Apple Rejecting All e-Book App Store Submissions?

[deconstruct60]

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.

And when those young folks get to be old folks what is their eyesight going to be? It isn't just because what you are used to, the e-ink and using light is easier on the eyes.

With a backlight screen you are staring into a light.

http://mayoclinic.com/health/eyestrain/DS01084
http://www.ergoindemand.com/Eyestrain-Solutions.htm


Note, there are few super glossy e-ink displays. Nor are most books printed on extra deluxe glossy paper.


Sure, you can read off of a screen. What are the long term effects though?

 

[EagerDragon]

Not sure about this....

Palm Pre, Blackberry and others will start looking good to customers when the list of "prohibited" applications gets compiled down the road.

They are trying to stay away from more lawsuits and at the same time driving customers to Apple competitors.

Sounds to me like this rejection strategy can backfire.

 

[Dmac77]

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

**** them and their store. If you value being able to do and buy what you want for your phone, look elsewhere.

You're just going to get tied in a screwed over the more time passes.

I completely agree. Apple is going way to far. So now they're pulling apps that have a purpose, but they leave apps that make farting sounds What is wrong with them?

This is going to far.

Don

 

[macUser2007]

This really sucks.

It seems, every day brings some new story, which causes me to regret signing a two year contract on my new 32gig iPhones 3G S....

Love the phones overall, but between Apple's particularly "evil" ways of restricting its capabilities, and its lack of FLASH, and its cra@ppy GPS chip, I am starting to eagerly await news of the dozen or so Android phones coming out before the end of the year.

 

[whatever]

Can't believe I wasted my time reading all five pages of this discussion.

Bottom line, Apple has the right to remove or reject any application they want.

Apple has created an infrastructure for developers to sell applications the only stipulation is that Apple has the right to reject or remove any application it wants.

Working in the publishing world, I can tell you first hand that it's not black or white. You think the music industry is difficult to maneuver in, it's nothing compared to the world of books.

And just because a book is in public domain does not mean that someone can take it and do whatever they want with it.

I for one will maintain my wait and see stance on this.

And I feel that this article is very misleading.

 

[farmboy]

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

**** them and their store. If you value being able to do and buy what you want for your phone, look elsewhere.

You're just going to get tied in a screwed over the more time passes.

Disagree completely. Overly emotional response, in my opinion. Do you have any clue as to the potential liability? Any clue as to the difficulty of determining intellectual property rights? Apple would be held liable for the massive--i.e. worldwide--distribution of the copyrighted works and the concomitant damages paid to the copyright holder, fines and penalties. That's just for starters.

 

[knewsom]

Stanza is still there

...and I hope it's not going anywhere. Truly, an incredible app, one which I've used quite a lot. I just know that if Apple were to do their own e-book thing, there's no way my existing electronic library would be compatible. They'd want me to shell out $$$ all over again for THEIR version.

Ugh. Get it together Apple. If they pull Stanza, I'm jailbreaking my phone and pirating EVERYTHING.

 

[mambodancer]

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!

The apps in question are not eBook readers. They are public domain books, bound to an application, and sold by a developer for upwards of $.99. These applications do not allow you to download or add to an eBook collection in anyway as do the Kindle, Stanza, eReader, Eucalyptus, and other eBook readers available through the store.

I do not believe that works in the Public Domain can be so easily sold, modified or redistributed as you suggest unless and of course they are significantly changed as to become a new work entirely.

Water, whether bottled or not, is not free and is, in any case, a false analogy.

 

[cmwade77]

This is getting old fast, really, if it weren't my work phone, I would probably just use an Android OS phone by now.

 

[QCassidy352]

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

An antitrust suit? On what grounds?

I have Kindle, Classics, 150 Plus Great Books, A Masterpiece Collection, A Dark House and Dracula.

But no Stanza??

its lack of FLASH, and its cra@ppy GPS chip

The GPS is great. If yours isn't, exchange your phone. As for flash, have ya seen how it runs on the Hero? It's the same as not having it at all.

 

[3.1416]

The apps in question are not eBook readers. I do not believe that works in the Public Domain can be so easily sold, modified or redistributed as you suggest unless and of course they are significantly changed as to become a new work entirely.

Of course they can, that's exactly what "public domain" means. Anybody can redistribute them, for free or for profit.

 

[BaldiMac]

The apps in question are not eBook readers. They are public domain books, bound to an application, and sold by a developer for upwards of $.99. These applications do not allow you to download or add to an eBook collection in anyway as do the Kindle, Stanza, eReader, Eucalyptus, and other eBook readers available through the store.

None of that changes the fact that the applications are ebook readers.

I do not believe that works in the Public Domain can be so easily sold, modified or redistributed as you suggest unless and of course they are significantly changed as to become a new work entirely.

Your belief is wrong.

Water, whether bottled or not, is not free and is, in any case, a false analogy.

I do not know where you come from, but in the US, we generally don't receive a bill every time it rains.

The analogy is sound. Like you can package free water in a bottle and sell it, you can package free public domain books in an ebook reader and sell it.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Well we might as well go by apple own argument.

That means they need to restrict all Movie viewing ONLY to those that are from iTunes and all music needs to be restricted to ONLY stuff from the iTMS because other wise it MIGHT be copyrighted.

That is my read on this. It is the exact same argument as above apple is using but everyone agrees that the one above is stupid and weak and guess what apple is using it.

Apple is a control freak company. They clearly do not know how to behave when they are the big player in a field. The rules are very different when you are in that position.

 

[hloakes]

Everybody needs to chill out. Do you have any idea how difficult it is review the rights for publication? Apple doesn't want to get dragged into endless lawsuits because they published a book without authorization. It's not the end of the world. I would see this less as a power move and rather a smart legal one.

Two things.

First, the rejection was based on what an individual may do with an app, not Apple's responsibility to review books that may be used in the app. If they do not want to put books in the store, that is fine, as long as they make it possible for the developer to supply the books or an individual to load books themselves.

Second, Apple has placed themselves in this situation by demanding all apps be approved by them and not allowing one to install the apps they want. I understand you can jailbreak the phone, but now Apple is saying that that is illegal because it breaks their terms of service.

They did this to themselves.

 

[mambodancer]

None of that changes the fact that the applications are ebook readers.



Your belief is wrong.



I do not know where you come from, but in the US, we generally don't receive a bill every time it rains.

The analogy is sound. Like you can package free water in a bottle and sell it, you can package free public domain books in an ebook reader and sell it.

Again, there is no such thing as "free" water and you can not distribute it or sell it without going through a government approval process that would make dealing with Apple's application approval process seem like a walk in the park. If you believe that, I suggest you look a little more deeply into what it actually takes to bottle water and sell it to the public.

Until very, very recently here in Colorado, it was against the law to collect rain water. State water rights issues are an extremely complicated issue, vary from state to state and are a constant source of inter-state political wrangling.

 

[kaioslider]

I don't think Apple is going to move into the eBook market. However, if they do I think it will be b/c Amazon is in the digital music/video market.

I read a lot of books, but I know that this is not considered a growth market. Sony has just updated their eInk readers and dropped their prices. Amazon's Kindle will probably be the only reason eBooks move forward.

To all the comments of an Apple tablet replacing the Kindle: You clearly don't read digital books. Reading for hours at a time on a backlit screen is very hard on the eyes. There is a reason the Kindle is black and white folks, it's called eInk and it's used for a reason.

There's been a lot of grumbling about Apple's handling of the app store. Some of these are legit: slow approval process, non-transparent approval that sometimes seems random, and some anti-competitiveness when it comes to Apple's own apps. I think most people would agree with these. However, some of the grumbling seems more targeted at Apple having control of what apps get approved or not - so they jump on anything anti-app store. In this case, with the eBook rejections, I too will have to wait and see what Apple does about readers, but I also understands that it's a huge legal problem for Apple. You may not be aware of this, but Apple is a favorite for sue happy people.

 

[BaldiMac]

Again, there is no such thing as "free" water and you can not distribute it or sell it without going through a government approval process that would make dealing with Apple's application approval process seem like a walk in the park. If you believe that, I suggest you look a little more deeply into what it actually takes to bottle water and sell it to the public.

You've gotten a bit off topic. Of course there is a such thing as free water. It may not be something you want to drink. The fact that there are costs involved in getting it ready for sale, does not break the analogy. There were costs involved in putting together the application to distribute the public domain books that we were originally talking about.

 

[mambodancer]

You've gotten a bit off topic. Of course there is a such thing as free water. It may not be something you want to drink. The fact that there are costs involved in getting it ready for sale, does not break the analogy. There were costs involved in putting together the application to distribute the public domain books that we were originally talking about.

You're the one that brought up the analogy...

 

[dejo]

I do not know where you come from, but in the US, we generally don't receive a bill every time it rains.

True, but that doesn't mean you own the rights to the water that falls on your property. In some places, you don't! In Colorado, the law was recently changed to allow people to collect rainwater legally.

 

[BaldiMac]

Two things.

First, the rejection was based on what an individual may do with an app, not Apple's responsibility to review books that may be used in the app. If they do not want to put books in the store, that is fine, as long as they make it possible for the developer to supply the books or an individual to load books themselves.

Obviously, if this article is true, Apple has determined that they may still have liability as distributor of the applications regardless of whether or not the copyrighted content is distributed with the app.

Second, Apple has placed themselves in this situation by demanding all apps be approved by them and not allowing one to install the apps they want.

That's true.

I understand you can jailbreak the phone, but now Apple is saying that that is illegal because it breaks their terms of service.

No, it is likely illegal because it requires modification of Apple's copyrighted software and violates the DMCA. The EFF has petitioned the Copyright Office to specifically legalize jailbreaking.

 

[griz]

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?

No, you will just need to resubmit it through the ebook store. But they can't tell you that yet.

 

[BaldiMac]

True, but that doesn't mean you own the rights to the water that falls on your property. In some places, you don't! In Colorado, the law was recently changed to allow people to collect rainwater legally.

I didn't say all water is free. Some water is free. Or if you prefer, some water may be obtained without cost to the person obtaining the water. Sheesh.

 

[*LTD*]

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

Why not call Apple about it?

Palm Pre, Blackberry and others will start looking good to customers when the list of "prohibited" applications gets compiled down the road.

They are trying to stay away from more lawsuits and at the same time driving customers to Apple competitors.

Sounds to me like this rejection strategy can backfire.

The vast majority of iPhone develpers are doing just fine wth Apple.

These are a few cases that are being used to judge the entire operation.

 

[*LTD*]

delete

 

[LethalWolfe]

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.

Apple isn't flawless and isn't the only innovative company on the face of the planet.


Lethal