Discord over Jobs biography? Apple Stores Pulling Titles


Kagetenshi

macrumors 6502
Feb 24, 2004
309
0
Boston
If I were Apple or Steve I wouldn't be happy either… primarily based on the title. I realize what they were going for when they titled the book iCon, but when you consider the naming scheme of the iMac, iBook, iPod, iWork, iLife, etc., I think you'll see that "Icon" isn't the first association…

~J
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
This is all a misunderstanding. Steve Jobs has NOT been going to Apple Stores and removing the book. It's actually Noah Wyle doing it. Nobody's sure why.
 

36183

Guest
Jun 24, 2004
418
0
by pulling the titles arnt they attracting more attention to the book? and also making bad press form them selves?

oh well apple should be more optimistic about this i doubt that the book it totally anit-steve.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
"Steve Jobs: The Greatest Second Act in the History of Business"

How bad can it be?

And yes Apple is drawing MORE attention to it by this.

And whatever's in there that's bad about Steve, the whole thing is just more mindshare for Apple all the same :)

But pulling OTHER books is senseless--it achieves nothing and hurts everyone: Mac authors, Mac users, and even the Apple Stores themselves. Apple of course would not want to carry the one book they object to, but they're clearly not going to stop the book from existing by trying to punish the publisher. I'm glad the publisher didn't cave.
 

tutubibi

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2003
538
0
localhost
Apple is slowly being transfromed from uber-cool to paranoid control-freak type personality.

Based on the lawsuits and couple of other things in the last couple of months is becoming hard to like Apple "the company".

I am afraid all of this will backfire pretty soon and once that cool image is lost it's going to be hard to earn it back.
 

Lacero

macrumors 604
Jan 20, 2005
6,639
2
What about "The Second Coming of Jobs". In that book, it insinuated Jobs was a pedophile. :eek:
 

clayj

macrumors 604
Jan 14, 2005
7,473
180
visiting from downstream
Well, God forbid that anyone should say anything negative about the Great and Powerful Jobs.

I can understand that Apple would be concerned about selling books by a publisher that ALSO is publishing a book that may be seen as critical of Apple's CEO. There's really no good solution here... keep the other Wiley books on the shelves and allow the book to attack Jobs (if, in fact, that's what it does), or remove the other Wiley books and suffer the slings and arrows of the press. Ultimately, both Wiley and Apple will both pay for this... Wiley through decreased sales, and Apple through negative publicity.

It's stuff like this that got Disney to start Touchstone Pictures... they wanted to make more adult-oriented movies, so stuff like that was produced by Touchstone and not Disney itself. (The REALLY edgy stuff went to Miramax.)
 

latergator116

macrumors 68000
Sep 30, 2003
1,675
0
Providence, RI
tutubibi said:
Apple is slowly being transfromed from uber-cool to paranoid control-freak type personality.

Based on the lawsuits and couple of other things in the last couple of months is becoming hard to like Apple "the company".

I am afraid all of this will backfire pretty soon and once that cool image is lost it's going to be hard to earn it back.
I feel the exact same way.:(
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
For such a liberal guy, I find this very disturbing, what next, book burnings? :eek:
 

autrefois

macrumors 65816
Oct 22, 2003
1,376
1,089
Somewhere in the USA
Kagetenshi said:
If I were Apple or Steve I wouldn't be happy either… primarily based on the title. I realize what they were going for when they titled the book iCon, but when you consider the naming scheme of the iMac, iBook, iPod, iWork, iLife, etc., I think you'll see that "Icon" isn't the first association…

~J
I didn't even think of "icon," just I Con.

Obviously Apple Stores might not want to carry this book since I'm sure there will be others like me who either don't see "icon" at all or who focus on the "con" interpretation. (In Québec the interpretation of "con" might be even worse...)

But pulling all books from the publisher because of it?
 

broken_keyboard

macrumors 65816
Apr 19, 2004
1,144
0
Secret Moon base
If someone wrote a book about me I didn't like, I sure as heck wouldn't help them distribute it either.

It's not a free speech issue. Free speech means the government can't suppress you, it doesn't mean you have the right to force other private citizens to spread your ideas, regardless of their own opinion.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
broken_keyboard said:
If someone wrote a book about me I didn't me, I sure as heck wouldn't help them distribute it either.

It's not a free speech issue. Free speech means the government can't suppress you, it doesn't mean you have the right to force other private citizens to spread your ideas, regardless of their own opinion.
It is not that the stores aren't selling the book, it is the fact they are removing all the books from the same publisher, it is childish.
 

cheekyspanky

macrumors 6502a
Jan 21, 2004
633
1
South Bucks, UK
If you look on the Wiley site they have part of one of the chapters to read - it seems pretty interesting. Tempted to buy it myself.

I did a bit of googling just to find out some more about Steve Jobs as I didn't really know much about him and stumbled across this site http://www.geocities.com/franktau/interviewpart1.html with an old interview from 1995 - it's pretty interesting..

an excerpt from the interview, referring to Apple:

"What they should have been doing was making reasonable profits and going for market share, which was what we always tried to do. Macintosh would have had a thirty- three percent market share right now, maybe even higher, maybe it would have even been Microsoft but we'll never know. Now its got a single digit market share and falling. There's no way to ever get that moment in time back. The Macintosh will die in another few years and its really sad. The problem is this: no one at Apple has a clue as to how to create the next Macintosh because no one running any part of Apple was there when the Macintosh was made--or any other product at Apple. They've just been living off that one thing now for over a decade and the last attempt was the Newton and you know what happened to that. It's kind of tragic, but as unemotionally as I can be, that's what's happening. Unless somebody pulls a rabbit out of a hat, companies tend to have long glide slopes because of the installed bases. But Apple is just gliding down this slope and they're loosing market share every year. Things start to spiral down once you get under a certain threshold." (http://www.geocities.com/franktau/interviewpart2.html)
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
tutubibi said:
Based on the lawsuits and couple of other things in the last couple of months is becoming hard to like Apple "the company".
A lot of people are repeating misinformation about those lawsuits--and few of us are learning the REAL details of the cases. All of which are against people who did WRONG.

Which cases are offensive? Going after people who pirated Tiger? How noble of those pirates. Or going after the sites who displayed leaked info? But Apple didn't--they went after the LEAKS, not the sites, as they should have. What about the journalist issue? That's an important issue but actually NOT relevant here.


stubeeef said:
For such a liberal guy, I find this very disturbing, what next, book burnings? :eek:
I think this is silly of Apple, but as the article states (with examples) this is the kind of thing companies have been doing for years. Terminating business arrangements when one party offends the other. Silly--but hardly some new trend.
 

latergator116

macrumors 68000
Sep 30, 2003
1,675
0
Providence, RI
nagromme said:
A lot of people are repeating misinformation about those lawsuits--and few of us are learning the REAL details of the cases. All of which are against people who did WRONG.

Which cases are offensive? Going after people who pirated Tiger? How noble of those pirates. Or going after the sites who displayed leaked info? But Apple didn't--they went after the LEAKS, not the sites, as they should have. What about the journalist issue? That's an important issue but actually NOT relevant here.
I'll admit that all these lawsuits are confusing, but I thought Apple sued Thinksecret?
 

clayj

macrumors 604
Jan 14, 2005
7,473
180
visiting from downstream
latergator116 said:
I'll admit that all these lawsuits are confusing, but I thought Apple sued Thinksecret?
Yeah, they did. And it's not like the kid who runs Thinksecret works for Apple... he violated no NDA, and he had no means to coerce trade secrets out of anyone. By going after him, Apple is using arguably the wrong means to pursue the correct end.

If Apple wants to be pissed off at anyone, it should be the employee(s) who is/are giving away Apple trade secrets. Doing THAT would have been the correct, totally-understandable thing to do.
 

avus

macrumors regular
Nov 4, 2002
196
0
stubeeef said:
For such a liberal guy, I find this very disturbing, what next, book burnings? :eek:
You like to be called a con, then?

I am disgusted at the shrewdness of the publisher who clearly anticipated this consequence for a free press, and so-called "Apple supporters" who defend them.