[arcanedevice]

Anthony Carauna has an interesting article published on the ABC's Tech & Games website about iBooks and iBook Author.

One thing that caught my eye though was Anthony's claim that the downside is not being able to publish books outside of the iBookStore. This seems to be at odds though with what Apple have claimed here so I'd be interested to know if anyone has tested this out.

Note: I tried to comment on the article but keep getting a server error!

[Some Random Bloke]

My understanding is that you can only sell iBooks format in the iBook store. You can give them away anywhere. And AKAIK you can publish your book in a different format (e.g. epub or .mobi) elsewhere as long as it's not created in iBook Author. Essentially you need to create multiple editions with different tools. In reality you'd only use iBook Author to compile your book anyway, not write it, so you could use your base documents across formats. Your iBook would be unique though because other formats can't do what it does.

[arcanedevice]

Xenophos, on 24 January 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

you can publish your book in a different format (e.g. epub or .mobi) elsewhere as long as it's not created in iBook Author.

But that was my point - the knowledge base article indicates otherwise.

Only reason I'm curious is because we had thought about using it for our internal policies and therefore don't want to share with the world...

[Some Random Bloke]

Oh OK. Books created in iBook Author can only be sold through the iBooks store or given away freely through any channel. Books with the same content created in other software can be sold elsewhere. Practically you've already got to create multiple copies if you want to sell on Kindle and elsewhere (that's a practical, not a legal requirement as Kindle uses a proprietary format). So you want to sell an iBooks Author book, a Kindle formatted book, and a Nook book? You'll have to create three versions and sell them separately through the different channel. It's inconvenient, but I don't see how it's evil or even restricting.

Here are the relevant parts of the EULA.

Quote

"If you charge a fee for any book or other work you generate using this software (a “Work”), you may only sell or distribute such Work through Apple (e.g., through the iBookstore) and such distribution will be subject to a separate agreement with Apple."

"(i) if your Work is provided for free (at no charge), you may distribute the Work by any available means;
(ii) if your Work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or service), you may only distribute the Work through Apple and such distribution is subject to the following limitations and conditions: (a) you will be required to enter into a separate written agreement with Apple (or an Apple affiliate or subsidiary) before any commercial distribution of your Work may take place; and ( Apple may determine for any reason and in its sole discretion not to select your Work for distribution."

Note a work for the purposes of the EULA is defined as something created in iBook Author. If it's not created in iBook Author it is not affected under this license. Note also that you maintain copyright. Unless there's something in the contract you sign after you push to publish, you can do whatever else you want with the content as long as you compile it in other software.

I don't mean to sound like an apologist and I understand people want to have their cake and eat it too (use free software to create books and then sell them without Apple getting a piece of the pie). I just don't think Apple's being particularly unreasonable.

[Some Random Bloke]

This is from a news site thread. Thought it shed some interesting light on the matter of publishing...

Quote

"In other words, Apple has indirect ownership of your iBooks, because you can’t sell them through anyone but Apple."

This is simply and utterly false. NO "ownership" is transferred to Apple. How can the New York Times employ someone with such little knowledge write an article containing such misinformation??? You don't know the difference between intellectual property ownership and licensing?

The "ownership" remains 100% with the author. But just like you would have to do if you sign a book deal with any traditional publisher - you have to agree to an exclusive business arrangement.

This is free software. Nobody is forced to use it. If you think you can re-create something with the established reach and success of the iTunes/AppStore/iBookStore network, arrange for and collect payments, promote and advertise, maintain the IT, etc. for less than 30% you should do just that. Given the fact that my last book deal with Random House required me to give them not only exclusivity on my current book but my NEXT book too and that I had to give them a 96% cut, this iBookStore seems like a pretty sweet deal. Oh and I had to sign a non-compete with Random House too.

When Apple first opened the App Store all the free-tard developers screamed like little girls about sharing royalties with Apple and said they wouldn't play. One million apps later they have been proven to be liars or fools.

This article is simple link bait meant to appease the Apple haters. There's no "there" there.

[Some Random Bloke]

arcanedevice, on 24 January 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

But that was my point - the knowledge base article indicates otherwise.

Only reason I'm curious is because we had thought about using it for our internal policies and therefore don't want to share with the world...

I don't see why you'd have to share with the world. Create the iBook, convert to whatever format you want and distribute amongst the employees via email or your own servers. As long as you're not selling it to them it's fine.

[Ken Gracey]

I can't see this being a hit, if you look on the discussion forums on apples on web site, it's a flop.

[Some Random Bloke]

I look at the discussion forums on Apples website and only see technical questions, as with any software. Whether it's a hit or not, time will tell.

[Ken Gracey]

I have tried one book so far, and it was a waste of time, you have links that are so small, you need a microscope to see them, never mind trying to press on them, is hopeless, the files themselves are just do damn big, and most people with school kids struggle just to buy normal school books every year, without lumping them with the added peer pressure of have to buy an iPad, just to keep up with the jones.

Apple have done this simply to sell more iPads, which is the name of the game as we know, but hey apple how about bringing out a $99 iPad, and make a real difference in school kids lives ?

[arcanedevice]

Xenophos, on 24 January 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

I don't see how it's evil or even restricting.

I just don't think Apple's being particularly unreasonable.

Sorry, I think we must be on crossed paths here. I never said it was evil, restricting or unreasonable - I think it is pretty fair of Apple given the software is free to download and use...

I just thought it was odd that Anthony mentioned you cannot publish iBook Author documents outside of iBooks when in fact you can according to the KB article, provided you either publish in another format or don't charge...

[Some Random Bloke]

Sorry - I was probably reacting to the interwebz as a whole, not just your post.

Re the article - you're right. I think there's a lot of knee-jerking and misunderstanding at the moment. Apple has this tendency to polarise people!

[Dylstra]

It does mean that authors can't sell e-books produced with iBooks Author from their own site.

The process is simply the recreation of the iOS "walled-garden" ecosystem. The difference is, the iOS ecosystem was created by Apple in a completely new space--there was nothing remotely resembling the App Store before it. With publishing, that is entirely different. The whole industry practically predates Apple Inc.

The publishing industry is overdue for reform, but that's not what Apple has chosen to do. Instead of allowing people to be creative and independent, Apple has further enshrined the monolithic nature of the publishing industry. In short, Apple have joined the navy.

[Some Random Bloke]

I disagree (gasp). Apple has made it easier for minor players to enter the market. I appreciate that it costs publishers a lot of money to produce a text book, hence the exorbitant prices and the marketing that go with it. Phil Schiller announced maybe half a dozen publishers who own 90% of the American text book market. That could change.

Although the production costs are still there, they don't include printing costs and layout doesn't require a graphics art degree in iBooks Author. There's plenty of scope for independents and even individuals to enter the market. Profitability is another question, but that's generally not the motivation for authors (most authors make very little).

We're creating a cookbook as a fundraiser for a charity I'm involved with. I was very cool about the project because how can we realistically compete with the cookbook market? Now I see a way to increase our distribution with no upfront costs. Might not be successful still, but there's low or no financial risk and far greater potential.

As for the walled garden, that's true to an extent. I think the difference is this: previously only a few companies could realistically compete in the text book market, but could sell their textbooks anywhere. Now anyone can sell a text book, but only through one sales channel. But even that's not true because they can create different editions with the same content but with different tools and still sell through multiple channels. And no one is forcing anyone to use Apple.

Apple has the most to gain for sure, but it's not a zero sum game - others will also win.

One more point. Apple could still shake up this market even if they don't succeed in creating a monopoly! Android is Steve's legacy, not Google's. Winphone 7 and ultra books less so, but still arguably. E-textbooks could go the same way. Anyone could come up with ebook authoring software and cross-platform reader to compete, assuming they can do it without violating patents. I could imagine Amazon doing it - although they have the same vested interest in Kindle that Apple does in iBooks.

[Some Random Bloke]

Here you go. Apple is forcing innovation again.

http://t.co/ejUhqmeS