Did Apple really ban a book for mentioning Amazon? One reader isn’t buying it.
August 3, 2012 | 12:46 am
By Dan Eldridge
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.