Apple Censors Ulysses App In Time For Bloomsday

Miracle Jones writes "Apple has censored a 'Ulysses' comic book app — just in time for 'Bloomsday' — because of a picture of Buck Mulligan's stately, plump cartoon penis. Not since Amazon removed digital copies of '1984' from people's Kindles while they slept has there been such a hilarious episode in the ongoing slapstick farce 'Let's See What Happens When Corporations Become Publishers.'"

Comments

Android

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I bought an android. Every time I see a story like this it just makes me feel better about my choice

Re:Android

[Eunuchswear]

Poor little Apple fanbois feel all sad and hurt if you point out that their demigod Steve is an uncultured pathetic little micromanaging dictatorial prick.

Re:Android

[ircmaxell]

I don't even understand how this is off topic... The issue at hand here is what happens when a corporation gets too much control. Or as the summary said:

'Let's See What Happens When Corporations Become Publishers.'

So the fact that you have two platforms --one that's notorious for exerting arbitrary and inconsistent control and another that's known for being 100% open-- really is about as on topic as you can get. The fact that Android is thriving is proof that people don't need (And that at least a fair number of them don't want) that kind of control pushed upon them. It's not a "Apple sucks and Android rules" fanboi statement. It's a simple statement that a platform can survive (and thrive) in a realm without censorship and control (and that corporations can be publishers and yet still be responsible and open about it).

The way the summary (and TFA) is written, it makes it sound like this is a universal problem for all corporations that get into publishing (that they have to walk a fine line between "protecting the users" and limiting censorship). But I think the fact that there is at least one corporation thriving in the industry that doesn't partake in those practices says a heck of a lot (and hence isn't flamebait or offtopic)...

Re:Android

[CharlyFoxtrot]

This is why I bought an android. Every time I see a story like this it just makes me feel better about my choice

Who the hell publishes a book as an app ? Not even an iBook or whatever they are calling it, an application. If you want to read the book just use THE publishing tool of this age: the internet. The website is here (warning contains "plump cartoon penis") and can be read on Android and *gasp* iPhone.

Re:Android

[PinchDuck]

Ding! Ding! Ding!
I applaud Google for keeping Android open, and for further allowing me to install apps outside of the market, or even without a market at all. Apple is so power-trip stupid it isn't even funny.

corporations have always been publishers

[lapsed]

This is what happens when books are licensed rather than bought.

And this is different to Walmart....

[jo_ham]

This is different to Walmart deciding not to carry content its store owners find objectionable, how?

Apple can say "no penises on the store, even comic ones" just like network TV can say "no swearing before 9pm" or a store can say "we'll carry all of your products except that flavoured lube you make, it just doesn't fit with our image".

Also, I thought most publishers *were* corporations. When did it become ok to post troll articles as summaries? Oh wait, it's slashdot. Carry on.

Re:And this is different to Walmart....

[captainboogerhead]

This is different to Walmart deciding not to carry content its store owners find objectionable, how?

Apple can say "no penises on the store, even comic ones" just like network TV can say "no swearing before 9pm" or a store can say "we'll carry all of your products except that flavoured lube you make, it just doesn't fit with our image".

Sure. They have the right. And we have both the right and the duty to mock them when they do. If we don't, all publishers will turn into Disneylands. That would be a bad thing, BTW.

Just cause they're a corp and they have the right doesn't mean they should--and it sure as fuck doesn't mean we should shrug and let them get away with it. If they're gonna be moral gatekeepers for millions and millions of people they need to be accountable. Not to their idiot pandering gormless shareholders, but to their audience.

Re:I do not think it means what you think it means

[Danse]

Now, that being said, if I purchase "1984" and wake up one morning and find it missing, then discover the publisher I bought it from repossessed it, I'm going to be ticked off. If they've refunded my purchase price in full, I'll be quite a bit less ticked off.

If it were a hard copy, I wouldn't be the slightest bit less ticked off. I'd be pressing charges for every law they broke in order to take back the book, and throw a lawsuit on top of it for whatever my lawyer could think of. That shit wouldn't fly, which is, I believe, the point of the post you were replying to.

Re:Ironic

[MrAtoz]

Exactly so. The case was United States v. One Book Called Ulysses. The gist of the ruling was that the book was not obscene because it had merit as a work of literary art. Judge Woolsey's ruling was an eloquent defense of contemporary (for then) literary art. Once the book was no longer banned in the US, the UK and Ireland followed suit and allowed unexpurgated versions. What is doubly ironic here is that the case was engineered by Random House in order to be able to publish the book freely through the US without being prosecuted for pornography. Wow -- look at the difference today! What publisher would challenge the government and culture in this manner today? Instead, Apple seeks to create a Digital Disneyland where everyone can have a fully predictable, enjoyable, inoffensive, and commercially lucrative (for Apple) time.