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.
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.
Currently hooked on AMP
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.
"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
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?
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
Apple considers jailbreaking highly illegal.
This space for rent.
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.
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
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.