Today’s San Jose Mercury-News (registration required) reports that Apple is taking another shot at an author who dares to criticize:
John Wiley & Sons, a leading publisher of technology books, said Apple Computer has removed all its titles from the shelves of Apple stores in apparent retaliation for the upcoming publication of a biography of Apple CEO Steve Jobs.
The books disappeared from Apple stores last week after a month of increasingly contentious discussions about publication of the book, “iCon Steve Jobs: The Greatest Second Act in the History of Business,” said author Jeffrey S. Young. The book, co-written with William L. Simon, offers an unflinching account of the rise, fall and rebirth of one of Silicon Valley’s most charismatic figures.
The dust-up with Wiley comes as Apple is embroiled in a legal battle with three Web sites over their right to publish information about unreleased company products. The Cupertino company went to court to discover the source of information leaked to the Apple news sites. Several news organizations, including the Mercury News, have filed a brief in support of the sites’ right to publish. …
Wiley books were not on the shelves of a Newport Beach Apple store Monday. Clerks at 11 other Apple stories said Wiley books were “out of stock” or otherwise unavailable.
The removal of the Macintosh-related titles, including New York Times columnist David Pogue’s popular “Macs for Dummies, 8th Edition” book, reflects the company’s fierce efforts to manage its public image.
I would completely understand if Apple decided not to sell Young’s book in its stores. But applying economic pressure on the publisher in an effort to get them to suppress the book or censor its content is reprehensible and shows a complete lack of respect for its customers. Apple has a completely undeserved reputation as an icon of the counter-culture. Through the years, their actions have been downright Stalinist.
The whole story reminds me of a line from one of my favorite Neville Brothers albums, Brother’s Keeper: “It’s freedom of speech. As long as you don’t try to say too much.”
Update: Welcome, Macsurfer readers. Those who object to the reference to Stalin must have skipped advanced political science and history classes. Here’s a good refresher from Wikipedia:
Stalin argued that … political repression was necessary … Tolerance inside the Party to those who disagreed with the official Party line was called by Stalin “rotten liberalism“. He believed such tolerance would make the Party weak and eventually lead to its destruction. As a result, he argued that purges were sometimes necessary.
Apple doesn’t seem to have a high tolerance for dissent, criticism, and open disagreement.
Update 2: Bob Snow asks “Is it just ego?” and suggests the answer is obvious if you Google for “Steve Jobs angered”. Heh.
Ed Bott 
THis is silly. free speech is about the limits that government can place on speech. If apple wants to pull a book, they’re free to do so because they ain’t a government. Even their suit against Thinksecret doesn’t have much to do with free speech.
and comparing a Corporation to a murderous dictatorship (stalinist russia) is just stupid.
I’m not sure you understand that the first amendment deals only with government censorship of speech. If a publisher pisses off Apple or IBM or Microsoft, none of these companies is under no obligation to carry their books or help them.
Now is it juvenile for Jobs to retaliate by removing all these publisher’s books? Yes. I mean what does he think he’s going to accomplish? STill, it is in no way censorship – censorship is government action, not private action.
I’m well aware that the First Amendment is about the government, and I was careful to not imply that Apple is trying to censor anything. But you’re right. It would have been a better headline to say “Apple vs the spirit of the First Amendment.” On reflection, I changed the headline. Thanks for the suggestion.
Anyway, to call Steve Jobs’ actions “juvenile” is to give him too much credit. He’s stifling reasonable criticism by locking out people whose livelihood depends on Apple’s willingness to accept criticism. He’s punishing people for simply associating in a professional way with someone who displeased him. Apple is putting pressure on a publisher to withhold publication or change the content of a book. That is damn close to censorship, and it is disgusting.
By the way, it will also backfire. I and many other people know about this book now, thanks to Steve’s actions.
I’m a big Mac-fanatic, but I have to say- If WalMart told a record company that they would sell none of their CDs because of one title the company released that had a song badmouthing WalMart, I’d call it economic warfare with the intent to silence dissent.
Censorship? eh, it depends how liberal you are with the definition – I tend to only apply that word when it refers to laws that outlaw a citizen’s attempt at expression, and in this case, I don’t think Apple is going to succeed in preventing this book from being published.
However, just because I might not call it censorship doesn’t mean that it’s okay. At the worst, Apple is sending a message to any vendor that survives on sales off the counters of their stores – “Say something we don’t like, and we won’t sell any of your stuff.” If people didn’t see the cutthroat and bottom-line mentality of Apple already, this will just add one more item to the list for them to be in denial about.
At the least, this is petty retaliation that Apple didn’t need to conduct. They should have simply said, “We aren’t selling your bio of Steve Jobs.”
I love my platform, and I think Apple has more on the ball than most computer companies these days, but public displays of childish temper (or draconian business methods) are going to erode their reputation as the anti-Dell.
Assault? I would hardly call it that. This boycott is a flea biting Wiley’s anckles. This article is more of an assault on my reason especailly as this has already dissolved into “poisioning the well” with references to “Stalinism”. I recall a recent article that Usenet flame wars were over and lost by the side that referenced Nazism.
From the order page for Blogads, linked on your site: “All ads are subject to publisher’s approval.”
If you are such an advocate of free speech, why is approval required? Shouldn’t you allow anyone to say anything they like, even if it might be disagreeable to you? Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
Personally I think Steve really liked the book. His antics since reading it have virtually guaranteed a best seller. I hope the book lives up to the hype.
On another note, his other attacks on the press, as you put it, are more than justified. Apple lives by innovation. If someone steals their trade secrets they are stealing their life blood. Stealing and/or publishing Apple’s trade secrets is breaking the law. The first amendment does not allow one to break the law.
Loomis,
I don’t believe in unbridled freedom of speech. I reserve the right to approve any ad here. I also reserve the right to refuse to publish comments that are offensive or obscene. As I said in the post above, I think Steve Jobs is well within his rights to refuse to sell a book that he feels paints an unfair and inaccurate picture of him.
However, Steve is misusing his economic power and frankly being a bully when he refuses to sell books by other authors who just happen to work for the same publisher. The effect is to deny them a portion of their livelihood and to economically pressure them to influence their publisher.
If you can’t see the difference between these situations, well, I wouldn’t trust you around a pot or a kettle.
My best friend has been a Mac fanatic since the Apple IIE days, and the only real innovation he sees since the original Mac OS is OS X. Making yet another fancy box design isn’t innovation doesn’t help my friend if he has to use his PC to work with Photoshop every day. Many people remember that Jobs was so contentious and wrong in the 1980s that his own company fired him.
The reference to Stalin is apt because it is the nature corporations to control as much information as possible while systematically telling you that you have no control over the situation. Companies like Apple want you to be so afraid to criticize the company (or in this case, Steve Jobs) that you’ll never think about it. If Jeffrey Young’s account is baseless, then Jobs would have no problem rebutting it with one letter. Jobs can vote by banning books, but I’ll vote by banning Apple products in my house and business.
Ed, I love your blog and totally agree with you here, but…As a gay Microsoft employee, I’m a little stumped as to why you have chosen to chime in on an Apple social issue such as this one, but haven’t said a word about the ongoing gay rights fiasco within Microsoft. Or did I miss a post?
The assumption everyone seems to be making is that this book is accurate, though non-flattering, so Jobs is just overreacting and “punishing” the other books from Wiley. But what if the book is factually inaccurate? According to the publisher, they were in talks with Apple about its content. If, for the sake of argument, the book is just plain wrong on the facts but the publisher didn’t care because they thought it would bring in a lot of revenue, then wouldn’t Apple have the right to put economic leverage on the publisher?
First off, I have to say that I agree with the one of the prior posters in asking why no large-scale outrage over Microsofts retreat on Washington states addition of sexual orientation to its discrimination laws. As a non-Washington resident, I just happened to come across this bit of news, and while it received some moderate coverage in various tech related news site and blogs, the mainstream press seems to have dropped the ball. How about some outrage at the ultra-conservative minoritys disproportionate influence (in this case via economic threats, real or imagined).
But, because I have an opinion on everything
I would tend to agree with the general consensus that while Apple is well within its legal rights to discontinue carrying books by Wiley, in the long run it is a childish and potentially damaging move. As far as Apple having a right to put some economic leverage on the publisher, this right exists without the current debacle its an inherent part of capitalism. (Wal-Mart does this all the time with suppliers). The right Apple, or more specifically, Steve Jobs has, if the book is inaccurate or borders on libelous, rests with the courts, an arena with which Apple is quite familiar.
I’ve posted my thoughts on the Microsoft gay rights issue here.