A number of recent exposés have penetrated the slick surface of electronic appliances and the revelations are pretty sickening. The New York Times‘s David Barboza reported on environmental abuses perpetrated by e-book and tablet manufacturers, and in particular Apple.

We have cited what happens to your Kindle, Nook, or iPad when the next generation of e-readers replaced them. “If what’s happening in Europe is any guideline,” we wrote “it will end up in a toxic e-waste landfill in Asia and Africa where the destitute, many of them children, will scavenge it for scrap. These scavengers incur horrifying and often fatal skin, lung, intestinal and reproductive organ ailments from the plastics, metals and gases that go into discarded cell phones, televisions, computers, keyboards, monitors, cables and similar e-scrap.” (See Getting Rid of E-Trash? Dump it on Asia’s Poor)

Just as we think more greenly about energy, it’s time to Think Green about our e-books.  Under pressure from investigative journalists, the secretive Apple corporation has for the first time made available its records concerning its suppliers, and the revelations confirm concerns about the company’s labor practices.  Apple audits, as Nick Winfield and Charles Duhigg reported in the New York Times, “revealed that 93 supplier facilities had records indicating that over half of workers exceeded a 60-hour weekly working limit. Apple said 108 facilities did not pay proper overtime as required by law. In 15 facilities, Apple found foreign contract workers who had paid excessive recruitment fees to labor agencies.And though Apple said it mandated changes at those suppliers, and some showed improvements, in aggregate, many types of lapses remained at general levels that have persisted for years.”

Though this was a good start, labor industry critics didn’t feel Apple’s “supplier responsibility progress report” went far enough, as some of the suppliers,  particularly subcontractors, were not easy to trace, and inadequate measures had been taken to regulate the either contractors or subcontractors. “In the last two years at companies supplying services to Apple, “the Times reporters state, “137 employees were seriously injured after cleaning iPad screens with n-hexane, a toxic chemical that can cause nerve damage and paralysis; numerous workers have committed suicide, or fallen or jumped from buildings in a manner suggesting suicide attempts; and in two separate explosions caused by dust from polishing iPad cases, four were killed and 77 injured.”

To its credit, Apple conducted many more audits in 2011 than previously, resulting in fewer violations, and joined the Fair Labor Association in an initiative to improve conditions for its workers.

Though Apple has taken the brunt of criticism, it is by no means the only manufacturer whose labor practices and environmental controls need to be examined. If similar problems are discovered at the factories where Kindles, Nooks, Sonys and other reading and computing devices are manufactured or where superannuated models are disposed of, the industry must take care of them and include the costs in their price structures even if it means that we have to pay more for our e-book readers.

Read Apple Lists Its Suppliers for 1st Time by Nick Winfield and Charles Duhigg.

Richard Curtis

One significant feature of iBooks2 is that it enables students to create their own books, enhance them with pictures, music, movies, videos, and texts from other sources and publish them, thus “inspiring kids to want to discover and want to learn,” as the Apple executive put it.

All well and good.  But isn’t it likely that the pictures, music, movies, videos, and texts from other sources published in these books will belong to somebody else?

These books will be published, uploaded into the iBooks store and sold there.  Unless the authors clear the rights to that content, such sales may be infringements of someone’s copyrights and Apple will be faced with the same kind of spamming that Kindle is combating.

Apple has the obligation to review the content it posts on the iPad and make sure that it does not infringe on the copyrights of others.  Will Apple have the time and manpower to police countless books and vooks, texts and theses? Not likely.  But surely they will not risk incurring liability for selling stolen goods.

If kids want to discover and learn, then the most important educational tool Apple could offer, as an adjunct to its iBooks2, is a primer on copyright. If Apple doesn’t instruct users on that fundamental legal principle, it will need to create an app for defending itself and its authors against copyright infringement lawsuits.

Richard Curtis

Besides the obvious boost in e-book sales, Amazon’s POD program made a huge difference for this embryonic press. “Our new company publishes titles simultaneously in hardcover and paperback using print-on-demand technology, and e-books. Because our books are nonreturnable, most booksellers will not carry them. Amazon does.”

Though Amazon may not strike many as being in need of friends, Roxburgh feels the behemoth has been excessively vilified. “Not since Hester Prynne walked out of prison with an infant in her arms and ‘a rag of scarlet cloth’ in the shape of the letter A has there been such public hue and cry as Amazon has provoked in the past few weeks,” he declares. “From the point of view of this lunatic fringe publisher, Amazon, with all its glitches and stumbles, is crucial to our success. And I, for one, applaud the innovation and transformation Amazon has brought to the publishing world.”

Okay, that’s one. Anybody want to make it two?

We will. Without Amazon’s retail clout and marketing genius, E-Reads would still be in the dark ages of the 20th century (when it was founded).  We are also happy to shout out our other indispensable partners: BN.com, Ingram, LightningSource, Apple, Sony, Google, Kobo, Diesel, Content Reserve, Baker & Taylor and Fictionwise. In 2011 E-Reads sales exceed $1 million and we could not have done it without them.

For Roxburgh’s full editorial in PW, click here.

Richard Curtis

******************************
Steve Jobs Looks Mortality in the Eye

He is Steve Jobs. Look upon his works, ye Mighty, and despair.

Early in 2009, when Jobs’ was forced to temporarily give up leadership of Apple in order to combat pancreatic cancer, we reminded our readers of Charles De Gaulle’s grim remark: “The graveyards are full of indispensable men.”

“Every business captain,” we said, “needs to post that quotation on the wall in front of his or her desk as a reminder that great leaders must be great delegators. Jobs is as indispensable as corporate heads can possibly be, but adverse health has forced him, as it did De Gaulle, to look at his mortality and relinquish to others tasks that threaten to sap the energy he needs to restore his health.” (See My Irreplaceable You.) Jobs’s medical leave in ’09 was enough to depress the value of Apple’s shares by 2% in the domestic stock market and as much as 7.9% overseas.

And now the day of reckoning has arrived for Steve Jobs and the company he has fashioned like a masterpiece wrought by a modern-day Cellini: today he resigned as CEO, admitting he was no longer able to effectively run it. The reins will be picked up by Chief Operating Office Tim Cook. In his poignant statement Jobs said “I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.”

What will become of Apple? In the Wall Street Journal Yukari Iwatani Kane writes that “People familiar with the situation have said that Mr. Jobs continues to be active at Apple and is closely involved in the company’s product strategy. Apple watchers don’t expect that to change even after Mr. Cook takes over.”

The first test of that statement came today when the stock market opened. The last trade before the announcement on Wednesday August 24th, was $376.18. Overnight, before the market opened today, shares dropped over $12.00 a share. However, it closed at 373.72, an unremarkable drop of $2.46, less than -0.65%‎. This would seem to suggest that sensible investors see that Jobs’s signature on his company is deeply embedded in the quality of its products and service. It doesn’t hurt that in the last quarter Apple reported blowout earnings of over 7.3 billion dollars.

The company is scarcely vulnerable. Its presiding visionary, however, is all too mortal. We wish him godspeed on his journey.

Richard Curtis

Steve Jobs (courtesy of Wikipedia Commons)

But as much as he would like to focus on developing products envisioned by the retiring founder Steve Jobs (who will remain active in the company for as long as he is able), he may first have to shore up the iPad as it comes under fire from rivals seeking a share of Apple’s commanding market for the tablet computer.

In particular Cook will have to deal with Amazon, which is not only developing a tablet of its own but planning to offer it to consumers dirt-cheap.  Amazon has not concealed its strategy of selling its Android-driven gadget at a loss – hundreds of dollars below iPad’s base price of $499 – just to pull the rug out from its competitor, according to Garrett Sloan of the New York Post.

Amazon has a long way to travel to bite into Apple’s 25 million unit lead, but no observer of Amazon would bet against its coming up with a product, a price and a marketing campaign that could close the gap faster than anyone would believe possible. Maybe Jeff Bezos should name the new tablet Orange, to facilitate comparison between Apples and Oranges.

Details in $99 tablets: Price is right

Richard Curtis

Early in 2009, when Jobs’ was forced to temporarily give up leadership of Apple in order to combat pancreatic cancer, we reminded our readers of Charles De Gaulle’s grim remark: “The graveyards are full of indispensable men.”

“Every business captain,” we said, “needs to post that quotation on the wall in front of his or her desk as a reminder that great leaders must be great delegators. Jobs is as indispensable as corporate heads can possibly be, but adverse health has forced him, as it did De Gaulle, to look at his mortality and relinquish to others tasks that threaten to sap the energy he needs to restore his health.” (See My Irreplaceable You.) Jobs’s medical leave in ’09 was enough to depress the value of Apple’s shares by 2% in the domestic stock market and as much as 7.9% overseas.

And now the day of reckoning has arrived for Steve Jobs and the company he has fashioned like a masterpiece wrought by a modern-day Cellini: today he resigned as CEO, admitting he was no longer able to effectively run it.  The reins will be picked up by Chief Operating Office Tim Cook.  In his poignant statement Jobs said “I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.”

What will become of Apple? In the Wall Street Journal Yukari Iwatani Kane writes that “People familiar with the situation have said that Mr. Jobs continues to be active at Apple and is closely involved in the company’s product strategy. Apple watchers don’t expect that to change even after Mr. Cook takes over.”

The first test of that statement came today when the stock market opened. The last trade before the announcement on Wednesday August 24th, was $376.18. Overnight, before the market opened today, shares dropped over $12.00 a share. However, it closed at 373.72, an unremarkable drop of $2.46, less than -0.65%‎. This would seem to suggest that sensible investors see that Jobs’s signature on his company is deeply embedded in the quality of its products and service. It doesn’t hurt that in the last quarter Apple reported blowout earnings of over 7.3 billion dollars.

The company is scarcely vulnerable. Its presiding visionary, however, is all too mortal. We wish him godspeed on his journey.

Richard Curtis

Ultimately, the boss

Which is more effective, an autocracy or a democracy? A monarchy or a republic? A fiat by one person or decision by committee?

That’s the question raised by Randall Stross in the “Digital Domain” feature of the New York Times.  He was referring to opposing business models governing two colossi of the tech world, Apple and Google.  Apple’s model is clearly autocratic, a hierarchy topped by its founding genius Steve Jobs. Google on the other hand operates on more democratic principles where decisions are reached by something like consensus.

“One person is the Decider for final design choices,” Stross writes about Apple. “Not focus groups. Not data crunchers. Not committee consensus-builders. The decisions reflect the sensibility of just one person: Steven P. Jobs, the C.E.O. By contrast, Google has followed the conventional approach, with lots of people playing a role. That group prefers to rely on experimental data, not designers, to guide its decisions.”

Though his analysis is fairly balanced, Stross clearly favors the Apple model for its efficiency in converting its boss’s brainstorms into beautifully modeled, handsomely packaged, brilliantly marketed products, and it would be hard to quarrel with that assessment.  But he has omitted one downside factor that balances, and maybe outweighs, all the flaws in Google’s groupthink approach to decision-making.  If – when – something happens to Jobs, what will become of Apple?

Early in 2009, when the indispensable Jobs’ was forced to temporarily give up leadership to combat pancreatic cancer, we reminded our readers of Charles De Gaulle’s grim remark: “The graveyards are full of indispensable men.”

“Every business captain,” we said, “needs to post that quotation on the wall in front of his or her desk as a reminder that great leaders must be great delegators. Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, is as indispensable as corporate heads can possibly be, but adverse health has forced him, as it did De Gaulle, to look at his mortality and relinquish to others tasks that threaten to sap the energy he needs to restore his health.” (See My Irreplaceable You.) Jobs’s medical leave in ’09 was enough to depress the value of Apple’s shares by 2% in the domestic stock market and as much as 7.9% overseas.

We need to look at the Apple strongman’s mortality and see beyond today. Though he has populated his company with gifted managers, Apple’s fate might well be encapsulated in the bon mot uttered by another brilliant and indispensable autocrat, choreographer Georges Ballanchine: “Après moi le board”.

“At Apple,” says stross, “one is the magic number.” But one is succeeded by an infinite string of numbers, and whether all of them add up to the effectiveness of Apple’s Number One in creating and producing astounding technical wonders, we will inevitably find out.

The Auteur vs. the Committee by Randall Stross.

Richard Curtis

The ticks are back at work, falling this time on the neck of a colossus, Apple. It seems that J.T. Colby and Co., the firm that purchased the assets of bankrupt publisher Byron Preiss, is aggrieved that Preiss long ago cornered the term “iBooks” and Apple’s use of it “is likely to overwhelm the good will of plaintiffs’ ‘ibooks’ and ‘ipicturebooks’ marks and render them virtually worthless.”

Preiss did in fact publish e-books under those monikers and, according to Steven Musil reporting on cnetnews.com, took out a patent “for science fiction books.” However, a search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office indicates that the patent is “listed as abandoned as of 2003.,” writes Musil.

“Another USPTO search,” he goes on to say, “reveals an Apple filing for iBook in 2010 that describes ‘software for reading electronic publications on digital electronic devices.’”

So it looks like the ticks have their work cut out for them. Often these things end up in quiet settlements, so we may never know the upshot, but if we hear of anything arising out of Apple sued over its use of ‘iBook’ we’ll get back to you.

Richard Curtis

That’s what happened when a music student named Edward W. Guo, examining the high price of music scores, looked into the tedious and expensive process of buying scores for musical performances. “The site, the Internet Music Score Library Project, has trod in the footsteps of Google Books and Project Gutenberg and grown to be one of the largest sources of scores anywhere,” writes Daniel Wakin in the New York Times.  “It claims to have 85,000 scores, or parts for nearly 35,000 works, with several thousand being added every month. That is a worrisome pace for traditional music publishers, whose bread and butter comes from renting and selling scores in expensive editions backed by the latest scholarship. More than a business threat, the site has raised messy copyright issues and drawn the ire of established publishers.”

You can visit and, if you’re clever, download a score directly into your laptop or iPad as the Borromeo Quartet does. The pages are turned on the touchscreen the same way that you turn the pages of an iPad e-book.  Some laptops are equipped with a footpad that you tap to turn the page.

Free Trove of Music Scores on Web Hits Sensitive Copyright Note by Daniel J. Wakin in the New York Times.

Richard Curtis

Every Blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers and magazines. This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by the New York Times.

To place this news in context, last year we wrote the following story, Random Goes Rogue:

Random House will go against the recent rush by its Big Six buddies to the “agency” e-book retail model recently introduced by Apple.

Apple’s approach is for publishers to retain control over the list price, rather than allowing the list price to be pegged by the e-tailer, as is currently employed by Amazon. It also allows publishers flexibility in timing release of e-books – delaying them rather than releasing them simultaneously with publication of hardcover editions.

The move to the Apple model by three major houses spearheaded by Macmillan was the cause of a controversy that triggered removal of Macmillan’s buy buttons by Amazon for a week, at the end of which the e-book retailing landscape was altered, possibly forever. (For background see Apple Promoting a New (and Radical!) Model for Selling E-Books? and Publishing’s Weekend War: 48 Hours that Changed an Industry.)

Random’s decision is based on two approaches to e-book publishing that are at odds with the philosophy of at least three of its fellow publishers. A RH spokesperson voiced the opinion that publishers “have no real experience at setting retail prices.” That explains why Random held back from embracing Apple’s iPad tablet. The other reason is timing of e-book releases. “Our current policy is we release e-books at the same time as physical books,” she said. “I haven’t been convinced that it’s good for the author or consumer to delay the release.”

You can read details here: Random House sides with Amazon, e-book readers on pricing

Random’s press release is reprinted in full below.

STATEMENT FROM RANDOM HOUSE, INC. REGARDING ITS U.S. E-BOOK SALES MODEL

“Random House, Inc. is adopting the agency model for e-book sales in the United States effective March 1, 2011. Going forward, Random House will set consumer prices for the e-books we publish, and we will provide retailers with a commission for each sale. There are no changes to our terms of sale for physical books.

“The agency model guarantees a higher margin for retailers than did our previous sales terms. We are making this change both as an investment in the successful digital transition of our existing partners and in order to give us the opportunity to forge new retail relationships.

“We are looking forward to continuing to work with all our retail partners – both digital and physical — on our joint mission to connect our authors with as many readers as possible, in whatever format they prefer.”

Richard Curtis