Apple Rejecting All e-Book App Store Submissions?

[alFR]

Actually I think MacRumors is digging themselves a nasty hole by picking up the comments of a developer with a grievance and posting it as truth. At this moment there are 409 pages of apps under the Books category on the app store. Clasics, Kindle, Shakespeare, B&N eReader, Stanza, etc. are all still there. How about we not freak out over something until we know it is actually happening.

Exactly. This is all based on the speculation of one developer at the moment, there is absolutely no evidence that Apple is systematically pulling all eBooks/readers from the App Store (as others have noted, they're all still there).

Posting this as fact is not anywhere near the usual editorial standards of MacRumors, to be honest.

 

[cloud]

Agreed.

Rule #1:

Nine times out of ten, always bet on Apple.

There is usually a method to their madness. This is the kind of company that approaches challenges and new avenues from a completely different angle and then unexpectedly comes up with amazing ideas.

Everyone needs to seriously chill. The same company that is really the only one innovating for the past 9 or so years isn't going to magically, inexplicably, shoot themselves in the foot with essentially the same management team they've had for years.

And the Mac fan sites on the ass-end of the internets that are home to a minor niche of Apple-complainers in no way constitute the average user. We're a minor breed. Let's not assume these issues actually have any kind of impact whatsoever on the Apple's average user base. You know, the one that is rendering them utterly recession-proof and responsible for record Mac sales, quarter after quarter.

"Chill out?"

These are the same people that b*tched when the iPod was introduced.

The same people that moaned when Mac OS X was announced.

The SAME people that cried that the iPhone was getting too much attention.

These people are amusing. If Apple followed their decisions, they'd be in a hole right now lol. Let Apple do what it's doing. I take it that they know better than all these complainers.

 

[DotComCTO]

Lets put that one in context shall we ?

The App developer first had the app on jailbroken iPhones and since then he's been rejected more than 6 times :

"We’ve developed the application for reading e-books on the iPhone (I know, there are plenty of them) called i2Reader. Actually we’ve developed it quite some time ago, it was one of the first e-book readers for jailbroken iPhones, and a quite popular one. Finally we’ve decided to bring it to the App Store (yeah, I don’t know either what took us so long), so we’ve uploaded it to the App Store for the first time about two months ago. Since then all we are getting from Apple are rejects (about nine of them)

Ah. I see. If you ever developed something and published under Cydia, you should expect to get rejected from the App Store. As in...it serves you right.

Except...zodttd (http://www.zodttd.com) is a very active developer that publishes his apps under Cydia...and he has several of his apps published in the App Store. And many of his apps in Cydia are... *gasp* ...emulators! Whereas the developer of this rejected app developed an eBook reader. If Apple was holding a grudge against a developer, I don't think it would be against the guy that developed yet another eBook reader.



--DotComCTO

 

[iOrlando]

this is a very very very clear and deliberate move by apple..

it can be interpreted as saying...

please stand by everyone, we will be introducing a few surprises in the coming months to handle this market and all of your e-book needs.

meanwhile go try out these wonderful google apps, i mean tip calculators.


p.s. i dont see any of these moves concerning apple and the app store monopolistic or illegal. No one is forced to buy an iphone, you can go and buy whatever phone you want. Some people come at the angle... well I own the iPhone so apple shouldnt be allowed to block apps. Well, yes you own the phone, but all apple is doing is technically saying we dont want to sell a certain product to you. (even if it is free..its still selling). the phone works fine without the apps. etc etc Sort of along the lines of MSFT saying we dont want to sell you a certain type of office program packaged within excel because we feel it would ruin your experience.

 

[zedsdead]

probably. even if they remove it.. they probably won't "remove" it from your phone.

hell, i still have netshare on my phone. after multiple restores.

Unlike Amazon, who recently stole back a purchase...1984.

 

[KidStallyn]

First off it's Apple's company... They can do what they want(period). Don't like it don't by Apple's stuff.

Second, Your not seeing the big picture they don't want app's that are going to hurt them, now or in the future. I say the iTab is coming this time and it's gonna rock. I would say there will be a iRead app or it will be in with iTunes ...

my two pennies....

That's what Microsoft thought about integrating IE Browsers into their operating system. The problem is that they are single handedly ruining fair trade here.

Why did they approve video over 3G on Orb but not Slingbox?
There's tons of sms apps out there, yet no google voice.

The fact that the Feds opened up the case is pretty significant.

 

[gianly1985]

About the "eInk VS color LCD" dilemma, my (wet) dream would be an hybrid eInk/LCD screen for the upcoming (?) Apple tablet. So you can turn off
the LCD (and backlight) when you need to read and save battery. I remember one of these hibryd dispalys showed in some event like CES or something.

 

[Steampulp]

If true, this is a disaster.

If this is actually true, and I'm skeptical that it is, then this is a disaster for my company. My entire business model and literally dozens of authors who've worked on my fiction zine are having the carpet pulled out from under our feet.

I'm not convinced this is really true. There are eBooks posted on the store dated from today.

John Sondericker
www.steampunktales.com

 

[RMo]

Only for old people (such as myself) who grew up reading books. If you're starting an ebook platform right now, then the segment of the market that you should care about capturing and locking in right now has been doing most of their reading on backlit computer screens for their entire lives.

I've been using computers since I was in kindergarten (I'm a college grad now), but I'd gladly read my Kindle over my computer screen any day. I don't know how anyone could think it's comfortable to stare into a light source for extended periods of time, especially to read--but, then again, maybe I'm "old," too.

 

[aardwolf]

That's bull. I'm putting the finishing touches on a book app right now for a book MY PARENTS WROTE THEMSELVES. Does this mean Apple is going to reject it? Gee, Apple. How about you give me my $99 bucks back, then?

Same here... I'm negotiating with Lexcycle (the owners of Stanza) to use their engine to distribute standalone eBooks (like O'Reilly does.) I'm doing it as a developer for a publishing company that owns the rights to publish all of its books. I wonder how this will affect me (hopefully not at all...)

 

[iOrlando]

If this is actually true, and I'm skeptical that it is, then this is a disaster for my company. My entire business model and literally dozens of authors who've worked on my fiction zine are having the carpet pulled out from under our feet.

I'm not convinced this is really true. There are eBooks posted on the store dated from today.

John Sondericker
www.steampunktales.com

i dont think it would be a disaster for you. What if apple began an e-book store that is run very similar to Amazon with all sorts of retailers and distributors. You search for a book..say Harry Potter, and then you can choose which distributer you want to purchase the ebook from (amazon, barnes and noble would probably have the lowest price), but some niche books..(like the ones you sell) would appear in the general store and can be bought through your "store".

What apple is doing blocking these apps can be thought of as apple blocking apps that let you buy someone's songs without the record companies even involved or getting money and before itunes was around. The e-book space has alot of disorder and i think apple wants to add order.

 

[Scooterman1]

It's amazing just sitting back and watching Apple.
Their controls are getting so tight, they should try and buy Targets Logo to use instead of the present one. They are just aligning themselves for more lawsuits. Everyone will be going after them if they keep it up.
It's a good thing they are making great profits because they will need them for legal defense. Didn't Microsoft get broken up because they were trying to hoard everything. OS, Hardware, and all Applications. And unfair advantage with built in hidden features not released to others. Sound famaliar?

 

[yg17]

I rated this Positively because I see it as just one more confirmation the 'tablet' is coming.

And then they'll probably have an anti-trust suit on them so fast they won't know what hit them.

I hope AT&T gets an Android phone soon, I'm going to be done with the iPhone if they keep this crap up.

 

[Steampulp]

i dont think it would be a disaster for you...

No, I think it'd be a disaster for my magazine. I'm not selling just a typical eBook reader, it is a reader that re-creates the look and feel of a hundred year old pulp fiction magazine. A good part of the fun is in the proprietary reader application that I painstakingly crafted.


John
www.steampunktales.com

 

[BaldiMac]

I suspect this may be in response to the legal actions by various individuals and companies against the distributors of eBooks.

(The recent 1984 Amazon fiasco, and then the suit by the student against Amazon, for one.)

The authors guild of America has not embraced eBooks, many publishers and authors have been slow to embrace digital distribution in the same way the RIAA and MPAA have been slow to accept digital distribution of music and movies. With the sue happy mentality of some of these individuals, it is no wonder that Apple may be backing off this market if they have to spend an inordinate amount of time and money defending themselves against possible legal action. I would think just one or two lawsuits would be enough to wipe away any profit from sales...

Then again...
Upon clarification this may not be what is being implied...
It occurs to me, based on the recent story posted here: https://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/08/05/banned-app-store-developer-auctioning-off-business/ that Apple may be banning eBook applications that people are selling that include books in the public domain. When I look in the Books section of the App Store, most of the books listed for sale are available for free from sites like projectgutenberg and googlebooks. These are all apps that sell for $.99, the developer does not in fact "own" the rights to any of these books nor do the devs bring much, if anything of value, to the reading of the book beyond what other dedicated eBook readers like eReader and Stanza bring. As "pretty" as Classics is, every single book in that application is available as a free download. I think Apple is perfectly in their right to remove these apps (and I would be glad to see them go, myself) in the interest of protecting consumers from, shall we say, "Predatory Developers" who take advantage of unknowledgeable customers.

Another solution would be to inform customers that the book is in the Public Domain and can be downloaded and read for free in other eBook readers but I really think that solution is impractical.

I think, we just have to face the fact, that Apple is in house cleaning mode right now and with the explosion of applications in the store, we have seen unscrupulous developers trying to take advantage of unsuspecting customers by selling them apps that do nothing but provide them content (books, photos, etc) for which they do not own the rights to and for which the content can be had for free. It may be time to remove the chaff?

It is not "predatory" or in any way wrong to sell a reader that can access public domain works. They are in the public domain. Anyone can sell them, modify them, or redistribute them. Copyright is not forever. Just because something is available for free, doesn't mean you can't try to sell it. Look at bottled water!

 

[admanimal]

Actually I think MacRumors is digging themselves a nasty hole by picking up the comments of a developer with a grievance and posting it as truth. At this moment there are 409 pages of apps under the Books category on the app store. Clasics, Kindle, Shakespeare, B&N eReader, Stanza, etc. are all still there. How about we not freak out over something until we know it is actually happening.

This. Even the rejection letter the developer received says nothing about e-books or e-book readers.

In MacRumors' defense, the story title does have a question mark at the end

This is one of the reasons I can't stand TUAW though. They have "Apple has begun rejecting all e-book submissions" stated as a fact as part of their story.

 

[BaldiMac]

That's what Microsoft thought about integrating IE Browsers into their operating system.

Please let this myth die! Microsoft did not get in trouble for integrating IE into Windows.

 

[Spike1227]

I have Kindle, Classics, 150 Plus Great Books, A Masterpiece Collection, A Dark House and Dracula. I paid for all these apps with the exception of the Kindle app, but I paid for the books I downloaded into Kindle. I don't want my money back. I want my books. I hope Apple doesn't incur the wrath of users of these apps in the same way Amazon's Kindle deletions of a few weeks ago caused users to complain, and then sue. I am also concerned about our security/privacy regarding the iTunes store and devices that use it. No company should be able to come into my "house" and take my stuff.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Hmm....do you guys think this includes comic book apps? I've seen a few on there, and I know some guys who are working on one. You know write your own comic book and send it in? Are these going to be rejected now?

 

[Vercingetorix]

I've been using computers since I was in kindergarten (I'm a college grad now), but I'd gladly read my Kindle over my computer screen any day. I don't know how anyone could think it's comfortable to stare into a light source for extended periods of time, especially to read--but, then again, maybe I'm "old," too.

I don't think it's a question of which is "better," but which is inevitable. The farther down the road we go, the less important it will be to replicate the experience of reading an actual physical book. I mean, 10 years ago I vastly preferred to print out anything longer than about two pages because I didn't really like reading on a computer screen; I've already adjusted enough that I never print anything out because I don't care anymore. I'm sure that when my kids grow up and start reading, they won't think anything about it at all. It's just hard to see most young people a few years down the road preferring the more book-like e-ink experience enough to warrant carrying a whole extra device around with them all the time.

 

[Analog Kid]

I've got a few loaded that I hope don't get get canned-- Kindle, Classics, Shakespeare (haven't read that one, but it makes me feel cultured), and a collection of US historical documents. Dropping Kindle would kill one of my main uses of the iTouch.

 

[Cleverboy]

Apple are showing themselves to be spectacular control freaks, or perhaps even bigger control freaks than we already knew.

You say this, but we just experienced a horrifying reaction by Amazon.com, that involved pulling a copy of 1984 from all their existing devices and issuing a refund. I'm not surprised Amazon felt they needed to do this, no more than I'm surprised that Apple is attempting to manage its investment in the AppStore. The business model doesn't include "Hey, throw everything at us and we'll publish it... then if we get sued, we'll take it on a case-by-case basis!" Their model is, "We're providing a unique and economic service for developers and consumers." If they move to a "we're being sued, and we won't try to mitigate our risk" model... expect them to do the following:

While developers are mixed, if Apple decided to be more "flexible", I'd expect them to:
1. Limit the amount of apps able to be submitted, unless developers pay a premium related to the number of apps submitted.
2. Significantly limit the amount of updates developers can submit for review within a given period of time.
3. Limit the amount of re-downloads customers can make
4. Increase the annual developmer fees by an order of magnitude.
5. Introduce more draconian language insisting that developers must agree to incur all costs Apple incurs by defending itself against lawsuits related to their submission. (For example, Shazam, and others will be presented with a bill if Apple gets sued.)

By being a pioneer, a lot of consumers look and think Apple should do "better", and yet Apple remains in a class by themselves, doing FAR MORE than other vendors. Compare developer costs between the recent spate of AppStore offerings by other OS manufacturers (Apple, Blackberry, Palm, Microsoft, Google, and Nokia). Compare the amount of liability each is taking on.

~ CB

 

[Analog Kid]

I've been using computers since I was in kindergarten (I'm a college grad now), but I'd gladly read my Kindle over my computer screen any day. I don't know how anyone could think it's comfortable to stare into a light source for extended periods of time, especially to read--but, then again, maybe I'm "old," too.

I've often wondered if the light source is the difference... Kindle has a light source too-- it's just in front of the display. Is the difference in reading experience really reflected versus projected light, or is the difference one of contrast, color, resolution and device form factor?

I find reading my iTouch very comfortable given the right font size. I don't particularly like reading computer screens, but the ability to keep shifting the iPod position, and my own makes it work just fine.

 

[bigjohn]

probably. even if they remove it.. they probably won't "remove" it from your phone.

hell, i still have netshare on my phone. after multiple restores.

i just wish i could get netshare to work...

also, i think Apple is just cleaning house a little.

Just remember, it's their App Store, not your App Store

 

[anthonyjr]

Wow. So, Classics (a major performer, among many others) is about the be pulled....just wow.

No, I'm pretty sure all those books are public domain now.

I'm pretty sure Apple is talking about e-book readers / services where you purchase books in-app. They can't police what's being sold "under-the-table." If they meant apps that just read e-books, I can kind of understand the same thing. They don't want to have to deal with all the legal problems the app might incur via piracy, etc.