Apple Clarifies iBooks Author Licensing Situation in New Software Update

[highdough]

And what about this ISN'T evil? Imagine if Microsoft claimed you could write anything you want in Word, but don't you dare try to sell it without converting it to PDF first. Better yet, what if Adobe tried to force you to sell your PDF only with their permission and on their own terms (and with a cut of the profits I might add)?

Step away from the cool-aid please.

Last time I checked, Microsoft charged for Word. That's where they make their money. They have no other avenue from which to make money from it. Apple does not charge for their software, which is simply a tool to make products to sell in their store. They make their money when the person sells their product in their store.

By making it free, it allows more people to create books to sell in the store, which helps both Apple and the creator.

The biggest obstacle for most writers is the creation of the actual ebook file. Writing the book costs nothing. Apple has created a free and easy way to do it. You're expecting them to spend all that money on creating the software and not finding a way to capitalize on it?

And one question, why exactly would you buy Word if it had such restrictions, and what exactly would Microsoft get out of such a restriction. That makes no sense.

 

[jclardy]

So theoretically someone could create an ibooks to <other competing format> converter and the user could use iBooks Author to write it. And release the book for both platforms?


I don't think there is really another interactive competing format right now, but maybe in the future...Also formatting would be messed up on devices like Kindle Fire though.

 

[highdough]

The problem as I see it is that people want to use this lovely tool to create an eBook. It is a very slick app, easy to use. The exact kind of thing you expect from Apple. However, when you want to distribute your content you are limited as to the options you can export it as.

If you elect to use the .ibooks format, and you wish to charge a fee, even a nominal one, then you can *only* distribute it via the iBookstore. You cannot take the file and sell it elsewhere. There's the crux of the issue. You want wider exposure than just the iBookstore, as that means only iBooks can display the file.

What happens if you wanted to supply that file so it can be read on Nook, Kindle, Kobo, Sony, etc...? You cannot do so. Granted they won't read a .ibooks file anyway, however, if you were to rename it to .epub then it is possible it might be able to be read on the aforementioned devices. Interactive content may not work though.

There is also the other issue that if iBookstore won't allow you to publish the file then you cannot publish it elsewhere, unless you recreate it in another app and then you're free to do what you want. But why did you not use that other app in the first place? Ah, you thought you would use the wonderful tool that Apple provided.

It's obvious Apple wants to dominate and control the eBook market on iOS, and this is another way of them doing that. If it had been first to market with iBooks then perhaps they would have it sewn up by now, but they were not first to market, but they are trying bullying tactics like this to push competitors out of the field.

Nothing is stopping you from paying money to create files of the ebook to sell in different formats. That's why I don't understand the controversy. Apple is simply supplying a free way to turn your book into a file to be sold in their store. I don't see a problem with that. If Google released a free application to build your own app, but only for Android, would anyone have a problem with that?

This is just Apple's way of making it easier to sell ebooks in their book store.

 

[marcusj0015]

So? That's their choice to make. If you don't like it, use someone and something else.

... Did I imply that I was against their decision in any way? no, I'm saying the same thing you are, but with less of an attitude, and more thought.

 

[Kaibelf]

I installed version 1.0 when this was first released. Now that version 1.0.1 has come up, I am not seeing an update available, just says installed? How do I update it?

I believe this 0.01 update is just to change the splash page with new license text, but isn't a real update?

 

[Boghog]

If you don't like it, use something else.

I really do like it but none of the pupils I want to give my textbook to have an iPad - as it stands they wouldn't even be allowed to use one in school here.
So I would be grateful if anyone could suggest an alternative: an ebook creation software with comparable ease of use and some way to include interactive elements without having to learn a programming language. One which exports formats that are more generally readable than .ibooks.
Doesn't have to be free but should ideally be cheaper than Illustrator (which I have heard also isn't really intuitive to use).

 

[Judas1]

This wasn't a clarification, it was a retraction. The language used made it very clear that they wanted to claim the author's work as their own. It was only later when people called them out on it that they were forced to "clarify" the licence agreement. Typical Apple.

 

[sterlingindigo]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

This wasn't a clarification, it was a retraction. The language used made it very clear that they wanted to claim the author's work as their own. It was only later when people called them out on it that they were forced to "clarify" the licence agreement. Typical Apple.

I have to admit, this is how I interpret it as well.

 

[Komiksulo]

What about .ibooks files not generated using iBooks Author? The revised language seems to indicate that .ibooks files generated using another application may be distributed outside Apple's control.

Presumably, if some expensive professional application licensed the ability to edit, load, and save the .ibooks format, that would be handled by such a licensing case.

From the viewpoint of someone contemplating a single-sourcing publishing workflow, .ibooks should be just another available output format. I would be surprised if there weren't moves happening for the likes of Adobe InDesign and Edge to license the specifications of the .ibooks format.

But the morally right thing to do, from a content-creator's point of view, would be for Apple to contribute the .ibooks format specifications openly as an addition to Epub 3. At the least, Apple should allow the .ibooks file to be sold elsewhere IF Apple elects not to sell it itself.

 

[djepsilon]

Here's a question that maybe someone could answer...

Can I charge a client to build a .ibook for them as long as they distributed it for free?

 

[vjl323]

But the morally right thing to do, from a content-creator's point of view, would be for Apple to contribute the .ibooks format specifications openly as an addition to Epub 3. At the least, Apple should allow the .ibooks file to be sold elsewhere IF Apple elects not to sell it itself.

That is a question I have myself. If I decide to publish a photo book that Apple doesn't want in their store [maybe it has artsy photos of nude models which they don't like], can I sell the .ibook file on my own e-commerce website?

I thought Apple was interested in selling iPads, and getting the 30% cut of apps/ebooks isn't a huge money maker for themselves [since they have to pay the hosting bills, the credit card charging bills, etc]. Allowing an independent author to have an e-commerce website to sell their iBook would be nice, especially since Apple may not approve a book for their store [there are certain books that will never sit in a Barnes and Noble store, but the author sells via his/her own website or mom & pop bookstore]. Since the iBook format can only be read on an iPad, and because books may have a more broad range of tastes/audience than apps, it is a bit concerning that Apple may not allow some content in their store. Yes, it is their store, and that is their right, but if people want to read the book and the author doesn't get permission from Apple to sell it in their store, what options are left for the author, who wants to sell an iBook-formated ebook?

 

[Kaibelf]

That is a question I have myself. If I decide to publish a photo book that Apple doesn't want in their store [maybe it has artsy photos of nude models which they don't like], can I sell the .ibook file on my own e-commerce website?

I thought Apple was interested in selling iPads, and getting the 30% cut of apps/ebooks isn't a huge money maker for themselves [since they have to pay the hosting bills, the credit card charging bills, etc]. Allowing an independent author to have an e-commerce website to sell their iBook would be nice, especially since Apple may not approve a book for their store [there are certain books that will never sit in a Barnes and Noble store, but the author sells via his/her own website or mom & pop bookstore]. Since the iBook format can only be read on an iPad, and because books may have a more broad range of tastes/audience than apps, it is a bit concerning that Apple may not allow some content in their store. Yes, it is their store, and that is their right, but if people want to read the book and the author doesn't get permission from Apple to sell it in their store, what options are left for the author, who wants to sell an iBook-formated ebook?

An interactive book of nude models and Apple providing free tools for you to profit from such a thing? Fat chance.

----------

But the morally right thing to do, from a content-creator's point of view, would be for Apple to contribute the .ibooks format specifications openly as an addition to Epub 3. At the least, Apple should allow the .ibooks file to be sold elsewhere IF Apple elects not to sell it itself.

Some could argue that the morally right thing to do wouldn't be to expect something for nothing. That R&D money came from others.

 

[vjl323]

An interactive book of nude models and Apple providing free tools for you to profit from such a thing? Fat chance.

It's an example. Say it is a portfolio books - maybe it has 1 or 2 nude model photos - it's not a playboy magazine or something. It's just an example I thought of where 2% of the content might not pass the iBookstore. Then what is the author to do? Delete those photos? That seems extreme from an author's point of view - editing the book's content so that it can be on the virtual shelf of an ebookstore.

I would just like to see the option where non-free iBook books can be downloaded [and sold] via a website. A comic author just did that recently, giving away several months of his comics for free in an .ibook file one could download for free on his website. If he had put the .ibook file behind a paywall, he would be in violation of the rules, but I wonder if Apple is going to monitor every .ibook file on every website to make sure they are being given away for free vs. in an e-commerce shop.

 

[LethalWolfe]

The analogy wasn't flawed in any way pertaining to the point that I was making. Apple limits the sale of .ibooks files to the iBookstore. Amazon limits the sale of .azw files to the Kindle Store. That's it.

My bad. I reread the conversion tree and realize now that you were only commenting on the content distribution clarification and not the content creation clarification.


Lethal

 

[pdjudd]

I believe this 0.01 update is just to change the splash page with new license text, but isn't a real update?

Yes, any change to the program (The license is part of the program) it’s an upgrade. A minor upgrade yes, but it meets the definition.

This wasn't a clarification, it was a retraction. The language used made it very clear that they wanted to claim the author's work as their own. It was only later when people called them out on it that they were forced to "clarify" the licence agreement. Typical Apple.

Can you prove it? I doubt it. Before you imply malicious intent, you have to remove the notion of a mistake. I think this was a mistake in the license. Apple Legal never thought this to be an issue. I have no problem accepting that notion. An elaborate conspiracy that would involve concepts that would likely never hold up in court? Come on.

That is a question I have myself. If I decide to publish a photo book that Apple doesn't want in their store [maybe it has artsy photos of nude models which they don't like], can I sell the .ibook file on my own e-commerce website?

No. Not the ibook file. If you build the exact same thing in another format? Yes.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Can you prove it? I doubt it. Before you imply malicious intent, you have to remove the notion of a mistake. I think this was a mistake in the license. Apple Legal never thought this to be an issue.

On one hand I don't think this was malicious either, but on the other hand it's hard to believe that people who parse words for a living would keep such a broad, powerful statement in the final draft. Maybe the people that wrote it up just had tunnel vision or something but there is a very big difference between the new language and the old w/regards to content creation.


Lethal

 

[Glideslope]

There. Now everyone is happy.

Impossible.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

I installed version 1.0 when this was first released. Now that version 1.0.1 has come up, I am not seeing an update available, just says installed? How do I update it?

Update is in now.

 

[RobertMartens]

Was only 30ish MB for me.

Don't you mean it 'weighed in at' 30 MB.

'Weigh in at' is the technical term, don't you know. Ask Arn. He swears by it.

----------

Step away from the cool-aid please.

Kool-Aid is spelled with a 'K' and convincing people by insulting them rarely works. Or perhaps your intent was only to insult.

----------

but if people want to read the book and the author doesn't get permission from Apple to sell it in their store, what options are left for the author, who wants to sell an iBook-formated ebook?

Is your nude book going to have cool interactive parts or just sit there?

 

[highdough]

This wasn't a clarification, it was a retraction. The language used made it very clear that they wanted to claim the author's work as their own. It was only later when people called them out on it that they were forced to "clarify" the licence agreement. Typical Apple.

You could be right, but I would never be comfortable pretending that I know something when in fact I don't. People who do that end up looking like an ass a lot of the time.

 

[dccorona]

And what about this ISN'T evil? Imagine if Microsoft claimed you could write anything you want in Word, but don't you dare try to sell it without converting it to PDF first. Better yet, what if Adobe tried to force you to sell your PDF only with their permission and on their own terms (and with a cut of the profits I might add)?

Step away from the cool-aid please.

you're missing the point. Those comparisons don't apply here...you're talking about tools that are designed and marketed with the intent of creating content for distribution to anyone, anywhere.

iBooks author is software that is designed and marketed specifically to make books available for iBooks. All apple is saying is: if you use our tool to create a book, you have to either give it away or sell it through us. you can take that CONTENT (so, the actual text/videos/graphics in the book), and compile it into a different format with different software, and do what you like with it.

The better comparison is microsoft's dev kit for xboxes (and sony's, and nintendos). You can't use microsofts dev kit to create a game, and then sell it yourself without their licensing, or sell it for PS3. You can however, take your game, and develop it for PS3 using sony's dev kit. Or develop it for PC and distribute it however you like. Same concept

 

[pdjudd]

On one hand I don't think this was malicious either, but on the other hand it's hard to believe that people who parse words for a living would keep such a broad, powerful statement in the final draft. Maybe the people that wrote it up just had tunnel vision or something but there is a very big difference between the new language and the old w/regards to content creation.


Lethal

There is a big difference, mostly because Apple Legal had to change things to be explicit. I simply think that Apple’s licensing guys probably weren’t thinking about things. I simply refuse to think that Apple would think that they under any circumstance Apple could think that they own any aspect of the IP that Authors produce. In fact the first thing I thought when this whole thing came up was just that. Thinking the worst requires a ton of evidence - evidence that the EULA isn’t enough to give us.

Sure Apple is capable of lots of things, but I doubt that they would waste their time on contacts that could easily be voided.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

With those updated and now clearer terms I cannot see what any fuss is about. If you want to create a Book for iBooks you can use iBooks Author and if you want to create an ePub just use Pages:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4168

So right now there is more or less no problem. If you want to sell a Book on the iBook Store the new iBooks Author is most probably the best choice. I wouldn't create the content in this tool but in Pages and then bring it over. CMD-A,CMD-C,CMD-V, done. Even with a complex book with many pictures it shouldn't take more then a day.

A real problem would emerge if all content creation tools would come up with similar restrictions. That means if Pages, Word and so on would start limiting the output options and distribution channels. At the moment thats not the case and I don't believe we will ever get there. There is always OpenOffice

 

[thasan]

so i guess u get free copies (read illegal download) of microsoft word and adobe acrobat.

And what about this ISN'T evil? Imagine if Microsoft claimed you could write anything you want in Word, but don't you dare try to sell it without converting it to PDF first. Better yet, what if Adobe tried to force you to sell your PDF only with their permission and on their own terms (and with a cut of the profits I might add)?

Step away from the cool-aid please.

 

[iBug2]

And what about this ISN'T evil? Imagine if Microsoft claimed you could write anything you want in Word, but don't you dare try to sell it without converting it to PDF first. Better yet, what if Adobe tried to force you to sell your PDF only with their permission and on their own terms (and with a cut of the profits I might add)?

Step away from the cool-aid please.

Sorry but the situation is not the same. iBooks Author's .ibook format works only on iPads and iPhones. Apple always forced people to sell anything that works on iOS devices through the App Store.

So it's the exact same situation. If you want to sell stuff that works on the iPad/iPhone, you need to sell it through Apple. If you sell it in a format that works everywhere else, such as .pdf, you can do it any way you like.