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.
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'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
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.
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."
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.
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.