'I received an email from Apple’s iBookstore that How To Think Sideways—Lesson 6: How to Discover (or Create) Your Story’s Market has been pulled for containing links to a “Competing Website” and that in order to have the lesson put back on sale, I’ll have to remove the offending links.'
I'm strongly inclined to believe that she is being truthful and fair in representing that received email based on her tone and responses in the comments [at least] of her site. She seems only concerned with allowing students using Apple products to buy an uncrippled/non-bawdlerised product.
>I doubt just saying the word "Amazon" can really be an instant rejection //
Indeed, it appears she links to Amazon in the ebook as that is [she says] the only place that one can learn the technique she is teaching.
Edit:
Apologies I think I went in too soon with that comment. It appears it is much worse for Apple:
Quoting Ms Lisle again (http://hollylisle.com/apple-made-its-decision-my-turn/?awt_l...) 'You don’t tell someone “The problem is the live links,” and then, when that person has complied with your change request and removed the live links, turn around and say, “No, no. The problem is the CONTENT. You can’t mention Amazon in your lesson.'
So it sounds like she complied by removing links and then they told her it wasn't the links but the content.
There's a difference between believing someone's honesty and trusting someone's interpretation. I believe she's being honest; that she is telling the truth as she sees it. But I would like to judge for myself what Apple said.
Verily. Here interpretative skills don't appear to be impaired (see her comments on [paraphrasing] 'this is not censorship it's business practice') and there is so little to interpret in being asked [initially] to remove only live links in order to get an ebook allowed that I can't readily see how it's an issue of objectivity. Hence my inclination towards trusting her presentation of the situation.
My initial thought was that it might be affiliate links she'd included but then her failure to mention such a thing would be brazen dishonesty IMO and not [accidental] situational interpretative failure or simple bias.
I think it's more likely than not that her interpretation would agree with mine, but it's still an unknown. The parent post of this thread was asking if we could remove that unknown, so I think it's quite reasonable.
Book file contains links from competitors: Amazon,
in the chapter Q&A 6, under “Question 9″
From there, She claims:
As noted, however, I HAD changed the lesson, HAD removed
the links, HAD complied with their request. Since the
links were gone, their only possible objection—NOT STATED
—was content.
There is no way for us to verify whether she removed all those links. Even if she did, I can think of explanations that are at least as likely (e.g. human error on either side) as the conclusion she IMO jumps to.
Disclaimer: I have zero experience dealing with the iBookStore.
'I received an email from Apple’s iBookstore that How To Think Sideways—Lesson 6: How to Discover (or Create) Your Story’s Market has been pulled for containing links to a “Competing Website” and that in order to have the lesson put back on sale, I’ll have to remove the offending links.'
I'm strongly inclined to believe that she is being truthful and fair in representing that received email based on her tone and responses in the comments [at least] of her site. She seems only concerned with allowing students using Apple products to buy an uncrippled/non-bawdlerised product.
>I doubt just saying the word "Amazon" can really be an instant rejection //
Indeed, it appears she links to Amazon in the ebook as that is [she says] the only place that one can learn the technique she is teaching.
Edit:
Apologies I think I went in too soon with that comment. It appears it is much worse for Apple:
Quoting Ms Lisle again (http://hollylisle.com/apple-made-its-decision-my-turn/?awt_l...) 'You don’t tell someone “The problem is the live links,” and then, when that person has complied with your change request and removed the live links, turn around and say, “No, no. The problem is the CONTENT. You can’t mention Amazon in your lesson.'
So it sounds like she complied by removing links and then they told her it wasn't the links but the content.