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."
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).
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
By such an absurd standard any store that choose not to sell someone's product is also engaging in "censorship".
If the appliances in my house refused to work with food that didn't come from Whole Foods then I would be complaining about their limited selection and arbitrary standards. And more so about the appliances.
Apple did not just refuse to sell the application: they prevented anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining it.
Palm trees and 8
"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
so why aren't people complaining about Whole Foods' limited selection and arbitrary standards?
Gee, maybe it's because there are other stores where we can buy food?
I don't mind Apple's policies at all. If they don't want to sell certain kinds of things, that's fine. I would actually prefer they get rid of more of the ultra-juvenile stuff, like the fart apps.
The biggest problem Apple has is how arbitrary this stuff feels. An app was OK for 3 revisions, but the new bug fix, which doesn't change content, is suddenly bad because of something that's been there for quite a while. There is no good checklist that you can look through and be reasonably certain that your app will be OK. Once your app is approved, that's no proof that it won't suddenly be found to be running afoul of some rule later.
For some apps, this isn't as much of a problem. If you make a little top-down racing game (like Super Off Road), or a simple utility like a sextant, it's unlikely someone will complain later about some small bit of content. But Apple isn't going to read every app submitted with content the size of a large novel (actually, iBooks should help with that, that's where these should be going now). But if your app isn't clear cut, you never really know if you're OK.
"The Official 10 Page Checklist With 200 Questions for App Approval" being published would be a big improvement. I don't think there is anything like that internally in Apple, which is how this stuff happens.
--Happy iPhone user
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Apple considers jailbreaking highly illegal.
This space for rent.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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.
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
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.
It's a feature because it can run on it without modifying the underlying operating system. Doy?
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.
Wrong. With a PC, it's a feature that I can install whatever the hell I want on there.
You could never buy a car because it was easily tunable for better performance or handling.
Cars are designed in a way that enables you to change parts on them. The iPhone wasn't designed to be jailbroken. If it was, the software to do it wouldn't have been developed by someone other than Apple.
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 don't have to modify your PC to run Autocad. You do have to modify your iPhone to run a Cydia app on it. There is a distinct difference. Do you really not see this?
You are confused because you know something is technically distinct.
Wait...so you agree that there is a difference?
But to REAL users, all they care about is the ability to buy a device to perform a task.
Oh, I get it. Now I'm not a real user because I care about the details of said 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.
Again, Apple didn't make the software that jailbreaks an iPhone. How can you possibly consider utilizing a third-party utility to modify the original operation of a device to be a feature and not a modification?
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.
Once again, Apple didn't design or release the Jailbreak utility, and they actively try to squash it with every update. If it were a feature, you wouldn't have to hack the fucking phone. What about this don't you understand?
I'm not redefining anything; I'm merely calling a spade a spade. You're trying to tell me that it's not a spade, but in fact a poorly endowed titmouse. Sorry buddy. If I have to hack a device to enable it to do something, that is not a feature, that is a modification. If it was a feature, I wouldn't have to hack the damn thing in the first place.
Living With a Nerd
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.
since when did the right to display content on your mobile device become a first amendment right?
There's your answer
It's not a "law of no jailbreaking" it's a "law of no copyright infringement". Making a copy of Apple's bootloader and modifying it is copyright infringement. If you want to wipe your device and build an OS for it from the ground up, you are absolutely free to do so.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
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.
Yeah. And my TV can do the dishes, as long as I build customized hardware for it, then rewrite the TV's firmware to allow it to control my dish-washing extension, and then add the dish-washing functions to my remote.
There's possible and then there's practical, and neither Jailbreaking nor Web Apps are the latter, sorry. The former because few users have the technical how-to to even attempt it, the latter because you simply *can't* make a Web App as polished as a native one, nor can you charge for it in the same manner.
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.
We already did, with the x86 architecture and the myriad propietary ones during the '80s, then Windows and Mac in the '90s. The experiment's outcome is already predetermined, and the staggering growth that Android has had is proof enough of that fact. All the complaining is merely to try and get Apple not to bother us so much as they die, and maybe, hopefully shut the evangelists for a minute or so.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
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
"Just like with the iPhone. I am able to install whatever I want. That is a fact."
nly if you MODIFY it beyonsd Apples design.
I can drive a car off a pier, but that doesn't mkae it a feature.
Hear is a clue dip wad: Go to the ieee spec and look up the definition of feature. There are actual definition of this, and you are provable wrong.
It's like arguing over the definition of 'chair' when there is a dictionary in the room.
You fucking twad.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Something else to throw in: the ad hoc deployment profiles expire after 90 days. So yes, you can install whatever you want, but 90 days later it will stop working. You can then rebuild and sign the package and install it again. Of course, you will also need to keep in mind that Apple's developer terms apply to you whether you put apps on the app store or not. So you are breaking the agreement if you, for example, code in the wrong language or do any of the other things, even if you just deploy to your own phone.
What other contract is available in this situation? These contract arguments assume an imaginary world of wealthy country gentlemen, equally able to afford lawyers, negotiating on equal terms.
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.