Disappointing initial results from Old Media
Slader, a collaborative online educational service that provides academic resources for high school students, compared conventional textbooks with the initial iBooks offered by the same publishers and noted, "Itâs akin to reading a PDF copy of the printed textbooks that exist in classrooms today. The interactive features promised are virtually nonexistent. Beyond the usual iPad features (highlighting and in-page definitions), thereâs nothing new included in the publishersâ math iBooks."
The site added, "Provided with the opportunity and tools to create a ground-breaking learning experience for students, the established textbook companies took an easy route. Given first dibs at a new, revolutionary platform, they chose to push the same stale content."
It then concluded, "the most exciting piece of Appleâs announcement this past week revolves around the ability for anyone to author a textbook; Apple has provided the tools and distribution network to develop content that far surpasses the current offerings. New authors could easily exceed the publishersâ low standards. Is that enough to shake up the textbook market?"
Individual reviews of iBookstore textbooks also conveyed a general disappointment. "Pretty poor showing for a launch of the new interactive iBooks," one reviewer complained about DK's "My First ABC" title for children. "I can't believe this is the poster child for interactive book debut. There's nothing to interact with!" another said.
A red flag for conventional book publishers
The initial iPhone apps that debuted in the App Store in 2008 and the first iPad apps introduced in 2010 were both largely impressive right from the start. The difference here is that iBooks are being created by non-programmers who are accustomed to creating books, and particularly books that have limited competition in a market that doesn't change very quickly.
That suggests conventional book publishers have more in common with the music labels and movie studios, who hesitantly tiptoed into iTunes with the horrified terror of a cat being forced to take a bath. Software developers, in contrast, pounded on Apple's door to demand that it let them make cool software.
This further suggests that, while Apple can eventually turn the publishing industry into a modern industry capable of delivering innovative, dynamic content, the company also has the potential to expand the technology behind iBooks Author to deliver more general purpose titles, ranging from comic books to fiction to even subscription content along the lines of magazines and blogs.
Apple focused on delivering subscription content for iPad users last year, but it targeted setting up a business model for publishers rather than giving them the tools to develop their content. The result was that publishers attempted to deliver static PDFs, exported Flash content, or essentially giant photos of their magazine pages, rather than investing the effort to actually develop dynamic new content.
Amazon has experienced similarly problems in trying to push publishers to deliver dynamic, interactive subscription content for its Kindle platform, with many reviews of the Kindle Fire complaining that magazine content was virtually unusable on the device.
The company's initial focus on producing high school textbooks makes the most sense for an initial effort, but after gaining a foothold, Apple appears poised to revolutionize how interactive publishing is done, taking a clear swipe at Adobe.
Segment three looks at how iBooks threatens to leverage web standards to not only replace Flash, but also to replace conventional page layout with dynamic, web-based technologies.
40 Comments
Well, that's that. Apple has failed and no one will use this system in the future to make things better.
Publishers will shy away from the system entirely and it will be looked at by its competitors with a half-turn and a smug smile before they go back to their business.
Well, that's that. Apple has failed and no one will use this system in the future to make things better.
Publishers will shy away from the system entirely and it will be looked at by its competitors with a half-turn and a smug smile before they go back to their business.
While I appreciate what you're insinuating - that of course this isn't the end of the line and the initial use of a V1 product doesn't mean the idea or intent is wrong - I can also appreciate what the reviewers of the books on iTunes are saying. Apple is the kind of company where you just expect them to show their best and prove why you want their stuff. It sounds like this time they didn't quite do it, at least not yet. They just chose poorly, and the first batch of books doesn't prove to people what iBooks 2 can really do, or what they wished it could do.
You would have thought Apple would have screened the books and gone back to the publishers saying - "Hey, you can do better. You're not using our technology well. We want you to wow these people!"
I guess maybe they realized the books weren't that great and that's why they only really showed Life on Earth.
Well, that's that. Apple has failed and no one will use this system in the future to make things better.
Publishers will shy away from the system entirely and it will be looked at by its competitors with a half-turn and a smug smile before they go back to their business.
Doomed. If Steve Jobs was still with us, this wouldn't be allowed to happen. He would demand PERFECTION from these launch titles.
Don't worry. Interactive books are still pretty new. It'll take authors a while to get the hang of it.
Well, I was wondering what bad news would crop up before the earnings numbers to ratchet them back from all new highs. I wonder if this is enough though...
You would have thought Apple would have screened the books and gone back to the publishers saying - "Hey, you can do better. You're not using our technology well. We want you to wow these people!
That's probably exactly what happened.
But who is going to pay for this?
Creating interactive content on every page, is very expensive. And I doubt school book publishers have the content already available in a form that could be used interactively 'as is'.
Classic chicken and egg situation.
Apple: Publishers, please updated your books with interactivity - to make books more interesting and sell more.
Publishers: We don't even know how many people will use these new textbooks. Let's frist sell them and make some money, then we can pay for making them interactive.Apple is the only one losing out here. If their effort fails, this will tarnish their image.
If publishers fail to sell interactive books, well, they just go back to their old ways of selling real books. They don't care.So you could argue Apple should have paid for this. At least the first round.
With all the billions in their bank Apple could have given each publisher a one or two book 'starter pack' where Apple helps to create interactive content and pays for it.
Shame they didn't do that.