Author Claims Apple Won't Carry Her ebook Because It Mentions Amazon

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Author Claims Apple Won't Carry Her ebook Because It Mentions Amazon

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday July 29, 2012 @09:30AM from the not-in-our-store dept.

martiniturbide writes "Author Holly Lisle tried to publish her guide How To Think Sideways Lesson 6: How To Discover (Or Create) Your Story's Market at Apple's iBooks store. She says it was rejected first by Apple because it had 'live links' to Amazon. After she removed the links, it was rejected again because according to her: 'The problem is the CONTENT. You can't mention Amazon in your lesson.'"

332 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 09:32 · Score: 5, Informative

shut down discussion.
1. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 09:50 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The third rule of selling self-help books: make yourself seem like a plucky underdog being trampled on by a huge, faceless corporation.
2. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 09:55 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  shut down discussion.
  Which is why there needs to be a law against censoring content in a public marketplace by a public company.
3. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Deep+Esophagus · 2012-07-29 10:12 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  How on earth is this censorship, or controlling a market? Unless Apple can stop her from distributing her book in any form in any marketplace, all they've done is stop somebody from going into Walmart and putting up "Shop at K-Mart" signs.
  People keep throwing around the word "censorship" like they think they know what it means, but it's obvious they don't. Censorship is when the government restricts your speech. Even if every single one of her claims is true, she is not being censored.
  Disclaimer:I am most certainly not an Apple fanboy; I have loathed Apple ever since Woz left. I think they have horrific business practices, terrible design, and don't get me started about proprietary-everything with no user servicable parts inside. Despite all that, I think this is a non-story.
4. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by maxwell+demon · 2012-07-29 10:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  How on earth is this [...] controlling a market?
  So you don't think ebooks on iOS devices are a market?
  Or you don't think Apple controls it?
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
5. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  Censorship is when the government restricts your speech.
  No it is not. Censorship applies when any type of authority restricts your speech.
6. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Karlt1 · 2012-07-29 10:32 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  So does that mean that the Disney Store should be forced to sell Debbie Does Dallas if they sell books by other authors?
7. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Karlt1 · 2012-07-29 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  You're perfectly capable of buying a book from Amazon for the Kindle and using the Kindle app. Even if Apple did remove the Kindle app,you can read a kindle book within a browser.
8. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Intropy · 2012-07-29 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Censorship doesn't mean the government is doing, just someone with power or authority on a given arena. Apple has authority and power over their bookstore so they are able to censor content on it.
9. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by bigstrat2003 · 2012-07-29 10:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  People keep throwing around the word "censorship" like they think they know what it means, but it's obvious they don't. Censorship is when the government restricts your speech. Even if every single one of her claims is true, she is not being censored.
  Well, Merriam-Webster's site says this.
  Censorship:
  1. The institution or practice of censoring.
  Censor:
  To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable; also: to suppress or delete as objectionable.
  Nothing about the term requires that it be applied to the government. So, you're wrong. And while Apple certainly has the legal right to censor content that appears in their marketplace, it's pretty shitty of them to do so, and people are absolutely right to call them out for it (provided that the claims are true).
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
10. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-29 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  The third rule of selling self-help books: make yourself seem like a plucky underdog being trampled on by a huge, faceless corporation.
  A very popular corporation?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
11. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by cpu6502 · 2012-07-29 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  >>>How on earth is this censorship, or controlling a market?
  It is private censorship within the small area that Apple controls. And no the term does not only apply to a government. It can apply to private companies, or churches, or even your own home (you censor your kids from saying "fuck you"). Also cable TV when the private channels censor the nudity from movies.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
12. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by mk1004 · 2012-07-29 10:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  A quick search of apple inc in books on amazon returns plenty of results. Some are obviously positive and others negative about Apple, and some are probably neutral. The author suggests that Apple doesn't allow mentions of competitors, or at lest Amazon, in their bookstore. So which of the two, if either, is evil?
  
  --
  I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
13. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by BasilBrush · 2012-07-29 10:47 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  I know Apple don't control it. So would you if you actually knew what you were talking about. You can put ebooks from any number of ebook stores on any iOS device.
14. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by BasilBrush · 2012-07-29 10:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because it's censorship. Apple is censoring the content.
  If you think an individual store choosing not to sell something is censorship, then you've demonstrated you don't know what censorship means.
  
  No, censorship is when anyone (government, media, newspaper delivery boy) restricts dissemination of information that they object to people knowing (tiananmen square, acta, letters from the newspaper company about not giving delivery boys tips).
  Apple is not restricting dissemination. They have no power to do so. Authors do not have the right to have their books sold in any store they chose. Declining to stock a book is not censorship, otherwise ALL bookstores are censoring every book they don't stock.
15. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-29 10:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So does that mean that the Disney Store should be forced to sell Debbie Does Dallas if they sell books by other authors?
  
  You mean if I own a religious bookstore, I have to sell the Kama Sutra sex manual, "On the Road" which encourages drug use, and other vile filth? No sir. This is a free country and I should be able to decide what I wish to sell in my private business. It is not right that I should have to be forced out-of-a-job because of some stupid law that obliges me to sell items that are sinful.
  See, the problem here is you're setting up a straw man. Nobody is "forcing" Apple to sell anything. Nobody is forcing Apple out of business. Nobody is even pushing this private business to do anything it does not want.
  Instead, this woman, this author, is simply pointing out the kind of douchebag behavior that Apple has increasingly made its business model. Success through suppression of competition. Success through censorship, through lawsuits, through crushing competition. Success through stepping on small business people.
  This author is not talking about lawsuits or "there oughta be a law". She's just putting the information out there and letting people see for themselves why so many people are saying it's just not cool to own Apple products any more.
  I really don't think you're dramatic introduction of religious freedom and "sinfulness" is applicable or adds anything of value to this discussion.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
16. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-29 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Basically what you mean is that the word is nowhere near as bad as it sounded in the original context.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
17. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by bigstrat2003 · 2012-07-29 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  "Bad" is entirely subjective. I don't really consider censorship by someone in Apple's position that much more preferable to government censorship. It is still better, but not by some large margin. Anyways, the original context didn't misuse the word. If people connote things that are much worse than the word merits, that's not the original author's fault.
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
18. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-29 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  If people connote things that are much worse than the word merits, that's not the original author's fault.
  Yes, it is.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
19. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Culture20 · 2012-07-29 11:32 · Score: 2
  
  If they refuse to stock a book because of its content they are censoring that content within their store. Do you ever self-censor yourself when talking to people? Did the government force you to do that via mind control? If not, then not all censorship is government-caused. Nor is it universal (I doubt you censor the same things around your mother as you do around your friends).
20. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by hawguy · 2012-07-29 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  People keep throwing around the word "censorship" like they think they know what it means, but it's obvious they don't. Censorship is when the government restricts your speech. Even if every single one of her claims is true, she is not being censored.
  Where is censorship defined so narrowly?
  From m-w.com:
  
  Censorship: the institution, system, or practice of censoring
  Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
  
  From Wikipedia:
  
  Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children, to promote or restrict political or religious views, to prevent slander and libel, and to protect intellectual property. It may or may not be legal. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and it is frequently necessary to balance conflicting rights in order to determine what can and cannot be censored.
  (emphasis mine)
  If some portion of her potential market purchase content only through Apple's store, then she *is* being censored. Sure, there may be other workarounds (they can install a Kindle App, they can buy it in printed form, etc), but if Apple refuses to sell it because they don't like the content, they are censoring her.
21. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Opportunist · 2012-07-29 11:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Popular for some, the devil for others... Rest assured some will cry bloody murder, others will call it a slander campaign... be it as it may, everyone's talking about a book nobody would have bothered to even think of taking a look at.
  Mission accomplished.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
22. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by cpu6502 · 2012-07-29 11:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  >>>See, the problem here is you're setting up a straw man. Nobody is "forcing" Apple to sell anything.
  Yes. They are. I was directly responding to this request: "There needs to be a law against censoring content in a public marketplace by a public company." (It helps if you follow the thread-of-conversation before you reply.)
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
23. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by hawk · 2012-07-29 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  So who are you going to believe: someone who needs publicity to sell a book, or you own eyes? :)
  hawk
24. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Opportunist · 2012-07-29 11:41 · Score: 2
  
  Let's move that thought an inch further. Let's imagine Author 1 publishing a book through Store A which has a sizable market share and Author 2 trying the same with a book containing similar advice and content, but Store A decides not to carry that book. Will it cut into his market chances? Sure, both can also (or exclusively) publish in Store B, but what does it mean to the books?
  Well, sales for Author 1 will of course look better, because people don't give half a shit whether they buy his book or that of Author 2, but they want to shop at Store A because that's where they buy their other books, too. It's rather unlikely that they will go out of their way to find out whether there are other books by other authors on that subject. Worse yet, sales will indicate that the book from Author 1 is better because its sales numbers are higher.
  So no matter which book is better, author 1 will not only sell his books in Store A, he will most likely also sell more books in Store B than his competitor because, well, a billion flies cannot be wrong...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
25. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by cpu6502 · 2012-07-29 11:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  >>>See, the problem here is you're setting up a straw man..... I really don't think you're dramatic introduction
  And I really don't think you bothered to get off your lazy ass and READ THE CONVERSATION before you replied. Let me quote it for you since you are too dense (or maybe a little kid with small brain) to follow this simple thread:
  - "The first rule of controlling a market...shut down discussion."
  ----- "Which is why there needs to be a law against censoring content in a public marketplace by a public company."
  ----- ----- "You mean if I own a religious bookstore, I have to sell the Kama Sutra sex manual, "On the Road" which encourages drug use, and other vile filth? No sir. This is a free country and I should be able to decide what I wish to sell in my private business......"
  NOW do you see? I was responding to a person who DOES INDEED want to pass a LAW and force a private bookseller to sell everything, regardless of content. And you would have KNOWN that if you bothered to take 30 seconds and READ THE POSTS before replying and demeaning other people.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
26. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by LordLimecat · 2012-07-29 11:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Um, you want government legislating what a private company can and cannot sell?
  Stop and think about that, and why that is an awful idea.
27. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 11:48 · Score: 0
  
  The comment you replied to was itself a reply to a comment which specifically stated "Which is why there needs to be a law against censoring content in a public marketplace by a public company." Maybe you didn't see that one because it was a score 1 by AC.
28. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by LordLimecat · 2012-07-29 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  GP WAS saying that "there oughta be a law", which is what is being objected to here.
  Try and stay on top of the discussion.
29. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by cpu6502 · 2012-07-29 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  >>>This author is not talking about lawsuits or "there oughta be a law".
  Yes they are. The author of the grandparent post that I replied to said EXACTLY that. QUOTE: "There needs to be a law against censoring content in a public marketplace by a public company." Is that clear enough for you, or should I compose a song and sing it? You must be a completely illiterate boob if you can't read the words right in front of your face.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
30. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by cpu6502 · 2012-07-29 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  >>>not talking about "there oughta be a law".
  >>>
  >>>(Score:5, Insightful)
  Really?!?!? More like (+5 Smeg For Brains) for PopeRatzo. And I quote the post I was replying to: "Which is why there needs to be a law against censoring content in a public marketplace by a public company."
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
31. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  You are suggesting that success breeds social obligation. That's an unpopular stance in these times.
32. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-29 12:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So you were unable to grasp his entire point: As a religious seller, he should have the choice of selling those wares he believes in.
  And this is relevant to Apple and Amazon how?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
33. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  Um, you want government legislating what a private company can and cannot sell?
  Stop and think about that, and why that is an awful idea.
  This is a law against censorship, so the "cannot sell" part of your argument is a strawman.
  And yes, there should be laws against public companies censoring information. This doesn't mean every bookstore has to carry Debbie Does Dallas. What it means is that a public company can't overtly censor material, like what Apple just did.
34. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-29 12:12 · Score: 0
  
  You mean if I own a religious bookstore, I have to sell the Kama Sutra sex manual, "On the Road" which encourages drug use, and other vile filth?
  You believe the Kama Sutra is "vile filth"?
  Can you tell me where in the Bible, Torah or Koran it says that sex is dirty?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
35. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by AK+Marc · 2012-07-29 12:12 · Score: 2
  
  They do now. You aren't allowed to only serve Blacks in the alley, and only the inferior products.
  
  The question isn't about "whether" that's been settled for a while now, the question now is where to draw the line.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
36. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  Can you prove that it wasn't government mind control at work? Didn't think so. So it could be censorship. Damn it, See I just tried to post proof it was, but I self-censored it, which I'm sure I wouldn't have chosen to do, therefore it must have been the government mind control, which also means, to prapshrse The Simpsons, "The tinfoil hat, it does nothink!"
37. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  Previous commentor wrote "public company" and you write "private business." There is a huge difference, and its not an outrageous notion that very large publicly traded companies should be restricted from some kinds of behavior, for both democratic and capitalist reasons.
  I think the thing that really drives home the corrupt nature of this practice is that Apple is spending money to censor the content they sell, ie they are taking on costs that they would not otherwise have to take on, all in the name of "their image." This is not a small religious bookstore that is just saying "no I won't dedicate a section of my limited shelving to pornography," this is a company that has zero marginal cost of product proactively creating costs in order to further their corporate goals.
  Suppose I had a blockbuster book that Tim Cook didn't like for some arbitrary reason, perhaps it portrays the long deceased great-great-great-grandfather of his daughter's best friend in an unfavorable light, then your "private company" argument would say that Tim Cook can just refuse to sell the book, even though it is not a profit maximizing action. "But that is preposterous and would never happen, plus the shareholders could sue" I hear you cry... well in that case I would like to see this woman buy a single share of AAPL and then sue the board for failing to fulfill their fiduciary duty. After an efficient and short discovery period and argument the judge or jury determines that:
  a) the presence of a book that mentions a competitor in the store is not sufficiently damaging to Apple to support the costs introduced by Apple employees having to review all books submitted for publication
  b) the negative press of this action which will push future revenues down
  c) even if something heinous were to be associated with Apple (the colorado gunman used iOS to map out the exits from the building and maximize his kills) there is no reason to believe this would negatively affect sales
  d) and therefore Apple's censorship of the store contents is a cost increasing, revenue decreasing, and unreasonable policy.
  As such Tim Cook is ordered to pay court costs and damages of 1penny a share to all shareholders from his personal wealth.
38. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by bigstrat2003 · 2012-07-29 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  How? The original author used the word in an entirely appropriate way. Explain how it's their fault if someone misinterprets them.
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
39. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by hi-endian · 2012-07-29 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  Hey dumbass, it's not a straw man. His point was that since he isn't/shouldn't be forced to sell things that he doesn't want to sell, then neither should Apple. Pretty simple.
40. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by jmac_the_man · 2012-07-29 12:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Apple has religious fanatics?
41. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-29 12:39 · Score: 2
  
  You're seriously asking why it's his fault lots of people aren't understanding the thought he articulated? I cannot speak for the dude in question, but when I write up a post, I feel responsible for using the right words to make sure the picture painted in your mind is identical to mine. That means I also have to take context into account... which means it isn't solely about using the proper wordage. I don't always get that right, and it's frustrating, and I sometimes even foolishly defend it, but at the end of the day it's still my fault.
  You're always on the hook to say what you mean.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
42. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by jmac_the_man · 2012-07-29 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  You replied to this parent twice. Your second comment isn't any smarter than your first one was.
43. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by bigstrat2003 · 2012-07-29 12:45 · Score: 2
  
  You're always on the hook to say what you mean.
  And he did. Apple was accused of "censoring" references to Amazon. Censoring means the removal of objectionable content, nothing more (as the dictionary helpfully told us). Thus, what that parses to is "Apple was removing references to Amazon because they found them to be objectionable"... which, incidentally, is exactly the meaning which was trying to be conveyed.
  The word was used in a manner which was wholly appropriate, and people read more into it than the word means. Your argument that the author is responsible to this is basically like saying it's my fault if I write an article declaring the sky to be blue, and people interpret it as being a defense of neo-Nazi propaganda. The author is responsible for the message sent, but only to a point. If the author of a message used the language in a standard way, they can't be held responsible for people injecting their own subjective meaning on top of that.
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
44. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  This is a free country and I should be able to decide what I wish to sell in my private business ...
  Then, don't sell the Bible either, because of Song of Solomon, which is 10,000 times more "naughty" than any Kama Sutra,
  if a person is sick enough to believe that (Song of Solomon is "sinful"). And please, get your Biblical works correct. 'Sin' is a verb,
  like the word 'run'. You "sin"; you "run". You can't have "run" and you can't have "sin" - this is Bible 101. A weapon (knife, gun), or book
  is not sinful; but could be used to commit sin, or save a life. Using your logic, again supports that you should not sell the Bible because of
  its abuse by the mega-churches to convince innocent, trusting people to give their life savings to some clown who claims to be doing
  God's work. I would really love to find a Christian who believes the Bible, but they are very, very rare. You are in my prayers, but I'm only one person.
  CAPTCHA = atrophy (which is what happens to most Christians. This is very, very sad.)
45. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe you should, instead, explain why you think it's an awful idea, and why you're under the impression it's a new idea, considering the government has done it for as long as it's existed.
46. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by BluBrick · 2012-07-29 12:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Try and stay on top of the discussion.
  I don't include ACs in the discussion generally. They are beneath my attention threshold.
  Then it is you and not the AC, who risks looking like an ass due to ignoring context previously established by someone that chose not to log in. But it's your reputation and your choice, and you are free to make it.
  
  --
  Ahh - My eye!
  The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
47. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by drkim · 2012-07-29 12:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Can you tell me where in the Bible, Torah or Koran it says that sex is dirty?
  Like Song of Solomon:
  "We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts, But my breasts are like towers." "He shall lie all night betwixt my breasts." "Come ... blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits." "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him." "He thrust his hand into the opening, and my inmost being yearned for him. I arose to open to my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh, upon the handles of the bolt."
  You see..? Done Biblically, sex is very dirty!
48. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by jrumney · 2012-07-29 13:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's a straw man argument. A religious bookstore is a specialist store, nobody expects them to sell books that are outside of that specialty. Apple on the other hand are presenting themselves as a general ebook seller.
49. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, if the hardware you own only allows you to buy things in the Disney store (under the penalty of the DMCA).
50. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by jo_ham · 2012-07-29 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, if the hardware you own only allows you to buy things in the Disney store (under the penalty of the DMCA).
  Good thing that's not applicable to iOS devices then. You are not restricted to iBooks/iTunes store for ebook purchases on iOS.
51. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by jo_ham · 2012-07-29 13:29 · Score: 0
  
  Try and stay on top of the discussion.
  I don't include ACs in the discussion generally. They are beneath my attention threshold.
  In other words, you got called out for being foolish, and are now trying to backtrack and blame it on some ideological position that resulted in you failing reading comprehension.
52. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by runeghost · 2012-07-29 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  You're quite deliberately failing to make any distinction between a physical bookstore, which is limited by available space, and an e-book store, which is not so limited.
53. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 13:43 · Score: 0
  
  For now. Wait until Apple pulls the e-reader apps when they violate some future Terms of Service agreement. And what if other e-book stores censored the book so that it could not be bought anywhere? Would Apple be able to get away with this move because they could claim there was a 'choice'?
54. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  Governments around the world including in North America and Europe have in fact been doing that for decades...
55. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 13:58 · Score: 0
  
  People keep throwing around the word "censorship" like they think they know what it means, but it's obvious they don't. Censorship is when the government restricts your speech.
  No, zoo breath, it's you who don't know what it means. Censorship is when you suppress information or ideas. Go get a dictionary if you don't believe me.
  Violations of the US Constituion first amendment require government to be the censor. But you don't have to be violating someone's first amendment to censor them.
  
  I think this is a non-story.
  Only if you don't care that you and half the planet considers buying products from this company that they rely on to run their daily lives. And the company is in fact doing their damnedest to prevent us from doing things that could possibly interfere with their business interests in the slightest.
  We need to hear stories lille this about Big Brother so we can decide if we want to contribute to their burgeoning empire by buying their products.
  That said, I'm pretty fond of Apple, made a killing owning their stock and am typing this in on an original iPad 1 I bought a couple of weeks after they first started shipping.
56. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Smauler · 2012-07-29 14:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't include ACs in the discussion generally. They are beneath my attention threshold.
  Then you're missing out. AC posts are often very good. You sound a little arrogant when you say that ACs add nothing.
  Your previous post shows you can't even tell who you're replying to, and why they have posted what they did (which most ACs can). It's currently at +5 insightful, which shows some moderators are in the same boat. That post is just 100% wrong, through and through, as anyone who had read the parent of the post you were replying to could see immediately.
  Don't get all defensive, just admit you were wrong, and carry on.
57. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 14:08 · Score: 0
  
  "Censorship is when the government restricts your speech."
  have you really convinced yourself only the government may censor anything?
58. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Ol+Olsoc · 2012-07-29 14:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This author is not talking about lawsuits or "there oughta be a law". She's just putting the information out there and letting people see for themselves why so many people are saying it's just not cool to own Apple products any more.
  I really don't think you're dramatic introduction of religious freedom and "sinfulness" is applicable or adds anything of value to this discussion.
  More likely in my jaded eye is that the story is bullshit. I read the article. Don't see anything that resembles any proof. Why wouldn't we see emails or other messages from Apple offered to show the Evil Corporations evilness? The credibility of the story is directly proportional to the readers hatred of Apple.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
59. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Ol+Olsoc · 2012-07-29 14:18 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You see..? Done Biblically, sex is very dirty!
  Behold, I come like a thief in the night?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
60. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Smauler · 2012-07-29 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  There's a difference : Forcing public companies to sell something they don't want to sell is odd, IMO. I don't think there's many times that's happened (save for when those companies have government monopolistic/subsidised involvement). Forcing public companies to sell to the public in the same way isn't all that odd, really, though.
61. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-29 14:33 · Score: 0
  
  Your argument that the author is responsible to this is basically like saying it's my fault if I write an article declaring the sky to be blue, and people interpret it as being a defense of neo-Nazi propaganda.
  Heh. If you're creating something where you can be called an author, it's your job to communicate clearly. If you cannot write an article about the sky being blue without people reacting that badly to it, that is indeed your fault.
  This example didn't serve you like you thought it would.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
62. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Smauler · 2012-07-29 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  People keep throwing around the word "censorship" like they think they know what it means, but it's obvious they don't. Censorship is when the government restricts your speech. Even if every single one of her claims is true, she is not being censored.
  Looks like you don't know censorship means. To start, we'll keep it simple - the first few lines from Wikipedia : "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."
  Now... I'm not arguing against your general point, only against your notion of censorship. Notice that you claim that only governments can censor, while I, and wikipedia (though it is a flawed resource) claim that anyone or anything can censor you. You can censor yourself, if you like (see self-censorship).
  I'm relatively curious... what do you think censorship means?
63. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by AK+Marc · 2012-07-29 14:44 · Score: 2
  
  The company doesn't want to sell food to Blacks. They are forced to sell something they don't want to sell. And yes, companies are forced to sell all the time. One of the reasons the EV1 was never "sold" in the US is because of the regulations requiring spare parts and such be for sale for minimum periods of time. GM didn't want to, so they only leased them, then destroyed them all when the leases ended. Because selling one requires they sell other related things for years to come.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
64. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 14:45 · Score: 0
  
  Choosing not to sell a book because you sell cactuses is not censorship. Choosing not to sell a book because it mentions a something you don't like is censorship. Reasons matter. In this case, Apple is not selling a book because they do not like it's content and wish to keep that content from their customers. That is censorship. It is not illegal; it is not covered by the first amendment, but it is censorship. Please learn to use your brain.
65. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-29 14:53 · Score: 0
  
  Hey dumbass, it's not a straw man. His point was that since he isn't/shouldn't be forced to sell things that he doesn't want to sell, then neither should Apple.
  Where in the story do you see anything about Apple being forced to sell something?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
66. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Smauler · 2012-07-29 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah... that's where you're getting confused. Selection _is_ censorship in many cases.
67. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-29 14:56 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  In other words, you got called out for being foolish, and are now trying to backtrack and blame it on some ideological position that resulted in you failing reading comprehension.
  Precisely. And despite the howls of duplicative protests, I'll get away with it.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
68. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-29 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  Then it is you and not the AC, who risks looking like an ass
  
  That's like saying a gorilla risks looking like a gorilla.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
69. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 15:09 · Score: 0
  
  How on earth is this censorship, or controlling a market? Unless Apple can stop her from distributing her book in any form in any marketplace, all they've done is stop somebody from going into Walmart and putting up "Shop at K-Mart" signs.
  Your analogy is terrible.
  This is more like Wal-Mart demanding the newspapers that sell to them take other company's circulars out of the copies they receive.
  
  People keep throwing around the word "censorship" like they think they know what it means, but it's obvious they don't. Censorship is when the government restricts your speech.
  
  Well, I guess you proved it is obvious that you don't know what it means.
  Censorship is not restricted to the government.
70. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  >quote>all they've done is stop somebody from going into Walmart and putting up "Shop at K-Mart" signs.
  Your comparison is very disingenuous. Try comparing it to actual products for sale instead of imaginary signs.
  At walmart, you can buy a book about retail shopping for deals, including k-mart and target.
  Or a book about making money on-line instead of opening a retail store.
71. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Solandri · 2012-07-29 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  I can see that argument working for Google's Android Play store, since they allow you to install any other marketplace app onto your Android device.
  
  OTOH, Apple prohibits any other market except their own. So your analogy would have to be modified to a religious bookstore which doesn't carry those books, and prevents you from shopping at any other bookstore if you should choose to shop there.
  
  I think a lot of people are picking either extreme here. Either Apple is to be damned for (purportedly) blocking the book, or it's completely OK. The truth I think lies somewhere in the middle. They're not a monopoly so you can't completely condemn them for this. But at the same time they control a majority of the tablet market and a significant fraction of the phone market, and exert a tremendous amount of control over the "shelf space" their customers see. So I don't think it's really fair to give them a complete pass on this either. With great market share comes great responsibility - to be fair to your customers.
72. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by LordLimecat · 2012-07-29 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Courts are currently considering whether it can compel Netflix to offer subtitles for ALL of its catalogue, with the justification that not doing so would be discrimination against the deaf.
  You can argue the merits of that, but certainly these "compelled to provide service / good" situations DO happen.
73. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by KingSkippus · 2012-07-29 15:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Okay, so if you ARE a plucky underdog being trampled on by a huge, faceless corporation, what the hell are you supposed to do? Just shut up and take it? I'm not saying you're wrong, but that thing you just said, big faceless corporations delight in people believing it because then they can do no wrong. If you're an asshole, that's your fault. If we're an asshole, then it's still your fault.
  So I'm genuinely curious, how do you, as a consumer, tell the difference? What do you know about this particular circumstance, this particular author, that we don't know that makes you think that she is being disingenuous?
  Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, maybe she is making a fuss just to get publicity. If so, then by all means, let us know why you think so so that we won't waste our time supporting her. It just seems to me that you're saying that anyone who makes a fuss must just be in it for the publicity, and I strongly disagree.
74. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 15:50 · Score: 0
  
  First of all, nothing about the word "censorship" requires that a government be the censoring party. Second, this is very different from going to Wal-Mart and putting up advertisements for K-Mart. Obstensibly, her book is not an advertisement for Amazon; it merely mentions that people can use Amazon to accomplish business related goals.
75. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by SQLGuru · 2012-07-29 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'll contemplate this while I go for a nice long run. (used as a noun) Hopefully I won't commit a sin while I'm doing so.
76. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by circletimessquare · 2012-07-29 16:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  yes: i don't want private companies selling plutonium to anyone and i want my government to use my tax dollars to stop them
  no: i don't want private companies restricted by rules that squash competition and i want government free of the sort of meddling by large corporations that sometimes creates this vile status quo
  in other words, the idea of government legislating what a private company can and cannot sell is a large complicated concept that has many answers depending on the context
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
77. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Yaztromo · 2012-07-29 16:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  People keep throwing around the word "censorship" like they think they know what it means, but it's obvious they don't. Censorship is when the government restricts your speech. Even if every single one of her claims is true, she is not being censored.
  This times one million.
  I've been running into this lack of understanding of what censorship is more and more as of late it seems. This certainly doesn't come anywhere close to censorship.
  For this to rise to a level to be considered "censorship", once she found out that Apple wouldn't publish her book, she'd have to find that no other store would sell her book either. Then she would need to try to self-publish on the web, only to find that no ISP would host her content. She'd then need to try to make paper copies, only to find that none of the copy stores would be willing to do the job. She'd then need to start making her own copies on an old mimeograph, only to find men in jack-boots kicking down her door and threatening her with death for attempting to get out her message.
  THAT is censorship. This author still has thousands of other avenues to publish her work. Government thugs aren't going to break down her door to arrest her and her family to silence her.
  Want to know what censorship is? Go and see Sophie Scholl: The Final Days. That is censorship, and is something we all need to be vigilant about. A publisher choosing not to publish a book? That has happened each and every day since the invention of publishing. Just because I write a book doesn't mean that (for example) Random House must publish it, or that it's censorship if they don't.
  Find another publisher -- if the book is good, someone will pick it up (either in print or digitally). If the book is junk, self-publish. It isn't censorship until you're threatened with people with guns kicking down your door to imprison or harm yourself or your family, or to otherwise shut down your ability to publish.
  Yaz
78. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by EdIII · 2012-07-29 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  Please.
  The definition also says suppress. Your equating the word censor as having the same action and connotation as edit. They are not interchangeable in meaning and spirit.
  There is a reason why the definition for censorship contains the word suppress, which means to forcibly prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain.
  You argue about language being used in a standard way, then stick to that principle. The standard usage of censorship is negative and means the forcible suppression of expression of objectionable content.
  Only weasel like dickweeds in the entertainment industry try to say, "content has been edited for television", when we all damn well know it has been censored.
  You're starting to remind of President Clinton and the word "is".......
79. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 16:29 · Score: 0
  
  It's a straw man argument. A religious bookstore is a specialist store, nobody expects them to sell books that are outside of that specialty. Apple on the other hand are presenting themselves as a general ebook seller.
  Reading about the amazon store in an eBook bought in Apple store? Now, in my opinion (and everybody has a right to their opinion) this is obscene and I expect the Apple store not to sell obscene materials.
  (did I make the point of "expectations vs moral judgements"? Should I add the an example on "millions of people can't be wrong" and mention the "house prices never go down" matra in pre-2008 era or do you get the gist already?)
80. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Actually that is still very much a strass man argument. The point being raised is selective censorship, your example would be only applicable if said religious bookseller was happy to show other sex related manuals but then reject the Karma Sutra because it is sex related. No one is asking Amazon to show the type of content that they don't consider acceptable.
81. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-07-29 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  This author is not talking about lawsuits or "there oughta be a law". She's just putting the information out there and letting people see for themselves why so many people are saying it's just not cool to own Apple products any more.
  Unless this is just a cynical attempt to get some attention by mentioning Apple's name.
82. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 16:53 · Score: 0
  
  >> all they've done is stop somebody from going into Walmart and putting up "Shop at K-Mart" signs
  No this is not a 'sign' that's been put up for all to see, to use your analogy, they've removed the book from the shelves as one of the chapters mentions 'K-Mart'.
  it's a book on writing ebooks - of course it would mention all the places to publish them!
  >> People keep throwing around the word "censorship" like they think they know what it means, but it's obvious they don't
  _an official_ who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or _other grounds_.
  Seems pretty fair to say this is censorship by my understanding of the terms... it's being censored by the iStore owners as it mentions the competition. Imagine if Amazon removed all books that reference Apple.
83. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 17:23 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. The Song of Solomon is erotic.
  But the first verse you cited ACTUALLY goes like this:
  "8. We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?
  9. If she be a wall, we will build upon her a palace of silver: and if she be a door, we will inclose her with boards of cedar.
  10. I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as one that found favour."
  inclose her with boards of cedar, as in, if she is a slutty door, we will kill and bury her.
  It's a book about how sex in the context of marriage is good.... but otherwise bad.
84. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 17:25 · Score: 0
  
  Apple is not a private company. They are a public company.
85. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 17:40 · Score: 0
  
  Apple has been censoring the App Store for the longest time.
  Classic example: the baby shaker app was removed because it was deemed to be 'distasteful'. Who the hell does Apple think it is, making a moral/ethical judgement on my behalf?
  Side point: there needs to be a open, platform-agnostic app store where nothing, no app or ebook is deemed to be offensive and nothing is removed, not even by legal threats. Unfortunately, with all the 'thou shalt be politically correct and culturally sensitive' pricks out there, I can't see this idea being brought to fruition anytime soon.
86. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by arkhan_jg · 2012-07-29 17:42 · Score: 2
  
  Um, you want government legislating what a private company can and cannot sell?
  Um, the government already does regulate commerce.
  For example, it's illegal to sell child porn. It's also illegal to refuse to sell to black people, or homosexuals, or women.
  Now whether it's worth having the government regulate that companies can't refuse to sell products that mention a competitor is another discussion altogether, but it's a straw man to pretend it'd be the first time government has got involved in commerce between two private parties, and most people think that's a good thing.
  Unless you're one of the people that think 'no coloreds' signs should return to shops, of course.
  
  --
  Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
87. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Eth1csGrad1ent · 2012-07-29 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  So you were unable to grasp his entire point: As a religious seller, he should have the choice of selling those wares he believes in.
  Sure he should... and he can wear the criticism that goes with it.. which is what is happening here.
  And sorry, if your business model includes becoming the defacto standard or defacto provider for any service - then you can justify some of your business decisions to the general public -- otherwise go back to being a snooty, small-time, boutique seller catering special interests.
88. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by crunchygranola · 2012-07-29 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. You had to bring in the entire crop to build that straw man.
  In other words unless the censorship can be effectively enforced through every possible means of distribution - and is more effective than even the control of information in the former Soviet Union (or modern China) ever was it doesn't exist. In other words no censorship has ever existed anywhere since this type of absolute control over society has never been successfully enforced.
  Total BS.
  
  --
  Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
89. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 18:32 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Rest assured reasonable, normal human beings will cry bloody murder, brainwashed Apple drones will call it a slander campaign
  FTFY
90. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 18:54 · Score: 0
  
  I for one would like the song! :D
91. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 19:09 · Score: 0
  
  Please explain...
92. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by drkim · 2012-07-29 19:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I'm sorry A.C., I didn't realize it was ACTUALLY written in English. I thought it was ACTUALLY written in Hebrew.
  But perhaps you would rather enjoy Ezekiel 23:20 (New International Version translation)
  There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
93. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Requiem18th · 2012-07-29 20:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Wow, talk about blaming the victim. Don't pretend this isn't Apple's fault, in fact I don't even think this was planned, otherwise she would have complained from the moment the links were blamed.
  In a way I think this is a great opportunity to illustrate why monopolies, even popular ones are bad. Talking about popular monopolies, are you a fan of Apple? Because that was some nice brand loyalty there.
  
  --
  But... the future refused to change.
94. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 20:07 · Score: 0
  
  Walmart still carries the south park dvds containing the episode that bashes wal-mart.
95. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by LordLimecat · 2012-07-29 20:37 · Score: 1
  
  Publicly traded isnt the same as publicly owned. The ownership is still "private" in that it is not a government entity.
96. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by w0mprat · 2012-07-29 21:05 · Score: 2
  
  Um, you want government legislating what a private company can and cannot sell?
  Stop and think about that, and why that is an awful idea.
  Stop and think about the opposite awful idea: Lets have private companies sell whatever they want, however they want, and answer to no law.
  
  Frankly I'd rather have Governments in control that Corporations, ultimately governments [are meant to] answer to the people since democracy [is supposed ro] puts them in power, corporations answer to money and can never put anything else other than profit as priority number one: else they will fail.
  
  --
  After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
97. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by KGIII · 2012-07-29 21:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Are you retarded? The discussion is the comment made, in which they stated that there ought to be a law, and you attempting to pretend you actually understand the tenets of critical thinking.
  Now, no... There is no strawman here. The person said there ought to be a law that prevents people from censoring content in their store. That is very much like forcing the guy to put steamy sex novels in his religious store and very much wrong.
  That people feel entitled to compel people to act in certain manners completely baffles me in this day and age. Where has freedom gone? Why are we, the governed, so eager to give up our rights or the rights of others. Every single law is a restriction (for better or worse) of someones freedoms. That folks don't understand the difference between freedom and liberty may have something to do with that but is a topic for another day.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
98. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by KGIII · 2012-07-29 21:25 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying that you're a fanboy?
  I'm actually a bit skeptical as well. Ah well... I do own an iPod or three and have an old Mac laptop kicking around here somewhere though I think it has been booted less than a dozen times.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
99. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by bennomatic · 2012-07-29 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  Your example breaks down: when you're practicing self-censorship, you are the person who is in sole control of your thoughts. By self-censoring, you have ensured that your thoughts are not available to anyone else.
  
  If Apple choosing not to carry a book is censorship, then so is every edit made to every web page, newspaper or magazine in the entire history of the world.
  
  There are indeed alternate avenues for this author to use for book distribution, aren't there? Isn't Android winning? There are two models of iPad currently selling, three models of iPhone, the iPod touch and depending on how you slice it, six models of Mac that could display this book. 12 total devices against zillions of Windows and Android devices. And that's not even counting the possibility of printing a book.
  
  If you're going to raise the censorship alarm, then you're suggesting that they are actually keeping the content from being available. That is totally different from not selling it. For example, the author could put the book up as a PDF or a web page and sell it directly to consumers. She could give it away, and Apple wouldn't stop it.
  
  "I don't agree" doesn't mean that they are doing anything illegal or unethical. Without knowing all the details, I can't say for sure I support the decision they made, but heck: they rejected the first app I submitted to the app store. Should I have sued them for having illegally censored my work?
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
100. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by KGIII · 2012-07-29 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  What part of free to sell includes the part where you're entitled to tell him what he's to decide to sell?
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
101. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by bennomatic · 2012-07-29 21:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Well, a quick search of the iTunes Music Store lets me find a bunch of Amazon's apps. Narrowing it to books, there aren't many, but right on the first page of the search results is this and this.
  
  Maybe there's more to the story than meets the eye.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
102. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by BasilBrush · 2012-07-29 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah... that's where you're getting confused. Selection _is_ censorship in many cases.
  No confusion here. If you were to draw a venn diagram, the circle of censorship within the circle of selection would be very, very small. A bookstore choosing not to stock a book is within the "selection" set, but not in the censorship set.
  It's very clear.
103. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by BasilBrush · 2012-07-29 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  Because the availability of space does not change the definition of words.
104. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by zidium · 2012-07-29 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  That's the best you can do?!
  Man, you lost the argument due to reading comprehension fail. Man up and admit it.
  
  --
  Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
105. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by zidium · 2012-07-29 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for **FINALLY** and succinctly pointing out why it's a strawman argument.
  I admit, your description makes a lot of sense.
  
  --
  Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
106. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by zidium · 2012-07-29 22:41 · Score: 2
  
  Trust me, you really do come across as someone who can't follow a discussion (particularly when you engage further with cpu6502).
  Then you dig yourself even deeper with all your pompous anti-AC rhetoric.
  You could win back some good will by doing a mea culpa right about now.
  
  --
  Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
107. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by zidium · 2012-07-29 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations! You've just become my first official Slashdot "foe".
  
  --
  Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
108. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 22:56 · Score: 0
  
  Behold, I come like a thief in the night?
  Behold, I come quickly. (Rev. 22:7)
109. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by zidium · 2012-07-29 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  To be honest, my bible has a footnote saying that the Song of Solomon is not inspired scripture but is preserved largely out of a sense of heredity.
  
  --
  Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
110. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by zidium · 2012-07-29 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  Could you please give me two examples of why this would be bad, per se?
  I get that some people may be disenfranchised, but if someone doesn't want to serve to a particular group, that should be their right as sovereigns, as it does no explicit harm to the other people. It could even do some good.
  For instance, if a lot of businesses in a town refused blind people service (let's say they didn't want to have the expense of providing people to speak the menus out loud), then that'd just open the door for someone else to open up just such a store.
  
  --
  Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
111. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by andyteleco · 2012-07-29 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  What you said about Apple and lawsuits just reminded me of something that happened to a (small) company I worked for a few years ago.
  
  This company was called "XXXXMAC", a name which it had since 1989, which it received because one of the founders was called Macario. Well, this didn't stop Apple from sueing them for a large amount of money just because the name of the company contained the word "MAC".
  
  Eventually the company won the lawsuit and Apple had to reimburse the legal costs, but it did suppose an enormous pain in the ass for such a small company. I bet many others would have simply folded and changed the name just to avoid fighting against Apple.
112. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 23:25 · Score: 0
  
  You've nailed it exactly what I was trying to say - used as a noun to describe a verb (with an indefinite tense).
  But, the "noun" is worthless without the action, unlike the noun "table" or "can" or "person" which are always
  meaningful regardless of their tense. What you really described was an idiom. These are the finer points
  seldom taught of English, which is why foreigners seem lost in some of its usage (while you may go for a run,
  I don't think you'll ever verb a table.
  My point was that the Bible always describes sin as a direct consequence of some verb - unlike many Christians
  who believe one commits a sin simply by doing something they disagree with. That's where the feathers ruffle with me.
  Same as (#40813043) CAPTCHA = integral (Uncanny - how it knows)
113. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 23:38 · Score: 0
  
  Original AC here. To be honest I didn't put that much thought into what was an overly glib comment, but with that said I'd expect someone who was genuinely wronged to do a little more than bitch about it on a couple of blogs.
114. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by whisper_jeff · 2012-07-29 23:40 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, maybe she is making a fuss just to get publicity. If so, then by all means, let us know why you think so so that we won't waste our time supporting her.
  Her claim is the book was refused because it mentions Amazon. Go to the iTunes store. Do a search for Amazon. Ignore the results about the geographic region and notice how many other books clearly and obviously mention Amazon. Take particular note, for example, of the book titled "Amazon.com" which, one would assume, is about Amazon and makes mention of the company.
  After you do this basic level of investigation, one can only be left to assume that there's either some key part of this story missing and/or she is doing this to generate attention for her book as a marketing ploy (driving people to buy her book on Amazon, most likely).
  
  It just seems to me that you're saying that anyone who makes a fuss must just be in it for the publicity, and I strongly disagree.
  I agree (with you) - making a fuss does not mean one is just trying to generate publicity but, especially in today's day and age one must be sure to consider the possibility that, yes, it is being done for publicity. It's a marketing tactic that has proven to work, largely because most people aren't willing to do any degree of investigation into whether or not a claim is true. Thus, he (or she) who complains loudest gets eyeballs.
  I believe, in this case, the story is either missing a very important key piece of information or, more likely, the author is manipulating the online media into generating hype regarding her book to increase sales.
115. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by heathen_01 · 2012-07-29 23:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I thought we were here to bash apple. Whats this about a book?
116. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Deorus · 2012-07-29 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, talk about blaming the victim. Don't pretend this isn't Apple's fault, in fact I don't even think this was planned, otherwise she would have complained from the moment the links were blamed.
  Denied once? OK, I'll try again! Denied twice? Fuck it, I''ll just run to the press, twist the facts, generate free publicity, and hopefully Apple will approach me accept my crap in the end!
  
  In a way I think this is a great opportunity to illustrate why monopolies, even popular ones are bad. Talking about popular monopolies, are you a fan of Apple? Because that was some nice brand loyalty there.
  So far we've only heard one side of the story, and not even a well written one at that: the article is missing a double quote, so it's impossible to tell whether ""No, no. The problem is the CONTENT." was Apple's actual reply or a made up reply in an attempt to blame and shame while at the same time hiding the actual reason for the denial. It is very easy to blame a big company that never addresses single cases like this in public and take advantage of the publicity that it generates.
117. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 23:46 · Score: 0
  
  FUD.
118. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 23:49 · Score: 0
  
  Dora Does Dallas
119. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by RabidReindeer · 2012-07-29 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  Where has freedom gone? Why are we, the governed, so eager to give up our rights or the rights of others. Every single law is a restriction (for better or worse) of someones freedoms. That folks don't understand the difference between freedom and liberty may have something to do with that but is a topic for another day.
  I'm afraid we've been giving it away hand over fist.
  However, the problem here is that Apple effectively has monopoly powers and we do have a longstanding antipathy to monoplies in this country, in part because monopolies themselves limit freedom. We ask the government to control them because no ordinary individual or group can have influence over them, and, being a monopoly, they have insulated themselves from market forces. In plain English "It's my way or the highway".
  Still, Apple is dominant, but not a true monopoly here, and so the best approach is to simply stop slavishly adoring Apple and go out and buy a product that doesn't carry Apple's restrictions. I'm expecting to follow my own advice next time I buy an eReader, since the "big name" vendors are too fond of hiding the books that I allegedly "own" - or even yanking them back.
120. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by shentino · 2012-07-29 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  In theory, there is, if you have a monopoly on that market.
121. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by shentino · 2012-07-30 00:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's already on the books and it's called antitrust regulation.
  A lot of the "there ought to be a law" type situations only come about because the powers that be don't give a shit about enforcing laws already on the books unless it suits them.
122. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Deorus · 2012-07-30 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Actually that is still very much a strass man argument. The point being raised is selective censorship, your example would be only applicable if said religious bookseller was happy to show other sex related manuals but then reject the Karma Sutra because it is sex related. No one is asking Amazon to show the type of content that they don't consider acceptable.
  You have an incorrect definition for a straw man fallacy. A strawman fallacy happens when party A misrepresents party B's position in order to subvert the discussion, and this is not what's happening here. Party B (the AC who suggested a law that would prevent sellers from selecting the content that they sell) made an extremely broad suggestion, and other people (party A) are correctly inferring from the general to the particular in order to demonstrate the consequences of the application of such a broad law. There is absolutely no straw man fallacy here, these applications are perfectly within the scope of party B's position and thus perfectly valid logic deductions.
123. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Deorus · 2012-07-30 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  A broad law stating that sellers can not censor content without any exceptions would "expect" that, since that's within its scope. There's no straw man argument anywhere in there, the position of the AC is not being misrepresented, that's the scope that they defined.
124. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by garaged · 2012-07-30 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  You are mostly right, except for the fact that apple is being using unfair rules to affect amazon and in the mean time is also affecting the author of the book, that is exactly as bad as a religious store selling debbie does dallas, not the opposite
  
  --
  I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
125. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  Um, you want government legislating what a private company can and cannot sell?
  Hell yes. For example, the government says that you can sell a lawn-mower, but you can't sell a lawn-mower with a contract saying that it can't be resold. That's called the First-Sale Doctrine, and it's important. There are lots of other cases. This may be one of them.
  In general, if a company is getting away with something because there isn't any effective competition, and a regulation forces it to act the way it would if there were competition, then that regulation's doing the right thing.
126. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Deorus · 2012-07-30 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  And yes, there should be laws against public companies censoring information. This doesn't mean every bookstore has to carry Debbie Does Dallas. What it means is that a public company can't overtly censor material, like what Apple just did.
  Why should these laws exist? Why should your freedom to publish be any more important than a publisher's freedom to deny your crap? What is legally stopping you from starting your own publisher and publishing whatever you wish?
127. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by jjo · 2012-07-30 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  The author suggests that Apple didn't allow her to mention Amazon. If Apple allowed others to do so, that does not show her statement to be false. Apple may have erred in implementing its policies, either in her case or in the cases you found. Don't rush to blame the victim.
128. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 00:35 · Score: 0
  
  For instance, if a lot of businesses in a town refused blind people service (let's say they didn't want to have the expense of providing people to speak the menus out loud), then that'd just open the door for someone else to open up just such a store.
  Unless you're a complete idiot, you'd know that historically, the "free market" has failed massively in such areas; this is why disability discrimination legislation exits.
  I guess you're quite happy to say to the disabled "Meh, sucks to be you; you should man up and grow some new legs/eyes etc.". There's a lot of that attitude on /.
  Instead, disabled people "manned up" and got themselves some new laws, which was a bit more practical.
  Anyhow, you carry on worshiping your so-called "free market".
129. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Deorus · 2012-07-30 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  The company doesn't want to sell food to Blacks. They are forced to sell something they don't want to sell. And yes, companies are forced to sell all the time. One of the reasons the EV1 was never "sold" in the US is because of the regulations requiring spare parts and such be for sale for minimum periods of time. GM didn't want to, so they only leased them, then destroyed them all when the leases ended. Because selling one requires they sell other related things for years to come.
  A vendor is not necessarily a retailer, and an author is not necessarily a publisher. While retailers can not discriminate against customers unless regulation states otherwise, they are perfectly fine to discriminate against vendors. Likewise, while publishers can not discriminate against customers unless regulation states otherwise, they are perfectly fine to discriminate against authors, so all your points are moot.
  There are not and there should never be laws requiring retailers or publishers to sell wares from anyone, that would open a huge can of worms where retailers and publishers would get constantly abused and forced to auction their shelves or publishing resources with huge negative consequences to the consumers, who would only witness product costs skyrocket.
130. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  Holy crap dude, this is the fourth time you've responded to that PopeRatzo post with basically the exact same message! Do you have some sort of short term memory problems?
131. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  It was NEVER cool to own (Cr)apple products, nor does (or ever did) owning their products make one cool. (Cr)apple only managed to delude some idiots.
  What you own does not make you cool. What you do and who you are can.
132. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Her claim is the book was refused because it mentions Amazon. Go to the iTunes store. Do a search for Amazon. Ignore the results about the geographic region and notice how many other books clearly and obviously mention Amazon. Take particular note, for example, of the book titled "Amazon.com" which, one would assume, is about Amazon and makes mention of the company.
  You assume that Apple applies its Bookstore rules evenly and consistently, which, given the experiences many have had with the App Store, is not a safe assumption.
133. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Qzukk · 2012-07-30 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Your argument that the author is responsible to this is basically like saying it's my fault if I write an article declaring the sky to be blue, and people interpret it as being a defense of neo-Nazi propaganda.
  Heh. If you're creating something where you can be called an author, it's your job to communicate clearly. If you cannot write an article about the sky being blue without people reacting that badly to it, that is indeed your fault.
  This example didn't serve you like you thought it would.
  Damn, I hate it when neo-Nazis try to defend themselves.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
134. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  What's funny is of course how he isn't practicing what he preaches. If he actually read PopeRatzo's comment that got insightful mod, he'll realize that Pope was talking about the author that got her book denied by Apple, not the AC who did
  Yea, maybe if Pope was talking about the AC and picking fights with cpu6502, he'd be an idiot and not deserving of insightful. But he was NOT talking about the AC, and his comment applies to general topic at large, which was insightful
135. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Deorus · 2012-07-30 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why there needs to be a law against censoring content in a public marketplace by a public company.
  How's this relevant? Apple is not a public company... A public company would be government owned; Apple is privately owned.
136. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by KGIII · 2012-07-30 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know if I'd call Apple a monopoly. There are still plenty of other options available. I would call them anti-competitive and patently evil. It's sad how many people view this as an opportunity to enact a law as opposed to just buying an alternative product. I much prefer my Kindle though I do like my iPod for music but I suspect that's just because there are so many docking devices.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
137. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by FranktehReaver · 2012-07-30 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  What book?! Just grab this torch and follow me we got work to do.
138. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Let me give you an example that should be somewhat similar:
  My Rabbi was on facebook. He was listed as Rabbi so-and-so. Nothing was a problem until one day he emailed support to ask a question. They locked down his account and forced him to change it to his full name because "titles are not permitted." It's a part of their "real name" policy. Now anyone could do a simple search on facebook and turn up HUNDREDS of Rabbis, Pastors and other people with titles there, but for whatever reason, they only bother to enforce this policy when you come to their attention and do not have software automatically preventing people from using such titles.
  It's very likely that the many ebooks that mention amazon on Apple were either put in place before such a policy was enacted, or the particular reviewer she got stuck with is overzealous in enforcing that policy. Policy enforcement is not uniform, and neither is competence or job performance.
139. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  You must be a completely illiterate boob if you can't read the words right in front of your face.
  Coming from you, that is a hilariously ironic statement.
140. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by sys_mast · 2012-07-30 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Would you be able to provide a link to backup the statement about this regulation requiring spare parts?
  
  --
  Those who can, do.
141. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by steveg · 2012-07-30 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Um.
  You're using a different definition of "public company" than the rest of the world. When a company "goes public" it makes its shares available to anyone who can pony up the cost on a public stock exchange, subject to the rules of the SEC.
  A private company is generally "closely held" and you canNOT buy stock on a public exchange.
  Your meaning might make some sense, but it's not how the rest of the world uses the term.
  
  --
  Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
142. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by SQLGuru · 2012-07-30 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Let's table this discussion for later (used as a verb).
143. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Algae_94 · 2012-07-30 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  And yes, there should be laws against public companies censoring information. This doesn't mean every bookstore has to carry Debbie Does Dallas. What it means is that a public company can't overtly censor material, like what Apple just did.
  Actually, it sounds like your law would be that every bookstore does have to carry Debbie Does Dallas (the book of course)
  A private company does not have to sell anyone's book. Or they can make a deal to sell it if it is modified (censored, but willingly by the author to get the book in the store).
  Freedom of speech lets someone write whatever book they want. It also let's someone else, such as a private company, decide they don't want to repeat those words.
144. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Algae_94 · 2012-07-30 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's always fun to see someones first foe.
145. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Algae_94 · 2012-07-30 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  why does it have to relate at all? This is a discussion thread.
  
  If it must relate to Apple And Amazon, they both sell books and the comment you replied to is talking about a book seller and the idea of laws regulating what they sell.
146. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  Nothing about the term ("censorship") requires that it be applied to the government. So, you're wrong. And while Apple certainly has the legal right to censor content that appears in their marketplace, it's pretty shitty of them to do so, and people are absolutely right to call them out for it (provided that the claims are true).
  God bless you. Every time I see/hear someone mindlessly repeating that "fact" (to wit: the claim that censorship must, by definition, somehow involve the government) it makes me want to punch things. It's like some horrible, grown-up version of "chewing gum stays in your stomach for seven years".
147. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by bennomatic · 2012-07-30 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who didn't mod up my previous post is censoring me! Fie on them!
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
148. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  I think you're moving the thought an inch forwards and a mile sideways. If you're saying that Author 1 and Author 2 are both competing for winner of a highest sales contest, then yes, having a market made inaccessible to you will hurt in that regard. I'm not sure exactly what your argument is otherwise. That because you're shut out of Store A, you're less likely of becoming the defacto subject matter expert? Sorry, book sales alone won't give you that. You also presume that people will are brand centric when it comes to which eBook store they'll shop at, and if they don't find something on Store A they won't look at Store B. I say you need to back that up, personally, I have Kindle app because I find that outside of the 'top sellers' apple's store has a horrible selection, and for anything older or more rare, I have to check Amazon. I would suspect others are in the same boat.
  Finallly, to argue that Amazon will carry an ebook on how to hack Amazon because they're good and pure is a joke. Both Amazon and Apple are corporations and they'll censor which books they have available. Amazon has even a track record of remote deleting books after they've been bought... so if you're looking for a permanent digital library, like a traditional bookshelf, you won't find that at either Apple or Amazon.
149. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by AK+Marc · 2012-07-30 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Would you be able to provide a link to backup the statement about this regulation requiring spare parts?
  Yes, I would. Have you tried a simple google search? If not, why not? There are some funny ones about the EV-1 and the conspiracy theories. And some serious ones about 10 year availability of emissions parts (which, in practice, requires almost all drivetrain parts). The government requires 10 year emissions warranty. Warranties require parts to repair or replace broken pieces.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
150. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Ol+Olsoc · 2012-07-30 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying that you're a fanboy?
  I'm actually a bit skeptical as well. Ah well...
  re Fanboy-ism, I guess it depends on who is doing the asking. I'm pretty well versed in both Windows and MacOS and OSX, and a Linux dilettante.
  But these days, I am mostly using my iMac and groovin' on Unix. So for the true pure believers would think I was.
  And those would be the same ones who simply take this story as gospel.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
151. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by Opportunist · 2012-07-30 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  I know, I have this disease called "conscience". I'm working on it, honestly, but it's hard to get over it.
  One day at a time...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
152. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by sys_mast · 2012-07-31 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Would you please provide such a link? One to the actual regulation, not the speculation on the EV1(those are EZ to find)
  Perhaps I needed to spend more time on it, but my only hits on Google are other forums, no more reputable than /.
  I was hoping to find something on a .gov type site, though it's likely in a legal jargon that is hard to read (and could be the reason Google isn't coming up with a hit on that type of site, since I don't know the legal wording for such a regulation)
  
  --
  Those who can, do.
153. Re:The first rule of controlling a market... by MrResistor · 2012-07-31 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  (It helps if you follow the thread-of-conversation before you reply.)
  It also helps if you quote the argument that you're replying to, since slashdots broken tread-nesting code frequently makes the thread-of-conversation unfollowable.
  
  --
  Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
"professional" distributor by Cederic · 2012-07-29 09:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

I like the way her site states

I can no longer recommend Apple as a professional distributor
I don't see Apple acting as a professional distributor. Quite why people still support this abusive organisation I really struggle to understand.
1. Re:"professional" distributor by F.Ultra · 2012-07-29 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Amazon?
2. Re:"professional" distributor by BasilBrush · 2012-07-29 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  Because not everyone is as gullible as you, accepting blindly the tall tales an author makes as PR to sell her book.
3. Re:"professional" distributor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  The funny part is, she's obviously not an expert on "How To Discover (Or Create) Your Story's Market at Apple's iBooks store", to begin with if she can't even get the thing onto the iBooks store.
4. Re:"professional" distributor by ozmanjusri · 2012-07-29 10:20 · Score: 2
  
  Because what is the alternatives?
  Linux? How many decades has it been for Linux taking over the world's desktops?
  Still waiting...
  I'm not. I've been happily and professionally using it for more than a decade.
  Linux is more than capable enough to be used on the desktop, but will never be selected for the role when there is an established monoculture locking people in.
  Get rid of proprietary file formats and APIs, open the world to heterogeneous business computing and allow for real competition in the market, the way capitalism is supposed to work and you'll see a different result.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
5. Re:"professional" distributor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  You'd be surprised.
  The main problem that's been slowing down Linux was access to games, however this is changing rapidly, for example with Steam recently announcing that they're making their games available for Linux; there's also a large increase in new games being made available for Linux.
  Sure, it's not very easy for the average person to install Linux (many people don't know what an OS is or why they should upgrade/switch), but once Linux can run most games and thus be as performant as Windows you'll see PC manufacturers offering it as an option on their machines, and when people are given the choice between a $100+ OS or free Linux, they'll pick Linux most of the time.
6. Re:"professional" distributor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a happy desktop linux user as well.
  I don't need the rest of the world to use it on their desktop for me to be happy.
  Linux is King in server-land, supercomputer-land, Hollywood-land, ebook-land, New-Phone-Land, embedded-land, hacker-land, etc...
  It doesn't need to be King of everything to be successful does it?
7. Re:"professional" distributor by ozmanjusri · 2012-07-29 12:42 · Score: 2
  
  It doesn't need to be King of everything to be successful does it?
  Linux doesn't need to be king, but formats, APIs etc need to be free and open,
  The cost to the world of closed formats is astonishing. I can only compare companies who exploit their customers through lockin to the type of thieves who would do $2000 damage to a car in order to steal the stereo and sell it for $100 .
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
8. Re:"professional" distributor by drkim · 2012-07-29 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Apple has a working product originally made by Microsoft
  
  http://images.appleinsider.com/leopard-rev-dev-tools-1.png
  FTFY
9. Re:"professional" distributor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 16:22 · Score: 0
  
  Uhm... because it's a cult? What's so hard to understand about that? People are wired to lend a certain trust and credence in some person or group, as people once trusted the police, and people still often (and quite irrationally) trust the truth, veracity and utility of the teachings of priests and prophets, and just so, people trust Apple.
  Apple users and Apple the company, and their relationship with each other exhibit many of the same features of a cult, including the emotional response (observed in a study I recall reading but don't recall for certain where, it might even have been reported on /., score points available to whomever can dig it up and post in reply to this, to be sure) visible on fMRI to Apple product users when being shown an Apple logo, very similar to the response in the brains of religious people when shown icons of their chosen 'faith'.
  It's sad and funny at the same time.
10. Re:"professional" distributor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 17:14 · Score: 0
  
  " I can only compare companies who exploit their customers through lockin to the type of thieves who would do $2000 damage to a car in order to steal the stereo and sell it for $100"
  You really think the thief gives two shits what it's going to cost you to fix your car? He just wants goods to sell - you should have had the radio just sitting on the front seat, with the windows down so it was easy to get to.
11. Re:"professional" distributor by ozmanjusri · 2012-07-29 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  I see you're a BSD fan...
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
12. Re:"professional" distributor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  Quite why people still support this abusive organisation I really struggle to understand.
  Because many of the end users are clueless and therefore it's a good market despite the abuse?
extraordinary claims by YesIAmAScript · 2012-07-29 09:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Require extraordinary proof.
There are plenty of iBooks already that mention Amazon.
We have one person making a blind accusation here.

--
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
1. Re:extraordinary claims by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  Require extraordinary proof.
  There are plenty of iBooks already that mention Amazon.
  We have one person making a blind accusation here.
  Maybe you can give us some examples? ...
2. Re:extraordinary claims by newcastlejon · 2012-07-29 09:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Maybe you can give us some examples? ...
  The burden of proof is hers. Until she tells the world exactly what Apple told her I'm inclined to treat this as a publicity stunt; all TFA has is her side of the story.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
3. Re:extraordinary claims by Aqualung812 · 2012-07-29 09:50 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  This isn't extraordinary. Apple has shown (along with Microsoft's phone market and other app-store approval systems) that when you have many humans editing for content, you get sometimes stupid rejections like this one.
  Because someone at Apple rejected this app doesn't mean Apple itself rejects it as formal policy, but it might. I'm sure in the coming days we'll find out one way or another.
  However, this highlights the issue with getting approval from a centrally controlled application market where approvals are granted by many different humans with different understanding of what the rules are. Nothing is black and white.
  
  --
  Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
4. Re:extraordinary claims by gl4ss · 2012-07-29 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  well, it's sort of convinient that apple will not give the story anyhow.
  at best we're going to have the emails. I'm fairly sure if she publishes them they include the words "the problem is the content". i'm fairly sure they will not be pgp signed though.
  so if you want to test, write a short instruction booklet on amazon services and publish it?
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
5. Re:extraordinary claims by rjames13 · 2012-07-29 10:00 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Require extraordinary proof.
  There are plenty of iBooks already that mention Amazon.
  We have one person making a blind accusation here.
  Maybe you can give us some examples? ...
  Selling on Amazon's FBA program by Nathan Holmquist
  Make a killing on Kindle by Michael Alvear
  If you ask me what is going on here, it is creative marketing. By blaming Apple for her book not being published, she gets free marketing for her book on Amazon. All this marketing fed by the frenzy of the Apple haters.
6. Re:extraordinary claims by Qwavel · 2012-07-29 10:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The article is by Cory Doctorow, who is very well known and respected.
  I would assume he did some basic vetting of the claim - he is no fool and has a reputation to protect.
7. Re:extraordinary claims by Qwavel · 2012-07-29 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  But she tried multiple times. According to the blog post she is now past the point of trying - she has given up.
8. Re:extraordinary claims by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  that's funny, are you here all week?
9. Re:extraordinary claims by eddy · 2012-07-29 10:14 · Score: 2
  
  Problem though is that Apple is WELL KNOWN for not being consistent (that in fact is the most common complaint!), so there being other examples of books mentioning Amazon doesn't prove anything either way.
  
  --
  Belief is the currency of delusion.
10. Re:extraordinary claims by Frosty+Piss · 2012-07-29 10:18 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Mod parent up.
  There are dozens and dozens of books that both "mention" Amazon, and have Amazon as their primary subject, many being books on how to publish on Amazon or otherwise make money on Amazon. Many authors publish on both Apple and Amazon.
  Folks, use some common sense: Apple simply could not get away with this type of policy. And there is not reasonable reason why they would want to.
  Without seeing the actual email traffic, we can't know for sure, but possibly it's a shitty book? Maybe there where technical issues that this woman didn't understand? Maybe there where copyright issues with parts of the content? Who knows?
  I'm inclined to believe that this woman is either jumping to conclusions and doesn't feel like she should have to follow some process that Apple has requested, or like others have said, a stupid PR stunt.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
11. Re:extraordinary claims by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-07-29 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm also curious why "How to Think Sideways" books 1,2, 4, and 5 weren't on the iBookstore - only book 3 is there.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
12. Re:extraordinary claims by Frosty+Piss · 2012-07-29 10:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The article is by Cory Doctorow, who is very well known and respected.
  First, it's hardly an "article", it's a single paragraph followed by a direct excerpt of the blog post by the offended author.
  Secondly, neither Doctorow nor the offended author provide any proof whatsoever. None.
  Now, this is only speculation, but perhaps Apple had an issue with the cover art, which is a rip-off of the For Dummies series of books? Publishers that copyright issues seriously.
  But, since the author has provided no evidence to support her screed, it's really a non-story.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
13. Re:extraordinary claims by Reschekle · 2012-07-29 10:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You seem to be confused. YesIAmAScript claims that there are many books in the Apple book store that mention Amazon. If YesIAmAScript claims this then he must have knowledge and thus can tell us which books make mention of Amazon.
14. Re:extraordinary claims by Qwavel · 2012-07-29 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  She claims that Apple said they were rejecting her book because of the Amazon references.
  If she is lying about that, then she could just as well have made up the whole thing.
  I agree that some evidence (e.g. a copy of the communications from Apple) would be helpful, but is she allowed to do that?
15. Re:extraordinary claims by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  read her site, she's apparently a rabbid apple fan to start with - highly unlikely that she'd make ungrounded claims against apple when she worships the ground they build stores and offices on.
16. Re:extraordinary claims by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to be confused. YesIAmAScript claims that there are many books in the Apple book store that mention Amazon. If YesIAmAScript claims this then he must have knowledge and thus can tell us which books make mention of Amazon.
  No because Newcastlejon says that only one side carries the burden of proof for any and all claims. His logic dictates that anyone after Holly can claim anything they want and not have to provide anything.
  Of course, that's not logic at all, and so he fails hard on his face but still manages to score a +4 with the judges.
17. Re:extraordinary claims by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-07-29 10:54 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Folks, use some common sense
  Hahahahaha! On Slashdot!? That's a good one!
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
18. Re:extraordinary claims by newcastlejon · 2012-07-29 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  No, I say the burden of proof is hers because she's the one making the initial accusation. I didn't say any of the other crap you attribute to me.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
19. Re:extraordinary claims by hawk · 2012-07-29 11:29 · Score: 2
  
  How are you supposed to provide evidence of a transmission sent straight to your brain by the secret industry police that watch you . . .
  ? :)
  hawk
20. Re:extraordinary claims by hawk · 2012-07-29 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  You obviously don't know how to *count* sideays . . .
  That's not a "3"' it's "111". (or is it "m"--this right-ending/left-endian thing has confused me since I was U . . .)
  hawk
21. Re:extraordinary claims by Fished · 2012-07-29 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but Apple has been known to engage in this sort of behavior before -- censoring fairly inoffensive content or code because it offends their corporate "sensibilities." Witness the publishing, then revoking, of the Exodus International app.
  I don't want the people who make my MP3 player deciding what books I'm allowed to read, nor what websites I'm allowed to visit, nor what apps I'm allowed to run on it. The only reason Apple should ever censor content is because it violates some applicable law. If they're not willing to do that, then they can't be trusted with the keys to my digital kingdom.
  And, btw, I'm not an Apple-hater. I own an iPad, and an iPhone, and several macs. But when I buy content, I tend to buy from Amazon whenever possible, because I find them to be more trustworthy.
  
  --
  "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
22. Re:extraordinary claims by Aqualung812 · 2012-07-29 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  I get that, and I wouldn't rule out that the app went to the same person each time. That seems a sensible way to prevent someone getting an issue past the censors by constantly re-applying until someone misses it.
  
  --
  Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
23. Re:extraordinary claims by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-07-29 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  If it's an "m", does that make it book 1000?
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
24. Re:extraordinary claims by whisper_jeff · 2012-07-29 12:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If Cory did any basic vetting, then he failed.
  Here, try this:
  Step 1: Go to the iTunes store.
  Step 2: Search for "Amazon"
  Step 3: Ignore all titles obviously about the geographic location and take note of how many books obviously include mention of "Amazon" the company.
  Protip: One of the books available for sale via iTunes is called "Amazon.com". I could be mistaken, but I think it mentions and discusses Amazon, the company.
  Her claim is marketing BS.
25. Re:extraordinary claims by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  You made a claim: that there are plenty of books that mention Amazon.
  Then you demand she disprove it.
  Provide links to YOUR claim, or STFU.
26. Re:extraordinary claims by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  How are you supposed to provide evidence of a transmission sent straight to your brain by the secret industry police that watch you . . .
  Missed that one...
27. Re:extraordinary claims by AK+Marc · 2012-07-29 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  In this forum, the first unsubstantiated claim was yours.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
28. Re:extraordinary claims by Frosty+Piss · 2012-07-29 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. Amazing. I happen to own a 93 Escort wagon. It's my "commute" car... Nobody ever wants to ride with me, though, because the inside of my car smells like... FROSTY PISS.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
29. Re:extraordinary claims by newcastlejon · 2012-07-29 13:10 · Score: 0
  
  You made a claim: that there are plenty of books that mention Amazon.
  Wasn't me
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
30. Re:extraordinary claims by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 13:53 · Score: 0
  
  "There are plenty of iBooks already that mention Amazon."
  Because Apple's content policies haven't been arbitrary in the past? Whether something is approved or not, really depends on which Apple employee reviewed the request.
31. Re:extraordinary claims by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  This doesn't even point to the most relevant fact. Amazon offers a free Kindle app for iOS devices through the iTunes Store.
32. Re:extraordinary claims by lesserwhirls · 2012-07-29 14:40 · Score: 2
  
  From the author (taken from comments on her site):
  
  "Here’s the first email I received from them. Boldface is mine.
  
  Dear Holly Lisle,
  One or more assets from your submission, How To Think Sideways: Career Survival School for Writers, need to be replaced:
  Ticket #: 1438977
  Ticket Type: Book Asset
  Apple ID: 541126811
  ISBN: 9781937533304
  Vendor ID: 9781937533304
  Full book asset:
  Competing Website(s)
  Notes:
  Jun, 29 2012, 12:13PM – Apple:
  Book file contains links from competitors: Amazon, in the chapter Q&A 6, under “Question 9
  Please log in to iTunes Connect to view this request and upload replacement assets:
  If you have any questions about this report, contact us at the iBookstore.
  Regards,
  The iTunes Store Team
  
  Here’s the FINAL email I received from them before I removed my courses.
  
  Dear Holly Lisle,
  One or more assets from your submission, How to Think Sideways: Career Survival School for Writers, need to be replaced:
  Ticket #: 1438977
  Ticket Type: Book Asset
  Apple ID: 541126811
  ISBN: 9781937533304
  Vendor ID: 9781937533304
  Please note that the changes in this ticket were not executed. The ticket has been returned to you for additional corrections. Please make all of the changes requested below.
  Full book asset:
  Competing Website(s)
  Rejected Reason(s):
  Competing Website(s)
  Notes:
  Jun, 29 2012, 12:13PM – Apple:
  Book file contains links from competitors: Amazon, in the chapter Q&A 6, under “Question 9
  Jul, 18 2012, 4:54AM – Apple:
  Epub internals validation passed
  Jul, 18 2012, 4:54AM – Apple:
  The following ticket task(s) have been updated by the feed: Full epub
  Jul, 18 2012, 1:21PM – Apple:
  Please Note: The original change request was not fulfilled. Your changes were not saved. Previous issue was not addressed. Please review your file before resubmitting it. Thank you.
  Jul, 19 2012, 8:35AM – Apple:
  Epub internals validation passed
  Jul, 24 2012, 11:56AM – Apple:
  Please Note: The original change request was not fulfilled. Your changes were not saved. Original Issues have not been resolved.
  Please log in to iTunes Connect to view this request and upload replacement assets:
  If you have any questions about this report, contact us at the iBookstore.
  Regards,
  The iTunes Store Team
  
  As noted, however, I HAD changed the lesson, HAD removed the links, HAD complied with their request. Since the links were gone, their only possible objection—NOT STATED—was content."
  
  Her reply is to a poster who questions if it really was rejected for content. Holly then proceeds to call the person questioning her claim a dick...
33. Re:extraordinary claims by ColdWetDog · 2012-07-29 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  read her site, she's apparently a rabbid apple fan to start with - highly unlikely that she'd make ungrounded claims against apple when she worships the ground they build stores and offices on.
  Hell hath no fury like a fangirl scorned.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
34. Re:extraordinary claims by YesIAmAScript · 2012-07-29 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  Cory is an intelligent person. He is respected for many things.
  However, he is hugely reactionary about anything related to censorship. If he does basic vetting of claims related to censorship, he must have started recently, because he's embarrassed himself previously over not being selective enough when things seem to bolster to what he already believes.
  He has no real reputation to protect when it comes to censorship, he blew that up a long time ago.
  
  --
  http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
35. Re:extraordinary claims by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  There's another possibility. She got one of the morons.
  There seems to be neither rhyme nor reason to the approval process and one reviewer will give you a pass while another will reject you. You just resubmit, point out the conflict, and hope you catch someone after they've had their coffee.
36. Re:extraordinary claims by c0lo · 2012-07-29 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  Require extraordinary proof.
  There are plenty of iBooks already that mention Amazon.
  We have one person making a blind accusation here.
  What's so "blind" in sharing what has happened to her?
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
37. Re:extraordinary claims by jpatokal · 2012-07-29 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  Both you and the author are wrong. Books are processed by individual humans, who are supposed to understand and follow company policy but may or may not do so. The most plausible scenario is simply that the author hit an overly zealous censor who misinterpreted what they're supposed to be looking out for, and that censoring references to Amazon is not official Apple policy. FWIW, I've had issues much like this with Amazon's book publishing arm CreateSpace: some manuscripts were rejected by processor A for dubious reasons, and then accepted when the resubmission was processed by guy B instead.
38. Re:extraordinary claims by newcastlejon · 2012-07-29 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  Serves me right for only reading TFA.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
39. Re:extraordinary claims by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 20:55 · Score: 0
  
  You mean the same Cory Doctorow that orchestrated the whole "DRM in Apple headphones" panic a while back? Where he took some duff info from some "open source programmer friends of his" and blew it up into a full on cross internet attack on Apple. And when it was discovered it was not DRM at all (and only an idiot would have thought so) his reaction was essentially "well it could have been". That Cory Doctorow?
  His entries are the reason I no longer read BoingBoing. Everything he writes is either shameless self-promotion or suspect. He will republish and confirm anything that matches his biases/opinions without doing even the bare minimum of fact checking. As mentioned below there are other books in iTunes that mention Amazon. He also attacks mercilessly anything he doesn't agree with, logical fallacies be damned. He is the human personification of the blogosphere. The Borg Queen of the internet, if you will.
  His reputation? Amongst people who actually think for themselves he already has a reputation as sub-tabloid hack. And his followers could see him bumming a nun in a YouTube video and still think he is above reproach.
40. Re:extraordinary claims by EvilIdler · 2012-07-29 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  There's also the Kindle app on the iTunes App Store. I hope somebody points that out to the app/ibook reviewers, because they're mighty inconsistent :)
41. Re:extraordinary claims by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  Proof that Apple allows all sorts of stuff mentioning Amazon onto their store is not proof that they are not being overly restrictive on this particular title, or have changed the rules yet again and just not yet removed some stuff. They often apply their rules in a draconian and arbitrary way, they often impose rules inconsistently depending on the product and/or vettor, and they often change the rules and yet leave older products which break them in the store.
  We've already seen this with apps - remember kama sutra, dictionaries, Google Voice etc, etc? These have been treated in wildly varying ways, depending on who is submitting them and when.
  Hopefully eventually Apple will get the message that the fewer rules and restrictions they have the better, for them and their customers, otherwise this sort of controversy is going to hit them continually as their system for vetting is currently very broken.
42. Re:extraordinary claims by whisper_jeff · 2012-07-29 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  I am not YesIAmAScript but I will offer the evidence that makes his claim that there are books which make mention of Amazon correct. (Apologies for the copy/paste but this clearly demonstrates the proof you're requesting.)
  Here, try this:
  Step 1: Go to the iTunes store.
  Step 2: Search for "Amazon"
  Step 3: Ignore all titles obviously about the geographic location and take note of how many books obviously include mention of "Amazon" the company.
  Protip: One of the books available for sale via iTunes is called "Amazon.com". I could be mistaken, but I think it mentions and discusses Amazon, the company.
  Her claim is marketing BS.
43. Re:extraordinary claims by AnonyMouseCowWard · 2012-07-30 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Can someone help me understand what "Book file contains links from competitor" means?
  
  From my understanding, that means she _linked_ Amazon directly through her e-book, which is not the same as "mentions Amazon". As some previous posters have said, iTunes carries content that talks about Amazon. If the difference here is that she links directly to a competitor's website through her book, well, I would understand why Apple doesn't allow it.
44. Re:extraordinary claims by dlingman · 2012-07-30 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think the key one in there: "Please Note: The original change request was not fulfilled. Your changes were not saved. Original Issues have not been resolved." To me, that looks like she accidentally re-submitted the same text as the first time.
Which came first the chicken or the egg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 09:36 · Score: 0, Troll

Which came first the Apple Fanboy with blinders to any wrong that Apple does, or Apple computers censorship?

Apple does stuff like say,"Flash is bad for the industry" and people start believing that propaganda even though Flash is really good for what it does: Cross platform, virus resistant(better than running an .exe on your desktop), and easy to code aps.

Is it time to say,"Whoa now Apple, you've just become as evil as mid 90s Microsoft?"
1. Re:Which came first the chicken or the egg by pjtp · 2012-07-29 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  Is it time to say,"Whoa now Apple, you've just become as evil as mid 90s Microsoft?"
  They always were more evil than Microsoft, they just didn't have the market dominance.
2. Re:Which came first the chicken or the egg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  LOL! You just proved his point! Come on, you're giving us older Apple guys a really bad name. Maybe you should come back in a few years when you can think for yourself; and more importantly, after your frontal lobe has developed.
  
  There's nothing wrong with Flash. I'll always install it on my Macs and PCs given the choice.
Odd by mmcxii · 2012-07-29 09:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

If I start iTunes I find books about selling on Amazon.

I'm not saying the story isn't honest I'm just saying that there are plenty of Amazon resources available on iTunes that seems to offset what is being presented here.
1. Re:Odd by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-07-29 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well, one difference is that you can find books about selling stuff via Amazon (eg, Amazon partners). So if you sell widgets and want people to buy your widgets via the Internet, one way of doing this is to become an Amazon partner and they'll do all the hard web stuff for you. I see plenty of books about that.
  What I don't see are books about self-publishing on Amazon--unless they also mention iBooks (like this one.)
2. Re:Odd by rjames13 · 2012-07-29 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  What about books like "Make a Killing on Kindle"?
  http://itunes.apple.com/book/id545283330?mt=11
3. Re:Odd by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-07-29 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Make a Killing on Kindle, by Michael Alvear.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
Good idea to avoid Amazon by sugarmotor · 2012-07-29 09:39 · Score: 0

Amazon is getting too big. Use it and suffer in the long run.
So avoid it and enjoy the benefits. Just like this author most likely would have made her lessons more valuable.

--
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
Maybe she take her own advice? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 09:41 · Score: 1

So I’m pulling ALL my work from the iBookstore today. I apologize to iBookstore fans. I tried. Hard.

Wow. Apple is hardly the first company to pull the Branding Police business. How hard would it be for the author to create an "iBooks edition" that differed in apparently trivial (but necessary, from Apple's POV) ways from the "Amazon edition"?
Maybe if the author learned to free her mind from strict, left-brained thinking...
1. Re:Maybe she take her own advice? by maxwell+demon · 2012-07-29 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Because every self-respecting reader would avoid any author doing such a thing like the plague?
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
This is going to get worse.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 09:42 · Score: 0, Troll

Digital content is BAD.
Steam very bad on pricing, anti competitive, book stores, bad, tracking your reading and so on and can pull any book any time they want (been done on Amazon), music, same thing.
Second hand market, will die, libraries will die. I can go on and on about the negative effects digital stores and content will have on society.
NEVER GIVE UP PHYSICAL BOOKS/CONTENT.
If you do, you lost the fight.
I prefer to think of digital content a "CONVENIENCE" format for my PHYSICAL item I already have. NOT A REPLACEMENT for it.
1. Re:This is going to get worse.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  Digital content is fine, just avoid anything with DRM. That doesn't leave much, but there are things to find, like the Humble Bundles, Doctorow's books, or the Louis CK show (to name something in gaming, music, books and video)
2. Re:This is going to get worse.. by Kiraxa · 2012-07-29 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  Obvious troll is obvious. Saying steam is very bad on pricing is one of the dumbest things I've heard in my entire life.
  
  --
  http://phelannguyen.blogspot.com/
3. Re:This is going to get worse.. by Swave+An+deBwoner · 2012-07-31 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  There are a few books available at gutenberg.org also.
Doesn't seem right by SilenceBE · 2012-07-29 09:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

I have bought some eBooks (usability bundle) by Smashing Magazinethat also are available on the Apple iBookstore and Amazon (and other competitors) have been mentioned multiple times in those books.

I'm beginning to question that there is much more to this story and it has been spin doctored to create some free extra publicity by riding on the iHate wave.
1. Re:Doesn't seem right by gl4ss · 2012-07-29 09:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, it wouldn't be the first time when a large online store applies different rules to different submissions.
  Happens all the time.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
2. Re:Doesn't seem right by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  Nor would it be the first time someone tried to capitalize on people's extreme trust/mistrust of Apple to get a little extra publicity and/or sales. The comments on this are like a textbook example of confirmation bias.
3. Re:Doesn't seem right by KGIII · 2012-07-29 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody posted the content of the emails upthread. I'm not sure if they're real or not, such is difficult to know for certain, but they're available if one does more than read the article and does some research it seems. I wasn't that interested but felt bored enough to comment. Hell, I don't even LIKE Apple much at all and I have no problem with them deciding not to host material that they deem unacceptable.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
Wtf Cory Doctorow by pgregg · 2012-07-29 09:45 · Score: 0

Dear Cory Doctorow,
Why, in the article http://boingboing.net/2012/07/28/apple-wont-carry-an-ebook-be.html does the link behind Holly's book "How To Think Sideways Lesson 6: How To Discover (Or Create) Your Story’s Market" actually link to Pirate Cinema by Cory Doctorow http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0765329085/downandoutint-20 in the Amazon bookstore?
Re:Spend more time on debunking religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 09:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

I think they have a subreddit for politics as well as religion. This is /. I wish people would stop trying to turn it into reddit.
BS by edelbrp · 2012-07-29 09:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

I call BS. I did a quick search here for "Amazon" on the iTunes Store and it comes up with a number of books related to publishing and marketing with Amazon including publishing eBooks for the Kindle.
1. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 10:06 · Score: 2
  
  You know, there may be more than one person reviewing the submissions. And they may not all make the same decision. Mistakes happen as well.
2. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  Then Apple should fix it. Have 3 people vet every book independently. And do a majority rule. Track the cases of disagreement and the result could be a metric for "tuning"(firing) the workforce.
3. Re:BS by Trepidity · 2012-07-29 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like a lot of effort on Apple's part that they probably don't care about.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
4. Re:BS by AK+Marc · 2012-07-29 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  That, and there'll be some conspiracy around the Minority Report.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
All publicity is good publicity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 09:57 · Score: 0

Need we say more.
It was reject first... by Gordonjcp · 2012-07-29 10:03 · Score: 1

... because samzenpus cannot wrote good English proper.
Amazon has their own annoyances by HangingChad · 2012-07-29 10:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Amazon tells you that if you want to be in their lending library the content has to be exclusive to them for 90 days.
At the end of 90 days you discover that the 90 day clock resets. Instead of just saying as long as you want to be in the lending library, the content has to be exclusive, they play the recurring 90 day game.
I'm guessing if they just came right out and told the truth it might be challenged as anti-competitive.
I'm also guessing some big titles get a better deal.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Good grief, non-story by Frosty+Piss · 2012-07-29 10:06 · Score: 1

There is simply no proof that this woman's claims are true. In fact there is a lot of evidence that her book was rejected for some other reason.
Since we do not get to see the actual email traffic from Apple, we have only the author's "paraphrased" quotes. How accurate are they? We can only speculate.
This is really a non-story about an author who is angry about a rejection notice. An author who gets bent out of shape whenever they get a rejection notice, will be a VERY angry author indeed.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Nonsense article by hedpe2003 · 2012-07-29 10:11 · Score: 2

The sum total of the link:

"But I also will not deal with this sort of head-up-ass behavior from a distributor. You don’t tell someone “The problem is the live links,” and then, when that person has complied with your change request and removed the live links, turn around and say, “No, no. The problem is the CONTENT. You can’t mention Amazon in your lesson." - Holly Lisle
Sounds like a misunderstanding, in which the author is trying to profit from by complaining. There are a number of approved iBooks where Amazon in the main focus, rather than just a few mentions.
Now don't get me wrong - I'm not really an Apple fan... . I believe they have anti competitive practices. But oppression? This is not...
-Brian

--
Comprehensive solutions via a competition of ideas like no other.
1. Re:Nonsense article by gnasher719 · 2012-07-29 11:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sounds like a misunderstanding, in which the author is trying to profit from by complaining. There are a number of approved iBooks where Amazon in the main focus, rather than just a few mentions.
  There is a paragraph in the AppStore guidelines that basically says "if your app is rejected and you complain, then we may reconsider. If you moan in public, that is not going to help." I would interpret it as "if you complain about the app store in public, then the app store will sadly learn how to live without you".
You can have my physical media after... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 10:16 · Score: 0

you pry it from my dead cold hands.
search-and-replace dummy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 10:17 · Score: 0

g/Amazon/s//Online Bookstore/g
Or if she's going to sell it in various online stores, she (if she had any business accumen) would taylor the books to each store. I mean, how long does it take to do a search and replace and replace $ONLINESTORE with the appropriate name?
1. Re:search-and-replace dummy by syockit · 2012-07-29 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  would taylor the books to each store
  Finding the derivative for a whole book is a nightmare. And you want to make a series out of it?!
  
  --
  Democracy is for the people; you only vote once per season and we'll do the rest of the work for you don't have to.
Zero proof == Zero credibility. by divisionbyzero · 2012-07-29 10:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is zero proof in her claim. Why was this posted?
1. Re:Zero proof == Zero credibility. by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-29 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot is proud to host Haterade Addict meetings four times a day.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
2. Re:Zero proof == Zero credibility. by KGIII · 2012-07-29 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  Again, FWIW, there appear to be emails if you actually view the blog and not just the article according to someone who pasted them into this thread. I've no idea of their veracity nor have I even bothered to go check to see if the poster was being honest. I simply don't care enough and am here simply for the conversation.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
Wecome to Nazi computing by Joe_Dragon · 2012-07-29 10:49 · Score: 0

Wecome to Nazi computing where we can lock you not for any reason.
1. Re:Wecome to Nazi computing by Trepidity · 2012-07-29 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Under the Godwin Act of 2007 I'm afraid you are herby deported to the camps.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
2. Re:Wecome to Nazi computing by Crypto+Gnome · 2012-07-29 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  Under the Godwin Act of 2007 I'm afraid you are herby deported to the camps.
  I'd say he's already been sent to The Gas Chamber (Slashdot being mostly Hot Air, even on a good day)
  
  --
  Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
3. Re:Wecome to Nazi computing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 17:50 · Score: 0
  
  Under the Godwin Act of 2007 I'm afraid you are herby deported to the camps.
  No soup for you!
  It's official, I'm going to hell.
Monopoly of control by WaffleMonster · 2012-07-29 10:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

We already know Apple pulls apps that compete with their bottom line so why should anyone expect different behavior from ebooks?
The problem in my mind is not really Apple or what apple does or does not do...It is the aggregation of power into the hands of the few with all the financial incentive in the world to leverage to the fullest.
Expecting them not to (ab)use it seems foolishly naive.
I vote with my purchases and encourage others to do the same.
Possible Workaround by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 11:06 · Score: 0

Do they allow inline images that are about the same size as the text?
How about just making "amazon" into inline GIFs?
Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 11:10 · Score: 0

I can't seem to say "fuck Apple" enough times.
Apple is stating to look like a one trick pony. by asm2750 · 2012-07-29 11:12 · Score: 1

I probably will never buy another Apple product again. The closed garden is annoying. I have an iPod touch I haven't used in two years thanks to Google Music. OS X since Lion feels like iPhone OS which is annoying as heck, and now if I want a Retina MBP I can't upgrade the device which is a deal killer.

As much as a I like the experience, stability, and exterior design, I would rather put my funds to better use.

Besides with the Steve now gone after almost a year do they have any real long term vision, or are they just going to fade into obscurity again in the next five years due to their constant control mongering?
Soon to follow: by Arancaytar · 2012-07-29 11:13 · Score: 1, Funny

An Atlas of the Amazon River.
Rejected for ToS violation.
Waaahhhhh ... cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 11:14 · Score: 0

I wasn't aware anyone had a "right" to sell something in the Apple Store or anywhere else. However I'm sure she got exactly what she wanted; a lot of free publicity for her otherwise unremarkable writing. Makes all of us her tool FTW!
Aggressive TM defence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 11:14 · Score: 0

Sounds legit to me. I tried to sell my Amazon Kindle Fire in the UK and they shut down the eBay auction because they didn't want it to be sold outside the US. This was a second user sale of a used Kindle.
The first rule of reading comprehension... by Archfeld · 2012-07-29 11:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

You need to use a dictionary more often. Just because you don't like what someone else is posting doesn't make it incorrect. Apple is censoring content. It is their right to do so and sell what they wish via their marketplace, unless their censorship is based on religion, sex, or race, but just because it is legal doesn't change the fact...

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
1. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by jonfr · 2012-07-29 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  How can it be Apple right to block a book from there market ?
2. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by BasilBrush · 2012-07-29 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  You need to use a dictionary more often. Just because you don't like what someone else is posting doesn't make it incorrect. Apple is censoring content.
  Your assertion is not the same thing as a dictionary. You are just as mistaken as the other poster if you think that a store choosing not to stock a product is censorship. You don't understand the word.
3. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by AK+Marc · 2012-07-29 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Taking an action with the intent of reducing distribution of an idea is censorship. Whether it's commercial speech, or by a corporation is irrelevant.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
4. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 14:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You need to use a dictionary more often. Just because you don't like what someone else is posting doesn't make it incorrect. Apple is censoring content.
  Your assertion is not the same thing as a dictionary. You are just as mistaken as the other poster if you think that a store choosing not to stock a product is censorship. You don't understand the word.
  How about backing that up with some actual dictionary references instead of asserting your opinion as a definition?
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censorship
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html
  
  Some definitions mention "official", but not all mention government as a necessary component.
  
  Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who "censor" themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows.
  --Academic American Encyclopedia
  
  Reading. It's not just for the landed gentry any more.
5. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by Smauler · 2012-07-29 14:49 · Score: 0
  
  GP understands the word perfectly. A christian bookshop not selling satanist books because of their content is censorship. That's in essence the very meaning of the word. The owner of the bookshop is censoring satanist literature.
  I think people should have the right to censor, in most cases, even with public companies. That's how it works now.
6. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by elashish14 · 2012-07-29 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  Why not? It's not like Google will block sites from their search engine that say 'Google sucks,' or that Amazon will pull a book that's against their political philosophies. But Apple gets a free pass on anything they do, right?
  What they're doing is blocking knowledge because it stands against their goals. Yes, it's just a product, but when you look at the reason for doing so, it's clearly derived from censorship means. They want to block an entire book because a small section of it suggests fraternizing with their competitors. Strangling dissenting opinions is definitely censorship, I don't care if it's 'just a product.' Apple doesn't get special treatment cause of The Shiny.
  
  --
  I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
7. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by adolf · 2012-07-29 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sure it's censorship. Why wouldn't it be? That is, plainly, what the word means. It's not necessarily a bad word -- it just means what it means, like any other word.
  And guess what? If I owned a book store or a publishing house or a cloud full of disparate Ebooks, I'd be free to censor them, as well (I am a free person). So would you, presumably (as I presume that you are also free).
  A hypothetical Black Heritage Publishing Co., which might be the finest purveyor of related Ebooks, should be free to censor KKK propaganda. Or anything else they don't feel like carrying, for that matter....for any reason, or none at all.
  That said, Apple is a huge public corporation. I feel that they should not censor things, but whether they can or cannot is a matter between them and their shareholders.
  As a free person, I wouldn't have it any other way.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
8. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 20:29 · Score: 0
  
  Incorrect. Sir. It is YOU who doesn't understand the definition. If further study on your part is warranted to prove yourself right, might I suggest a professor in the English department at your nearest university? I think that would sufficiently humble you to your own ignorance.
9. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by BasilBrush · 2012-07-29 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  Why not? It's not like Google will block sites from their search engine that say 'Google sucks,' or that Amazon will pull a book that's against their political philosophies. But Apple gets a free pass on anything they do, right?
  There's two questions here.
  1) Is what's described censorship?
  2) Is what is described true?
  So, no there is no "free pass" here. They don't need one because there is no evidence that it's true. It's simply a claim by an author, not even backed up by a copy of the text of the email. And we have copious evidence of other ebooks in the store that promote Amazon.
  You're a hater, so you believe anything that's negative for Apple, without requiring evidence.
10. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by BasilBrush · 2012-07-29 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  Sure it's censorship. Why wouldn't it be?
  Because Apple has no power to censor. There are many other publishers and stores, publishing for other platforms and for iOS. Once again, a single store choosing not to stock a product is not censorship. Otherwise every store is censoring every product they choose not to sell, which is of course a ridiculous concept.
11. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by BasilBrush · 2012-07-29 21:44 · Score: 0
  
  How about backing that up with some actual dictionary references instead of asserting your opinion as a definition?
  Because I don't need a dictionary to know what censorship means. And it was the previous poster who raised the idea of a dictionary as proof without actually backing that up with a dictionary definition.
  Sure enough, you've done the job without me needing to bother. And none of your definitions come close to covering the case of a store declining to stock a product. There are plenty of other ebook stores, and indeed Apple is minority player in the market. They have no power to censor.
12. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by BasilBrush · 2012-07-29 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  GP understands the word perfectly. A christian bookshop not selling satanist books because of their content is censorship.
  No, it's selection. The Christian bookshop probably doesn't stock books on gardening either, unless there's a specific Christian slant to the gardening. The Christian bookshop are not censoring every published book they don't choose to sell. That concept is ludicrous.
13. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by BasilBrush · 2012-07-29 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  And so it Apple attempted to put out an injunction to prevent publication then that would be censorship. But Apple didn't "take an action". They declined to take an action - the action to publish. Authors do not have a right to be published. A publisher not publishing an author is not censorship. A store not stocking a book is not censorship.
14. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 23:37 · Score: 0
  
  Almost - Gardening is not related to Christianity. Satan is. So they 'select' to offer books related to Christianity, but then choose to censor anything focusing on the evil one.
  It comes down to intent - Apple have chosen, within their rights, to prevent this book from being sold because it talks about things they don't like i.e. competition.
  IF that is the only reason for not selling it, i.e. objectionable content, then it is censorship. They have rejected the book due to it's content, so they have censored the content. The scope of their censorship is only their marketplace, but it's still censorship.
  Give it up dude - you've had everything needed to convince a reasonable person - at this point you're either a troll or an unreasonable person.
15. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by AK+Marc · 2012-07-29 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  They took the action of rejecting it. That's an action. An inaction designed to affect an outcome is an action. It's the action of deliberately doing nothing.
  
  I understand you don't agree. But argue with the dictionary, not me. I don't care what you think it is, when you're arguing the opposite of the dictionary, you'll get dismissed as an Internet Fuckwad. Prove me wrong with a dictionary quote. Because the dictionary quotes posted so far prove you wrong, despite your best whining.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
16. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by BasilBrush · 2012-07-30 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  But I'm not arguing the opposite of the dictionary. There has been no definition shown so far that covers a bookshop not carrying a product. And nor will there be, because it very clearly doesn't cover that.
17. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by Qzukk · 2012-07-30 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  They reviewed the text, and based on the content of the text (according to the author, anyway), they decided not to publish it.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
18. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by adolf · 2012-07-30 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  It is only a ridiculous concept if you assume that censorship is inherently evil, a word reserved for the work of fascists or somesuch thing.
  I do not make such an assumption.
  It's just a word.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
19. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  So if China "restricts access to certain sites" on their countries internet, that is not censorship, right? After all there are plenty of OTHER countries that they can go look up that information in.
20. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by elashish14 · 2012-07-30 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  1. Yes.
  2. I'll agree that TFA is slight on details (from Doctorow no less), but it's irrelevant because you're still defending Apple choosing to censor (and you say I'm the one with philosophical issues when you label me a hater).
  I'm not sure how you progress from asking two questions (one of which is obvious by opening a dictionary or encyclopedia, the second of which is irrelevant) to saying Apple is free to engage in censorship. You're arguing that it's okay to bar people of knowledge so long as you're 'only' blocking a product which is tied to a financial interest. Worse, you make this argument even though it would be morally wrong for other 'peers' of Apple to do so. My argument is contrary to your opinion that one should not make exceptions for Apple because they've established a model of seeking business efforts within walled gardens. I recommend following arguments more logically next time.
  
  --
  I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
21. Re:The first rule of reading comprehension... by BasilBrush · 2012-07-31 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure how you progress from asking two questions (one of which is obvious by opening a dictionary or encyclopedia, the second of which is irrelevant) to saying Apple is free to engage in censorship.
  a) It isn't censorship, and a dictionary makes it obvious it's not.
  b) Therefore I not only DIDN't say Apple are free to engage in censorship, I wouldn't. You're in the land of delusion.
  c) "You're arguing that it's okay to bar people of knowledge so long as you're 'only' blocking a product which is tied to a financial interest" More delusion. Nothing even slightly like that was said by me.
  
  I recommend following arguments more logically next time.
  I recommend you see a shrink to deal with your delusions.
Fuck Apple! by ZosX · 2012-07-29 12:14 · Score: 0

They are the new microsoft....and they are far more evil.

--
zosxavius photography
If Apple won't let you publish... by Sharkus · 2012-07-29 12:16 · Score: 1

...try popping over to Kobo and have a look at the new Kobo Writing Life side of things which allows for self publishing.
Please do not print large Jobs by tepples · 2012-07-29 12:46 · Score: 2

The face of Apple has died, and Tim hasn't shown himself to be as charismatic as Steve. Therefore, Apple is faceless.
1. Re:Please do not print large Jobs by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-29 14:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The face of Apple [thechive.com] has died,
  But they clearly still have a prick.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
Non-disclosure agreements by tepples · 2012-07-29 13:00 · Score: 1

The burden of proof is hers.
In a universe of discourse that lies within a larger universe including non-disclosure agreements, how should the burden of proof be met?
Debbie does her stretch... maybe? by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-07-29 13:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

So does that mean that the Disney Store should be forced to sell Debbie Does Dallas if they sell books by other authors?

Hmm... TFA was talking about being blocked by Apple because of a mention about Amazon and you jumped in with Disney being forced to carry "Debbie Does Dallas"?

Isn't _ that _ quite a stretch?

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I got similar treatment from Amazon by PseudonymousCoward · 2012-07-29 13:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

In my book "The Making of 'I Saw Them Ride Away'" I mentioned the great help that Amazon, and their subsidiary CreateSpace, had been in enabling the publication of my Great-Grandfather's memoir. When I submitted the manuscript for format checking, it was rejected because it mentioned "amazon.com". I had to eliminate a very complimentary sentence, at their own insistence.
I'm sure the policy makes sense to someone.

--
If it isn't true, don't say it. If it isn't helpful, don't say it. If it's true and helpful, wait for the right time.
Re:Debbie does her stretch... maybe? by Smauler · 2012-07-29 13:42 · Score: 0, Troll

No, it's not a stretch. GGP was asking for public companies to be forced to carry everything - GP was making a simple point, relatively succinctly :
Forcing public companies to not censor to leads to stupid consequences, like companies aimed exclusively at kids carrying porn.
Just because they make neat stuff... by runeghost · 2012-07-29 13:49 · Score: 1

...does not automatically make them a benevolent actor in the marketplace.
Apple is removing Holly Lisle's book from their store, apparently, because they don't want any information about their competition to reach their users. They only admitted this after they first LIED about why they were removing it. The obvious conclusion is that Apple is acting like a complete douchenozzle. There seems to be a reluctance to admit this, likely because Apple makes cool products that a lot of people use. Supporting Apple's censorship because you like their products is a pretty vile choice.
More likely by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 13:51 · Score: 0

Its actually a shitty book that no legitimate publisher wanted to produce.
And now she and scream about the douschbaggery of Apple, while self publishing through Amazon and BN, and get a shit load of publicity and sales for a book that didn't deserve to get published to begin with.
It's not about content - emails from Apple by lesserwhirls · 2012-07-29 14:25 · Score: 3, Informative

From the author (taken from comments on her site):

"Here’s the first email I received from them. Boldface is mine.

Dear Holly Lisle,
One or more assets from your submission, How To Think Sideways: Career Survival School for Writers, need to be replaced:
Ticket #: 1438977
Ticket Type: Book Asset
Apple ID: 541126811
ISBN: 9781937533304
Vendor ID: 9781937533304
Full book asset:
Competing Website(s)
Notes:
Jun, 29 2012, 12:13PM – Apple:
Book file contains links from competitors: Amazon, in the chapter Q&A 6, under “Question 9
Please log in to iTunes Connect to view this request and upload replacement assets:
If you have any questions about this report, contact us at the iBookstore.
Regards,
The iTunes Store Team

Here’s the FINAL email I received from them before I removed my courses.

Dear Holly Lisle,
One or more assets from your submission, How to Think Sideways: Career Survival School for Writers, need to be replaced:
Ticket #: 1438977
Ticket Type: Book Asset
Apple ID: 541126811
ISBN: 9781937533304
Vendor ID: 9781937533304
Please note that the changes in this ticket were not executed. The ticket has been returned to you for additional corrections. Please make all of the changes requested below.
Full book asset:
Competing Website(s)
Rejected Reason(s):
Competing Website(s)
Notes:
Jun, 29 2012, 12:13PM – Apple:
Book file contains links from competitors: Amazon, in the chapter Q&A 6, under “Question 9
Jul, 18 2012, 4:54AM – Apple:
Epub internals validation passed
Jul, 18 2012, 4:54AM – Apple:
The following ticket task(s) have been updated by the feed: Full epub
Jul, 18 2012, 1:21PM – Apple:
Please Note: The original change request was not fulfilled. Your changes were not saved. Previous issue was not addressed. Please review your file before resubmitting it. Thank you.
Jul, 19 2012, 8:35AM – Apple:
Epub internals validation passed
Jul, 24 2012, 11:56AM – Apple:
Please Note: The original change request was not fulfilled. Your changes were not saved. Original Issues have not been resolved.
Please log in to iTunes Connect to view this request and upload replacement assets:
If you have any questions about this report, contact us at the iBookstore.
Regards,
The iTunes Store Team

As noted, however, I HAD changed the lesson, HAD removed the links, HAD complied with their request. Since the links were gone, their only possible objection—NOT STATED—was content."
Sounds like she is reading between the lines. As noted in other comments, there are several publications in the iBookstore that deal directly with amazon (including publishing through them).
1. Re:It's not about content - emails from Apple by gblues · 2012-07-29 15:15 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed, sounds like a classic mistake of "uploading the wrong version," i.e. her updated book is in location A and she is uploading an out-of-date copy in location B. The copy in location A may very well be free of direct links to Amazon.com, but if that's not the copy she's uploading, she's going to run into the same problem.
  Next question: do you want to be taking publishing advice from someone who can't successfully upload the right copy of her eBook?
2. Re:It's not about content - emails from Apple by flabordec · 2012-07-30 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  From looking at the cover, maybe this was an issue with it looking very, very similar to another series of books that is fairly famous?
  
  --
  "I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
Don't believe it. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 15:09 · Score: 0

Is there any corroborating evidence? Apple's guidelines generally don't cover something so clearly idiotic and actionable as banning a book because it mentions other companies.
Is she still a blind apple's fan now? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 15:17 · Score: 0

Is she still a blind, retarded apple's fan now?
Are apple fans at all capable of understanding their stupidity, or is it too late?
I hate to say this but by Swampash · 2012-07-29 15:23 · Score: 2

I work in marketing, and this whole non-story reeks of a publicity campaign for the author's book.
Re:Debbie does her stretch... maybe? by TapeCutter · 2012-07-29 15:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

GGP was asking for public companies to be forced to carry everything
No they asked for "a law against censoring content in a public marketplace by a public company". You and Karlt1 interpreted that to mean every company must stock every item. You are therefore (unintentionally) using a strawman argument.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
welcome to 1984 by slashmydots · 2012-07-29 15:33 · Score: 2

It is absolutely not by any stretch of the imagination unreasonable to say that if Apple rules the entire country, it would be the book 1984. They are so control-psycho, those zombies that buy their products might actually wake up, get a freaking clue, and crush their company. By the way, in the famous Microsoft vs IT people: Vista edition, their millions of marketing dollars might as well have been used to make one giant money pinata for a company party after every IT person in the world told any curious customer what they thought of Vista. I've been telling my customers what I think of Apple for years. If enough of you do it, bye bye, Apple.
1. Re:welcome to 1984 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-31 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  Well, a more colorful 1984. Have to give them that
Re:Fuck Apple! by Osgeld · 2012-07-29 17:06 · Score: 1

your just now picking up on this? apple has 2 phases, evil and incompetent as proven by the history of the company.
What type of mention by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 17:46 · Score: 0

Was it using Amazon as an example of sideways thinking in her book or some mention like
"Buy the other of the series available exclusively on Amazon.com"
Which may not contain a direct link to Amazon but is pretty dubious in a eBook to be sold on the iBook store.
I am not sure this is the problem by BigBadBus · 2012-07-29 18:21 · Score: 1

My own book ("The Titanic and the Indifferent Stranger: The Complete Story of the Titanic and the Californian") mentions Amazon (that is, the vendor, not the rain forest) in the main text at least once and its been on the apple iBookstore for many months now.

--
My web domain.
Re:Debbie does her stretch... maybe? by Another,+completely · 2012-07-29 23:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

GGP was asking for public companies to be forced to carry everything
No they asked for "a law against censoring content in a public marketplace by a public company". You and Karlt1 interpreted that to mean every company must stock every item. You are therefore (unintentionally) using a strawman argument.
Sorry, but I missed your point. How do you prevent "censoring content" while still allowing stores to select content that they feel is suitable for their customers and image? If every company is not required to stock every item, how do they select what they want to sell without being accused of censoring what they didn't select?
The Author of the Book is a Troll by a0me · 2012-07-29 23:21 · Score: 2

If not, how do you explain that an ebook titled “How To Self Publish On Amazon, Kindle And iBookStore” is available at the Apple iBookStore? http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/how-to-self-publish-on-amazon/id546291491?mt=11
I don't think this is a publicity stunt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-29 23:56 · Score: 1

My wife has actually purchased Holly's "How to Think Sideways" series through the author's main site. The purpose of the course is to help aspiring authors create the engaging stories they want to write, rather than so much of the shlock that is currently the definition of the self-published industry. Holly is a fairly prolific and well-established author.
Having interacted with her in the past, I would say she is not doing this for publicity's sake. Holly has a very libertarian outlook and I would view this announcement as a move to illustrate ways in which Apple is trying to force authors to change their content to be listed by Apple. Honestly, it is Apple's choice, but we deserve to know what they are doing.
How do you know that Apple is consistent? by jjo · 2012-07-30 00:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

So why, in particular, do you assume that Apple must be consistent in its content filtering? You assume that because Apple has permitted references to Amazon in other cases, they would necessarily have permitted it in this case. It could be that Apple has a policy of filtering out references to Amazon, but does not do so automatically. This book may have been manually reviewed because of the previously-included links to Amazon (another inane Apple policy). We don't know what all of Apple's policies are in this case, but assuming mendacity on the part of this author is completely unwarranted.
There's a term for that by Yvan256 · 2012-07-30 00:25 · Score: 1

She's Nookd.
Re:Debbie does her stretch... maybe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 00:44 · Score: 0

Stretch? More like a gaping hole in his logic?
Soon to be followed by "Lesson 7" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 02:09 · Score: 0

Stay tuned for the successor book, "How to Think Sideways Lesson 7: Act Butthurt and Troll Everybody". I hear it's going to have special guest chapters from Paul Christoforo and Charles Carreon...
three seconds is all it took by milkmage · 2012-07-30 02:45 · Score: 1

to see that some rookie reviewer is taking the rules too literally.
or that this author is full of shit.
search for amazon.com finds 11 hits in books, 2 of them are case studies (text books)
Poor reasoning by DragonWriter · 2012-07-30 04:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Her claim is the book was refused because it mentions Amazon.
More precisely, her claim is that that is the reason Apple stated the second time they rejected it.

Go to the iTunes store. Do a search for Amazon. Ignore the results about the geographic region and notice how many other books clearly and obviously mention Amazon. Take particular note, for example, of the book titled "Amazon.com" which, one would assume, is about Amazon and makes mention of the company.
So? It wouldn't be the first time that the reasons Apple stated to the creator for rejecting one product from their online store were inconsistent with the fact that other products which would, rationally, be rejected by the same rule had already been accepted in the same store.

After you do this basic level of investigation, one can only be left to assume that there's either some key part of this story missing and/or she is doing this to generate attention for her book as a marketing ploy (driving people to buy her book on Amazon, most likely).
Well, no. In order to reach that conclusion based on the evidence you cited you have to first assume, additionally:
1. That Apple's stated reasons for rejecting a product are always accurate and complete,
2. That Apple's standards in accepting products in its online store are consistent.
Unless you assume both of those are true, the fact that other products appear in the store that would not be expected to if the reasons they allegedly stated for rejecting the product in question had been applied across the aboard is not evidence against the allegation that they rejected the product and gave the reason stated.
Totally Unfair by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-30 04:54 · Score: 0

This is absolutely Prepostrous, who cares if Amazon is mentioned, it could be the Amazon Jungle.
Re:Debbie does her stretch... maybe? by scot4875 · 2012-07-30 05:21 · Score: 2

Not a strawman argument; they're using a slippery slope.
That doesn't make it any more valid, however.
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:Debbie does her stretch... maybe? by TapeCutter · 2012-07-30 11:43 · Score: 1

Apple is not running a shop, it's running a market, they are not "stocking" apps they are providing a marketplace for others to sell them in. They can stop "censoring" by allowing people to sell whatever content they want on that market. They can keep their market's image clean with a content rating system, the same thing can be seen in a bricks and mortar market where the naughty stuff is hidden from direct view.

Of course you may not see it as a marketplace, you may see Apple as akin to a publisher that picks and chooses what they publish, but that is not how they paint themselves.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Debbie does her stretch... maybe? by MrResistor · 2012-07-31 08:30 · Score: 1

I would say that it's both. The straw man being used happens to be constructed with a slippery slope as it's basis. Fallacies aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

--
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.