
iBookstore rejects Holly Lisle's writing course because she mentions Amazon - Turing_Machine
http://hollylisle.com/apple-made-its-decision-my-turn/?awt_l=FeLuI&awt_m=JkKEsJQqZE_XgP
======
rickmb
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.

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

[http://hollylisle.com/apple-made-its-decision-my-
turn/commen...](http://hollylisle.com/apple-made-its-decision-my-turn/comment-
page-2/#comment-26289)

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.

~~~
nirvana
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.

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

~~~
simonh
A library isn't a press, just for a start. They have limited space and
therefore have no choice but be selective about what they carry. The point is
they strive to be fair and balanced in their selection process.

------
spinchange
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
Google could do with a little less self-confidence.

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

Please do not second guess users!

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

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

~~~
Turing_Machine
Thanks! Noted for future reference.

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

~~~
rrbrambley
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.

~~~
georgemcbay
"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_.

~~~
rrbrambley
Please see my response to inerte's comment, if you have not already.

It's not that I'm surprised that Apple would do this. I am just shocked that
the definition of "book" could change in front of everyone's eyes and the
common person will ignore it because they enjoy Apple's "magical" devices.

~~~
w1ntermute
Shocked? Really? We've been seeing the Reality Distortion Field in effect for
_years_ now.

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

~~~
brianwhitman
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.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"I doubt just saying the word "Amazon" can really be an instant rejection"

Neither she nor anyone else is claiming that, so I'm not sure what point
you're trying to make here.

~~~
davedx
Huh? The link title says: "iBookstore rejects Holly Lisle's writing course
because she mentions Amazon"

~~~
Turing_Machine
1) Not "instant rejection". 2) Not "just saying the word Amazon".

------
chris_wot
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.

------
briandear
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.

~~~
mikecane
>>>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-...](http://mikecane2008.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/apple-forfeits-
ebooks-by-banning-a-comic-book/)

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.

------
summerdown2
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.

~~~
drieddust
Who will regulate government and assure it is regulating fairly?

It is turtles all the way issue.

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

~~~
drieddust
Same can work for companies too. Customer's should be able to regulate rough
companies in ideal world but world is not ideal.

End user's view are actually affected by propaganda only when it starts
hurting their bones. At the moment they are in love with Apple devices to
notice.

------
DASD
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?

------
guscost
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.

------
mladenkovacevic
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...

------
PythonDeveloper
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.

------
lucian303
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 ...

~~~
briandear
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.

~~~
lucian303
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 ...

------
PythonDeveloper
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."

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

~~~
k-mcgrady
What I meant was that Amazon is a competitor to the iBookstore (so naturally
Apple would prefer not to sell products which mention Amazon). I was pointing
out that Apple using Amazon's cloud services is irrelevant because Apple does
not compete with them on that product.

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

~~~
mikecane
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.

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

~~~
minitrollster
I know this is hn and such, but after reading your comments I only have one
thing to say. "lol"

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

~~~
mikecane
Probably reject it as they rejected a _magazine_ that was for Android users.

------
MyNewAccount99
who the hell is this? never heard of her.

~~~
ars
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.

