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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[MistrBlank]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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?

[Snarf You]

This is the link that was probably intended.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[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

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"?

Facts?

[Graham J - XVI]

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

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?

I wouldn't do it

[grasshoppa]

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

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: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.

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: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.

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.

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: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.)

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 !!

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.

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?