Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
This will be more the exception that proves the rule than anything particularly earth-shattering.
CG Pin-Ups?
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.
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.
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.
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
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"?
"Remember when I said I would never lie? Well, that was the first time."
Who says it was due to bad PR? You might want to avoid stating guesses as facts.
Oh please, that argument doesn't stand up against any scrutiny.
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.
-- Increasing the entropy of the universe since 1972.
Apple does have a monopoly on OKing & installing apps onto iphones.
Well that's the way I understand it.
Do Burger King's sell Big Macs where you come from?
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
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.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
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.
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?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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
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.)
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.
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.
Perhaps you would like to point to another definition of "monopoly" that can be enforced by federal or state laws, jackass!
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.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
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
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.
We're all behind you on this one. Apple are becoming tyrants.
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.
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.