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?

[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?

[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.

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.....

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.

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?

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: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: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?