Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

venomousporridge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#131

Post by ConstantineXVI »

unsigner wrote: post #126

How is this different than Microsoft giving away a version of their C++ compiler as part of the Xbox development kit which can only produce executables that can be sold via Microsoft to people having Xboxes? The comparison is favorable to Apple, as they allow free books, unlike the console vendors. In both cases, the platform vendor is giving away nice dev tools in order to get more content to sale on his platform. (…

> How is this different than Microsoft giving away a version of their C++ compiler as part of the Xbox development kit which can only produce executables that can be sold via Microsoft to people having Xboxes?

You mean like this[1]? Applies to both Xbox and WinPhone. Apple also gives away Xcode, but you can't make iOS apps outside of their dev program.

[1] http://create.msdn.com/en-us/home/getting_started

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#132

Post by ap22213 »

nirvana wrote: post #4

Over the years I've seen a large volume of creative software, often free, that is used to produce output, that requires, as part of its license, that you give the creator of the software a cut if you sell any of the things you make with it. This includes everything that is "free for non-commercial use", such as, if I recall correctly, Blender (in the past), most of the Free Fonts out there, and a lot of free software…

I think you mean that if you enhance the software or sell it then you have to provide a cut. In general, you don't have to give a cut for works that have been produced with said software.

BTW, Blender is pretty standard in this regard.

"Anything you create with Blender - whether it's graphics, movies, scripts, exported 3d files or the .blend files themselves - is your sole property, and can be licensed or sold under any conditions you prefer." [1]

[1] http://www.blender.org/education-help/faq/gpl-for-artists/#c...

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#134

Post by bradleyland »

cjoh wrote: post #130
bradleyland wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the latter. Only the output is restricted. The material belongs to you.

So then what's the problem?

There appear to be two complaints:

1) Apple hasn't made clear enough that by using "iBooks Author", the only distribution channel you can use is Apple (de facto in that you must pay them, regardless of how you distribute).

2) There is disagreement that this is a good direction at all.

Point #1 is the one made by the author of the submission. With regard to point #2, I feel that Apple should be free to do what they want with their platform. I also feel that people should be free to openly disagree with them.

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#135

Post by gurkendoktor »

rshm wrote: post #118

More of a precursor to apple centered DRM for books i would say. And as always apple using its market advantage on everything it touches.

The iBookstore has always used DRM. I can easily see how DRM is the most economic options for eBooks right now - eBooks are more than $.99, so they needed a barrier between the internet's vast reservoir of PDFs and owning a pretty ePub file. (I still wouldn't buy DRM-ed books)

But the article is about the authoring tool, and Apple was going to produce it. So they had two primary options to protect their interests:

* Write an EULA and trust the law * Use DRM in all output or otherwise proprietary formats (and implicitly trust the law as a backup)

I'm not saying we should be thankful for the EULA's wording, but for people who hate DRM for practical reasons, this is probably the best realistic outcome.

If you hate DRM for ethical reasons and think that all content should be free, then be happy about a free tool and write content.

Only if you wish you could use Apple's tool to make money on another platform, well you are out of luck.

> And as always apple using its market advantage

That must be a very limited 'always' :) I don't see how they abused the iPod's market domination much. The iPad is the only other product where they have an advantage in numbers, but I am not sure if that extends to the iBookstore at all.

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#136

Post by olifante »

ekianjo wrote: post #101
nirvana wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was actually arguing the moral point. There's nothing immoral about setting the terms upon which you will trade your labor. Its the same as an employee deciding they want a higher salary or a lower one. The people who made this software give it away for free, under the understanding that it could be used by others who also give their work away fro free. What's wrong with that? But if people want to profit form it,…

Making profit should be proportional to the amount of work + the amount of money needed for the initial investment to be recouped. With such kind of agreements, Apple can claim money FOREVER on this app, no matter the small investment that was initially needed to created this app. This is disproportionate. It's like if I give you a hammer, and then I claim that in all the houses you build with it, you would owe one r…

that sounds like the Labor Theory of Value espoused by Ricardo and later Marx. Although it may sound intuitive to some, it's just plain wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theory...

The price of a product is not determined by the effort put into it but by the value it provides to the buyer.

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#138

Post by bradleyland »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #124
bradleyland wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine for a moment that the next update to Xcode or GarageBand included EULA language similar to what the OP is complaining about. Would you defend it on the grounds you cite above, or not? And if not, why not? The Xcode example is already a reality. If you produce an iOS app using Xcode, you have two choices: sell it for a price in the App Store and pay Apple a cut, or give it away. I would not be at all surpris…

A couple of points on what you say: * The Xcode example isn't a reality. I can see my Mac application outside of the appstore without giving Apple a penny. I can sell my corporate iPhone / iPad application without giving Apple a penny (corporates can obtain management tools that allow them to load applications without using the appstore). It's true for a subset - consumer iOS apps. * I've had Xcode prior to it's free…

Neither of those points negate what I have said.

On the first point, I was specifically referring to iOS apps, and you cannot "sell my corporate iPhone/iPad application" in the way you describe. Side-loading is only available to businesses with more than 500 employees, and as far as I understand, is only for internally developed applications.

Fair enough on the second, but it's tangential to the point. Apple constrains the distribution channels of iOS apps built using Xcode. This specific case is analogous to the iBooks Author tool restrictions.

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#139

Post by wazoox »

dangson wrote: post #137
wazoox wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the tablet world, so far Apple enjoys a near monopoly.

With tablets, Apple has a competitive advantage, not a monopoly.

A beginning monopoly is not necessarily the fruit of unfair practices or abuse of power. But when a company has more than 70% of a market worldwide, it's a monopoly. By definition, monopoly is a competitive advantage. Because Apple volumes in tablet sales dwarfs all of its competitors, it necessarily has an enormous advantage on price buying screens, RAM, flash, etc.

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#140

Post by gurkendoktor »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #135
rshm wrote: post #118

More of a precursor to apple centered DRM for books i would say. And as always apple using its market advantage on everything it touches.

The iBookstore has always used DRM. I can easily see how DRM is the most economic options for eBooks right now - eBooks are more than $.99, so they needed a barrier between the internet's vast reservoir of PDFs and owning a pretty ePub file. (I still wouldn't buy DRM-ed books) But the article is about the authoring tool , and Apple was going to produce it. So they had two primary options to protect their interests: *…

> * Use DRM in all output or otherwise proprietary formats

Oh well, I just discovered iBooks Author does use a proprietary format, not ePub. Then of course it is not as useful for authors of free content.

Post reply on HN