Will Kujawa of OKedition seems to think I just don’t understand. If that's so, you have to wonder why Apple still claims ownership rights and restrictions on the output of the file (just not the words itself, thanks to the rewrite).
If you want to charge a fee for a work that includes files in the .ibooks format generated using iBooks Author, you may only sell or distribute such work through Apple, and such distribution will be subject to a separate agreement with Apple.
This is still akin to Adobe preventing you from selling PDF books except only through an Adobe store, or Windows Live Writer or MarsEdit preventing me from posting nicely formatted blog posts here, or Typepad preventing me from exporting these nicely formatted blog posts to another service.
Sorry, I think Will just don’t understand. This feels like another attempt by Apple, partially thwarted, at locking authors into the iOS ecosystem. There is precedent, here. Why again did they initially mandate all iOS applications be created in XCode only?
It should also be noted, the contract as now written leave us an oddly curious loophole. As Michael Tsai writes:
Apple is apparently OK with you using iBooks Author to create e-books and then convert the .ibooks files to .epub and sell them. You can also use (hypothetical) third-party software to create .ibooks files and sell them. But you’re not allowed to create and sell .ibooks files with iBooks Author—although it’s not clear how Apple would be able to determine which app created the file.
It’d be interesting if somebody put this little loophole to the test.
Oh, and I have a new reader! Hi, Will.
If they are so smart, then why do they keep doing stupid things and creating such controversies? Lawyers don’t typically publish draft contracts that have to be revised when the client notices that — “Whoops, this contract may inadvertently sign to us all of your intellectual rights in all of perpetuity.” Lawyers pride themselves on writing contracts to mean exactly what they want them to mean. I’m sure Apple doesn’t hire sloppy lawyers.
MG Siegler is right in one respect — Apple Is Not Fucking Stupid. So it is odd he then immediately argues that Apple put out a fucking stupid contract. I find it more likely Apple had the contract written as maximalist as they thought they could get away with, but then walked it back when they found out which parts would be unacceptable to its users — as we’ve seen before.
In reading this article several months ago — “The ‘Year of the Linux desktop’ isn’t coming” by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes — I was struck by how many words were spent heaping praise on Linux, as though the opinion was rancid cabbage that had to be doused in chocolate and whipped cream in order to be accepted. I never quite understood why writers had to spend three sentences with praises for every sentence of criticism. Well, now I can see why tech writers succumb to that impulse.
Two days ago, Ed Bott wrote a short and simple article.
What was the point of that article?
To make it even easier for readers to figure out, he wrote a thesis statement — well, a thesis question — in addition to the summary that ZDNet places at the top of each blog-post:
The data paints a vivid picture of where each company’s revenue comes from. Microsoft is a software company. Apple’s a hardware company. But what business is Google in?
Following that statement was three pie charts, one for each company, to illustrate from where each company’s revenues come from.
So, what was the point of this article? Did you answer “It’s an attack on Apple!”? If so, you are a knight-templar of Apple, like MG Siegler. MG Siegler read the article and saw an attack on Apple no one has made. “The pie-charts are the same size, so Ed Bott must be trying to imply the three companies make the same amount of money. THAT IS A LIE! A LIAR LIARLY LIE! Apple MUST BE AVENGED of this SLUR on her name!” Siegler goes on to write two posts to rebut this imaginary attack. Then he went on to mock Steve Ballmer, for this latest campaign against the temple of Apple failed.
Living the life of a knight templar of Apple must be trying. To hear every murmur as a possible slur on Apple. To see every criticism as an act of open rebellion on Apple. To internalize the paranoia of the organization can’t possibly be enjoyable.
On a serious note, MG Siegler’s behavior is similar to that of groups like Accuracy in Media and the Media Research Council. Rather than balance, these actors want its respective corner of the press to vindicate the position it holds dear.
*Lame photo illustration by me based on this picture.
UPDATE: Reread this post and ran it through a spell-check. There were too many typos to list. “Liarly” stays though.
Ambivalence is today's and this week's second most searched for word at Merriam Webster. I'll be vain and think it is because you all missed me. I'm told people prefer bloggers with inflated senses of self-worth and vanity. I'm doing it for you.
“Raging Thunderbolt” on Gruber:
The implicature is that opinionated viewpoints, like Gruber’s and MG Siegler’s, are the way to go. The implicature is also that MG Siegler’s recent attack on The Verge and the subsequent ultra-defensive stance are perfectly justified.
But if Gruber scrolled down, he would also find Rosen saying that:
I think it’s wiser to be ecumenical about this. A great deal of progress can be made with a pluralistic solution. Let’s have View from Nowhere people flourishing side by side with “here where I’m coming from” journalists, and see what happens. Ease up and let both systems operate– sometimes within the same news organization.
This is the second time John missed something because he did not scroll to the end. Gruber, please turn on those scroll bars. You are not used to bar-less Lion, yet.
Though perhaps it’s deliberate...
Of course, there’s no room for ecumenicality in the world of dogmatism. So that part of Rosen’s view is conveniently elided.
Yeah, I guess it was always curious that the parts that alter or negates the argument Gruber puts forth are always out of view, never to be quoted.
...
Nah, John just needs to turn the scroll bars back on.
★ Don't Get Too Stupid, There.
What else could it have been? A prank? A magic spell?
You can't argue ✪ doesn't ask the pertinent questions. But let's think of what other possible things that caused the 4G outage that Verizon just ruled out. A deliberately cut cable. A deliberate DDoS attack. Flooding. Solar flares. Any and every possibility that would be beyond their control such as a regional power failure (note the quote that "the company's network operations team resolved a technical issue").
As we've learned from stories about the feature, programmers decided to give Siri some more personality by throwing out some funny, sarcastic or snarky quips at times. This was to more humanize the system, but Siri isn't human. It doesn't always understand context and it surely can't read emotions. Worst, the problem is compounded when the software is good enough to allow the user to humanize it further than they should. A response that is clever in one situation can be flippant or cruel in another. I just am is a cute humorous response to "How are you so smart?", not to "Why are you anti-abortion?". You can not sell Siri as practically being your companion; who knows what you mean when you say it and laud it for being so clever with certain joke, but then excuse it when its responses make it seem like a sociopath. You can't tell someone that Siri is practically human, and then criticize the person for falling for that illusion you created.
