All -

I've just read through the article on TechCrunch, and quoted below is an excerpt from that
article. It is a statement purportedly made by Chris Devore of myPod Apps, the people that
brought us the iPhone Explorer application that many used to transfer their ebooks to the
handheld via the USB interface. Here's the excerpt:

Chris Devor of myPod Apps, which built the iPhone Explorer program Stanza used for USB file transfer, told the LA Times:

From an iPhone app development standpoint, you get access to two directories: (1) your app’s sandbox folder and (2) the DCIM directory for access to pictures and such. On a non-jailbroken iPhone, iPhone Explorer can access the DCIM directory, but not the apps sandbox. So we made a subfolder in the DCIM directory a common ground or shared folder for the two programs.

At the time we began doing this we figured that we were in the iPhone app development “gray zone” and this was something that Apple hadn’t officially made a stance upon. Once Good Reader topped the charts around the world, it drew a bunch of attention from people and Apple figured we were up to no good. After a series of e-mails back and forth between the iPhone app developers and an Apple correspondent, the conclusion was as follows:

(1) the iPhone apps must remove access to the DCIM directory (Apple claims this is in violation of the iPhone App Developer Agreement)
(2) the developers should not blame (point the finger at) Apple for being forced to remove access to the folder (hence the lack of explanation from Stanza).

End of excerpt.

This pretty much explains it all, especially the curious silence on the subject from Lexcycle. I can't really see that Stanza in any way violated the
rules with this solution, but Apple has basically pulled out a really big stick to force the issue. I have to admit, I'm probably more irritated by bullet #2 than I am by the removal of the feature, the need for which had been largely obviated by recent updates to Stanza and Calibre. Were I in Lexcycle's position on this, I do believe that I'd feel rather severely abused by Apple's mishandling of the entire affair. Leaving Lexcycle to face the ire of the user community alone while simultaneously putting a gag on them was NOT the way to win friends or loyalty.

I'd like to apologize to Lexcycle's developers and support team. It appears that you weren't permitted to tell us what was really going on, and I strongly suspect that you weren't any happier about the change than we were.

Another thing that was referenced in the comments from readers of the article is that apparently in the OS 3.2 Beta that was released along with the iPad announcement is a Shared File Directory feature. If this is true, then it is entirely possible that the USB bulk transfer feature might possibly be reimplemented, this time under a supported framework. I wouldn't blame Lexcycle if they chose not to do so after all this, but it is a possibility.

I'm going to be watching *very* closely to see what Apple's methodology is for iBooks. If it makes use of the USB interface, even through iTunes, then I do believe that we need to pursue whatever legal action is necessary to break Apple's ability to engage in unfair competitive practices.

Lastly, given Apple's extremely poor handling of the situation, I'm afraid that I'd have to strongly recommend to Lexcycle that NOW is the time to broaden your focus and target other platforms for your product in addition to Apple's handheld devices. Clearly, the Android platform is one you need to be on top of right now, and there are others waiting in the wings. Apple's iPad notwithstanding, there are already a host of tablet devices on or about to hit the marketplace - and I'd love to see Stanza as the ebook reader solution of choice on them.

Michael