Slashdot Mirror
Apple Reverses Rejection of Ulysses Comic
gyrogeerloose writes "In yet another of what's become an almost predictable cycle of events, Apple today reversed its rejection of the 'Ulysses Seen' web comic, admitting, 'We made a mistake.' The comic is now available in the App Store — just in time for Bloomsday, June 16. The comic's author, Robert Berry, is pleased, and adds that Apple 'never acted as a censor, never told us what we could or could not say. ... We didn't believe these were good guidelines for art, but respected their rights to sell content that met their guidelines at their own store. Apple is not a museum or a library for new content then, so much as they are a grocer.'"
It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies, when they work out in your favor. :)
Bow-ties are cool.
The fact that Apple *could* reject apps for not meeting their rather precise ideas about what "The Apple Experience" should be like is still a big problem. If it's not an open platform, it's a step backwards.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Big company stomps some poor guy--then finally after all the bad press turns around and changes their mind. Big Surprise there. like thats never happened before.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Having used his iPhone to locate the best pork kidneys in Dublin, Bloom spends a useful day selling context-sensitive ad clicks for his website, before skyping the hospital to check on Mrs. Purefoy. Having checked with his webcam and discovered Molly up to nookie with Blazes Boylan, he checks his iHo app for the best dominatrix in Dublin. While there he meets Stephen Dedalus, who has spent the day wandering around using location reporting to avoid Buck Mulligan. They end up in Bloom's kitchen planning an app to provide tourists with tours of the bits of Dublin the tourist board doesn't tell you about, before Bloom goes upstairs, takes a photo of Molly's ass and emails it to Boylan. The book ends with Molly updating her Facebook page with a comprehensive dissing of Boylan's performance, and her tearful announcement that from now on she's going to stick to Leo.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Yeah. This whole episode is really dumb. No, it's not really censorship. But it's still ugly and wrong. I hate iProducts. They are all about control of the user for the benefit of Apple. The thing I hate the most about them is that they are so popular and wrongheaded at the same time. I get angry when masses of people let shininess override good sense.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I think the artist has it right. Apple is not a museum or a library, and free speech is not at issue. They are more like a grocer, where they stock as much inventory as possible that they feel is appropriate to their venue. And like a grocer, they screw up sometimes. OK, often.
Currently hooked on AMP
Apple Store = Whole Foods
And we actually need food more than we need apps, so why aren't people complaining about Whole Foods' limited selection and arbitrary standards?
Apple is not a museum or a library for new content then, so much as they are a grocer.
While many may have troubles understanding this (which is why I'm going to quote it in the hopes of it being read again), it is nice to see that the person directly impacted by things least understands it well (which speaks greatly of his character).
Well, this is the best I could find.
...
Yeah, yeah, Troll, Offtopic, etc.
ROFL, so instead of "The Devil made me do it." the new ridiculous defense will be "My iPad made me do it."
did you even reread your post and notice how stupid it is? Nobody's iProduct tells them what to do. People get them because they do what the user wants it to do. If it doesn't do what you want it to do then don't get one.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
"It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies, when they work out in your favor. :)"
When one is a fanboi/fangrrl/fan-nullo ALL their policies can be creatively construed as tasty.
I, for one, welcome my Applelicious overlords and hope their stay atop my queening stool will meet with their favor. :)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Grocer's keep the objectionable content behind the counter in plain brown wrappers. Why can't Apple do the same?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Why no complaints about Sony and Microsoft? They both have a number of machines for which you must pass a draconian test to even get a dev kit. Basically, if Apple made the devkit $10k then you'd all be happy? Locked in systems have been around for more than a decade. The difference with Apple is that the devkit is $100 and anyone can publish on them.
I've had games rejected by Sony and Microsoft: you fix the problem and send it back. No different on the Apple store. Apple is usually quicker tho.
The problem may be that Apple (or rather developers using Apple) is presenting Apps as a content distribution media (iTunes). People with content that could easily be placed on the (unrestricted) web, are choosing to use Apps as a means of selling their wares. I doubt very much that Apple will restrict what books it sells on the iBooks store based on their content. Or maybe they will.
"No, it's not really censorship"
Yes, it really is, just not censorship performed by a government. Apple censors the content available on these devices, plain and simple -- why state it any other way? Frankly, what other way is there to describe Apple's behavior: they actively prevent certain material from being published.
Palm trees and 8
Actually it *is* really censorship. Stop making excuses for corporations. Just because Apple backpedals when public opinion goes against them doesn't mean their initial impulse was out of line with what they truly believe. In fact, this episode reveals their total lack of actual integrity since they don't actually stand behind a coherent set of beliefs, just the desire to reap maximum profits. Don't condone it just because it's wrapped up in the warm blanket of corporate rhetoric.
By such an absurd standard any store that choose not to sell someone's product is also engaging in "censorship".
Why should we feel good about Apple's policies? They arbitrarily censor content on the iPhone/iPad, and they only back down when it looks like more than a handful of people might be angry over it. I do not think Apple would have changed its decision on Ulysses had the story not made the New York Times; most of the applications that Apple rejects are never reconsidered, even in cases that are clearly censorship.
Palm trees and 8
Not to mention the iDevices are all about the exact same DRM(only allowing trusted apps to run) and Trusted Computing that everyone here was railing about a few years ago. But once it's wrapped in a shiny package, there are legions of supporters who leave no end justifying these practices. Instead we had a great brouhaha about DRM in Vista which doesn't really stop a user from installing or playing back any other content.
This space for rent.
Note to Ulysses authors: The correct response to censorship is NOT to bend over backwards to meet the arbitrary moralistic dictates of the censor, but to speak out loudly AGAINST that censorship. The correct response to Apple banning your app would be to NOT MAKE AN APP FOR THEIR PLATFORM. So long as people like these comic authors continue to apologize for Apple and exclusively support only their platforms for special content, this kind of behaviour will never change. Unfortunately it seems these days that artists are far more concerned with looking like artists (and that means using Apple products exclusively) than standing up for, or even really understanding, their own art.
Describe them as a grocer. :-) I think that's an apt analogy. My grocer might not let me buy Edy's Low-Fat Cookies'n'Cream, but that's not because he's a bad person. He simply chose not to carry that flavor.
And so instead I drive another block to the other grocer to get my cookies-n-cream.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Control does not have to be absolute to be control. Governments use laws to control the behavior of their people all the time, but nobody thinks "The government made me do it." is generally a credible defense.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I see your point. However, think about it this way: What would happen if Apple didn't attempt to put some kind of filter on apps in the app store? It would become a chaotic mess (even more so than it already is!).
Personally, I can see why people prefer the dictator approach to content. It's too much effort to filter out all the crap, so why not let the dictator do it?
Now, we all know that the dictator will make decisions that don't make any sense, or maybe might not be in the best interest of all of us... But the benefit we get (e.g. not having to think about what apps to get) far outweight the negatives in our information overloaded society.
BTW I'm not saying that that's what we want; as techies we are used to filtering out the crap. But this is the great unwashed masses we're talking about here.
There IS a market for devices which gives us full control, which is why you see phones like the droid doing so well. The market for devices appealing to the great unwashed masses is a little bit bigger though.r
And, that, of course, is the most evil and pernicious form of censorship of all. Censorship NOT by a Government is unbounded and unrestricted yet, especially when one or two companies are involved, actually has the potential for greater harm. There is no protection from it, and with increased restrictions against reverse-engineering, no place to hide.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies, when they work out in your favor. In much the same way as it is easy to feel good about lynchings when you are white, yes.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Apple did not just refuse to sell the application: they prevented anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining it.
Palm trees and 8
Yeah it might turn out like some of the Android horror stories where users ended up with viruses on their mobile phone...
Film at 11. (Viewer discretion advised)
"And so instead I drive another block to the other grocer to get my cookies-n-cream."
So, where are all those other places that people can download iPhone/iPad applications?
Palm trees and 8
I'm under the impression that the iStore or whatever is the ONLY place that you can get content for your iPhone/iPod/iThing. In which case your analogy doesn't hold. However, you could argue that you were agreeing to Apple's censorship when you decided to purchase your iShiny in the first place, so you've got no right to complain.
No it isn't. Refusing to carry merchandise is in no way censorship.
They drive another block and get a different phone.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
let me know when you open a store someplace so I can demand you sell my porn...otherwise I'll complain you are censoring my porn.
It's Apple's product and Apple's store. The idea you can force a company to sell anything doesn't sound very cool to me. If you don't like that, you are free to choose a competing product or build one yourself.
So do Apple's policies permit or not permit nudity?
If so was this nudity or not?
If it is, why are Apple violating their own policies?
And if it isn't then how many other pieces have been misclassified as nudity?
I'm under the impression that the iStore or whatever is the ONLY place that you can get content for your iPhone/iPod/iThing. In which case your analogy doesn't hold.
Cydia. And that's not the only alternative App Store.
What? There's some capricious and arbitrary approval process for applications for the iOS systems? Why didn't anyone tell me this before? You'd think that slashdot would have at least mentioned this at some point before now.
Did they? So if you tried to buy a Ulysses paperback from Amazon yesterday, it would ask if you had an iPad or iPhone and then refuse to sell it to you if you did?
but not me, because I am a PC.
- Life without walls
They review on the order of 10,000 apps a week. This kind of thing is inevitable when you have a limited number of people with that kind of workload. People are making judgment calls all day, so some edge cases are going to get miscalled. Humans are making the decisions, and humans make mistakes.
They say that 95% of apps get approved within one week. That means that about 500 apps a week are rejected for various reasons. Here on /. we see these rejection stories about once every two weeks. That means for every 999 apps that are rejected, 1 is controversial. Almost all of those controversial decisions get reversed.
I wish my record of decision making was 1/1000 blown calls.
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
So, where are all those other places that people can download iPhone/iPad applications?
Cydia.
To an extent, yes. The extent increases depending on market share of the store.
But...but...Apple forced people to buy their phones!!!
Yes, I know. That's really absurd too.
I own an Apple laptop and it runs OS X. OS X has many proprietary parts, but it's at least generally open and doesn't try to control what I can see or install beyond making me type my password.
But I won't own an iProduct. Mostly because even if I buy one I don't really own it. Yes, they are nice looking, have good user interfaces, and are otherwise well-designed. But I require that when I buy something I own it. And that isn't true of those products.
My feelings about corporations and their products are based on principles and not popular opinion.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
is there any legal way to obtain and install an iApp apart from the official apple appstore ?
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
or through their website to owners of jailbroken iDevices.
Since when did hacking a device the same thing as using the device "as intended"?
Listen people. I know you can do a whole hell of a lot with a jailbroken ipod/iphone/ipad, but saying you can just hack your device if you want other sources of apps is not an argument that should used to support your hardware of choice Seriously.
A modification != a feature. Stop treating it like one.
Living With a Nerd
If I run a store, I'll actively censor porn. I'll let you complain about my censorship all you want. I'll even quite happily explain to you why I'm censoring you. If you want to organise a mass campaign to reverse my censorship, or just use your persuasive skills to change my mind, I'll consider your opinion.
Except that people are now forced to jailbreak the iPhone/iPad, not only voiding their warranties, but also risking another case of Apple sabotaging their appliance. Claiming that it is not censorship because someone could jailbreak their phone is like claiming that there is no censorship in China because someone could use proxy servers.
Palm trees and 8
To an extent, yes.
Sure, if you completely redefine the term to mean something it has never meant or ever even implied.
Cydia. And that's not the only alternative App Store.
From your link:
"...a software application for iOS that lets a user browse and download applications for a jailbroken iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad" (emphasis mine)
Again. Telling someone "oh sure, you can use a different store...just hack your phone" is misleading at best.
Like I said in response to one of your previous posts, a mod isn't the same thing as a feature. Stop treating it like one.
Living With a Nerd
An iPad hasn't been elected to Congress, yet ... but given the recent developments in South Carolina I may have a shot to get my 32 GB 3G iPad on the ballot. Think I'm crazy? In politics "shiny" = "success" ...
Yes. Jailbreak your iPhone and download it from someone else. Neither act is illegal.
There would be nothing Apple can do to stop this person from selling it in an alternative store or through their website to owners of jailbroken iDevices.
No, but it means a user has to choose between a valid warranty plus software updates and access to non-Apple-approved applications. I'd have zero probalem with Apple applying arbitrary and unspecified criteria in their app approval process if they didn't actively work to prevent people from acquiring apps from other sources.
If there is only one store, and it has unlimited shelf space and guaranteed profits, and by driving to any other store you risk having your car banned, then an editorial decision like "we refuse to sell anything involving cartoon wangs" quite effectively removes objectionable content from the public discourse. It's not as objectionable as government censorship, but it is still a form of censorship.
If an area only had Comcast as a potential ISP, and Comcast decided to block 4chan because it offended their Christian sensibilities, that would be a form of censorship. If Walmart convinced your town to pass a rule saying that all garage sales must happen in Walmart parking lots, and Walmart kicked your garage sale out of its parking lot because it didn't like your novelty lamp that looked like a woman's leg, that would be censorship.
Apple has gone greatly out of their way to force their store to be the only arbiter of content on the iPhone. Going to any other store requires software hacks and risks being banned from apple and the AT&T network. As the arbiter, they block content that is dangerous, remove content that violates copyrights, and censor content they find objectionable.
Call a spade a spade. It's censorship.
The ______ Agenda
Claiming that it is not censorship because someone could jailbreak their phone is like claiming that there is no censorship in China because someone could use proxy servers.
Except that the latter is actual censorship while the former is a hysterical redefining of the term.
So someone who already has an iPhone should be forced to spend even more money on another phone? What a great scam Apple is running -- take hundreds of dollars from unsuspecting customers, who will then be forced to go out and buy your competitors' products anyway!
Palm trees and 8
Ya, but my grocer doesn't sew my mouth shut when I leave his store!
:q! Oh crap, not again...
Then don't buy their phone if you disagree with the terms of use. Did Apple force you or anyone else to buy an iPhone and agree to their terms?
Amazon's patent on "no, you can't have that because you bought an iPad!!" hasn't been approved yet. Once it does I'm sure you'll not only get refused at the point of purchase but you'll probably get an email from Jeff Bezos telling you that this would never have had to happen if you'd just bought a Kindle.
Apple considers jailbreaking highly illegal.
This space for rent.
The fact that Apple *could* reject apps for not meeting their rather precise ideas about what "The Apple Experience" should be like is still a big problem.
I disagree. The fact is, Apple is offering a choice that we've only seen in one other case so far - Steam.
The App Store is Steam, generalized to all applications. The favorite word of the moment is curated - Apple says the store is curated, my which they mean the apps in the app store have some level of QA and editorial filtering applied, just as you would find in the exhibit of a museum.
Similarly Steam offers a wider variety of games, but Valve approves what goes in Steam. Not just anyone can produce a game for Steam.
Now you would say, but users can create applications outside of Steam. That is true - but the same is true of the iPhone, via two paths.
The first is of course Jailbreaking, millions of people do this and Cydia will sell you anything you want to buy. It's not as huge a market but it is plenty viable, and it's most viable for the users that care the most about a truly open system - developers.
The second path is web apps. Given the abilities of HTML 5, and the hooks into most (if not all) of the device sensors like location, orientation, and touches - you can produce most of the applications people would want to use these days in a web app. That path is also totally open as Apple cannot block (and does not try to block) whatever you visit via the web.
So the iPhone is the platform that gives you a wider choice that a purely open platform - because you are free to try a totally open route, but also free to partake of a carefully selected market of applications where you know the base level of quality is reasonable and the applications will at least run.
Many technical people seem to want to destroy that choice because the editorial control offends them, but I say I want to see the experiment proceed because I think in the end an editorial garden is where most users need to stay to be safe. We've seen with Windows and to some extent other platforms, what happens when a large mass of non technical users is mixed with a totally open system and unsavory elements.
If people across the world truly value an absolutely open market, than Android will flourish.
If people across the world value a more carefully curated ecosystem, then the Apple App Store will flourish.
Let the experiment proceed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's ridiculous. If I write a letter to the NYTimes and they don't publish it, is that censorship? No, it's editing. If a bum wants to wash my car's window at a stoplight and I tell him no, is that censorship? No, it's my choice not to purchase his services. If I make new soda that's 10 times better than Coke, and McDonalds still refuses to sell it, is that censorship? No, it's a simple business decision.
Being censored by its definition implies a much darker--existentially speaking--scenario than having a product denied access to a private marketplace.
You may as well pull a godwin and call them Nazis, as if they're systematically gassing developers. Hyperbole is unnecessary here. People have every right to dislike their decisions, but it's just stupid to call it censorship.
The CB App. What's your 20?
He was claiming that NO ONE could obtain an app unless it was through the official app store. This is patently false.
If they're just a grocer, will they let me buy my groceries from someone else?
Oh, not, they won't let me do that.
But...but...Apple forced people to buy their phones!!!
No they just have lots of iSheep who buy iProducts without thinking.
If an area only had Comcast as a potential ISP, and Comcast decided to block 4chan because it offended their Christian sensibilities, that would be a form of censorship.
Yes, because that is a suppression of speech.
If Walmart convinced your town to pass a rule saying that all garage sales must happen in Walmart parking lots, and Walmart kicked your garage sale out of its parking lot because it didn't like your novelty lamp that looked like a woman's leg, that would be censorship.
No it wouldn't be. Censorship is about the suppression of speech or other forms of communication. Selling things in your front yard is not a form of speech.
I wonder if they ever review and reverse rejections that are not widely publicized. If anyone had a story like that, it would be interesting to hear.
Yes.
In some cases of course, rejections are because an app crashed or the UI was bad. In each and every case, Apple tells you what you need to fix to be accepted.
In cases where you violate policy, you can state your case and say why you think your application does not violate the things they think it does.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
My response to that is why not allow the walled garden and, if you so chose, alternative stores?
Think about it: have the phone ship, by default, to only run apps from Apple's official App Store. That way your Mom won't accidentally install something that will screw her phone up. However, you could buy the same hardware, enable the "install from any source" option, and boom goes the dynamite.
I already know the answer to this ("business reasons", or, more simply, "revenue"), but why would Apple not allow you to download from the App Store AND an alternate store? Why force people to hack their phones to do it?
Living With a Nerd
Also, an iPad can't take bribes, cannot lie / introduce inaccuracies in figures and can calculate faster than any politician. It also enjoys popularity. Total win-win here.
Censorship is (in this case) means the deletion or removal of material on moral grounds. Seems to fit.
It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies, when they work out in your favor. In much the same way as it is easy to feel good about lynchings when you are white, yes.
what does mob justice have to do with this?
lynch
Pronunciation: \linch\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: lynch law
Date: 1836
1. to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction
Stop changing the subject. The point is, you linked to an "alternate" app store that requires someone to hack their phone, thereby voiding their warranty...and presented the option as if it were a feature, as if it was something anyone could do without any consequences.
That's the parent's point.
As I've said multiple times in this thread, stop treating a mod like it's a feature.
Living With a Nerd
I would be perfectly happy with Apple being as autocratic as they like with their app store if it weren't the *only* source for apps for their platforms.
Then it is your lucky day!
Millions of users continue to buy full applications from Cydia with no Apple control whatsoever.
Even more users use the unrestricted Web, where anyone can build a web app that does pretty much anything.
Apple never was the only source, just the easiest. The same way Apple was never the only course for music for most people - just the easiest.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How is it hysterical redefining of a term, exactly? So we are clear, here is the definition of "censorship," Wiktionary:
"The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated."
Apple uses its power over iPhones and iPads to control freedom of expression (e.g. by preventing comics that happen to contain nudity from being installed). No, it is not absolute control, but it certainly is control.
Palm trees and 8
No, they prevented anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining it via the Apple App Store.
If the publisher made a web-accessible version of the same content, the iPad/Phone owners could access it just fine. And if they made an Android version of the app, then people who don't like Apple's policies could just buy a different device and buy it from a different app store.
Further, they admitted their mistake, so the accurate answer would actually be that they delayed anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining the program from the Apple App Store.
Finally, even if they made it totally impossible for people to view this content on the iPad/iPhone, since when did the right to display content on your mobile device become a first amendment right? I mean, what about all those carrier specific deals where you can "get exclusive clips from American Idol on your Sprint phone"? Are they censoring me because I can't access them on my Blackberry because it's on the AT&T network?
The CB App. What's your 20?
Then don't buy their phone if you disagree with the terms of use. Did Apple force you or anyone else to buy an iPhone and agree to their terms?
Not at all. In addition to being free to not buy their phone, I'm also free to explain why it's a bad idea for others to do so. And you're free to explain why those reasons are invalid.
You're also free to say "Then don't buy their phones" in response. There's no rule against non sequiturs. You should no, however, that you haven't said anything relevant on the topic.
Grocer's keep the objectionable content behind the counter in plain brown wrappers.
Apple does. They have a rating system and a number of apps are rated 17+. You can set up parental controls on a device to block some levels of content.
However grocers have limits on pornography they will sell, just as Apple has limits on how sexual in nature an application will be. You can't buy hardcore materials in the average grocery store, and you can't buy outright porn in the App Store.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What you and your fellow capitalists presume is that the museum and library despite endless cost cuttings will always be there. What is iTunes becomes the ONLY music seller and music publishers no longer give libraries the right to lend out music for free? What then?
What when Amazon becomes only the book seller? What then? The issue at hand is NOT what happens now when Apple is a relatively minor player in the distribution of content but what might happen if it continues to grow.
Would anyone have cared about Microsofts security problems if OS2 has not been made to fail (with a lot of help from MS). If you could still go into any shop and buy an Amiga? If Sinclair had a 2010 version? No. Then MS would never have been in court for abusing its monopoly and we would have laughed heartily at its attempts to do so.
When a Christian book store decides to carry only proper Christian books, they should be free to do so. But when that book store becomes a national chain, replacing all the other book stores, then this freedom becomes a serious liability. We could end-up with the self-censored state. Were you are free to publish anything you want, you just can't get it published. Or rather, sold. Everyone has a printing press but the market is locked up. Not by the state but by people who conveniently think the same as the most repressive censors.
Think of the Walmart effect applied to freedom of speech. Walmart ain't the devil. It doesn't force you as a manufacturer to work by their rules. You just won't be selling your items in their store if you don't. If the local grocery tries to get a manufacturer to dictate its terms, it will be told to get shafted. A large retailer might be able to negiotate a deal but Walmart TELLS you how things are going to go. it doesn't negiotate a price-cut. It tells you that you are going to cut your prices. You WILL play by their rules and the bigger they get, the more they can do this and the more you will hurt for not playing by their rules.
Look at the rise of the censored music cd spefically editted for the large retailers. It ain't state censorship, although it is mighty coincidental that what some in power want to be censored happens to be censored in the largest retail chains.
Ever noticed the curious lack of reporting of the issues around copyright by the big media? Or how if Futurama mentions filesharing this is always a bad thing? Gosh, well it must be true then because media producers would NEVER report one-sided on an issue that affects them.
Now imagine say MS-NBC be the only news source (or at least the only one most people access). How often do you think you would get reports on Windows security issues then? And NO, the CURRENT situation with PLENTY of competition for MS-NBC does NOT count. Now they have to, because people will hear it somewhere else. But what if they don't have to?
You only have to look to Italy for the effect. Berlusconi controls the media and amazingly they completly fail to report on any of the issues around him. Or whenthey do they just happen so share his point of view. Freedom of the press? Yes, the state ain't telling them what and what not to report, but I don't think it is the freedom you imagine.
In MS world, exploits don't happen and since they don't happen you don't report on them and you don't patch them. Luckily it ain't a MS world and some people do find exploits and publish them and then MS has to patch them but they get very miffed about it.
What if it was an Apple world? What if iTunes was the music store for 99% of the people. Sure there are alternatives but nobody uses it. What if the iPad becomes THE new way to read books and if you don't get accepted by Apple, your book just doesn't get noticed. Would you then still defend their censorship?
You claim that Apple is like a grocer. That means you are an idiot. Because Apple is a grocer then it is Walmart. Do you LIKE Walmarts censoring of music? How about 10 years in the future when they are the only store left?
Protecting freedom is not about what you have today, but what you would have in 10 years if you do not fight for it now.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
That might be the most insightful thing I've read in a long time. In lieu of real mod points, please accept a virtual one knowing I'll be using your logic in future arguments.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies, when they work out in your favor. In much the same way as it is easy to feel good about lynchings when you are white, yes.
Geeze. That's even more offensive than a Godwin. Congratulations. You may be interested to know that over the years many people of all colors have taken stands against lynchings, risking their own skin, regardless of its hue, for the sake of their brethren.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Yes, clearly anyone who does not share your exact values must be stupid.
It couldn't be that they value other things than you and then go on to make rational decisions or anything.
There's an app for that.
My blog
Have a tick box for adult or "unfiltered" content? Or letting the unwashed but brave masses go to non-apple app stores? The app store does, after all, have age-appropriate filters already in place. They just don't leverage it very much.
Say what you will about viruses, etc, a point that I agree entirely upon. But when someone sets their filter level to "adult" and downloads something called Boob Jiggle 2000, they know what they're getting. It wasn't just an accident. But protecting us from that sort of thing, also protects us from things like Ulysses, or Nine Inch Nails, or the Gutenberg Project. Or even Obama on a trampoline.
There is a big difference between filtering for safety reasons, and killing people's work because it offends their Christian sensibilities. This is especially offensive because they already have age-filters in place in the app store, and could easily remove the "objectionable" content for anyone who didn't want to see it.
Apple is not used to being a platform company, and they've been screwing it up royally. You don't wait until your developers are finished with a project to declare that the idea is invalid, you don't change the rules on developers mid-production, and you don't arbitrarily rescind approval once it has been given. I feel like we're witnessing the beginning of a repeat of history, where Apple has a dominant platform that starts making foolish and arbitrary rules and drives the developers to other platforms. Unless they learn fast, Android is going to eat their lunch (if it hasn't already).
The ______ Agenda
I've never seen ads targeted towards consumers for Linux, yet I've seen tons for Mac computers and for Windows.
Granted, Windows is the big gorilla, but all things considered, the fact that Linux has about 20% of the number of users as the Mac is pretty impressive, considering the level of advertising and brand name recognition they both have. Linux has survived and kept a small niche user base and maintained a certain level of respect.
All things considered, I don't think it's done too shabby.
The idea you can force a company to sell anything doesn't sound very cool to me. If you don't like that, you are free to choose a competing product or build one yourself.
Yep. We're also free to tell people why it's a bad idea to give money to companies that prevent or make difficult acquiring applications from third parties.
In this particular parent's case, that is true...but you still presented jailbreaking as a viable option for anybody. Again, stop touting a mod as a feature.
If it's really just that simple, what's the point of the walled garden in the first place? And if your response is "well, just stick to the appstore if that's all you want", why would Apple force someone to hack their phone just to use applications from another source? Why not offer the walled garden for those that want/need it, and allow people to freely download from another source as they saw fit?
That is the question I would like answered: Why does Apple force people to stick with the appstore unless they modify the hardware? Why can't we have the walled garden and a key to the gate?
PS: don't respond with "just don't buy one". I haven't, for this very reason. Respond to the actual question posted above in italics, please.
Living With a Nerd
God forbid someone do research on the product they're purchasing, instead of simply buying it because its shiny and trendy.
Thanks :-) I only wish I had previewed it prior to hitting submit; I sound like a drunken sailor on shore leave -_-;;
Living With a Nerd
And there is no real censorship in China. Use a proxy.
"Apple did not just refuse to sell the application: they prevented anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining it."
When did applications start coming in paperback form?
Palm trees and 8
Yes. Jailbreak your iPhone and download it from someone else. Neither act is illegal.
Wrong.
This is Apple's response to EFF's request for an exemption for jailbreaking to the Copyright office:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf
Some excerpts:
Current jailbreak techniques now in widespread use utilize unauthorized modifications to
the copyrighted bootloader and OS, resulting in infringement of the copyrights in those
programs. For example, the current most popular jailbreaking software for the iPhone,
PwnageTool (cited by EFF in its submission), causes a modified bootloader and OS to be
installed in the iPhone, resulting in infringement of Apple’s reproduction and derivative works
rights. Specifically, in the spring of 2008, hackers were able to determine how to circumvent the
secure ROM in the iPhone and falsely sign the bootloader. Using such knowledge, a falsely
signed modified version of Apple’s bootloader was created that will fool the secure ROM into
loading it, thereby circumventing the TPM implemented by the secure ROM. PwnageTool
directly modifies a copy of the bootloader and loads it onto the iPhone. The modified bootloader
is configured so that it does not perform the authentication check of the OS, and it therefore
loads a modified version of Apple’s OS that is not signed, thereby circumventing the TPM
implemented by the bootloader. The modified OS, in turn, is configured so that it does not
perform authentication checks on application programs loaded onto the iPhone, thereby
jailbreaking the device. In sum, PwnageTool circumvents every link of Apple’s “chain of trust”
TPMs in the iPhone. More generally, as the EFF submission admits, “decryption and
modification of the iPhone firmware appears to be necessary for any jailbreak technique to
succeed on a persistent basis.”32
Jailbreaking therefore involves infringing uses of the bootloader and OS, the copyrighted
works that are protected by the TPMs being circumvented. Unauthorized derivative versions of
the bootloader and OS have been created. Copies of those infringing works have been stored on
web sites, and infringing reproductions of those works are created each time they are
downloaded through Pwnage Tool and loaded onto the iPhone.33 In addition, as discussed in
Section II.B.2 above, the jailbroken OS enables pirated copies of Apple copyrighted content and
other third party content such as games and applications to play on the iPhone, resulting in
further infringing uses of copyrighted works and diminished incentive to create those works in
the first place.
In sum, the jailbreaking of the iPhone that would be permitted by the proposed Class #1
exemption in 5A and 11A would result in infringing uses of copyrighted works. It would
involve the creation, distribution, and copying of unauthorized modified versions of the
bootloader and OS, and it would facilitate and encourage the making, distribution, and use of
infringing copies of copyrighted material such as games and applications, owned by both Apple
and third parties, that run only on jailbroken phones. The proposed exemption therefore does not
satisfy the fundamental prerequisite of the statute that it aid “noninfringing uses” of copyrighted
works and should be rejected.
The infringing uses of copyrighted works that result from jailbreaking distinguish the
proposed Class #1 exemption in 5A and 11A from that of the 2006 exemption for circumvention
of firmware in a wireless telephone handset in order to connect to a wireless telephone
communication network.34 With respect to that exemption, the Librarian of Congress found in
2006 that the reason the four statutory factors “appear[] to be neutral is that in this case, the
access controls do not appear to actual
This space for rent.
When has a company considering something as illegal ever stopped someone on slashdot from doing it? Considering something illegal is one of the most surefire ways of making sure something gets done by a slashdotter. Remember all those BR key signatures?
Unless someone wants to use it to make an inane point about Apple and needs them to be the tyrannical evil overlord with squads of turtlenecked ninjas ready to punish anyone who dares disobey Lord Jobs. Then Apple considering something illegal will make /. suddenly very respectful of the law.
That's not what Apple says.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
By such an absurd standard any store that choose not to sell someone's product based on a review of its content on moral grounds is also engaging in "censorship"
Why, yes! For instance, Wal-Mart refusing to stock CDs that had explicit lyrics was censorship. Beeping over "obscene" words is censorship. The list of things that are censorship go on and on, it's just that some people get their panties in a bunch when other people use the word as defined in the English language for things not done by the government, possibly because they don't want people to be aware of the fact that the Constitution has holes large enough to drive aircraft carriers through... like your freedom from search and seizure unless it's the landlord doing it, because the Constitution doesn't apply to him. They want private censorship to go unobserved so that they can dream of using it themselves.
I hate iProducts. The thing I hate the most about them is that they are so popular
Yeah! When will those stupid sheeple wake up?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
yes, but you have to provide the developer with the identifier for your iPhone/iPod/iPad. There's another method that I'm not sure of the details on, but where I work there are home grown iApps that can be installed without going through the Apple App store and without having to provide the device identifier.
thoromyr
Western governments -- ostensibly -- act only on the advice of their electorate. Laws are in place not because of some arbitrary system, or because someone you don't know was just doing it for the hell of it, but because they were elected to enact controls that we already thought were best.
Murder isn't illegal because the government said so, murder is illegal because we've decided that as a society, that's something that we find reprehensible and should be punished. Then we codify this societal value in something we call a 'law', and it sits on the books, waiting to be applied.
While I can't deny that governments seem to have drifted a bit far from the ideal of 'by the people, of the people, for the people', laws are still in place because we've implicitly agreed to that social contract. (That is, if you're not working to change a law in some fashion, we can assume that you think it's a good idea.)
If Apple had a bad product that nobody wanted and the apps were trash and nobody wanted THOSE, people wouldn't buy them. People buy iPhones and iPads and iApps because they fulfill some sort of criteria. Apple's control is only on the manufacturing end. They may restrict the specifications of an application (e.g., no porn), but that's hardly control over the consumer.
Still, people buy Ipads because it's cool to have them , not necessarily because they need them.
And that is the case for most of Apple's products : they sell because they make their products look cool.
So in that sense Apple does tell them what to do , through peer pressure : if you don't buy an Ipad/other Apple thing , you are not cool .
Slipping shoelaces ?
This sounds like a classic case of "models" versus "reality." In economic theory, everyone does their research and makes a well informed decision on what to purchase, thus forming the basis for modeling economies. In reality, though, most people do not have enough time available to thoroughly research every product they buy, nor do they even know where to look to do that research.
Would you blame someone for failing to read all the available research on a particular medicine before taking it, instead of just relying on what their doctors tell them (or perhaps reading a few reports from a major news source)? Why, then, would you blame a not-technically-literate person for failing to read every single report and opinion about the iPhone before purchasing one, instead of just relying on a couple of reviews they read from major media sources?
Palm trees and 8
Yes, become a developer, get the source from the iApp's developer, and install it to your own device via XCode.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Well seeing as how this is just a comic book, couldn't they have just put it on an iPhone/iPad-formatted website behind a paywall?
Schnapple
I would be perfectly happy with Apple being as autocratic as they like with their app store if it weren't the *only* source for apps for their platforms without the end users voiding their warranties and risking Apple bricking their device with a non-optional update
Both additions you made are false, so you would be wrong to add them.
Bricking:
You have confused jailbreaking, with unlocking. Jailbreaking offers no risk of bricking.
Voiding warranty:
You can at any time go into iTunes and tell it to restore the device to factory defaults for service.
Try again.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
www.piratebay.com?
I put a question mark because I don't rely know but surely pirates have cracked the iPhone by now, so you can run any app you want?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
No, except one is Apple who you love. If jailbreaking your phone means you aren't being censored then leaving china means you aren't being censored: after all, you could JUST LEAVE CHINA!!!
What about all those other people who are not on Slashdot? I think they are known as "the majority."
Palm trees and 8
It a hysterical rendering because if you actively protest or fight apples censorship of an app, they aren't eventually going to KILL you or put you in JAIL for it. China does.
I think, from what I read in the developers agreement, that for a small fee, you can get a development system that lets you put just about anything you want on your iphone, where 'your' is some smallish set of individual devices.
Reaching a bit, that means that a group of like minded people could trade apps around, in source form, which each member could build in their individual development environments and install on their phones.
The fee (in the food store analogy, COSTCO membership) likely has some renewal period...
That said, I didn't read the agreement carefully, and never joined up because, well, its a phone, and seems to work quite well as it is.
I would say it's just the only reasonable one. I would not consider requiring jailbreaking your phone to be a reasonable action.
A) Why not? For a technical user (the very user that cares more about the kinds of apps Apple will not allow). it's perfectly easy and reasonable.
B) Web apps are still reasonable. For instance, any adult themed web app could be built that would work almost as well as a native app. It's just that Apple will not help you collect payment for it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"No, it's not really censorship" Yes, it really is, just not censorship performed by a government. Apple censors the content available on these devices, plain and simple -- why state it any other way?
It's censorship if and only if you agree it's censorship if you deny me the right to walk into your living room and stand between you and your television waving a sign and shouting slogans.
If you agree owners of property have the right to allow whoever they want on it, of more appropriately, if you think a store owner has the right to determine for herself what products she is going to stock on her shelves rather than having other people dictate it to her, then you support this sort of thing. If you still want to call it censorship, fine, but make it clear that your definition of censorship includes property owners exercising their right to determine what they do with their own time and money on their own property.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
When did applications start coming in paperback form?
Punched cards?
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
The complaints are there because the iPhone is a mobile phone, not a game console.
But a game console these days, is more a home media center. Games are just one facet. You can browse the web on an iPhone -and on the PS3. You can play movies on the PS3 - and on the iPhone.
Game consoles are truly general purpose these days, so why do they get a pass?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
True, a jailbroken iPhone/iPad can run applications that are not approved by Apple. However, jailbreaking is only a partial solution; the warranty is voided, in the past Apple has sabotaged jailbroken iPhones, and there are a lot of people who are not technically competent/literate enough to jailbreak their phone. As I noted elsewhere, claiming that it is not a problem because someone could "always" hack through the restrictions is akin to claiming that censorship in China is not a problem because someone could "always" just use proxy servers.
Palm trees and 8
A fetish for used cigarettes? That's a new one.
So, where are all those other places that people can download iPhone/iPad applications?
Lots of web sites now have mobile optimized sites, and as a subset a number have iPhone/iPad optimized sites. Bing is one example.
Basically wandering around the web you find a lot of examples - and of course Cydia was also mentioned.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
>> Claiming that it is not censorship because someone could jailbreak their phone is like claiming that there is no censorship in China because someone could use proxy servers.
>
> Except that the latter is actual censorship while the former is a hysterical redefining of the term.
Not at all. Apple controls the environment.
They choose to be the monopoly on content. They choose to censor that content.
People trying to make excuses for Apple are just spineless morons.
Criticisms like this would be moot if Apple didn't choose to be platform tyrant.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Censorship does not require a brutal, repressive government. Look over the definition of the word again, and show me where it says anything about violence.
Palm trees and 8
No legal way. Only jailbroken phones.
Until Apple runs our government, you cannot state an UNAPPROVED request from Apple is the same as actually violating the law.
It doesn't matter what Apple says, it matters what the COURTS say. Point to a SINGLE EXAMPLE of someone impacted in any way by this hypothetical "law of no jailbreaking".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I really think Apple should consider a full transition to fashion trend-setter and drop all this expensive technology stuff. Then they could really sell more iPads.
Exactly
Hitting people is illegal. Unless we as a society decide it's okay (boxing, ultimate fighting, etc. etc. etc.). And occasionally people even die there... and it's not treated as murder. The boxer who killed the other boxer doesn't go to prison.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
People find Apple products easy to use and reliable, so they buy them. The reason slashdotters get upset is that there are much more important issues at work - we bite the bullet and use and test free software even when it's not the best option, because it's important to many of us to own and control our own computers. The common Apple user doesn't care about the big issues, they only like how smooth and shiny the device is, so Apple becomes successful despite being evil. Especially frustrating is that their users are so outspoken, and Apple fanboys are outspoken about ignoring philosophical issues and focusing on it "just working."
Reaching a bit, that means that a group of like minded people could trade apps around, in source form, which each member could build in their individual development environments and install on their phones.
For instance, a free proxy app that any developer can run and install (Cydia of course has much nicer proxying applications that people can buy).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Damn it, why does Apple never ship mobile devices with features I want! I want a damned punched card reader on my iPad!
Palm trees and 8
It becomes censorship when Apple actively prevents you from buying from anyone else.
That is the key difference here between Apple and Walmart. Walmart does not conspire to make it difficult or impossible for me to buy from someone else. If I don't like Walmart then I can easily shop at Costco. There is no implicit or explicit limits on my ability to find another vendor.
Apple is the only vendor.
The puzzling thing is why all of the Apple fanboys are trying to hide from this. Jobs has made no pretense about his censorship intent. If you really like the company and the technology then you should be all aboard for this stuff. Otherwise, you're a flaming hypocrite. You make excuses and do the whole fanboy routine despite the fact that you know better.
The new Apple fanboy motto should be "censorship is good".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Damn straight. A friend of mine asked my advice on satellite service to save money. I told him you can get Dish Network for $20 a month, plus $5 if you want local stations. He said that's good. I then offered to help him with the ordering but he said he was waiting until his next paycheck.
About two weeks later my friend calls me and says, "I ordered DirecTV for $25 a month but it shoots up to $60 in December! You lied to me. You said it would it would only be $25!" I said I did not lie. DISH is $25 a month but you ordered the wrong damn thing. I told you I'd help you, but I'm sorry now you're stuck with DirecTV. I then asked WHEN he ordered this. "After work. I was tired and I ordered on the spur of the moment."
This story is a near-perfect example of a person NOT making an informed decision. He made an impulse buy and screwed himself. Of course I don't think it's the government's job to protect us from making dumb decisions like these. You order DirecTV by mistake, instead of Dish, then you simply have to take responsibility.
.
>>>Would you blame someone for failing to read all the available research on a particular medicine before taking it, instead of just relying on what their doctors tell them
No not at all, but I do blame people for not questioning their doctors. I don't let any doctor give me medicine or a procedure until he explains what it's for. If he can't explain to my satisfaction, then I'll tell him the same thing I tell telemarketers: "No. Not interested." (Of course if I'm unconscious and dying, then the doctor can just do what he/she thinks is best.)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
... We didn't believe these were good guidelines for art, but respected their rights to sell content that met their guidelines at their own store. Apple is not a museum or a library for new content then, so much as they are a grocer.
In Soviet Russia, Apple sells grocery!
That's just sad. When did it become about what they let you do, vs. what you can do? If you can make it happen, it is a feature.
(I'll even allow the qualifier "without going to jail". Has anyone even been so much as sued for jailbreaking an iPhone?)
is there any legal way to obtain and install an iApp apart from the official apple appstore ?
Yes, there is.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/apps/in-house/
a mod isn't the same thing as a feature. Stop treating it like one.
Lets say you love application X. You love and need it so much, you buy platform Y because it's can run on that.
Why is that not then considered a feature of the device? To you, as the user, there is no difference - you bought Y and it can do X.
According to your logic, you could not consider any PC to have a feature that was not included in the original box, since all software updates had to be downloaded. You could never buy a car because it was easily tunable for better performance or handling.
People buy PC's because it can run Autocad. Autocad itself is not a feature, but the ability to run Autocad IS. You can buy and iPhone and run any Cydia app on it - the ability to run Cydia apps IS A FEATURE BECAUSE YOU CAN DO IT.
You are confused because you know something is technically distinct. But to REAL users, all they care about is the ability to buy a device to perform a task. So they buy the device that gets them as close as they can, and then if that's not far enough take it the rest of the way. They still consider it a feature that it can do X, even if they had to add it later.
You are just trying to redefine "Feature" so as to specifically exclude a use case you don't like. As with most attempts to redefine what people do every day and label it uncommon, it simply doesn't work.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Exactly. Because if you don't follow along with the group think you'll get modded flamebait, troll, offtopic -- and then your karma will take a hit. Oh wait -- different organization -- my bad.
Name one person who ever got in any trouble from Jailbreaking a phone.
Apple may have stated the consider it illegal but millions do it anyway, and the courts do NOT consider it illegal. At this point it's not even as "illegal" as breaking the speed limit and there's certainly no-one looking to see if you are jailbreaking.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Exactly.
High profile cases like this and the guy who won the pulitzer get reversed - what about the low profile cases?
Good thing that the author put in a plug for Apple though. I mean, when the company can make or break your business on a blind whim, you better be careful what you say.
That's just sad. When did it become about what they let you do, vs. what you can do? If you can make it happen, it is a feature.
Example time:
Do you consider being able to flash the firmware of a 360's disc drive to be a feature? How about flashing a PSP? What about installing a modchip in a PS2?
Would you consider those features or mods?
Living With a Nerd
If Apple had a bad product that nobody wanted and the apps were trash and nobody wanted THOSE, people wouldn't buy them. People buy iPhones and iPads and iApps because they fulfill some sort of criteria. Apple's control is only on the manufacturing end. They may restrict the specifications of an application (e.g., no porn), but that's hardly control over the consumer.
It is control over the consumer. It's telling them what they are allowed and not allowed to buy for their phone.
Yes, the consumer has control over whether or not to 'buy' the phone in the first place. Though after they do they still don't really own it. After they think they've bought the phone they are then hit with hidden costs, the cost of a lack of certain kinds of choices.
Those hidden costs are a control on the consumers behavior. Apple controls the consumer's behavior post-sale through their app-store policies.
If Apple just sold a phone pre-loaded with apps and you didn't get to change which apps there were, I wouldn't care. If they sold the phone and had nothing to do with the app store, or it was easy to use a non-Apple app-store with a stock phone, I wouldn't care. But the fact Apple's phones are set up so you have to do something that seems shady and dangerous (yet more hidden costs) in order to escape their app-store means they have post-sale control over consumer behavior.
And, unlike a government, they can't even vote to change what the controls are. Yes, if people raise a big enough hue-and-cry Apple might change their policies. But Apple may choose not to, and people who bought an Apple iProduct are locked in by the price they've paid for the device and the investment they've made in learning how it works.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Or alternately, people have different opinions on what the big issue is, and don't regard engineering tradeoffs as "evil".
Linux/Android/OSS fanboys are outspoken about ignoring practical usability issues and focusing on it being "open".
This
In truth, Apple could make their platform as open as the Mac and it would not matter for the vast majority of their sheeple customers. Jobs could run his platform like an Amish paradise and it wouldn't matter. His n00b customers would just put up with it. The fact that it's like that wouldn't matter because the rest of us would not need to be bothered.
There would be none of this inherent hostility to Free Software or random 3rd party apps.
People that don't fit into Steve's 1984 mindset could be left alone to do their own thing and it would not impact the sheep at all.
The Mac is a very good proof of this.
No, Steve is playing the part of Jim Jones because that's what he wants. It suits his interests as a profiteer.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I blame everyone for complaining when they clearly did not do their purchase for something that is either a large ticket item, or, in particular, is something to do with their health.
What you and your fellow capitalists presume is that the museum and library despite endless cost cuttings will always be there. What is iTunes becomes the ONLY music seller and music publishers no longer give libraries the right to lend out music for free? What then?
Then we all continue to get music from others, for free, if we don't like how Apple is selling them.
Apple being the only store is way more of a concern to record labels than anyone else - because you can always step outside the Apple store and sell direct. And that is true of ANY media. Apple is only a headache for intermediaries that before were the only powerful intermediary.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple banning stuff from their store is not in and of itself a problem. As rightly noted, it is their store.
But the device you buy is yours, and the real problem is that there is no way to get apps on it other than through that store (and apps are an advertised feature of the device). It's as if you bought a car which can only have its oil changed at a single service station operated by the car manufacturer, and they ban certain brands of oil from the store. It may be legal, but there's no way in hell this is ethical - it's a clear-cut anti-competitive action (as in, actively and deliberately blocking competition from competing, instead of trying to compete yourself), which is always bad for consumer, and never excusable.
Gee, maybe it's because there are other stores where we can buy food?
Disregarding the fact you can simply buy some other platform altogether (which actually scuttles your point totally), there are other sources for iPhone applications.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well not in my case. Too little, too late.
Wont be buying another apple product. Had not bought an iphone or ipad yet and certainly wont be with all they are doing. Android FTW.
But thanks apple for proving early on what your intent in the marketplace was. It is nice to be able to make informed consumer choices.
but you still presented jailbreaking as a viable option for anybody.
Why not when it Is.
At this point even very non-techniical users can easily jailbreak, it's usually as simple as running an application. Anyone totally unable to do so, could easy find some slightly technical friend who could handle it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
An iPad doesn't need to take bribes or lie. Unlike congresspeople who need to be cared for and made to look good, iPads have a much more direct way of being told what to do and being forced to comply. It's called the keyboard.
Soon Apple will be selling iVotes in the App Store. 99 cents per vote except on premium votes. From you straight to your Representative Computing Appliance. Unfortunately, also it means that the Federal Government will be outsourced to AT&T, but hey, you can't have everything.
I see censoring as more of a blacklisting than a selection process. You refuse material for a specific, moral reason rather than a simple categorisation. I also don't automatically see it as a bad thing. If someone wants me to clean toilets, or for that matter, do electronic engineering, I'll decline. I only do software. That's not censorship because I'm opting in. If they want me to work on a guidance system for a missile, then I'll decline and that's opting out, and would probably not be censorship per se but something akin to it.
I wouldn't expect a children's bookshop to sell porn magazines. Nor would I expect them to sell complex psychological thrillers. I don't see either of these as censorship any more than their failure to sell motorcycle parts. However, if it was a more general purpose bookshop, then refusal to stock porn is censorship. And there's nothing wrong with that in general. They're offering a choice. Some people want a "safe" place. Other bookshop are available.
So it only becomes a problem when there's no real choice. And there isn't with the app store. You can technically go for a completely different platform, and then abandon all the benefits of your iPhone. That's not really offering a choice. More of an ultimatum.
Nope, THIS grocer throws all my stuff out of my fridge. And if I refuse to allow him to fiddle about with my fridge, he'll complain to the electrical company and get me cut off.
You see, THIS grocer sells fridges too. Nice ones. But he insists on "post sale services" that mean he gets to check that my fridge is in "full working order". Seemed good at the time.
But now I want to put food from another grocer in there, he's now throwing all the produce out of my fridge.
I'll never by iFridge again. But it's too late now.
Hey, since you like it, will you buy my fridge for full retail? After all, it's not my fault the grocer is now throwing stuff away, so why should I pay for their asshattery?
Go on. Buy my iFridge so I can swap over to a gFridge.
The reason you don't hear as much complaining is because fewer rejections make it into the news. However when they do there have been plenty of complaints here on slashdot. For example, when Manhunt 2 was given an AO rating, all of the console makers refused to allow it on their consoles. Even people who didn't like Manhunt thought it was bullshit that adults were being prohibited from playing the game that had be rated adult only.
Agreed. How can iPhone owners complain about being treated like slaves when they themselves VOLUNTEERED to be enslaved by buying one in the first place? It's not like it's any secret that Steve Jobs is a tyrant, or that Apple controls everything device they sell with an iron fist. You want freedom, you want to be different? Fine, go buy an Android. If you're buying an iPhone, you'll do what Steve tells you you can do.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So you're saying the Chevy Corvette is trying to control people because it limits the roads it can be driven on. My 4x4 has far more options when it comes to possibilities.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
You're welcome to dare Apple to sue you for jailbreaking your phone, so that we all know that the threat is not real.
I just stated support in public for jailbreaking, as I have many times. Basically, I just did. Also there are countless guides on the internet covering how to jailbreak, and YouTube video. If it were illegal why have those not been taken down by Apple? Why have the websites still got these articles up? Why is Cydia still around and run by someone who lives in the U.S.?
Your argument is finished as REALITY shows us all how patently false a claim it is, and repetition of it only makes you look less intelligent and more rabid a Hater.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That'll be why the app store contains quality apps like Less Cigarette, iWatermelon, Mirror, Wart Healer and Farting Grandmas, while blocking the Google Voice app.
Indeed, the bar is pretty low in some ways for an application, which makes it all the more curious people assume it's hard to get approved.
If Apple is a bad curator, they will fail. As I said, let the experiment play out and see if a curator who sometimes makes errors can still be more desirable in the end than a fully open platform which includes all quality errors as a subset, along with many more.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Let's go for the car analogy then : you buy a Ford, Ford says : "You are only allowed to use spare parts coming from Ford, and only fuel coming from this Ford-run company. But don't worry,We have 1.000.000 different spare parts, and we have the shiniest fuel ever". Let's just assume you're not a techhead. All you want is a car, and everybody is telling you how glossy those buttons are. So you buy a Ford.
A few weeks later, you decide that you want to use this great new fuel, which can be used as the main ingredient in Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters, and you also want one of those funky new bobblehead looking like a naked south korean chick giving a blowjob for your dashboard (no accounting for taste). You'd also like to drive to Mexico to get wasted. Sadly, Ford, in its incredible wisdom and its caring manners tells you "no can do. we don't sell those kind of items! They are tasteless, and not up to our standard. And Mexico is off-limits for you! Not With Our Car! The car will stop working the moment you pass the border!" (even though they do have the naked black chick giving a blowjob, because somehow the sculptor won an art price and they had trouble justifiying the rejection. they also have tons of very ugly fluffy dices too, and the car can drive automatically to the next RIAA executive if it needs to).You could, in theory, go out, buy the bobblehead and use the PGGB fuel in your Ford to go buy shit and get laid in Tijuana, but you'd have to make a minimal modification to your car, which sadly Ford won't allow. They threaten with a lawsuit if they ever find out you did it
So you're stuck with an expensive piece of hardware, but your choices on how you want to use it for what are not up to you. Ford is the one who now dictates what you can see, drink and where you should drive. Yes, you could buy another Car from a different manufacturer, but 1) not everybody has enough money to buy multiple cars 2) Nothing else but weird papiermache cars from India are available in yoru region and 3) all the stuff you bought from the Ford Multimedia Enjoyment Center can not be used in non-Ford stereos, so you'd lose even more money. Basically, they got you, your actions and options are actively censored by the company with the shiny glossy chrome F logo ... see ... censorship through dependance is still censorship.
Note : I don't have grudge against Ford at all, nor do I think Tijuana is a city you visit to "get laid and wasted". those were just examples. I *would* find a bobblehead of a blowjob giving woman offensive, but then, it's not MY car. And I'd really need a big PGGB right now.
Anyway, I wish you the best of luck. And no, I've never got past page 14 of Finnegans Wake (so spelt). Do not feel obligated. The poor guy had probably gone a bit schizophrenic by the time he wrote it.
Oblig Apple reference; I'll be quite honest. Given the choice between a world in which Jobs and Wozniak had made a fortune in ride on lawnmowers, or a world in which Ireland produced no literature, I'd sooner be in a world with the iMow catalog.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
In this particular parent's case, that is true...but you still presented jailbreaking as a viable option for anybody. Again, stop touting a mod as a feature.
If it's really just that simple, what's the point of the walled garden in the first place? And if your response is "well, just stick to the appstore if that's all you want", why would Apple force someone to hack their phone just to use applications from another source? Why not offer the walled garden for those that want/need it, and allow people to freely download from another source as they saw fit?
That is the question I would like answered: Why does Apple force people to stick with the appstore unless they modify the hardware? Why can't we have the walled garden and a key to the gate?
PS: don't respond with "just don't buy one". I haven't, for this very reason. Respond to the actual question posted above in italics, please.
It is a viable option for anybody. It is not a viable option for everybody. Stop touting something that's difficult as impossible.
The reason you can't have the key to the gate is piracy. Same reason you don't get the key to the gate on a console, you can only run games approved by Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo. You talk about consoles on your blog, so their gate doesn't seem to bother you - why does a gate being on a phone bother you so much? Is it because it's enough more like a computer that you just wish it was a computer?
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
"No, it's not really censorship"
I'm not here to sing Apple's praises, but the fact is, they're not censoring anyone - because it's not a benevolent environment. No one (developer or consumer) is born into Apple's eco-system in any method that isn't of their free will... If you buy an iPhone, you know (or should) what you're getting.
I'd love to see more openness, but the fact of the matter is, does ANYONE accuse the New York Times of "censoring" the thousands of writers articles that IT CHOOSES not to include in it's pages every single day? No. It's considered editorially gleaned or curated content, and it's up to their editors to decide what the people see in the pages of that paper.
Whether or not you see it this way is moot. It's the way Apple chooses to see their platform, and I and 600,000 others from yesterday seem to agree.
So no, it isn't censorship.
Really? If people are not technically competent enough to download one file, and press one button, then I think I just died a little inside.
Don't give them any ideas.
Slipping shoelaces ?
Why do you care why someone else buys something? Unless you're employees in apples marketing department does it really matter? My wife's ear rings have no functional value there were purchased strictly because they were shinny. Does that make them less valued? I haven't purchased an iPad, iPod or iPhone, although I have nothing against them I just haven't had the need. Though I am considering an iPad as it does run pretty slick and allows much easier access to the things I fumble through to get at now.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
causes a modified bootloader and OS to be installed in the iPhone, resulting in infringement of Apple’s reproduction and derivative works rights.
So now we can't install a different OS on hardware that we own? Installing software on something isn't against the law. Distributing someone else's OS modified or not, without their consent is. Jailbreaking doesn't do this. It simply installs a different bootloader that allows you to modify your own device.
If GM went to great pains to restrict how you could modify your Corvette once you bought it by putting in purposeful restrictions beyond the simple restrictions of physics and available manufactured parts, yes, I would say that.
But, when you buy a Corvette, it's capabilities are pretty well spelled out. And if you want to modify those capabilities, the procedure for doing that is within reasonable financial reach, and you don't have to go to GM and get their permission to do it.
So, that case falls either under this sentence "If Apple just sold a phone pre-loaded with apps and you didn't get to change which apps there were, I wouldn't care." (which is a reason I have fewer problems with iTunes than the iPhone or iPad) or this sentence "If they sold the phone and had nothing to do with the app store, or it was easy to use a non-Apple app-store with a stock phone, I wouldn't care.".
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
"...I hate iProducts.... I hate.... I get angry... "
Take a chill-pill. Your "hate" over inanimate objects and anger over behavior you have no right to dictate is not healthy. Amazingly, if you just forget about it and move on, you'll have more time to deal with more important things in life.
It is a viable option for anybody. It is not a viable option for everybody. Stop touting something that's difficult as impossible.
I never said it's impossible, I said it isn't a capability built into the phone. You need to use third-party software (which Apple tries to render useless with every update, might I add) that directly modifies the way the device functions. Therefore, it is a modification, not a feature. Were it a feature, Apple wouldn't be actively trying to prevent you from doing it. Semantics, I know.
The reason you can't have the key to the gate is piracy. Same reason you don't get the key to the gate on a console, you can only run games approved by Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo.
Both Windows Mobile (prior to 7, anyways) and Android give you the key; you're allowed to leave the garden whenever you want. People that want to pirate are going to do it regardless of your rules, why ruin it for everyone else?
You talk about consoles on your blog, so their gate doesn't seem to bother you
I would be happy to discuss the walled garden aspect of gaming consoles with you, but not here as that would be entirely offtopic. That being said, your assumption is wrong; the walled garden bothers me on game consoles, but for entirely different reasons. My email address is on my webpage, if you want to discuss this particular subject further.
why does a gate being on a phone bother you so much? Is it because it's enough more like a computer that you just wish it was a computer?
honestly? Because I don't like knowing that I'm locked into a single source for my phone. I readily admit that the appstore would very likely serve any need I could ever possibly have for a phone...but I still don't like the fact that I'm stuck with it. I don't like what Apple is offering, and as such I'm not giving them my money. ::shrug:: Some people accuse me of clinging to some misguided philosophy over usability, but I'm just a consumer; if I don't vote with my wallet, what other course of action can I take?
Living With a Nerd
and how many individuals has apple lodged criminal complaints against? civil? law suits?
oh yeah, that's right: none.
illegal it is, enforced it is not.
But, when you buy a Corvette, it's capabilities are pretty well spelled out.
The iPad's capabilities are also spelled out. What's at issue is that there are artificial limitations on what you can do with the iPad. The car example is terrible because a Corvette isn't designed to go off-road. The car would fall apart. The iPad is designed to run software of any type, and evil DRM is what prevents you from going "off road."
That said, artificial limitations exist everywhere. Graphics cards are sold with disabled pipelines in order to create a different market (it's cheaper to disable pipelines than to design a new card with fewer pipelines.) Is that as evil as Apple's App Store? I don't know, but it's interesting to think about.
causes a modified bootloader and OS to be installed in the iPhone, resulting in infringement of Apple’s reproduction and derivative works rights.
So now we can't install a different OS on hardware that we own? Installing software on something isn't against the law. Distributing someone else's OS modified or not, without their consent is. Jailbreaking doesn't do this. It simply installs a different bootloader that allows you to modify your own device.
You're removing their bootloader and you don't see that as a violation? You deserve to lose all warranty rights, period.
You would be surprised; in any case, that is the reason I included "literate" in the sentence, and I would like to think that a lack of technical literacy is the reason most people have not jailbroken their iPhones yet (assuming, of course, that those people even see a reason to do such a thing).
Palm trees and 8
How do you know the courts do not consider it illegal?
Because there is no law making it illegal. The links to EFF Haters like to post only state what Apple has submitted to the copyright office, which has not been accepted - and existing law cvlearly shows that consumers are legally able to modify all sorts of things to do what they want.
You can't find a victim.
You can't find a law.
You can't demonstrate in any way how exactly someone would be brought up on charges of "jailbreaking".
It's like claiming eating ice-cream is illegal because some crazy guy on the corner said it was so.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's an interesting perspective.
I'm a geek. Most of my friends are geeks. And most of them hate the iPad. I thought it looked like a neat toy, so I picked one up (note that I'm posting as an AC.) Most of my friends don't know that I have one.
I picked one up despite the peer pressure to avoid them like the plague. You know why? It's a great eBook reader. It is color, so it handles comics better than any other device out there. The Kindle (and now nook) apps means that it reads eBooks from all of the major vendors. I don't have to worry about nook failing as a product and me being stuck with a useless device or unreadable books--I can buy eBooks from Barnes and Noble or Amazon without fear.
It also plays video well. Better than my laptop, at least. I watched all of Dexter Season 3 on about half a charge on the device (47% remaining by the end.) What other devices can claim that? Not many.
I've found that I carry it around and continue browsing the web at times when I would have otherwise set my laptop aside. I laughed when I read reports of people taking their iPads to the kitchen, but I found myself doing this and realize that I'd been doing it before I'd even read those stories. This could be considered good or bad.
The iPad is a good little device. It serves more purposes than a Kindle or nook, and fills most purposes of a netbook. My purchase was based upon utility, not peer pressure.
Actually it's just hard, just like turning a corvette into a 4x4 isn't easy and almost nobody does it. You have a preconceived idea of what Apple products should do but they designed the product and supporting infrastructure outside your idea. Easy, don't buy one, get an android or blackberry or go without. That's what I've done.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
I didn't say anything about warranty rights. You lose warranty rights, no big deal. What they're claiming is it's illegal. That's like saying putting a different bootloader on a PC is illegal.
$ cat iphone_application_policy
start:
if random(100) > 80 then reject_application() else accept_application();
wait random(14) days;
goto start
since when did the right to display content on your mobile device become a first amendment right?
There's your answer
Also, Apple could shut off any jailbreaking technique in future versions of the iPhone/iPad.
Not really a future you can build on.
Would you consider those features or mods?
Why not both?
I bought my second-hand 1st gen iphone last year because I knew I could upgrade to iphone OS 2 and software jailbreak+unlock it. If could not jailbreak it, or had to hack the hardware, I wouldn't have bought it. Now it's running iphone OS 3.0, and it's stable as-is: no more upgrades until I get some benefit from them. Sounds like I'm not getting iOS 4 anyway, which is probably just as well since even 3 is a little sluggish compared with 2.2 (installed when I bought it).
Changa hates change.
How about companies responsibilities?
The plunderers rape the countries of origin and arm and assist bandits.
How many countries regulate and enforce ethical rules for their conglomerates?
# ~: no sigs today
"So in that sense Apple does tell them what to do , through peer pressure : if you don't buy an Ipad/other Apple thing , you are not cool ."
Maybe that's were all this hatred comes from. The /. crowd whom thinks their choices are "cool" but the majority of the population does not see them as "cool" so the whiners vent! "...my phone has a bash shell; yours does not or let you have one, you moron!" I've never seen such a bunch of whiners when it comes to things such as phones, tablets and music players as you see here. LOL, news for geeks and things that REALLY don't matter.
It simply installs a different bootloader
It installs a modified copy of Apple's bootloader, the creation of which violates Apple's copyright.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It's Apple's product and Apple's store. The idea you can force a company to sell anything doesn't sound very cool to me. If you don't like that, you are free to choose a competing product or build one yourself.
The problem is not what Apple does or does not want to sell in their store. Apple is--and should be--free to choose what content to allow or not allow in their store. But, Apple should not get to choose what content to allow or not allow my device. Yes, Apple created this piece of hardware, but once they've sold it to me, I own it, not them. Therefore, I get to choose what content to store or not store on this device, not Apple.
The fundamental problem is that Apple has set up its store as the one and only store for these devices. Other stores are not allowed. By explicitly preventing me from accessing other sources for this content, Apple's decisions over the content in their store directly impacts the content available for me to load onto my device. If Apple wants to limit the content in their store, they should also allow other stores to exist. Conversely, if Apple wants to be the only store, they should allow all (legal) content into the store.
let me know when you open a store someplace so I can demand you sell my porn...otherwise I'll complain you are censoring my porn.
Let's use your example. Let's say I run a store that sells magazines and you want to sell pornographic magazines. One option is to sell your magazines in my store. Let's then say that I refuse to sell your magazines in my store. Now, the question is: Do you have another option? In the real world, you would have other options. You could sell your magazines in someone else's store. You could set up your own store and sell your magazines from there. You could stand out on a street corner and sell your magazines.
But, suppose my store is the only place that is legally allowed to sell magazines of any kind. In that case, if I refuse to sell your magazine, you have no other options. There are no other stores. You can't set up your own store. You can't sell these magazines on your own. You are out of luck. The people who want your magazines are out of luck. Because my store is the only legal source of magazines, my refusal to sell yours is tantamount to censorship.
That is the situation with Apple and its store. Because they are the only legal source for these apps, every refusal is, in effect, an act of censorship. It is censorship because Apple's denial does not just prevent an app from being sold in Apple's store, it prevents that app from being sold at all.
Who the fuck cares.
Refusing to distribute something is not censorship. Trying to prevent distribution, is.
As I've said multiple times in this thread, stop treating a mod like it's a feature
It's really a matter of perspective. Apple of late has this rep that with their hardware, you are locked and controlled and forced to live this ideal, efficient iLife. So while Apple and you don't see "hackability" as a feature, it has been a non-touted secret feature of technology products stretching back to at least the 70's, but was a rabidly sought after feature in 16&32-bit machines of the early 90's. Apple products themselves have a long tradition of being hackable, and there exists many a flame war out there in the annals of the Internet fighting over whether white box hw or Apple hw is more hackable. So, it really is a feature to some. I always thought the best feature of OSS, in an ideal sense, and even though I never exploited it, was hackability. So, in the other guy's opinion, I bet, OSS and iPhone have something in common... they are both hackable. You disagree. It's a mad mad world.
The Admin and the Engineer
Just because it's publicly available doesn't mean that it won't be enforced in the future.
There would have to be a law against it first.
Since there's no kind of law stating users cannot modify things they physically own, and many clauses of laws stating explicitly that, I look on jailbreaking becoming ACTUALLY unlawful as likely as a law being passed stating I may no longer wear shoes.
I continue to wear shoes despite this "risk".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Judging from sales, the majority doesn't care about how high the walls of the garden are as long as it works for them. If it doesn't, the majority being a pragmatic bunch, move on to another phone. Only /.ers and a few bloggers throw a hissy fit about this stuff.
My grocery store censors my scotch selection. They won't carry Lismore any more (same price as Jim Beam). I have to go two doors down to the liquor store to get it!
I drank what? -- Socrates
ya know, im not an apple lover by any means. Have given away their products when I have won them, I dislike the company so much. But, no where were the above posts that favor apple anywhere near troll. Thought they were good arguments as to why people buy apple. What the hell, If anything, I would have moderated them as interesting just because they held my attention. And I hate the company.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Become a developer or set up enterprise deployment or both
Then you can put pretty much any application you want on any device you want, without needing to go through the iTunes App Store.
Developer program:
http://developer.apple.com/iphone/index.action
Enterprise deployment:
http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/Enterprise_Deployment_Guide.pdf
-- Terry
Presumably they're not objecting to you selling things because they dislike the concept of a lamp. Presumably they're stopping you from selling things because they dislike the communicative content of the lamp... I.E. the woman's leg. Similarly, a program inherently a form of communication. But if it contains content that someone finds objectionable, by definition they're objecting to the cultural communication. It might be shallow and dumb, but then again it may not. Ulysses clearly is not.
The ______ Agenda
I suppose I'm not really answering the question in italics, but I'm interested anyway so I'll pose a metaquestion.
It's not illegal for Apple to decide what they want to sell in their App Store, and it's not illegal for them to attack alternate App sources. It's not even particularly immoral to most of the population. It is, however, tremendously immoral to the techie crowd and a few other groups.
However, what Apple is doing has been done before, many times. Almost every commercially successful game console has had the same walled garden: if you want to make a game, you have to agree to their terms. Apple is being a bit stricter in its terms, but in the end it still amounts to what most here would call censorship.
There was outrage before, but nothing compared to what I see against Apple today. At first I was prepared to pin it down as simple Apple-bashing, but it seems more powerful than that. Maybe we'll see a strong public movement towards personal freedoms with electronics.
My question is: Why are people so vocal in opposition to Apple's walled garden? Where were they for the last decade, through the XBOX and Playstation and GameCube/Wii? Why does the opposition today seem to be only against Apple?
(Full disclosure: I own an iPhone and iPad, and I love them. I also know I would never have bought them if I didn't think I could jailbreak them. They're useless to me stock, but perfect for me with root access. But I always feel a little sad whenever I use them; Apple's policy hurts.)
Please forgive my ignorance, I'm not an iPhone user, but why does a comic have to be an iPhone app that can be rejected? Can the iPhone visit any webpage? Why not just make the comic a webpage?
A grocers is a fundamentally flawed analogy for the App store, because it doesn't involve the purchase of a locked down device: there's no need to look to deep into it. In fact, I doubt there's any simple analogy that can be applied to cutting edge concepts like the iPhone/iPad 'App Store' model that Apple are sucking cash out of.
You sign up for an iP(hone|ad), you get to install approved applications, you haven't given Apple power to prevent any content publishers getting information to you. You don't want a system where the manufacturer approves what third parties can produce for it? Don't get one. You worry that this is the beginning of corporations having the ability to censor information they don't like? Tough shit, that's the world now.
Okay, let's follow this analogy out. If Apple is a grocer, then the iPhone and iPad are like refrigerators for the goods you purchase at the Apple grocery. Funny thing, though -- I can put products from any grocery I want into my refrigerator. Obviously, the iPhone/iPad are brand-specific refrigerators, something that doesn't actually exist in the real world.
This is what we call a reductio ad absurdum or, in modern parlance, calling bullshit.
What Apple is really like is one of those totalitarian homeowners' associations in an expensive condominium development. You bought the condo, but if you want to change anything about it, you have to pick from a list of approved changes and pay the association to have one of their hand-picked contractors do it for you.
Some people like living in those developments despite the restrictions because there's a certain amount of prestige -- mostly among other residents -- involved in paying way too much for a tiny space that you don't actually control. And like iPhone/iPad owners, the residents of such developments are baffled that everyone else doesn't want to live there, too.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Or perhaps they are just not aware. I still get confused looks from people when I mention to them just what sort of control Apple has over the iPhone/iPad. If I could say with certainty that most people were informed but did not care, I would agree with you, but from where I sit it looks like most people are not even aware.
Palm trees and 8
look at the mac sissies voting it down.
Censorship has nothing to do with killing, jailing or China. Please refer to definition for further information; such as the one in the GP.
No they did not - you can read it on the iPhone and iPad without buying the app. The app just makes it more convenient.
There is absolutely nothing stopping you from going to the website and viewing it that way, and I just checked my iPhone to be doubly sure it worked.
Apple did *not* prevent people from being able to view this content on their iPhone or iPad by initially refusing to carry the app on the store.
Unfortunately, people's interest in those products causes problems with the important things in my life. When I make choices that preserve my freedom, which is very important to me, other people's lack of interest in their own freedom causes my choices to be much more limited than they might otherwise be.
So, I'm sorry, I'm not actually getting angry over nothing. I'm getting angry over something that directly negatively effects me.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
> My grocery store censors my scotch selection
I'll consider that an analogous situation when you have to jailbreak a shopping cart in order to shop at any store but that one.
(For the record, the last Apple device I owned was an Apple ][ GS.)
It isn't artificially hard. GM didn't purposely insert things into the engine or chassis to make it melt if you tried to take it apart. They didn't make it so you had to go to a semi-seedy seeming person to get the right tool to open your hood. They didn't encase the engine in a lucite block.
Apple has done the digital equivalent of these things with the iPhone.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I may have this wrong -- I'm not an iPhone owner -- but I was under the impression that the only way to get apps (real apps, not browser-based apps)
Why are those not real apps? They can use location services, the accelerometer, and many other phone features to give you the same kinds of data "real" apps can. There are a number of "real" apps that could easily be done as web apps - of course then Apple would not be paying anyone to have them downloaded, and users looking for applications would not find them in the App Store. Apple however also has a "Web App Store" of sorts.
on the iPhone was to get them from iTunes. Only if you jailbreak your phone (which Apple says is illegal)M
Hold it right there. What Apple says and what is reality are two different things. Apple may say they consider it illegal - but not one Jailbreak user has ever been charged with anything, and the whole jailbreak scene is run openly by guys in the U.S. Saurk was first in line to get into WWDC (Apple developers conference) this year!
At this point, well north of a few million people are running jailbroken devices.
can you get apps from other sources. Is that not correct?
In addition to jailbreaking, if you are a developer you can compile and run whatever you want on the device.
I looked at saurik.com but it does not look like software aimed at normal users (it mentions in the FAQ that most of the software there is commandline tools or development libraries).
Click on the Store link. There's tons of software there normal users would want, including stuff that extends system software (really one of the bigger uses of jailbreaking).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why use the app? You can view the comic from the site on the iPhone and iPad regardless of the status of the app. The app just makes it more convenient.
In one sense Apple is doing much the same thing as HP only allowing you to buy ink from HP
It's similar to that situation, in that HP or Epson is trying to make sure users get ink that will work optimally with the devices and actually deliver the print lifetimes they are claiming.
It's also similar in that I can buy alternate ink sets for HP or Epson printers (for instance, a custom greyscale set for B/W work) and use that despite the printer makers not really supporting that use. Even if I do use that ink, it's not the case the printer would be out of warranty for something like the paper feeder - and also true that if the battery failed on the iPhone it would be in warranty regardless of if I had jailbroken or not. I'd simply restore the system to factory defaults before I sent it to Apple to be fixed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Of course, you can read the comic on the iPhone and iPad using the built in web browser and just going to the site.
Apple choosing not to carry the content in their store (their freedom) does not inhibit your freedom to view the content on the device. It's just less convenient than having it in app form.
So, go to the website and view the comic there. The iPhone can do it. The availability of the app on the store has no bearing on that at all.
Apple says that their bootloader is copyrighted and that making a copy, modifying that copy and then installing it on the phone is a violation of their copyright. They're probably right.
They would be if the goal of interoperability were not clearly spelled out in copyright law:
However, because decompilation is often a necessary step in achieving software interoperability, copyright laws in both the United States and Europe permit decompilation to a limited extent.
In the United States, the copyright fair use defense has been successfully invoked in decompilation cases. For example, in Sega v. Accolade, the court held that Accolade could lawfully engage in decompilation in order to circumvent the software locking mechanism used by Sega's game consoles.
The fact that Apple would probably be shut down (not literally) if they did actually try to sue anyone, is exactly why there's no risk. Interoperability has been held up in court.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Since you're talking copyright law, you may also want to bring up the fact that copying for interoperability is explicitly allowed in U.S. and E.U. copyright laws:
Since the decompilation process involves making multiple such copies, it is generally prohibited without the authorization of the copyright holder. However, because decompilation is often a necessary step in achieving software interoperability, copyright laws in both the United States and Europe permit decompilation to a limited extent.
In the United States, the copyright fair use defense has been successfully invoked in decompilation cases. For example, in Sega v. Accolade, the court held that Accolade could lawfully engage in decompilation in order to circumvent the software locking mechanism used by Sega's game consoles.
Which is plainly why after many years of people jailbreaking iPhones, not a single person has been charged with this "crime".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple wasn't requesting that the law be changed - it is already illegal to jailbreak your phone, as you must circumvent a copyright protection device to do so, in violation of the DCMA. The EFF was requesting an exemption to the law, but until/unless it is approved it will continue to be against the law.
Just because Apple hasn't sued anyone doesn't mean that it is legal, and the fact that they objected to the EFF's exemption request makes it clear that they want to reserve the right to take legal action against jailbreaking in the future, if they so choose.
I know you can do a whole hell of a lot with a jailbroken ipod/iphone/ipad, but saying you can just hack your device if you want other sources of apps is not an argument that should used to support your hardware of choice
I'm not sure why any technical user would ever state that I should explicitly deny some part of what a device can do, simply because I have to install additional software to make it do so. The computer market would never have taken off if that were the case...
It would also mean not considering the whole extent of the Android app store when considering one of THOSE devices. Madness.
When recommending a device for someone, I consider and recommend based on what the device can do, not some arbitrary subset.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
the creation of which violates Apple's copyright.
No, the creation doesn't violate copyright, the distribution may. I can do anything I want with my own copy of a copyrighted work, I just can't distribute it.
In other words, a $100/year fee plus enough familiarity with development tools to compile an app and install it?
Meanwhile, there's still a slew of restrictions that dictate what and how you can develop stuff.
In other words, Apple has gone well out of their way to make it as difficult as possible to distribute apps independently, or to consume independently-distributed apps.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
No, but it means a user has to choose between a valid warranty plus software updates and access to non-Apple-approved applications
You are confusing service with warranty. Apple would not service a device that has been jailbroken - after all it's no longer their software.
Which is why if you did need service you'd simply restore the software to factory defaults. Then Apple would service the device.
The device is always under warranty in case of hardware failure.
As for software updates, yes if you've modified the base system there may be some delay in updates. But generally jailbreaks track the public release of OS's since the people writing the jailbreaks get the same developer seeds of the O.S. all other developers get. So in practice it's not much of a delay - and lots of people wait for the first O.S. stability patch to upgrade anyway (Apple does not push down mandatory updates, you choose when to apply if you want).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When enough people buy a crappy product, or accept crappy service, it encourages vendors and manufacturers to continue providing or producing crap.
When salesdroids and markets see that enough people are willing to buy a product despite that it's a bug-ridden POS, then they'll be happy to force out the next one early, bugs and all.
When companies see that customers are buying their product despite draconian restrictions, they continue to produce products with (often increasing) draconian restrictions.
Other companies see that they're making money doing so, and come to the conclusion "gee, I guess people will buy it even with all this crap and restrictions" so they start to produce similar crap. Eventually, the quality goods get choked out the market, and it gets harder and harder to find something without said restrictions or issues.
"e I'll complain you are censoring my porn."
And you would be correct. However there ar many other places that don't censor what is sold in their stores.
"you are free to choose a competing product or build one yourself."
good luck building a competing apple app store and staying open more then 30 seconds.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes, clearly anyone who does not share your exact values must be stupid.
that idea right there sums up the reason for 80% of the bad feelings on the internet.
another 10% comes from people who actually are stupid.
and the final 10% from made-up percentages.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
It's not illegal for Apple to decide what they want to sell in their App Store, and it's not illegal for them to attack alternate App sources. It's not even particularly immoral to most of the population. It is, however, tremendously immoral to the techie crowd and a few other groups.
However, what Apple is doing has been done before, many times. Almost every commercially successful game console has had the same walled garden: if you want to make a game, you have to agree to their terms. Apple is being a bit stricter in its terms, but in the end it still amounts to what most here would call censorship.
There was outrage before, but nothing compared to what I see against Apple today. At first I was prepared to pin it down as simple Apple-bashing, but it seems more powerful than that. Maybe we'll see a strong public movement towards personal freedoms with electronics.
First, let me get this out of the way: I have absolutely no problem with what Apple decides to do with their products and their store. It's their decision to run their business that way, just as it's my decision to not financially support it.
My question is: Why are people so vocal in opposition to Apple's walled garden? Where were they for the last decade, through the XBOX and Playstation and GameCube/Wii? Why does the opposition today seem to be only against Apple?
People have been fighting against walled gardens on game consoles. Using one of your examples, the Xbox has a HUGE homebrew community completely unrelated to piracy; ditto for the Nintendo DS. If I want to be a part of the gaming culture, I have zero choice but to purchase their products. Even if I go with PC versions, I still have to deal with DRM. The difference is that I do have a choice when it comes to Apple...there is nothing the iPhone does that can't be done on another platform that isn't walled. The choice isn't quite so clear with gaming systems.
Living With a Nerd
Incorrect. Copyright law considers copying and distribution as separate exclusive rights. Making a copy for personal use (even in RAM!) is illegal unless authorized by the copyright holder, or covered by one of several exemptions in the law.
Yes, it's fucked up and totally unworkable. But that's the law for you.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That many American reports on this did not show images of the manhood in question either.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
TL:DR
My question is: Why are people so vocal in opposition to Apple's walled garden? Where were they for the last decade, through the XBOX and Playstation and GameCube/Wii? Why does the opposition today seem to be only against Apple?
I do think places like Slashdot are a bit of echo chamber, and the perceived outrage seems far larger than it really is.
The reason we are still talking about iPhones, iPads and iTouches is that the mass public have voted with their cash and declared them great products. If they weren't we would not be having this discussion. If there was indeed the magnitude of opposition you suggest, then Apple would be having trouble shifting their products and suffering on the markets. Obviously that isn't happening - quite the opposite in fact.
Speaking personally, my iPhone 3G is the best phone I have ever owned, and I will be getting the iPhone 4 soon after it launches. I am a photographer so I use it as a convenient portfolio when I am on the go. Sure, I take my A3 book into meetings with prospective clients, but I can't take it everywhere all the time. The new display looks really interesting, and I look forward to seeing my work on it.
Well I see the Asshole Mod is back, and going-round marking all my posts as "troll". Why? They don't fit the description.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Unless you restrict yourself solely to homebrew or indie games released with no DRM, if you want to be a part of the gaming culture, you have no choice but to accept the walled garden.
You can jailbreak an iPhone and run any game. Jailbreaking does not mean the App Store ceases working. Rooting an Android is the same way, what you say is partly true of consoles but not true of mobile. That is progress in my book.
There is nothing you can do with an iPhone that can't already be done or theoretically be done with an Android or (pre-7) Windows Mobile device, which are not walled in any way save for programs being written using code that the hardware can interpret.
The key word there is THEORETICALLY. The fact is that the iPhone has a very extensive SDK that makes some things easier to do for developers, and has an overall system model that (for a user) maximizes battery life.
Android itself makes some things better - for instance, the notification handling system is better for the user. But for a lot of people nice touches like that pale beside the fact they simply cannot use the phone as long.
And then of course there is the software choice. Of course theoretically you can do anything on Android. But again, the facts are that the iPhone has a very large software lead and so far the gap is still growing. Most people cannot write software they need for a task.
For the record, since we seem to be going back and forth, let me clear something up: I have no problem with the idea or action of jailbreaking...but I personally won't buy something that I have to hack when there is already a device that does the same thing out of the box.
I can totally understand someone not wanting to support the device from that philosophical standpoint. What drives me nuts are claims that it's not a valid technical clam to make for the abilities of the iPhone. Jailbreaking has been made very simple for a while now, so that pretty much anyone could manage it - certainly technical users who are the ones who care most about the additional functionality resulting.
Also there is the aspect of Apple doing more and more in the OS that used to be limited to jailbreaking (like background tasks). I firmly believe that Apple technically tolerates Jailbreaking despite its public face, because they see it as a lab of where the system might go and what works. The things you even need to jailbreak for is a shrinking space.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And when Apple's legal theory is tested and vindicated in a court, then (and only then, unless there's an appeal) is it a settled matter of law. Otherwise, Apple doesn't get to act like an authority and claim to tell you what is legal and what isn't.
Since their claims haven't been tested, their stated position is merely interesting. I certainly wouldn't automatically buy their position. At stake is the principle of "I get to do whatever I want with whatever I buy."
Also note that Apple is claiming that the jailbreaking procedure is a violation of copyright. However, if the jailbreak is performed by you, the end user, on your own hardware, and was not distributed in any way, there is no dissemination of copyrighted material without permission, and therefore no copyright violation. Jailbreaking in this case is akin to scribbling in a book you bought.
The EFF article you link to goes into other justifications that I won't bother to enumerate here, like reverse engineering (which is explicitly legal in the United States, though perhaps not in other countries).
How on earth does someone else buying an iPhone affect your freedoms? What exact freedoms are you talking about?
Jailbreaking an iPhone is not something Apple designed.
It is.
Let me explain what jailbreaking is. All it is, is basically removing a check performed at runtime to check signing of applications.
That's it. The system is designed to run general applications. It is designed to run jailbroken applications, because there is no difference in the application itself from any other application - just that it's not signed, which to the (slightly modified) OS does not matter.
It's not really a modification of the system so much as a configuration change.
Again, it was not something designed by Apple. Being able to install non-signed applications was not originally intended
Many of the system applications are not signed.
Autocad doesn't cause your computer to function in a way that it wasn't originally designed to function
Yes it does, your computer was not originally designed around limiting application access to require a dongle. It's doing far more to modify the OS than Jailbreaking is to an iPhone.
Apple specifically designed the iPhone to use only software that they created or approved.
They designed the system to run arbitrary software. Then they additionally wrote a user-facing gateway component to go on top of that. Bypassing the gateway is not fundamentally changing the system. It is working around a component of a much larger system.
Seriously? OK. So now you are claiming that a bug is a feature. I'm done with you. This conversation is over.
It is a feature when it enables other functionality. It can also be a bug at the same time, which is why Apple fixes them from time to time.
If you are done, it's because your arguments have played out and simply do not hold.
I will let you have the final response, because at this point anyone still reading can understand the simple facts around the matter - you can jailbreak, you can run jailbroken software, and thus jailbreaking is a feature that the iPhone supports. It's not a feature Apple supports but that matters not at all to what a user can do, which is what people care about when they buy a device.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
By creating a network effect encouraging the existence of iPhone apps and conversely discouraging the existence of apps for platforms that respect my freedom by capturing more of the limited resource of developer time and attention. Now that Android has more market-share than the iPhone does, this effect isn't nearly as strong.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I bought a router a while back. It allowed me to flash the device with a modified firmware. It was an advertised feature. I love it.
Well seeing as how this is just a comic book, couldn't they have just put it on an iPhone/iPad-formatted website behind a paywall?
That's what I thought too but it turns out that it's more than just a comic book, it's an interactive reader's companion to "Ulysses." It's possible that it could have been published as a Web app, I suppose (haven't seen it, I don't own an iPad), but it seems best suited to be an iApp.
In any case, I'm happy that Apple reversed it's bone-headed decision. I think they need to put together some people with a background in art to review cases like this. Right now, they're letting people with an engineering degree make artistic decisions based on some poorly-defined criteria and it's making them look bad.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Currently on the app store is a game called "Doodle Cartoon Wars" The description lists it as some kind of epic stickman fighting game that somehow involves castle defense. it costs $1.99, but it was on sale for free a while ago. I grabbed it. It isn't a game at all. it's 4 shitty and blurry stickman videos. Every review for the "game" says the same thing and it's been reported multiple times as misleading and fake. It's been about 3 or 4 weeks and it's still on the store.
This description makes it very clear that this is some kind of game, but there is no actual playing involve. The Developers support and web sites are 404. For all the times this has been reported, Apple is as much a party to the fraud as whoever it is that put this on the store.
Why do you care if someone else is complaining? Does someone complaining make your (hypothetical) ipad worth less to you?
Out of curiosity, have you used any tablets in the past, before buying iPad? I.e. are you specifically happy about iPad, or just the tablet form factor?
However, what Apple is doing has been done before, many times. Almost every commercially successful game console has had the same walled garden: if you want to make a game, you have to agree to their terms. Apple is being a bit stricter in its terms, but in the end it still amounts to what most here would call censorship.
There was outrage before, but nothing compared to what I see against Apple today. At first I was prepared to pin it down as simple Apple-bashing, but it seems more powerful than that. Maybe we'll see a strong public movement towards personal freedoms with electronics.
My question is: Why are people so vocal in opposition to Apple's walled garden? Where were they for the last decade, through the XBOX and Playstation and GameCube/Wii? Why does the opposition today seem to be only against Apple?
The answer is simple: we haven't had open game consoles for a long time (in fact, were there any such, ever?). But smartphones and tablets, now those have been around for a long time, and they have been open for third-party development for all that time, too. Apple is trying to change the established rules of the game here, and not in favor of the consumer - and, worse, they're succeeding at it (e.g. see WP7). Hence the vocal opposition.
One man's DRM is another man's virus/worm protection. When I buy a smartphone, I'll buy an Android because I may choose to write my own software to work on it.
However my wife got herself an iPhone because she doesn't really need that kind of flexibility. She's not using all the apps at her disposal now. She uses the core phone and web browsing functionality, some of the PIM functions, the Facebook app, takes photos and video of our son if he's doing something unusual and cute (the best camera in the world is the one in your hands when the opportunity presents itself), and not much more. But having that functionality available for her anytime/anywhere is a big win (such as if our son has a nap while they're out on a bus). So yes, over time she may wind up using additional apps but she's seriously unlikely to run into the iPhone's limitations because she doesn't have the time to explore what those might be and has fairly limited requirements. I installed Shazam for her but when she was curious about a song's title and author, she didn't think to use it. That was because I installed it, not her, but she wouldn't have taken the time to look for it and install it herself.
Now here's the kicker. There's probably at least 4 times as many people in the world who are like my wife, where their needs are sufficiently fulfilled by the iPhone, as there are people like you and me. For them, the fact that software has to be signed to run on the iPhone is feature, not a bug, because it means that they are less likely to get infected by a virus, worm or trojan because of Apple's vetting process.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
The reason we are still talking about iPhones, iPads and iTouches is that the mass public have voted with their cash and declared them great products.
The mass public also voted with their cash and declared fen-phen to be a great product too.
Not necessarily a contradiction of your point, but not entirely in agreement either.
They aren't preventing you from displaying it. That would require filtering on the device. You could write your own app and display anything you'd like. You could download the image files and display them with any number of apps in the store. Apple is deciding what it wants in the app store, which is fair. I don't see people up in arms about the censored material in Walmart.
Ok so CREATING something NEW violates COPYright? It's not being distributed.
Just as they chose to buy the device. You can also choose to simply visit the website instead.
http://ulyssesseen.com/
See how difficult that was? My iPhone isn't even smoking. In fact, it didn't even seem to care that I visited the above website.
Your arguments are moronic. Obviously nothing has been censored if you can view the same thing on the same device via HTTP.
This isn't like the Wal-Mart case at all, inasmuch as Wal-Mart doesn't have any means of preventing you from purchasing things they choose not to carry. Apple, by contrast, uses technical measures to make the iTunes Store the only available source of iPhone applications.
If they make themselves the only available source, it's entirely legitimate that they be a target for criticism based on what they decide they will and will not carry, as there's a substantial barrier (be it jailbreaking of purchasing a competitor's device) to consumers who might be interested in applications outside the boundaries they proscribe.
Well , i never said it was bad , nor that you could ignore peer pressure.
This wasn't a rant against Apple , but against peer pressure .
In the case of my post , it proves it pretty good : i got modded -1 , Troll . likely , that wouldn't have been the case , if the topic didn't discuss Mac , but only peer pressure itself.
Peer pressure can lead to self-censorship , and that's a very real danger .
Slipping shoelaces ?
I view it like this:
I pay the Apple Co to provide me with a product and a service. I get the product I want and they get the money they want.
In DRM'ing it, yes in one sense I agree with them protecting their software, but on the other hand I really do not give a flying fuck for them or their software.
To me this is like buying a car that has no reverse gear, so I have to drive "forward" to reverse down a one way street.
So I really don't give a fuck if the Apple Co. wants to piss themselves with indignation - cause it's my car, and if you don't like it, give me my money back.
So fuck them and their DRM'ing and their agreements and their piss ant finger waggling.
Because the gatekeeper says no.
If you legally want a semi-walled garden and the key here is how to legally accomplish it on the Iphone.
1. Drop Iphone in bin.
2. Drop bin off Cliff.
3. Go to store.
4. Buy Android phone.
5. ????
6. Profit!
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Suppose I own a device, and I purchase/obtain an application, technically compatible with that device.
This is my property, only people that have an authority, either legal, social or moral, that I accept can forbid me to install the application on the device.
So, yeah, a court order can forbid me to use an application, a mentor can too, (though he will probably provide only counsel in this matter), because I would willingly accept his authority and guidance, for youngsters, a parent can play that role. Apple is neither the law nor a trusted moral authority figure (as far as I'm concerned), so it doesn't have a right to prevent me from using their device the way I want to.
This may not be a constitutional right, but I consider it fundamental enough to defend it and to consider Apple's behaviour as wrong.
If I'm wrong, please correct me ; learning is better than being right.
I'm sure your simplistic interpretation of why people buy Apple products allows you to sleep at night and makes you feel superior, but I assure you that "shininess" is the driving force behind a very small number of Apple purchases. Rather than getting angry when the masses do something you don't understand, maybe you should educate yourself a little and find out WHY they make these purchases rather than relying on your erroneous assumptions.
Why lie about this?? Apple REQUIRED that certain 'racey' images be either removed or modified ..
and that is a fact.
Which makes it factual that yes, Apple DID censure!
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
Your errors seem to have no end. Your freedom is not threatened, just your personal preferences are shared by everyone else. So maybe you are trying to dictate to others and thus taking away their "freedom" to have a product the way they want it? Your hypocrisy seems to be endless on this topic.
And as an aside, Android does not have more market share than iPhone. That was debunked soon after it was released and the only people pushing that falsehood now appear to be Android fanbois.
No one is claiming the content is being censored; it's the application, which was censored on the Iphone.
No one is making the argument that Apple don't have some right to do it. But equally, we have the right to criticise the Iphone, in that it's a platform where applications are censored. (When someone bashes Windows for something, you don't get Microsoft apologists going "But, but, Microsoft have a right to do it, they're not the Government, you can always get a Mac!"; indeed, on the contrary, saying you are better off with another platform seems like an agreement with the criticism...)
I have no sympathy for the author however - anyone who opts for the Iphone's risky development platform should accept the risks of their application being refused. And if he compares them to a grocer, is he going to move to the next "grocer" and ship the application on open (not to mention more popular) platforms like Symbian, Blackberry and Android? (An honest question - for all I know he already has released it on other platforms.)
The problem here is that, because of it's relative ubiquity, the iPhone/Pod/Pad/Pud platform has essentially *become* a public service of sorts. Therefore it should start to come under the oversight of public agencies or at least be forced to open their approval process to public scrutiny by lawmakers.
Because so many get their information and entertainment from the iWhatever medium they now need to consider the impact their seemingly arbitrary censorship is having on consumers.
Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
I disagree. While I understand the point you're trying to make, I don't think this is unethical. THE selling point about the Mac, iPhone, etc. is the user interface, the user experience. Apple is very concerned about the user experience and their target demographic is the average jane/joe consumer, not the power user, because that is where the highest number of possible sales are to be found. It is important to Apple that the customer have a solid, reliable, trouble-free experience because if they don't, no matter whose fault it really is, Apple will be blamed. Witness the debacle from Tuesday. AT&T is the weak link that caused the iPhone pre-orders to have so many problems, but Apple was blamed, and blamed by many people who should know better. It's the same thing with the iPhone. If Flash, or a nefarious app, or a snuff film of a 12 year old girl shows up in an app store app, Apple will be blamed. That reflects poorly on their brand, their image, and to current and possible customers.
I know there are a lot of conspiracy theories about Apple wanting to control everything, but basically they are just trying to control the consistency of the experience with their products so the average consumer is happy with their purchase, and I don't think that is unethical. It may not be the way some people want it to be, but that doesn't make it unethical.
That is the way they work and the ecosystem they have nurtured, and most everyone knows that going in. So if people don't like Apple's efforts to control the consistency of the user experience then they have a couple of options. They can buy a different product, or they can jailbreak the iPhone. Either way they DO have choice and can choose to follow Apple's path or install anything and everything from places like Cydia.
No, no they haven't.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
And the Oscar for Best Actor in a Melodramatic Overstatement about Apple's Intentions goes to . . . . . .
I disagree. While I understand the point you're trying to make, I don't think this is unethical. THE selling point about the Mac, iPhone, etc. is the user interface, the user experience. Apple is very concerned about the user experience and their target demographic is the average jane/joe consumer, not the power user, because that is where the highest number of possible sales are to be found. It is important to Apple that the customer have a solid, reliable, trouble-free experience because if they don't, no matter whose fault it really is, Apple will be blamed. Witness the debacle from Tuesday. AT&T is the weak link that caused the iPhone pre-orders to have so many problems, but Apple was blamed, and blamed by many people who should know better. It's the same thing with the iPhone. If Flash, or a nefarious app, or a snuff film of a 12 year old girl shows up in an app store app, Apple will be blamed. That reflects poorly on their brand, their image, and to current and possible customers.
The point is that it doesn't take policies anywhere as restrictive as what they have in place to achieve this. All that is really needed of them is the ability to enable installation of applications from external packages with no involvement of App Store. This doesn't mean that it should be enabled out of the box. For most people - who are happy with the "walled garden" - they'd never use it, and might not even know it is there. For power users, or the occasional casual user who finds that he really needs some app not available in the Store for whatever reason, they can go ahead and enable the option.
On Nexus One - which implements precisely this model - it's "Settings -> Applications -> Unknown sources", which is unchecked by default, and when you try to check it, a prompt pops up explaining the dangers of enabling it. But it can be hidden even deeper than that, if there is still fear that someone will enable it accidentally - for example, something like "about:config" in Firefox, which requires advanced knowledge and deliberate intent to activate.
That is the way they work and the ecosystem they have nurtured, and most everyone knows that going in. So if people don't like Apple's efforts to control the consistency of the user experience then they have a couple of options. They can buy a different product, or they can jailbreak the iPhone.
Jailbreaking is not a serious option for many for a variety of reasons ranging from legal issues to lack of support.
Buying a different product is definitely a possibility, and that's what I did. However, this doesn't make deliberate anti-competitive behavior that Apple espouses any less unethical.
The "real real" problem, anyway, is that Apple model not only grows by itself, but is being copied. 2 years ago, most smartphones in the world were open. Now, it's somewhere around 50/50, and in US, most aren't open already. Several years in the future, and - if Apple wins this race - open phones may be an exception rather than a rule - at which point using them will have the same problems and pain points vis a vis iPhone (or whatever it'll be called then) as Linux has vis a vis Windows or OS X today - only much more so, because proprietary platforms of today are still open from development perspective, and do not inhibit portability the way most recent licensing terms for Apple SDK (prohibiting non-Apple-provided languages, and wrapper frameworks) do. Which is not a situation I'd want to end up.
Selling things is not a form of speech. Thus being disallowed from selling a product in someone else's store is not censorship.
I'm sure the vast majority of Apple users are idiots who wouldn't in the least care if the iPhone was able to use a non-Apple app store. But that one change would be enough for me to stop complaining.
As a developer I think my freedom to create systems that are opaque and lock people in should be restricted. Just like I think the government's freedom to pass laws restricting people's ability to say whatever they want should be restricted. It's a freedom I think should be removed because it's a freedom that's used to destroy the freedoms of other people.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
"I'm sure the vast majority of Apple users are idiots"
- Nice, a true testament to your thought process. But maybe they aren't idiots, they just don't have the same thoughts on this topic or even CARE. They are happy with their purchase. So why does the vast majority have to have their lives shaped by you?
As for locking people in, I'm assuming you are implying that Apple is locking people in somehow? I'd sure like to understand that because I don't see any lock-in at all.
Face it, this isn't about freedom, this about you not liking Apple and using this as an excuse to rip on them. I highly doubt you are protesting any other company for the same thing, and it's all around you.
They are locking people into the Apple approved app store. I don't know how that's not so clear and obvious as to require me to spell it out.
And I don't really think Apple iProduct users are idiots. I think they are blind to the long-term damage they are causing. But a lot of smart people are blind to the long-term damage they cause by various activities. I mostly called them that out of frustration.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
So Android locks people into Android compatible apps? And MS locks people into MS compatible apps.
Sorry, you are not locked in one bit beyond the fact that you have to use apps that are compatible with the platform. You can choose the App store or you can jailbreak and use Cydia. You have all the choice in the world.
Just because you can drop in a bigger engine, all-wheel-drive transmission, new suspension, and turbocharge a Honda Civic does not make these actions "features" of the car; it's not even close.
Sure, you can modify anything, but isn't the rating of a piece of hardware only considered regarding how it is when it is shipped to the customer?
Regarding jailbreaking and going to jail; I figure that if Apple had a monopolistic hold on its markets (say smart phones), it would definitely try to prosecute some people to make a point. The last thing they want at the moment is to have people being outwardly unhappy with their hardware as well as receiving negative press regarding their products (especially since image is a large factor of their business model). This might sway people to buy competitor's products.
On a side note, if you're going to reply to this thread saying something like "iPhone already has a smartphone monopoly," there are many sources saying they're not quite there at the moment, so check your facts instead of stating hype or personal belief.
Jailbreaking is not a choice. Just look at the word. Doesn't that sound seedy, underhanded and possibly even illegal? It's certainly not Apple condoned or supported, and I'm guessing that if they could manage to make it illegal or sue everybody who did it, they would.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Jailbreaking IS a choice and to say otherwise is untrue. Whether it is Apple condoned is really irrelevant isn't it? It is an option as evidenced by the Cydia app store. And yes, Apple's position is that it is a circumvention of the DMCA and thus illegal. I even heard this week that the FCC is soon going to rule whether jailbreaking a phone is an exception of the DMCA or not. I personally do not agree with Apple's stance on jailbreaking being illegal but I do agree with their stance that it should void the warranty.
I know this is a bit late, but I'm going to respond anyway.
You seem to have this weird idea that people don't know what's going on when they buy the phone. Like they're being defrauded. They were promised a porn-phone and they got a locked-down puritan-phone. That's simply not the case.
Apple doesn't control the behaviour of the consumer at any point in the process. You CHOSE to buy the phone. You CHOSE to buy the apps. Or you CHOSE to throw the iPhone away because it doesn't meet your needs and you think it's a piece of junk.
By restricting the types of applications that are permitted to be developed, Apple only exerts control over their space. If you write an app for your phone -- you can do that, you know -- they don't come over and delete it, no matter how it works or what it does. It can break every single rule they have, but it doesn't matter, because you're not trying to sell it. There's very little post-facto control over your usage of the device.
You may as well complain that Firefox controls your behaviour because it has tools to prevent arbitrary code execution on your computer. Or perhaps you'd like to complain about Sony's or Microsoft's online game stores not stocking hard-core pornography applications. I'll wager that even the Android store doesn't allow completely unrestricted application development. Unless you're advocating for 100% unfettered development, you're really just post-justifying a hatred of Apple because you can.
Vote with your feet. There are other phones, so why is it an issue?
You seem to have this weird idea that people don't know what's going on when they buy the phone. Like they're being defrauded. They were promised a porn-phone and they got a locked-down puritan-phone. That's simply not the case.
Except that it is. At one point the iPhone was a porn phone, and then all those apps disappeared. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those apps disappeared from people's phones as well, ala Amazon kindle "1984".
Now, I might be mistaken about this, but from what I know the only way to distribute an application for the iPhone over the Internet to other people is to use Apple's app store. You can't set up your own download site for i(Phone/Pad/Product) apps and allow people to use your app for free.
The Firefox example doesn't apply because I can easily make Firefox do those things in any number of ways. I can go to some random add-on site and download their add-on for allowing arbitrary code execution if I so choose.
People who buy Apple's iProducts are forced to do something potentially illegal to their devices in order to accomplish the same thing (unless they write the app themselves). They don't really own their devices, Apple controls them post-sale.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Sorry for the very late reply.
I've used other tablets based on regular operating systems, and I didn't like them. Mostly, handwriting recognition just isn't there. One had a virtual keyboard, but due to a lack of autocorrection, it proved to be pretty difficult to use.
It's all down to the interface. The iPhone was designed to be touch-screen only. Dekstop operating systems simply were not. I haven't come across another tablet with a custom OS, so I can't really talk about something like that.