Is it possible to change category after approval?

iBooks Author: How to update your published book in the iBookstore

To publish an update:

Second bullet in #3...meta data

It says 'meta data' and doesn't mention a long list of things 🙂

That note is just a handly little tip for the newbie as part of an online tech note - best to dig into iTP Help and related guides for the real meat....don't forget the small (?) pop up balloons have good info too.

As for the PS, keep in mind there are many attributes and checks involved, with some relying on communication with the backend. I think any wait is a reflection of the load on the servers, etc. It's complicated process and it takes however long as it takes.

Devs can change app cats, but it takes a bit of effort. Remember they said that an update takes your book out of the store - it goes back into review mode so all bets are off at that point. The main thing is to spend the time up front, reviewing carefully and deciding just which category, etc, apply. As well, if Apple disagrees, they can pick another primary as part of the process.

And devs are always complaining about server speed, network latency, router storms and wishing all the other 150,000 devs would take the day off so they can get their app in the store asap.

K T wrote:

Remember they said that an update takes your book out of the store - it goes back into review mode so all bets are off at that point.

This practice truly seems idiotic. Why remove the 1st printing from the store while the 2nd printing is under review? That doesn't make sense. In effect, with this process, a book ceases to exist for the duration of the review. That's not exactly desirable, especially for paid books.

michi.

I'll tell you my opinion....

1.) An update is perhaps considered a correction by default. A correction means you have something available you don't want. This is not the same as a second printing, where the activity reflects more inventory and/or a second edition, which in the store would be another book and another review cycle, etc.

2.) Taking the book offline is a way of discouraging repeat offenders and forcing them to think twice about change, after change, after change. You're taught to take the process seriously and not crowd up the queue and/or reviewer's work loads.

It is different than apps, tho, where devs have choices during the process and it's ok if you want the in-store version to still be available until the update clears. But there can be penalties there if it looks like you can't make up your mind and keep uploading new versions...the review process isn't a testing service 🙂

As always, feel free to use iBA's feedback menu and/or start your own thread on the topic so you can close if solved, etc.

K T wrote:

1.) An update is perhaps considered a correction by default. A correction means you have something available you don't want. This is not the same as a second printing, where the activity reflects more inventory and/or a second edition, which in the store would be another book and another review cycle, etc.

The problem seems to be that there is no way to deliver an update that indicates "minor corrections and typos" as opposed to an update that indicates "new material added". As far as iTunes Producer is concerned, they are one and the same.

The analogy with 1st and 2nd printing is probably not ideal because, with electronic media, the turn-around times are so much shorter. I agree that it is somewhat different than apps. But updates to electronic books shouldn't be harder than updates to apps. If I really want the book removed from sale because there is something in it that I don't want to continue to publish, iTunes Producer should give me a way to indicate "remove from sale while under review", as opposed to "keep selling current version until new one is approved."

By the way, it is very common for 2nd, 3rd, and so on printings to correct minor errors such as typos. I have first-hand experience of this, having published in paper with Addison-Wesley in the past.

2.) Taking the book offline is a way of discouraging repeat offenders and forcing them to think twice about change, after change, after change. You're taught to take the process seriously and not crowd up the queue and/or reviewer's work loads.

Yes, I agree that this is potentially a problem. Partly self-inflicted though, seeing that it is Apple who insist on such a stringent review process. There are probably ways to mitigate this, such as a making the publisher declare the nature of the changes in some legally binding way. Lying about some change would then have consequences such as removing the book from sale or some such.

As is, the process is immature and, judging by the reports here about delays and communication problems, not working well at all. For the iBookstore model and micro-publishing to be successful, Apple will have to streamline things, in their own interest as well as that of the publishers: I'm sure Apple wouldn't mind spending less effort on the entire thing too.

Certainly, being able to indicate what kind of change a new upload represents would probably help both sides a lot.

Michi.

MichiHenning wrote:

>seeing that it is Apple who insist on such a stringent review process. There are probably ways to mitigate this, such as a making the publisher declare the nature of the changes in some legally binding way. Lying about some change would then have consequences such as removing the book from sale or some such.

I think Apple uses your logic, but more upstream...proactive rather than reactive. Developers, as an example, learn over time that Apple does for Apple, and the success of the Store isn't left to chance, even if it means having to learn the hard way at times. It's a good thing 🙂.

I'd like to see a system where individuals with a proven track record in the store are allowed to self-approve, but it seems like there are always certain numbers of individuals digging hard for a way to game the system, and the old adage of "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" seems to be a significant element when it comes time to decide how best to control the store for the greater good.

I know that is took me a bit to get in sync with the process, but now, experience with it helps me to stay out of trouble and move right along.

K T wrote:

I think Apple uses your logic, but more upstream...proactive rather than reactive. Developers, as an example, learn over time that Apple does for Apple, and the success of the Store isn't left to chance, even if it means having to learn the hard way at times. It's a good thing 🙂.

I have no doubt that the success of the store is not left to chance. Whether the way things are at the moment is a good thing is debatable. The process is too clunky right now and too inflexible. I have no doubt that it will have to (and will) change over time to be more efficient. Doing this is in the interest of both Apple and the publishers.

K T wrote:

I'd like to see a system where individuals with a proven track record in the store are allowed to self-approve, but it seems like there are always certain numbers of individuals digging hard for a way to game the system, and the old adage of "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" seems to be a significant element when it comes time to decide how best to control the store for the greater good.

A self-approval system looks like another promising approach, yes. I hear you about the cheaters. On the other hand, it doesn't matter what the process is, there will always be inconsistencies and people who try to game the system. It's a matter of finding something that is sufficiently streamlined while meeting pragmatic needs. (And, sorry, the current process, by all the accounts here, does not meet pragmatic needs.)

It will get better as time goes by, I'm sure.

Michi.

MichiHenning wrote:

And, sorry, the current process, by all the accounts here, does not meet pragmatic needs.

Sorry, but the process meets Apple's needs. That's the only 'account' that matters.

Devs, authors - either way...we're not users/customers. We are strictly app store fodder...the bun, not the meat. The sooner that concept sinks in, whether it's with a new author or new developer, then sooner the individual will relax behind the process.

It will get better, sure, but on Apple's terms, for Apple's benefit, first and foremost. If that means a better process for iBA authors...fine, but don't any carry illusions about what's driving things on the backend, otherwise 🙂.

K T wrote:

Sorry, but the process meets Apple's needs. That's the only 'account' that matters.

Devs, authors - either way...we're not users/customers. We are strictly app store fodder...the bun, not the meat.

I suspect that you are dead-on with those comments. I agree that, if things change, it will be most likely because changing them will improve the profitability of the iBookstore, regardless of whether the changes actually make things easier or harder for publishers 😟

Michi.

K T wrote:

Apple does for Apple, and the success of the Store isn't left to chance, even if it means having to learn the hard way at times. It's a good thing 🙂.

But the iBookstore hasn't been very successful has it? So surely that shows Apple aren't doing the right things for once.

A personal example of what makes me think the iBookstore has not been successful.

My book "Natural Portraits" is 2nd in the top 10 charts on iTunes for photography and 4th overall in the "Arts and Entertainment" section. It's been out a month and had 1500 downloads. I'm shocked that only 1500 downloads was enough to get it to 2nd place in it's section.

last year I had an app that was getting 2000 downloads a day. It didn't even break into the top 100 once.

Compared to the other bookstores it would seem the downloads on the iBookstore are much lower, the iBookstore has not been a success I am coming to realise