Slashdot Mirror
Apple Blocks Cartoonist From App Store
ink writes "Here is another troubling anecdote on the iWeb front: 'This week cartoonist Mark Fiore made Internet and journalism history as the first online-only journalist to win a Pulitzer Prize. Fiore took home the editorial cartooning prize for animations he created for SFGate, the website for the San Francisco Chronicle... But there's just one problem. In December, Apple rejected his iPhone app, NewsToons, because, as Apple put it, his satire "ridicules public figures," a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, which bars any apps whose content in "Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory."' Whether or not you agree with Fiore's political sentiments, I believe we can all agree that the censorship of his work should be denigrated."
Yes, Apple has a locked down system that rejects apps for arbitrary reasons.
This is a known fact, can we stop pretending its "stuff that matters?"
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
It's refusing to publish based on arbitrary criteria. But the same goes for all publishers. He's unlikely to be published in a cat magazine either because his work isn't about cats. That's not censorship either.
The App store doesn't do satire. That's all.
I honestly cannot understand how apple's monopolistic behavior hasn't attracted the same attention that Microsoft's did
if you want the cartoons, get an android phone or access them over the web.
Make an android app instead.
But you know Apple is just trying to not get sued.
I blame that crazy old man that used to sue video games every time some young guy shot somebody. He proved you could harass companies over things that are not their fault for years. And that Jackson girl for showing her evil nipple of trauma, empowering prudes to new heights of shrill objections.
You can't take the sky from me...
I absolutely agree, and when censorship starts happening of his work, we should be mad as hell.
Oh, I'm sorry, you mean you thought that Apple not permitting things that violate a license agreement onto things that are restricted in terms of what they can load by Apple is a form of censorship. Well no, no more so than the SFGate site not permitting other random cartoonists onto their site is censorship.
Censorship is performed by the government or an agent thereof, not by individual corporations. Any cartoonist, pulitzer prize or no, has a right to publish what they want - but they DO NOT have a right to force a publisher or anyone else to carry their content. Nothing is stopping him from providing the app for jailbroken phones.
So if you're mad Apple is doing this - cool, it is definitely bullcrap, but don't start screaming about censorship without knowing what you're talking about.
I wrote an app called Sort, which is a simple sorting "game" with various topics (sort the letters of various alphabets, sort states alphabetically, sort President years, etc).
We had one topic called "Madoff Victims" where you were to sort the 10 highest losers of money due to Bernie Madoff's schemes, in order of loss.
I don't remember the exact wording, but Apple rejected our app because they didn't like us implying bad things about him, even though exploits are well known. We removed that topic and the app was accepted.
Just Wal-Mart deciding it isn't going to carry porn in its DVD collection. Nobody's freedom of speech is being violated here.
...not to get an iPhone.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Even though Mentifex has solved AI, people say the nastiest things about him. The Internet and the Apple App store are simply not fair.
No, wait. Just don't use the f'ing thing. Get something that's not so restrictive.
Yeah, the newstoon app was written specifically for the iPhone, but I bet s/he or they will be looking at something a bit more open going forward.
he might upset someone religious enough to want him and anything that carries his "blasphemy" destroyed.
Nullius in verba
...some kind of tipping point for corporate bullshit? A point when the most zealous of fanboys (or fangirls) realises that their beloved corporate overlords are just too evil, stupid or evil and stupid to be allowed anyone's money anymore? I live in hope.
... I don't own a Mac, iPhone, iPod, or any other iStuff. Apple does produce some really great technology. But I just can't deal with the whole Apple technology ecosystem. The company, its developers, and its users buy into a really obnoxious kind of groupthink, typified by those weird lovefests where the audience goes orgasmic every time Steve demonstrates something. Can you imagine any other place where they'd even consider a rule against "ridiculing public figures"? Gives a certain irony to that stupid commercial.
Chairmans Mao and Stalin would be proud.
How would they get sued? If someone were to sue them then they'd have to sue the papers and everywhere else this man's cartoons appear. That would be a daunting task.
I just see Apple being a bit too control freaky here.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
In other news, brick-and-mortar stores everywhere refuse to carry my RandomPlasticCrap 2.0 - clearly this is censorship!
fucking China. This is ridiculous.
...that this decision gets reversed before very long. Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened with Apple.
This ain't rocket surgery.
The App store has a MSNBC app for political cartoons. How is that any different?
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
"Whether or not you agree with Fiore's political sentiments, I believe we can all agree that the censorship of his work should be denigrated."
The righteous never think that what they say is propaganda.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
"Whether or not you agree with Fiore's political sentiments, I believe we can all agree that the censorship of his work should be denigrated"
Well, don't feel bad; lots of people believe things that are untrue.
I have no problem with Apple deciding what their product does. What a lot of people can't seem to get their brains around is: the iPod (and iPhone, and now iPad) is not a general-purpose computer.
Also, I do not regard this as censorship and wish people would quit abusing that term to the point that it has no meaning.
Agent Smith: But, as you well know, appearances [like a nice UI] can be deceiving, which brings me back to the reason why we're here [on the iPhone]. We're not here because we're free. We're here because we are not free.
... from their "1984 ad" that announced the Macintosh.
They've gone from releasing the system advertised as "challenging Big Brother" to becoming very much like Big Brother's Thought Police...
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
And Baron Jobs is not amused. Don't you serfs know better than to ridicule your betters? Now go, and till the internet to make me more profit lest I ship your puny job to India! Away! Away Peasant!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Apple fanboys will do what Apple says, regardless of what anyone thinks. And those of us who aren't in Apple's lap really aren't affect by this. So long story short - who cares? Apple is performing the sacred duty of separating fools from their money.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You don't seem to agree with Apple's policy of doing whatever is best for Apple.
Perhaps you should have mentioned this when they first disclosed the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, rather than later on when they were enforcing it.
Oh, you did? And nobody cared then, either?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8/
Ban all that offends.
Ban all that might hurt.
Restrain the stupid from doing things that might hurt themselves, and also restrain the smart from doing anything similar.
Soon, we will be perfectly safe because our activities will be as standardized as production in factories.
How boring. It's what I don't like about GUIs: they are so eager to "hide complexity" that they also tie your hands when you need to execute any complex task outside what 90% of the users are doing 90% of the time.
Futurist Traditionalism
You get what you pay for - pay your money take your choice.
Can't help thinking the Apple defamation/libel yes men had more to do with this than 'censorship' - Apple covering their ass. They not forcing you to use this app to view this cartoon [yet?]
So this iApp downloads a file from a server and displays it - something like a http client.
Shiny Shiny.......
And accept defeat?
Apparently they can only defeat their own customers. So I win! (Or at least I don't lose.)
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Look, I do not believe this is a freedom of speech issue. Apple's sandbox – Apple's castle. This issue actually has me wondering more about Apple's new iPad distribution agreements. Surely some of the content published through digital newspapers or magazines could be deemed equally offensive in relation to the content of the banned app. Is satire or parody of public figures allowed in this form, but not through a dedicated app? Is Apple being hypocritical here?
I looked at the source he cited and found this:
I don't see any requirement that the one doing this be a government. Did you read the dictionary link, or not? Incidentally, I agree that Apple's actions are legal. I just think that they're ridiculous.
iWhatever. Ppppppppfffffffffttttttttttttt.
Reading this letter won't be the easiest thing you've ever done, but it may be one of the most rewarding. I guess I should start by saying that Apple finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, in Apple's quest to use cheap, intemperate propaganda to arouse the passions of the worst classes of insecure self-promoters I've ever seen it has left no destructive scheme unutilized.
I have absolutely no idea why Apple makes such a big fuss over poststructuralism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that Apple says that laws are meant to be broken. You know, it can lie as much as it wants but it can't change the facts. If it could, it'd indeed prevent anyone from hearing that you may be wondering why drossy peculators latch onto its propositions. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but Apple is like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of stoicism and you'll see a repressive, ungrateful urban guerrilla hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of mandarinism in a picayunish attempt to extinguish the voices of opposition. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that Apple must sense its own irremediable inferiority. That's why it is so desperate to instill distrust and thereby create a need for its petulant views; it's the only way for it to distinguish themselves from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Apple also realized that I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes organizations like it want to discredit legitimate voices in the pessimism debate.
I can assure you that Apple is trying to hide the fact that what I call sadistic slimeballs thrive on hatred rather than love. Nevertheless, one thing that rings true with crystalline clarity is that the exclusivism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, logorrheic attack on progressive ideas. I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Apple's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now. Do you understand the implications of what I have been telling you? Are you awake? Then you probably realize that Apple really struck a nerve with me when it said that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. That lie is a painful reminder that the suggestion that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors is wrong, absurd, and offensive. Nevertheless, Apple's factotums like to suggest such things to distract attention from the truth, which is that Apple's policy of challenging all I stand for must not go unchallenged. To leave it unchallenged is to condone Apple's grandiose plans for world hegemony, plans in which no one is free to say that if Apple hadn't been breaking down our communities, it simply would not have occurred to me to write the letter you now are reading. Why, I might have taken the day off altogether. Or maybe I would have been out complaining about the most ignominious Huns I've ever seen. In any case, Apple is doing everything in its power to make me contract leprosy and be forced to live out my benighted days shunned by humanity, ringing a bell, and shying away from sharps and open flames. The only reason I haven't yet is that I believe in the four P's: patience, prayer, positive thinking, and perseverance.
While Apple is
Yes, Apple has a locked down system that rejects apps for arbitrary reasons. This is a known fact, can we stop pretending its "stuff that matters?"
Apple, being the owner of the platform and operating within a capitalist economy, is absolutely free to act as it does. Moreover, timothy, in publising this write-up and in adding the "censorship" or "yro" tag, you are totally wrong. This is no censorship, this has nothing to do with Your Rights Online. This is simply a corollary of capitalism, like it or not. Live with it.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
If you want freedom to do whatever you'd like with your electronics, don't purchase electronics that you don't have control of, simple as that.
Fine line between benevolent dictator and a oppressive one; It's easier to just not have a dictator at all.
Sent from my PDP-11
Apple has a 99.4% marketshare in smartphone applications. Sounds like a monopoly to me.
In a surprise move, Apple bans Opera on the iPhone and iPad. When questioned company spokesmen would not say why, although an unnamed source says that it is because, "Safari enables people to view sites that ridicule public figures."
Safari, Apple says, is allowed because it uses Apple's iCensor.
Everybody knows that Apple is a control freak. If you write an app for it, you accept the risk. If you buy a product, you want to live in a locked down world. I’m not judging anyone’s choices on this, but sorry... you can’t ignore it, and then complain later.
The only thing I don’t understand, is why Apple is doing this. I mean, it only hurts them.
Maybe some pressure from media companies? (Who have close relations to Apple, because Apple products are used so much in professional media production.)
If anyone has the reasoning at hand, please do explain...
Luckily, this is not very important to me, and I’m only curious. I, as a developer, made the choice that I will never support Apple or Microsoft phones. It’s not worth it. (You have to add the cost of supporting idiot customers that feel entitled to being idiots, in MS’s case.)
Of course I will change that rule, if those companies get a sudden outbreak of common sense and lose their evilness. But as if that’s going to happen... ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
THIS IS NOT NEWS
For those Apple fans out there who wonder why we hate the idea of Apple becoming the de facto standard for portable computing, this is why. Apple can do what they want with their store (for example, if I owned an app store, I'd like to refuse to sell content I object to), but I would like the freedom to buy an app from someone else.
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
You think like a ReThuglican Jew
Apple is a Publisher, Appstore is their venue.
They can reject anything for any reason they feel like.
Just like book publishers.
It isn't news when a publisher rejects publishing a work.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/08/21/obama.art.controversy/
The app was initially blocked because it contains Shepard Fairey's famous "Hope" poster, from Obama's 2008 election campaign. While the subject of its own rights controversies, Apple initially cited the art as simply inappropriate, due to ridiculing public figures. The classification was paradoxical, as Obama himself has been a supporter of Fairey's work.
all of those kama sutra apps and fake cell phone tracker apps? seriously?
Fuck Ajit Pai
Anything Apple scrutinises and approves would seem to be approved by them. Apple becomes the distributor, the publisher. So if the app caused problems then they would share the blame.
There are multiple publishers for books. When you have a platform with high costs to switch, censorship becomes a serious problem.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
It's censorship. Not governmental censorship, but censorship nonetheless. (And of course it is legal, but that is not the point).
If a newspaper refuses to run a story because of its volatile nature, or how it goes against the prejudices of its owners, that is censorship too. Just a different kind.
Apple is a carrier, pure and simple. Do we have laws that they should carry any app? No. Should we? I'll go with a cautious no, but your millage may vary. But anyone who thinks that a newspaper which refuses to run a story only (!) because it does not fit their paradigm, or might give them bad press, is still a relevant newspaper in any way is a moron.
And anyone who thinks that Apple is an acceptable carrier (and they are a carrier) is a moron too. Just like anyone who thinks that a government that censors political speech is an acceptable government is... part of a repressive regime.
Apple is censoring stuff. Because they are in the business of delivering stuff, choosing not to deliver (when the choice is not made for sound reasons, but on prejudice - even if by proxy as in this case) is censorship. That anyone is accepting this at all just goes to show that the customer will not choose the better product. That this is opinion and art being censored just proves that this matters, damnit!
Also, my new HTC Desire is the hawtness!
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
For purchasing a closed product where a single vendor gets to dictate what software you can or can't load on the device. This has got to be the most obsene form of vendor lockin I can fathom but enough people are willing to tolerate it there is absoultely no reason for Apple to care or change their ways.
its a psychological defense mechanism. to validate your own opinions and actions, you sublimely believe that everyone feels the same you do.
When I subscribe to an opinion, I hold strong to it. I don't just forget about it a week later. I have been a 3G user and hobbyist programmer since it launched. I am frustrated by Apple's walled garden greatly since it had began. I am still not convinced it is protecting me from crapware.
Why would anyone who doesn't own an iphone care? Grow up kid. And make proper bets. How do you validate 'probably'? Do you even read what you're typing? / proper rant >
The problem is that Apple at the same time also controls the platform, and doesn't let another publisher on it.
If a book publisher doesn't publish your book, you can always try another publisher. Now if the publisher were also in control of all book printing equipment, and wouldn't let other publishers print books, things would be different.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Read iCon the bio of Jobs that Jobs hated so much that he banned all Wiley books from Apple stores.
iCon is available for the Kindle. Some Kindle books are available for the iPad. "iCon" does not appear to be one of them.
The real reason that Apple is censoring applications by Mark Fiore is that he led the way in doing animated cartoons in Flash.
Regardless of whether you agree with his views (and I think it's entirely possible for you to make your own choice whether to install an app whose function is to deliver political satire) his work is widely regarded as technically innovative and artistically stylish. And the Apple principals can't stand to be seen in conflict with anyone more innovative and stylish than they are.
So rather than have him outclass them at the party, they'll just escort him out of the house, so to speak. There you go Apple, problem solved!
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
It is Apple's platform - their hardware, their software. If they want to restrict the availability of information over their system, which you are agreeing to use within THEIR license agreement, then that is their right.
If you don't like their license agreement or their platform, then don't use it. Would you be as upset if a newspaper that leaned to one political direction decided to publish some cartoons but not others because of its own motives? You might not agree with it, but it is certainly their choice.-
You can't cry afoul if it's a platform and a system that you, as a user, make the choice to be a part of. You have decided to be a patron of their system and you have agreed to their license. If you think their censorship is BS, then move to something else.
My best guess is that if they offer an app which is one guy's platform to lambaste people, they're worried about libel suits in places like Britain, which don't have freedom of speech as such. The MSNBC app isn't a problem because it's obviously a forum for many people and MSNBC would ultimately be liable, not Apple, for distributing the material.
Another possibility is that they just don't want the iPhone app store to develop a reputation for having a particular political orientation, because that erodes their brand identity and universality. Ironic, since they're developing a reputation for being oppresive. I can't say I care a lot about the app store or what's in it, I bought my phone to be a phone with a nice UI.
The secret to understanding Apple is that they're 25% branding, 25% market analysis, 25% legalese and 25% technology. This is consistent with two or three of these. They'd care a lot more about our opinion as a group if we weren't the first ones to jump ship for Android. And honestly, we aren't that big a group. Look how long and hard we've had to fight to convince everyone we know not to use Windows and how well that's working out. That's more or less why they don't care what we think, regardless of how much we complain.
I don't think it matters to 99.999% of people
Here's why:
They buy an iPhone or an iPod Touch or an iPad for what they can see it can do.
The do NOT buy it for what they can see it *might* be able to do.
Only engineers and visionaries will buy something for the second reason. Consider that most cars which run on hydrogen are conversions of ordinary petroleum vehicles which were bought specifically to make them do something that they ordinarily would not have been able to do. Someone converting a Ford Escort to run on Hydrogen, though, is highly unlikely to encourage someone to buy a Ford Escort in the hope that conversion kits will be available "at some point in the future". It's even more likely that someone bought a Ford Escort 4 years before the first person converting it to run on Hydrogen in order to have one on hand when conversions kits became available on the off chance that someone would think of converting one to do that four years in the future.
Likewise, the person buying the iPad is not going to do so on the basis of anticipating some killer app that hasn't been thought of by the person who will eventually implement it only have their idea rejected by the app store. We're never going to see a lot of people who fall into the category of: "Oh crap! I bought this thing 4 years ago because I knew someday someone would write this program, and now they have, but I have no way to buy it!".
Yeah, it may piss you off on general principles, but all you're ding is trying to get everyone else to adopt your general principles by compplaining, you're not the white knight errant saving the world from censorship, so get over it.
-- Terry
If Apple can make boatloads of money without having to spend time responding to protests by offended groups, it makes business sense for them to do so. It is unreasonable to expect a for-profit corporation to engage in activity to its own financial detriment just because the public would be better served if they did so. Apple makes some terrific products and deserves the credit for that. However, I do think the public would be better served to have a more open distribution channel for apps and content. I just don't expect that we can get there through corporate distribution channels. Maybe if we had a Newman's Own distribution channel. :-)
If a book publisher doesn't publish your book, you can always try another publisher.
You can always try another platform. Apple doesn't owe anyone a place in their store.
As PsychoSlashDot says, we need to keep bringing this up, talking about it, sharing it, etc. It does matter, it is morally questionable (even if perfectly legal), and it needs much, much more noise until Apple either stops doing it or starts losing significant marketshare.
I think your problem is that it's not news, certainly not for nerds. I'd agree with that.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Can't wait for the Steve Jobs cartoon.
Months ago it was announced by Google that Android phones were selling at a rate of about 22 million a year already. And Android's marketshare has been doubling every quarter for the past year.
At the incredible rate Android is growing I have to imagine it is currently selling at a much higher rate than 22 million a year now.
I say "Fuck the iFaggots, they deserve this shit."
But then I get all softhearted and remember that these people had trouble with two buttons on their mice.
If Apple was the telephone company and it blocked the ability of Mr Fiore to communicate his satire to me, I think we would agree that (regardless of Apple's ownership of the wires) this was censorship, that it was bad, and that it should not be allowed. Indeed there are regulations to this effect.
If Microsoft implemented something in Windows that blocked my ability to view Mr Fiore's cartoons on my PC, I think we would be likely to come to the same conclusion. In this case it I own the computer; there is a strong argument to be made that I should be able to choose how to use it.
Now say I own an iPad. Mr Fiore would like to distribute his cartoons to me. Apple owns the app store, and they say No. They have implemented technical measures to prevent me from finding another way to get Mr Fiore's work onto the device I own. Furthermore, there is a law in place - the DMCA - that makes it illegal for me to work around those restrictions - even though I own the device, even though Mr Fiore would like to communicate (or sell) his work to me.
In other words, the government has already intervened in this situation. It has done so on Apple's behalf. Citizens have every right to intervene in the public interest.
As a society we use companies in the market as means to ends. We value communication; we have found the market is an effective way of enabling it. We have therefore regulated in order to create markets (through property rights, enforcement of contracts, and so on). We regulation different modes of communication in different ways. The telephone system is one example. The PC is another. Sometimes that regulation is done through government statutes, sometimes through regulatory bodies, sometimes the market is the regulating mechanism.
Your technical question of whether Apple's actions constitute a dictionary or legal definition of "censorship" ignores any ethical considerations. I think Apple's actions here are bad. I am not interested in "hating" Apple because it is a company fulfilling obligations, not a human being capable of moral choice. What I am interested in is how we can encourage and enable human speech, expression and communication. This story demonstrates a failure in this regard.
The question, then, is how to improve matters. Replacing Apple's control of the iPad with outright government control, to pick an extreme example, would likely do more harm than good. But there are other choices. One obvious response is to publicize and educate the problem, as Slashdot is doing. The government could fix the DMCA so that Apple can't use it to restrict my legitimate use of the product I own. Copyright and patent law are often used to create monopolies of distribution, to the detriment of artists and consumers: if Hollywood and the recording industry back Apple's approach, for example, we could end up with a single dominant channel of distribution. Our legislators should be concerned with this. We might also consider some kind of common carrier- or net neutrality-type regulation to ensure that channels like this are open. For example, it seems to me incredibly unreasonable that Apple gets the DMCA on side and is then able to behave like this. The law grants rights: it should also require the fulfillment responsibilities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oAB83Z1ydE
So much for the crazy and rebellious ones...app not approved.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Apple just wants to make sure the "App Store®" content is properly Harmonized to improve The User Experience.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Apple is a private corporate/store, it is not required to sell a particular work. This is really no different than other media vendors in the US. Under the definition being suggested, any store would have to sell any book/movie/etc. somebody submitted for sale because otherwise that is censorship. It is not censorship because Fiore is not being prevented from creating, displaying, or trying to sell his work in general by Apple or the US Government. As already mentioned Fiore's work shows up other places so others are willing to buy and were not prevented by Apple or USG from doing so. Apple wasn't interested for the reasons they gave and they aren't going to make it available. If you don't like Apple's policy, don't shop there or encourage them to change, but calling it censorship doesn't help when it is not.
I love how some people are crying "censorship." These people are claiming that Apple is "oppressing" everyone and specifically Mark Fiore by not allowing him to publish his comic on in their app store.
First of all, if this were "oppression" then is would only be the "oppression" of iPhone users and Mark Fiore. No where has Apple claimed to be a platform for free speech. Some Apple customers don't seem to understand that by choosing Apple you are choosing a company that wants to CONTROL your experience with their products. Regardless of why they want that control, they still want it and do a great deal to secure it.
Second, it seems to me that these people forget an important aspect of Freedom, specifically the freedom to associate OR NOT with those whom we choose. Like it or not, Apple enjoys that freedom as well as the rest of us.
Apple's policies in this matter break no law. When you bought an iPhone you implicitly agreed to them. When you develop for the iPhone you explicitly agree to them. Stop complaining about the results of your own stupid choice. Think about shit like this before you buy a company's products.
Now on a different note, censorship.
Who decided that all censorship was bad? Why shouldn't Apple be allowed to censor their platform? It is theirs after all. Why should Apple be forced to publish material that they don't want to publish? Apple censoring their products is well with their rights and a perfectly legitimate thing to do. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU ARE FREE TO REFRAIN FROM BUYING OR USING APPLE PRODUCTS!
Suggesting that a company censoring their own platforms is equal to the government preventing the free exchange of ideas is ridiculous, therefore I ridicule it.
Equating this act of self censorship with a government policy preventing the free exchange of ideas is evil, whereas Apple not publishing this guys comic strip not.
For the record, I do not own an iPhone. The only apple product I own is an (older) iPod. I do not buy media content (music or video) from Apple. I am not an Apple fan-boy or apologist, it just really bugs me when people have these f'ed up arguments that don't really make sense.
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
Hey Steve, I hear Google is coming out with an Android based tablet. Now I know you are proud of this Death Star you've built, but maybe you shouldn't dissolve the Galactic Senate just yet? Are you sure that fear will keep the systems in line?
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Not me. If they were specifically targeting Fiore because of his politics, then yeah. But that's not what they're doing. They're prohibiting anything that might be "contentious" on either side of the political spectrum. That's entirely their prerogative as a company, and it seems they're applying that standard "fairly" (such as it is). If you don't like it then vote with your wallet- don't buy any Apple products.
how does this work if a newspaper has an app for the ipad? Do they have to censor the politcal cartoons?
In the 1950's we had Senator Joe McCarthy looking everywhere for communists and a witch hunt in society that took decades to recover from intellectually. Whether it was in film, military, government or the media the witch hunt went on and on for quite some time and destroyed or damaged many peoples' careers. It made Joe famous though. The noun that came from that is called McCarthyism. When his actions were finally called to account in public in Congress his whole evil and pernicious house of cards collapsed.
In the 1990's some bored college students who apparently found themselves in a position to not like the climate of free speech or free thought around them created the concept of Political Correctness (PC) to tar paper any and all opposing viewpoints in any debate or discussion or controversy. After all, why argue the true merits of your idea for its' own value when the other side might have a better or more cogent argument to put forward? Rather it is better to be safe and scuttle the argument entirely by claiming the opposite group are not PC and they are therefore wrong no matter what merit they might have to their ideas. This PC intellectual sickness has spread through many layers of modern American society.
Let me be unambiguous about this: PC thinking SUCKS. It stifles true debate about the merits of ideas and ideologies in our society and replaces that with a dumbed down sense of smug 'we were right' attitudes put forth when real debate was what was needed to resolve an issue or conflict. PC = McCarthyism for modern society and it is not a positive force in our culture.
APPLE has chosen to avoid any sense of trouble by suppressing the cartoons of a renowned but somewhat controversial artist. Big surprise! Apple themselves suck with their PC thinking. It is much safer to suppress ideas that might provoke real thought about a topic or current issue, whether you like the topic or not; see no evil, hear no evil, accept no evil to sell in your AP store....
Why do all of you expect more from APPLE? Are you thinking that they really care about our opinion? Just shovel the money their way and shut up, you non-PC person you.
Dear Mr. Fiore,
Thank you for submitting NewsToons to the App Store. We’ve reviewed NewsToons and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store because it contains content that ridicules public figures and is in violation of Section 3.3.14 from the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement which states:
“Applications may be rejected if they contain content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, sounds, etc.) that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory.” Examples of such content have been attached for your reference.
If you believe that you can make the necessary changes so that NewsToons does not violate the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, we encourage you to do so and resubmit it for review.
Regards,
iPhone Developer Program
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
his satire "ridicules public figures," a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement,
I know I'm repeating what others have said here, but this is just crap. I hope iPad tanks so we don't have to live in an Apple controlled world.
I'm a convert to Apple products, but definitely not the Apple philosophy of control of content and applications. All you Stallman haters out there will be crying in your Apple iBeer if Jobs gets his way. It is exactly what the open software advocates have been warning us about for years.
Pray the wePad takes over significant markets in Europe.
A few more improved versions of Android based phones and I'm out. I got my 3G when they came out almost 2 years ago, and it was a game changer for sure. That said, I've been waiting to get off the Apple train since I first had to install itunes almost two years ago.
Apple's products are well done, but the company sucks. They are not at all interested in changing the digital IP landscape. Their only objective is massive profits (as it should be since they are a public company). Luckily, shifting the IP model is in some companies best interests right now (like google) and it makes sense from a usability standpoint for the consumers so I think Apple's locked down mobile strategy will falter eventually. It will jsut take time for the Android stack to mature and for people to figure out that the nerds can do way cooler stuff on their Android based phones that the Apple equivalent and they cost less. For reference, just look at the Apple PC downfall in the late 90's... Has there been a resurgence in Apple PC gear since? Yes, for a variety of reasons. Is Apple ever going to come close to co-dominance they shared with IBM clones in the home PC market of the early 1990s again? I'd say no.
I think apple will fizzle out in the mobile arena as well.
I fail to see why this is a problem. Can't he put his cartoons online somewhere? The world isn't made out of iPhones, and there exist general purpose computers for running programs...
Shoot yourself in the foot apple. You are not getting my $$$$$ for you dinky stuff. No matter how inferior is your competition it will get my support.
Have you ever considered Apple in the context of your own sig?
Whether or not you agree with Fiore's political sentiments, I believe we can all agree that the censorship of his work should be denigrated.
No, Apple denigrated themselves long ago, and Steve's fans continuously denigrate themselves by supporting his behavior with their wallet.
We saw this coming from miles away when we first learned Apple would be policing what people run with their phone, why are people surprised now? A megalomaniac does fascist things with his company? I am shocked!
But... the future refused to change.
Its hard to switch to a website? Seriously? You can get to their website and do the same thing the app was going to do. The Internet means you can be your own publisher.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Ridicule is not defamation.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Does your hypothetical iPad have a web browser? Can it visit www.markfiore.com? Could he post an iPad-compatible version of his cartoons there? Then why do you need an app for that?
That's what really bugs me about all these smart phones and tablet computers advertising how many apps they have. We used to call most of those things "web pages". But now that they are "apps", we can't use them on our general purpose computers.
i agree. I was reading where someone said that as long as you have an alternative place to buy/read or whatever from that its not censorship. Like using an android instead. But no matter how you twist it, its still censorship. There are just different levels of it. I think it would be better for apple if they had an option to buy from an alternative store. You got to look at the iphone as if it were a country. Lets call it China for an example, because of their similarities, but because they control what you get to use and what you cant use. I would call that cesorship.
While there are going to be exceptions, (ie, geeks excited about trying new technological solutions), most iPad/Pod/Phone users I've met typify AOL customers of old.
With one significant added dimension. . .
There's a weird Christian-ness about them which is hard to put my finger on. Clean-shaven, pleasant-but-fake facade which feels cultish. They make my stomach squelch nervously when I'm around one of them. -Which either means I'm the anti-Christ, or something deep in my DNA is reacting with fight/flight chemistry to the smiling pod people.
-FL
I'd not let the guy tag the side of my house either. That's not censorship, that's me exercising my rights.
- real hackers don't have sigs -
App Store is not the Web. Stop conflating it. App Store is the native app platform on Apple's consumer devices, which all also have an open Web platform where you find the Web.
This is not censorship. Wal-Mart doesn't sell some music albums because of content, and that is not censorship. It's not how I would do it, bit I'm not one of the top 5 biggest companies in the US like Apple and Wal-Mart.
Fiore is not banned from Apple devices, which all have totally open W3C HTML5 Web app platforms built-in. He will simply have to collect his own money, Apple does not want to do it.
Apple puts out some great products here and there. The iPhone is/was a good product in many ways. They always have to control everything.. Their hardware, with their OS, with their apps they approve. LG, Samsung, HTC, etc have to compete with them, Apple will not allow them to use their OS.. Google and others will... The Droid is already better in many aspects than the iPhone, there is several more Android OS phones coming out. iPhone is one of many now and many more to come. They will end up having a 5% share of the market over time just like the PC market..
They should license their OS and open things up a little if they wish to avoid that..
s/©//g
One wonders if Apple would go after him for doing such a thing. As the EFF shows, you're never on sure ground with Apple because Apple accepts/rejects app submissions seemingly arbitrarily. And they are working off of a history of legally threatening people on baseless claims and profound misreads of policy. I don't think it a stretch to wonder if Apple would consider a different version of the application they refused to distribute to be a violation of section 7.3 of their most recent revision of the Apple iPhone Developer Program License Agreement which aims to stop developers from distributing rejected iPhone applications via other means. Granted, a different program would no doubt use different API and possibly offer users entirely different features, a different look and feel, and it could even be distributed under a FLOSS license (or "FOSS" as Apple prefers to call it—can't have people thinking about "libre" as that might lead to people inquire what software freedom means!), but from Apple's perspective: there's a monopoly to sustain here.
Digital Citizen
I'll post about it after I finish streaming "Ow, my balls!" on my iPhone...
The website requires flash. His app presumably did not.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
No politics or religion.
Thats the basic principal here.
Every store in America has policies on what they will sell and almost every one will tell you they wont carry anything that might reflect negatively on them. Apple does not want to get in the middle of a political pissing match or a slander/libel lawsuit so it tries to avoid selling things that might piss people off. Just like every other business in America.
Things are not looking good for my "Whack'a'Ballmer with your boobies" Flash game getting into the App Store.
Still waiting for that iPod..^W^W^W iPhone ...er ^W^W^W iPad killer. It really is a bit like the rise of popularity of sushi.
At least that is how I see it in a nutshell. The Android is another iPod killer. The iPhone should have never taken off in the first place because it is so locked down. It is the year of Linux on the desktop.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Don't like steve job or apples clear censorship? Don't buy there products and stop crying unless you do stop buying/supporting apples products. Its just that simple. The ONLY thing that talks here is Money,if the cash flow slows to a crawl, i suspect apples position on this type of censorship will change...fast. But then again, why would anyone that lives in the united states with all her freedoms be against a company that has high morals?
Jack of all trades,master of none
The EFF offers a copy of the developer's agreement here.
If the relevant clause appears to be this:
I don't see how Fiore is "obscene, pornographic, or defamatory" though I guess there is some off-color content. But the "objectionable" line seems hopelessly vague, and I have no idea what limit "reasonable" places on Apple. I think they can block virtually whomever they want but question whether this clause is particularly meaningful as a contract. Because Apple can "revoke the digital certificate of any of Your Applications at any time," the developer has little or no protection; a court might (?) have a problem with the reckless exercise of this -- contractual obligations aren't always spelled out in full on paper.
Certainly Apple has a monopoly over iPhone/iPad apps, one they will hold as long as they can. Some argue that vertical integration like this is bad for companies, and Apple is the unusual exception in pulling it off. The only solution may be for consumers to vote with their feet -- Android.
you can jailbreak your ipod touch to get games...visit youtube and search "ipod touch jailbreak" and look for the video by "ipodtouchmaster. Celebrity Smile
What does it take for people to realise that so-called "free speech" only applies to State controlled places, spaces,etc., or the privately owned "public spaces". Whether online or in meatspace, private places are under no obligation to allow all and sundry to natter on, or for that matter to sell their goods. It is freedom, and private property (real and "virtual") if you can't cope with the concept, please repeat your 5th - 9th form civic (social studies) classes.
Almost every piece of content is objectionable to somebody or a group of people.
Many it's as simple as porn or people with very little to no clothing. Others it might be religious references because their athiest or it's not representing the god they believe in. Others find violent games offensive.
So why doesn't Apple censor everything that isn't based on pure fact...oh wait people debate "fact" too. Like evolution vs. creationism.
I find the walled garden objectionable and will be leaving the iPhone walled garden once my AT&T contract is up.
Ya know, I think it's about time that "Apple Fanbois" wake the hell up and realize that Apple and Steve Jobs are just as vile as Microsoft and Bill Gates. This kind of pathological delusion is right up there with:
1: Obama 'Birthers' (I'm definitely NOT a fan of Obama, but this is just ridiculous),
2: 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists,
3: The Bible Code,
4: The Kansas Board Of Education,
5: and Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Hairy Ape-Men die-hards.
Honestly, what could anybody possibly gain by supporting Apple and it's Stalinist policy towards anything that criticizes it?
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
I am sure many on /. regard me as an ultra-conservative, reactionary, revolutionary, communist maniac - which is true - so perhaps I am not in the best position to teach people about open-mindedness, respect for the right of other people (and businesses) to choose for themselves etc.
But... Do I care?
So, before you whip up a storm about censorship, bear in mind that Apple are in fact entitled to reject selling any specific app from their online store; they don't have to give a reason, and if they do, it doesn't really have to be reasonable. If they believe that it makes business sense to not sell the works of a satirist, that is their choice, and all we can do is take note and form our own opinion about it.
And, strictly speaking, is it really censorship? We all make choices about what we do and say every day. I think it is going too far, talking about "self-censorship", as if everybody had a moral duty to speak about certain things. Censorship is when freedom of speech is suppressed by somebody with enough power to make it virtually impossible to exercise that freedom; this guy can clearly express his views elsewhere, so this is not censorship.
Otherwise, should we demand that all news-media report opinions they don't agree with? Should Christian news-papers be forced to publish pornographic material? Should Fox News be forced to report in a fair and balanced way?
Terry, get over yourself already. You're just one very small part of the 99.999% of mindless twats who never have an effect on any process. That's the best place for you, where you can feel safe. Go back to sleep. We'll deal with this.
Like if defamtion and morals were absolute terms.
That is why defamation has to be usually sorted out in a court of law, because parties will normally don't agree what is defamatory and what isn't.
Apple is acting as judge, jury and executioner of the food tastes and mores of the people byuyin computers from them.
Only a moron can be happy with such arrangement.
And in all civilized countries there are laws to curb anticompetitive behaviour.
Apple is testing the system as far as possible, I am almost certain they are waiting to be sued.
1984 seem to be a real reference for Apple.
In 1984 and in 2010.
Everytime I see a story like this one question arises: Why are they not subject to similar antitrust allegations and lawsuits as Microsoft was?
They've created a locked platform where they rule with a monopolistic iron fist. The only difference I see is that they are running it on their own hardware compared to Windows which runs on computers in general. Still, iPhone, the new iPad, the iPod not to mention how iTunes work is all monopolistic in nature.
Can't make a competing product. The only product allowed to sell Apple iPhone applications like the Apple Store is Apple Store.
This is protected by the government actions of
1) contract enforcement: jailbreaking as a contract violation
2) contract enforcement: I can't get access to the internals because of NDA contract
3) copyrights on the code internals so I can kid on I'm Apple Store
4) Patents on some elements
I would be willing to place a bet that Apple took him off because he was satirizing his majesty King Obama, the first person in history to have the legally delegated power to shut down all internet access in the US according to anything that he perceives as a threat (such as email campaigns, etc., that expose things he doesn't want the american public to know, or a viral campaign for his impeachment.)
Uh, they DO have a monopoly. It's called "copyright": the monopoly on the right to copy. Sheesh. You'll make anything up to protect apple.
Apple should be able to reject any app on any basis that they want. It is their App Store. If you want to create you own App Store I won't tell you what you can and can't put in it, nor should anyone else.
THIS IS NOT CENSORSHIP!!!!! NO ONE IS RESTRICTING YOUR FREE SPEECH OR MARK FIORE'S FOR THAT MATTER.
It seems to me that anyone who deems this most offensive b/c this cartoonist was given a Pulitzer, really isn't expressing their respect for free speech, so much as they are voicing a preference for the information gatekeeping choices of the prize committee over those of the app store.
It's a matter of pick your poison in that regard.
Pulitzer, by the way, was about as admirable a person vis a vis "journalistic integrity", as Cecil Rhodes--for whom the eponymous-, and highly-touted scholarship is named--was a "scholar".
I am not sure how that is relevant. I have never bought anything created by Apple I could not easily backup or copy.
Just like gog, I can download any app I have purchased from apple again anytime I want and install it on any idevice I own. Maybe he has consider it and that is why he likes Apple?
Replying to the parent parent first:
The difference between Apple's model and Nintendo (and other consoles) is that with Nintendo, there is a vetting process, followed next by approval of the concept you intend to develope. You don't become an approved Nintendo developer and then run off and create absolutely anything you want. You run it by Nintendo first, THEN you invest in making it. With Apple, you invest however much time/cost you need and then are surprised with a rejection at the final step, after you've spent so much time and money making the thing! That's a truly crappy Developer-Content Distributor relationship.
As for parent's comments... I wonder, is there no way to write a traditional installer that would then place the IPA app file into the appropriate folder like (for illustrative purposes) /use/myname/itunes/applications/ ??? So what you do is sell directly to the customer.
Terry, get over yourself already. You're just one very small part of the 99.999% of mindless twats who never have an effect on any process. That's the best place for you, where you can feel safe. Go back to sleep. We'll deal with this.
Actually, foolish person... I work on the Mac/iPhone/iPad as a kernel engineer.
I happen to agree that the device shouldn't be locked down, but I also don't confuse "freedom of speech" with "right to an audience". If I owned a television station and refused to sell air time to neonazis, that's my right. They're perfectly free to build their own television station, but I don't have to rent them time on mine just because, boo hoo, they haven't built theirs yet.
-- Terry
What Apple is doing is a threat to freedom of speech, freedom to program, and ultimately our political freedoms. It needs to stop. Apple isn't going to stop voluntarily, so we need laws.
We really need something like "common carrier" rules for operating system and hardware vendors. The people who provide the wires and the devices should not be allowed to determine the content.
a bit off topic, but don't you guys in the States want to try those terrorists in military court because they are enemy combatants captured during wartime? Isn't there a war on Piracy & Drugs? How long till the lunatic fringe right convince the powers that be in the dead of the night that we are all the new axis of evil. A bit more fodder for both the military and the prison industrial complex. It sounds ridiculous, crazier things have happened.
pr4wn4 - the lazy anonymous coward
Censorship is a term reserved for governments. A private corporation saying they don't want their devices used to ridicule public figures is not "censorship".
If the iphone (as invention) was supposedely help "creative artists and developers", the app acceptance policy seems to be working in a reverse way.
New inventions and art is nothing to be judged by a judgamental person, especially old judgamental ladies.
We should have elected John McCain, then Apple would have fully supported work that satirizes public officials.
#-#
Ad Astra Per Aspera
A rough road leads to the stars