Slashdot Mirror
iBook Store Features Leave Indie Publishers Behind
jfruhlinger writes "Apple has introduced some new features to its iBooks store in order to make illustrations and fixed layouts possible — something particularly important for children's books. But at the moment, it seems these features are only available for big publishers, not indies. This is not dissimilar from the controversy that brewed over indie labels' access to iTunes LP."
I know it's cool to be anti Apple on slashdot these days, but does the hatred have to include loss of logic?
Apple doesn't publish music or books, so in the case of iTunes LP, or the latest iBooks features, they need to work them out fully first. They do this by working with a few big companies, giving them access to rough beta copies of tools and tech specs. By working togther on a few items, Apple can identify and fix issues in a tool or spec before it's widely released. If they just threw out unfinished tools and specs, people would whine about the problems, and also increase Apple's support burden. With a slow and steady rollout, they can do it right, and ensure the mass publishing market has tools or specs that work without requiring direct hand holding via Apple support.
wha?
lots of people have never bought apple/itunes products in the first place. Things such as buying mp3s, buying ebooks, buying things at set prices, buying video games at retail prices, these are things that most people who are fairly technically savvy have never dealt with and never will. For them, this is much ado about nothing. Also, this tech savvy crowd grows everyday.
[Apple] is only providing information on how to create fixed layout ebooks for it's store to a select group of publishers and ebook producers."
And a week from now when that information finds its way to the internet the headline will be "All Authors Able to Publish Fixed-Width iBooks"
What exactly did Apple do to mp3.com? Indie artists are welcome to make their music available through any mechanism they like: youtube, myspace, facebook, etc.
Or rather, they're welcome to sit in obscurity in any way they like. The RIAA is NOT a music industry. It's a promotions industry. They exist to make music famous, a process which costs a vast sum of money. And until relatively recently, it was a profitable business model, which never went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
If they've managed to take hold of the most famous platform for music, that's just what they do. But opening it more for indies isn't going to make them famous, which is what they crave. They can be ignored in iTunes with equal vigor to the way they've been ignored on youtube (and, for that matter, in bars and cafes) for a long time.
The Long Tail is a dream sold to small artists. The technology means that they've been able to raise their income from "nothing" to "next to nothing". Because the thing to remember about the Long Tail is that it's very, very, very long, and you're sitting out there somewhere in the middle of it. You wanna sit on the bigger hump, you spend money to do it. A _lot_ of money.
The independent market never "thrived". The artists were, statistically speaking, all starving. Even some extraordinarily talented ones making great music.
Technological change may be able to kill off the RIAA's fame-producing industry, but it's not like indie artists are in some sort of close second place raring to take over first.
While inspiring, I just have a tough time really assembling behind your battle cry.
Before Apple, big labels and publishers have been working to screw over independants and/or exploit them in any means possible, so I find it hard to really find "Boycotting Apple" as the solution to the actual problem. Apple is just riding the bandwagon, tagging along, trying to get a piece of the pie.
I would much rather have more people go independant (as the music trend seems to be, more and more bands are leaving the big labels, or starting their own labels, or indie labels supporting other indie bands). It's not so much that people need to boycott certain publishers, its that the artists, authors, musicians, etc etc - they need to stop feeding the publishers with content to sell. Starve them out on content, not sales. Because consumers are idiots, there will always be people willing to buy the shiniest product, or spending for the sake of spending. There is no real way to cause a boycott that way. But once the Indie market thrives because thats where the best content is, with the best delivery system - thats when we'll see real progress.
I will usually hear a song from a band I like on the radio. Whether or not they are on iTunes doesn't make a huge difference to me, I won't like them less because I can't get their tracks through that ONE distribution method. Best Alternative? Have a website, where they handle their own song/download/transactions - as some bands have started doing, or even better, if they offer the CD for free knowing it'll drive Concert sales. There's so many ways to deliver content around iTunes its baffling that it has as much sway as it does.
Apple accepts book from anyone who can generate ePub. Is the same true of the Kindle? It would be nice for Apple to also release details on the format enhancement but if they are exactly as open as any other company, and then merely add some other capability on top of that Apple restricts - why is Apple evil when they help out indies as much as any other company?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Have you been reading Slashdot lately? It's nothing but screeching monkeys and poo flinging at the merest mention of Apple.
People seem to hate Apple nowadays the way they used to hate Microsoft. Heck, half of the things people are saying isn't factually correct -- it's just what they believe. I still see people claiming you can't play MP3s on an iPod.
I think in many cases, logic has gone completely out the window when Apple is the topic.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
How do you get that out of UMG v MP3.com, and what did Apple have to do with deciding it?
The case was regarding whether the website had the right to use copyrighted music to make ad revenue.
I find your claim particularly curious since this case was on or about 2000, and the iTunes store did not launch until 2003.
I think the reason for their confusion is that sales and profitability at Apple are higher than ever.
I heard it died faster than Jobs' liver "donor".
In lots of countries around the world there are laws against big business negotiating to keep an advantaje out of its rivals reach. As far as I remember, the US is one of those countries.
Rethinking email
YOUTUBE: About two years ago YouTube redesigned their trove system to make it almost impossible for small acts to be found. Try it. You are pretty much stuck with the mainstream stuff they sort to the top in each category. You pretty much have to accidentally find indie acts on youtube.
BARS AND CAFES: As a cafe owner can attest that BMI and ASCAP make it almost impossible to play indie acts. The fees are just too high for small businesses. Even i you make bands sign papers stating they are unsigned acts playing only there own music, BMI and ASCAP still go after you. The first six months we were open we had live music 1-2 nights a week. The minute we posted notices on MySpace we had BMI and ASCAP twisting our arms to buy a annual license. License fees that were far too high to make it even remotely sensible from a business perspective. I would happily support local bands but the system is rigged.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Apple has been going full-on evil lately with a vision for the future that makes even MS's most dominating days pale. They want to control every device you own, and the appliance model is what they like. Devices designed for consumption, not production. You get to pay for everything and can buy it only through the Apple owned store. They will make devices designed to have a short life with features like non-replaceable batteries so that you are always spending money on the newest, trendiest, toy. They get to be the arbiters of what is acceptable and what is not on your devices, in their one and only store.
That is a pretty scary vision of the future, in particular for the generally very openness loving crowd on Slashdot. At least MS just seemed to want to be your operating system, they didn't seem to want total control of your device and what you could buy.
So I am not surprised Apple gets a lot of hatred here. If they don't want that, maybe they shouldn't have such a closed, "The Apple was is the ONLY way," ecosystem. Now if you like that that's fine. I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't want. It is perfectly ok to say "I like their system, I want my stuff locked down and controlled, because that also implies protected, I am willing to deal with higher prices and less choice in trade for what I feel to be a better overall experience." However understand that many people do not feel that way, in particular many who inhabit Slashdot. So there's gonna be a lot of Apple hate here so long as that is going on.
In fact, the only reason Apple ever got much love on Slashdot was because they were an underdog. Apple has always had a pretty controlling vision of computers, though not near as much as the present. However they were the little guy, fighting against the behemoth that was MS and Slashdot loves underdogs. Now they are massive and their strategy is well known so they've lost any love from /. they might have had.
Never let those pesky "facts" get in the way of a good Apple-bashing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com
[MP3.com] was shut down on December 2, 2003 by CNET, which, after purchasing the domain name (but not MP3.com's technology or music assets), established the current MP3.com site.
On January 12, 2000, MP3.com launched the "My.MP3.com" service which enabled users to securely register their personal CDs and then stream digital copies online from the My.MP3.com service. Since consumers could only listen online to music they already proved they owned the company saw this as a great opportunity for revenue by allowing fans to access their own music online. The record industry did not see it that way and sued MP3.com claiming that the service constituted unauthorized duplication and promoted copyright infringement.
Judge Jed S. Rakoff, in the case UMG v. MP3.com, ruled in favor of the record labels against MP3.com and the service on the copyright law provision of "making mechanical copies for commercial use without permission from the copyright owner." Before damage was awarded, MP3.com settled with plaintiff, UMG Recordings, for $53.4 million, in exchange for the latter's permission to use its entire music collection. Later, the firm no longer had sufficient funds to weather the technology downturn. MP3.com was subsequently bought and the new owner did not continue the same service.
Weakened financially, MP3.com was eventually acquired by Vivendi Universal in May 2001 at $5 per share ($23 below the IPO share price) or approximately $372 million in cash and stock. Jean-Marie Messier, then-CEO of Vivendi Universal, stated "The acquisition of MP3.com was an extremely important step in our strategy to create both a distribution platform and acquire state-of-the-art technology. MP3.com will be a great asset to Vivendi Universal in meeting our goal of becoming the leading online provider of music and related services.
Vivendi had difficulties growing the service and eventually dismantled the original site, selling off all of its assets including the URL and logo to CNET in 2003.
For comparison, Apple opened the iTunes Music Store in April 2003--23 months after Universal got MP3.com. CNET bought mp3.com in November 2003.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/apr/28musicstore.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1008275/cnet-buys-mp3com
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I still have my Quadra 650. It had 12 MB of RAM. Still runs and handles Photoshop 2.5/Illustrator 5.5 just fine as well. I can't throw it out as I've never had any problems with it.
I drank what? -- Socrates
100% in fact – it's the duty of the corporation to do their absolute best to make money for their investors.
http://www.apple.com/itunes/lp-and-extras/
I would expect the same in a few months for any iBooks thing.
Haha, this is the absolute perfect example of misinformation about apple. Who cares about the fact that m4a is actually the MPEG standard designed to succeed the MPEG standard ac3, which itself was designed to take over from the MPEG standard mp3.
No, instead we need to have a good bash at apple for trying to get "their" standard through over all others.
... Wikipedia (yes, I know, I know) From the criticism of the EPUB format: "One criticism of EPUB is that, while good for text-centric books, it may be unsuitable for publications which require precise layout or specialized formatting, such as a comic book"[1] Comparing this with what the article says that Apple is doing, it sounds like they are trying to deal with this problem. I'm probably wrong, but that's my first impression. Let's just hope that they decide to submit the proposal for an update back to the standards committee.
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
There is also social responsibility.
Social responsibility is good PR, not a legal obligation.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Wthout it you are condemned to obscurity or nearly.
And WITH it, you're condemned to obscurity or nearly. The number of artists who can support themselves from the income they get that way is tiny. Practically all have Real Jobs.
I didn't say you don't get great music out of it. There's lots and lots and lots of great music. So much that people aren't willing to pay terribly much for it.
I'm also not defending the RIAA's practices. I think they're horrible, and I'm glad they're dying. I'm just saying that independent artists aren't about to move in to take their place, at least not the place of making a living off their art.
If Apple is consistent with their previous roll outs, they will release this to everyone later, once they have had a chance to debug the code and make it work the way a publisher would want. And it won't be because of the uproar here. Apple does not promise to roll out later since they are prohibited from making certain types of forward looking statements.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
This might be true if Apple were standard compliant in regard to ePub, which they are not (example here, make sure you read Liz' blog all the way through, she rules!). So, they'd have to fix a few other things before we talk about the new iBooks 1.2 fixed layout specs or them throwing "out unfinished tools and specs" as you say. IOW, there's enough to whine about already (again, check Liz' blog for details!).
OTOH, lots of small publishers are eager to satisfy their clients, but cannot, since Apple chose to keep the new specs under an NDA. Thanks a bunch for that... . And you keep defending that, citing "Apple's support burden" *shakes head* Who are you, an Apple helpdesk guy?
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
People always throw this quote out like it means something, but it doesn't.
Is it the duty for the corporation to do their absolute best to make money for their investors for the next quarter or for the next 10 years?
Do corporations have a duty to do what's best for the investors right now, even if it's going to hurt, or even destroy the market 5 years from now?
How do you know it's untrue? Have you looked back over recent Apple posts on slashdot? The wealth of disinformation and just plain wrong data that is touted as "fact" is staggering.
This is not just confined to information about Apple, but all of the "unpopular" entities on slashdot - Google, MS, Sony, Apple, Facebook etc. The genuine issues with these large companies (and they all have them) are drowned out by nonsense wailing, gnashing and frothing from people with an axe to grind and whose only desire is to astroturf.
On the point of .ogg, it would be nice if it was a standard supported format, but the market is just not there (ie, not enough demand). The solution would be to allow you to add third party codecs of your own to the iPod itself, since it seems crazy that you can extend iTunes this way (well, not crazy that you can do it - anything that Quicktime will play, iTunes will play), but you can end up in a situation where iTunes will play a track that you can't sync to your iPod. Any of the current devices running iOS should be ideal for codec extensions.
What, the fact that I've seen people on Slashdot claim iPods can't play MP3? Not hardly. People make all sorts of misinformed statements about what you can and can't do with an iPod -- including that it won't play MP3s or that you have to buy your music from the iTunes music store.
First of all, I don't think endearing you to Apple is important. It may not endear them to you, but you're not their market.
You know, the overwhelming majority of people don't know WTF ogg-vorbis is. So, why would Apple build in support? To keep happy the 0.5% of the population who cares?
And, quite frankly, the only time I ever even hear about ogg is when someone is whining that some device doesn't support it. For me, ogg is like GNU Hurd -- nobody really cares except those indignant that nobody else is using it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
If they did make it available to everyone right away, people would still be bitching. The complaint would be that Apple is trying to hijack the open ePUB standard with their extensions for fixed layout.
The right way to do this is to implement their proposed system, test it on a few books, fix problems found, and end up with a format that works well for this. Only after it is stable and they have had a chance to see what other ePUB stakeholders think should they open it to everyone.
This is how most progress on standards comes about.