On Sunday, Ed Bott was part of the This Week in Tech panel hosted by Leo Laporte. He cut into another panelists comment about how there are other EULA’s out there that limit the use of software to particular sectors. Ed Bott said that it wasn’t true, ONLY Apple would have the sheer audacity to propose such a thing. Well, he’s just wrong.
Prior to CS4, Adobe’s Student/Educational edition prevented users from producing commercial works. Microsoft Office Home and Student CURRENTLY prevents users from producing commercial works [page 21 of 24 in the English EULA]. That is just two quick looks at EULA’s that Ed Bott suggests he reads so that you don’t have to [his quote on his post about the Apple EULA, not my interpretation].
Ed is just plain wrong. For software, I hardly read the EULA. Why? Because I have no negotiating power to edit it, submit it for acceptance and have a meeting of the minds. A VERY important aspect of creating a contract between two parties. Without it, the contract is void. So, in essence, you either accept the EULA and use the software, or don’t and delete it.
Ed said he has read it multiple times, as per his many edits to his blog post [at least he discloses that]. Currently, he has read it 4 times. But misses the point that Adobe charges $450 for the current plain vanilla version of Photoshop for students and educators, but it allows both to create commercial works. The Microsoft Student edition still requires no commercial compensation for works created by the student edition and that costs around $100 depending on where you go to get it.
Again, only two applications, one an application that allows, but costs several hundred, one that does not and costs around a hundred. Apple iBooks Author is free and is a one stop shop for publishing. The only limit is that it has to go through Apple for sales. One of the largest marketing and distribution machines on the planet. It also costs a certain percentage. Less than publishers, more than free.
Apparently, Mr. Bott wants the software to be free, the publishing, distribution and marketing to be free, the work to be produced on that free software for use anywhere on top of that and for icing on the cake, he wants it to be sold for free too because 30% is way too much for doing everything except writing the work.
He also takes exception to the definition of “work” or “Work” which is just odd. Even calling it shoddy lawyering.
It all smacks of bias and link bait marketing around a new product and service that people have wanted for several years. A quick and easy way to get published without having to submit your work (Work) to a hundred publishers, only to get rejected again and again. Ultimately landing on some good spirit who gives a low ball offer, we’ll call it the inverse relationship to the Apple offering, so 70% goes to the publisher and 30% goes to the author. Then you have to wait for checks, go to book stores for signings [not for fun, but because you have to get out there and show your face], and hope that the publisher pulls their own weight.
Apple promotes the hell out of its foundation product(s), the iPad, iPhone and iPod get TV time. How many publishers do the same?
I think Ed Bott is just plain wrong.