Apple Accepts, Then Rejects BitTorrent iPhone App

An anonymous reader writes "Apple recently approved an iPhone app called IS Drive, which lets users check and manage downloads from ImageShack.us, while also offering users the option to use the company's BitTorrent service to download files to their ImageShack account. Once Apple got wind of what the app was capable of, however, it was promptly removed from iTunes."

Comments

Seems strange they approved it at all

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Apple keeps an iron grip over apps. It's weird that they would approve something like Bittorrent at all!

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[biryokumaru]

To be fair, the app in question duplicated functionality: it communicated with other machines over the internet to perform specific tasks. Apple can't allow any apps to do that! I'm glad there aren't any other ones breaking the rules like that...

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[TheKidWho]

Apple is a company that has many employees under it's wing. Despite what you might have been lead to believe, Steve Jobs doesn't personally approve or reject of every app. People make mistakes, news at 11.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[gstoddart]

Apple keeps an iron grip over apps. It's weird that they would approve something like Bittorrent at all!

From TFA ...

Kepner theorized that the app was able to sneak in past Apple’s censors because he avoided using the word “torrent.” Well played, Sir Kepner. Well played.

So, the way he described it, they didn't quite realize what it was actually doing. The reasoning from Apple was:

this category of applications is often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights. We have chosen to not publish this type of application to the App Store.

I can see why they don't want to get embroiled in any of the legal stuff associated with Torrents. While they do have non-infringing uses, I can see a company like Apple just deciding they don't want to risk the legal actions which could result.

The *AAs aren't above suing absolutely everyone who had anything to do with distributing anything which can be/is used to do filesharing. Apple doesn't want to jeopardize their iTunes contracts by appearing to support that.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[AltairDusk]

It's a common problem with censorship, tools and information which can be used in both legitimate and illegitimate ways are often blocked completely.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[alexhs]

FTFA, the app was previously rejected under the name "Jack Torrents".
After the last developer guideline change, it was resubmitted as "IS Drive", hiding the fact that it was actually doing BitTorrent (from the article video, isoHunt and Mininova tabs have also been hidden along the name change, for example).
That's why the app got approved...

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[characterZer0]

I can see why they don't want to get embroiled in any of the legal stuff associated with the Internet. While it does have non-infringing uses, I can see a company like Apple just deciding they don't want to risk the legal actions which could result.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[TheKidWho]

Don't be silly, the vast majority of users use bit torrent to pirate software/music/movies/books.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[JackSpratts]

so true. it's not like the whole ipod business was built on piracy or anything. i mean ask anyone with a few thousand tracks on their players.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[index0]

Is that why macs don't come with the tool 'wget'? cause people use that tool to "steal" ?

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Dotren]

I'm sure that probably is the reason they pulled it, however, to be fair shouldn't they disallow all forms of digital transfer protocols that are often used for the "purpose of infringing third party rights"?

This would of course include FTP and HTTP but I don't see them stopping people from using either of those.. especially HTTP.

Bittorrent gets a bad rap now because it is one of the best file transfer methods/protocols at the moment and is therefore often used for the third party infringement they speak of. However, it isn't the only way to get copyrighted files (pirating has been going on for far longer than Bittorrent has been popular) and one day, when something better comes along, pirates will move on to that just like many moved to Bittorrent.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[houghi]

I hope they don't have an ssh or telnet applet, because that is also a tool many hackers use.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[gstoddart]

so true. it's not like the whole ipod business was built on piracy or anything. i mean ask anyone with a few thousand tracks on their players.

Ummm ... I've got something like 6,000 tracks in my iTunes library. Not a single one was pirated -- they're all rips from CDs that I own. I've bought several hundred CDs over the last few years. I know several people with thousands of tracks ripped from CDs in their collection.

iTunes has sold a couple of billion tracks as I recall. The iPod business was built on ease of use, and the ability to buy the music you want and get it in a convenient format. I think the actual software had something to do with it, since it is pretty easy to use.

Apple has never encouraged people to share music, and they've never made it difficult to work with your own CDs or buy new tracks.

They sure as hell didn't build their iPod business on piracy. Now, since they've always allowed you to add DRM free MP3s to your collection, some people may have pirated -- but, Apple never steered them in that direction. It certainly was never part of their business strategy or something they encouraged.

Hell, my cable company does more to suggest that I can be downloading movies and music than Apple does.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Pojut]

Logic.

Go to any torrent site (excluding ones that advertise the fact that they only serve legal torrents) and tell me how many legal vs. illegal torrents you find.

BT Junkie, Demonoid, and Pirate Bay. Go ahead, check.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[PeterBrett]

so true. it's not like the whole ipod business was built on piracy or anything. i mean ask anyone with a few thousand tracks on their players.

Ummm ... I've got something like 6,000 tracks in my iTunes library. Not a single one was pirated -- they're all rips from CDs that I own. I've bought several hundred CDs over the last few years. I know several people with thousands of tracks ripped from CDs in their collection.

Are you in the UK? If so, yes, you're a pirate. Because, over here, copying tracks from a CD (which you own) onto an iPod (which you own) using a PC (which you own) is unlawful.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[TheKidWho]

Play stupid all you want, how about you show some numbers to prove otherwise? It's rather easy to go to any torrent site and see how many users are downloading pirated goods.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Gaygirlie]

I can see why they don't want to get embroiled in any of the legal stuff associated with Torrents. While they do have non-infringing uses, I can see a company like Apple just deciding they don't want to risk the legal actions which could result.

Tbh, that is a really poor excuse. A plain web browser is probably the most used tool for copyright infringement yet they still supply one. Even more, they actively develop one.

If they start to disapprove of apps because they can _possibly_ be used for copyright infringing actions then they should remove Safari, iTunes, iPhoto...

As for BitTorrent itself, well, it is actually nowadays used for all kinds of completely legal things. Some companies for example use it internally for spreading large files, like f.ex. disk images, so that the central server can still use its bandwidth for more important things. Various kinds of free movies, books et al are spread via BitTorrent. All kinds of free tools and alternative OSes are distributed that way. Hell, there's even plenty of free music around and some of it too is distributed via BitTorrent. As such I see this as nothing more than a strawman argument on Apple's behalf.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[MBGMorden]

From a company perspective, it boils down to frequency.

Bittorrent has many legitimate uses, but it is (MUCH) more frequently used for illicit/illegal purposes. In essence, the legitimate use is the exception, not the rule.

FTP and HTTP also have many legitimate purposes, and those legitimate purposes is their most common use.

It's like Wal-mart deciding not to sell bongs. Sure, there are legal uses for bongs, but that's not their typical use, and having them available is bad for their corporate image because of the stigma attached to the item. Even though you CAN commit crimes with many other items sold in their store, it's still not quite the same situation.

That said, don't take this as a post in support of Apple. I'm just explaining their motives. The fact that your decision to have certain software installed on YOUR device is dependent upon the motives of the device's manufacturer is reason enough to look elsewhere. With my Android phone, even if Google decides not to have a Bittorrent app in their store (which I could understand), that DOESN'T mean that I can't install one on my phone . . .

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Ziekheid]

Are you going to tell me that I couldn't find any popular MP3 as a webdownload through google in 5 seconds? Should Apple ban webbrowsers too then? Oh well, what do I care, It's not like I would ever restrict myself to using an iPhone while phones with Android are available.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[icebraining]

You mean torrents that link to illegal content, not illegal torrents.

And a large portion of the torrent users that share legal content don't manually download the torrent files, so that sample is biased.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Pojut]

Semantics (accurate, but semantics nontheless.) Insisting that torrents are more frequently used for legal vs illegal file sharing is ignorant at best and putting your fingers in your ear shouting "LALALALA" at worst.

The general "you", not "you, icebraining".

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[icebraining]

iTunes has sold a couple of billion tracks as I recall. The iPod business was built on ease of use, and the ability to buy the music you want and get it in a convenient format. I think the actual software had something to do with it, since it is pretty easy to use.

Of course, the iTunes Store was launched two years after the iPod.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[darthdavid]

Yes, but that's a little tangential to the issue at hand because those legal users who don't manually dl the files are usually using the technology baked into another piece of software and, as such, aren't using a general purpose torrent client at all...

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Dog-Cow]

like f.ex. disk images

Please, never do that again. Federal Express has nothing to do with what you're writing. Use "e.g." when you mean "For example".

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[kimvette]

And, it is rather easy to go to any Linux distro site and now even commercial software developers' sites and find bittorrent links to legitimate product.

Sure it is in the minority now, but that is true of any kind of download technology.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Animaether]

But it's not actually 'doing BitTorrent' anymore than your remote control is 'doing TV reception'.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[SuricouRaven]

While the official reason is Apple's concern that the tool is often(though not exclusively) used by pirates, I suspect there is another reason here. Apple needs to maintain a good relationship with carriers, and anything that uploads a lot of data - like a torrent client - will overload their cells with ease and thus require costly upgrades.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[SuricouRaven]

They have several ssh programs, and they all suck. I just want one that can forward a port through an SSH tunnel, so I can use it to tunnel web-traffic through. I don't want to let just anyone running a public hotspot poke around my browsing.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[mweather]

I can see why they don't want to get embroiled in any of the legal stuff associated with Torrents

Nobody has ever or will ever get in trouble for distributing a torrent app.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[SuricouRaven]

My mistake - I misunderstood the functioning of the program. On further examination it becomes apparent that it doesn't actually use much bandwidth at all.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[jedidiah]

Well then. Stuff is either "curated" or is isn't. Not everything can be high profile enough to come to the attention of senior management and get extraordinary review.

Trojans, Fart Apps, AdWare & BitTorrent client are all things that can slip through those cracks.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[E IS mC(Square)]

"To be fair" - to whom??

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[E IS mC(Square)]

WTF? This is +4 insightful?

The apps you are talking about are all clients. They are not servers. By your post, it seems all bittorrent clients are mired in legal battles. Also, as per your post, I am sure *AA will go after Microsoft any minute for letting their OS users install torrent clients!!

Stop being apple's bitch.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[TheKidWho]

Yes, but few if any actually use a third party torrent client to do so.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[gstoddart]

Nobody has ever or will ever get in trouble for distributing a torrent app.

OK, then perhaps you can explain why they could sue limewire but not torrent?

Honest question? Was limewire providing servers or something tangibly different?

Sometimes it seems that if you can get a sympathetic judge, you can argue all sorts of things in court. Sometimes, they'll even find in your favor.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[gstoddart]

By your post, it seems all bittorrent clients are mired in legal battles.

No, I postulated a possible reason why Apple might not want to have anything to do with that kind of filesharing. Nothing more, nothing less. Deal with it.

Stop being apple's bitch.

Awww, you wanna be my bitch? How cute. Maybe we could cuddle or something after dinner and you could give me backrubs?

Please, piss off and have a nice day. Do try to be less of an ass if you can.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Hatta]

All torrent clients are also servers.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[ddxexex]

I'd think it's more of a network carrier issue than an *AA issue. If Comcast detests BitTorrent traffic over cable, imagine how much a wireless carrier would love it when a bunch of users are doing this wirelessly.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[DJRumpy]

I find it funny that everyone is now out to defend torrents since Apple opted now to allow torrent software, yet they despise DRM on games, which is primarily a direct result of copyright infringement. Before the internet was largely available, copyright protection was basically very simple with little dongles, or bad tracks on a CD or floppy to prevent casual copying. When online sharing became common, the DRM went out of control as a result.

It's difficult in my mind to defend torrents knowing that it's probably realistic that more people use them to infringe copyrights then they do for legal content, especially since the folks who infringe are probably the same ones that cause me a ton of grief with the current DRM schemes in use.

Strangely circular karma ;)

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[cheekyjohnson]

Even if that is true, it is highly useful for even 'legal' activities. There was no reason to ban this app.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[cheekyjohnson]

"Play stupid all you want, how about you show some numbers to prove otherwise"

You're the one who first stated something as a fact, not him. The burden of proof is on you.

"It's rather easy to go to any torrent site and see how many users are downloading pirated goods."

Really? It's easy to monitor every torrent file in existence to see how much legal media is being torrented versus illegal media?

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[cheekyjohnson]

"pirate jackasses"

Seriously. I hate people who steal money (their own money) that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money (which is potential profit). Which means I hate... pretty much everyone.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Pojut]

Indeed!

I'll defend the legal use of torrents, because I do it every single day; I use a torrent to distribute my own music for free (I've taken my fair share over the years, I felt like I should give something in return), and it's been extremely useful (in the three weeks since I put up the torrent, it's been downloaded approximately 160 times, based on the amount of data I've uploaded in uTorrent...not bad for someone who is literally a bedroom musician with zero promotion.)

That being said, I'm not under any misguided thinking; I know full well that torrents are generally used for infringing content, despite their capability as a legal file distribution tool.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Mister Whirly]

I don't think anyone with a brain is "Insisting that torrents are more frequently used for legal vs illegal file sharing", but there are some who insist that they are ONLY used for illegal purposes. This is equally as ignorant. There are legitimate and non-legitimate uses for Bittorrent. Yes the non-legit ones happen to out weigh the legitimate ones at this point, but there still are legitimate uses. But attacking Bittorrent as the cause for piracy is ludicrous. Software piracy existed long, long before BT ever did, and when BT is gone piracy will still exist.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Late Adopter]

I can see why they don't want to get embroiled in any of the legal stuff associated with Torrents.

It takes a special sort of perverted mind for that sentence to make any sort of sense. But people like those wear suits and work for the MPAA and RIAA! It's some sort of karma that the same sort of people (people who need help to get their printer to work, and will never know what an "Internet" is) also work for Apple's legal department. So we have a situation that regardless of what reality actually is, the perception of reality employed by the RIAA is now the de-facto legal standard at tech companies.

What a world.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[TheRaven64]

Go to any torrent site (excluding ones that advertise the fact that they only serve legal torrents) and tell me how many legal vs. illegal torrents you find.

Go to any warez site and see the ratio of legal to illegal download links. From this we conclude that HTTP is predominantly used for illegal purposes.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[GameboyRMH]

"Slip through the cracks?"

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/081910-app-store-director-sells-his.html

That's a nice way of phrasing it.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Pojut]

The difference is that HTTP is used for many things OTHER than exchanging large files. The torrent protocol by design does nothing BUT exchange large files. Apples to Oranges.

As mentioned in another post, I myself use torrents for legal purposes (both uploading and downloading), so I recognize its legitimate uses...but I also do not maintain any illusion that torrents are primarily used for legal purposes. I don't know what the percentage is, but I'd be very surprised if more than 5% of all torrent traffic involved the legal exchange of data.

Again, just a personal estimate...I don't know what the actual numbers are.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[dougisfunny]

I would imagine more people use torrent technology for legal content than 'infringing'. I would also surmise that torrents are used more for 'infringing' than legal content.

The reason being that the pando downloader, used by WoW, and various other games is exactly that, and I would guess more people play those games than pirate crap.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[gstoddart]

It takes a special sort of perverted mind for that sentence to make any sort of sense.

My apologies. :-P

Nowadays, it is so damned hard to keep track of which things the *AAs will sue over, and which they wouldn't.

Limewire got sued, Torrent Freak got shut down, I'm not even sure what Napster is anymore or if it exists. ISPs now have to police copyright on behalf of content owners. I just don't know any more.

So we have a situation that regardless of what reality actually is, the perception of reality employed by the RIAA is now the de-facto legal standard at tech companies.

Sadly, if they muddy the waters so that even those of us in the tech industry don't even know the legal status of some of these things ... then it's awfully hard to know what is legal, what is illegal, and what is in a gray area.

I'm not even saying that there are legal issues with Torrents. I'm just saying that since I no longer know WTF is going on, I can see why a company like Apple might refuse an app for the iPhone which allows you to manage these things.

Things are quite unclear nowadays, and the lawyers are aggressively trying to make sure everything is illegal unless their clients are getting paid.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[maxwell demon]

And most web pages are completely uninteresting. Therefore I conclude people use the web mostly to look at uninteresting pages.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[icebraining]

I find it funny that everyone is now out to defend torrents since Apple opted now to allow torrent software, yet they despise DRM on games, which is primarily a direct result of copyright infringement.

Yes, just like Mr. and Mrs. Curie's study of radioactivity resulted on the launch of the atomic bombs.

DRM was a consequence of illegal file sharing, no doubt, but nobody forced the companies to employ DRM. In fact, iTunes removed it for its music and sells now more than before. So no, file sharing didn't cause DRM - companies which use DRM caused it.
It was a motivation, but not an irreversible result.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[nacturation]

OK, then perhaps you can explain why they could sue limewire but not torrent? Honest question?

Why don't you research it? Two minutes of Googling got this:

The court ruling listed 5 factors that, taken together, establish that LimeWire "intended to encourage " infringement: 1) LW’s awareness of substantial infringement by users, 2) their efforts to attract infringing users, 3) their efforts to enable and assist users to commit infringement, 4) LW’s dependence on infringing use for the success of its business; and 5) a failure to mitigate infringing activities.

Everybody likes to make gun manufacturer analogies, but Limewire and sites like Mininova, Pirate Bay, and so on are like gun clubs that list places to go to kill people. If Smith & Wesson offered software to trade gun information and 95% of the information exchanged contained content like "Where to kill Caucasians", "Where to kill Blacks", "Where to kill Asians", "How to rob a bank using your Smith & Wesson", and so on it's rather difficult to argue that the manufacturer is not liable because a gun is simply a tool that can be used legally or illegally.

Using the above five factors, Smith & Wesson's hypothetical court case might find that 1) S&W was aware of substantial use of their firearms for illegal purposes, 2) S&W actively marketed to attract customers who would use their firearms illegally, 3) they enabled and assisted customers to kill people using their firearms, 4) S&W depended on revenues from illegal uses of its firearms for the success of its business, and 5) S&W failed to respond to or mitigate any illegal activites.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[NoOneInParticular]

Ah come on. If it's not torrents, it's either porn or spam. That's about 99% of all http traffic right there. That some people use it for completely unrelated stuff is irrelevant at this scale. I'd say ban it.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Kazymyr]

Nicely done.

Is there any app with a VNC-like function (I honestly don't know; no iPhone)? If so it should be removed immediately, as it can be used to remotely manage other computers. Which may be running copyright-infringing software like bittorrent clients.

Also, any media players for the iPhone should be stricken since they can be used to view infringing files. :)

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[pclminion]

I can see why they don't want to get embroiled in any of the legal stuff associated with Torrents.

It's not like the application is downloading torrents TO THE PHONE. It's just a coordination tool. If that's off limits, then they should really remove Safari from the phone, since a web browser can be used to search the Internet for infringing content.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[mjwx]

this category of applications is often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights. We have chosen to not publish this type of application to the App Store.

I can see why they don't want to get embroiled in any of the legal stuff associated with Torrents

You're marketspeak to English appears to be a bit rusty, I'll help you out:

Translation: "This procedure allows end users to get around the controls we've placed in Itunes".

You've got to be delusional to think Apple cares about piracy of other peoples products. If they did they'd be doing license checks in Itunes and not permitting any unlicensed music, but they aren't so it's all about keeping Apple users locked into Itunes.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[sosume]

So you have no idea what the numbers are, but you don't seem to have a problem pulling them out of thin air. You must be a climate scientist.

And on a related note, I could argue that most hard drive space is used for illegal copies of movies and music - therefore, hard drives should be banned and all data should be stored in a controlled cloud environment. This will enable the *AA to directly calculate the necessary taxation. Would that make you happy?

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Pojut]

Where did I ever say I wanted them banned? Go ahead, go through every single post I've made in this story, and quote me where I said I wanted them banned.

You won't be able to, because I never did. What I said was that I recognize both the legal and illegal uses for bittorrent, but I hold no illusions about bittorrent being used mostly for anything other than illegal file sharing.

That has nothing to do with wanting bittorent to be banned.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[Wovel]

I had the same thought, but WoWs 12 million (or whatever) users is probably dwarfed by the pirate community. If you add in all the other uses like Linux Distros and other games, it is possible but still unlikely that non-infringing use is higher..

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[dougisfunny]

I agree that infringing use is probably higher, I was more saying that more 'people' use torrent technology in a non-infringing manner, not that 'torrent technology' was used more in a non-infringing manner.

I suppose the car analogy would be the roads are used by more people for personal use than commercial use, but there is more commercial use of roads than personal use.

Or the internet usage thing, where "10% of people use 90% of the bandwidth" or whatever the numbers supposedly are.

Bandwidth

[denshao2]

I would not waste the scarce AT&T bandwidth on torrents.

Re:Bandwidth

[biryokumaru]

The ImageShack servers do the torrenting. You just tell them what to download so you can download it straight from them later.

Re:Bandwidth

[f0rk]

I, on the other hand, would waste all of my unlimited bandwidth, if i could.

Re:Bandwidth

[biryokumaru]

So... 2.6 GB/month? That's pretty awful.

Re:Bandwidth

[Anonymous Coward]

I, on the other hand, would waste all of my unlimited bandwidth, if i could.

Reminds me of the SNL sketch where the people who "ruin it for the rest of us" talked about their adventures. Why gas station bathrooms now have locks, etc.

See Tragedy of the Commons, except with out the economic benefit from depleting the common resource

Re:Bandwidth

[idontgno]

I would not waste the scarce AT&T bandwidth on facebook.

FTFY.

That said, the torrenting isn't done over-the-air. It's a proxy torrent system, with ImageShack doing the torrent download.

How many types are secretly banned?

[burris]

From Apple via the TFA:

We have chosen to not publish this type of application to the App Store.

In addition to the published list of restrictions there is a second, secret, list of types of application that Apple has chosen not to publish. There is no way to know if your type of application is on that list without submitting a fully working application.

Re:How many types are secretly banned?

[mdm-adph]

Well, we should've known their recent spate of openness was too good to be true.

Re:How many types are secretly banned?

[Thinine]

No, Apple recently released all of their criteria publicly, and this standard was on that list. http://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html

Re:How many types are secretly banned?

[Exitar]

It's not so hard.
If your application do something useful, it's probably on their list.
If it's only nice looking fluff, it will be accepted.

Re:How many types are secretly banned?

[OldeTimeGeek]

TFA was referring to the refusal given to DriveTrain as an example of why Torrent apps have gotten turned down in the past.

As Kepner chose not to publish what Apple sent him, we can only speculate as to the reason why it was pulled. Besides, the bit of the article you clipped did indicate what Apple told the developer when it was refused. You may not agree with the reason, but there was one: no secrets there.

Re:How many types are secretly banned?

[0xdeadbeef]

And when that isn't enough, there are these helpful guidelines for rejection:

Does it do something similar to an Apple application but better?
Will it invite attention from whiny outraged political groups, such as the American Family Association or RIAA?
Will it divert revenue that might have otherwise had gone to Apple or AT&T or other carriers?
Does it contradict an established Apple ideology, publicly stated or inferred?

Re:How many types are secretly banned?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't look at it without logging in and agreeing to some contract with Apple. Doesn't sound very public to me.

Re:How many types are secretly banned?

[Penguinisto]

Out of curiosity - why the hell would you use BitTorrent on a phone? AT&T has bandwidth charges that would make most torrents pretty expensive, you'd fill up your phone in extremely short order, and the transfer rates are atrociously slow at best.

I understand the whole 'free to do what you like with it' concept, but seriously, downloading torrents on a phone is, well, kind of stupid.

Re:How many types are secretly banned?

[froggymana]

Well, if you read the *fine* article you would know that this is a proxy torrent site. The torrenting isn't done on your phone, its done on Imageshack's servers. After its done downloading from their then you can download it on your home connection. So it would be rather useful for people to be able to do this because if they think of a linux iso *wink* that they want to download while on the run they can do it with the torrent proxy and download the finished copy at your home. I would think that it might be more useful to try and incorporate something with dropbox with this. For example, you could have a script set up to look for .torrent files in your Dropbox folder that would be ran when you are gone and check for updates every 10-15 minutes (or so). If it detected a new .torrent file it would then start up your favorite BitTorrent client and start the download of that .torrent. This way it would be downloaded straight to your computer right away and you wouldn't have to worry about the middle man (Imageshack).

Re:How many types are secretly banned?

[shutdown -p now]

If I understand correctly, it's not BT-on-the-phone. It's an app that lets you remotely control a BT client elsewhere from the phone.

Why?

[iONiUM]

I see some arguments about Apple not wanting to get involved in the *AA legal debate with torrents, but I don't understand how that's related to them at all.

Are we so far gone that we can't even have a torrent app because we *might* pirate things with it? I'm sure there are valid use cases for having torrents on the iPhone. It should be the carriers that get angry about torrents, not your friggin OS/hardware provider. You don't see Microsoft getting angry about uTorrent, it's the ISPs. What's going on here?

Re:Why?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Apple doesn't want an application install vector that they don't control.

Re:Why?

[garcia]

Are we so far gone that we can't even have a torrent app because we *might* pirate things with it?

While we'll probably never know due to the lack of transparency about the whole process, it's likely due to AT&T. Their network can't very well handle the traffic it has now and certainly won't be able to handle pegged upstream and downstream connections from the growing number of iPhones.

As an iPhone user who has been experiencing more and more slow network connectivity, I could care less if someone has a BitTorrent application on their phone installed via Cydia but I certainly don't want the majority userbase accessing it to peg their connections to download *anything* legal or illegal content aside.

Re:Why?

[Ephemeriis]

Apple doesn't want an application install vector that they don't control.

What does this app have to do with install vectors?

Re:Why?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

While we'll probably never know due to the lack of transparency about the whole process, it's likely due to AT&T. Their network can't very well handle the traffic it has now and certainly won't be able to handle pegged upstream and downstream connections from the growing number of iPhones.

The phone doesn't do the torrenting, it just remotely controls the torrent client that runs on imageshack's servers (and their bandwidth).

Re:Why?

[hitmark]

Skype was allowed onto the app store once they had established that it could only operate over wifi. Why not the same for this?

Re:Why?

[RCourtney]

Except that it doesn't use AT&T's network to download torrents, it lets you start downloads with ImageShack doing the downloading. Think of it like the iPhone as a remote control for torrenting - it controls the torrents, but does not actually receive them. From TFA...

Earlier this week, Apple approved an iPhone app called IS Drive, which lets users check and manage downloads from ImageShack.us, while also offering users the option to use the company’s BitTorrent service to download files to their ImageShack account.

Re:Why?

[mweather]

Then why do they allow apps to use http?

Re:Why?

[quacking duck]

That restriction's been lifted. Skype happily works over 3G now.

Re:Why?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

That's a loophole they can't close. It's a tradeoff point between locking the device down and letting users install what they want.

Re:Why?

[E IS mC(Square)]

That's very tangential of you.

Re:Why?

[mjwx]

but I don't understand how that's related to them at all.

It's not.

Torrenting is a way around Itunes. Getting around Itunes eliminates apple's ability to control the device as well as trying to get you into Apple's other products and services (the fanboys will lambaste me for this but that doesn't change the fact Apple is using Itunes in the exact same way as MS used Windows to leverage IE, except Apple is less successful). The big problem is not piracy, if it was Apple would prevent you from loading unlicensed music in Itunes, the problem is that it gets around Apples control.

Re:Why?

[mjwx]

While we'll probably never know due to the lack of transparency about the whole process, it's likely due to AT&T.

First thing, I thought Apple had the carriers under thumb, at least that what I keep being told whenever something bad happens to Android.

Secondly, what about WiFi only, this didn't get banned because it used 3G data, it got banned because it downloaded data onto the device.

Thirdly, what about all the other telco's, Vodafone (worldwide), Hutchinson (Worldwide) T-Mobile/Deutsche telecom (Europe), Orange (Europe) and so forth who just act as a dumb pipe and dont give a crap how you use bandwidth. Apple already discriminate via location in Itunes, if this was an AT&T issue, why are AU Vodafone users being punished (HINT: In AU, it's illegal for Voda to say how you can and cannot use the data you've paid for).

I'm going to answer my own question, this application was banned because it got around Itunes allowing users to directly download media and files onto their device.

Total breakdown of their vetting process.

[wvmarle]

Once Apple got wind of what the app was capable of...

Isn't the whole purpose of vetting apps to figure out what they are doing (and that no "bad" behaviour is included - no malware)? It seems that if this app gets through the vetting process, from the of it doing only what it's advertised to do, that there's something terribly wrong with Apple's vetting process.

Re:Total breakdown of their vetting process.

[Have Blue]

From the description in the article, especially the phrase "sneak in", it sounds like he deliberately obfuscated the functionality of the app. It's happened a few times before- an app is submitted with a questionable feature disabled, then once it's in the wild a switch is thrown on a server and suddenly it's capable of more than was ever shown to Apple. The vetting process being susceptible to targeted attempts to circumvent it does not mean that a "total breakdown" occurred.

Re:Total breakdown of their vetting process.

[quacking duck]

4-that they can remotely remove it.

You confused that little feature with Android. Apple has never remotely removed an app from your phone or your downloaded apps folder, even after it's been removed from the app store itself.

So What About VNC

[quanticle]

So does that mean that Apple will disallow VNC apps? Because, you know, those can also be used to manage BitTorrent downloads.

Re:So What About VNC

[The MAZZTer]

Web browsers can too. Some bittorrent clients have a web interface.

The 1% of Torrenters

[ViViDboarder]

Using BT legitimately will have to wait until they are home to download their Linux ISO! Such injustice!

It's a shame that a few bad eggs ruin it for the rest of us...

Re:The 1% of Torrenters

[geekoid]

Hooray for pulling numbers out your ass.

Re:The 1% of Torrenters

[ViViDboarder]

I had to reach deep for it.

It wasn't supposed to be serious. I just don't see this as such a big deal when Transmission has a perfectly capable web interface that works on the iPhone and Android. Also, Apple sure doesn't want to piss off the RIAA.

Do you have numbers on illegal vs. legal torrents? I can't find any decent sources.

Torrent use

[lymond01]

But...but...I use BT to download World of Warcraft patches and Redhat ISOs! This is inhumane! You've crippled the iPhone!

Obious Reason

[whisper_jeff]

To everyone planning on blasting Apple for rejecting the app, please check the submission guidelines they recently published. The reason this app was rejected is spelled out in clear detail there - the developer has nobody to blame but themself for the app's rejection. They knew they were submitting an app that wouldn't be approved because they hid certain functionality, which is precisely the reason the app was going to be rejected.

2.4 Apps that include undocumented or hidden features inconsistent with the description of the app will be rejected.

When you do something against the rules and get caught, don't be surprised that there are consequences. Don't want to play by those rules, then don't. That simple.

Re:Obious Reason

[Combatso]

Don't want to play by those rules, then don't. That simple.

Seems to me they didn't want to play by those rules, and didn't.

Re:Obious Reason

[demonbug]

I think you are a little confused here... the reason it got rejected originally was the loose connection with bittorrent. This had nothing to do with obfuscation (aside from the fact that the developer tried to hide the bittorrent aspect in the second release) - the second one was rejected for the same reason as the first one, namely because it had something to do with bittorrent.

Yes, they knew they were likely to get rejected, but not because they hid a feature - they knew they would be rejected because Apple didn't like the feature they hid. Saying they got rejected for hiding a feature or misrepresenting features is BS - Apple had already shown that they would reject the app if it said exactly what it did.
The one and only reason for the rejection is that Apple doesn't want anything to do with bittorrent used on "their" hardware.

Of course, the developers could just make a web-based interface accessible through a browser to do the same thing (by the sound of it this would be pretty straightforward), but then they wouldn't be able to charge for it as easily.

Re:Obious Reason

[recoiledsnake]

But why are apps that just *manage* bittorrent downloads on other machines banned? You can even use Safari with uTorrent's web interface. Maybe it should be banned.

And people have every right to 'blast Apple for rejecting apps'. The submission guidelines are not the ten commandments that we all should follow just because they're sacred. We should be free to criticize them.

Re:Obious Reason

[dysonlu]

So are you saying that if the developer clearly states that it was a BitTorrent app, Apple would have accepted it? I don't think the developer was entirely surprised that the app ended up being rejected. They knew that if they advertised it as a BitTorrent app, it would have had no chance of being accepted by Apple. So they tried to trick Apple knowing that they might be caught anyway.

Re:Obious Reason

[Duradin]

You know, for types that go all "liberty or death!!!1!!" whenever anyone tells them to do (or not do) something slashbots sure do love telling other people how they should run their services.

This store isn't selling what I want them to sell! In the name of freedom and liberty we must force them to sell this! They rejected my app because of their guidelines! They must use my guidelines, I demand it!

Re:Obious Reason

[cbope]

Then why doesn't this apply to all apps and even the device OS? Weren't there a few reported cases recently of the iphone itself or some apps secretly firing off data to the mothership or a developer?

Re:Obious Reason

[exomondo]

You can even use Safari with uTorrent's web interface. Maybe it should be banned.

Oh, well there you go, it's duplicating functionality...apparently you can't do that either...some of the time...

Re:Obious Reason

[GPLHost-Thomas]

I would agree with you if it was possible to install any app on an iHardware without jailbreak. That's not the case, and clearly, Apple hasn't make the Jailbreaking thing something standard to say the least. You are pretending that's just guidelines, it's not, it's restricting users capability to install the type of apps it wants, and that is restricting freedom. Until recently, jailbreaking an iPhone was considered by Apple a violation of the DMCA, which made it a federal crime in USA. This is a history first that we have such restriction on a computing platform.

Stop pretending we are slashbots telling how to run services, we are all legitimately outraged by this kind of freedom restrictions, and we always will.

Closed Systems = Closed Wallet

[tomweeks]

Well, this just validates what most FOSS advocates preach... closed systems are self serving and antagonistic toward freedom. This is one reason why I've never financially supported Apple products (since the introduction of the Mac in the 80s).

Tweeks

Re:Closed Systems = Closed Wallet

[rjamestaylor]

I'm not as pure a FOSS adherent as you — all my personal computing devices are from Apple — but I definitely agree that without FOSS we'd have less freedom and innovation in computing today.

Re:Closed Systems = Closed Wallet

[tomweeks]

Maybe we should view it as a market of freedom... as long as there IS choice (i.e. it exists), you don't HAVE to chose one over the other. The slippery part is for those who only use proprietary systems. The use of proprietary systems tends toward vendor-lock, which leads to more of the same. As long as you keep at least some mix of FOSS in there, at least you have options.

Tweeks

Re:Closed Systems = Closed Wallet

[jedidiah]

Except the problem with systems built on binary compatability is that they tend to favor a single dominant vendor.

If that single dominant vendor produces an open system, there is at least the possibility for 3rd party apps.

Otherwise, the platform tyrant is free to suppress any dissent to their "curation" of content at their leisure.

Censor-ware should really grate with the artsy fartsy types (the real ones anyways).

Re:Closed Systems = Closed Wallet

[rjamestaylor]

This is true - it is a market of freedom. Now, I use *only* FOSS for my server-side development and deployment and have done so since the mid-to-late 90's. There is also no doubt that the influence of FOSS continues to keep closed systems like Apple, MSFT and even Facebook in check. We'll never return to the days of Windows de facto monopolization or even pre-Web strangleholds on online connectivity such as CompuServ, Prodigy, AOL.

We're all better off with FOSS, even if not directly using it.

Re:Closed Systems = Closed Wallet

[tomweeks]

Censor-ware should really grate with the artsy fartsy types (the real ones anyways).

Haha.. Silly boy.. "artsy fartsy types" will always side with fashion and hip-ness over morals! hehe Plus, they all own and love cats.. which again, dubious at best. ;)

Tweeks

Re:Closed Systems = Closed Wallet

[StripedCow]

all my personal computing devices are from Apple — but I definitely agree that without FOSS we'd have less freedom and innovation in computing today

I bet that if Apple was running the show back in the 80's there would be no linux at all.

Re:Closed Systems = Closed Wallet

[Idiomatick]

Offtopic: Whats up w/ the rackspace logo?

wait

[milkmage]

"download files to their ImageShack account"

then I get to download it to my local? that's like me asking you to pick me up so I can drive you to the store.

Re:wait

[nedlohs]

Or your local throttles torrents.

Or you want to set it to download something on a slow torrent that will take a day or two, and then download it to your local in 2 hours later.

Or you don't want your local IP in getting seen doing the downloading.

Caught wind of it?

[ntheory]

I thought they were actually reviewing applications over there. What exactly does the approval process achieve?

Nice Generalization

[Petersko]

My Amplitube application says different.

Blessed be the name of Jobs

[SiChemist]

The Apple giveth and the Apple taketh away...

I sure love

[zcold]

I sure do love my android device.

Apple should ban web browsers

[GPLHost-Thomas]

Web browsers are often used to do copyright infringements and download illegal contents as well. Or is it about how often that is the case? If so, then does it mean that because many others are misusing a technology, I have no rights to use it? What if I want to use torrent to, let's say, download the latest Ubuntu (in 3 days from now)? Forbidden, because Apple said so.

Thanks but no thanks. I will *never* purchase an apple product, and will continue to use my Nokia n900, because I care about my freedom, and I tell about it.

Worst /. Article Title Ever...

[dwightk]

... or just more of the same?

and who...

[Skal Tura]

said that Apple ain't evil?

yeah.....