iBookstore rejects Holly Lisle's writing course because she mentions Amazon

http://hollylisle.com/apple-made-its-decision-my-turn/?awt_l=FeLuI&awt_m=JkKEsJQqZE_XgP

by Turing_Machine • 14 years ago

220 112 14 years ago

hollylisle.com

antidoh3• 14 years ago

Do we really want our information mediated/censored by this sort of corporate behavior?

rrbrambley4• 14 years ago

Absolutely not. This is where the line is drawn.

I've grown to accept Apple's App Store policies for the sake of keeping app quality high. However, when it comes to distributing content that people actually use to learn new things and enrich their lives, there is absolutely no room for this type of policy. To anyone who is selling their books via Apple: GTFO right now.

prodigal_erik2• 14 years ago

That line was crossed when you dealt with a vendor who could actively interfere with your dealings with other vendors, even before they chose to.

inerte• 14 years ago

This is the place where the line is drawn, but not when. Check https://www.google.com.br/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=4&sou...

Apple can, and will, decide what expression will be published. It's not a platform, it's more like a newspaper classified section, with bias.

georgemcbay• 14 years ago

"This is where the line is drawn."

Really?

I mean, yes this is clearly terrible, but if you're surprised by Apple doing this then you haven't been paying much attention the past few years.

I don't begrudge people who choose to use Apple products, they certainly have their charms, but I do get slightly annoyed when they are suddenly offended when Apple does something like this because post-App Store Apple pulls crap like this all the time.

ralfn2• 14 years ago

Where in the world do you get the idea, that Apples Walled garden has anything to do with quality?

Its about one thing: extorting content producers, by limiting access to consumers. And they will eventually get into legal trouble. Its textbook anti-competitive, and if they ever get big enough to be a "monopoly" every aspect of their policy would need to change.

ThePherocity3• 14 years ago

You do now. Every book store decides what they are going to sell. We just didn't know about it before. The beauty is that any author can now simply take their books off iBooks and sell it in an open epub format and skip the distributor.

Regardless, this is a bullshit move from Apple, and it's starting to wear on me. And that's saying something, because I do love their products and forgive many missteps because I really do love their products.

ktizo6• 14 years ago

Every book store decides what they are going to sell.

I am in this case amazed to find a book store refusing to stock a book on professional writing because the book contains details of other book stores that a writer might find useful, or for them to suggest to the author that those elements be removed from the book as a condition of sale.

The comparison is absurd anyway as the main drive for the selection process of what to stock in a brick and mortar bookshop is the limits of physical space in a bookshop, which is not really an issue for ebook stores.

mladenkovacevic• 14 years ago

so does this mean it would also against Apple's policy to distribute any books that broadly discuss any of the following topics: marketing, mobile & desktop software development, music, movie and magazine distribution...

riobard• 14 years ago

The forced capitalization of the first word of submitted titles is becoming increasingly frustrating.

Please do not second guess users!

Turing_Machine5• 14 years ago

Yep, that's a little annoying. You clearly see the problem, but for anyone who didn't: I did use "iBookstore" (with lower-case i) when I submitted the article, not "IBookstore".

pooriaazimi• 14 years ago

Change the title to " iBookStore..." (with an space at the beginning).

see here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4306480

lucian3032• 14 years ago

Sad, but expected from apple. Oh well, there's apple's book suicide. B&N is already dead with its 16gb Nook with only 1gb for user content. That really only leaves Amazon or full self publishing (on your site). Interesting how the winner wins sometimes ...

briandear2• 14 years ago

Apple book suicide? Most books sold aren't self-published. This won't even dent iBooks at all. I prefer the iBookstore for a few reasons, but one is that the comments on Amazon are often filled with ranting nonsense. You can't visit a bestseller's page on Amazon without seeing tons of comments about the price of the book and how angry they are about it, while on iBooks, the comments seem to be more reasoned. I don't know if iBooks readers are just more chilled out or it the requirement that you actually have purchased the book filters out nonsensical comments.

lucian3032• 14 years ago

Yes, but the marketshare is minuscule. iTunes carries UR. I don't know if the iBookstore has it, but it is a novel about a Kindle. Which mentions Amazon many times. I wonder if they would apply the same policy to such a popular author ...

DASD• 14 years ago

This reminds me of a joyful experience when using an online banking service just a few years ago. When signing up for an account, I don't recall where in the process it occurred but a prompt displayed that the words "insert" or "drop" were not allowed to be used as (or within) a username or password. Nope, we're not going to allow SQL injections here because simply because the words themselves are unacceptable!

If we ignore something, then we must be safe right?

theevocater• 14 years ago

Is there any actual proof for this? The article mentions briefly that part of her book was the problem but I don't see any actual letters from apple or even an in depth explanation of what happened. Just some impassioned outrage.

I'm not saying she is dishonest, maybe just misinformed or wrong. It seems like everytime stuff like this comes up it turns out there was important information left out.

Turing_Machine5• 14 years ago

Scroll down to "Previous Posts in this Discussion" and click the links. She goes through the whole thing, including the actual email from Apple.

brianwhitman2• 14 years ago

Don't see any emails about the content block that she is referring to this post. I see emails about previous issues of her having links to Amazon in her ebooks. I am very curious about this, because I doubt just saying the word "Amazon" can really be an instant rejection -- and a quick search of the iBook store shows tons of books about Amazon itself, things like "How to Self Publish on the Amazon Kindle" et al.

PythonDeveloper2• 14 years ago

This is height of hypocrisy since Apple apparently uses Amazon S3 in their iMessage app, according to an earlier HN post that links here : http://imgur.com/fwXX5

"You can't mention Amazon, but we can use it."

dot• 14 years ago

well, we're talking about two different teams in a very big company...

k-mcgrady2• 14 years ago

I'm not defending Apple but your point is completely irrelevant. They don't want products in their store to mention a competitor. That has nothing to do with them using a service which they don't have a competitor for.

w-ll2• 14 years ago

Your comment does't make sense... Amazon is a competitor to Apple in the realm of selling eBooks.

PythonDeveloper2• 14 years ago

IMHO, Apple is clearly doing this because they can't get a cut of the revenue generated by the sale of the book on Amazon.

Shallow thinking on their part as (a) they could route the links through their own affiliate account on Amazon, (b) they could cut a referrer deal with Amazon so that it appears to be a direct link, or (c) they could recommend alternative, competing books on iBookStore since they control the user experience.

I have personal experience that they are doing this same thing in iPhone apps, as they have declined an app of mine because there is a revenue model they can't tap into, and they were very clear about their intent.

I just can't work with a company that forces me to change my content/apps to fit their ridiculously greedy model. Sure, she could just go somewhere else, but Apple is in deals with Pearson and Harcourt, and will be handling a significant number of school texts exclusively.

I wonder if they'll force those partners to not mention competing services.

* UPDATE *

Now that I've mulled... I don't understand why she doesn't just upload the 2nd book to iBookstore, then link to IT in the 1st book and resubmit. Sure, it's bullshit, but Apple owns their own marketplace and can do any stupid bullshit they want. If you want to play on their field, you have to fondle, I mean use their balls.

If Amazon reciprocated, they would remove potentially 34,557 books that mention Apple, including over 80 that mention iBookstore. If they just went for books that had LINKS to apple, there's over 2,000 of those. I just don't see Amazon being as stupid as Apple, ever, that they would censor writers in this way.

ktizo6• 14 years ago

I wonder how ibookstore would cope with an accurate history of electronic tablet devices and their influence on book publishing.

mikecane6• 14 years ago

Probably reject it as they rejected a magazine that was for Android users.

briandear2• 14 years ago

I'm failing to see the big picture here. One author who provides detailed links to a competitor's site gets rejected for a book about self-publishing. It isn't like Apple is rejecting political books with which they disagree or preventing users from reading specific content on their devices. Their store just chose not to sell an item. Supermarkets aren't obligated to stock every possible variety of orange juice, nor should Apple be held to any higher of a standard.

Apple doesn't have an obligation to sell anything and everything. It's their store. They choosing to not sell something isn't "bad" -- users of Apple devices can still read whatever they want.

Acting indignant like Apple has some mandate to sell anything that anyone wants is ridiculous. If you were Coca-Cola, would you let people sell Pepsi from your machines? Of course not. Is Coke bad for choosing not to sell Pepsi? Want Pepsi? Go to a Pepsi machine.

The terms of submission for the iBooks store are pretty obvious. Having that lady's book rejected shouldn't have come as a surprise. A simple RTFM would have told her exactly what would have happened when she links to competitor's stores.

You want to play ball in Apple's park, you have to follow the rules. Disagree with the rules if you want, but don't complain when you don't follow those rules and are asked to leave.

Every few months we seem to go through this Cycle of Indignity. Usually it's because of some App Store rejection. We all piss and moan about it, but for the most part, the App Store has remained a high quality experience (and a profitable one for devs) even though occasionally someone gets offended about something or another.

Put the pitchforks away -- this isn't that big of a deal. Thousands of writers sell through the iBookstore without any problems. This lady's story is an outlier in an otherwise pleasant place. Her real problem is a lack of a decent web developer.

graeme• 14 years ago

In a store there is a physical lack of shelf space. Not so in an online store.

That's why people get annoyed, even though apple is clearly within its rights.

kryptiskt• 14 years ago

> Apple doesn't have an obligation to sell anything and everything. It's their store. They choosing to not sell something isn't "bad" -- users of Apple devices can still read whatever they want.

Apple has that right. And potential Apple customers has the right to say that they will not stand control freakery like that in their store.

Apple has backed down before. Like when they tried to force everybody to use Objective-C/C++ to make iOS apps.

> Acting indignant like Apple has some mandate to sell anything that anyone wants is ridiculous. If you were Coca-Cola, would you let people sell Pepsi from your machines? Of course not. Is Coke bad for choosing not to sell Pepsi? Want Pepsi? Go to a Pepsi machine.

If they want to be a general book seller, they should know they will get questioned every time they refuse to carry a book due to its content. There is no way to avoid that.

> Put the pitchforks away -- this isn't that big of a deal. Thousands of writers sell through the iBookstore without any problems. This lady's story is an outlier in an otherwise pleasant place.

What is the problem, do you think it will become a less pleasant place just from people raising questions about their policies? Why does that prospect bother you so?

mikecane6• 14 years ago

>>>preventing users from reading specific content on their devices

What? What? What?

Where have you been? Apple has a record of this, and it started here:

Apple Forfeits eBooks By Banning A Comic Book! http://mikecane2008.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/apple-forfeits-...

That's before there was any iBookstore. And it's gone on since. Every now and then this issue gets publicity, people are outraged and new people wake up to it -- yet it continues.

Never has any Big Six publisher or print bookstore rejected a work or refused to carry a work because it mentioned a competitor. There would have never been a Books in Print or a Writer's Marketplace, to mention just two reference books.

It's only recently that crap like this has cropped up, with Barnes & Noble and some indie print bookstores refusing to carry print titles published by Amazon. And I think B&N was emboldened by the lack of protest over Apple's moves in this direction.

jasonlotito4• 14 years ago

> This lady's story is an outlier in an otherwise pleasant place

Oh god, no. Not at all. These things happen all the time. This isn't an outlier. It's consistent inconsistency.

> Disagree with the rules if you want, but don't complain when you don't follow those rules and are asked to leave.

You make the assumption that you need to follow the rules to get in, or that following the rules means you'll get in. Neither is true. Indeed, there are no rules.

Seriously, I can't fathom any Apple developer suggesting that the review process is in anyway consistent.

And that's the big problem. The moving goal post. Or in this case, the invisible one. I've experienced this first hand, seen the absurdities. The inconsistent reports. It's X. No, it's Y. No, actually, it's Z. Oh wait, nevermind, you're in!

tnicola• 14 years ago

"App Store has remained a high quality experience"

Show me a dev that thinks that App store is a high quality experience and I will show you an Apple fan boy! :-)

"Her real problem is a lack of decent web developer"

She is a WRITER. Her business process should not require a web developer and I hope that Apple does not operate on a basis that people have pocket web devs, just in case they convolute the process whereby you need native expertise to unravel.

(that comment aside, Holly does employ a web dev, and it clearly did not help her)

While pitchforks may not be necessary, the inquisition and the transparency of the process are absolutely necessary.

alpine2• 14 years ago

Time to short Apple. Somehow, I don't think this would have happened under Steve.

mikecane6• 14 years ago

What, are you kidding or just not paying attention? This has been going on since before the iBookstore, when books had to be wrapped in apps.

alpine2• 14 years ago

Yes, I have been paying attention. Trading is all about timing.

NaOH• 14 years ago

One and a half years ago I did the page layout for a book being produced by a team-specific sports blog. They chose to publish the book using CreateSpace, which is owned by Amazon. It was my responsibility to make certain we were in compliance with the submission requirements. I read through them and took notes of all the relevant parts.

When we submitted the book for review, it was rejected because we had quoted some books and included footnotes with links to the Amazon pages of the source materials. I double-checked the CreateSpace guidelines, and there was no reference to this requirement. When I spoke to a customer service representative, I received no helpful information, just something along the lines of, "This is the policy and no books will be approved for printing unless there is adherence." When I asked why the policy wasn't publicly documented, the person with whom I spoke, polite though she was, offered no explanation (nor any apology).

I don't recount this incident to suggest that what Apple has done here is mitigated in any way since Amazon has behaved similarly (and for all I know CreateSpace has updated its guidelines in the intervening months). My point is simply to note that organizations utilize this prerogative when they are in a position to vet the products they offer. It could be Apple, Amazon, a public library, a restaurant. Really, almost any establishment.

Personally, I'd like all of these organizations to be upfront with their policies, but they usually don't take this approach. Typically, this isn't an issue to consumers. What's different here (e.g., with the Apple content stores), I think, is our expectations. We accept that most restaurants aren't divulging what factors are involved in purchasing the ingredients used. The public library doesn't give clear guidance regarding what subjects it pursues for the books on its shelves. The doctor doesn't always explain why one drug prescription is better than the alternatives.

No, I don't think our regular acceptance of those behaviors is what we should bring to a situation like this one with Apple. Actually, quite the opposite. I would hope many of us would bring similar levels of scrutiny to other areas of life which are likely to be more beneficial to many. It seems to me there is much more to gain from critical analysis of something like drug approval methods than, say, whether Airfoil Speakers is in the App Store.

_delirium• 14 years ago

It could be Apple, Amazon, a public library, a restaurant. [...] Personally, I'd like all of these organizations to be upfront with their policies, but they usually don't take this approach.

Librarians do make more of an effort to be conscientious and transparent. There is considerable emphasis on ethics and the importance of an unrestricted public discourse in library-science degrees, and there is a general ethos that these things matter and should be considered carefully. The American Library Association is also quite active in trying to make sure that's carried out in practice, organizing public discussions of library-related ethics and decision-making, publishing best practices, and raising a ruckus or bringing lawsuits if necessary.

w-ll2• 14 years ago

`library-related ethics` call it freedom of press, no one should be able to block literature.

spinchange• 14 years ago

For a long time people would say, "I wish Google had Apple's design sense."

I long for the day when most start saying, "I wish Apple had Google's self-confidence."

rabidsnail• 14 years ago

Google could do with a little less self-confidence.

simonh2• 14 years ago

I really don't think self confidence is a problem for Apple. They do things no other company would dream of, seemingly without a second thought.

MyNewAccount99• 14 years ago

who the hell is this? never heard of her.

ars• 14 years ago

And presumably you have heard of every single person in the entire world?

Judging by your comment history you are also familiar with every single school in the whole world.

rickmb• 14 years ago

Something is off about this story. A brief glance in the iBookstore shows tons of books on Amazon and Amazon products, including books on how to sell your work via Amazon.

We're talking entire books who's sole purpose is to promote or support the use of Amazon. Clearly Apple has no problem with those.

runevault• 14 years ago

Are those books from major publishers? She's going the self-pub route so Apple may not be willing to play games with multi-national publishing companies but will screw over indies.

If not, I don't know, but having followed her news letter I would be more than a little surprised if she were fudging things here, it gives her no real benefit.

philwelch• 14 years ago

People will "fudge" things, as you say, for pride or sympathy just as much as they will for any concrete benefit.

paulgb• 14 years ago

If I've learned anything from the scores of Apple-rejected-my-app blog posts, it's that consistent application of policy isn't Apple's strong point.

rprasad• 14 years ago

Apple's only consistent quality is that it is inconsistent about its censorship.

Thus, it is not only possible but likely for both the linked story and an iBookStore full of Amazon-related books to co-exist.

jasonlotito4• 14 years ago

> Clearly Apple has no problem with those.

No. This makes the assumption Apple applies it's rules equally. It does not. Making the assumption that X got approved, so Y should get approved as well is a poor assumption.

Your best bet is to try and stick to the rules. And if you get denied, just resubmit and hope the next reviewer approves it.

nirvana3• 14 years ago

I've been thru Apple's review process enough times, and been rejected enough times to say that Apple does apply its rules equally.[1] Given the responses I've gotten back from the reviewers, it is clear that I've interacted with multiple reviewers, and I've never seen a deviation.

There is the occasional mistake, but the very telling thing about this article is she never tells us the specific rule that she broke. Hiding this information is important for making it look like Apple is arbitrary.

But the thing is, when you're rejected by Apple, they cite the specific rule.

Since there are lots of books about Amazon in the bookstore, and since there is no rule against publishing books about Amazon, this story does not add up.

[1] Every rejection resulted in me immediately getting pissed off, much like the original OP. But once I calmed down I realized either I misunderstood the rejection, and the fix was easy and the rejection was legitimate, or the rejection was due to me making an error that would produce a bad experience for the customer, sometimes because I misunderstood the guidelines, occasionally because I was being lazy without realizing it, and often just because of a mistake or bug.

Since Apple is uniform in the way they apply the rules, and the rules are not so specific as to cover specific bugs, it does take some interpretation to figure out what they are saying. If you don't take that step, its easy to fly off the handle and assume Apple is being arbitrary when they aren't. The reality is, it just means you didn't take the time to read what they wrote you and comprehend it.

Of course the rejections feel personal, and I won't tolerate a company that won't play by its own rules, but they've never been unfair to me, and other than a few mistakes that were corrected, I'm not aware of them being unfair to others.

However we get a lot of these kinds of stories where someone says one thing, but they never cite the specific rule, or are evasive, which indicates that they're just trying to get publicity and were really rejected for other reasons.

brianwhitman2• 14 years ago

She has updated her comments with a link to the actual email from Apple:

http://hollylisle.com/apple-made-its-decision-my-turn/commen...

My reading of this is a complete miscommunication. Nowhere in Apple's email does it state they had a problem with content. I really have no idea how she jumped to that conclusion. The very simple and likely explanations are either (1) she did not remove all links or (2) the reviewer did not closely check to see if she removed all links.

nirvana3• 14 years ago

In other words, yet another story about Apple "censorship" that turns out not to be about Apple censorship.

People make a big deal of it when it first comes out and bash Apple when its on the front page of HN.

Now that it has turned out to be false, it is no longer on the front page of HN.

Next time someone says something bad about Apple, the denizens of HN will talk about how "apple's always censoring" and this will be one of the stories they're talking about.

Just as they said effectively the same thing in this comment.

HN has been overrun with ideology. It is a shame.

andypants• 14 years ago

Direct quote from the email from apple:

> Book file contains links from competitors: Amazon, in the chapter Q&A 6, under “Question 9″

I'm sure books dedicated to Amazon will contain links to them, so I think this just adds a little bit more evidence to the stories of Apple's inconsistent review process.

nimh• 14 years ago

It's live links that are the problem, not just containing the URL.

chris_wot• 14 years ago

There is some serious anti-competitive behaviour going I here. It's only a matter I time before someone sues Apple, wins, and the floodgates open.

summerdown2• 14 years ago

I've seen a number of posts like this, and they always seem to gather responses like "It's their store, they can do what they like."

Perhaps it's simply my European bias speaking, but isn't this exactly why governments regulate markets? To prevent anticompetitive behaviour.

drieddust2• 14 years ago

Who will regulate government and assure it is regulating fairly?

It is turtles all the way issue.

myko• 14 years ago

It's the citizenry's job to regulate the government.

guscost• 14 years ago

If I ever finish a book, that book will be free speech, even if it also goes on sale. I don't want to hide ideas that I have pride in behind a paywall, and I would absolutely never trust a giant company like Apple to do that sort of thing on my behalf.

iBookstore rejects Holly Lisle's writing course because she mentions Amazon

Related Stories