Slashdot Mirror
Publisher Wiley's Books Pulled from Apple Stores
getling writes "Looks like Steve Jobs is almost as unhappy about personal details being publicized as he is with Mac secrets. The book publisher Wiley, who is releasing a new unauthorized biography of Jobs has had its entire line of books banned from Apple stores as a result of their unhappiness with the content of the book. Wiley, publisher of the popular Dummies series of books, as well as the Bible series, is quite surprised, due to the fact that they view the book to show Jobs in a largely positive light ..."
....He should step away from it....
Personally I'd be damn annoyed if people started publicising my illnesses, my past and my private life as well. For the second time no less! There's this myth that if you're a public figure you're not entitled to a private life. Bollocks.
Speech is (and IMHO ought to be!) free, and the publishers are well within their rights to go against a man's wishes about his biography. Steve is also well within his rights to tell the publishers that they'll not sell a damn thing in his bookstores from now on.
My sympathies are with the man whose life they're laying bare (irrespective of how they cast it) rather than the money-grabbing publishing house. "Quite surprised" is a laugh as well - they sent the proofs to Apple for approval and were asked to withhold publishing. WTF did they expect ?
One of the things that seems to have been lost along the route to our western democracy is that actions have consequences. I'm made up that the act of publishing this book will cause them financial pain - perhaps it'll be as annoying to them as it obviously is to Steve that they've gone ahead and published. Perhaps it'll make them think twice about doing the same thing again...
Before anyone gets on their high horse about the 'public's right to know', again, Bollocks. The public has a right to know if a public figure abuses his/her position - completely agree with that. On the other hand, this rather distasteful desire to simply nose into other peoples lives is a sad fact of the human condition today.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Publicity. Stunt.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
While interesting,
:-(
- Apple is not the government (therefore, any ridiculous cries of censorship are just a wee tad bit overboard)
- Apple can do what it wants with its own corporate stores
- Yes, this may result in more copies of the book being sold, but consider that this is not an effort to "suppress" the book; it's merely a retaliatory move. Apple is under no obligation whatsover, implied or otherwise, to carry any publisher's books.
In short, business as usual and a BIG yawner:
"It's certainly not unprecedented for a company to protest publication of a book or article it finds unflattering.
IBM, for instance, staged a six-year advertising boycott of Fortune magazine after then-Chief Executive Louis V. Gerstner took exception to a 1997 cover story.
More recently, General Motors withdrew its ads from the Los Angeles Times in protest of an April 6 review of its Pontiac G6."
(From the Mercury News story)
Think what you want, but businesses shouldn't be forced to support other businesses they disagree with.
Further, it looks like there's a referrer in the submitter's amazon link.
Okkkaaayyyy... And why is the referrer such a big problem again? Does it make the book more expensive for you? Does it impair your ability to get to the book? Does it do anything to you at all, or are you just whining because you'd rather not support Slashdot (or whoever has the referrer) while you use the services?
Better not click on my sig...
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I agree that these guys have a right to some privacy. Most interesting to me is that the comments here on /. are generally supportive so far. What a different thread it would be if this had been Bill Gates and Microsoft instead of Steve Jobs and Apple.
I think he's great. He pulled Apple out of the shitter. I'd rather work for steve than Bill. He is innovative and clever.
everyone seems to have missed one vital piece of information.. the title of the book is iCon.
nuff said.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
I'd like to know who I'm supporting.
Interesting. So do you think about who you're supporting every time you purchase a book from a store? Or how about when you buy a can of green beans from the SuperMarket? Do you know who you're supporting when you buy a piece of furnature at the store? How about when you watch ads on TV?
Generally, the answer is always a "no" or a "sort of". There are so many people behind the scenes who make these things happen, that there's no way to account for all of them. If you want to boycott someone, your best solution is to first target them, then investigate where they derive money, then organize a boycott around their chokepoint. Your alternative of trying to divine the man behind the curtain in all instances, is both tedious and pointless.
But hey, it's your time and energy.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If I use a coupon to buy a can of green beans at the supermarket then you are damn right I think about where the coupon came from and how it came to be in my posession. Does my use of the coupon generate a kick-back to some information broker? Does it cause an update to a secret "consumer profile" that I have little chance of ever seeing myself?
And before you go off and say how amazon referrers are different, you should of that of that before making the reference to a B&M store in the first place.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I think it would bother me a lot more if this meant that nobody got to see it. But Apple's economic power isn't that high. It still bothers me a little though.
I believe firmly in the freedom of individuals to engage in whatever contracts they find mutually beneficial. But, I'm not so sure about a big, powerful public corporation. I think as organizations get larger and more powerful, they become more government-like. You die just as surely whether you starve because nobody will sell you food or someone shoots you.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
"Here is a ref-free sanitized link:"
Yeah, you wouldn't want the guy bringing you information that you found interesting to be rewarded or anything.
The attitude some of you have about referrals really makes me sick. Never mind that this whole SITE that's bringing you this news article you find so fucking interesting is supported by ads.
"Derp de derp."
I concede the point :-)
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
There will be no issue of lawsuit against the author or Wiley, unless somehow there were libel statements made in the book. The truth can't be libel, by definition. Remember once you're a public figure, you have a more limited right to privacy than otherwise is the case (It's may not seem fair, but those who wish to have the spotlight shined upon them, will sometimes have to accept the spotlight when it's not welcome).
-Mark
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
This is _not_ a troll. It is a very sincere post questioning the readers of slashdot - it makes me wonder about the level of slashdot criticism.
If this were a MS story of Bill Gates doing the same, there would be the usual crazy outbreak of 'MS evil empire' type banter. However, because its Apple , the response is a mild - 'oh its ok, hes the Apple man hes allowed to'. Where is the balance? I think somewhere in between to be honest - Jobs and Gates are simply very ruthless business persons, and yet here at Slashdot there is a decided overflow towards Apple.
Is it the OSX thing - its not a free OS.. its not Open, so why the fanaticism, is it because its most Linux like? Windows has cygwin.. and I know a large number of IT specialists whom use it, but Windows is always rated as poor and irrevlevant (by the slashdot community), yet it is the most used desktop, by a rediculous majority? So where is the balance? Where is the even levelled intelligent arguments for both sides, that usually make for a great discussion?
The more I visit here the more I see very common attitudes:
- Apple and OSX rules, and every other platform/OS sux.
- MS are evil and Windows sux.. but Xbox rules (this one has always been a bit of a conundrum - this must imply MS are less evil than Sony?)..
- Sony are evil and PS2 is crap..
- Linux and all Unix's are above all the best OS's and everything else is crap..
- Any programming language that isnt C++ like or OO is crap..
The above is a mere sample of generalisations and these are the usual source of flame wars. But the important thing about these topics, is that taking an opposing stance usually means getting flamed, chastised, or ridiculed.. It is even more interesting that moderators dont try to keep the discussion balanced, Im sure it would result in much better (more interesting) discussions, and a lot less ' is crap, or it sux'.
This leads me to one fairly basic conclusion. Most of the people posting on Slashdot these days are young, easily impressionable males, that have little sense or understanding of two sides of a discussion and generally are very one-eyed about subjects with little or no flexibilty to gauge information as valid or relevant.
This is completely understandable, the cover of the book is pretty much saying I, Con Artist. No wonder Apple doesnt want a book on its shelves more or less calling its CEO a con man. I doubt the average passerby is going to get a positive impression from that sitting on the shelves while they're contemplating buying a $2,000 laptop from a company run by a "con."
Whatever "savvy" marketers decided to go with that title should be feeling the brunt of this decision. Last I checked Apple was a private company with no obligation to carry anything. If I told Microsoft press I was writing a bio of Gates and later told them it was going to be called "Convicted Monopolist" then I wouldnt be surprised if they dropped me.
At the end of the day Apple is a company just like any other. They'll act in a predictable fashion when it comes to protecting their property and image. Look at what one con artist has recently done to Wendy's restaurant. Bad image and rumors hurt business.
Actually, Jobs is widely viewed (read: by shareholders) - whether or not it's actually true - as the driving force behind Apple's recent successes. Therefore a smear/expose on Jobs that could tarnish his reputation could seem to Apple to be a threat to the corporation itself. In that respect, Jobs 'is' Apple.
In the same vein, Apple could be pandering to its golden boy to keep him happy, having weighed Jobs' ego as more important than allegations of bullying or censorship.
I don't know about you, but if someone wrote a book about me and titled it "iCon" I would be pretty offended. All those people going into the Apple store are immediately going to see Jobs' picture on the front and think he's a con artist. Doesn't exactly mesh with the honest Apple brand no matter what the pages say.
"Okkkaaayyyy... And why is the referrer such a big problem again?"
Advertising in general has been abused. Flash ads, pop-up sites, adverts that look like news, etc. A lot of people are sick of them, so they've developed a bad attitude about advertising in general. You see, it's too hard to distinguish between advertising and abusive advertising. It's easier to remember to hate 'ads'. Never mind that those very ads basically provide services to you that you don't have to pay out of pocket for (i.e. television, radio, Slashdot...), a few people ruined ads for EVERYBODY.
Somehow, referrals fell into this trap, too. Evidently, it's okay to buy a book, but it's not okay to buy the book from the guy who convinced you to buy it. I probably wouldn't be replying if the choice was between buying it and not buying it, but stripping the referal information out? WTF? Talk about judgement mis-fire.
"Derp de derp."
No, Apple doesn't have to sell the book. But pulling the entire line is childish. And counter-productive. By going nuclear, Jobs has helped to give the title some buzz--the silver lining in every act of censorship. :-)
Damn, Apple's been getting somewhat evil lately.
a) iPods with built-in obsolescence
b) a fairly crappy recycling track record
c) suing 15 year old kids for blogging information their own employees or partners leaked.
d) Promoting Censorship within it's stores.
Whatever happened to Steve's Birkenstocks?
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Stop it. Seriously. Stop with the "it's bad, but it's Apple, so everyone thinks it's okay" BS. It was old years ago, and is even older today. To reiterate, to those who keep bringing this up:
No.
Again: no.
Contrary to what some people seem to believe, your average high-karma Slashdot poster is not an idiot. Frankly, this is getting downright irritating. Bad things involving Apple keep occurring, so you people have to come out of the woodworks and say that people are only supporting Apple because they're Apple, when really, the vast majority of these 'Apple supporters' are just looking at the situation with circumspection. Got that? Just in case that was unclear, that means they're reading TFA, thinking about it, considering the situation and its angles, then replying, rather than giving a knee-jerk reaction like the 'If it were Microsoft...' people. It typically has nothing to do with the fact that it's Apple--we're dead serious when we say we'd support Microsoft/Gates if it were them instead of Apple/Jobs--and everything to do with the facts surrounding the situation.
Fact: Wiley was asked not to publish the book.
Fact: The biography was unauthorized, which is legal, but not really that morally okay, especially when the biography is about someone who's still alive.
Fact: Jobs could not have made Apple stop selling Wiley's products without support from a majority of the Board.
Fact: Apple is not preventing the publishing of the book, they are expressing objection to it by not selling the publisher's materials in their stores.
Fact: A corporation has the right to choose what it wants to sell, and whom to obtain their products from.
Fact: Again, you can walk into Borders or Barnes and Noble or whatever, or search Amazon.com, and still get Wiley's books, including the unauthorized biography of Jobs.
Was it perhaps rash of Apple to do this? Yeah, I think so. Was it a horrible, evil thing for Apple to do? Not really, no. I can understand Jobs and Apple's unhappiness with an unauthorized biography about Jobs. I'd not like someone writing about me and including intimate details without my permission, regardless of what kind of light I'd be put in. I couldn't stop them from doing it, but would it really be wrong of me to object to my fullest ability?
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
Steve Jobs is an unbelievable asshole. Seriously, you think you know assholes? Steve Jobs makes them all look like girl scouts. He's the biggest asshole I've ever encountered, ever.
He's also a hands-down, certifiable genius.
The fact that he's an asshole really pales in comparison to what he's capable of doing. The man is like some kind of magic crap detector. He can smell crap from ten miles away. And when he sees it, he can tell you exactly why it's crap, and exactly what needs to change to eliminate its crappiness.
Steve Jobs is the most arrogant man I know, but he's also the man most deserving of open, unapologetic arrogance I know.
At least for me, it's possible to personally dislike somebody and admire him at the same time.
Riiight. It was your anger at Steve Jobs' ego that made you go through the hassle installing Debian on your Powerbook? After all, since you don't like the CEO of Apple, you can't trust the OS, right?
Slashdot psuedo activism here... How do you know ol' Steve-o hasn't installed a hardware solution to monitor your ethernet/wireless traffic on your Powerbook since you can't trust him?
Personally I think you're insane not to build your laptop by hand since you can't trust anybody! Who's to say your drive manufacturer's CEO is trustworthy?!
This guy is way out there
Some of us would actually like to pay less for items we need instead of paying a little extra to pay for ads which then pay for services we may or may never use. We would vote with our own wallets for these services, and as an addition, we would not have to see ads (aka filler junk), whether it is on the web or in a magazine.
Whoa, capitalism. Paying for what you want and not paying extra for what you don't want. What a concept!
This is bad news for Apple, its customers (i.e. me and everyone else using a Mac or an iPod), and its shareholders.
No one likes an arrogant arsehole, and people like arrogant arseholes even less who act like mini dictators. It's not like Apple has a 90% marketshare in the computer market to play with, and investors shy away from erratic, irrational CEOs. I can understand him withdrawing the book on his life from the Apple store shelves, as he has the power to do that, but the Dumies series is extremely popular and it could make an enemy of extremely influential people like David Pogue, whose NYTimes tech articles get read by millions.
What worries me most about this is that it reminds me of the bat shit megalomanic attitude that Jobs had before he was canned from Apple the first time in 1985, trying to push others around.
Steve, if you or one of your slaves is reading this, take these words of advice: You, as a celebrity and CEO of a very trendy company, give away a certain amount of privacy as part of your status. You, like me and everyone else, are not an island. You depend on literally millions of other people for your success, from customers, to shareholders, to employees, to reviewers, to the press. Think about that before you fly into a rage like a spoilt five year old brat the next time.
When I pay a buck for a 24 oz. Coke in a cup at the local convenience store I know their cost was about three cents, and two of those were for the cup.
I also know it's still a good enough deal for me, because a 16 oz. Coke in a bottle is going to cost me more.I'll pay the buck.
It's good business all around, even though I'm paying more than I theoretically need to for the Coke.
If, however, I own and operate a convenience store, drink Cokes at three cents a pop out of the business profits, but charge my financial partner a buck a Coke when he comes into the store and stick 97 cents of it in my own pocket, that isn't "good business." That's being a scum sucking bastard.
KFG
Apple is not refusing to sell just this book; it is refusing to sell any of the large number of Mac books put out by this publisher. The decision will cost the shareholders money, as the Apple stores profited on each book sold, and they sold quite a few.
Now, it's not horrible and evil, so I'll agree with you there. It's merely massively stupid, and the press that this move has gotten will improve the book sales.
"Fact: The biography was unauthorized, which is legal, but not really that morally okay, especially when the biography is about someone who's still alive."
Curious logic there... so a biography has to be authorised, huh? Like, say, a newspaper story about someone has to be authorised? Or an encyclopedia entry? Do you realise that you'll just end up with self-serving crap if you do that, don't you?
How about this for a correction:
Fact: Jobs is a public figure, and his decisions affect large numbers of people. He is also charismatic and famous. An unauthorised biography of Jobs is therefore is a fair and reasonable thing, provided the content of the biography is obtained legally and without deception.
I find it hillarious and sad at the same time that the nation most proud of their "freedoms" has no fucking clue what those freedom mean. I've seen "freedom of press", "freedom of speech" or "democracy" used for every possible bullshit (e.g., as some "right" to troll a site or cheat in an online game) _except_ the cases they actually cover.
Here's some free clue: "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Press":
1. Are _only_ applicable to your dealing with the _government_. Not with private persons, not with corporations, not with anyone else.
I.e., pay attention, lemming: it means that the government can't ban you from saying that Kerry was a better candidate than Bush, or viceversa. It doesn't however mean that Bush, as a private citizen, can't sue your pants off if you publish libel about him. E.g., if you were to start writing that Bush rapes small babies, he could very well sue your pants off, and "freedom of speech" would have nothing to do with it.
2. It never said that anyone has to print, broadcast or help sell your bullshit. If anyone, _including_ the government, doesn't want to publish your speech, sell your book, or pay for public access to your blog, they _are_ entirely within their legal righst.
E.g., "freedom of press" does _not_ mean you can go to NYT and have them publish whatever you want published in their newspaper. As they say, "freedom of press" only applies to whoever owns the press.
E.g., if Apple doesn't want to sell another company's books, "free press" and "democracy" have exactly _nothing_ to do with it.
E.g., if an ISP (even a state owned one) decided to unilaterally block all porn sites, or even all opposition sites, they _are_ within their legal rights to do so. Bad PR move? Yes. Violating your sacred "freedom of speech" or "democracy"? Nope.
3. Additionally "democracy" _only_ means you get to vote for your government. Period. Nothing more. It doesn't mean you get a vote in what books Apple should sell. It does _not_ mean you should get a vote even in what your CEO or CIO decides.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The more money you have, the more valuable your information is to both thieves and "marketers." It only takes a few extra minutes to follow good information protection practices, so why not? Just because *you* have not been the victim of identity theft yet doesn't mean other people have been so fortunate. Until you've had to deal with the hard, real-life consquences of having your privacy violated, who are you to snicker and laugh?
Privacy is like helium in a child's ballon - if you don't think about it, you probably won't even notice that it is slowly leaking out. When the loss finally becomes blatantly obvious because the ballon no longer floats, it is too late to do anything about it -- there is no way you can put the helium back in. Just as you can never really regain your privacy once you've lost it.
AFAIK, Apple (and also Steve Jobs) is the biggest IP terrorist there is. They just don't want anyone else earning anything through something that even remotely relates to them or don't want anyone to have it for free. So when Wiley, a big computer related books publisher, publishes a book about Jobs, Apple see a few dollars going to someone else and they want it for themselves instead so they ban *all* books of that publisher from their stores. It surprises me how noone else gets this point. What doesn't surprise me, though, is the fact that Apple zealots are now going to mod me down as troll.
to sound like another certain software company that everyone accuses of abusing their monopoly power..
And Apple IS a monopoly (given that x86-based PCs are considered to be their own market, according to Judge Jackson.. we can assume PPC-based PCs would also..)
They don't need to sell the Steve Jobs biography if they don't want to.. but to completely ban the publisher?
Add this tot he fact that Apple doesn't consider bloggers to be a part of the legitimate press.. and we get a pretty bad impression of them, wrt free speech..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Good ole Apple, the paragon of intellectual freedom, creativity, openness. They have mastered the style but their substance is limits, conformity, and closed systems.
Call 1 800 275 2273
Select nothing. Wait until the voice prompts, and then select 0 or say operator.
Tell the operator you want to leave feedback. If you want, you can even give them your name and phone number, which creates a ticket that the PR people are forced to deal with.
simple yet effective, especially if lots of people do it.
San Francisco Photographers
Assholes often get things done. This is not the same thing as saying that one must be an asshole to get things done.
Ferrari was an asshole and got things done. Bugatti was not an asshole, and got things done anyway. Usually better, because people would pull for him because his personality earned respect and loyalty, not adulation and fear.
Jobs can keep his personality. I don't want it. It only works on the cult minded anyway who have this incredible abiltiy to excuse any behavior of the personality only because they are a "personality," in part, I believe, because they adore what they fear.
And that's fucked up, dude.
KFG
I own a company that sells graphics software and we ran head-on into this exact issue. We sell (for PC) high end image manipulation and special effects software, think of Photoshop but faster, deeper and with considerably more features. Very technical, not nearly as warm and fuzzy as Photoshop. It is aimed at image freaks, not just people who like to putter about with photos and graphic art. Just as a for instance, PS supports 20-odd layer modes, we do 70-odd. Definitely a niche product, but a niche product where the niches are large. So anyway, when we originally released it, it was $499 and sold just fine. Later, as we got down the ROI curve, we began to drop the price. Kept selling just fine until we dropped it to below $99.95... then sales dropped off sharply. After a month of just about dead silence, a little bemused, more than a little worried, we raised the price back to $99.95 and zap, sales came right back.
After tossing this issue about for a while, we built an "on sale" automation that offered it for $49.95 if you had (anything at all from Corel, Adobe, JASC, including demo software or free software like a PDF reader... and in fact we don't even check for the presence of such stuff) but "just until 2-3 days from now." Sales went up even further. So $79.95 was a perception threshold we could not cross, but $49.95 is a good as long as the perception was that they should be paying more.
The fact is, we really tried to sell the software for less, but consumers wouldn't allow it. What can you do?
At this point in time, I'd be more than delighted to sell it for $19.95 if I could see a sufficient number of sales to justify it. But I am not at all convinced that those sales would materialize.
People sure are funny. :-)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO SAY NO FIRST, AND MAKE SURE THEY KNOW WHAT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN.
You mean like that giant "Would you like iTunes to organize your music folder for you?" dialog that pops up when you install it?
Idiot.