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.
if you want the cartoons, get an android phone or access them over the web.
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.
Because they don't have a monopoly.
But this isn't censorship because Apple is not obligated to publish his app anymore than the SFGate is not obligated to publish every cartoonist in existence in their paper.
... 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
Except unlike IBM or MS, Apple has never held a monopoly on anything. Its funny how people on Slashdot will both be quick to point out how the iPhone's market share is smaller than other smartphones yet at the same time will try to also claim that Apple is a monopoly. You can't have it both ways.
The difference between Apple and Microsoft in these actions is like the difference between an old man shouting to get off their lawn and a protection racket.
Unless you choose to play on the old man's lawn, he doesn't affect you. He's a jerk, but he's avoidable, much like Apple is.
Microsoft is more like the protection racket; either strong vigilante action (for which Linux is emblematic) or law enforcement are the only way to stand up to those guys.
The CB App. What's your 20?
"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)
But this isn't censorship because Apple is not obligated to publish his app
It is censorship, it's just ordinary censorship. Like how you can't say in fuck in school. Why the fuck not? It doesn't hurt anybody: Fuck fuckety fuck fuckfuck. ...
"Eric!"
Sorry, I launched in a south park quote there, anyway, my point was that as I am now voluntarily censoring myself from quoting the rest of that Cartman diatribe, there are many common forms of censorship that happen in life, and Apple censoring stuff that might get them sued is unfortunate but tolerable.
You can't take the sky from me...
Apple displays monopolistic, i.e. anti-competitive, behaviour. Who cares whether they're a monopoly? unless your aim is to punish success (i.e. Microsoft) out of spite rather than to stop activity which is damaging to the marketplace.
Exactly, smart people move on, others quibble about things they really don't full grasp.
I don't have an iPod, but from what I've read I think you can put arbitrary MP3s on it, not just stuff from the iTunes shop. Therefore the problem doesn't exist there.
That's not even nearly a monopoly. It's less than 1/5 of the market.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Why should they allow you to install any app you want?
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.
No, its more like the old man invites you onto his lawn and then has you arrested for trespassing.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Apple has a 99.4% marketshare in smartphone applications. Sounds like a monopoly to me.
All that is happening here is that this one device is not in possession of one App. The SFGate is still available on the iPhone through Safari, and if it is not available it is only because the SFGate censors itself by requiring registration. This is not a case where a country is keeping it's people from viewing the material. It is one machine, with maybe 30% of market share, saying this App is not for it. If I could not use a web browser, or did not know how to buy another phone, I might care.
Unfortunately place like Fox News has lowered the standards of debate so much that there is no point of any discussion on any meaningful topic. Fact is now what one wants to believe, not what is verifiably true. If a banner looks like it might be promoting Islam, it must be, even it is a representation of an atom.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Why should they allow you to install any app you want?
Because it's my phone, my hardware, I paid for it with my money. Apple does not own it, nor any piece of it. I have the full right to use the software it came with in any way I see fit. And I have the right to put whatever software I want on it.
Apple tries to assert that I do not have that right. Apple's only valid assertion is that if I install software from another source that they shouldn't have to support my stuff any more. Fine, void my warranty. It's still my device.
John
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.
They're not synonyms. Nor does one imply the other. They mean something completely different.
Yes, no one has a political right to free speech in the Apple store, but nonetheless Apple is engaging in censorship.
I'm a libertarian and I agree with your implied premise that Apple shouldn't be forced to host any app they don't want to. Doesn't mean they're not cowardly control freaks.
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.
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.
Is it not censorship when a news organization cuts a story because it offends a sponsor?
This notion that only governments can be censors is a relatively recent invention, and is a form of newspeak to enable censors in all other walks of life.
The AC post above mine was asking why people were OK with it from Apple, but not from MS, and I was just illustrating the difference.
You can indeed distribute any app you want for MS phones, but if it competes with one of their favored apps, they won't simply say that releasing it is in violation of their T instead they will rapaciously put you out of business.
Here's the thing, though; there's a back door into every iPhone: the web. Apple has made it clear that they support a totally open web. They also make it easy for people to set up a home page icon for any web site. So for a cartoonist's app, there's no reason that they couldn't simply set up a one-time paywall on a mobile site for iPod users and cut Apple completely out of the loop.
This is really a tempest in a teapot.
The CB App. What's your 20?
I think they are at the very most damaging their own marketplace, the rest of the computing industry will chug along either copying them or ignoring them. If you compare their behaviour to Microsoft's history you'll see what it really means to be anti-competative. Apple are nowhere near that level for which you're trying to name them as.
Jonathanjk.com
They don't have a monopoly over what gets sold on the iTunes store? They don't have a monopoly over iPads? iPhones?
By that vein, then Best Buy has a monopoly over what gets sold in Best Buy. And Microsoft has a monopoly over the Xbox.
No. Apple displays competitive behaviour. 'Comptition' is pretty cut-throat and there is never any love lost between competitiors. Such behaviour only becomes 'anti-competitive' (i.e. contrary to the Sherman Act or similar) when you have a monopoly. For example, a new startup wants to get their product out there so they give away free samples; fine if you are a startup with no market power, but not if you are a monopoly who is thereby foreclosing competition.
Apple also displays control-freak behaviour. Being a control freak and being a monopolist are two very distinct things. Not all control-freaks are monopolists and not all monopolists are control freaks.
Your argument implies that DC should be sued because they have a monopoly over Batman. It doesn't work that way.
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.
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.
You may not be Fan boy but you are dumb.
Terms and conditions DO NOT allow for a company/indivual to act irresponsibly or unreasonably.
It really bugs me when people use f'ed arguments that do not address this key point.
MSNBC have money. Apple like money.
I predicted the corporate dominance over the Apple App store some time ago (2008, when the Iphone was released in Australia), small developers are being pushed out in favour of larger developers which deliver Apple more profit and are easier to control. From my perspective the App store was designed for this from the word go.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
You can indeed distribute any app you want for MS phones, but if it competes with one of their favored apps, they won't simply say that releasing it is in violation of their T instead they will rapaciously put you out of business.
Yeah, just look at poor Google and what happened when they released the Chrome browser. Or IBM, Microsoft totally destroyed them after releasing Eclipse in a Visual Studio-dominated marketplace. And Oracle, going against MSSQL of all things!
The Apple zealots of this forum have a tendency towards making Microsoft (and Adobe, at times) look worse than they are just to make sure dearest Apple looks no worse than any other company, if not the victim outright. Face it, Microsoft doesn't eat children for breakfast and Apple doesn't fart flowers and sunshine, and in fact given their actions these recent couple years I'd expect more abuse from going into Apple's turf than Microsoft's, in spite of the latter's giant size. StevieJ really *is* a jerk, after all.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
The problem is the chilling effect when few organizations control many media channels.
You lose when thousands of people self-censor, because otherwise they'd be unable to reach the iPhone market. You lose when you have no chance of reaching the iPhone market. This is not an all-or-nothing winning or losing, but a graded one. But communication and expression is not isolated: it occurs in the context of networks of people and platforms. If the population of iPhone customers is big enough to affect when does and does not get made and distributed, then it affects you even if you aren't an iPhone customer.