Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Publisher Wiley's Books Pulled from Apple Stores

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the unhappy-campers dept.

Books 677

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 ..."

cancel ×

677 comments

referrer in amazon link? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355090)

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]

Re:referrer in amazon link? (1)

fourtyfive (862341) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355141)

Or more likely than it being a referrer (IF you actually took a look at that google you'd see that their is NO WAY that someone could post all of those with their refferer ID...) It's probably a REFerence Number of some sort.

Re:referrer in amazon link? (1, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355158)

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...

Re:referrer in amazon link? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355177)

I'd like to know who I'm supporting. So, yes, it does matter.

Re:referrer in amazon link? (3, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355273)

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.

Re:referrer in amazon link? (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355392)

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.

Re:referrer in amazon link? (1)

Eric(b0mb)Dennis (629047) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355174)

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

Re:referrer in amazon link? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355305)

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. ;)

Re:referrer in amazon link? (5, Informative)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:referrer in amazon link? (5, Insightful)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355429)

"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.

Rosebud! (5, Funny)

SYFer (617415) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355091)

"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."

eff pee (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355092)

First pwned. Haha for teh jobz.

I see the new titles already (4, Funny)

EverDense (575518) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355419)

Pissing off Major IT Corporations for Dummies. Character Assassination for Dummies. Making Bad Business Decisions for Dummies.

First?!?!?! First!?!?!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355094)

First?

Irony... (5, Interesting)

soapbox (695743) | more than 9 years ago | (#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... (1)

espek (797676) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355330)

Can you provide a link? I can't seem to find it.

Re:Irony... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355386)

part 1 [2600.com]

You want:
part 2 [2600.com]

Re:Irony... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355401)

Can you provide a link? I can't seem to find it.

Gee, did you sprain something looking? It's the first Google hit for "hope keynote 2004 mp3"

If he doesn't like the spotlight (5, Insightful)

Belzu (735378) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355100)

....He should step away from it....

Re:If he doesn't like the spotlight (4, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355138)

... all this does is shine a REALLY BIG spotlight on it ...

Another example of the law of unintended consequences. Mr. Jobs, meet Mr. Murphy. He also has a law you should know about.

Jobs replies (3, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355220)

Mr. Jobs, meet Mr. Murphy. He also has a law you should know about.

Mr. Murphy, meet the Apple Legal Department. They know a thing or two about interpreting the law to my advantage.

Re:If he doesn't like the spotlight (3, Funny)

suyashs (645036) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355251)

I heard he refuses to install Tiger and insists on running Mac OS X 10.3.9...

Re:If he doesn't like the spotlight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355315)

Guess no one else caught the humor in this as it referes to the new spotlight functionality in OS X.4

The private life of public figures. (4, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355101)


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.

Re:The private life of public figures. (2, Interesting)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355175)

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.

Re:The private life of public figures. (3, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355257)

for a publisher of tech manuals to start putting out this kind of celebrity drivel is bad form
As long as O'Reilly doesn't start doing that shit ... I really don't want to read "Steve Jobs in a Nutshell" or "The Steve Jobs Cookbook".

Re:The private life of public figures. (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355374)

As long as O'Reilly doesn't start doing that shit ...

For the User Friendly [userfriendly.org] plug-of-the-day: Try reading Evil Geniuses In A Nutshell [oreilly.com] . The Steve Jobs version isn't too far behind. :P

Re:The private life of public figures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355198)

it is legally established that public figures dont have as much privacy, they still have some. but if someone wants to right a book about their illness. that is no longer their choice.

you become a public figure, you choose to be PUBLIC.

Re:The private life of public figures. (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355424)

Yes a "public' figure who "works for" the public is under scrutiny but I fail to see how a business man or those celebrities are "required" to give up their privacy in their "private" lives. Are they "at" work 24/7? No.

This is precisely why some actors prefer to work on locations in Canada because we treat them like "people".

I remember when Jennifer Love Hewitt was filming close to our office last summer. It was definitely a distraction to be sure but I was not start struck by her.

I did like how she looked in the short dress she wore however. She was just another hot chick to me.

Re:The private life of public figures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355246)

It's true that public figures can have private lives. However, the ability for them to defend themselves from intrusions into their privacy is diminished by the Supreme Court. So people who want to pry can certainly get away with more.

C'mon, if someone can do something, and somebody else doesn't want you to do it, then it's probably going to get done.

Re:The private life of public figures. (5, Insightful)

fname (199759) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355283)

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.

Re:The private life of public figures. (2, Interesting)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355359)

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 consequences from their own actions.

And Apple (last I checked) is not a government - if they want don't want to support X, it's entirely up to them. Also, this is not bullying (which is a first-action thing - ie: the agressor is the instigator), this is retaliation (ie: defence) and I for one have no problem with it.

Simon

Steve Jobs & Apple aren't synonymous (5, Interesting)

fname (199759) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355442)

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.

Re:Steve Jobs & Apple aren't synonymous (5, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355459)

I concede the point :-)

Simon.

Re:The private life of public figures. (3, Insightful)

Fulkkari (603331) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355445)

Steve Jobs is not Apple.

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

Re:The private life of public figures. (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355313)

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 something to hide and dig deeper. And if you are not, people write books on you. Yay, thank God for choices.

Re:The private life of public figures. (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355387)

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

Had to chuckle :-)

Simon

Re:The private life of public figures. (0)

js7a (579872) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355438)

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.
On the contrary, those aren't his bookstores, they are the shareholders', and to cut their profits by removing an entire publisher's line of books because of a personal vendetta indicates that Jobs has put his personal preferences above his fiducidary duty. Frankly, now that MacOS is Unix, why do we even need Jobs anymore? Wouldn't he be better off making movies full time?

Someone call Al Gore.

Re:The private life of public figures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355446)

Money-grubbing publishing house? What about the poor schmucks (like me) who will get fewer sales for the books we wrote for Wiley because of this? Steve Jobs is taking food from my kid's mouth, not Wiley.

Re:The private life of public figures. (2, Insightful)

bataras (169548) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355455)

>>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.

*his* bookstores? Where?

Re:The private life of public figures. (0)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355456)

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 ?

That Apple would not carry THAT book?

As an Apple shareholder I do not see how this move, in any way benefits me. All I see is that Apple is turning away customers with hard green cash in hand for some arbitrary reason. It isn't like Jobs has some grand plan, the way he did when he killed the mac clone market. I don't see the Apple Press publishing equivalent-or-better titles. All I see is good money going to some other merchant, and now after all of this hullabaloo, even MORE money going to other merchants.

Re:The private life of public figures. (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355486)

[sigh] I'm a shareholder too. I think the principle is important - that the gutter press don't take over the rest of the publishing world - our worldviews obviously differ.

And I very much doubt anything was done improperly. I would guess SJ called a board meeting and it was voted on fairly and squarely.

As for not carrying THAT book alone - that's a decision for Apple. They took it and they'll bear the consequences - see my point about actions and consequences earlier.

Simon.

Funny you should mention this (1, Offtopic)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355104)

A few days ago, my company's VP of Systems (read: head of IT) and I were walking back from lunch when we got on the subject of GarageBand and then Macintoshes. My good friend the VP stated that he absolutely loved the design of the new Mac Minis. The damn things were so functional, and yet so cheap. He'd setup several of these for relatives and they had all loved them. Anyway, as we were talking, we came to the conclusion that Steve Jobs may be an asshole, but at least he's a brilliant asshole!

A tribute. [wavlist.com] ;-)

Re:Funny you should mention this (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355243)

The damn things were so functional, and yet so cheap.

The original Macs reversed completely! :)

Re:Funny you should mention this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355271)

Steve Jobs may be an asshole, but at least he's a brilliant asshole!

Why do I think of gerbil?

Re:Funny you should mention this (1)

slantyyz (196624) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355369)

This is offtopic, but to rebut the parent...

The damn things were so functional

Yeah, try using iPhoto on a Mac Mini with a library of over 2000 images and make a photo book with about 175 images, and you'll know the definition of pain.

Before any Mac advocates flame me to kingdom come, my Mac Mini has a gig of ram, and still, iPhoto runs like a pig and crashes every 15 minutes while I try to create my book. I bought the Mac Mini to avoid having to use a Windows-esque hack or workaround, and here I am, having to consider a workaround (i.e., segmenting the library size or using some other app) to make iPhoto workable.

It's amazing how something with such great usability (iPhoto) can totally suck ass in terms of performance. In all fairness, I don't blame the Mac Mini - it actually doesn't strike me as a slow machine - I blame the iPhoto development team.

Silly me (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355108)

And I thought the Book of Jobs was all about putting up with suffering without complaint.

Book of Job? .. Oops.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355109)

This is pure marketing genius. It is almost certain now that iCon will be a bestseller.

I wonder how much Wiley secretly paid apple to ban their books.

hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355110)

Guess he doesn't like people taking bites outta his Apple.

I hope Steve "Rim" Jobs dies of cancer. Soon. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355116)

Subject says it all.

Two words. (4, Insightful)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355117)

Publicity. Stunt.

Two words-Proprietary Image. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355378)

Two more:

Larry McVoy.

Repeat after me (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#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. :-(

no you repeat after me (1)

hildi (868839) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355249)

the spirit of freedom of speech is more important than the law of it

Re:Repeat after me (2, Interesting)

ensignyu (417022) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355312)

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 point of a boycott, although this case is more symbolic than anything -- then I'd say there ought to be a really good reason for it.

Re:Repeat after me (2, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355425)

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

They're trying to forcefully strongarm the actions of another company. In this case it isn't even for corporate self-interests, but rather for someone's ego, which makes it all the more insidious. Customers should be aware of this sort of coercion (which I think is the whole reason why this is news).

In the case of the instances that you provided, GM overtly changing advertising based upon the friendliness of reviews is a disturbing precedent, and it undermines the credibility of anything positive stated about them (in my town, a suburb of a large metropolitan, the local paper is nothing but recast fawning fluff press releases, and beside each one are ads from the respective companies). Maybe that's just fair business, but when you're hoping for a critical, honest press that isn't a great thing.

Further, it looks like there's a referrer in the submitter's amazon link. :-(

I would really love to know what is going through people's heads when they complain about something like this. Seriously, so what? Would it be better for you if it contained no referral, the only difference being that Amazon makes more? Unless you're an Amazon shareholder, I don't get what the issue is (unless it's jealousy).

Re:Repeat after me (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355464)

I think the referral link raises the chance of a conflict of interest. It can also be seen as a strong potential for astroturfing, where one could make up a fluff story and slyly put in a referral link in the submission. Not that either matter on Slashdot anymore, I think the chances of any story submission being unbiased and not being an ad is an all-time low now.

Re:Repeat after me (1)

RussR42 (779993) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355481)

Perhaps because the Amazon ref suggests that this is not "news".

Re:Repeat after me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355439)

There's a big difference between pulling advertising and pulling the whole product. And since when does Steve Jobs's disagreement with Wiley become Apple's?

Keep pouring gasoline on the fire, Steve. I was almost about to buy a Mini, but maybe you won't personally like them tomorrow.

Here we go again... (0, Flamebait)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355119)

Everytime Jobs regain power in the industry, he becomes an asshole again.

Re:Here we go again... (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355146)

Everytime Jobs regain power in the industry...

And this happens how often?

You make it sound as if it's practically every other day.

It seems to me that he's "regained power" once.

Re:Here we go again... (2, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355224)

It seems to me that he never lost power. Pixar and NeXT anyone? Not only did Jobs then return to Apple, but his previous company (NeXT) went from near failure to completely taking over Apple.

He may be an asshole, but his persistence pays off. And while a lot of people complained about working for him (and even demonized him in "Pirates of Silicon Valley), the real engineer's accounts seem to simply say that he didn't suffer fools gladly. The Mac team seemed to genuinely like him.

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355236)

Surely he reigns the throne daily. I myself and many people I know have movements, almost daily!

If he is as big an asshole as everyone says he is, he must gain mighty reigns on many magnificient thrones, almost daily!

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355150)

No, it's just that those old Jobs Mind Tricks only work on the foolish and weak-willed.

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355436)

Dude,

Could you try harder to be a moron? Nice try, but SCO and their antics have you beat.

Give up and go home.

The Macintosh Bible (1)

Pingsmoth (249222) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355120)

This book has always been one of the most comprehensive Macintosh references out there. Strange that Apple would pull it. Hrmmm...

Heh (-1, Troll)

Eric(b0mb)Dennis (629047) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355129)

!!!!

oh NO now all the hoards of people who go to apples stores to buy books won't be able to purchase it with his new $400 toy

Steve Jobs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355137)

Waaaaaa! Look, if you're gonna be a public figure, you'd better be prepared to take the good with the bad. The dickhead shouldn't be making decisions that will hurt his shareholders just because the world will find out he wet his bed at until he was 15. Don't like it? Get out of the public eye, and quit giving keynotes at all those expos with that swarmy smile and stupid turtlenecks.

Apple is the new Micro$oft (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355142)

Maybe the famous "1984" commercial should now only be played in reverse.

Re:Apple is the new Micro$oft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355178)

Hey look, you replaced the S with $. How inginuitive.

Never let the truth .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355153)

get in the way of a good story.

Jobs is not nice .. Stealing all of Redmond's ideas ..

mwahahahahahahahaha ...

Bill Gates and Microsoft (4, Insightful)

dgmckay (757282) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

You don't understand (2, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355239)

It's different when Apple pulls something like this.

It's much.... snappier.

Re:Bill Gates and Microsoft (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355280)

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 - and I've used a lot.

Simon.

Re:Bill Gates and Microsoft (1)

mccoma (64578) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355304)

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 something useful - like when will the PowerMac have PCI-Express?

Apple==Steve Jobs? (2, Informative)

mah! (121197) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355189)

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.

Good thing they didn't criticize a politican (4, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355199)

They'd have all their books banned from the Library of Congress.

I wonder if that's what Sen. Trist meant by "Nuclear Option"?

Re:Good thing they didn't criticize a politican (0, Offtopic)

Kevin Nichols (775719) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355266)

It's Frist, for the love of God.

Ugh (0, Offtopic)

CarlinWithers (861335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355202)

I'm loathe to post this in another thread, but no one bothered to reply to me before.

In the Paul Thurott article that calls Longhorn "not positive at all" (see slashdot posting a few hours ago), he also drops this bombshell: This one's bizarre, but we heard at lunch today that Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible cheaps this very year. Yeah, seriously.

Can anyone confirm or deny this for me? Am I just an idiot to be worried about this? PowerPC architecture is as much a reason to love Macs as OSX in my opinion.

Re:Ugh (1)

doormat (63648) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355319)

Actually I heard (unreliable) rumors that the new Core* items can be compiled and run on x86 chips with little or no modification.

Re:Ugh (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355368)

I'm guessing that would be no freaking way. Apple moving to Intel would be huge. It ain't happening.

Re:Ugh (1)

GizmoToy (450886) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355426)

Sounds to me like a known Microsoft booster attempting to create doubt in a competitor's product by claiming it will be obsolete in less than a year. We all know how well Apple guards their secrets, the chances of Thurott leading something this big are slim to none.

There are rumors that OS X will in fact run on x86 machines, and is kept up to date, along with a seperate sort of "Classic" mode VirtualPC type thing that allows translation from PPC to x86 (so your old programs will still work). A friend of mine that worked at Apple for awhile only smirked at my mention of it, and would neither confirm nor deny.

Apple, in my opinion, will stay with IBM as long they keep producing quality chips. Sure they had some problems with their new fab process, but a minor slip-up is no reason to dump them. Especially when it requires such a radical change.

hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355207)

Its a positive book!

Called, uh, iCon. It took me til just not to read that as Icon and not iCon. Maybe I am just stupid.

reminds me of that movie (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355209)

anybody here see "pirates of silicon valley" or whatever it was called, the story about the rise of Bill Gates & Steve Jobs ? I know it's just a movie and maybe it's not true in every detail but that one scene where Jobs is tossing out frisbees to all his minions on the beach was pretty spooky, 'Power hungry Megalomanic!' Is what I was thinking at the time.. seems I was right.

street cred (0)

NoGuffCheck (746638) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355214)

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 ..."

Jobsies bad ass street cred is on the line.. Wiley should feel lucky he didnt get stabbed!

Revenge (1)

kongjie (639414) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355218)

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... (2, Informative)

vocaro (569257) | more than 9 years ago | (#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] .

first bush now jobs (1)

hildi (868839) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355237)

people need to chill out. malda btw would do the same as bush/jobs

Get off steve's back (2, Insightful)

higgo6 (645437) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355238)

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.

Re:Get off steve's back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355345)

But his picture on the cover of that book makes him look like a street person. I think I saw him sleeping on the sidewalk in San Francisco a few weeks ago.

And people actually think Jobs is (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355241)

Smarter than Gates? Were that so, why is Jobs holding on to a puny 3% market share? Jobs is a nutbag, incapable of seeing past his ego anymore. Apples are pretty toys, but real men use Windows.

Re:And people actually think Jobs is (1)

CarlinWithers (861335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355293)

Please, get it right: Real men program in hex.

look at the title (2, Insightful)

spir0 (319821) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355242)

everyone seems to have missed one vital piece of information.. the title of the book is iCon.

nuff said.

Icon or iCon... (4, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355244)

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.

Re:Icon or iCon... (1)

mccoma (64578) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355382)

Yeah, your a successful CEO and someone puts the word "Con" in the title of a book about you - not good in today's climate. I cannot imagine how the book could go uphill from there.

Could be worse (1)

jefedesign (869140) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355253)

I've read books that were about a particular person and that were also meant to show them in a positive light... well let me tell you, it was a wonder these books weren't outlawed. Steve, buddy, I think you're overreacting, but you have a rep to preserve as well.

Wil E coyote? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355375)

So this is Wiley's account, which of course, should stimulate sales of the book.

Most publishers require that resellers take stock that's offered, since they don't want their authors individually censored. (For instance, your local magazine store may find it has to take Penthouse even though it only wants Car and Driver. )

It wouldn't surprise me to find that Jobs didn't want to take a title that can be read as calling him a "con man," and Wiley said, "It's all or nothing," knowing they don't sell volume through the Apple stores -- much cheaper to buy at Amazon -- and the publicity could only help. Of course, the story goes about Apple pulling the inventory, because that the story Wiley puts out. They carefully don't say what the negotiations were.

I think it would bother me more if... (5, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355411)

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.

I Love My Mac, But... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12355435)

I'm glad I don't work at Apple!

So whats in it that bothers him ???? (1)

zymano (581466) | more than 9 years ago | (#12355475)

What's the real story ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...