If you’ve been following this blog, you know I’m a big reader/champion of ebooks. I split my purchases more or less evenly between Kobo and Kindle. I prefer Kobo because of its social media features, but it doesn’t have all the books that Kindle does. I’ve purchased a few books on the iBookstore, but I don’t like it as much as the other services. The design is a typical Apple mix of elegance and common sense, but again, I prefer Kobo because of its richer social features.

So I’m disappointed by the news that Apple is crippling the apps of other booksellers on its iOS devices by forcing them to remove in-app links to their stores or give Apple a 30% cut — the booksellers’ profit margin on most books. Apparently Apple is even rejecting apps that mention the websites of their parent booksellers. Which means the only apps they are approving are apps that don’t contain any information on how to purchase books….

From a business perspective, I understand the logic behind this. Apple’s bookselling service has failed to become the iTunes of books because the competition was there first and just does a better job on most fronts. Why would people switch to iBooks when they’re comfortable with Kindle and Kobo? So Apple makes them switch by breaking the competitors’ apps, so it becomes just plain easier to use iBooks to buy books.

But that’s a crappy business model and, well, pretty much the opposite of what Apple normally does. This is more a Microsoft move — “We’re going to force you to use an inferior product by removing your options.” If iBooks isn’t performing the way Apple wants it to perform, then Apple should improve iBooks, not try to shut down the innovative competitors. The design is already great for the iBooks app — now add some social media features, better preview options, that sort of thing. I’m sure the forthcoming Apple cloud will be of interest to many readers, as it will presumably allow them to access their books on any device, and it’s innovations like that they should be using to make their service stand out. Make people use it for the same reason they use other Apple products — because they’re better than the competition.

I rarely used iBooks before because it wasn’t a great service. I won’t use it all now.

Given the latest news about the Borders bookstore chain going under, I’m tempted to write a sequel to my last post about how publishers need to start thinking “digital first” and reaching out directly to readers rather than courting bookstores. After all, there may not be any bookstores to court soon. And I don’t even want to think about how much money publishers just lost because of the Borders collapse, or how much harder it’s going to be for them to sell anything other than potential blockbusters now that there are fewer markets — which means you’re going to see a lot more indie writers soon, because they won’t be able to get deals with publishers. (Or the deals won’t be worth selling their rights.) But I don’t have the time or energy to write that. Mayhem and carnage await in my life. (I’m talking about the new book I’m writing, not my toddler.)

Instead, I’ll just point to this post from Futurebook that says publishers shouldn’t even be thinking in terms of print at all anymore. The delay in getting book to market with print is killing them, especially when it comes to non-fiction. Publishers need to develop “rapid response units” that operate in the digital realm, Futurebook argues, and it’s a good argument. When publishers start rethinking how they react to breaking news — hell, when they realize they can react to breaking news — and figure out ways to make money with quickly distributed ebooks, they’ll force the change in the rest of their organization as well. Why make the fans of author Y wait a year for his new book when they know he’s finished it? They want it now. Why make fans of writer X wait a year for her new book when she’s got two others already done? With print, there are logistic demands that require the delay. With digital, the delays are just seen as lag. And then there’s the social integration built into ebooks — how many extra sales are there in books, just waiting for someone to highlight a line and tweet it or + it or Facebook it? Ebooks are a licence for publishers to print money — real money. But to do so, they have to think digital first.

In my earlier post, I said publishers need to start thinking about bookstores as niche markets for them. I think it’s time they also start thinking of print books as niche products for them.

It’s the 21st century. The readers are here. Where are the publishers?

In case you thought the Warhol masks in The Warhol Gang were a little futuristic….

Apparently there are fake Apple stores in China so believable that the employees think they’re actually working for Apple.

I had a good editing day today, reworking a large part of my new novel, The Apocalypse Corpse. I ended the day with a phone call to the partner of a friend to talk about what it felt like to have his finger cut off by a saw. The places a book will lead you…. #research

I wish I’d known about this while I was writing The Warhol Gang.

I’ve been using Google+ for a little less than a week, and I’m a convert. In fact, it took less than a day to convince me to make it my home base for social networking/meme broadcasting. It’s not that it’s so much better than services such as Facebook or Twitter, it’s that it does all the things they do and then some. It’s far more flexible than anything else out there.

In many ways it’s similar to the Facebook you love and loathe. It’s got a wall where you can see the posts of the people you follow, although Google calls it a stream. It has integrated photo albums, thanks to Google’s photo storage service Picasa. It has a video conferencing feature called Hangouts, which is both useful and fun (you can connect with people for a reason, or you can just open up your video channel and wait to see who drops in for a chat).

And it’s similar to Twitter. You can follow people who post interesting material without them having to go through that awkward friend request approval/denial feature of Facebook. And Google+’s Circles feature is more like Twitter’s lists than Facebook’s seldom-used equivalent, although it has elements of both.

But the flexibility is what sets + apart. Thanks to Circles, you can view people you follow selectively, in the same way you view Twitter lists. Because that stream will drown you, or at least your productivity, if you don’t filter it. You can also push messages out to those groups selectively, much like Facebook’s rarely-used Lists feature. Sure, you have to think about your posts a couple of seconds more – “Who is this going out to?” – but it’s worth it for the ability to tailor messages to groups of people and not barrage others with life spam. It’s made a lot easier by + forcing you to add people into at least one circle when you follow them. At first this seemed like an annoyance – “I’ll just do it later give me friends now!” – but it’s actually a smart feature that stops you from being overwhelmed by your friends lists. Er, circles.

And then there’s the integration factor. So Google+ combines the core features of Facebook and Twitter and improves on them. It’s also got Picasa, which is now bound to draw people away from Flickr. Its Places feature on posts, which I imagine comes from Latitude, will likely be developed to attract the same merchant interest as Facebook’s Places and Foursquare – and Google’s interest in Groupon a while back suddenly becomes a lot more understandable. Had they succeeded in that bid, they would have had a giant retail network already built into Google+. But they’re creating their own version of Groupon instead, which will likely be paired with Google Wallet, so you can make purchases without ever having to leave your + page. And you can bet you’ll be seeing closer integration with Google’s other products, such as Gmail, Reader, YouTube and Blogger. Consider also the fact that every Google page you access will have the Google personal toolbar on the top now, so your + account, with all its features, is just always there, part of your online experience.

It will be impossible for new social startups to compete with +, in the same way that it’s proven nearly impossible to compete with Google in the search game. We’ll probably see developers direct their efforts toward apps instead – and I do expect Google to open up + to apps in the future, just like they have with their Chrome store.

Twitter’s probably dead in the long run, especially once Google adds hash tags functionality and more people embrace smart phones and tablets, thus doing away with the need for character limits in posts, if there ever was such a need. Twitter just has too far to go to achieve the same features as +, and its executives have repeatedly shown they just don’t have that kind of long-term vision.

Facebook will be OK for a while, given that it has 700 million or so users, and is deeply integrated with so many other parts of the web, but it’ll be in trouble if it doesn’t radically reinvent itself to achieve the same flexibility as +. And it’ll have to do it quickly, as so many people just plainly hate Facebook. If Google can hit a critical mass quick enough with +, Facebook could be the next Myspace in a few years.

Google+ could even cut into the market share of blogging services such as WordPress and Tumblr if the redesign of Blogger and its integration with + is good enough.

Not bad for a service that’s only a few weeks old.

Can’t think of a reason to switch to Google+? I can’t think of a reason not to switch to Google+.

If you do come over, add me to a circle.

Here’s an interesting conversation between comedians Ricky Gervais, Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock and Louis CK about the theory/craft of stand-up comedy. Lessons to be learned for all artists. (First of four parts, click the related links when the video ends to continue.)

I am in the +. Circle me if you like.

Canada’s largest bookstore chain, Indigo, is introducing some dramatic changes to its returns policy for publishers. According to a Quill and Quire report, Indigo plans to evaluate how books are selling after only 45 days and return slow sellers to publishers shortly thereafter. On top of that, they’re cutting shelf space for books to roll out more lifestyle products — no doubt more picture frames and gift cards and that sort of thing. So that means a book has to sell like, well, a bestseller in that first month and a half after release or it’s off to the glue factory. And forget about backlists for all but the most commercially successful writers — there just won’t be any room in the bookstores for that kind of luxury.

Publishers are understandably upset with the impending changes, but I can’t really blame Indigo. The marketplace is changing as ebooks gain in popularity, and Indigo is just trying to survive. There’s no future in remaining dedicated to print books, so Indigo is diversifying into products that earn more money per square foot. It’s just business.

Publishers need to make the same sort of tough changes and transform their business models. It’s time for them to break up with bookstores before they get dumped. Sure, bookstores have traditionally been publishers’ real customers, and most of their marketing and promotions have been directed at the retail outlets. But they need to get out of the distribution mindset and start building relationships with readers, not sales reps and store managers. They need to think in terms of community, not copies shipped and returned. Take the recent initiative of Angry Robot Books in the UK, for instance, which reached out directly to readers and offered them a package discount if they bought the entire season’s list of new books — ebooks, that is. Angry Robot’s offer is similar to Baen’s webscriptions service, another new publishing model that focuses on digital rather than print. (Angry Robot also sells other products, such as iPod cases and T-shirts — lifestyle objects that support the cultural brand rather than replace it.)

These publishers are finding success in forming direct relationships with readers, and all publishers need to follow similar digital initiatives. It’s a shift that’s happening in other industries — I work in the media and most newspapers have adopted a “digital first” position, openly acknowledging the days of print are numbered. Publishers need to do the same. Print books will be around for some time yet, but they’re obviously on their way to becoming a niche product for bookstores. Bookstores should become a niche customer for publishers, and they should focus all their efforts on reaching the customers that will matter in the future: the readers.