By Dan Moren

August 28, 2024 7:09 AM PT

Apple job cuts in Books are turning the page in the wrong direction

The next chapter of Apple Books’s life is looking a little bleak.

In a report at Bloomberg (paywalled, naturally), Mark Gurman says that the company has laid off about a hundred people, primarily in the team behind Apple Books and the Apple Bookstore.

Apple Books has become less of a priority for the company, which doesn’t see it as a major part of its services lineup. The Books app is still expected to get new features over time, according to the people.

Books has long been a weird business for Apple. The company made a big push back at the time of its introduction to try and steal market share from Amazon, courting publishers with terms that included better prices and an agency model split. It subsequently got slapped by the Department of Justice for some ill-advised business decisions related to that pricing, and then seemingly got scared off from trying anything in the market ever again.

Which is a shame, because in the intervening years Amazon has only continued to consolidate its market share and desperately needs a serious competitor to shake things up.

Sharing a little of my own data here: I’ve self-published my own short stories across most major ebook market places. Amazon makes up the bulk of those downloads and sales—53 percent and 66 percent, respectively. Apple comes in a solid second place in sales, with 21 percent, and third place in downloads with 11 percent.¹ My literary agency has also published my novel All Souls Lost in ebook across those platforms, and Apple Books sales are also in second there, accounting for 18 percent of sales to 63 percent for Amazon.

I suspect my numbers are probably skewed by the fact that my audience—that’s you all reading this, in large part—are overrepresented by users of Apple products.² That said, to my eyes, Apple has managed to achieve itself a comfortable, if distant second place in ebooks without really spending much in the way of time and effort. Which perhaps explains why they’re looking to cut costs and reduce focus—if the business works “fine” as is, then why invest more?

My disappointment stems from the fact that Apple is better positioned and equipped than anyone else in the industry to take on Amazon head-to-head in ebooks. But doing so would require the company to do something different. And I don’t mean its misguided attempts to reinvent the reading experience as it’s tried in the past—most avid readers are pretty happy with their the way they consume books.

One move would, obviously, be for Apple to release its own dedicated e-reader device with an e-ink screen. Kindles and Kobos are so successful because they replicate several of the best things about physical books—high contrast screens that are easy to read in all conditions, long-lasting battery life, and extreme light weight and portability—while bringing plenty in the way of convenience—to wit, a nearly infinite amount of books in a tiny device.

Do I expect Apple to do this? Absolutely not. Cupertino seems pretty comfortable with saying its e-reading devices are iPads and iPhones. Which is clearly understandable from the company’s perspective: for one, the company already makes these devices and they are passable for reading. For another, the most popular e-readers are generally low-cost, low-margin devices—not the kind of market Apple likes to play in. I’m sorry, nobody wants a $500 e-reader.³

So if embarking upon a new hardware product is out⁴, the biggest opportunity Apple has is to change the business side of things. I can think of two primary options there: the first is to provide some sort of, yes, subscription program. Amazon already offers a version of this with Kindle Unlimited, which provides access to an all-you-can-eat model—but only for certain content, as its terms for publishers require a window of exclusivity for electronic copies, which generally counts out traditionally published books. That’s certainly been a boon for Amazon, which not only picks up recurring subscription revenue, but has provided an entirely separate marketplace of content. (Albeit one that has its own game to play.)

While that deal might benefit some voracious readers and might bolster both Apple’s books business and its services revenue, it comes with some potential limitations for authors and publishers, depending on how the terms and royalties are structured.

The second option, to my mind, is one I’ve advocated for before: taking a page from Apple’s own digital music market of the 2000s and figuring out a way to make the Apple Books the premiere purveyor of ebooks without digital rights management. Ideally it would be combined with a seamless process to deliver those DRM-free books to your third-party e-reader of choice.⁵

The potential here is to expand the market beyond those people who will only ever buy and read ebooks on Apple’s own devices. Which is clearly not a huge chunk of the market, because if it was, the company would probably not be looking to cut costs by laying off people. If it’s about growth, this is how you do it.

Do I think Apple will make this move? I’m not optimistic, especially since it would require publishers to get onboard. There are a few who already sell DRM-free ebooks, including a major imprint of the big five and my own mid-size publisher, but fear of piracy runs deep.⁶

Perhaps eight years isn’t long enough in Apple’s institutional memory to have erased the sting of its defeat in the ebooks case, or maybe it’s just made the company gun-shy when it comes to trying anything else in the market. I think that’s a shame, because this is a great chance for Apple to change the narrative.

Updated on 8/28: A previous version of this article misstated the terms of Apple’s push with publishers when it first launched its ebook marketplace.

[Dan Moren is the East Coast Bureau Chief of Six Colors, as well as an author, podcaster, and two-time Jeopardy! champion. You can find him on Mastodon at @dmoren@zeppelin.flights or reach him by email at dan@sixcolors.com. His next novel, the sci-fi adventure Eternity's Tomb, will be released in November 2026.]

By Dan Moren

August 26, 2024 9:35 AM PT

Apple announces “Glowtime” event on September 9

It’s time once again for the biggest event in Apple’s calendar. Apple on Monday announced a special event kicking off at 10am Pacific/1pm Eastern on Monday, September 9. Few other details are known, beyond the fact that the event will be broadcast from Apple Park. This year’s event iconography features a neon, glowing animated Apple logo and the event includes the tagline “It’s Glowtime,” so make of that what you will.

The expectation, of course, is that Apple will use this event to announce the iPhone 16 line, which is rumored to bring the usual updates to the iPhone’s camera system, a new line of processors, and external design tweaks (including some new colors). We may also see updates to the Apple Watch line, new AirPods, and, of course, official release information for iOS/iPadOS 18 as well as the company’s other software updates.

Start your speculation engines now.

[Dan Moren is the East Coast Bureau Chief of Six Colors, as well as an author, podcaster, and two-time Jeopardy! champion. You can find him on Mastodon at @dmoren@zeppelin.flights or reach him by email at dan@sixcolors.com. His next novel, the sci-fi adventure Eternity's Tomb, will be released in November 2026.]

By Joe Rosensteel

August 21, 2024 1:05 PM PT

Permission to Speak Freely, Siri?

I know all the cool kids are on 18.0 and 18.1 for brat beta summer, but I never want to roll the dice with iOS betas on my iPhone. So imagine my surprise after a perfectly normal iOS update (17.6.1) arrived, and the Siri location permissions changed.

The first time I asked Siri for the temperature, it made me unlock my iPhone first, then prompted me with “You’ll need to turn on Location Services for that. Want to turn it on just this once or when using Siri?”

This was confusing for a number of reasons, but mostly because that’s never happened before. We’ve all been talking about the imbalance in Apple’s pervasive permissions requests over user experience, so it shouldn’t be shocking to see a completely new level of permissions inserted into the mix.

I want to dissect this specific addition, because it seems to make the least sense to me out of all of them, and it’s not a beta release, but shipping software intended for every normal person.

It’s just a sleepy summer release

Nowhere in the release notes for iOS 17.6.1 does Apple say that they’re going to do anything with changing permissions on your iOS device. Here’s what Apple says: “This update includes important bug fixes and addresses an issue that prevents enabling or disabling of Advanced Data Protection.”

Bug fixes? I love that for me.

Digging into the 17.6.0 security release notes on Apple’s web site (they do not have notes for 17.6.1), there’s no announced change for location services, and the only time “location” is mentioned is for a Family Sharing-related issue. There are other changes that do mention Siri, but none of them mention this permissions change. If there was a specific exploit related to this change it’s not spelled out anywhere, and none of the tech blogs that comb through releases even mentioned it. Which adds to the surreality where you doubt whether you changed it yourself, somehow.

Then I started to wonder if I ever had 17.6.0, or if it was 17.5.1 straight into 17.6.1. I couldn’t tell you, which adds to the feeling that someone from Apple silently entered my house and replaced my shoes with identical ones that were a half size bigger overnight.

The inability to pinpoint when something that used to work changed in the blink of an eye, or even an acknowledgement that it’s different, doesn’t make a person feel especially secure.

Let’s unlock

If your iPhone is locked and sitting on a nightstand, and you asked “Hey Siri, what’s the temperature,” it will say, “You’ll need to unlock your iPhone first.” You pick it up and stare at it and maybe it unlocks or you have to swipe it to get it to try FaceID again. Congratulations, you’re really taking advantage of having a hands-free digital assistant.

Once your iPhone is showing your unlocked lock screen, it informs you it can’t perform the action you requested. It says you need to turn on Location Services. That’s confusing, because it is on in general. You also are aware that you didn’t change any of your permissions since the last time you did this action causing further confusion.

The new default setting Apple chose for you didn’t exist before. It’s located under Settings: Privacy & Security: Location Services: Siri (Siri & Dictation in older versions of iOS). Prior versions had “Never” or “While Using the App,” with the user default being the latter. In the update, Apple has changed it from “While Using the App” to “Ask Next Time Or When I Share”.

If your iPhone is unlocked and active, you’ll get the modal location warning on top of the modal Siri dialog. I don’t know why you’d ask while you’re actively using the phone instead of just looking at your many weather widgets, but the point is that it is not consistent. This modal dialog offers clearer choices than the Siri dialog, but the two together aren’t helping.

Again, the big problem is that Apple’s update has reset the setting on your behalf, and it’s up to you to change it back without any understanding of why Apple wanted to change it, or how your privacy and security is affected if you change it back.

It can’t possibly be the new default, because Apple expects people to unlock their iPhone to ask for the weather. Apple can’t expect you to put up with a confirmation about sharing data each time you ask, despite that being the default setting. That would be ludicrous.

Apple will sometimes reset a permission to motivate developers to move away from a deprecated or unsafe system, but… this is Apple’s own Siri we’re talking about here. Sometimes Apple does this sort of thing to make it clear that personal data is being used for certain things. But if I asked for the weather at my location, then I know that.

Consider: Siri can change the setting for you, but you have to unlock your iPhone beforehand, not after you make your selection. Do we not teach people how to make flowcharts any more? Why would unlocking the phone be the first step?

Asking the user a compound question is also a terrible idea, so that’s why the boffins on the security and privacy team choose it.

1. Want to turn it on just this once?
2. Or while using Siri?

If you say “yes” it counts as an answer to the first part of the question and will show you the requested information without changing the setting. If you awkwardly respond, “while using Siri,” then it will change the setting to what you presumably were using before 17.6.1: “While Using the App.”

If you say “no” or “never” it’ll change the permission setting to “Never” and say that it can’t tell you your location because of your settings, then ask you to say what location you’d like to hear the weather for.

This is a poorly worded prompt with multiple possible answers and no logical, practical use case other being an obstacle for the iPhone owner.

At Least They Don’t Ask When You’re Driving

If you happen to be in a car, and your iPhone is connected to CarPlay, and ask it for any directions, then it will prompt you with “Allow ‘Siri’ to use your location?” It won’t ask to unlock the iPhone to change the permission, because your iPhone has to be unlocked on a periodic basis to work with the car. That gives it the authority to change your settings.

Again, this will perplex anyone that used CarPlay prior to the permissions change, because it never used to ask this. At least the three possible options on this screen are clearly written and correspond to the three permissions, like the modal iOS dialog, and unlike the Siri dialog. Allow Once is the new, sucky permission that the interface defaults to selecting.

Is my life safer or more private?

I don’t understand why this disruptive change happened. It doesn’t seem to offer any tangible security or privacy benefit. If we assume that there was a reason, mysterious though it may be, why did the user experience have to be so bad? I don’t see an ounce of care in the execution.

If this is happening to lay the groundwork for Apple Intelligence, now seems to be the wrong time to push out such a change—when users can’t possibly make an informed decision about features that won’t ship for months. Presumably the permission I assign today will carry through, unless Apple resets my choice again.

Maybe the new policy is to reset this switch after all updates, or certain updates? I definitely didn’t expect it, but maybe that’s just the first time of many and I’ll be periodically derailed from my thought process because I have to make a choice again, all because I made the bad decision to update my phone.

This is merely one minor example—though given the size of the iPhone market, it will impact millions of Apple customers. How did it come to be? If it’s important, why was it done this way? Maybe Apple could explain itself somewhere. Like, say, the release notes.

[Joe Rosensteel is a VFX artist and writer based in Los Angeles.]