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

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.'"

Comments

The first rule of controlling a market...

[Anonymous Coward]

shut down discussion.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[Anonymous Coward]

The third rule of selling self-help books: make yourself seem like a plucky underdog being trampled on by a huge, faceless corporation.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[maxwell demon]

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?

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[bigstrat2003]

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).

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[mk1004]

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?

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[BasilBrush]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[Culture20]

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).

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[cpu6502]

>>>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.)

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[Opportunist]

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...

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[cpu6502]

>>>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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[LordLimecat]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[PopeRatzo]

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?

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[jmac_the_man]

Apple has religious fanatics?

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[bigstrat2003]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[BluBrick]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[drkim]

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!

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[jrumney]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[Smauler]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[Ol Olsoc]

You see..? Done Biblically, sex is very dirty!

Behold, I come like a thief in the night?

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[KingSkippus]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[circletimessquare]

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

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[Yaztromo]

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

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[arkhan_jg]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rest assured reasonable, normal human beings will cry bloody murder, brainwashed Apple drones will call it a slander campaign

FTFY

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[drkim]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[Requiem18th]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[w0mprat]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[KGIII]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[bennomatic]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[zidium]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[whisper_jeff]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[heathen_01]

I thought we were here to bash apple. Whats this about a book?

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[shentino]

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.

Re:The first rule of controlling a market...

[FranktehReaver]

What book?! Just grab this torch and follow me we got work to do.

"professional" distributor

[Cederic]

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.

Re:"professional" distributor

[ozmanjusri]

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.

Re:"professional" distributor

[ozmanjusri]

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 .

extraordinary claims

[YesIAmAScript]

Require extraordinary proof.

There are plenty of iBooks already that mention Amazon.

We have one person making a blind accusation here.

Re:extraordinary claims

[newcastlejon]

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.

Re:extraordinary claims

[rjames13]

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.

Re:extraordinary claims

[Qwavel]

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.

Re:extraordinary claims

[eddy]

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.

Re:extraordinary claims

[Frosty Piss]

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.

Re:extraordinary claims

[Frosty Piss]

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.

Re:extraordinary claims

[Reschekle]

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.

Re:extraordinary claims

[93 Escort Wagon]

Folks, use some common sense

Hahahahaha! On Slashdot!? That's a good one!

Re:extraordinary claims

[hawk]

How are you supposed to provide evidence of a transmission sent straight to your brain by the secret industry police that watch you . . .

? :)

hawk

Re:extraordinary claims

[whisper_jeff]

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.

Re:extraordinary claims

[lesserwhirls]

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...

Odd

[mmcxii]

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.

Doesn't seem right

[SilenceBE]

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.

Re:Doesn't seem right

[gl4ss]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time when a large online store applies different rules to different submissions.

Happens all the time.

BS

[edelbrp]

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.

Re:BS

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Amazon has their own annoyances

[HangingChad]

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.

Nonsense article

[hedpe2003]

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

Re:Nonsense article

[gnasher719]

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".

Zero proof == Zero credibility.

[divisionbyzero]

There is zero proof in her claim. Why was this posted?

Monopoly of control

[WaffleMonster]

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.

The first rule of reading comprehension...

[Archfeld]

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...

Re:The first rule of reading comprehension...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Please do not print large Jobs

[tepples]

The face of Apple has died, and Tim hasn't shown himself to be as charismatic as Steve. Therefore, Apple is faceless.

Re:Please do not print large Jobs

[PopeRatzo]

The face of Apple [thechive.com] has died,

But they clearly still have a prick.

Debbie does her stretch... maybe?

[Taco Cowboy]

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?
 

I got similar treatment from Amazon

[PseudonymousCoward]

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.

It's not about content - emails from Apple

[lesserwhirls]

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).

Re:It's not about content - emails from Apple

[gblues]

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?

I hate to say this but

[Swampash]

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?

[TapeCutter]

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.

welcome to 1984

[slashmydots]

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.

Re:Debbie does her stretch... maybe?

[Another, completely]

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

[a0me]

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

How do you know that Apple is consistent?

[jjo]

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.

Poor reasoning

[DragonWriter]

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.

Re:Debbie does her stretch... maybe?

[scot4875]

Not a strawman argument; they're using a slippery slope.

That doesn't make it any more valid, however.

--Jeremy