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