iBookstore Sans Nipples

Some will say that a picture paints a thousand words, and that book jackets sell books.

The Deric Longden ebooks we have published which feature cute kittens on their covers have sold better than those without the cats and with just Deric on their jackets. This is despite these some of these catless books having won film and writing awards. We now actually fear that we have made the mistake on his latest jacket, ‘Radio Times: Take 1.’ in that we haven't put a cute kitten on the jacket.

Apple belief that a jacket image can also be offensive, inappropriate and they continue to impose their own moral code on publishers. As reported in Le Monde, the International Publishers Association has now expressed serious concern about Apple's decision to ban the sale of a French novel because of its cover art. ‘La Femme’, by Bénédicte Martin and published by Editions des Equateurs. As we don't see the jacket above inappropriate we have chosen to ignore Apple's moral code and display it. Apple, considers the image "inappropriate" and has withdrawn the book from its online store.

Apple’s has long held this moral high ground on content it feels inappropriate and rather than age range content, or issuing a warning, it takes the view it that it will ban both the jacket and the work.

The question is not whether the retailer has the right to act this way, they clearly have the right to do so, but whether their taste aligns to that of the market and why they take such a heavy handed and dictatorial approach to the way they enforce it?

Could they not have simply greyed out the jacket image, or offending parts? Effectively banning the book doesn’t diminish its appeal but actually increases its notoriety and appeal to people who would have never heard of it or seen the nipples in question. Do Apple ban books with non-sexual but disturbing jackets, or is it just sexual images that they deem inappropriate? What about the work itself and is their censorship over explicit words, acts or whatever they feel is inappropriate on the day? Some suggest that publishers such respect Apple's viewpoint and design their content and jackets appropriately.

However publishers may decide that it is better to ‘publish and be dammed’ and as a result be censored and potentially get the extra publicity. What is clear in a global market, which is controlled by such a few players (Amazon, Apple, Google, Kobo) is this sort of arbitrary censorship may not reflect all cultures, geographies or genre. It is a dangerous and somewhat a foolish pill to swallow and frankly it can simply act in the opposite manner to what was intended.

Meanwhile, we will make up for the omission of feline models in Deric’s new series when we release ‘Radio Times: Take 3’ later this year. The book jacket which will feature both a fully clothed  Deric and ‘Tigger’, a cat wearing a fur coat and no knickers!

2000 Years of Art but Apple Knows Best - Update

Perhaps sense does prevail in Appleworld after all. We wrote previously about Apple censorship of comic nudity in a new rendition of James Joyce's Ulysses and pointed out that Apple’s obsessive control of content could mean that art as we have known it over the centuries would be banned from the iPad. It was ironic that last night we watch a programme on the Italian Renaissance and the works of the likes of Michelangelo and wondered what those censors would make of these paintings, or for that matter the horrors of other works such as Goya.

Today marks the worldwide celebration of all things Joyce and Ulysses and as if on queue, AppleWorld censors have decided to allow the nude pictures in Throwaway Horse's graphic novel version of the book. The Apple folk had obviously seen the day in the diaries and realised it was a good day to turn a PR nightmare into a quick or quiet win.

The publisher is widely quoted that they have been told by Apple "that they made a mistake in establishing guidelines that were too rigid to allow for artistic growth". "We made a mistake," Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller told the Washington Post, adding that when the comic's art was brought to Apple's attention, it "called the developers and offered them the opportunity to resubmit". "[Ulysses is] now in the store with the original panel drawings," she said.

The Ulysses chapter may now be closed but the questions still remain as to what the censor accepts as acceptable and fit for iPad consumption. The rigid control by geeks reading scripted rules begs the question of how many more times Apple’s rules will be tested before common sense prevails and the effort is redirected to more productive activity.

Apple Speaks, Sees and Hears no Evil

We have seen a number of Apple ‘censorships’ on their iPhone apps and now mobilecrunch.com offers another lurch back into draconian times.

The Ninjawords pocket dictionary, which is a paid for $2 app now has been given a 17+ rating and warnings of potential objectionable content. However the Ninjawords for iPhone omits all the words deemed “objectionable” by Apple’s App Store reviewers, who even apparently censored an ordinary everyday English dictionary. The Ninjawords programming team made users type in entire bad words in order to see them but that’s was enough for Apple censors. They also deleted all offensive entries, but unfortunately missed one and were rejected again. Then finally when full clean were given a 17+ rating!

The stupidity of Apple is one thing but what is being censored or restricted are words. Words many of us use everyday. Words that litter the pages of many a modern classic and are probably found in virtually every new novel. Words we hear everyday in all walks of life.

The issue is not whether Apple is right or wrong but why in a world that supports free speech, has with the exception of liable has removed text censorship we are adopting a policy that would be only applauded in repressed societies, dictatorships and probably appeals to governments who disrespect civil rights?

Apple needs to offer control, choice and stop shooting itself in the foot.