Here’s how it works, according to Roger Rosner, Apple’s VP of productivity software: Textbooks appear on the shelf, and then you tap to launch. The books occupy the full screen and can be paired with embedded video content and introductory movies. Multitouch is used to navigate textbook pages and can also help manipulate integrated 3-D models for biology books, for example. These books definitely go well beyond static text and even most media-rich e-books that we have seen to date.

Rotating books let you focus on text, and there are built-in, linked glossaries and tablets of content to make navigation a snap, plus everything’s searchable. It looks like Al Gore’s Our Choice, which we covered in depth at launch.

Textbooks in iBooks 2 also incorporate highlighting, note-taking and interactive Q&A sections at the end of each chapter, which also provide immediate feedback: No more hunting for a key in a separate book or appendix to see how you did. Notes and highlights are automatically turned into flash cards for study purposes. In short, it looks like Apple has taken a lot of the best aspects of services like Inkling and Kno and integrated them into its own product.

The new textbooks reside in a dedicated iBookstore category and will offer free samples before you buy. The iBooks 2 app is free, and it is available on Thursday via the App Store. Textbooks will be priced at $14.99 or less and will initially be aimed at the high school market. That’s some seriously competitive pricing, and Apple’s initial partners are Pearson, McGraw-Hill and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which together are responsible for 90 percent of textbooks available, according to Schiller.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• NewNet 2012: companies and technologies set to disrupt
• A clouded view of Google Music
• Forecast: Tablet App Sales To Hit $8B by 2015

In what BusinessWeek is describing as “his first extensive interview on the subject,” Phil Schiller, everyone’s favorite Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing for Apple, has defended Apple’s application approval process.

I’ve read through it a few times, and I’d hardly call it “extensive.” I think it’s more accurately described as “PR spin” more than anything else. Schiller’s opening salvo is actually an advertisement.

We’ve built a store for the most part that people can trust. You and your family and friends can download applications from the store, and for the most part they do what you’d expect, and they get onto your phone, and you get billed appropriately, and it all just works.

It’s obviously going to transmit good vibes to the majority of BusinessWeek readers (who likely weren’t even aware of an application approval process in the first place, never mind a problem with it) but it’s unlikely to smooth the feathers of frustrated, angry developers. See, Mr. Schiller not only defended the approval process, but said that developers actually like it.

Most [apps] are approved and some are sent back to the developer. In about 90% of those cases, Apple requests technical fixes—usually for bugs in the software or because something doesn’t work as expected. Developers are generally glad to have this safety net because usually Apple’s review process finds problems they actually want to fix.

Here’s what TechCrunch’s Jason Kincaid had to say about that:

This is a laughable statement. Developers may like the concept of having an external QA safety net that helps catch bugs, but not one that’s incredibly inconsistent and penalizes them with extended delays and notoriously bad communication.

Schiller does manage to admit that Apple has made mistakes. Sadly, he doesn’t say it loudly enough. In a Social Networking era when transparency is not only beneficial to a company but almost essential to maintaining a happy customer base, Apple still can’t manage genuine “openness” where it most counts. I’m sure Misters Jobs and Schiller grudgingly decided this interview was a necessary (if bitter-tasting) step in damage-control. But it’s dripping with convoluted and downright unfriendly corporate-speak.

Here are Schiller’s comments on the matter of Apple’s recent inconsistent approach to trademark protection (brief recap; Rogue Amoeba’s Airfoil Speakers app displayed a tiny icon of the remote computer to which the app was connected — Apple initially approved the app, and it proved very successful. Then someone noticed the icons were of Macs, and Apple pulled it for trademark violation).

[Schiller] says Apple is trying to make trademark guidelines more sophisticated. “We need to delineate something that might confuse the customer and be an inappropriate use of a trademark from something that’s just referring to a product for the sake of compatibility,” he says. “We’re trying to learn and expand the rules to make it fair for everyone.”

In a twist I didn’t see coming, BusinessWeek’s Arik Hesseldahl adds that Rogue Amoeba “…will soon submit a version of the app with the Apple images intact.” That’s good to know, since it was almost universally agreed (except perhaps by the most fundamental fanbois) that Apple’s actions were not only inconsistent and hypocritical — they were just plain stupid.

Kincaid summarises:

Schiller’s interview highlights how badly Apple is underestimating the negative impact the App Store is having on its reputation in the developer community… Apple may not care about losing a handful of developers to Android, but their shortsighted strategy of answering developer complaints with PR spin rather than transparency and action may hurt them in the long run.

I’ll give Apple this; it’s learning. Slowly, painfully slowly, continental-drift-slowly, but remember that the iPhone is not yet three years old, the application store even younger. In a sense, Apple is making this up as it goes, and it’s bound to take some wrong turns along the winding path toward approval process nirvana. Developers don’t expect Apple to be perfect; they will tolerate and forgive occasional missteps, but only if the channel of discourse between them significantly improves beyond where it stands today; which, so far as I can see, is a slightly updated status page on the Apple Dev Center website and, when developers get rowdy enough, the occasional intervention by Phil Schiller.

Do we need Apple to act, as Joe Hewitt put it, as Gatekeepers? Apple doesn’t vet the quality and functionality of applications built for the Macintosh; though, I wonder — were the Mac to be invented today, would Apple insist on an Application Store for the desktop Mac OS X? If so, would it offer the same reasoning for its draconian regulation of its software ecosystem?

Everyone has an opinion on how best to solve the problem; I suspect it’s all about balance. An approval process is fine so long as Apple’s rules are fair, practical and consistently applied across all apps, all the time. And if or when it screws up, Apple should admit it instantly and correct its error. So, riddle me this… if it’s so easy for the community to offer reasonable solutions, why is it proving so hard for Apple?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A 2011 NewNet Forecast
• How to Market Your iPhone App: A Developer’s Guide

That opportunity will possibly come in a series of ads contrasting Windows with OS X, at least according to Peter Burrows of BusinessWeek. The expected campaign is expected to take Windows 7 on directly, and will likely “poke fun” at the upgrade process, from backing up data and reformatting drives to reinstalling software.

“Any user that reads all those steps is probably going to freak out. If you have to go through all that, why not just buy a Mac?” says Schiller.

The idea is that, rather than upgrade, people will be buying new computers, but the problem with Macs — especially in difficult economic times — is price. To that end, rumors continue to swirl regarding price reductions. Just last week, Google AdSense placements temporarily appeared in several European countries hinting at new iMacs, Mac minis and MacBooks. While only the Mac minis listed lower prices, it’s certain that new MacBooks and iMacs will have speed and storage increases, and the rumor of Blu-ray for the iMac persists.

In the interview, Schiller deflected inquires about new Macs and lower prices, remaining dismissive towards Windows and predicting a poor upgrade rate for Windows 7 compared to Snow Leopard. In the end, Windows is “still Windows.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Windows 7 Forecast: Mostly Sunny, With a Chance of Showers
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce

According to Google, none other than Apple Senior VP Phil Schiller told Google Senior VP Alan Eustace “that Apple was rejecting the Google Voice application.” The main reason for rejection was “because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialing functionality of the iPhone.”

Google claims that the letter (PDF) is being released because of requests through the Freedom of Information Act, and because Apple released the full contents of its own response to the FCC.

Apple representative Steve Dowling immediately fired back, stating that Apple “did not agree with all of the statements made by Google in its letter. Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application. We continue to discuss it with Google.”

That “not rejected” assertion refers to the limbo-like status Google Voice has been in for months. That status was also referenced in Apple’s response to the FCC. In that nuanced letter, Apple voiced concern over the application because it appeared “to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience,” arguing that “Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone.”

Google Voice does change that experience in fundamental ways. It effectively shuts down Visual Voicemail by routing calls through Google Voice, replaces Apple’s text messaging, and moves contacts to Google’s servers. But is that what’s really bothering Apple? Om Malik offered another opinion way back when people were blaming AT&T for the not-rejection of Google Voice.

This battle between Google and Apple is going to get very ugly — as it should. Both companies have pinned their futures on smartphones.

This is a war Apple has fought before. The Mac lost the desktop wars to Windows because Apple did not defend its “experience” sufficiently. Protestations about the user interface aside, Apple is not about to make the same mistake with the future of mobile computing.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Growing Mobile Data Use Turned Up Heat on Carriers in Q3
• How Speech Technologies Will Transform Mobile Use
• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide

Less than a week after sending a letter to Daring Fireball’s John Gruber concerning the application review process at the App Store, Phil Schiller, the senior VP at Apple, is at it again. This time, the recipient of the letter was Panic co-founder Steven Frank.

To recap, Gruber wrote an essay highlighting the failures of the App Store using the example of Ninjawords, a dictionary app that was first rejected, then approved with censored content and the mandatory inclusion of parental control rating. In Schiller’s letter to Gruber, he took issue with the developers’ view of events, but in the end conceded an important point.

“Apple’s goals remain aligned with customers and developers…While we may not always be perfect in our execution of that goal, our efforts are always made with the best intentions, and if we err we intend to learn and quickly improve.”

In other words, Apple is listening, but for Steven Frank, that may not be enough. If you have no idea who Frank is, read the True Story of Audion right now. It should be noted that Frank is speaking only for himself, but nonetheless, he has a history and relationship with Apple and the Mac, but not the iPhone anymore.

Frank recently announced he was boycotting the iPhone, declaring that the “iPhone ecosystem is toxic.” His assertion was that Apple had years to fix the arguably broken application review process at the App Store but had not. Saturday he got a letter from Schiller.

While Frank did not publish the letter, he summarized Schiller as speaking for Apple and saying: “We’re listening to your feedback.” Frank also relayed that Apple felt that “not all of my suggested solutions were viable…but they were taking it all in as they continue to evolve the app store.”

The question now becomes what happens next, not so much with Frank’s iBoycott, but with Apple. A jaded person might suggest that the “listening tour” Schiller appears to be on is nothing more than smart PR. By engaging alpha-nerds in dialogue, the intended effect could be to change the terms of the debate, rather than address the chronic problems of the App Store review process. Frank thinks that the issue of Google Voice could be a litmus test. I would assert that’s just a good way to get the FCC off the corporate back of Apple. In short, “listening” is easy, but real reform is hard.

Because of the App Store’s incredible success, fixing it will be a huge and costly undertaking. One approach would be simply to do away with application approval. The caveat emptor option might make jailbreakers and developers happier, but Apple’s PR hit on the first pornography applications and malware would be too costly.

Another option might be for Apple to offer a premium service for developers. Call it App Store Assist Pro (ASAP), based on the Apple Store Pro Care concept of charging more for better service on demand. For a yearly fee of $500 or $5,000 — whatever the market will bear — and a per-app fee, developers get a single point of contact, real-time feedback, fast approval or detailed rejection. In contrast, the unwashed masses of fart app and flashlight developers paying $99 a year get what they get when they get it. For minimum effort and expense, Apple could silence most of the critics. Of course, even less expensive is the cost of a few emails. We’ll see how that works out for them.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How to Market Your iPhone App: A Developer’s Guide
• Virtual Worlds: Trends and Opportunities

With Phil Schiller’s Macworld keynote fresh in our minds from only two days ago, I wonder how many Mac fans remember the Special Event of August 2007. In terms of what was discussed they have a lot in common, so it’s worthwhile to review them to see just how Phil did in comparison to a Steve event.

For those who have forgotten, in August 2007 was the event where the aluminum iMacs were first introduced. In addition, the new versions of iLife ’08 and iWork ’08 were introduced. The entire presentation was done by Steve Jobs. Here are all the things Steve had going for him in that presentation. 

• Obviously, he’s Steve. No one entered the event tentative about the presenter or his ability to get the job done. 
• While the new iMac was much rumored, no one new for sure what it would look like. It was in fact a brand new generation of the iMac product. 
• iLife had an entirely new application in iMovie ’08 (most people didn’t decide they hated it until the day after the event). It’s more interesting to an audience to see an app they’ve never seen before than just an upgrade to an app they already know. 
• iWork had a new application in Numbers. Again, it’s more interesting to see something brand new. 

Compare the above advantages with the tide running against Phil for his keynote:

• Lots of disappointed people who had signed up for Macworld expecting Steve, but getting Phil. And many thinking Phil may not be able to pull it off. 
• Like the iMac above, the 17 inch MacBook Pro was rumored, but in this case we all knew what it would look like since it was obviously the unibody version of the models introduced in October.
• iLife had no rewritten apps, just upgrades to existing ones. 
• iWork had no new app, only upgrades. 

In addition, both events demoed new online initiatives (.Mac’s Web Galleries in 2007, iWork.com in 2009). 

I watched the Jobs Special Event a few times, and ultimately bought a new aluminum iMac 24 inch. But it was pretty boring. Let’s face it, even Mr. Jobs can’t make your average software demo particularly exciting, even when it’s a new app. I mean, sure, some OS demos can be cool, but productivity apps? Not so much. I watched it to get a feel for the new software features and it served that purpose well. 

Of course, Phil wasn’t Mr. Exciting either, but it ran as well as the other event did. And one easily gets as much a sense of what’s new in iLife and iWork as they did from Steve’s presentation. I’d say that, all in all, Phil did very well. I think he did as well as Steve with similar material.

Besides, it’s not as if every Steve demo kicks butt. Geez, folks, remember the Apple HiFi special event? Z-z-z-z-z-z-z…

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

Today, Apple announced that the upcoming Macworld Expo (Jan. 5-9, 2009) will be the last Apple attends.

On Tuesday, January 6, Phil Schiller will give the opening keynote and, according to Apple, it will be the last keynote given at a Macworld.

Apple says that trade shows have become a “very minor” part of their marketing efforts and as such they are scaling back on their attendance of such events.

Each year the Macworld Expo is practically the Mecca of Apple users with Steve Jobs giving a keynote that both satisfies and blows rumors out of the water. With Apple no longer attending Macworld events, I would imagine that attendance to the events will dramatically decrease as many users and journalists make the trip primarily to find out what Apple will announce.

On top of that, the fact that Phil Schiller will be the primary person delivering the keynote, as opposed to Jobs, is a new source for rumors in itself. We’ve written about a world without Jobs before, but this seems to solidify the company’s position even more.

What are your thoughts? Would you attend a Macworld without Apple?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks