Bad PR Forces Apple To Reconsider Banning Mark Fiore's App

cmiller173 writes with word from Wired that "After bad press over banning Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist Mark Fiore's app from the app store, Apple has asked him to re-submit the entry."

Comments

App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[LostCluster]

It seems like Apple is rethinking some of it's heavy-handed decisions and approving apps that would surely be rejected like Vonage's VoIP, Opera's web browser, and this one and letting them in on their delayed applications, or calling up submitters and asking them to resubmit previously rejected apps. This is far from an isolated incident, and I wouldn't be surprised if we find Google Voice in the app store soon.

I think there's several factors involved here:
- FCC investigation into AT&T... if they can't allow streaming video from Sling but can allow streaming video from MLB, what's the difference? If they can't allow streaming video because of lack of bandwidth, why didn't they buy more when spectrum recently went up for auction?
- Government investigation into Apple... If they're abusing a monopoly app store when there's clearly ways to implement competitors on jailbroken devices... why the monopoly?
- Bad press... every major app rejected is a reason to get a Droid or some other more open development platform's device.
- Competition... When the EDGE iPhone first came out, it was revolutionary carrying only the default 20 apps because it was doing things that it's at-the-time competitors couldn't do. Now there's several platforms that look like the iPhone and do things the iPhone doesn't... that iDon't/Droid Does ad must have gotten to them.

So there you have it... the tide is changing, and we might see some more "impossible" things happening soon.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[cbreak]

You say Apple has the monopoly on WHAT? It's own store? Every manufacturer has the monopoly on his own products. I doubt the government wants to change that. And since when is there an EDGE iPhone? I don't think there's something like that.

To me, bad publicity is the most likely reason.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[LostCluster]

You must be new here.

The first generation iPhone lacked the 3G technology and therefore would only work on AT&T's EDGE data network. These are the models that are too old and slow to get the forthcoming iPhone OS 4.0. Time for those users to upgrade...

As for monopoly on their own store... yep. Remember the Microsoft bundling mess? Taking one thing you have a monopoly on and using it to get an advantage somewhere else is not allowed.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[mikael_j]

As for monopoly on their own store... yep. Remember the Microsoft bundling mess? Taking one thing you have a monopoly on and using it to get an advantage somewhere else is not allowed.

Here's the thing, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone market like Microsoft had (and has) on the desktop operating system market. You can't have a monopoly on your on products and services. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on integrated software downloads and purchases for smartphones, it would be impossible for them to have this without having a monopoly on the smartphone market.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Anonymous Coward]

that iDon't/Droid Does ad must have gotten to them.
Yeah see the problem is, almost everything the Droid claimed in the ad The Iphone did too. And did one better cause for all it's multitasking it still couldn't browse the web and handle a phone call at the same time.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[ground.zero.612]

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on integrated software downloads and purchases for smartphones, it would be impossible for them to have this without having a monopoly on the smartphone market.

Can you link me to that other app store where I can buy applications for a non-jailbroken iphone?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please, that argument doesn't stand up against any scrutiny.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[XonMus]

Let's not forget the portable music player market, where the iPod is more dominant. Taking a step back from smart phones, and considering something more general, such as wifi-enabled portable entertainment devices, it's possible that Apple could have an undue influence on such a market. The iPad might tilt things further. All of these products are tightly tied to the iTunes App Store. Now, if Apple has undue influence on this market, are they abusing that influence by restricting these devices to run only those applications that they approve and allow into iTunes? I dunno, but it's worth asking the question.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends heavily on how narrowly the focus of a monopoly can be. They unquestionably do have a monopoly on iPhone/iPod/iPad applications, but is that too narrow to be considered for any sort of antitrust lawsuits?

The other question is how much of the mobile application marketshare do they have? While they don't hold a monopoly on smartphones, they are said to have somewhere in the high-ninties of the mobile application market -- can mobile applications be considered a market that is able to have a monopoly, even if the platform most of those applications are for is not a monopoly?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[santaliqueur]

Can you link me to that other app store where I can buy applications for a non-jailbroken iphone?

Sure, can you link me to that document that FORCED you buy an iPhone, and not the phone that you wished to use?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[WrongSizeGlass]

It seems like Apple is rethinking some of it's heavy-handed decisions ...

Naw ... they just want to reject it again to prove they were right the first time. Remember that "Think Different" really means "Think like us" ;-)

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Can you link me to that other app store where I can buy applications for a non-jailbroken iphone?

Have you tried magicalimaginaryappstore.not?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Peach Rings]

monopoly on the smartphone market like Microsoft had (and has) on the desktop operating system market

Further proof that geeky time-travel-inventors exploring the future first jump on slashdot to see what's going on, and then don't hesitate to post comments.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, where do I find emulators in the app store?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[pigphish]

More likely the creative crowd/apple sheep don't think its "cool" to be banning award winning writers. This would also seem to be at odds with Apples "we are cool"/"you are fool" marketting campain.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[flyneye]

It's a pity they couldn't do the right thing because it's the right thing and not because outside pressure threatens their image.
We know where their heart is and it will take a lot of doing the right thing before anyone believes them.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[rolfwind]

The first and second generation iPhones have little discernable difference in CPU speed or ram. Why is the 1st generation too old, and the 2nd isn't?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[nickdwaters]

What market do you live in? I couldn't even use 3G in the San Francisco Bay Area and I sure can't use it in Phoenix. It drops calls like mad! Naturally I only discovered how utterly congested the network was until AFTER I'd shelled out $249.99 for my iPhone 3G. Advertisers won that round.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[AHuxley]

Think of MS as the drug dealer outside your school or at a party actively pushing powders, pills and liquids.
The MS dealers also extinguish other drug dealers in the area.
Apple is more the gang suburb or crack house with a loyal following for a known product.
You have to go to them for the Apple "distortion" feel but other gangs and crack houses do exist.
You can always find a Linux grower and cultivate your own digital escape using Nordic tech.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[gyrogeerloose]

The first and second generation iPhones have little discernable difference in CPU speed or ram. Why is the 1st generation too old, and the 2nd isn't?

The second generation (iPhone 3G) is too old. It won't be able to utilize many of the new capabilities of the iPhone OS 4.0, including multitasking.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[MistrBlank]

Do Burger King's sell Big Macs where you come from?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[thetoadwarrior]

I wonder how much (if any) influence Android has over this decision and some others. Sure the iPhone is clearly being Android but Android is not going away and will continue to gain popularity. I think Apple will have to loosen their grip but will keep some controls to help avoid the mess that can be found in the Android app store. Though I think most of Android's market issues are mainly in the games section.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Man On Pink Corner]

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on integrated software downloads and purchases for smartphones

Actually, I'll bet Apple's market share in smartphone applications is already larger than Microsoft's market share in PC operating systems at the time they first came under scrutiny by the DOJ.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[ColdWetDog]

The second generation (iPhone 3G) is too old. It won't be able to utilize many of the new capabilities of the iPhone OS 4.0, including multitasking.

Well, not exactly

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[crashumbc]

The first and second generation iPhones have little discernable difference in CPU speed or ram. Why is the 1st generation too old, and the 2nd isn't?

The second generation (iPhone 3G) is too old. It won't be able to utilize many of the new capabilities of the iPhone OS 4.0, including multitasking.

interesting I read both the 3g and 3gs were getting the 4.0 upgrade

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[tverbeek]

There's more to government regulation of the market than the word "monopoly". There's also a broader concept known as "restraint of trade", which is what Apple is wandering into when it arbitrarily limits what other businesses can develop for its system.

p.s. No EDGE iPhone? You seem to know less about the iPhone than you do about commerce law. Shutting up would be smart.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[PopeRatzo]

It seems like Apple is rethinking some of it's heavy-handed decisions

The lesson here is that as consumers, if you don't hold a companies feet to the fire with things like bad publicity, they're not looking out for your best interests.

Unswerving fandom to a corporation is not only misplaced, but always works against consumers. You want to be a fan of a person, an artist, a writer, a great athlete, a craftsman, that's fine, because as a human being, he has a desire to do something of value, even if for the appreciation of one other person. A corporation's only reason for existence is to make a profit, and profit does not respond to people's desires or needs or appreciation of beauty or excellence. You think a product is a good value, or makes you happy, then by all means buy it, but when you start tattooing a logo on your tricep, you are going to spoil it for everyone. A corporation sees that and the response is: here's another one that will take whatever we dish out. After all, what are you going to do once you've defined yourself by the companies from which you buy? Once you've entered the 21st century phenomenon of corporate fandom, are you really capable of making a rational decision, even for yourself?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[PopeRatzo]

Apple is more the gang suburb or crack house with a loyal following for a known product.

Those are the ones that get the most people killed when they inevitably put some whack on the street and a bunch of people are poisoned.

"Hey, they always had good stuff, so how was I to know when they decided to cash out and sell rat poison."

"Buyer beware" is not just a catchy slogan. The reason a business incorporates is to lessen personal liability. That's all you need to know, if you think about it for a second.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[gyrogeerloose]

interesting I read both the 3g and 3gs were getting the 4.0 upgrade

They will, but the 3G won't run all the new features. I know--I have one.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[gyrogeerloose]

Well, not exactly

Verrrry interesting. Thanks for the info.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[similar_name]

Actually, I'll bet Apple's market share in smartphone applications is already larger than Microsoft's market share in PC operating systems at the time they first came under scrutiny by the DOJ.

When was the last time Microsoft's market share was less than 25%?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[putch]

Actually, in terms of dollars Apple does have a pretty strong monopoly on mobile application sales. Yeah, Android is closing the gap in terms of amount of apps Apple still completely dominates in terms of revenue. So much so that in 2009 99.4% of all the dollars spent mobile application purchases went through apples store. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-for-994-of-mobile-app-sales-in-2009.ars

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[putch]

i'm a little tipsy and some of the grammar and specifics i screwed up. but the general point is valid: apple dominates the mobile app market.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[tyrione]

You say Apple has the monopoly on WHAT? It's own store? Every manufacturer has the monopoly on his own products. I doubt the government wants to change that. And since when is there an EDGE iPhone? I don't think there's something like that.

To me, bad publicity is the most likely reason.

Not bad publicity, just time to make way for the Store to expand it's ratings and categories to handle such content.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Man On Pink Corner]

When was the last time Microsoft's market share was less than 25%?

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you trying to argue that some other mobile phone application vendor -- or all of the rest combined, for that matter -- has racked up anywhere close to 3,000,000,000 downloads?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[santiagodraco]

They can certainly be called to task for anti-competitive trade practices - like not allowing flash thereby creating a situation where untold numbers of companies are forced to modify their websites, drop certain advertisers and and thereby materially affecting Adobe's business.- just so they can use that to enter into the advertising market....

Don't be fooled by the pretty box cover, it's pretty dank and dark inside.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[KlomDark]

I figure they must have meant "Think Duplicate", not "Think Different"

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[node 3]

Taking a step back from smart phones, and considering something more general, such as wifi-enabled portable entertainment devices, it's possible that Apple could have an undue influence on such a market.

"Undue influence" doesn't just mean "a lot of influence". It means influence that they haven't earned or are not allowed (i.e., it's not due them). Aside from the fact that there are plenty of WiFi-enabled portable entertainment devices, Apple hasn't used underhanded tactics against the market. They just sold more because people wanted them, not because Apple did anything to limit the consumers' choices. In other words, they earned their influence, and they earned with fair and square. Unlike the situation MS found itself in with its Windows monopoly (which in and of itself wasn't illegal), that they used to unduly influence the browser market (which was illegal) and create an IE monopoly.

Now, if Apple has undue influence on this market, are they abusing that influence by restricting these devices to run only those applications that they approve and allow into iTunes?

Just like MS, Sony and Nintendo do on their consoles. The notion of "undue influence" becomes rather absurd when you are applying it to their own products. It should be standard that a company would have total influence over their own products (within regulations, such as safety and emissions regulations on cars and FCC regulations on radio transmissions).

If somehow Apple had a portable computer monopoly, and they used that monopoly to destroy the Android Market (for example), then there might be a case. But they don't have a portable computer monopoly. Not by a long shot. And the Android Market isn't directly targeted by the App Store, because they are not interchangeable the way browsers are. You, by definition, cannot buy iPhone apps on the Android Market any more than you can buy Android apps at the App Store.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[xigxag]

Every manufacturer has the monopoly on his own products.

That's clearly not the case, at least, not in the way intended by the people raising the issue.

If you buy a Ford automobile, you don't have to buy Ford tires.
If you buy an HP computer, you're not required to buy HP-branded software

It's one thing for Apple to have an app store. It's another thing entirely for them to artificially bar other methods of getting software on the iPhone. (And it's a third thing for them to use their "appopoly" to artificially limit the categories of software one can use.)

The fact of the matter is that Apple could appear much less heavy-handed simply by legitimizing jailbreaking. "Oh, you want install your own apps? Go right ahead. But 'for safety reasons' we will then disable your access to the app store and any apps you've installed from the app store. And you'll void your warranty and get no support from us." Most people would keep on using the app store anyway when faced with such a choice, but at least they would feel it was their own choice.

Do I think that Apple is doing something illegal, or should be forced to open up their product? No. But I do think they deserve to get hammered on this issue in the court of public opinion.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[DaleGlass]

And this, btw, is why I think that at least in the current society, all these "let's have less regulations. Free Market!" ideas can't really work.

I like the idea of a fully free market in principle. In practice, it's not just the companies that work to destroy it, but also even the people themselves. For a free market to work an informed population is needed. And a population with a significant amount of people with the mindset of "OMG $COMPANY released a new product! I got to rush to the store right now!!" isn't really an informed one. Those people are acting on advertisements, impulses and brand loyalty.

A working free market needs a population that acts on cold logic, considering what they get for their money, and that has no brand loyalty and buys from whoever sells the best product for their needs. But we don't have that.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[aaarrrgggh]

Bundling of services and devices is (arguably) anti-competitive and at a critical mass can be monopolistic.

As long as the iPhone has viable competitors, Apple has little to worry about in this arena.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[mjwx]

It seems like Apple is rethinking some of it's heavy-handed decisions

No, Apple is reversing this one decision to placate their somnambulent user base.

They will continue to use their heavy handed approach content that you believe they are working in your best interest.

Remember this was not caused by Apple realising that the decision was unjust, it was done by creating a massive media backlash, this cannot happen for every application. Not only that, you as the iUser are now more acclimatised to Apple's rejection policy using this example as justification for the heavy handedness of their rejection policies (read: it's OK, rejections have been reversed before) meanwhile Apple continues on with business as usual.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[doob]

Exactly the same way that Apple claimed the iPhone 2G radio hardware couldn't support MMS, despite the existence of SwirlyMMS. Also, not long after 3.1 came out, there was a hack to enable MMS on the 2G, and, surprise, surprise, it worked perfectly (apart from if your network detected you had a iPhone 2G and turned of MMS on your account).

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[nine-times]

Most people assume that Apple's iPhone lockdown is entirely in order to get their cut of application sales. That is probably part of it, but I think there are additional forces at work.

First, as you bring up, there's the AT&T issue. Most likely, Apple has some contractual obligation to AT&T to prevent specific kinds of applications and features from being available on the iPhone. Early on, there were signs that Apple was trying to prevent IM clients and VoIP clients, both of which cut into AT&T's service fees. Some of those restrictions have have been eased, but tethering, for example, is still something that AT&T doesn't want Apple to provide. Apple can't prevent these applications unless they control distribution.

Second and slightly less obvious: for better or worse, Steve Jobs is a control freak who wants to change how you think of your computer. When the iPhone first came out, lots of people were pissed off because it didn't support JVM and so they couldn't simply port over all the existing applications for existing phones without rewriting them. They really wanted to take these horrible little Java apps designed for tiny screens and keypads and just stick them on the iPhone. People thought touchscreen interfaces were garbage and a touchscreen keyboard would never be usable. By requiring people to pass their applications through Apple's store, Apple set itself up to be the arbiter of what makes a "good application" for these devices, and therefore gained control over making sure they didn't suffer the same fate as Windows tablets: same old desktop apps put on a touchscreen.

I wouldn't be surprised if Jobs wants to control distribution, at least early on in the development of these devices, in order to nudge developers toward his vision of what these devices should be. Even if Apple doesn't reject bad applications outright, they'd still have some control over which apps they promoted. Users have to go through iTunes to get their applications, and so when Apple puts an application right on the front page, it has the effect of shaping expectations. It says, "This is what an application should be." They'd have far less control in shaping the future of their devices if they didn't control application distribution.

And relatedly, these devices still aren't quite capable general-purpose computers. The hardware isn't that powerful, and the OS is somewhat limited. I think Apple started with everything being limited, and they're trying to grow conventions slowly and deliberately. The early lack of multitasking, for example-- I don't think that it was an oversight. I think they knew they'd eventually want some kind of multitasking, but they wanted to control how it would work, and they didn't have a great solution starting out. If they left the system open, then lots of developers would hack together various versions. If they had allowed that, then when they decided to release their own implementation, they'd be competing with a bunch of other implementations. Since they've prevented other solutions from growing organically, it's much easier for them to release something and say, "This is how everyone should do things," and expect that developers will fall into line.

Now I want to point out that I'm not defending Apple here or saying that their way is the best way. I'm just pointing out that there are multiple possible motives for Apple wanting to control distribution. And I think it's worth noting that, looking at all of these motives, they're likely to trend more toward openness as time goes on. Cell phone carriers are moving more and more towards being "dumb pipes" to the internet whether they like it or not. As Apple feels that their vision for these devices is coming to fruition, they'll probably easy up on the reigns. And also as the hardware becomes more powerful and iPhone OS becomes more capable, Apple shouldn't feel as much need to restrain developers from misusing system resources.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[ScentCone]

You want to be a fan of a person, an artist, a writer, a great athlete, a craftsman, that's fine, because as a human being, he has a desire to do something of value, even if for the appreciation of one other person.

What a bunch of nonsense. I know plenty of artists and craftsman that would not spend all of their waking hours doing what they do if they couldn't make a profit doing it. Pretending that artists (all of them) don't care about turning a profit is just silly.

A corporation's only reason for existence is to make a profit, and profit does not respond to people's desires or needs or appreciation of beauty or excellence.

An even bigger bunch of nonsense. Do you really find it impossible to conceive of customers buying things from a company because they find the product to be beautiful and responsive to their desires? That's the whole point of competition in a market. Do people just buy any bathroom faucet they see, or do they make aesthetic choices, purchasing the one they like? It may not matter to some people (say, those that are just looking for function and a low price), but for others, it's not a bit different than buying a sculpture from an artist. Or from a group of artists who happen to have incorporated in order to conduct their business.

A corporation's only reason for existence is to make a profit

They can't exist if they don't make one (not counting all of those non-profit corporations, of course), but that doesn't mean that is their only reason to exist. People form companies all the time, specifically because they want to see an organization doing a particular thing in a particular way, in puruit of a particular customer with particular values and priorities. Those things and earning a profit are not mutually exclusive. But not earning a profit is a sure way to be no longer able to do those things in the way you like.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Chyeld]

Is that possibly the same document that forced you to buy a Windows machine?

A monopoly is a monopoly. Apple has one on the iPhone. Having a monopoly isn't illegal, using your monopoly illegally is.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[digitalchinky]

You aren't describing a monopoly, just popularity. You can still by Nokia, Sony Ericsson, LG, Samsung, and on and on as easily as walking in to your nearest shopping mall.

Apple seem to be making a small transition toward selling appliances rather than general purpose computers, but whatever, nobody is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[pydev]

You say Apple has the monopoly on WHAT? It's own store?

Apple has a near monopoly on the mobile app market because their store is almost the entire market.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[pydev]

When the EDGE iPhone first came out, it was revolutionary carrying only the default 20 apps because it was doing things that it's at-the-time competitors couldn't do

Technically, iPhone has never done anything significant that their competitors couldn't do. iPhone did manage to attract a lot of developers. Apple's near monopoly on the mobile app market in the US is similar to what happened with Microsoft DOS/Windows.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[pydev]

Having a monopoly is not illegal, but it's undesirable economically. That's why the government may have a compelling interest to intervene. And, of course, arguably Apple is abusing its monopoly unfairly.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[similar_name]

I'm saying the appstore is about 25% of the market based on usage. According to this anyway or I could say the Iphone is 25% of the smartphone market based on this

Either way I'm saying Microsoft passed the 25% mark for its share of the PC OS market a long long time ago. I couldn't find a site that gave me the raw numbers for downloads but every site a saw gave Apple around 25% for it's market share whether based on smartphone sales, OS used on smartphones, or app store marketplaces. So I'm open to a citation showing apple having more than a 25% market share based on something else if you have one to provide.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[pablo_max]

It's really amazing how often this line is repeated on Slashdot and other fanboy hangouts. You see time and time again, "it's Apple's store. They can do what ever they want."
Naturally, it's these same guys who scream anti-Microsoft whenever they can.
Well, it's Microsoft's OS. They can do what ever they want!
No, they cannot.
Any person who can say with a straight face that Apple is not engaged in anti competitive behavior is either a liar or stupid.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[rxan]

Apple has complete control over its store. Even though it is not a monopoly by definition, it is still an unsettling issue.

One side of the story is that all computing systems should be open markets. There is nothing stopping someone from making controversial applications or websites for PCs and Macs. Yes, if you made a site about making bombs it may be illegal, but for the most part the restrictions reasonable. The controlled computing market is a threat that hurts both developers in what they can produce, and also the software market by funneling all profits to a single source: the controller (Apple).

The other side of the story is that companies have the right to restrict what runs on their products. Nintendo, PlayStation, and Microsoft all control what games can run on their gaming machines. This has already set a precedent that essentially allows Apple to do the same with the iPhone. For the most part this creates a clean market of software for consumers but not necessarily one with quality. Case in point: PlayStation 1, like the iPhone, had a lot of crap apps but also some of the best ones at the time.

Do Nintendo, Microsoft, and PlayStation take cuts from all applications sold on their platforms? Probably although I don't know the answer.

I think the bottom line is that smartphones are full computing platforms these days. And if computing platforms are not open then there is a serious threat to the freedom of information and the use of computers in general around the world. I would half expect laws to come into place to prevent discrimination of applications and information on all devices with the computing power.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[TRRosen]

Apple has complete control over its store. Even though it is not a monopoly by definition, it is still an unsettling issue.

And Google has complete control over Android but nobodies bitching.

Do Nintendo, Microsoft, and PlayStation take cuts from all applications sold on their platforms?

Yes they do.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[toriver]

The thousands making Android, J2ME etc. apps would look strangely at your strange ideas.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Nulifier]

I think the argument that many of the people who call it a monopoly are trying to make is this:

If I have a Ford truck, I can put non-ford replacement parts in it if they fit (compile for that architecture).

However the the apple app store would be akin to your truck not starting if you don't have all Ford branded parts in it.

Its not a monopoly in the actual meaning of the word as there is no-one forcing you to buy a Ford, but it comes back to the "I bought a physical thing, I want to do whatever I want with it" argument.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[cbreak]

Apple's store only sells apps for iPhones. There are no other phones? Blackberies, Windows Mobile Phones, Android Phones all don't exist? Nokia's Linux Phones are just in legends?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[rxan]

And Google still allows apps not from its app store. Which is why nobody is bitching.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Man On Pink Corner]

I'm saying the appstore is about 25% of the market based on usage. According to this anyway [techcrunchies.com] or I could say the Iphone is 25% of the smartphone market based on this [arstechnica.com]

Sorry, man, but those numbers are batshit insane. There's no way on earth the Apple outlet distributes only 25% of end-user apps for mobile phones.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[TRRosen]

Yeah keep believing that fantasy. Google does not allow consumers to install apps from outside the Android Marketplace.

Apple -to install a non-App store app you need to use the SDK.

Google -to install a non-App store app you need to use the SDK.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[rxan]

On Android you can allow change the setting in Applications/Unknown Sources to allow apps not from the Marketplace. After that, just install OTA from any web page serving Android apps. No SDK required.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Anonymous Coward]

We aren't comparing products themselves, Ford doesn't have to sell Toyota cars, we are comparing what you are allowed to do with that which you buy. So to adapt your ridiculous analogy, "does McDonald's tell you that you aren't allowed to take ingredients off the Big Mac you bought to put onto your Whopper?"

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do make a convincing argument

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Man On Pink Corner]

(Shrug) I don't have the real figures, and can't be troubled to research them. The original poster is the one making an extraordinary claim (that Apple doesn't enjoy what amounts to a monopoly on aftermarket smartphone apps.)

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Man On Pink Corner]

Also, it appears that the figures in the link you posted are merely talking about the number of users who have access to a given carrier or manufacturer's mobile app store. Unless I'm missing something (which is possible) that survey does not address the number of users who actually use their phone's app store.

The latter quantity is what determines monopoly power in the market sector, and as far as I'm aware, the only question is how many nines there are past the decimal point in Apple's market share percentage.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[mikechant]

A monopoly is a monopoly. Apple has one on the iPhone.

It's not as simple as that. Competition law has a concept of monopolies in particular 'markets'.'iPhone' itself is very unlikely to be defined as a market for competition purposes, since it would be part of the larger smartphone market. So the question would be whether the iPhone was sufficiently dominant in the smartphone market for the relevant competition laws to apply. This is currently an open question.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[similar_name]

I make an extraordinary claim but you can't be bothered to google I mean research something that refutes it. I may be wrong but can you use the apple appstore on smartphones other than the Iphone? If only 25% of people with a smartphone can even use the Apple appstore how can it be a monopoly regardless of how many apps each user downloads.

You (and Apple) say there have been 3 billion downloads. Fair enough. Are those all apps? Does it include songs, movies etc? If it is all apps (which I personally find extraordinary) that means the average iphone user has downloaded over 60 apps to their phone. 3 billion / ~42 million iphones sold.

Did Microsoft have a monopoly because most software ran on their OS or because most people used their OS?

I may be wrong about some of my assumptions. My google searches may be biased. But you honestly haven't provided anything to support that Apple's lead position is anything like Windows/Office dominance when the DOJ began investigating Microsoft.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[similar_name]

For what it's worth I found this 99.4% figure, however this number was based on manufacturer app stores only. It doesn't count carrier app stores, 3rd party app stores or random apps from random sites.

I recognize that Apple is the leader in this field. My own personal guess is that Apple's share is around 50%. I get this from surveys I've seen stating the average iPhone user downloads 8-9 apps while the average non iPhone user downloads 2-3. iPhones make up 25% of smartphones so most realistic number is probably between 50%-57%

Now this is is incredible to be sure but it's not the same as MS dominance of Windows when the DOJ started their investigation. I do conced it is not as low as my initial 25%

If Microsoft released an update to Windows that added a repository. Could they claim Linux has some kind of monopoly on repositories because 99.4% of users who download apps from repositories use Linux?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[exomondo]

You say Apple has the monopoly on WHAT? It's own store? Every manufacturer has the monopoly on his own products. I doubt the government wants to change that.

They have a monopoly on mobile application sales.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[exomondo]

The thousands making Android, J2ME etc. apps would look strangely at your strange ideas.

Well if you can actually show some numbers that would help your argument.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[Thinboy00]

He's not saying Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone market. He's saying that Apple is tying the App Store to the iPhone.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections?

[jaavaaguru]

Apple most certainly doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone market. I don't think this question is open. Nokia's market share is approximately twice as large as Apple's. Plenty of other websites back up this claim too. Interestingly Palm and RIM have been growing in that market, while Apple has been shrinking (if these reports are to be believed).

Wrong article?

[feuerfalke]

Er... the first link is to an article headlined "Satellites key to keeping aircraft away from Iceland's volcanic cloud." I guess it's a bit much to expect Slashdot editors to actually check the links in a summary, huh?

Re:Wrong article?

[LostCluster]

Must have been a Layer 8 Error.....

Re:Wrong article?

[MaskedSlacker]

You must be new here...

Re:Wrong article?

[Snarf You]

This is the link that was probably intended.

Re:Wrong article?

[biryokumaru]

Wait... when did they start putting links in these?

Re:Wrong article?

[pitchpipe]

Bad Satellite Forces Apple To Reconsider Banning Iceland's volcanic cloud

Re:Wrong article?

[LostCluster]

911878 calling 625375 new? You must think higher numbers rule around here.

Re:Wrong article?

[aBaldrich]

You really read the article??
But this is Slashdot!

Re:Wrong article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe due to bad press, slashdot will ask him to resubmit the article.

Re:Wrong article?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be humorless.

Re:Wrong article?

[enrgeeman]

You would have got the joke being made about layer 8 had you looked at the satellite article linked..

Re:Wrong article?

[Peach Rings]

You're an idiot. The joke "layer 8 error" refers to human error, since there are only 7 layers in the 7-layer model.

Re:Wrong article?

[LostCluster]

You didn't RTF(W)A... the mistaken article was from a blog called "Layer 8" so there was a double-meaning joke there that you didn't get.

Re:Wrong article?

[skine]

Of course he didn't read the article.

It's the fact that he even tried that he should be ostracized from our community.

Re:Wrong article?

[_xeno_]

I guess it's a bit much to expect Slashdot editors to actually check the links in a summary, huh?

The great thing is that's the link from the previous Slashdot story about - well, the Iceland volcano eruption. Which means that, presumably, they did check the link in the story and then managed to change it to the wrong link.

Re:Wrong article?

[deniable]

I'd say you've removed all doubt.

Re:Wrong article?

[ColdWetDog]

The great thing is that's the link from the previous Slashdot story about - well, the Iceland volcano eruption. Which means that, presumably, they did check the link in the story and then managed to change it to the wrong link.

Did you miss the memo? Recycling is in. Gotta help out with this global warming thingy.

Re:Wrong article?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must think *anybody* rules around here...

Re:Wrong article?

[jaavaaguru]

Having not read the article, I just assumed "Layer 8" was an extension to the OSI 7 Layer Model describing the dumb piece of meat sitting between the chair and keyboard.

Simple.

[cosm]

If the cost of losing customers due to bad press is greater than the cost of changing their policies/practices, they will change (usually temporarily) to alleviate the bad press. Next.

Re:Simple.

[LostCluster]

If AT&T's network can't take apps that the Verizon/Sprint/T-mobile networks can... then is the money they're getting for exclusivity from AT&T worth it?

Re:Simple.

[HazMat 79]

If that money was more than the money that was offered from AT&T they would not have been on that network first.

Don't get your panties in a twist

[ZeBam.com]

This will be more the exception that proves the rule than anything particularly earth-shattering.

Now if only they would change their policy

[mozumder]

so that any publisher could submit apps without Apple's editorializing.

It would be nice if more publishers were allowed onto the app store, instead of only Pulitzer-prize winners.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, you don't have to be a Pulitzer prize winner to develop an Android app.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[palegray.net]

What are you talking about? As of April 8, 2010 there were over 185,000 apps in the App Store (source: Wikipedia App Store entry). I'd say that's a heck of a lot of publishers; even Opera has their browser in the App Store these days. I cannot fathom how people can fail to understand that it's Apple's store, and they are completely within their rights when it comes to deciding what will or won't be accepted. If you don't like it, stop using your iPhone/iPad/iWhatever, use something else, and get on with your life.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[feepness]

If you don't like it, stop using your iPhone/iPad/iWhatever, use something else, and get on with your life.

Check. Will do, thanks.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot fathom how people can fail to understand that it's Apple's store, and they are completely within their rights when it comes to deciding what will or won't be accepted.

That's because they don't fail to understand that, it's just that it's shitty of them to be so heavy-handed about it.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[Anonymous Coward]

That number of 185,000 is VERY SUSPICIOUS. Tucows says that they only have 40,000 software listings. In 2007, Freshmeat.net only listed just over 43,000 projects. Even SourceForge only claims to have 230,000 projects.

I find it very hard to believe that there are 185,000 apps in the App Store. Oh, wait, where did that number from the Wikipedia article actually come from? MacRumors.com. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Now I see why it sounds like bullshit.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[Mr_eX9]

Never heard of hyperbole, eh?

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[base3]

Replying to undo Redundant moderation that was meant to be an Insightful.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[ScrewMaster]

If you don't like it, stop using your iPhone/iPad/iWhatever, use something else, and get on with your life.

I agree 100%. That's why I dropped Apple products back in 1981 and haven't looked back.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[Anonymous Coward]

The "applications" in the apple store are mostly junk, or not really real applications. E.g. there are tons of e-books, comics and audiobooks that are listed as a separate applications. Yes, in the apple world you don't have an application and load files into it, you get to bundle them together as a single entity. You can do the same elsewhere of course, but I think you need to be enclosed in the apple mindset to see what crap that is.

Don't forget all of the apple toys require you to use itunes to install applications and content. Mounting them as USB drives was killed years ago.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[pydev]

I cannot fathom how people can fail to understand that it's Apple's store

But it's my hardware. I can't fathom how you can fail to understand that I have a right to install on my hardware whatever software I like.

If you don't like it, stop using your iPhone/iPad/iWhatever, use something else, and get on with your life.

Unfortunately, some apps are only available for their platforms, just like some desktop apps are only available for Windows. That's not because either the developers or users want it that way, but because sleazy companies like Apple and Microsoft are not playing fair.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[amicusNYCL]

That number of 185,000 is VERY SUSPICIOUS.

It's not the only one. Also from the Macrumors site, from the article summarizing Steve Jobs' talk:

- App Store: over 4 billion apps sold, with over 185,000 apps available in the store, 3,500 iPad apps. ...
- Over 50 million iPhones sold. Add in iPod touches and we're over 85 million total.

85 million devices into 4 billion downloads is an average of almost 48 apps per device. That seems a little high also.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[toriver]

But it's my hardware. I can't fathom how you can fail to understand that I have a right to install on my hardware whatever software I like.

You are trying to apply the rules governing general-purpose computers to what are in effect "appliances". That way lies madness.

because sleazy companies like Apple and Microsoft are not playing fair.

Paranoid much? If I wrote software for successful platform A, why would I want to port it to less successful platform B? What is "fairness" here, that developers should limit themselves to a common denominator, a feature subset which would let them easily port applications between whatever weird platform a given wannabe user goes ahead and buys?

You want software, you pay someone to write it. If platform A has software platform B lacks, that is not platform A's fault and there is no requirement for successful products to "donate" apps to the less successful.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[Anonymous Coward]

You are trying to apply the rules governing general-purpose computers to what are in effect "appliances". That way lies madness.

No, he's trying to apply the rules of governing general-purpose computers to general-purpose computers.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[shutdown -p now]

85 million devices into 4 billion downloads is an average of almost 48 apps per device. That seems a little high also.

In actuality, it's just Woz and all his iPhones/iPods/iPads.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[palegray.net]

Sure it's your hardware. Go ahead and do anything you want with it, including jailbreaking it. Just keep in mind that once you've done that, Apple no longer has any obligation to support that hardware. If you don't like this, please refrain from using that particular hardware. Your perception of your personal rights vs. Apple's rights is severely skewed. They are under no obligation to help you install unsupported or unapproved software on their hardware.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[toriver]

Neither of the iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch are general purpose computers.

Now try to install what you want on Zune and XBox 360.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[exomondo]

The "applications" in the apple store are mostly junk, or not really real applications.

Like all the iFart clones...good thing they limited cross-compilation, wouldn't want those brilliant developers creating cross-platform apps!

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[exomondo]

What is "fairness" here, that developers should limit themselves to a common denominator, a feature subset which would let them easily port applications between whatever weird platform a given wannabe user goes ahead and buys?

Of course not, but that should be up to the developer, not one particular device manufacturer.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy

[exomondo]

Neither of the iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch are general purpose computers.

Oh come on, what is your definition of general purpose computing then? I'd say the iPad fits pretty much everything.

huh

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Wow. Overzealous Slashdot babble may have actually done some good for a change. I feel stupid for bitching about it.

Re:huh

[shutdown -p now]

It's not like Apple was called out just on Slashdot. I doubt that Slashdot in particular contributed to this decision.

I'd put anti-Apple links in it

[YesIAmAScript]

If I were him, I'd put links indicating what Apple did wrong right in the splash/main screen of the app when I re-submit it. Then see if Apple dares to reject it again or will instead swallow their pride and approve it. I'd really hope for the latter, but either would help raise awareness of how problematic Apple's policies are.

Re:I'd put anti-Apple links in it

[Anonymous Coward]

We're all behind you on this one. Apple are becoming tyrants.

Re:I'd put anti-Apple links in it

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were him, I'd put links indicating what Apple did wrong right in the splash/main screen of the app when I re-submit it. Then see if Apple dares to reject it again or will instead swallow their pride and approve it. I'd really hope for the latter, but either would help raise awareness of how problematic Apple's policies are.

Apple: Doing wrong right since 1976.

do no evil

[Anonymous Coward]

google's motto is "do no evil",
apple's moto is "do no bad pulicity"
and they both suck at it.

Re:do no evil

[Cesa]

Here you go.
t b

Two with one stone?

[T Murphy]

Not only is this pushing for more leniency on app content, but Fiore mentions in the article that he would like to use flash, as his cartoons are all made in flash. I doubt he could have enough weight to affect the availability of flash, but people like him can make it a more common complaint.

Re:Two with one stone?

[gyrogeerloose]

Fiore mentions in the article that he would like to use flash, as his cartoons are all made in flash. I doubt he could have enough weight to affect the availability of flash, but people like him can make it a more common complaint.

If he does, he'll lose my support. I agree that Apple screwed the pooch and that his app shouldn't have been rejected. I still don't want Flash on my iPhone, however.

Re:Two with one stone?

[Wovel]

Perhaps instead this will help him to use a more open format for displaying his cartoons and not one that requires an interpreter

Re:Two with one stone?

[nvrrobx]

Why should you care what the underlying implementation is?

Why can't the developer be free to write their application in the best language / tool for the job? You may not agree that Flash is the best for this purpose, but you're not the developer.

Re:Two with one stone?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want flash on your iphone than you could, for example, not install applications that use it and disable it in your browser.

Re:Two with one stone?

[bdenton42]

I still don't want Flash on my iPhone, however.

I don't particularly see a need for Flash on the iTouch/iPhone but leaving it off of the iPad was a stupid move, IMO.

Of course if pigs fly and Flash does becomes available you can always just not install it.

Re:Two with one stone?

[gyrogeerloose]

Why should you care what the underlying implementation is?

Why can't the developer be free to write their application in the best language / tool for the job? You may not agree that Flash is the best for this purpose, but you're not the developer.

I really don't care what tools a developer uses but if his product requires me to install software from another party before I can use it, it then becomes my concern. It is my computer, after all.

If you'd ever used Flash on a Macintosh, you'd understand this. Adobe has a long history of producing second-rate Flash implementations for Apple products./p.

Re:Two with one stone?

[gyrogeerloose]

If you don't want flash on your iphone than you could, for example, not install applications that use it and disable it in your browser.

Of course I could. But then I couldn't use his app, which I might like. Plus, I don't want Flash to even get it's foot in the door on the iPhone. It's bad enough on a Macintosh.

Re:Two with one stone?

[jo_ham]

Well, pigs may be flying - the new 10.1 release candidate flash build for OS X is *much* better than the total dog's breakfast that the 10.0 stable is.

CPU use for a 480 SD stream is down from 60-65% on a 2Ghz Core 2 Duo to 45%. For the 720p HD stream, core use is down from 103% (cpu meter measures up to 200%, with the graphs showing up to 100% per core) down to 86% usage, as long as it is played full screen. If you play the HD stream in the window, you still get noticeable frame dropping, but at least that has now gone for the SD streams in the window.

Flash websites have also seen a 20%ish drop in CPU use with the beta release.

Of course, similar 720p H.264 videos (which the flash streams are) play at 5-10% CPU use in Quicktime/Perian/VLC/Mplayer etc.

I showed these screenshots on slashdot a few days ago:
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2258/osxflashiplayerapr10.jpg - SD content on BBC iPlayer (10.0 stable flash release)
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/4771/flashosxperformance.jpg - Diablo 3 website (10.0 stable flash release)

Those numbers drop noticeably with the new beta release of the plugin, but they are still ludicrously high. While the iPad has more grunt than the iPhone, it's still nowhere near the power of a 2Ghz Core 2 Duo. iPhone OS is still pretty much OS X underneath, so unless it gets better still, there is just no way you will get acceptable performance on the iPad.

Re:Two with one stone?

[cynyr]

animated SVG seems to be pretty close to flash, except that Adobe products only sorrta produce them. What i would like to see is a flv to svg converter, maybe FFmpeg can do it.

Re:Two with one stone?

[cynyr]

maybe if you installed it on the iPhone that would be valid, but apple would be installing and vetting it.

Re:Two with one stone?

[cynyr]

i agree with the lack of flash on the iPad, make it hard to watch hulu, the daily show, foamy the squirrel, etc. Also no flash games, I know apple wants me to only play the games it says are ok for me via the app store, but still.

Re:Two with one stone?

[shutdown -p now]

I really don't care what tools a developer uses but if his product requires me to install software from another party before I can use it, it then becomes my concern. It is my computer, after all.

Given that Flash development kit for iPhone produces fully self-contained, standalone apps which do not require you to install software from another party, this doesn't apply here.

They delete them after rejecting them?

[jgreco]

He has to *resubmit* it? What, do they delete them after they reject them? That seems odd.

Re:They delete them after rejecting them?

[OrwellianLurker]

He has to *resubmit* it? What, do they delete them after they reject them? That seems odd.

Probably so that they can say that the second application was slightly different and/or more appropriately reviewed. If they just change their minds, it would be a blatant acknowledgment that they "screwed up" or whatever.

Re:They delete them after rejecting them?

[stackOVFL]

Isn't there a app for that?

Re:They delete them after rejecting them?

[Fantastic Lad]

He has to *resubmit* it? What, do they delete them after they reject them? That seems odd.

It's all about control. He must respect their little system, whereby he asks them for permission and they get to exercise total arbitrary power over him. Even in fault, the plaintiff must do the grovelling and play his part as head-bowing subject.

I think around Apple, the 'Submit' button means something far yuckier than it does, say, when posting on Slashdot.

-FL

Re:They delete them after rejecting them?

[nine-times]

Well it's not as flashy, but there are some possible reasons to ask him to resubmit. First, their system might not really be build for retrieving rejected apps. It is possible that rejected apps are discarded, and they don't have easy access to a copy.

Also, it could specifically be about the PR. If they simply say, "Oh, yes, we changed our mind and we'll put this application on the store," then it's unclear what that means. It could be a specific instance of bending the rules for a Pulitzer Prize winner. By instead saying, "Please resubmit your app and it won't be disqualified for the reason stated earlier," they're actually signaling a change in policy: apps will not be discarded for this reason.

Re:They delete them after rejecting them?

[Anonymous Coward]

you've never used a ticket tracking system, have you?

you submit a ticket, the ticket gets routed, there's no option for re-routing an old ticket because that screws up the internal accounting, and duplicate submission checking.

solution: resubmit the app, get a new ticket.

it's the same at the dry cleaners, blue cross insurance claims, and every other system I've ever used.

Of course

[Unka Willbur]

How many small publishers, authors or artists without access to the media that Mr. Fiore has won't ever get the lordly invite to "resubmit"" their content for King Jobs' oh-so-kindly "reconsideration"?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The best part would be if he "ridiculed" Steve Jobs in his first cartoon after the app goes live. I wonder if Apple would take the joke.

Facts?

[Graham J - XVI]

Who says it was due to bad PR? You might want to avoid stating guesses as facts.

Re:Facts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm.

I've been sitting here for a while now figuring how to paint you as just another Apple loving mindless reactionary, willing to offer a token resistance to a story that's really only a minor mussing in the great scheme of things.

Is the love so great? I mean, I understand animism. I do.

I loved my first car. It was painful to watch "her" go away.

And I like baseball. I follow my team, I root for them. I even think it's a good thing for society to put so much attention toward who controls a ball if it'll contain old tribal urges.

Heck, I even root for my country, even though it sometimes does things I wish it wouldn't, but I call it out when it does.

I'm critical of all of these feelings I have.

I even left my religion when it condemned my friends to hell even though I knew they were good.

But fuck dude.

Enjoy your iPad.

Re:Facts?

[prockcore]

What else could it have been? They rejected the app in December. He won the Pulitzer Prize recently and "Apple rejects Pulitzer Prize winner" is all over the news now. You think it's coincidence that they changed their mind 5 months later?

Re:Facts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that makes the most sense.

Told Ya

[gyrogeerloose]

And here's the proof

Great! Maybe there's renewed hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe there's renewed hope for my "Botox Nanci Pelosi" app! Your goal is to inject botox in the right places in Nancy Pelosi's face before you run out of time. Add too much botox and her face melts. Waste time injecting the wrong spots and you could run out of Botox when you've run out of time. Great gameplay, but it violates the "no ridiculing public figure" clause of the Apple agreement.

I wouldn't do it

[grasshoppa]

Fuck Apple. I'd go with the google app store and call it a day.

Re:I wouldn't do it

[Wovel]

Of course then that would defeat the purpose because no one would see your cartoons. If you had said: F*CK apple I am going to convert my web site to something that will work on every platform, I would be with you. Going to Android would be silly.

Re:I wouldn't do it

[poena.dare]

To me the issue is simple: Apple claims jailbreaking your iPhone in order to run apps of your choosing is a violation of the DMCA. The DMCA is a piss poor, innovation-stifling, megacorp-appeasing law. As long as Apple supports the DMCA I will not buy one of their products, I will not buy from iTunes, and I will not recommend their products to my family, my friends, or my clients.

Re:I wouldn't do it

[MostAwesomeDude]

Hm. My boss and roommate have iPhones, but everybody else around me (other roommate, other bosses, co-workers, parents, siblings) have Droids, Moments, G1s, Backflips, Nexus Ones (Nexi One?), etc., and not all of them are open-source savvy.

My mother, in particular, got a Droid after careful consideration of other phones, including the Storm and the iPhone. After a week with it, my father got so jealous, he switched carriers and got one for himself!

It's not as silly as you might think.

Re:I wouldn't do it

[Anonymous Coward]

how about getting so pissed at apple and the slavish devotion of their users that you end up put little bits of code in your website that deliberately fuck with their experience on the web?

now, steve jobs has been rinsing you gullible twats out of bucketloads of cash by selling you fisher price computers for years - with that i have no problem. but when he tries to take peoples freedom away and affect various markets in restrictive and unpleasant ways then its a different matter.

as someone who built and maintains the front-end of a website that has 800,000 users in the uk alone - i am in a position to do something, and expect other people, many i know, to join me.

so, stay in your walled garden apple people, if you want to bring your vile consumerism and slavish attitude into the outside world then you won't be welcome and will get kicked back in.

Re:I wouldn't do it

[Anonymous Coward]

hey i agree that apple's policy is unsavory with regards to editorial content.

here's my gripe: apple makes no bones about the fact that they're closed, locked, it's their party. it's walled.

it's a little silly to break this into simple paradigms of closed=evil open=good. in principle, i concede, yes. but really, don't kid yourself. if you think google is "open" because it makes them feel fuzzy inside and everyone likes to share, you've been had, in a way that apple will isn't "taking" you. google is *open" so that they can index the shit out of everything, and then try to sell you stuff. again, that's ok - as long as we all know exactly what's going on.

myself, i think the notion of collecting as much possible information about me and my habits so that they can more effectively try and sell me things, well, i don't like it, in fact, i might consider the notion of doing it under-the-table, well, a little "evil"

  i'm not saying apple doesn't/won't play this game to, but let's call a spade a spade and acknowledge that open has benefits, but google's implementation isn't some saintly effort. it's about dollars. just like apple.

Go with the Slate

[retech]

He should call up HP and MS and ask for an endorsement deal.

No rethinking

[SuperKendall]

It seems like Apple is rethinking some of it's heavy-handed decisions and approving apps that would surely be rejected like Vonage's VoIP, Opera's web browser, and this one

The first two would now "surely be rejected". There was no reason for Vonage or Opera Mini not to be accepted, they fell perfectly fine within the existing rules.

The last one, the cartoon app - that did NOT fall within any published rule, and that is the problem. If you are going to have a rule, fine - but tell people what it is. There was no rule and so it lets Apple reconsider (as they are in this case) but the presence of any unpublished rules it what freaks developers out (and rightfully so).

Frankly the whole rule seems really silly, I can can of understand the stance on nudity but ridicule seems absurd to ban.

Re:No rethinking

[LostCluster]

It was an Apple rule that anything that duplicated functionality of an included app like Skype/Google Voice/Vonage allowing phone usage or Opera allowing web browsing similar to Safari was previously cause for rejection and that rule is now looking repealed.

Re:No rethinking

[Wovel]

There is a rule on defamation, the mistake the reviewer made was in consider defamation and ridicule to be the same thing.

Re:No rethinking

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Apple's terms said that you cannot use VoIP over 3G, as part of the AT&T agreement I imagine. Now Apple has reversed themselves on that and allowing Skype over 3G as well as other apps like Fring

Re:No rethinking

[SuperKendall]

It was an Apple rule that anything that duplicated functionality of an included app like Skype/Google Voice/Vonage allowing phone usage

There was never a rule really like that, just a few rejections with that wording - but no VOIP app was ever rejected as long as it used WiFi for communication.

Google Voice is not VOIP.

Opera allowing web browsing similar to Safari

Opera Mini is not similar to Safari, I was pretty sure they would allow it beforehand and so they did. There is nothing about Opera Mini that crosses even the unwritten rules Apple has, only the rules anti-Apple people THINK Apple has.

Re:No rethinking

[LostCluster]

Google Voice will have a VoIP component to it when they finish integrating Gizmo.

Re:No rethinking

[Gadget_Guy]

There is nothing about Opera Mini that crosses even the unwritten rules Apple has, only the rules anti-Apple people THINK Apple has.

I think that the reason the anti-Apple people THINK this "duplicate functionality" rule exists might be because there were:

a few rejections with that wording.

I can't imagine why the zealots would think a rule existed merely because it had been cited by Apple as the rule that justifies banning an application.

Re:No rethinking

[Anonymous Coward]

"There was no reason for Vonage or Opera Mini not to be accepted, they fell perfectly fine within the existing rules."

Nonsense. Opera Mini could have been rejected on the solid esthetic grounds that it's a piece of shit that puts your privacy and security at risk.

Re:No rethinking

[sg_oneill]

There is a rule on defamation, the mistake the reviewer made was in consider defamation and ridicule to be the same thing.
</blockquote>

The problem is , even lawyers can have a hard time working out the difference. In the US its a fairly bright line thanks to the first ammendment, but in the UK and elsewhere the answer lies in a confusing mess of case history , common law, and badly written statutes. If a Lawyer or journo has trouble working it out (Most newspapers just put aside a big stash of cash and expect to lose a few cases) a 19yo acne scarred intern at apple trying to make a judgement call on international juristiction shopping possibilities has no chance.

problem

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the very legitimate reason for Apple to control apps, and one we don't see often, is the fact that Apple hosts all the app store's apps on its own servers. They don't want to be hosting crap.

Of course they could just link to other servers.

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice

[gyrogeerloose]

If I was Mark I wouldn't re-submit. Screw Apple they made their choice. Let them live with it. There is always Android.

Sure, give up the largest smartphone software market in order to spite Apple. Smart business decision.

Look, I agree--his app should never have been rejected. Dumb move on the part of some lower-level employee. And, of course, Apple should remove the portion of their developer agreement that says apps shouldn't ridicule public figures. Hey, Apple: there's a great and long-standing American tradition of poking fun at public figures and courts have repeatedly ruled that once you enter public life, you're free game. Bad corporation, bad.

But even with all that, the guy would have to be an utter moron to pass on all the potential income, especially after he's gotten a shitload of free publicity. Apple's rejection of his app might end up paying off handsomely for him in the long run, perhaps better than if it hadn't been rejected in the first place.

Oh, and by the way: I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro. I've been using Macs since 1989 and currently own three, along with two iPhones, so you know I'm not an Apple hater However, I'm not a fanboy either. When Apple screws up, they should be called on it. In this case, they screwed up.

meh.

[siddesu]

wake me up when apple reconsiders its near-moronic app policy, not a single case. because it is the policy that is the problem, not its application.

Re:meh.

[ScrewMaster]

wake me up when apple reconsiders its near-moronic app policy, not a single case. because it is the policy that is the problem, not its application.

Even if they do, what's to stop them from going right back to it when the heat's off? I'll stick with my Android phone for the time being: does what I want and more, and I don't have to contend with stupid policies. I'm on T-Mobile and while they initially had Google pull all tethering apps off the Android Market, they seem to have rethought that particular policy. Hell, right on their website they tell you how to do it. As the 3G underdog they're doing things right, competitively speaking: I wouldn't consider moving to AT&T, Verizon or (gack!) Sprint at this point.

Google does have some guidelines for developers but they're nothing like Apple's arbitrariness, nor has Google set themselves up as a capricious gatekeeper. Personally, as a developer I'm much more comfortable with the idea of dealing with Google than I ever would be with Apple. Google makes it easy: no up front fees (well, okay $25 to sign up as a dev), no submitting your app and hoping that Apple won't decide to blow you off, no long approval periods, no NDAs, none of that crap.

Jobs & Co. just irritate me.

Re:meh.

[16K Ram Pack]

Google does have some guidelines for developers but they're nothing like Apple's arbitrariness, nor has Google set themselves up as a capricious gatekeeper. Personally, as a developer I'm much more comfortable with the idea of dealing with Google than I ever would be with Apple.

Exactly. It's not so much that Google is total anarchy, it's that Google have some clearly defined rules about what is and isn't acceptable and have stuck to it. That means that developers know where they stand and whether to bother doing a development or not.

Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone

[DABANSHEE]

Apple does have a monopoly on OKing & installing apps onto iphones.

Well that's the way I understand it.

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone

[sirsnork]

But you knew that going in. It's not like that wans't the case when the iPhone was a brand new product with no market share. Apple hasn't changed the rules you agreed to when you bought the product, no mater how much the market has changed

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Apple hasn't changed the rules you agreed to when you bought the product, no mater how much the market has changed.

Of course they have - if they accept Fiore's app today when they turned it down a couple of months ago, then either they have changed the rules or there was a secret rule that "Pulitizer prize winners are exempt from the rest of the rules." Either way, the rules are different than when he bought the product.

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone

[MistrBlank]

You mix monopoly with authority. You should stop doing that.

I also suggest if you have an issue with it you go talk to Nintendo and Microsoft which have done similar things for years.

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone

[crashumbc]

Apple is damned if they do and damned if they don't in your colorful little world.

Of course, nobody likes a dictator even when they get it right occasionally..

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Apple got in trouble for allowing an app like this in their store a few months ago that had a lot of Political satire. No one rushed to their defense then that it was freedom of speech. No, instead they received backlash about how it was offensive app.

Bullshit. You are making that up, either in whole or in part.

Apple is damned if they do and damned if they don't in your colorful little world.

More bullshit. It's YOUR fantasy world. All I did was point out the obvious. You got a problem with my logic about how something obviously changed, then lets hear it, none of this apple-whipped whiny shit.

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone

[D'Sphitz]

Are you gonna provide a link to all this outrage, or should we just take your word for it?

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone

[GameboyRMH]

Microsoft hasn't done anything like this until their latest Windows Phone 7 OS (which was very obviously influenced by Apple's success with a 100% locked-down software ecosystem on the iPhone). You might count the Xbox but that's a gaming console, and those have a decades-long history of vendor lockdown, while smartphones and PDAs were pretty much all open until the iPhone came along.

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft != Apple when it comes to smartphones.
Apple sells hardware and software in a closed system when it comes to the iPhone.
Microsoft sells software and no specific hardware on it's mobile platform (pre Kin anyway), and it is to their benefit that it runs on as man platforms as possible.
It is NOT a monopoly because you can buy (and probably have bought) any number of other hardware platforms. You cannot force apple to put some product on their hardware as it is a closed system, any more than you could force Lynksys to allow Netgear to put their router OS on a Linksys router. It is a CLOSED system. Why do so many geeks have a problem with that? It is not a difficult concept.

Apple controls the keys to the iPhone. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Even 'regular' people can figure that out, and they aren't even geeks. Obviously there is a thriving hardware market (which basically denies any claims of a monopoly right there). Walk into any electronics store and you will have a plethora of hardware platforms to choose from. You cannot force a closed system vendor to allow what you want. They decide what can go on it, and rightly so. Just because a smartphone can act like a PC and do many PC functions doesn't necessarily make it a PC. The same argument holds true for the Droid. Just because it looks like a smartphone, and acts like a smartphone doesn't mean it's only a smartphone on a closed system. It is what the manufacturer decides it will be.

Apple == Closed System

I can only assume the typical slashdot geek simply can't understand the basic difference between a closed system like the iPhone, and an open system like a PC. The sense of entitlement is astonishing. Sometimes you can't have what you want. Buy something else.

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone

[pydev]

Apple hasn't changed the rules you agreed to when you bought the product, no mater how much the market has changed

I didn't agree to any rules.

But Apple certainly has changed their rules for what they approve and what developers can and cannot do.

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold on... he has to write it up and put it on a site somewhere.

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone

[ZEXXES]

The whole point of the Microsoft anti-trust concern was that for all intents and purposes at the time it was a closed system, for they controlled the market to such a degree that their influence on product innovation was extreme. Remember, Netscape wanted in and Microsoft said no. They tried to buy there way in and Microsoft said no. They tried to leverage there way in and Microsoft said no. The government stepped in when it became apparent that Microsoft's position in the market left them the ability to say yeah or nay on competing products simply because they had such an extreme stranglehold on the platform market. With this in mind the government felt that innovation and the consumer, thus the market as a whole, could be harmed by being held back so to speak, from better products and services that competed directly with Microsoft products and services... on that platform. In other words the government didn't have a problem with Microsoft having a monopoly on the OS market; Microsoft's position wasn't gained from malicious or protectionist action. The government had a problem with how that position was used, in a detrimental fashion, for emerging markets. This is what Apple is slowly creeping towards... well, not creeping. More like boldly strutting. It is only a matter of time before they get a warning shot across the bow from ol' Uncle Sam. It'll happen! Apple's Has it's own platform and so they get to say what goes on it. Now if there is a market that can be exploited from outside Apple and Apple hinders that market, even if that platform is their own they will eventually get the smack-down just like MS did. Once they deliver access to other products and services from the open market they can't then pick and choose who gets to board the train simply because they have a competing product. They've been able to get away with it for product cohesiveness and user experience reasons, they are tangible enough to warrant a certain amount of protectionism. But once they go beyond that then they face the danger of becoming Microsoft 2.0. We'll see! I think they've already crossed that line. And I think if one more Adobe instance happens again, they'll be in big trouble.

Warning low flying satellites...

[DABANSHEE]

....all aircraft steer clear of Iceland & its low flying satellites.

Maybe the satellites want to keep all the aerial shots of the volcanic cloud to themselves.

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice

[Wovel]

Hey it is only 80million + devices versus um how many for android again?

DOJ getting tough on monopolies

[93 Escort Wagon]

I just got a cease and desist letter from the Department of Justice - they claim I'm monopolizing my wife.

Thank you! I'll be here all week - be sure to try the buffet!

Re:DOJ getting tough on monopolies

[masmullin]

They lied.

Re:DOJ getting tough on monopolies

[Anonymous Coward]

Too big to fail?

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey it is only 80million + devices versus um how many for android again?

Uh...several? ;-)

Apple's remarkable hostility to competion

[jbn-o]

Actually free software stands in contradiction to "Every manufacturer has the monopoly on his own products." because free software means users have the freedom (permission) to develop competing products based on the free software they run. Hardware manufacturers are beginning to appear which allow one to develop competing products in much the same way. Apple's restrictions in their iPhone API license agreement are unusually hostile to distributing applications Apple does not approve of (see section 7.3 which says rejected iPhone applications can't be distributed anywhere else). The thing to note about Fiore's second bite at the Apple (so to speak) is that Fiore has an audience large enough to complain. Others who would use their freedom of speech (permission) by "ridiculing public figures" won't get a second chance because nobody will chat up their misfortune at choosing to deal with such an arbitrary power.

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice

[feepness]

Hey it is only 80million + devices versus um how many for android again?

I love how in one breath the Apple-ites are claiming Apple doesn't have a monopoly and in the next they are saying developers can't afford to the miss the market.

You gotta choose one guys...

This why phones need to be open and open network a

[Joe The Dragon]

This why phones need to be open and open network as well.

Cell Phone lock in bad.

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice

[ColdWetDog]

I love how in one breath the Apple-ites are claiming Apple doesn't have a monopoly and in the next they are saying developers can't afford to the miss the market.

No, you need to go figure out was is a monopoly according to the Sherman act and subsequent case law. Controlling the contents of a privately held store isn't a monopoly as far as Federal regulation is concerned.

Terms of app, not categories

[SuperKendall]

No, Apple's terms said that you cannot use VoIP over 3G, as part of the AT&T agreement I imagine. Now Apple has reversed themselves on that and allowing Skype over 3G as well as other apps like Fring

Yes but that was not disallowing the app, just one use of it - and was probably as you say always blocked at the request of AT&T, not Apple - thus not a sign of Apple rethinking anything.

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice

[feepness]

Hmmm, did I say according to the Sherman Act? Lemme check my post, nope, not there, okay, nope, not there either.

Phew, because I didn't mean that at all!

Re:This why phones need to be open and open networ

[palegray.net]

What lock in? You're perfectly free to go buy an Android handset if you don't like Apple's App Store policies. This has nothing whatsoever to do with lock in.

I'm Continually Surprised...

[Nom du Keyboard]

I'm continually surprised by how much crap everyone is willing to put up with from Apple, while worshiping the ground that Steve Jobs walks on. The same guy who actually had to leave Apple before we got an Open Mac. How long before SJ starts selling once-worn mock turtlenecks on eBay for a few extra bucks?

Re:I'm Continually Surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm continually surprised at how much crap everyone is willing to put up with from anti-apple trolls. What are you talking about "open mac"? are you referring to the disastrous foray in licensing the os to other hardware vendors in the 90s? When apple was so far under water nobody though't they see the end of the decade?Or the fact that Apple rebuilt their OS on top of "open" platforms after his return, and turned Apple into one of the most widely coveted brands in the world (regardless of what you personally think about the products)? Look, the guy's an asshole, but he's had a hand in some of the most relevant interface/tech trends of our time. It's kind of silly to think that he might not be revered for that.

Re:I'm Continually Surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

He is also the guy who thought that 64K was enough memory for a computer, killed a major product line because customers refused to buy what he wanted them to, and had to be kicked out of apple before he could ruin it.

Re:I'm Continually Surprised...

[Joe Tie.]

It alls comes down to "and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a". I didn't mind apple's often draconian measures until it finally hit what I wanted to do. Now that it has, I'm finally reminded why it's best to support the most open systems possible.

Re:I'm Continually Surprised...

[dangitman]

I'm continually surprised by how much crap everyone is willing to put up with from Apple, while worshiping the ground that Steve Jobs walks on.

I'm not sure why you're surprised, because they don't. 99% of people who buy Apple products barely even know who Steve Jobs is, let alone worship him.

Re:This why phones need to be open and open networ

[Lemmy Caution]

And when Microsoft Windows was declared a monopoly, you were perfectly free to go buy a Macintosh. By your description, you weren't locked in to Windows. (In fact, you were less locked in than you are with the iPhone, because you always could install OS/2 or Linux on your PC hardware - while there is no viable alternate OS for the iPhone.)

Apple is not a person

[Anonymous Coward]

They have low-level individual reviewers reviewing hundreds of apps each day. It's not like Steve Jobs said "this app is banished!" Like any system, it has flaws.

I don't see why people are making such a big whoop.

Re:Apple is not a person

[SanityInAnarchy]

Apple is responsible for setting up the system this way. Either train the reviewers better, or stop exerting such anal-retentive control over your device.

Thanks Apple for introducing me to Mark Fiore !!

[Go_Ask_Alex]

Never heard of Mark Fiore before Apple making a stink out of an app. Checked out Fiore's website and love it, can't wait for the iPad app !!

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you would like to point to another definition of "monopoly" that can be enforced by federal or state laws, jackass!

Kafka's app

[rishistar]

Makes me wish Kafka was still around to try submitting an app.

Re:Kafka's app

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see an iphone game in this - perhaps like myst; iTrial.

Pulitzer Zombies v. Apple Zombies

[wrencherd]

The upshot of this seems to be that we're all now expected to seek out this "comic" b/c (1) it's been given a Pulitzer, and (2) reading it "sticks it to the man" (the man in this case is Steve Jobs).

Free PR notwithstanding, this "comic" is not really up to the standards of most parodies on youtube.

It seems to be a choice between being a "Pulitzer-zombie", or an "Apple-zombie".

In the end, a zombie is a zombie: "They're all messed up." --John Russo & George A. Romero

Re:Pulitzer Zombies v. Apple Zombies

[ctid]

Free PR notwithstanding, this "comic" is not really up to the standards of most parodies on youtube.

You state this as a fact. I'm interested in what measure you are using to compare them. Perhaps you meant to say, "In my opinion ... "?

Re:Pulitzer Zombies v. Apple Zombies

[mikestew]

Perhaps you meant to say, "In my opinion ... "?

Or perhaps, Captain Pedantic, it was implied because it was so obvious?

You don't need to have a monopoly....

[Anonymous Coward]

... to be anticompetitive.

Shops like Walmart and their ilk are scrutinized in many localities to ensure they don't abuse the powere they have by leaning too heavily and unfairly on suppliers.

Also shops are banned in many places of conditional sales (not selling you eggs if you don't buy milk, a practice that used to be common in some places).

With every application thet Apple bans there are many legiimate questions that need to be answered: freedom of expression, restraint of trade, abuse of a position amounting to a monopoly.

Apple should seriously think about stopping this nonsense. It is a morally bankrupt system, if they want people to decide about the morals of an application then offer a classification system and let users decide if they want to turn it on or off, offer parental controls, and if you turly and sincerly believe that you should ban certain technologies because they are subpar, then explain the policy and offer the users turn your good office on or off.

That would be the decent way to run a shop. What Apple is doing is unethical, immoral and it may very well be to turn out it is actually illegal in at least some aspects of how the Applestore is organized.

All the Apple fanboys should actually get of their asses and begin to serisouly question the decisions that Apple takes on tehir behalf. It is a shameful indictment on people living in rich democratic countries that they countenence the steering of morals ina comapny that is not accountable to anybody.

Re:This why phones need to be open and open networ

[jo_ham]

Yes, but commercial (and Linux) alternatives were squeezed out by MS by bullying the OEMs - "Only sell Windows preinstalled or you may just find your OEM licence cost increases".

There is no viable alternative OS for the Xbox 360 either, but they are not telling game shops that they mustn't stock PS3s or they may find the wholesale cost of the 360 might go up...

It's not illegal to be a monopoly - it's what you do when you are one that matters. Even at the height of the Windows monopoly, you were never locked into it in a literal sense, but practically you were, especially if you relied on being able to use office documents or Exchange.

If you currently rely on something specific to Mac (say MobileMe or something) and suddenly you find you need something that the iPhone doesn't offer then you face the same level of "lock in", but there is nothing stopping you changing platforms - there are plenty of other options.

Apple are also a long way from being a monopoly in the smartphone and cellphone market as a whole.

A bit like China.

[SanityInAnarchy]

And about as genuine. They'll change if they feel the bad press is bad enough, and they'll change back when it's over, and in general, they'll keep pushing the limits of what people will tolerate.

Apple reconsidered to stop scaring news media.

[ad454]

Both Apple and news media organizations (press/newspapers, radio, television, etc.) were interested in the possibilities of the iPad (and other similar devices) as a news consumption device. This is especially true for newspapers that have been suffering due to falling revenue, especially from classifieds because of Craig's List and eBay, and a public less interested in reading news on dead trees.

But Apple's censorship of a Pulitzer winning cartoonist send chills down the spines of all of the news media organizations, since they suddenly realize how vulnerable their content is to the arbitrary and inconsistent censorship whims of companies like Apple, Amazon, Sony, etc. which have total control over the applications and media on their devices.

Imagine if Sony blocked all news publications on its Sony's Reader Store which have published accident and recall information about Toyotas in order not to harm or offend a fellow Japanese companies. Imagine if this was 60 years ago and each electronics company only sold TV's which would only receive programming from their affiliated stations.

Apple hoped that by allowing Mark Fiorre's app, they could do damage control, but I think that it is too late, since this incident really drove home how bad the censorship situation is with these locked down platforms.

At the end of the day, consumers pressure is not enough to be able to force companies to open up their platforms. In the growing mobile phone, media players, e-reader, and game console markets, not one of the major platforms is fully open for the consumer and are full of DRM that restricts options and allow censorship. (Yes that includes Google Android devices which are being locked down by many carriers!)

Governments need to step in and force all hardware and operating system manufactories and distributers to have an application and data distribution and execution model that is fully open to all. If you buy the device, it should be yours to do with as you see fit, as long as it does not interfere with others.

In Soviet Russia..

[Sloppy]

..guy who wants your money, submits to YOU!

Get Over It Already

[dagee]

Slashdotters froth at the mouth in their animosity towards Apple. Let's get some things straight, Apple's hardware is decent but nothing special, Its OS, while easy to use is lack many features found on other phones and its app. approval process is heavy handed. We get it. You don't like the phone. So take your money and buy something else.

Some of us, are very happy with locked down, restricted apple devices. They are easy to use. They are reliable. The things they do, they do very well. In regards to the app. store, they have a central site where all the apps are filtered through it. I don't have to worry about malware and spyware and I don't have to go through 3 different sites trying to find a specific app.

For many of us we just want a device that does what it says its going to do. I don't need command line access. I don't need to run shell commands. If you need a device that is open for whatever reason than the iphone is not for you. Boo Hooo, get over it.

Re:Get Over It Already

[exomondo]

Slashdotters froth at the mouth in their animosity towards Apple.

So you - as a member of that community - then disagree with the words you have written following that sentence?

It's funny how people will generalise the views of a community that they are a part of to be the opposite of their own to make them feel special. Have you ever seen the pages of back and forth debate on issues like Apple's policies? If all - or even the majority - of the community were as you say they are then it would be pretty one-sided and there wouldn't be all these pages of arguments, flaming, etc...

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice

[cynyr]

he could just move to SVG and JS, and then users from all over could see it, via a standards compliant web browser.

North Korea?

[Anonymous Coward]

My worry is that rejection from the App Store is like detention in North Korea. When you work for Al Gore, Bill Clinton rides in to rescue you. When you're some schmuck you just disappear.

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice

[Rockoon]

In actual practice, what you just said translates to "the artist could just learn to program, and then users.."

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice

[toriver]

AS if writing an Objective-C native app is less progrsamming than using far simpler HTML 5 + SVG + Javascript...

how about

[sixsixtysix]

how about any device that can run code be allowed to run any that the owner of the hardware wants? this most certainly should be a black and white issue. if you are pro-company-who-made-the-hardware-decides, you can't possibly be pro-consumer-who-bought-the-hardware-decides. open it up, or gtfo!

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice

[feepness]

Perhaps you would like to point to another definition of "monopoly" that can be enforced by federal or state laws, jackass!

Lemme check again, cause I'm pretty sure I didn't mention being enforced by Federal or State law, hmmm, nope. I didn't mention that either.

What I mean is, that either Apple can be safely ignored due to their underhanded practices, or they are a de facto monopoly, even if they don't fit some official law.

Re:This why phones need to be open and open networ

[shutdown -p now]

It's not illegal to be a monopoly - it's what you do whether you are one or not that matters.

Fixed that for you. Just FYI, it doesn't take a monopoly to do something that can be classified as "anti-competitive behavior" (and be illegal as such).

Re:This why phones need to be open and open networ

[indiechild]

Since when was the iPhone declared a monopoly?

How does bullshit like this get modded up?

White goods or black & white

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that some of the defenders of free trade are forgetting that apple is not a consumer electronics company like Nitendo but a Publisher both of music and newpapers and as such can be questioned. It's arguments like this that make FOX's manipulation of 'news' unimpeachable.

Re:This why phones need to be open and open networ

[jo_ham]

Anti competitive behaviour is not necessarily illegal.

Re:This why phones need to be open and open networ

[shutdown -p now]

It's not, and I won't even claim that Apple's specific behavior here is illegal, since I'm not a lawyer (though I suspect that it may be illegal in EU, and wasn't there already a probe into iTMS there?). Just wanted to note that "Apple is not a monopoly" is, broadly speaking, not a valid argument. We have to look closely at just what they do to figure out if it's legally okay or not.

Re:This why phones need to be open and open networ

[Lemmy Caution]

Where did I state that it was declared a monopoly? By the way, how's the angry-angry-fanboy thing working out for you?

Re:This why phones need to be open and open networ

[palegray.net]

And when Microsoft Windows was declared a monopoly, you were perfectly free to go buy a Macintosh. By your description, you weren't locked in to Windows.

Since you made that comment in this story, as an attempt to refute my statement regarding lock in, it was clearly attempt to draw a direct comparison between the Microsoft monopoly case and Apple's actions with the App Store. It failed miserably, as illustrated by another poster's reply.

Re:This why phones need to be open and open networ

[Lemmy Caution]

I am point out that an argument used to deflect criticism of Apple's control of the app market could be applied to criticisms that were made of Microsoft. The other reply has been well-dealt with by others.

Look everyone: CrashDOUCHE can read!

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing, but it's a pity that crashdouche can't write for shit.

Of course nobody likes a 'crashDOUCHE' either

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject above, lmao.