I know from personal experience just how frustrating it can be when a piece of controversial information that gets distributed widely turns out to be somewhat true … but inaccurate overall. (I’m lookin’ at you, Len.)
And that’s why the following post—which was originally submitted as a comment by reader Howard Brittain, in response to a recent post about Apple allegedly rejecting an e-book that mentioned Amazon—resonated with me so strongly.
If you’re not familiar with the specific ‘Apple vs. Amazon’ post I’m referring to, take a moment to read it before moving onto Howard’s response, below:
* * *
I don’t support Apple’s selection policy one bit and I think that someone inside the Apple iBook organisation is doing them no good.
However I don’t see ANY evidence in this article or her subsequent posts that the second rejection WAS based on content alone. It just is not true at all. The link that is supposed to support this claim does not contain any similar quote from Apple to that which rejected the initial version.
I also find the pique exhibited by the author Holly Lisle in pulling all of her titles to be really childish and petulant. It undermines her credibility in my view.
I posted to her blog and got called “a Dick” by her for questioning her claims 🙂 so funny really … you can see she is still seething 🙂
But she came back and posted BOTH communications from Apple, from her first submission and her second, and IT IS CLEAR that whomever is doing her uploads had failed to upload the corrected version.
Apple’s second rejection slip clearly states that the problem was not corrected. The problem being the links, not the mention of Amazon.
So there has been NO REJECTION based on content alone, leaving the link objection the only problem.
That doesn’t make Apple right. But the facts are important to get right.
Since then I see that Apple has backed down – but this just illustrates to me how a completely inaccurate claim has turned viral and Apple felt it best to deal with it than argue their case.
—Howard Brittain
As I’ve noted in my post over here, this has happened before:
http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2012/08/02/apple-backs-down-allows-ebook-which-mentions-amazon/
Apple stated that they “no longer had the version with the links” and asked her to resubmit it. That indicates that Ms Lisle (not “whomever is doing her uploads”) did, in fact, remove the links and reupload before getting rejected for the second time. Just as she claimed. So “completely inaccurate” is now a synonym for “totally accurate”?
Tony,
Ms Lisle posted the replies she got from Apple on her blog:
http://hollylisle.com/apple-made-its-decision-my-turn/comment-page-2/#comments
In the second reply from Apple, they say:
“Jul, 24 2012, 11:56AM – Apple:
Please Note: The original change request was not fulfilled. Your changes were not saved. Original Issues have not been resolved.
Please log in to iTunes Connect to view this request and upload replacement assets”
We can only go by what Ms Lisle says and what she offers as evidence.
That is the last communication she is able to quote from Apple, so it is clear that somewhere along the line the change was not actually submitted at all.
Ms Lisle has gone off on a high horse and the web has whipped itself into a frenzy. End of.
Howard:
“And he noted that they did not have the lesson WITH the links anymore, but if I would care to re-submit it, Apple would make sure there was no problem with its publication on their platform.”
Someone’s going off on a high horse here, all right, but it’s not Ms Lisle. “End of”? Umm… okay, dude, whatever.
Tony – you really do suck it all up don’t you, son.
You are quoting from Ms Lisle and not from Apple. Not very clever. Also why on earth would Apple still have any version of her eBook, when she herself told us she pulled all of them from iBooks ? You’re clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer .. dude.
So the facts remain as they are. Ms Lisle posted her linked version of her title twice, as verified by Apple’s technical responses posted by Ms Lisle herself.
As I previously said I don’t agree with Apple’s policy, and they have admitted implementing that flawed policy in a ham fisted manner.
But as I say, the facts remain the same. There was NO REJECTION based on content alone, which was the whole basis of the furore among the lazy assed bloggers who, as usual, paid no attention to the evidence.
“You are quoting from Ms Lisle and not from Apple. Not very clever.”
Got it. You think she’s lying about her conversation with the rep, but don’t believe that she’d be capable of making up an email. Again, someone isn’t very clever here. Hint: it’s not me.
“Also why on earth would Apple still have any version of her eBook, when she herself told us she pulled all of them from iBooks ”
The one that was sitting in the approval queue, which would be obvious if you knew anything about how the iBookstore actually works.
“Ms Lisle posted her linked version of her title twice”
No. She didn’t.
“There was NO REJECTION based on content alone”
According to you. And you’re party to the facts of the case how, exactly? You’re able to look into the approval queue and see that she posted the version with the links twice? You have an inside connection at Apple?
You jumped to an unjustified conclusion and now you’re trying to dig yourself out of the hole. Hint: stop digging, dude.
I’ve met Holly Lisle, and I respect her as an author and a teacher.
I’ve never met anyone in the sf/fantasy community who didn’t respect her.
She more than deserves the benefit of a doubt on her truthfulness.
Keep in mind that both Apple and Amazon have serious problems with internal communication. The secrecy obsession that keeps information from leaking out also cuts down internal communication. I’ve seen it with Amazon. I’m sure it happens with Apple.
Apple’s official policy may actual permit the mention of Amazon. It’s hard to imagine their execs being so stupid as to ban the mention of the world’s largest online store. Apple’s policy as implemented five levels down may block that same mentioning. There’s some twit there doing a search for “Amazon” and going ballistic, because he thinks that’s what he’s supposed to do. And given today’s business practices, he may not even work for Apple. He may even live half-way around the world.
I also wonder why even the official web link ban exists. It’s almost as stupid as not mentioning Amazon by name. Amazon’s webpages are an almost impossible maze. Someone who writes an ebook about publishing through Amazon needs to be able to link to various pages in its system. Apple banning that is just being nasty and vindictive.
Someone needs to get the appropriate executives from Amazon and Apple in the same room and tell them they’re behaving like spoiled children–Amazon with its proprietary ebook format and Apple with its ban on links they don’t like. Both need to grow up.
Tony – I find your inability to face up to the fact that you have absolute no evidence that this rejection ever took place, based on content, quite weak.
You can write clever retorts all you like but you haven’t produced any evidence. And no one else has either. You can’t wriggle out of it.
A story based on nothing but a fit of pique and a technical error by someone who is too embarrassed to admit it. If she had been rejected on the basis of content she would have been the first to post the rejection. And she hasn’t. Because it doesn’t exist.
And when it comes to an issue that has blown up far beyond what the original author probably ever intended, no I don’t believe a word of what she says. Not a word. In her blog she has shown herself to be a petulant and abusive person.
” And no one else has either.”
Well, you certainly haven’t. Your OPINION (which you keep describing as “fact” — hint: that word does not mean what you think it means) is that she uploaded the same file twice. She says she didn’t. I believe her. She has credibility. You have none.
Again: someone is being “petulant and abusive” here. It’s not her. Or me.
“End of”.
Just do a search in the iBookstore on “Amazon book” and you should find books on how to publish your book on Amazon. So, if Apple is rejecting books containing mention of Amazon then they aren’t very good at it. This is going by title contains Amazon. How many books in the iBookstore contain references to Amazon within their pages?
In any case, the author got a lot of free publicity that may have translated into increased sales.
So Tony … no facts then. Two emails from Apple, quoted directly by the lady herself in her blog, say the same file was uploaded each time. No facts to contradict them. You have no credibility left. You only have bravado and personal attacks. Come back if you get anything to back them up, there’s a good chap.
Frank wrote:
“In any case, the author got a lot of free publicity that may have translated into increased sales.”
I agree. I suggest we can see a lot more clearly now.
“So Tony … no facts then. ”
Nope. You don’t have any facts. As already noted, your personal opinions and theories are not “facts”, no matter how much you would like them to be.
Sorry, trollboy.
@Frank: “So, if Apple is rejecting books containing mention of Amazon then they aren’t very good at it.”
“Apple” is over 60,000 people. I’m not sure why it’s so difficult to believe that a low-level reviewer (in Apple’s own words, as reported by Ms Lisle) “made a mistake”. On the one hand, we have Howard’s grandiose conspiracy theory, which is that Ms Lisle essentially concocted the whole thing (for what benefit? Yes, it’s gained a lot of publicity but she had no way of knowing that in advance).
On the other hand we have a somewhat simpler alternative theory that a grunt reviewer just screwed up (perhaps looking at the earlier submission by mistake).
I know which one I believe.
Howard didn’t read all of the comments by Holly, she did resubmit the files, twice, with the revised changes (and renamed filename), Apple acknowledged it, and still rejected them. In Howard’s very first comment on her blog, he was mentioning how “fantastic” Apple was, and all the people there were wrong. I suspect he had an axe to grind.
@Tony: Regardless of whether Apple or the author or both of them made mistakes, what justifies summarily walking off in a huff? Counter-productive pique or clever publicity stunt? The later is the more charitable interpretation and the one I suggested as most likely the case.
I believe Holly based on her track record and my online interactions with her.
I believe Apple did what she says they did based on their history of exclusionary policies, locking out others and general elitist smugnaciousness.
I believe Howard is trolling.
I don’t have any proof but I strongly suspect I’m correct on all three of the above…and based on Howard’s position, prove me wrong. 🙂
MRV – I really find this discussion quite tedious because I seem to be the only one able to post actual quotes from Apples rejection process, taken from the original author’s blog no less.
I have read all of her comments then and since. I have searched in them for subsequent rejection notes by Apple mentioning content as the problem. There are none because they didn’t, the uploading process having clearly been handling incompetently.
Apple never acknowledged that rejection was based on content. They did suck it up in their press release because they knew that the story, however false, had gone too far to keep denying. A wise, if unfortunate, decision.
And your attempt to devalue my posts by smearing me with the old ‘axe to grind’ thing is really very lame. My post clearly stated that “I don’t support Apple’s selection policy one bit and I think that someone inside the Apple iBook organisation is doing them no good.”
And while I do think, like countless millions of Apple customers, that they are a fantastic company, it is clear I am happy to knock them when they need to be knocked.
In addition, even if I were to have an axe to grind, one would think that someone who wanted to blow my interpretation of this incident out of the water would simply find that rejection note by Apple, mentioning content as a reason for rejection, and post it here .
I am here waiting … and always willing to change my mind. Though I won’t be holding my breath.
“I am here waiting … and always willing to change my mind.”
Bullshit. Buh-bye, Howard.
Abuse – the last refuge of a loser.
Here’s an interesting dichotomy: honesty vs veracity. Honesty is the absence of deceit and veracity is the absence or error. As far as I can see, there is no evidence to support the idea that either Apple or the author is being dishonest — actively attempting to deceive. So, what’s left is that either party or both parties are in error. We don’t seem to have much evidence for that either. Recollections can be faulty and Apple doesn’t comment. Still, we insist on filling the void with conjecture.
Seeking closure (filling the void) is a very human trait. In fact, there is a reading test called the Cloze test which is centered on this trait. A Cloze test usually takes the form of a paragraph to be read with words redacted. With an understanding of context, good readers can fill in the blanks with serviceable words, poor readers cannot. This leads to an estimation of reading skill.
While filling in the blanks with serviceable words is a sign of well developed reading skills, it is not necessarily and indicator of truth. Sometimes, the truth eludes us because there simply isn’t enough good, verifiable evidence to discern it.
We hate to do it but sometimes we should say, “I don’t really know.”