Stop Bashing the iBooks Author Terms of Service
The whole EULA argument around iBooks Author is extremely over-hyped. Let’s start with the name of the new authoring tool: iBooks Author. In short, this is a tool to create iBooks. The main problem lies with our perception of desktop applications. We expect to have ultimate control of anything with a shiny icon on our computers. However, the comparisons to Word, Photoshop, and Keynote break down here. In this case, Apple is offering an authoring tool for free to increase the content in their exclusive store. None of the other pieces of desktop software that I have heard people compare iBooks Author too are free. In addition, none of them are tied to a single presentation platform. iBooks Author is for a single purpose: creating iBooks for display on the iPad.
NOTE: For any of you who are new to the discussion around iBooks and iBooks Author, feel free to check out my introductory post over on the Universal Mind blog: iBooks 2 and iBooks Author.
In traditional Apple methodology, they want to control both the hardware and the software to ensure the best experience from the end user. Apple can’t control the presentation of ePub files on other devices, and they can’t ensure that iBooks Author will be an adequate authoring tool for any other platform. Apple has done an amazing job of creating customer confidence in both iTunes and the App Store by ensuring a level of quality for the end user. Unlike other platforms, the user knows that an app will work properly on their device and there is little risk of nefarious code being executed on said device. Apple’s goal is to ensure that every student who purchases a textbook, see the expected experience.
Finally, while the ‘ibooks’ format is ePub, it also has some unique characteristics that make it non-compatible with other readers. For example, it uses Apple’s FairPlay DRM technology (the only exception here is the user-created HTML widgets in iBooks Author which do not use this technology). Many people (including myself) are not fans of DRM of any kind, but I can understand the importance of this functionality for companies like Pearson, McGraw Hill, and others. Even if Apple allowed files from iBooks Author to be deployed to different devices, they would not work without removing the DRM. If Apple did allow someone to remove the DRM, the big publishers would more than likely pull their support for the platform.
In the end, this is Apple being Apple. It shouldn’t surprise anyone. Some people will undoubtedly not like it, but in the end their arguments don’t add up to much. People don’t want to be locked into a single device and distributor for a proprietary format that can only be displayed on that device? That seems more than a bit silly to me. This is the exact same model that Apple has used across the App Store to help boost customer confidence. Users can be sure that the textbooks they purchased were designed for their device and will function as advertised. While authors may ask for additional freedom, consumers can’t ask for much more.
THE DISCUSSION
That is certainly a valid point. I think it would hold more weight though if iBooks Author just produced a vanilla ePup. Could there be legal challenges to Apple’s approach? Certainly. In the end though - Apple just wants to be sure that this tool both increases their bottom line and creates a quality product. They’ll only bet on an ecosystem that they control.
I’m thinking about using ibooks author for a project, but wonder if Apple considers the author IP part of the “work”.
“If you charge a fee for any book or other work you generate using this software (a “Work”), you may only sell or distribute such Work through Apple (e.g., through the iBookstore) “
Would the “content” of the book be considered part of the “work”. I.e. if I’m an author is my IP also locked into the iBookstore? I would think not? Could I go sell a different version of the work (not built in ibooks author) on Kindle or to a different publisher?
I hear you David, but I still wonder if it will stand up in court. Non-compete agreements are hard to enforce, and while a software company can certainly control the copyright of their creative product, I just don’t see how they can control the copyright on the creative product of the people who use that product, from a legal perspective. It’s definitely pushing the boundaries of what can and can’t be done when it comes to the output of a creative tool.