Overreaction to Apple iBook Author

[Belfaborac]

"It's not Apple that people hate. It's Apple's business practices."

Hear, hear. I think Apple have excellent products, which I would theoretically like to own, but there's just no way in or out of hell that I'll buy anything from them exactly because of their business practices and policies.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Yet we all agree upon one thing in the end: we don't want to be locked into a particular vendor.

Then don't use the vendor... stop wasting your life moaning about being locked in to a vendor and get totally open tools, they're out there if you look... of course many of them don't offer the same range of facilities as commercial tools but that's also your choice... if you want to do something then get the tools to do it, tough if it's locked to a platform but just how long has Windows been around? Ooops, sorry, it's all that nasty Apple's fault...

Oh yes, Apple's the nasty people whose computers happily run Mac OS X AND MS Windows... NATIVELY out of the box... and unix... what's that? Other people's machines won't do that... gosh!!

Originally Posted by elcreative

Ooops, sorry, it's all that nasty Apple's fault...

Apple I can live with. I used their products for years, and left them when they started becoming too restrictive.

Apple users though, they really drive me up the wall. They take everything personally. It's almost as though they define themselves by a corporation and its products. It doesn't matter how often you reassure them that you are not picking on Apple, because you would raise the same points against other businesses that behave in the same way. Heck, it doesn't even matter how often you raise the same criticisms at other businesses when they do behave the same way. It's always us vs. them.

I know that there are some Apple users who defy the odds. I know that there are some Apple users that aren't emotionally attached to pieces of silicon and copper. But sometimes it becomes hard to believe because the vocal ones are so vocal.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Apple I can live with. I used their products for years, and left them when they started becoming too restrictive.

Apple users though, they really drive me up the wall. They take everything personally. It's almost as though they define themselves by a corporation and its products. It doesn't matter how often you reassure them that you are not picking on Apple, because you would raise the same points against other businesses that behave in the same way. Heck, it doesn't even matter how often you raise the same criticisms at other businesses when they do behave the same way. It's always us vs. them.

I know that there are some Apple users who defy the odds. I know that there are some Apple users that aren't emotionally attached to pieces of silicon and copper. But sometimes it becomes hard to believe because the vocal ones are so vocal.

And some know sarcasm for dealing with any idiot one platform supporters... personally I use Windows (from XP to 7), some unix, Mac OS X, Android (both smartphone and tablet) and even an old DOS based HP pocket computer - they're tools for doing something I want to do, the tool is irrelevant, something a number of people, on this forum, have grave difficulties with understanding...

[tompe]

Originally Posted by leebase

It's a free app. It's the "iBooks" Author...used for creating richly interactive text books for iPads.

If you create software with Microsoft Visual Basic...the apps don't work on the Mac or on Linux...only on Windows.

If you create a website using Adobe Flash...it only works (if at all)...using Adobe's proprietary pluggin.

If you write an app in Java....it won't run unless it's on a machine that has the java jdk installed.

It's not all that unusual. And if the EULA is unacceptable, then simply don't use the product. Just build your highly interactive textbooks other ways.

The EULA says that you cannot sell the content in other places than iStore (or whatever it is called). I does not say that you cannot sell the formatted output from the program.

[leebase]

http://daringfireball.net/2012/01/im...this_watergate

Gruber and Bott duke it out. I am more aligned with Gruber's thinking.

Lee

[Serpentine]

*opened thread*
*looked at authors devices*
*leaned back*

Originally Posted by elcreative

And some know sarcasm for dealing with any idiot one platform supporters... personally I use Windows (from XP to 7), some unix, Mac OS X, Android (both smartphone and tablet) and even an old DOS based HP pocket computer - they're tools for doing something I want to do, the tool is irrelevant, something a number of people, on this forum, have grave difficulties with understanding...

Hum, maybe I should have looked at who I was replying to.

Still, I stand by what I said about Apple users because a lot of them do view attacks on Apple as being personal and biased. That isn't always the case. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft either, because they have used similar (albeit, in my opinion, not as extreme) business tactics. Ditto for Amazon, and other such companies.

That being said, the answer isn't as simple as: don't use it if you don't like it. Sometimes people don't have a choice. This may end up being one of those cases. If your school decides that they are going to be using Apple's platform, you're going to be using Apple's platform. If iBooks Author is how an author targets Apple's platform with full media support and (assuming) Apple is the dominant platform, then you use iBooks Author. Even if Apple makes a payware version of iBooks that doesn't have the nefarious licensing clause, how many authors are going to import their work into another system to create a book for a competing vendor? To be sure, some will. Yet given the technical aptitude of many authors, many won't be able to.

[RichL]

Passing thought while perusing this thread.

Someone could do a wonderful thesis on "The psychology of fanatic Apple supporters" and her buddy could do one on "The psychology of fanatic Apple bashers".

[leebase]

Originally Posted by tompe

The EULA says that you cannot sell the content in other places than iStore (or whatever it is called). I does not say that you cannot sell the formatted output from the program.

Microsoft never wrote in it's EULA "you can't use Microsoft Access to enhance the desirability of the Mac OS X operating system", but then it didn't HAVE to. It only works on Windows. If you use Microsoft Access, you have to pay Microsoft for the software, and you can only use it in ways that enhance the Microsoft windows platform.

Adobe Flash is free. And cross platform. How nice. Except that drove folks to HAVE to pay Adobe for the software to create flash applications. Years and years later a few anemic efforts at creating non-Adobe flash authoring tools appeared...but not helped along at all by Adobe. Adobe did it's best to ensure that the only way you can create Flash applications was with Adobe's tools.

Apple's EULA is clearly something that argues against using their product. Time will tell if the power and ease of creating richly interactive textbooks via the iBooks Author will turn out to be more compelling than the exclusivity of it's purpose.

All the eInk devices are moot...none of them will display richly interactive textbooks. Given that Apple is the only tablet with viable marketshare at this point for textbook sized uses....I think lots of authors will conclude that being exclusively Apple at this point isn't much to loose.

Lee

[leebase]

[QUOTE=BWinmill;1939021Yet given the technical aptitude of many authors, many won't be able to.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Apple is COMPETING for business by not merely creating a touch screen tablet, but by facilitating the creation of compelling content for that platform. Just like AMAZON is working hard to have exclusive content created for the kindle platform...incentivizing authors to be "kindle exclusive".

Lee

Originally Posted by leebase

Microsoft never wrote in it's EULA "you can't use Microsoft Access to enhance the desirability of the Mac OS X operating system", but then it didn't HAVE to. It only works on Windows.

That comparison doesn't work out. You can still create a database in Access and export the tables in a format that is unencumbered by licensing or patents. Likewise, you can use SQL Server to access the data from competing vendor products.

But I get the gist of what you're saying: Microsoft uses proprietary formats to lock customers in. Granted, many of the people who oppose Apple's licensing tactics also oppose Microsoft's lust for proprietary file formats.

Adobe did it's best to ensure that the only way you can create Flash applications was with Adobe's tools.

Thank-you for proving why Apple's actions are so evil. People have been rallying against Flash for well over a decade now, and haven't been able to get rid of it because so many websites depend upon it.

Apple's EULA is clearly something that argues against using their product. Time will tell if the power and ease of creating richly interactive textbooks via the iBooks Author will turn out to be more compelling than the exclusivity of it's purpose. (...) I think lots of authors will conclude that being exclusively Apple at this point isn't much to loose.

Which is EXACTLY how we got stuck with Flash.

Just like AMAZON is working hard to have exclusive content created for the kindle platform...incentivizing authors to be "kindle exclusive".

A lot of people aren't fond of Amazon's monopolistic tendencies either.

I really don't understand why you are trying to justify the actions of Apple by using equally wrong-headed actions from other companies because two wrongs rarely make a right.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

Someone posted the EULA for this new book creator from Apple, it stinks really really badly. It would be like Microsoft claiming rights over any document created in MS Word, or Adobe claiming rights over any document published using Acrobat. It is utter nonsense.

They EULA is interesting in this regards, since it creates an exclusive distributorship. My (and many others) interpretation of US copyright law is that including such a clause in a EULA won't hold up on court. Since claiming exclusive distributorship implies a de facto transfer of (part of) the copyright this needs a written statement or contract (exact words in the Copyright Act: "an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer").

I am pretty sure the lawyers at Apple know this too; their strategy will probably rely on intimidating successful parties that breach the EULA instead of going to court. OTOH the quality of Apples legal team might be somewhat substandard, considering the outcome of the various IP cases they ran against Samsung.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Soldim

They EULA is interesting in this regards, since it creates an exclusive distributorship. My (and many others) interpretation of US copyright law is that including such a clause in a EULA won't hold up on court. Since claiming exclusive distributorship implies a de facto transfer of (part of) the copyright this needs a written statement or contract (exact words in the Copyright Act: "an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer").

I must respectfully disagree. It's perfectly OK to voluntarily enter into a contract which grants more restricted rights than copyright law grants. That's the entire point - all this is entirely voluntary - nobody is forcing anyone to use iBooks Author who does not wish to do so.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I must respectfully disagree. It's perfectly OK to voluntarily enter into a contract which grants more restricted rights than copyright law grants.

That's absolutely true, but generally that sort of transfer needs more than clicking the box or an "I agree" of a EULA. As far as I am aware, wherever these kind of transfers take place the recommended practice is to either get a signed statement on paper or by fax, with the latter being regarded as somewhat shaky when brought in court.

That's the entire point - all this is entirely voluntary - nobody is forcing anyone to use iBooks Author who does not wish to do so.

Don't worry I don't claim, or intend to claim anything like that -- its just that it has potential to be interesting and controversial (whatever way it goes) from a legal point of view.