Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Books Media Businesses Apple

Publisher Wiley's Books Pulled from Apple Stores 677

Posted by timothy
from the unhappy-campers dept.
getling writes "Looks like Steve Jobs is almost as unhappy about personal details being publicized as he is with Mac secrets. The book publisher Wiley, who is releasing a new unauthorized biography of Jobs has had its entire line of books banned from Apple stores as a result of their unhappiness with the content of the book. Wiley, publisher of the popular Dummies series of books, as well as the Bible series, is quite surprised, due to the fact that they view the book to show Jobs in a largely positive light ..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Publisher Wiley's Books Pulled from Apple Stores

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    That Amazon link looks like it contains a referrer - it has "ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14" [google.com]. That returns over 6000 hits on google, so either it's part of Amazon's system, or whoever provided it is making a lot of money off it. Here is a ref-free sanitized link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471 720836 [amazon.com]
    • Okkkaaayyyy... And why is the referrer such a big problem again? Does it make the book more expensive for you? Does it impair your ability to get to the book? Does it do anything to you at all, or are you just whining because you'd rather not support Slashdot (or whoever has the referrer) while you use the services?

      Better not click on my sig...
      • by Anonymous Coward
        I'd like to know who I'm supporting. So, yes, it does matter.
        • I'd like to know who I'm supporting.

          Interesting. So do you think about who you're supporting every time you purchase a book from a store? Or how about when you buy a can of green beans from the SuperMarket? Do you know who you're supporting when you buy a piece of furnature at the store? How about when you watch ads on TV?

          Generally, the answer is always a "no" or a "sort of". There are so many people behind the scenes who make these things happen, that there's no way to account for all of them. If you want to boycott someone, your best solution is to first target them, then investigate where they derive money, then organize a boycott around their chokepoint. Your alternative of trying to divine the man behind the curtain in all instances, is both tedious and pointless.

          But hey, it's your time and energy.
          • If I use a coupon to buy a can of green beans at the supermarket then you are damn right I think about where the coupon came from and how it came to be in my posession. Does my use of the coupon generate a kick-back to some information broker? Does it cause an update to a secret "consumer profile" that I have little chance of ever seeing myself?

            And before you go off and say how amazon referrers are different, you should of that of that before making the reference to a B&M store in the first place.
          • pointless? (Score:3, Interesting)

            I'd say whether or not its pointless depends on your morals.
            For instance, I don't do business with Union Carbide or their customers because of how they treated the incident in Bhopal. They may not miss the little bit of money that didn't go their way but, I know that I'm giving them nothing.
            I will buy Chinese goods. This is because the Americans being put out of work are the same ones who voted for Bush, and Bush supports big Chinese imports. So, I'm supporting the political position of those factory worker
            • Re:pointless? (Score:3, Interesting)

              by AKAImBatman (238306) *
              There are many people who will not buy fuel from Exon over the oil spill in Alaska.

              Actually, this makes my point perfectly. If you want to boycott someone, target them specifically. You *can* stop yourself from paying for Exxon directly, but you *can't* stop the green bean manufacturer from using Exxon petrolium in manufacturing of the can.

              Trying to randomly stop people from receiving money for services is pointless. Target the chokepoints.
      • by NanoGator (522640) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @01:08AM (#12355753) Homepage Journal
        "Okkkaaayyyy... And why is the referrer such a big problem again?"

        Advertising in general has been abused. Flash ads, pop-up sites, adverts that look like news, etc. A lot of people are sick of them, so they've developed a bad attitude about advertising in general. You see, it's too hard to distinguish between advertising and abusive advertising. It's easier to remember to hate 'ads'. Never mind that those very ads basically provide services to you that you don't have to pay out of pocket for (i.e. television, radio, Slashdot...), a few people ruined ads for EVERYBODY.

        Somehow, referrals fell into this trap, too. Evidently, it's okay to buy a book, but it's not okay to buy the book from the guy who convinced you to buy it. I probably wouldn't be replying if the choice was between buying it and not buying it, but stripping the referal information out? WTF? Talk about judgement mis-fire.
    • All the hits are way too random to be just one person, it can't be one guy's ref link..

      I visited a lot of the sites, a good majority of them (almost all) are forums and someone is recommending a book every time... it's really fishy

      I just can't figure it out
      • I visited a lot of the sites, a good majority of them (almost all) are forums and someone is recommending a book every time... it's really fishy

        That's how it works. If you check out the book reviews that I wrote on my site [creimer.ws], you can click on the product link to the right of the review. Buy a book so I can pay off the $15/month ISP fee and have some lunch money while looking for a better job. ;)
    • by DrEldarion (114072) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @12:10AM (#12355335)
      As someone who is a part of their referral program, I can say that is definitely NOT an affiliate link. It's just part of Amazon.

      The ref tag is rarely used for referral linking, and when it does, it looks something like "ref=ase_dealmeinnet-20" rather than that. I'm pretty sure that whenever the ref tag is used in regards to the affiliate program, it has ase in front of the affiliate tag.

      This is an affiliate link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471720836/ ref=nosim/dealmeinnet-20/ [amazon.com] Note that the ref tag here is set to "nosim". That means that you don't get the item preview page, it brings you directly to the book page. The actual affiliate tag (dealmeinnet-20 in this case) came as a separate part of the URL.
    • by NanoGator (522640) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @12:22AM (#12355429) Homepage Journal
      "Here is a ref-free sanitized link:"

      Yeah, you wouldn't want the guy bringing you information that you found interesting to be rewarded or anything.

      The attitude some of you have about referrals really makes me sick. Never mind that this whole SITE that's bringing you this news article you find so fucking interesting is supported by ads.
    • Interesting discussion on speculation about something that I have no clue about. For those that are curious, I am indeed NOT making any money off this link - it was pulled via amazon.com's own search function. Try it yourself and see.
  • Rosebud! (Score:5, Funny)

    by SYFer (617415) <syfer@@@syfer...net> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:43PM (#12355091) Homepage
    "That's all he ever wanted out of life... was love. That's the tragedy of Charles Foster Kane. You see, he just didn't have any to give."
  • Irony... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by soapbox (695743) * on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:44PM (#12355098)

    So isn't Apple/Steve sort of making the 'mercurial' and 'hot-tempered' point for the author? While the Woz has said that Jobs never treated him badly, he admitted that many people said they'd never work for Jobs again because of alleged mistreatment by Jobs (check out the mp3 of the HOPE keynote from 2004, in the Q&A, where an audience member asks about Jobs' behavior).

    • Re:Irony... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @12:35AM (#12355510)
      Woz has said that Jobs never treated him badly

      That's not the case. Jobs screwed Wozniac [classicgaming.com] when they created Breakout for Atari. Jobs pocketed the entire $5,000 bonus and half the $700 he was offered. Woz got $350 and none of the design bonus for the work he alone did.
      • Re:Irony... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Martin Blank (154261) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @01:02AM (#12355707) Journal
        From "Broken Breakout Promises" which was the only other place that seemed to have the entire quote about the money, comes this bit to put it into context over the course of time.

        It wasn't the money that bothered Woz. Had Jobs asked, Wozniak would have done the project for free because he was turned on by such technological challenges. What hurt was being misled by his friend. Looking back on the incident, Wozniak realized Jobs' behavior was completely in character. "Steve had worked in surplus electronics and said if you can buy a part for 30 cents and sell it to this guy at the surplus store for $6, you don't have to tell him what you paid for it. It's worth $6 to the guy. And that was his philosophy of running a business," says Wozniak.
    • by tentimestwenty (693290) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @12:57AM (#12355667)
      I don't know about you, but if someone wrote a book about me and titled it "iCon" I would be pretty offended. All those people going into the Apple store are immediately going to see Jobs' picture on the front and think he's a con artist. Doesn't exactly mesh with the honest Apple brand no matter what the pages say.
      • by TheoMurpse (729043) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @01:55AM (#12355996) Homepage
        Is everyone missing that "icon" can mean an important figure in history?
        • If Wiley was stupid enough to think that most people wouldn't see "iCon" and read it the same way as they read "iMac" and "iBook", then I don't know if they should be publishing this book, as they are seriously out of touch with the subject matter. It was only when I read that the book was largely positive to realize that it was supposed to be "icon" and not "iCon" (or, "internet con").

          Try it with other words, and it takes a second to even recognize what the word is (reading them aloud is cheating, unless
      • by Vellmont (569020) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @03:58AM (#12356586)

        All those people going into the Apple store are immediately going to see Jobs' picture on the front and think he's a con artist. Doesn't exactly mesh with the honest Apple brand no matter what the pages say.


        You missed it. Apple didn't just ban the unauthorized biography of Steve Jobs they banned the entire series of dummies books made by the same publisher. This biography was never going to appear in Apple stores since obviously Apple doesn't carry biographies in its stores, only computer help books.

        As far as Jobs is concerned, he goofed on this one. His actions only prove he's an impulsive hothead (not that there's not a dozen other things he's done publically to prove that). The biography just got a huge amount of free publicity it normally wouldn't have. I certainly never would have heard about it, and now maybe I'll buy a copy when it comes out. The dummies books are so popular that the Apple Store will look incomplete without them. People will ask about them, then go to Barnes And Noble on the other side of the mall to buy one. My prediction is they'll re-appear quietly in 6-12 months.
  • by Belzu (735378) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:44PM (#12355100) Journal
    ....He should step away from it....
  • by Space cowboy (13680) * on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:44PM (#12355101) Journal

    Personally I'd be damn annoyed if people started publicising my illnesses, my past and my private life [yahoo.com] as well. For the second time no less! There's this myth that if you're a public figure you're not entitled to a private life. Bollocks.

    Speech is (and IMHO ought to be!) free, and the publishers are well within their rights to go against a man's wishes about his biography. Steve is also well within his rights to tell the publishers that they'll not sell a damn thing in his bookstores from now on.

    My sympathies are with the man whose life they're laying bare (irrespective of how they cast it) rather than the money-grabbing publishing house. "Quite surprised" is a laugh as well - they sent the proofs to Apple for approval and were asked to withhold publishing. WTF did they expect ?

    One of the things that seems to have been lost along the route to our western democracy is that actions have consequences. I'm made up that the act of publishing this book will cause them financial pain - perhaps it'll be as annoying to them as it obviously is to Steve that they've gone ahead and published. Perhaps it'll make them think twice about doing the same thing again...

    Before anyone gets on their high horse about the 'public's right to know', again, Bollocks. The public has a right to know if a public figure abuses his/her position - completely agree with that. On the other hand, this rather distasteful desire to simply nose into other peoples lives is a sad fact of the human condition today.

    Simon.
    • I agree, and would add that for a publisher of tech manuals to start putting out this kind of celebrity drivel is bad form. I don't know if making manuals is their only business, and granted they aren't that straight-laced to begin with, but come on.

      Besides, most people don't go to Apple retail stores to buy books, they go there to buy Macs, so this is really more of a slap on the wrist than anything else.
    • by fname (199759) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @12:04AM (#12355283) Journal
      Number 1, they are not "his" stores. As CEO of Apple, he has a fiduciary responsible to Apple's owners (i.e., the shareholders). Pulling Wiley's books does not uphold this in any way; Steve Jobs is not Apple.

      Before anyone gets on their high horse... Maybe what you meant was before anyone else gets on their high horse? Consider this. Ten Speed Press [tenspeedpress.com] has published a book called, "How Wal*Mart is Destroying the World. [amazon.com]" Ten Speed press has published other books such as "Better than Chocolate: 50 Proven Ways to Feel Happier. [walmart.com]" Guess what--- Wal*Mart happens to sell that book. Even the Most Evil Corporation on the Planet (TM) hasn't stooped down to Apple's level.

      So root for your Apple if that makes you feel good; they have every right to pull those books. But ask yourself this: what good has ever come from governments or corporations bullying the press? Are their citizens or customers somehoe better served? Will I have a better experience at The Apple Store because Apple has decided to pull some Mac books not because of their content but in retalitiation?

      I say all this a long-time Mac user, Apple shareholder and overall fan of the company. But Apple is doing no good by this act, and it only serves to make Apple a certified bully. Think Different, indeed.
      • Agreed Steve Jobs ain't Apple. I'd be willing to bet he had a lot more shares than you or I do though - or pretty much anyone actually. I have no idea how many shares he owns, but he's probably the majority shareholder...

        I guess I'm a bit confused by the rest of your post - "Apple has every right to pull those books", but you label them worst than The Most Evil Corporation On The Planet because of it. If they're entitled, let 'em. As I said, actions have consequences, and Apple will have their own conseque
        • by fname (199759) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @12:24AM (#12355442) Journal
          According to this [news.com], Steve Jobs owns 10.1 million shares (that figure may be pre-split) of Apple, or 1.2% of those outstanding. 10 million of those are restricted shares granted to him by Apple. Mr. Jobs had sold off all but one of his shares he received from the Next merger soon after it happened.

          So he's nowhere near a "majority" owner, and is only the second largest individual shareholder; at least 10 institutions control a bigger stake [yahoo.com] than Leader, aka Steve Jobs.
      • Steve Jobs is not Apple.

        Are you sure? What would Apple be without Steve Jobs? ...Absolutely nothing.

      • by chrysrobyn (106763) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @01:04AM (#12355719)
        Number 1, they are not "his" stores. As CEO of Apple, he has a fiduciary responsible to Apple's owners (i.e., the shareholders). Pulling Wiley's books does not uphold this in any way; Steve Jobs is not Apple.

        Steve Jobs is Apple. When Apple hired Jobs, they hired his charisma, his contacts, his reputation, his expertise. The CEO of every company is a figurehead, a spokesperson, a representative in every way. If Steve believes that this book casts his leadership in a negative way, then it is very easy to believe that it casts the company in the same negative way.

        I say all this a long-time Mac user, Apple shareholder and overall fan of the company.

        So you know something about the Apple's Reality Distortion Field. Wait, no, that didn't happen when Jobs wasn't there. Right. It's Jobs' Reality Distortion Field. The man is the company.

        But ask yourself this: what good has ever come from governments or corporations bullying the press?

        Do you believe that Apple / Jobs are bullying Wiley? Do you honestly think that Apple's online store is responsible for a noticable percentage of Wiley's sales? I've seen their books in almost every English book store I've walked into in the past 5 or 10 years. When you go to the Apple store, you buy hardware. You buy books at bn.com, amazon.com or your local bookstore / coffee shop.

      • But ask yourself this: what good has ever come from governments or corporations bullying the press?

        God forbid we should continue to live in a free market. Who the hell cares what good comes of it? Everybody involved in this mess is making decisions that they are 100% entitled to make. Wiley publishes a book Apple doesn't like? Apple ceases to line Wiley's pockets. Give and take, free market.

        Will I have a better experience at The Apple Store because Apple has decided to pull some Mac books not because
    • The public has a right to know if a public figure abuses his/her position

      I find it disturbing that you do not consider Jobs to be abusive of his position. ;-)

      Kidding aside, even the law treats famous people in such a way that it takes into consideration that they do in fact trade a certain amount of privacy for their fame.

      Agreed, it is not always right, but hey, it's legal (I know, I know - being legal vs. being moral/ethical is a fine line).

      The sad part is, if you're secretive, people think you've som
  • Silly me (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:44PM (#12355108)
    And I thought the Book of Jobs was all about putting up with suffering without complaint.

    Book of Job? .. Oops.

  • Two words. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:45PM (#12355117)
    Publicity. Stunt.
  • Repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder (516195) * on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:45PM (#12355118)
    While interesting,

    - Apple is not the government (therefore, any ridiculous cries of censorship are just a wee tad bit overboard)
    - Apple can do what it wants with its own corporate stores
    - Yes, this may result in more copies of the book being sold, but consider that this is not an effort to "suppress" the book; it's merely a retaliatory move. Apple is under no obligation whatsover, implied or otherwise, to carry any publisher's books.

    In short, business as usual and a BIG yawner:

    "It's certainly not unprecedented for a company to protest publication of a book or article it finds unflattering.

    IBM, for instance, staged a six-year advertising boycott of Fortune magazine after then-Chief Executive Louis V. Gerstner took exception to a 1997 cover story.

    More recently, General Motors withdrew its ads from the Los Angeles Times in protest of an April 6 review of its Pontiac G6."


    (From the Mercury News story [mercurynews.com])

    Think what you want, but businesses shouldn't be forced to support other businesses they disagree with.

    Further, it looks like there's a referrer in the submitter's amazon link. :-(
    • Re:Repeat after me (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ensignyu (417022)
      The size of the company plays a part, though. If IBM or General Motors stops buying ads in a newspaper, it'll hurt, but probably not enough to convince the newspaper to significantly edit its content to appease corporations -- well, no more than usual, anyways. Likewise, Apple is not a major seller of computer books, even in the context of Mac-related books, so I wouldn't think it would have a big effect on Wiley.

      But when you get to a point where a boycott could do serious damage -- which tends to be the p
    • Re:Repeat after me (Score:3, Insightful)

      by quantaman (517394)
      While interesting,

      - Apple is not the government (therefore, any ridiculous cries of censorship are just a wee tad bit overboard)


      Censorship is censorship [answers.com]

      The only slack I give apple is because they aren't a major book seller and thus don't have the same stiffling effect on speech.

      In short, business as usual and a BIG yawner:

      "It's certainly not unprecedented for a company to protest publication of a book or article it finds unflattering.

      IBM, for instance, staged a six-year advertising boycott of For
    • Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dhalka226 (559740) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @01:14AM (#12355794)

      Apple is under no obligation whatsover, implied or otherwise, to carry any publisher's books.

      No legal obligation, perhaps. What about obligation to their shareholders? They didn't just pull the book they don't care for--they pulled ALL of the books by this publisher. Wiley is a HUGE publisher and publishes the highly-successful "...For Dummies" series as well as many others.

      Apple isn't pulling these books for some great social good. They're not protesting anything that anybody can see except, apparently, the audacity of somebody to dare write a book about Steve Jobs. And to make this point they're pulling a successful publisher from their stores which is obviously going to cost them money and, very likely, stock price. Do they have no obligation to those people who own parts of their company?

  • This book has always been one of the most comprehensive Macintosh references out there. Strange that Apple would pull it. Hrmmm...
  • by dgmckay (757282) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:53PM (#12355182)
    I agree that these guys have a right to some privacy. Most interesting to me is that the comments here on /. are generally supportive so far. What a different thread it would be if this had been Bill Gates and Microsoft instead of Steve Jobs and Apple.
    • It's different when Apple pulls something like this.

      It's much.... snappier.

    • Nope - I'm one of the people rather disgusted by the publisher's actions - see above, but I'd say the same thing if it were Bill rather than Steve.

      Despite my tagline, I don't think Bill eats babies. I just think Windows is a pile of crap. Linux (and for me now, OSX) is a far better solution for me - mainly because I rarely have to do spreadsheets or other "business" apps. I'm usually coding, and unix (in whatever flavour) works great for that. Oh, and OSX is the best damn unix workstation I've ever used -
    • I agree, the thread would probably be different, but it shouldn't be. Mr. Gates has done some "very bad" things in business and pointing them out is a must (I am still a little bitter about having to pay for Windows to run NeXTSTEP), but I don't think his personal life should be held under a microscope.

      Others have cited examples of companies boycotting publications because of various slights, and I would expect the same of Jobs. I am so sick of the "tabloid" mentality, I just don't care - tell me somethi

  • Apple==Steve Jobs? (Score:2, Informative)

    by mah! (121197)
    Apple is reacting to an unauthorized publication about Jobs? It does not make sense: unless it is about today's Apple directly?

    Did Wiley want to sell it in Apple stores (even that would have been, at most, a bit weird) ? With all respect to Apple's hardware and software products, such an action as banning the entire publishing house from stores sound absurdly inappropriate.

    Check for yourself the sample chapter [wiley.com] at least, to see whether it's such an outrageous book or not.

  • by davidwr (791652) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:55PM (#12355199) Homepage Journal
    They'd have all their books banned from the Library of Congress.

    I wonder if that's what Sen. Trist meant by "Nuclear Option"?
  • I never read the first biography the guy wrote, which the CNN/Money article link notes ended negatively; I imagine if someone did the same thing about me, I would savor the chance to get back at them.

    More relevant, though, is the dubious realm of unauthorized-while-they're-still-alive biography. I feel it belongs to the age of cheap celebrity. I'm not interested in Ashton Kuchar's remarkable life, thank you very much. Let's give people a chance to die before we start worshipping them.

  • Ironic... (Score:3, Informative)

    by vocaro (569257) <trevor@vocaro.com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:58PM (#12355227)
    ...that this incident will probably give Apple and Steve Jobs more bad publicity than the book alone ever would have.

    It even showed up on CNN's main page [cnn.com].
  • by higgo6 (645437)
    I think he's great. He pulled Apple out of the shitter. I'd rather work for steve than Bill. He is innovative and clever.
  • look at the title (Score:2, Insightful)

    by spir0 (319821)
    everyone seems to have missed one vital piece of information.. the title of the book is iCon.

    nuff said.
  • by creimer (824291) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @12:00AM (#12355244) Homepage
    So does the title "iCon" supposed be a stylish version of the word icon or does it represent a certain attitude: "I conned you into buying a nice OS on some very expensive hardware to make me a happy SOB"? For some reason, I keep thinking "iCon" might be a better title for a Martha Stewart book.
    • i, con man (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gad_zuki! (70830)
      This is completely understandable, the cover of the book is pretty much saying I, Con Artist. No wonder Apple doesnt want a book on its shelves more or less calling its CEO a con man. I doubt the average passerby is going to get a positive impression from that sitting on the shelves while they're contemplating buying a $2,000 laptop from a company run by a "con."

      Whatever "savvy" marketers decided to go with that title should be feeling the brunt of this decision. Last I checked Apple was a private compan
  • I think it would bother me a lot more if this meant that nobody got to see it. But Apple's economic power isn't that high. It still bothers me a little though.

    I believe firmly in the freedom of individuals to engage in whatever contracts they find mutually beneficial. But, I'm not so sure about a big, powerful public corporation. I think as organizations get larger and more powerful, they become more government-like. You die just as surely whether you starve because nobody will sell you food or someone shoots you.

  • by bloodstar (866306) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <rats_doolb>> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @12:33AM (#12355497) Journal
    Keep in mind, the entire threat that was plied against J. Wiley & Sons was "Do not publish the book or we will stop carrying any of your works" There was no effort to have the book shipped to the various Apple stores (and even if there were, it would have been a simple matter for apple to quietly ship them back). This is simply a strong arm tactic when Apple decided to do some dick waving and Wiley called them on it. Now Apple can either continue to give the book free publicity and at the same time deny it's customer base access to some damn good reference books (in Apple stores, as I'm sure Borders or B&N Would be happy to sell you their reference stores); or they can sit down, and shut up, and in a few months (or years) quietly let the Wiley titles back into their stores.

    There will be no issue of lawsuit against the author or Wiley, unless somehow there were libel statements made in the book. The truth can't be libel, by definition. Remember once you're a public figure, you have a more limited right to privacy than otherwise is the case (It's may not seem fair, but those who wish to have the spotlight shined upon them, will sometimes have to accept the spotlight when it's not welcome).

    -Mark

  • Balanced.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Flaming Death (447117) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @12:33AM (#12355498)
    This is _not_ a troll. It is a very sincere post questioning the readers of slashdot - it makes me wonder about the level of slashdot criticism.

    If this were a MS story of Bill Gates doing the same, there would be the usual crazy outbreak of 'MS evil empire' type banter. However, because its Apple , the response is a mild - 'oh its ok, hes the Apple man hes allowed to'. Where is the balance? I think somewhere in between to be honest - Jobs and Gates are simply very ruthless business persons, and yet here at Slashdot there is a decided overflow towards Apple.

    Is it the OSX thing - its not a free OS.. its not Open, so why the fanaticism, is it because its most Linux like? Windows has cygwin.. and I know a large number of IT specialists whom use it, but Windows is always rated as poor and irrevlevant (by the slashdot community), yet it is the most used desktop, by a rediculous majority? So where is the balance? Where is the even levelled intelligent arguments for both sides, that usually make for a great discussion?

    The more I visit here the more I see very common attitudes:
    - Apple and OSX rules, and every other platform/OS sux.
    - MS are evil and Windows sux.. but Xbox rules (this one has always been a bit of a conundrum - this must imply MS are less evil than Sony?)..
    - Sony are evil and PS2 is crap..
    - Linux and all Unix's are above all the best OS's and everything else is crap..
    - Any programming language that isnt C++ like or OO is crap..

    The above is a mere sample of generalisations and these are the usual source of flame wars. But the important thing about these topics, is that taking an opposing stance usually means getting flamed, chastised, or ridiculed.. It is even more interesting that moderators dont try to keep the discussion balanced, Im sure it would result in much better (more interesting) discussions, and a lot less ' is crap, or it sux'.

    This leads me to one fairly basic conclusion. Most of the people posting on Slashdot these days are young, easily impressionable males, that have little sense or understanding of two sides of a discussion and generally are very one-eyed about subjects with little or no flexibilty to gauge information as valid or relevant.
    • by Stormwatch (703920) <rodrigogirao@ho[ ]il.com ['tma' in gap]> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @01:10AM (#12355762) Homepage
      - Apple and OSX rules
      - MS are evil and Windows sux. but Xbox rules
      - Sony are evil and PS2 is crap.


      Yes, the aforementioned points are correct.
    • Re:Balanced.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by singularity (2031) *
      If this were a MS story of Bill Gates doing the same, there would be the usual crazy outbreak of 'MS evil empire' type banter. However, because its Apple , the response is a mild - 'oh its ok, hes the Apple man hes allowed to'.

      Funny, you must be reading different posts than I am. Most of the posts I have read have been along the line of "Well, Apple does have a *right* to do this, but it is a sucky thing to do."

      In my opinion this is a fairly accurate view of the situation. Nice *non-fanatical* (in either
  • Positive Light?!? (Score:5, Informative)

    by JasdonLe (680479) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @12:34AM (#12355502) Homepage
    Does *this* [yimg.com] look positive to you?
  • by rewinn (647614) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @12:59AM (#12355682) Homepage
    ... would have been for Jobs to have a ghost-writer crank out "Why Wiley's Book Is Stupid" and sell it next to the book he hates.
  • by Zhe Mappel (607548) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @01:14AM (#12355795)
    As with Steve Jobs, so with George W. Bush: no cult of personality can tolerate books that are merely "largely" positive. There's the gospel, and then there's apostasy. Either you adore, or you'd better get out of Dodge.

    No, Apple doesn't have to sell the book. But pulling the entire line is childish. And counter-productive. By going nuclear, Jobs has helped to give the title some buzz--the silver lining in every act of censorship. :-)

  • by theolein (316044) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @02:05AM (#12356036) Journal
    This is bad news for Apple, its customers (i.e. me and everyone else using a Mac or an iPod), and its shareholders.

    No one likes an arrogant arsehole, and people like arrogant arseholes even less who act like mini dictators. It's not like Apple has a 90% marketshare in the computer market to play with, and investors shy away from erratic, irrational CEOs. I can understand him withdrawing the book on his life from the Apple store shelves, as he has the power to do that, but the Dumies series is extremely popular and it could make an enemy of extremely influential people like David Pogue, whose NYTimes tech articles get read by millions.

    What worries me most about this is that it reminds me of the bat shit megalomanic attitude that Jobs had before he was canned from Apple the first time in 1985, trying to push others around.

    Steve, if you or one of your slaves is reading this, take these words of advice: You, as a celebrity and CEO of a very trendy company, give away a certain amount of privacy as part of your status. You, like me and everyone else, are not an island. You depend on literally millions of other people for your success, from customers, to shareholders, to employees, to reviewers, to the press. Think about that before you fly into a rage like a spoilt five year old brat the next time.
  • by Anita Coney (648748) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @09:39AM (#12358322) Homepage
    Today Steven Jobs has filed a temporary restraining order against his mother. The TRO claims that Jobs' mother kept talking about her son to friends and family, showed embarrassing pictures of him as a kid, and praised him for his success.

    A spokesperson for Apple was quoted as saying, "Jobs' mom was always prone to talk about how proud she is of her son, but when she showed the friends in her knitting circle a picture of Steve when he was two years old using the toilet for the first time, her actions went from merely annoying to criminal."

    This current action from Jobs has affected others in his family too. His wife of 14 years, Laurene Powell, has had her voice box surgically removed to avoid any chance of her offending her husband. Furthermore, his two children have been killed for talking about their dad in class.

    More news on this story as it develops.
  • by d_jedi (773213) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:00AM (#12358504)
    to sound like another certain software company that everyone accuses of abusing their monopoly power..

    And Apple IS a monopoly (given that x86-based PCs are considered to be their own market, according to Judge Jackson.. we can assume PPC-based PCs would also..)

    They don't need to sell the Steve Jobs biography if they don't want to.. but to completely ban the publisher?

    Add this tot he fact that Apple doesn't consider bloggers to be a part of the legitimate press.. and we get a pretty bad impression of them, wrt free speech..
  • 1984 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by katorga (623930) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:20AM (#12358700)
    Good ole Apple, the paragon of intellectual freedom, creativity, openness. They have mastered the style but their substance is limits, conformity, and closed systems.

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir

Working...