Skip to main content

Hey! I'm an iPhone app!

In truth, the headline is inaccurate in practically every way. I am not an iPhone app. And strictly speaking one of my books (which is what I meant) isn't an app either, it's an ebook that is bundled with an ebook reader as an app. But the result is much the same - the fact is that US folk can get a copy of Before the Big Bang for their iPhones, iPads or iPod Touches (you can see it here)... and I am very jealous. Because I can't.

The problem is the intensely messy tangle that is the way book rights work. Before the Big Bang is published by the superb St Martin's Press in New York. They have world rights, so can sell it wherever they like. But US publishers don't usually sell into UK bookshops, because the traditional approach was to sell subrights to a UK publisher who brings out another version. When this doesn't happen, as is the case with B4tBB, Amazon sensibly sells the US version in the UK. So Amazon.co.uk is doing a roaring trade in the book, other online stores like Waterstones online do list it but typically have a 2-3 week wait while they get a copy from the States, and bricks & mortar shops don't have it at all.

When it comes to ebooks, it's generally possible to buy an ebook anywhere if the rights support this - but Apple is clearly taking more of a Music/DVD approach, so isn't allowing a US ebook to be sold in the UK. Which, frankly, is a pain.

I'm particularly disappointed because it means I can't buy a copy. I'd love to have B4tBB on my iPhone, but iTunes won't let me. (Note, 'buy a copy'. Although authors get free copies of all editions of their physical books, it seems we aren't allowed ebook freebies. But I would have bought one if I could.) Still it doesn't take away from the fun of it. My very own iPhone app. I feel like a proud parent.


Image from iTunes website
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sue Guiney14 June 2010 at 09:17

    all the annoying business/rights problems aside -- this is extraordinarily cool!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg14 June 2010 at 14:01

    Absolutely, Sue. My first reaction is to be thrilled, but then disappointed because I WANT ONE!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more