Yet another reason...
To boycott (cr)Apple and go with Android...
French publishing house Les Editions des Equateurs is protesting vociferously that Apple has declined to to carry its novel La Femme online, due to an excessively jubular cover. Bénédicte Martin's book is set for release on 20 March, but won't be available via the fruity monolith due to an "inappropriate" image of a topless …
To boycott (cr)Apple and go with Android...
American ridiculousness for you.
This is one of many reasons why people hates the closed universe of Apple.
I don't think he should have been unable to publish this, and he wasn't. But surely Apple has the right not to sell material which they deem inappropriate?
If this were a story of a shopkeeper being forced to sell material he considered offensive to his faith, for example, who would you condemn?
Yes, I don't use Apple products (beyond iTunes to store/organize/play my music), both because of the price point and the lack of openness, but that lack of openness is Apple's choice, just as I have the choice not to give them my business. But people who do choose to buy Apple devices should not then complain about the fact that they're limited to Apple-approved apps and content in Apple's stores. And it's not like one can't just download Kindle for iOS and buy the book there.
"people who do choose to buy Apple devices should not then complain about the fact that they're limited to Apple-approved apps and content"
Have you ever spoken to a non-tech user and asked them if they know what they can and can't get for their proposed new shiny toy? Do you think they even considered that when buying?
Given Apple is the market leader in this area (certainly in the high value range) they deserve scrutiny from the technically literate. Just how hard would it be to have a tick-box or similar so users can choose kid-friendly stuff or not? If it is not illegal then Apple should simply classify it, not ban it.
If Apple was owned by a family of fundamentalist Christians and had on their website a mission statement saying something like "We are faithful to our Christian beliefs and do not sell material that violates the word of the Lord", I don't think anyone would complain. You could disagree with the company's beliefs but their decision re this book would make sense within that context.
But Apple is owned by millions of shareholders and, theoretically, should be run on totally non-religious, rational and profit-seeking lines. And on those grounds the refusal to stock a book because it has a pair of mammaries on the cover is ridiculous. It shows a confused and irrational decision-making process where morality is concerned. It's both bad business and bad ethics. So it's fair game to question it.
I do not hold the views explained below.
I imagine that Apple would argue that their refusal to stock such a book leads to increased sales among prudes and morons and nobody ever lost money by overestimating the intelligence of the public. This kind of publicity for their decisions is therefore (to Apple) useful and very cheap marketing.
"If this were a story of a shopkeeper being forced to sell material he considered offensive to his faith, for example, who would you condemn?"
The shop keeper obviously!
He's no right to be offended. Capitalist pig is ok, anything else is not? Double standards of the fifty faced human being.
"Have you ever spoken to a non-tech user and asked them if they know what they can and can't get for their proposed new shiny toy? Do you think they even considered that when buying?"
Do you think any Apple owner actually thinks of ANYTHING?
Of course not, they just buy what their stupid kids have told them is cool. They like it because they don't have to even try to use their brain. iLosers love easy. They just follow a crowd.
Being told what thye can and can't think appeals to them. It's not just a phone, it's paying someone else to think for them.
Given some of the emails I get "sent from my iPhone", some of them need someone to think for them. If onscreen keybaords on small phones are so good, why do so many of them seem unable to write a complete sentence?
The worst I had was last week when I got two emails from one iPhone user, the first half of a sentence on one and the second on the other. The two of them would have fitted into 140 characters.
Of course Apple has the right not to publish the book.
It's just that in doing so they make themselves look like a bunch of ignorant, short-sighted, prudish idiots. Again.
And it is our right to mock them mercilessly for it.
Actually, my first sentence could be contentious. Follow that line of thinking too far, and you end up with the bullshit of "This pharmacist's religion allows him to refuse to supply birth-control to those slutty, slutty women who insist on having sex even though The Good Lord says they should save it for marriage."
And I wish to the god I don't believe in that that was only a hypothetical example. :-(
Apple object to a nice pear.
One merely has to look at things in a different light. I'll lay odds that the exec who made that rule/decision has a collection of jub-ography that is unmatched.
For examples... Hoover and his anti-gay campaigns. Politicians who call themselves "honest" and attack the "dishonest" ones. I check my wallet when I get within earshot of one of them. Religious types preaching and raking in millions.. while regaling against whatever is their pet fetish. Even the pious Osama who's group is super-fundamentalist had his hidden stash.
So basically, while Americans have their prudes, so does the other countries. It just depends on what the person in charge is hiding as to what is today's non-acceptable item/behavior.
... if the fruity founder had been named Steve Jubs.
I bet pounds to peanuts, they were praying this would happen when they chose the cover.
How many of us would ever have heard of this book otherwise?
Remember how Terry Pratchett described "the dream of all those who publish books, which is to have so much money in their pockets they have to employ two people just to hold their trousers up".
Publishers == scum. At best, opportunist - at worst, scheming. There are no exceptions to this rule, including the publishers of certain websites I may or may not be logged into right now.
You're so right! Publishers should be honourable and self-censor by avoiding any reseller that might object to their work. And they must never, ever do anything that might offend anyone's sexual sensibilities, because that's just crass opportunism, nothing more.
To hell with capitalism, to hell with freedom of expression, all hail the self-righteous, moralistic prudes.
Download the *cover* from El Reg. Problem solved.
Successful marketing ploy is successful.
1) Attempt to publish book with nekkid lady cover on Apple Store
2) Go public feigning indignation, stir up some controversy
3) Change cover, perhaps to traffic sign style "The Censored Book"
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018