iBooks Author for magazines?

This morning I spotted this question from one of my LinkedIn groups: 

"Anyone considering iBooks Author to publish mags? What pros and cons do you see?"

Working extensively in Apple's new book publishing tool as I am, I thought I'd throw my thoughts into the discussion. It turns out I had more to say on the topic than I thought. So much, in fact, that I had to trim back my initial post in order to fit LinkedIn's message length criteria. 

Below is my response in full. What do you think? Any lawyers out there?

"I'm not sure iBooks Author is the best way to go for magazine publishing. It's certainly possible, but whether or not periodicals would be allowed by Apple through its iBooks platform is a different matter. 

Fiction and non-fiction books plus text books (Apple's major push here) seem to be the standard. The Newsstand app for iPhone and iPad that contains magazines as apps from the App Store is where Apple would much rather you go. Why Newsstand and iBooks weren't merged into a single reading experience and editorial store is beyond me. 

There's also a rather worrying EULA (End User License Agreement) attached to iBooks Author, effectively saying "Sure, you can publish with iBooks Author on iBooks but we own the rights to your content. If we don't choose to sell it, you can't go elsewhere". The explicit clause is pasted at the bottom of this post. 

This is bound to be highlighted and discussed pretty heavily in the tech press and Apple will likely clarify the agreement or come to a compromise but, for the time being, it's a dangerous game. 

Of course, that only applies to paid books made in iBooks Author and published on the iBookstore. It seems that distributing content for free makes all these headaches go away. But how would you make your money? It's even more unlikely that Apple would allow for advertising pages within an iBook, although I don't know this as fact. Perhaps sponsorships may be the way to go? 

You can also export your iBooks Author publication and share it with as many people as you like without having to use the iBookstore at all. All your reader would need would be a copy of your publication and iBooks installed on their iPad. If you were to produce a free, ad-supported magazine within iBooks Author and offer it as a free download on your website, it seems you could circumvent the EULA. Don't hold me to that, however, I'm not a lawyer. 

The issue I have with iBooks author is that it's almost too good a creation tool to apply to books alone. You can, effectively, make magazines, games and more using its incredibly simple features yet you're limited to publishing to a book store that may not want what you're selling. 

Do you want to painstakingly craft a 250-page magazine only to be told that it's not right for iBooks? That would bring anyone down. Oh, and while you're down there Apple would also put the boot in by telling you not to dare try publishing this content on another store that might actually WANT to sell your content. 

For magazines and iBooks Author I think it'll have to be a waiting game. This is, after all, only the first iteration of the software and Apple has a laser focus on textbooks right now. Once the hype dies down and the development inside Infinite Loop churns on, iBooks Author could well include a template for Newsstand publications or a simple loosening of its restrictions to aid the publisher rather than intimidate them. 

I'm about to blindly wander into the world of self-publishing with a book I wrote as basic ePUB and have now completely revamped with iBooks Author. I'm following Apple's rules and submitting it to the iBookstore next week. 

I'm sure I'll be back here soon to tell you how it went. 

From Apple's iBooks Author EULA:

B. Distribution of your Work. As a condition of this License and provided you are in compliance with its terms, your Work may be distributed as follows:
(i) if your Work is provided for free (at no charge), you may distribute the Work by any available means;

(ii) if your Work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or service), you may only distribute the Work through Apple and such distribution is subject to the following limitations and conditions: (a) you will be required to enter into a separate written agreement with Apple (or an Apple affiliate or subsidiary) before any commercial distribution of your Work may take place; and (b) Apple may determine for any reason and in its sole discretion not to select your Work for distribution."

Will Apple enter the TV market? Pros & cons

I've been ignoring this topic for the last five years or so, but it seems that the rumour mill is reluctant to give up on the idea that Apple will launch a television.

The reason I've dismissed the suggestion for so long is mainly down to the many reasons I could think of as to why the company wouldn't make such a move. Now, however, I'm seeing an increasing number of factors to suggest that it might make sense. In light of this, I've listed my pros and cons below, the result of which brings me no closer to a solid conclusion but does lead me to believe that an Apple TV not just an updated Apple TV box (yes, it is confusing!) could be a slightly more realistic possibility than it once was. Penetrating specificty, I'm sure you'll agree. Perhaps there is an Apple TV in the wings, perhaps the idea was tossed around Sir Jony's lab and then discarded. Take a look at my arguments for and against and make up your own mind.  

PRO: Smart TVs aren't exactly flying off the shelves

And that's just the type of market Apple likes. There was hardly a tablet market before the iPad and MP3 players sucked before the iPod came along. The lack of a current audience isn't necessarily an issue. Apple can create one. Apple prefers to reinvent rather than introduce all-new products and the fledgling smart TV market could be its next target. 

CON: Is Apple ready to make a smart TV?

If even the major manufacturers like Samsung and LG can't get things going with their history in the field and longstanding component deals, the playing field is a worrying one. After this year's CES in Vegas we may know more about the hands they intend to play. 

PRO: Apple has some knowledge in the field

Apple already makes very big, very attractive displays that anyone would be happy to point a sofa at. They might not have the costs licked like the TV makers, but with nips and tucks in the right places and all the right features, it could still make a compelling product from a form and function point of view. At a time when Apple's focus is moving away from desktops and targetting the portable markets, shifting staff and resources from displays to televisions wouldn't be much of an issue either.  

CON: Apple hasn't yet managed to conquer the living room

The Apple TV box has been openly referred to by Apple as a hobby which most see as an admission of failure. When did you last hear Apple TV sales figures touted in a financial results conference call? That said, Apple is surely desperate to take the iTunes experience from iOS devices and put it onto your TV. A box just hasn't cut it so far. Perhaps the same system housed within a television would?

PRO: An Apple TV offers more to the consumer

It's not only the existing iTunes ecosystem of music, movies and TV shows that make an Apple TV an exciting prospect. An iOS-based television could also create a new arm of the App Store for big screen apps, a built-in camera could offer armchair-based FaceTime and a built-in microphone could introduce Siri to the living room. iCloud email and calendars as well as iTunes Match could be utilised too.  

CON: Would deals with networks be possible?

It's no secret that Steve Jobs always looked at a way to provide an in-house service first before working with a third-party. If rumours are to be believed he even wanted to circumvent telco partners and create Apple's own cellular network for the iPhone. That's a big task when it comes to television and especially sports. Apple does have good ties with major networks through the iTunes Store, however, and is rumoured to be bidding on Premiership soccer rights in the UK. Whether a subscription model would be the answer remains to be seen though and the many sports and entertainment networks already offering iOS apps for customers to consume their content digitally further muddies the water.

PRO: Apple has tested the water

Consumers now understand the idea of sending media to their television from their mobile devices using AirPlay. They also appreciate the benefit of time shifted and on demand entertainment through the iTunes Store and various entertainment apps. There's even the option to watch baseball on the current Apple TV box if you have an MLB.TV subscription. The iPad experience on a big screen (bar the touch interface) is now not such an alien concept. Could this be enough to convince consumers that they don't need 200 channels when they can pick and choose from a large library of new and popular content whenever they want?

CON: Could Apple really make an affordable TV? 

Apple's current 27" LED Cinema Display costs £899. Granted, the screen does include Thunderbolt technology and is perhaps a little high on specs by comparison to a standard HD TV but, with 40" 1080p TVs available at around £500, can Apple introduce a model at a competitive price?

PRO: The infrastructure for streaming exists

While Apple's huge new data centre could be written off as providing the grunt for iCloud syncing, Siri and iTunes Match, the company has successfully streamed a number of its events live online without hiccups and with very high quality video. Streaming from iTunes was possible even before the new data centres which suggests that there's bandwidth to play with should a new streaming service be announced. 

CON: It's like the music industry all over again…

Should Apple manage to get some major networks on board and provide some big name TV shows as part of its package, not everyone will jump into bed so readily. While Apple did wonders for music sales, ultimately changing the face of it, it took a while for all of the labels to appreciate what the future held and realise that iTunes was, at worst, the lesser of two evils. Television networks now pose the problem, knowing full well that they're entering the age of the net stream yet are still clumsily fumbling around like a horny sixteen-year-old, trying to shift their content delivery from dishes and cable to the web on their own. 

PRO: Gaming is important to Apple

While it's only third-party developers that have so far tested the iPad's role as a game console and controller for your home television, Apple provided the framework by introducing AirPlay and mirroring. Dedicated Apple TV games or more iPad+TV games would certainly be a big selling point. 

CONclusion

Even if Apple did make a television, which is certainly within the realm of possibility, issues arise when it comes to content. A television alone will not be enough. Apple's first foray into the TV market will have to make a big enough splash and provide compelling reasons outside of design and exciting features in order to sway those looking at the offerings from existing manufacturers. Another consideration is 3D functionality, the cost of which is dropping rapidly but the format hasn't quite taken off in the way many expected. That said, in a market driven by buzzwords and catchphrases, not offering 3D, which an Apple TV almost certainly wouldn't, might also be a deciding factor for television shoppers comparing prices and features. Ultimately, if decent enough deals can be struck to provide quality content to Apple TV users on top of their iTunes library, an Apple TV could be an enticing option for the existing iOS user, Apple fanboy and diehard tech junkies. The price will also have to be right. Unlike a set-top box, the launch of an Apple TV would be too much of a risk for Apple to simply end up referring to it as a hobby. 

Ben's Bluster - Adverts with unnecessary shouting

This isn't a new phenomenon, but it's becoming a great deal more prevalent, especially on British television. A product so distinctly average that its promotion requires a supremely talentless voiceover actor to shout into a microphone. The result? A commercial that everybody hates for its unimaginative and sonically intrusive message.

When will marketing teams realise that louder DOES NOT mean better?

Even worse than simply shouting over an advert is a voiceover actor shouting in a “faux-posh” voice that ends up sounding like Brian Blessed on crack. To be fair, big old BB has done his share of "shout-mercials" but then shouting "Gordon's alive!" is pretty much all he's famous for, so he can be excused for cashing in when a lazy advertising exec comes calling. The rest, however, are the embodiment of all that is wrong and broken in modern society. He who shouts loudest gets the attention of the morons too stupid to find the mute button.

Nobody likes these adverts apart from the voiceover actor himself and his long-suffering mother who is beginning to wonder when her 40-year-old son will finally move out and find a nice girl. 

New for 2012: Ben's Bluster

Remember those tweaks I was talking about in my last post? Well here's one for 2012. A new series of short blogs that I hope I'll manage to stick to throughout the year.

I know, I know, many a post series has flowered and then died on the vine here, but I believe this time will be different. Primarily because I'll be using these posts as a form of therapy. 

On many an occasion I have been referred to as a grumpy young man. Normally of a pleasant disposition, watching television or reading the paper can sour my demeanour and result in longwinded rants. Rants that, once triggered, can't be stemmed until I have made everybody in the vicinity aware of the fact that humanity has begun a violent spiral into chaos and that X-Factor, mispronunciation or any other topic I happen to have been irked by is the cause. 

Rather than sit and stew, however, I thought it would ameliorate my blood pressure and entertain my site's visitors to post such rants as and when they happen. The result of this will be posts under the banner Ben's Bluster.

Starting with the next post on this site, these will be short and, I hope, enjoyable bursts of vitriol concerning a wide range of topics from popular music to politics.

I can feel the knots in my shoulders loosening already...

2012 - It's all about tweaking

Hello to one and all and may I be one of the last, I'm sure, to wish you a very happy new year. Four days into 2012 and I'm already in "resolution mode", plotting out brilliant ideas that I'll more than likely discard before February.

While others plan to lose weight and quit smoking (both resolutions I should try) I tend to come up with wild plans to improve my new year from a work point of view. Whether it's the holiday booze still lingering in my system or the fresh start offered by the first work day in January, I can't help but get caught up in the spirit of change. 

This year, however, I've managed to control myself somewhat. Yes, some of the outlandish strategies I've concocted to rule the media world (without the need for phone hacking) still remain, but I'm more focussed on subtle tweaking than before. As you will have noticed, I didn't opt for a complete website redesign this year as I have in Januarys past. A few font adjustments and gentle alignment shifts are all I felt were needed. The result is time saved and an outcome I'm pleased with. 

Now I want to bring this tweaking to my day-to-day work. I'm happy with the way I write but I want to weed out tired expressions and sloppy sentence structure. Focus on that and I achieve my goal without the need for wholesale change.

I appreciate that, should I completely commit to tweaking, I could end up producing half-arsed work. For example, I'm not planning to try the same technique when finding new clients, performing research or pitching articles. Sometimes, however, tweaks are all you need.

After all, the speed of air travel was improved by making changes to the engine, not trying to do without with the wings. 

A clever Lion tip: Smart file renaming with a drag

I've written before about Lion and its hundreds of new features, many of which you're probably yet to discover. I'm certainly still spotting nifty updates over Snow Leopard and today I came across just such a gem. 

While writing an article for one of my clients, I was working with a set of screen grabs for use in a step-by-step guide, each with a number at the end of the filename. Step 1.png, Step 2.png etc 

During the editing process, I needed to duplicate a file and, rather than using the contextual menu's Duplicate option, I simply held the Alt key and dragged the file I wanted to copy which normally produces the same result, adding the word "copy" to the end of the filename. Now things are different. 

Lion appears to look at the surrounding files in the enclosing folder before it duplicates the file and, where possible, continues the numbering convention. So, where I had five images labelled Step 1 through Step 5, dragging the image in this way created a file called Step 6. 

Now, this wasn't actually what I wanted. I wanted the file to be different to the others in this case and, therefor, should have used the duplicate option. However, in future, quickly duplicating a file and retaining the naming convention is a handy timesaver and one I hope to remember when I need it.  

1. Hold Alt and drag a file within a list of numbered files or folders. 

2. The file produced will be renamed according to the numbered files and folders. 

Disclaimer: Not having a Snow Leopard-based Mac available, I've not been able to check to see if this feature was available before. I'm pretty sure I would have spotted it, but do let me know if I'm wrong.