DRM at the EULA level rather than at the technical level.
Suppose there is an annual fee to join the iBookstore. Would there be a different reaction to this EULA if Author was hidden behind that "paywall"? Or what if Apple just charged $99 for this app instead of making it free?
The reason everyone is so upset about the EULA is that Apple filled a huge void in the eBook creation software market and Apple filled that void but is rightfully limiting the tool for their own benefit. Everyone was hoping Apple would swoop in an create an awesome tool for making eBooks, but instead they made an awesome tool for making iBooks. Are non-iBook creators worse off today than they were a week ago? Nope.
A better solution (from a PR standpoint, not from a technical standpoint) would have been for Apple to make Author output a proprietary format. After all, no one is crying out because Xcode can't produce Android binaries or standards-compliant webpages. Still, an open format is the best solution for this type of product. You don't want authors having to learn how to cryptographically sign their books or be able to generate ad hoc builds just to get a book to a student. Apple is enforcing DRM at the EULA level rather than at the technical level.
doesn't iBooks Author output a proprietary format still? It may be based on ePub but I thought it was still only readable by iBooks.
There's no implication that you give up your copyrights to apple. They won't allow you to sell iBooks elsewhere, that's it. It's not exactly pro-open market but that's Apple: musicians and app developers already knuckle under.
The real disturbing part is this: Apple censors worse than China, and books tend to be provocative, a lot more than music or apps. They essentially want to act as a publisher too, but without taking any risks on the part of authors. I sincerely hope for good literature that ibooks ends to be a flop.
In any case the problem will be solved with 3rd party tools that take an iBook and convert it to (swf|html|exe) that people can sell anywhere they want. Surely apple cannot claim that the output of a conversion program belongs to them as well. Although it would be interesting to see how they react when the first ibook-to-iOS App converter appears.
The real disturbing part is this: Apple censors worse than China, and books tend to be provocative, a lot more than music or apps. They essentially want to act as a publisher too, but without taking any risks on the part of authors. I sincerely hope for good literature that ibooks ends to be a flop.
In any case the problem will be solved with 3rd party tools that take an iBook and convert it to (swf|html|exe) that people can sell anywhere they want. Surely apple cannot claim that the output of a conversion program belongs to them as well. Although it would be interesting to see how they react when the first ibook-to-iOS App converter appears.
> The real disturbing part is this: Apple censors worse than China, and books tend to be provocative, a lot more than music or apps. They essentially want to act as a publisher too, but without taking any risks on the part of authors.
The rules may stipulate this but I don't think it's Apple's intent. If that was their intent they would never have control of the music and movie marketplace. Yes, certain books have been previously banned from apps but that was more about engineers not getting fired.
The app store model is still fairly new and Apple is still learning, even with books that existed 1,000 years ago.
I think they want to be open while protecting kids. That is a very fine line.
The rules may stipulate this but I don't think it's Apple's intent. If that was their intent they would never have control of the music and movie marketplace. Yes, certain books have been previously banned from apps but that was more about engineers not getting fired.
The app store model is still fairly new and Apple is still learning, even with books that existed 1,000 years ago.
I think they want to be open while protecting kids. That is a very fine line.
I don't think this is about the potential worst that can happen.
My guess:
Apple is betting that the tablet is the future of the PC. Apple is also betting that hardware prices will crater like the PC did. The future is about services and less about hardware and the iPad will get cheaper over time. Apple wants to guarantee their 30% cut on publishers, devs, etc. while making it difficult to port it over to other platforms.
I think it's wrong in believing this may have to do with lawyers. I think this is Apple's intent so they can close up any potential loopholes that would give a competitor an equal ground. Apple may not have to do this anyway since Android will probably not be the favored OS to use in education but Apple wants the guarantee.
My guess:
Apple is betting that the tablet is the future of the PC. Apple is also betting that hardware prices will crater like the PC did. The future is about services and less about hardware and the iPad will get cheaper over time. Apple wants to guarantee their 30% cut on publishers, devs, etc. while making it difficult to port it over to other platforms.
I think it's wrong in believing this may have to do with lawyers. I think this is Apple's intent so they can close up any potential loopholes that would give a competitor an equal ground. Apple may not have to do this anyway since Android will probably not be the favored OS to use in education but Apple wants the guarantee.
Why do they add the option to save as PDF if they want to lock you in to their store?
It is easy to export as PDF. You lose some of the pretty stuff but it does work. http://i.imgur.com/cy8g2.jpg
It is easy to export as PDF. You lose some of the pretty stuff but it does work. http://i.imgur.com/cy8g2.jpg
And based on my reading of the terms, you're likely free to sell that PDF anywhere you want (and likely the standard epub output also). What it looks like is Apple took the epub3 format and added some simple modifications to make it do the iBooks interactivity. Those modifications is what they don't want other stores selling, ie a Kindle update that works with Apples iBook format.
My guess is there will be some clarification from Apple if there hasn't been already.
My guess is there will be some clarification from Apple if there hasn't been already.
MS Office comparison is weak. You pay for MS Office to own the output. iBooks Author is free. You pay Apple only when you produce something out of it and sell it for profit. It is absurd to expect proprietary software to be free.
Based on the past and recent history [think of all the products that Google shutdown recently], it sounds to me that it is much reliable for users, especially if you are going to put your career into it, that the company developing the software is making money from it.
Based on the past and recent history [think of all the products that Google shutdown recently], it sounds to me that it is much reliable for users, especially if you are going to put your career into it, that the company developing the software is making money from it.
That is a mind-bogglingly stupid headline. Give me a break.
This is just new people seeing the agreement. The point where he starts yelling about the fact that he might not be allowed into the store was a big indicator. A little research will show you what you can get away with.
The rest just sounds like Apple might mean the actual compiled digital book is their property. Not the actual internal content, but the functional storage and execution of it. They're trying to keep people from cloning a iBook reader, not trying to lock down the author's work. Indeed not clear and not easy to make clear.
The rest just sounds like Apple might mean the actual compiled digital book is their property. Not the actual internal content, but the functional storage and execution of it. They're trying to keep people from cloning a iBook reader, not trying to lock down the author's work. Indeed not clear and not easy to make clear.
For some reason a large number of people on this site become 'non copus mentis' in regards to Apple, and fall for absurd claims, eagerly swallowing ZDnet tripe.
The whole tone of HN floundering.
If your hoping for Apple to fail you have my sympathies. It is only going to get much, much worse.
The whole tone of HN floundering.
If your hoping for Apple to fail you have my sympathies. It is only going to get much, much worse.
Sheesh, that's an emotive title.
The only end to this noise that I can see is that Apple will supply an update that removes the .epub capability, making the tool specific to iBooks.
Will we be any poorer for that? It's like having a machine that prints money - you could use it...but you're likely to get into trouble if you do.
The only end to this noise that I can see is that Apple will supply an update that removes the .epub capability, making the tool specific to iBooks.
Will we be any poorer for that? It's like having a machine that prints money - you could use it...but you're likely to get into trouble if you do.
It's amazing that Apple thinks they can get away with this. What they offer is far from special. I'm glad I'm part of Exvo where we'll launch our Books app soon and do away with these crappy business proposition.
Nice to hear from someone without vested interests in this ebooks thing.
Now, about that "what they offer is far from special" line. Are you serious? If what they offer is far from special, how come nobody else offers something like it?
Have you seen how Lulu proposes you format your books? Have you seen any Amazon kindle book maker? Have you seen the Blurb photo books app? Not even close.
Also, there's nothing amazing that "Apple thinks can get away with". What the said is only:
1) Here's our huge store with a market of 50 million devices.
2) Here's the reading program we have made for them.
3) Here's a free app to format your book content.
4) IF you want to sell something you have formatted and exported from our app, you have to sell it through out store, and we get 70%.
This would be reasonable even if the app (3) was paid for.
Actually, in that case, it would be like the "iOS membership program"'s $100.
Now, about that "what they offer is far from special" line. Are you serious? If what they offer is far from special, how come nobody else offers something like it?
Have you seen how Lulu proposes you format your books? Have you seen any Amazon kindle book maker? Have you seen the Blurb photo books app? Not even close.
Also, there's nothing amazing that "Apple thinks can get away with". What the said is only:
1) Here's our huge store with a market of 50 million devices.
2) Here's the reading program we have made for them.
3) Here's a free app to format your book content.
4) IF you want to sell something you have formatted and exported from our app, you have to sell it through out store, and we get 70%.
This would be reasonable even if the app (3) was paid for.
Actually, in that case, it would be like the "iOS membership program"'s $100.
should be "and we get 30%" -- you have a typo
Yep, sorry.
And it could even stated as:
and we get 30% --compared to 95% to 80% traditional publishers get from you.
And it could even stated as:
and we get 30% --compared to 95% to 80% traditional publishers get from you.
"iBooks Author is an amazing new app that allows anyone to create beautiful Multi-Touch textbooks — and just about any other kind of book — for iPad."
That's why every comparison between iBooks Author and Office or Photoshop or 3DS Max or any other creative application rings so disingenuous in my mind. They're not even restricting distribution outside of their platform, they just don't want you making money from it. What evilness am I missing?