Apple Releases iBooks 2.0.1 to Address Issue with Textbooks Not Opening

[MacRumors]

Apple today updated iBooks [App Store] to version 2.0.1, bringing a fix for an issue that resulted in some iBooks Textbooks not opening in the application.

Apple is not terribly specific about the issue, but it may be related to a complaint shared by USA Today almost immediately after the iBooks 2.0 launch and for which Apple had promised a fix.

We're aware of a small number of iBooks 2 users having issues with the playback of the introduction movies when opening iBooks textbooks. It will be fixed soon in an upcoming software update.

iBooks 2.0.1 is of course a free update to the already-free iBooks applications. A handful of iBooks Textbooks have launched, with most priced at Apple's maximum allowable price of $14.99.

Article Link: Apple Releases iBooks 2.0.1 to Address Issue with Textbooks Not Opening

 

[run4blue2]

This is one thing they are going to always struggle with regarding electronic textbooks. What does the professor do if a bug kept part or all of the class from being able to do their assignments because of a software bug?

 

[zed1291]

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)

Finally. I was disappointed when I couldn't try out textbooks when Apple released iBooks 2. They have never worked for me.

 

[Undecided]

This is one thing they are going to always struggle with regarding electronic textbooks. What does the professor do if a bug kept part or all of the class from being able to do their assignments because of a software bug?

Haha, the new "the dog ate my homework."

 

[zed1291]

Not working

Anyone else having the problem where iTunes won't sync a textbook to their iPad because, it says, that it needs a newer version of iBooks? That's what my is doing after I updated to 2.0.1.

 

[k2director]

My god, iBooks is slow on an original iPad. It takes seconds to do anything.

 

[locust76]

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/9A406 Safari/7534.48.3)

Jesus... The ONE function that iBooks really needs to do, and Apple blows it...

 

[2 Replies]

Do they address the issue with books not opening due to Apple CENSORING them?

 

[thewitt]

My god, iBooks is slow on an original iPad. It takes seconds to do anything.

Don't expect that to change.

The original iPad has been replaced by the iPad 2, soon to be replaced by the iPad 3.

Backward compatibility is not a priority for Apple. Never has been.

 

[applefan289]

How come I don't see an update available for the app? Usually when I go to the app store, it shows an update if it's available. I don't see an update for 2.0.1.

 

[waldobushman]

Backward compatibility is not a priority for Apple. Never has been.

You just make stuff up when you feel like it? I suppose if you can string some nonsense together that has the syntax of a sentence, that's good enough?

 

[thewitt]

You just make stuff up when you feel like it? I suppose if you can string some nonsense together that has the syntax of a sentence, that's good enough?

Yep.

That's why all my Rosetta applications still run fine under Lion...... Not.

And why I can install iOS 5.0 on my early iPod touch. Not.

And why I was able to do iOS development on my PPC Macintoshes. Not.

And why I can run Siri on my iPhone 3GS. Not.

Apple obsoletes their old stuff regularly, making their software and hardware more efficient and not carrying along all the baggage from the past. They don't tie their own hands by requiring that everything keep running on older hardware and OS versions.

It's not a bad thing, it's just a fact.

The original iPad is going to be too slow and limited to run many new applications. It's been replaced.

Move up and move on if you need today's capabilities.

 

[4phun]

My god, iBooks is slow on an original iPad. It takes seconds to do anything.

I am using an iPad one for developing iBooks with iBooks Author, with little problem. I kill all the memory hogs to speed things along. Remember the new TextBooks can be really huge compared to older ePubs that may be part of what you perceive as slowness. I try to keep them down to 1 GB per Apple's instructions with well designed short sections to each chapter.

I find iBooks Author to be very fast for what used to take me hours and the new iBooks works much nicer with the multimedia then Pages did. I had the hang on loading some projects if I placed a video clip in the multimedia holder of the second page before today's update.

Sometimes I had to reboot the iPad to recover, now all that is gone.

TIP:

You can copy RTFD from any source and paste into iBooks Author with Paste and Keep Formatting command. It carries images and multimedia all in one click into iBooks Author. If you are a teacher with a well designed web site to begin with you can create a new iBook in almost a half dozen heartbeats.

I prefer to use the gallery to display images in an iBook as they can be taken full screen in both orientations but that doesn't convert to PDF. Also Apple does not allow the SPEAK highlighted text function in iBooks created via iBooks Author.

The only other feature I have not done well with is using web widgets. I have had a few that work but a lot where iBooks Author says a desired widget is not permitted.

Anyone else using iBooks Author and todays update to iBooks?

 

[Markc1024]

How come I don't see an update available for the app? Usually when I go to the app store, it shows an update if it's available. I don't see an update for 2.0.1.

Seems you have to go into the "Purchased" section of Updates to find it.

 

[Schtibbie]

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)

How come I don't see an update available for the app? Usually when I go to the app store, it shows an update if it's available. I don't see an update for 2.0.1.

Seems you have to go into the "Purchased" section of Updates to find it.

Why would it be necessary to go digging around in the Purchased section, amongst all the other stuff in there? Nobody except those reading these forums is going to figure that out.

 

[charlituna]

Do they address the issue with books not opening due to Apple CENSORING them?

provide one example of that happening. With a book/textbook. you can't.

As for the magazine in question it could be the fact that the cover is a very obviously undressed man that is the issue. not the fact that it has a story about penises. Although that said, I think both magazines mentioned and those similar to Cosmo really should be 17+ and I have sent that feedback several times.

 

[thewitt]

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)



Why would it be necessary to go digging around in the Purchased section, amongst all the other stuff in there? Nobody except those reading these forums is going to figure that out.

You don't. It's made it all the way to the notification of update stage. It just takes time.

 

[50548]

Don't expect that to change.

The original iPad has been replaced by the iPad 2, soon to be replaced by the iPad 3.

Backward compatibility is not a priority for Apple. Never has been.

You know, you should spend your time in more useful actions instead of writing stupid statements like the one above.

My "original" iPad runs perfectly fine with iOS 5 and 150 apps installed on it - productivity apps, newest games, everything. Will the next products be faster and better? Of course. This is the course of nature and innovation - otherwise, we would all be driving Ladas.

As for Rosetta, what are we talking about here? Support for a platform that has been discontinued more than 5 years ago? You need it, just KEEP using Snow Leopard, which is a perfectly fine system...we do NOT need the same problems Windows has always faced with backward compatibility.

In any case, you probably use an Android thingie and have never used Apple products - so please stop spreading moronic FUD on this forum - better yet, give Aiden Shaw a call and be happy; misery definitely loves company.

 

[Mainsail]

Performance seems better with update

Don't expect that to change.

The original iPad has been replaced by the iPad 2, soon to be replaced by the iPad 3.

Backward compatibility is not a priority for Apple. Never has been.

Well, I was pretty disappointed with how iBooks textbooks ran on my iPad 1. But, with this recent update, it seems to be running better and no crashes so far. I haven't had a chance to really test it, so time will tell. Not sure if others are having the same experience?

 

[thewitt]

You know, you should spend your time in more useful actions instead of writing stupid statements like the one above.

My "original" iPad runs perfectly fine with iOS 5 and 150 apps installed on it - productivity apps, newest games, everything. Will the next products be faster and better? Of course. This is the course of nature and innovation - otherwise, we would all be driving Ladas.

As for Rosetta, what are we talking about here? Support for a platform that has been discontinued more than 5 years ago? You need it, just KEEP using Snow Leopard, which is a perfectly fine system...we do NOT need the same problems Windows has always faced with backward compatibility.

In any case, you probably use an Android thingie and have never used Apple products - so please stop spreading moronic FUD on this forum - better yet, give Aiden Shaw a call and be happy; misery definitely loves company.

I completely support Apples early obsolescence policies, and am not complaining at all. Quite the opposite. Microsoft's bloat ware Windows product suffers from its failed attempt to run everything ever released since 3.1.

I've been an Apple Registered Developer since the release of the Lisa, and professionally programmed for every device and OS version since.

It doesn't change my position on Apple's lack of attention to backward compatibility at all however, and by the end of next year the original iPad will be barely usable by business users. Microsofts "office" product is rumored to require both more memory and faster processors than the iPad 1 offers - and may in fact only be really usable on the iPad 3. Though late to the game, it is likely to become the standard for business users on the iPad just as it has on the PC.

Onward and upward. Just don't expect your obsoleted hardware to run everything released from Apple or in the App Store and you will be fine. With the number of apps currently available, the original iPad will continue to be useful until iOS updates finally leave it behind, but not with all apps in the store.

I'm pleased that the iBooks update has fixed the major issues with failures in opening books, however to say that the performance of large iBook textbooks is acceptable on the original iPad is specious at best, and simply denial of the reality of the situation.

The only ones who will really be hurt are the early adopters in education who bought hundreds of original iPads and will be frustrated with their inability to handle larger texts. They will update their hardware and be fine, but some of our own customers fall into this category and expected to get 5+ years out of their investment. That will be difficult for them, though they will likely be able to shift them to lower grades and lighter duty.

 

[nathadale]

Once you purchased, you have no choice and to bring along your phone and ask for exchange or updates in software.

 

[DESNOS]

You know, you should spend your time in more useful actions instead of writing stupid statements like the one above.

My "original" iPad runs perfectly fine with iOS 5 and 150 apps installed on it - productivity apps, newest games, everything. Will the next products be faster and better? Of course. This is the course of nature and innovation - otherwise, we would all be driving Ladas.

As for Rosetta, what are we talking about here? Support for a platform that has been discontinued more than 5 years ago? You need it, just KEEP using Snow Leopard, which is a perfectly fine system...we do NOT need the same problems Windows has always faced with backward compatibility.

In any case, you probably use an Android thingie and have never used Apple products - so please stop spreading moronic FUD on this forum - better yet, give Aiden Shaw a call and be happy; misery definitely loves company.

It isn't FUD; are you new to Apple? Apple does value backwards compatibility to some extent, or there wouldn't have been Rosetta in the first place, however, when it comes time to dump the old and usher in the new, they do it in a heartbeat. It's how they've always operated: Classic, Rosetta, Carbon, 68K emulation on PPC processors... All of which has been dropped or deprecated (in Carbon's case). You can't rely on them to keep existing software running on current hardware. Not a bad thing, but calling it FUD is hardly accurate.

EDIT: Oh yah, lets add QuickDraw to the list. Ah the good old days...

 

[Rocketman]

Why not run updates through the developer community first for 3-5 days before releasing them in the wild. I know they do that before release, but that applies to current hardware and software and NOT the release version with release conditions.

It would be a small thing to do to cripple the first half week or so of updates to act as a moron detector.

Rocketman

 

[bbeagle]

Yep.
(1) That's why all my Rosetta applications still run fine under Lion...... Not.
(2) And why I can install iOS 5.0 on my early iPod touch. Not.
(3) And why I was able to do iOS development on my PPC Macintoshes. Not.
(4) And why I can run Siri on my iPhone 3GS. Not.

Do you actually understand what BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY means?

It means that something NEW can run something OLD. NOT that something OLD can run something NEW.

You got it right in #1 - but not for #2, #3, #4.

 

[Mad-B-One]

Yep.

That's why all my Rosetta applications still run fine under Lion...... Not.

And why I can install iOS 5.0 on my early iPod touch. Not.

And why I was able to do iOS development on my PPC Macintoshes. Not.

And why I can run Siri on my iPhone 3GS. Not.

Do you actually understand what BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY means?

It means that something NEW can run something OLD. NOT that something OLD can run something NEW.

You got it right in #1 - but not for #2, #3, #4.

Call it cross compatibilty and the post stays valid, going back to what thewitt actually meant. It was aimed at the whiners about that their old machines or their new software is not cross compatible. It isn't and as thewitt states, is not focus of Apple for reasons others mentioned as well.