Slashdot Mirror
Apple Bans Android Magazine App From App Store
recoiledsnake writes "Apple dialed its battle with Android up a notch today by banning an Android magazine app from its App Store, leaving no way for users to install the app on iPads, iPhones and iPod Touches without jailbreaking. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep, was: 'You know... your magazine...It's just about Android.... we can't have that in our App Store.' The bi-monthly publication — the Android counterpart to an iPhone magazine Dixon began putting out earlier this year — launched Nov. 11. 'It's funny really because I don't think we would sell many magazines on Android through Apple App Store,' Dixon told Media Watch. 'But the question is where this is going.' This comes on the heels of Jobs lashing out at Android, calling it fragmented, and its patent attacks on Android."
This seems like an act of desperation. Is Apple that insecure that it can't allow a stupid app like this onto its platform? What, are people going to read about Android and immediately dump their iPhones? If the iPhone is that good, Apple has nothing to worry about. If it's not competitive with Android handsets, then Apple should fix the deficiencies.
So far the main problem with iPhone is how closed and censored the app store is, from the point of view of an Android phone user anyway.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Article here: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/26/apple-bans-android-magazine-app/
Apple is the new Microsoft :)
But Google is evil.
"Free Market" types will incessantly remind you that censorship only happens with governments. This isn't "censorship", just "good business."
Not what you want, or what you think is reasonable. I only sold you a license to that hardware. Oh... wait... *runs off to find a fresh mock turtle-neck and call a lawyer*
...really, an APPLICATION to browse a magazine, instead of just making the magazine html-based to be read with a browser by anyone, anywhere? What the fuck? Talk about a completely boneheaded move - it really deserves a kick in the nuts.
This level of anti-competitive and just... asshole behavior has probably never been seen before, not even with Microsoft. How can Apple ever hope to become a serious part of community infrastructure when they display this level of disrespect for their customers? Is the fear that some bumbling iPhone user might accidentally install the Android magazine app and have a sudden flash of inspiration that iPhone is inferior? Why do we, as customers, take this? Not even Microsoft had the greedy foolishness to prohibit its competitor's software from running on their platform. Why don't we demand control of the devices that we have purchased? Lets hope that MeeGo can deliver a genuinely open phone experience. Ubuntu and Linux Mint both show how an app store could be done.
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
You know you've achieved success in the market place when your major competitor lashes out at you in anger. Nice going Google, keep up the good work :)
Life is not for the lazy.
A better analogy would be, "Why should Amazon/Borders be forced to carry books about how great the Nook/Kindle is?"
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
They shouldn't be required to promote the competition, but banning the competition on your platform can get you in trouble.
As a 100 billion dollar gorilla, they need to be careful when it comes to antitrust and perception.
Imagine if Internet Explorer refused to load apple.com, or Microsoft refused to allow iTunes on Windows.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
You can buy your stuff from other places, but you aren't allowed to buy your iPhone magazine app from anyone else.
They aren't being asked to promote the competition. Does WalMart promote the competition when their store sells Hershey bars? Or when an issue of "Home Economics" has stuff about superstores ranked.
No, they're being asked not to block an application that is a magazine. Nothing against acceptable policy there, nothing inflammatory or illegal or likely to offend minors. WalMart would sell the dead-tree version. Apple should sell this.
It's not like Apple won't get their cut, is it.
Your analogy is flawed- Wal Mart and Best Buy are two competing companies. In the article presented, Mediaprovider (a company that makes eMagazines, including one about the iPhone- i.e., not a direct competitor to Apple) wanted to sell one of their products through apple's app store.
So, it's more like Amazon or Borders selling a book about public libraries. The money wasn't going "to Android" and away from Apple in the way that an "Amazon order kiosok" would funnel money to Amazon, and take it away from Borders.
And also- yeah. Fair competition is generally accepted to be good for the market and good for consumers. In this instance, "fair" meaning that products compete on their own merits (and flaws), and not on how well one company can suppress information about a competitor.
And a little down the line, some other magazine app gets removed. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep is "You know... your magazine...It had a negative review of the iPad.... we can't have that in our App Store."
Same principle.
Apple certainly can do this sort of thing, but it shows a lack of integrity and a lack of self-confidence. It's the behaviour of a small, petty person. It's short-sighted and it will push people to Android tablets all the more.
It seems like the aim is to keep all the passive people on Apple and to let the people who think independently go. That may be a winning business strategy, but I find it horrifying.
I see plenty of Direct TV add on Comcast...
This seems like an act of desperation.
Or is it merely long standing policy? Haven't apps promoting/offering certain competing products and services been banned from day 1 of app store development? Whether this policy is right or wrong is a different question, but this app rejection does not seem to be any sort of reaction to Android's recent successes.
I see it as kind of funny, really.
Most Iphone users are very happy with their phones and I don't see them likely to switch- not due to a magazine app, anyway
The main thing I see this doing is again emphasizing how tightly Apple restricts content on the Iphone, and how limiting that is.
I DO know a few people who have chosen to get a different phone because of this.
I also know a couple of people who have switched from Iphone to Android because of this.
Linux computers, watercooled, photography
Walmart isn't trying to set themselves up as a publisher. Apple is. I guess as long as you don't want to publish anything Apple doesn't want you to publish.
Actually, it would be more like stocking the BestBuy catalog in the magazine section at Wal-Mart. But really, to fully understand this situation, someone will have to develop a Car Analogy.
But I agree: iProducts are not "open" platforms, they are a branded product that delivers an Apple "experience". There's really no reason Apple should be expected to allow the competition to promote itself on their product, it doesn't make business sense.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Well as a mobile developer who touches all platforms, yet owns an iPad and enjoys it as a reading device, this is just another bullet point in the long list of why Apple will eventually make themselves irrelevant again.
Why not publish this shit as an HTML5 web app, though? For something of this sort, one need not enter the walled garden at all. Hell, the app is no doubt just a wrapper around a browser pointed at a particular url.
Microsoft gets sued for simply including it's own browser in it's OS, meanwhile Apple literally trys to prevent its users from even know a competing product exists by limiting their access to actual journalism. Where's the EU now? Where are the antitrust lawsuits? Imagine if Microsoft wouldn't allow you to go to Apples website?
Everyone just accepts the explanation from the guy whose app was rejected as fact? No one is even the slightest bit skeptical that the "'You know... your magazine...It's just about Android.... we can't have that in our App Store." quote is bogus?
Most companies dont care to cater to their competition, its not fear its logic.
Most companies don't try and control what you can see and do with their products after you've bought them. Apple do. This is what we are criticising.
Does my bum look big in this?
I think the reason that this is might aggravate people is that, for most intents and purposes, an iPhone is a personal computer, which should allow the user to decide what they want on it. Now, I agree with the argument that Apple doesn't have to advertise its competition (just like Best Buy doesn't carry Future Shop flyers). However, the difference is that there is only one 'storefront' for the iPod (putting aside the jailbreak method). As there is only one (and can be only one currently), it seems presuming that Apple would block like that.
Either give us the choice to download what we want, or allow other 'stores' to do it.
Would you like help with:
Please continue working while a black-bagger is dispatched to your cubical.
Does this really need explanation? I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't carry PC ads on their website, either.
This is a non-story.
1) Developer submits an app intentionally to get it rejected.
2) App gets rejected.
3) ???
4) Profit!
The funny thing is, this is actually happening here. 3 seems to be getting the "press" to cover you so people hear about your other apps.
- Vincit qui patitur.
There has been some other instances of apple banning apps for android relations. I'm pretty sure that's grounds for an anti-trust inquire into apple....
... it seems like someone with a business degree or someone in marketting simply made this decision ...
Probably, but the decision made by the marketing person was probably to create the app and use the expected ban for free publicity and guerilla marketing. IIRC apps promoting certain competing products or services have been banned from day 1 of the app store. The ban seems to be long standing policy not a recent decision. Developing and submitting such an app seems like a public relations stunt. The marketing folks at the Android magazine seem to have done a great job at leveraging Apple policy for publicity, which of course is a perfectly fair thing for them to do.
and Apple has no reason to be part of it, you can become a "useful" member of "their" community provided you follow the rules.
After all, all the cool kids will do so. See if you get any respect sitting in Starbucks without an Apple product, hell, see if they will serve you.
Yes, the above line was a bit of sarcasm, however Apple doesn't really care, they really don't think they have too.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
A single-source quote-based article that gets someone free publicity is always accurate. (They don't even make it clear whether the ellipses in the quote are supposed to be pauses or were selective editing. It seems especially fishy in light of the other quote from the same fellow, buried at the bottom of the article cited by this article: "I suspect it is because we have a "babe" on the front page."
I'm not an Apple lover (Google Voice only took how long to get approved?), but giving this guy the publicity he's clearly craving without anyone appearing to have fact-checked his story seems poor form to me.
Can you imagine the outrage if Amazon banned their partners from selling iPads? While Amazon themselves doesn't seem to stock it, they have about 100 partners that do, and handle fulfillment for some of them. Same for the Nook, Sony reader, and so on. They certainly don't go out of their way to promote them (though if you search for them they'll show up as recommendation on the front page, along with the Kindle) but they don't ban them just because they happen to compete with a product Amazon makes.
While I don't expect a company to promote or help a competitor, I don't expect them to be dicks either. How would people react if Windows refused to install iTunes and Safari because Apple competes with them? I imagine the whargarbl would reach critical mass in about 5 seconds, and a lawsuit would follow not long after.
Did you know that you can BUY a Nook from Amazon.com?
http://www.amazon.com/Barnes-Noble-NOOK-reader-3G/dp/1400599997
I would like to see Google, lash back, by not referring any traffic to any pro Apple site for one week as a show of strength. They fear Google so much it is funny. Then after they link back to Apple sites, change the algorithms so that any negative sites get preference over positive apple sites.
The sooner Apple signs up other carriers besides AT&T (or just completely OPENS the damn thing) the better for their sales. The major thing driving Droid phone sales is that you can have one WITHOUT the AT&T albertross around your neck. Consumer reports and others have rated wireless networks, Tmobile and Verizon rated much better than you know who. Many people have said they will buy an iPhone when they can use ANYONE BUT AT&T.
Microsoft refused to allow iTunes on Windows.
Hey now.
Microsoft is evil and would never do something good like this.
Get your facts straight.
I'm sorry - but do we now insist that WalMart have Best Buy employees in their store? Maybe we should make Borders put up an Amazon order kiosk?
No, well, this equivalent to Amazon refusing to sell books about Barnes and Nobles, like this one.
If someone writes a book about Barnes and Noble; you can be sure Amazon will carry it, or if they don't, the reason they won't is not because it's a book about the competition.
This sort of thing is just totally absurd. I'm glad I live in a world where a private corporation can censor the content that is available on *my* property just because they don't like it or it competes with them. In other news, my SuperMegaUltra branded PC just refused to let me view a web site where I could learn about and buy a PC from another company. Some billionaire at SuperMegaUltra thinks it is wrong for me to know what's available and he has "The Power (TM) to control what I can look at.
This is what makes me appreciate FOSS. A thanks goes out to all of the developers who built the Debian system I am currently using.
You've got your analogies wrong.
This is like Slashdot not permitting a story about Engadget, or Amazon refusing to sell a book about Borders. Both of these situations are ridiculous, of course Slashdot will post stories about Engadget, and of course Amazon is going to sell a book about Borders or Barnes and Nobel or any of their other competitors.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
And just yesterday I was modded troll for saying Apple is lying, underhanded and only after your money.
NOW THE FOOT IS ON THE OTHER SHOE EH COMRAD!11!!
They shouldn't be required to promote the competition, but banning the competition on your platform can get you in trouble.
As a 100 billion dollar gorilla, they need to be careful when it comes to antitrust and perception.
Imagine if Internet Explorer refused to load apple.com, or Microsoft refused to allow iTunes on Windows.
But they're not banning the competition on their platform - you can still visit android.com via safari, or any number of competitor's websites. This is them merely saying "we're not going to give the competition space on our servers." The comparison to IE or iTunes would only be apt if Microsoft hosted all of the sites you visit and applications you install.
Well it is probably more along the lines of buying a book on Amazon from Borders. I can understand why they did this, but I am not sure that it was the right move to make. I should be able to buy a book on Android from the Apple app store and a book on iOS from the Android market place. It could seem like a way of promoting competition, but it could also show that even Android users and developers prefer to use the iOS based devices for their reading - a nice little irony.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
how many times will apple learn this lesson? If you try to control every thing and all the software you open the door and eventually the Developers will go to a platform they can actually develop on (Android).
I wish I had mod points.
Support SETI@home
Can someone enlighten me as to why a dedicated piece of standalone software is required to display words and some pictures? I thought HTML had that covered. Ohhh, or is this all about DRM? Are we Slashdot readers lamenting the fact that a piece of proprietary DRM-riddled software was rejected?
Better known as 318230.
Haven't they heard of a web page? If they published their magazine as a web page, they wouldn't need to sell separate apps for iPhone and Android and Blackberry... Or they could sell it in an e-book format.... I get sick of seeing the huge number of "apps" that are just a single packaged e-book. It's insane that something like this is so single-purpose.
iPAD is not an EBOOK / MAGAZINE READING PLATFORM
Reason: They are biased. Apple censors / reject publications that Apple does not like, publications that assist developers and users who need to work on competing platforms,.
Any publications that promote or discuss platforms Apple believes are the competition
I am relieved, thank you Apple for making my decision for eBook reader an easy one. I now know that iPad is a bad choice
Microsoft should patch windows to fail to resolve any DNS requests for apple.com and any websites dedicated to promoting Apple products. In addition, HTC could break apple related websites on all of their phones. Then, when Apple complains, just reply "Wait, that's not ok? But, we were just following your lead, asshole!"
Remember when Network Solutions tried to hijack all the failed DNS requests to redirect to their webpage? The community backlash was terrible. People started planning on coding changes to Mozilla to block that from happening, as well as other technical solutions. Apple needs to remember 1 thing about technology. In the long run, you play nice, or you lose, because when you piss everyone off, people will find the weakest link in the chain and screw you. No one holds the keys to all the layers of technologies that have to work together for something work, especially when that something is a communications device and must play with others.
From the wisdom of Princess Leia herself, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
So I will plan on that being pulled next..... Good, the comic book stores were not giving me much for those digital back issues anyway.
Would Apple be expected to carry an Android magazine in its brick and mortar stores? No. So why the different expectation for their app store?
They shouldn't be required to promote the competition, but banning the competition on your platform can get you in trouble.
As a 100 billion dollar gorilla, they need to be careful when it comes to antitrust and perception.
Imagine if Internet Explorer refused to load apple.com, or Microsoft refused to allow iTunes on Windows.
Microsoft had 95% marketshare in the OS market and 90% marketshare in the browser market
Where does Apple have even 50% marketshare? OS? PCs? Phones? Apple is a minority player no matter how much money it makes. Big publicity and big profits from a small player.
Antitrust is about promoting competition, not about punishing success.
I'm calling bullshit on this one. Is there any verifiable source to indicate that this is anything more than a publicity stunt by the magazine publisher?
While Apple is sometimes strange and incoherent about its processes surrounding the app store, this really makes no sense. And we only have the word of the publisher of some obscure Android mag claiming to have talked to some unidentified Apple rep.
The obvious and entirely predictable result is bad press for Apple and a huge amount of free advertising for an otherwise completely unknown magazine. Unless there is some convincing proof that this really happened I just don't buy it. My guess is that it's either completely made up, or the app got rejected for a different reason, maybe even intentionally provoked, and the publisher is spinning it.
This is why people need to stop buying Apple. If they are such assholes, which they are, STOP FEEDING THEM MONEY. They are free to build products however they wish, and people are free to buy or not buy them.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
a private store location is much different than a public space. microsoft didn't built means into the install process of loading applications onto windows to enable their refusal through a controlled private space, as apple has.
caveat emptor, pal.
... I bet this was just one of those dumb little things and will probably get overturned very soon. I know Apple has denied some things in the past for questionable reasons but something like this--a harmless little magazine--sounds to me more like it belongs in the "Never attribute to malice..." category.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
The only way to load software is through the App Store, and the App Store is banning an app that they feel is focused on a competitor. Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust merely for bundling products. Apple's anti-competitive practices are actually worse than Microsoft's. The main reason they haven't caught as much flak is that they've been seen as the plucky underdog with 10% market share.
That is changing with their massive market cap.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
tkx darth job , you made my day , will be laughing at my i* equiped colleagues for the day , i guess kim jong ill is about to send you a "nice job" fruit basket and an invitation to his exclusive club he has with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
ah ah ah ........ idrones , get the app "braintransplant"
The only way to load software is through the App Store, and the App Store is banning an app that they feel is focused on a competitor. Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust merely for bundling products. Apple's anti-competitive practices are actually worse than Microsoft's. The main reason they haven't caught as much flak is that they've been seen as the plucky underdog with 10% market share.
That is changing with their massive market cap.
Ah, but market cap has little to do with market share. And as for market share, wasn't there an article on Slashdot just a week or so ago about how Android is now the most deployed OS on smartphones?
we manage to privatize even that.
... is exactly why I got an android instead of an iphone.
... unlike Apple owners who won't be reading About android on their Iphone.
Honestly, Iproduct owners are about as likely to download such an app as they are to actively go and read about the latest android developments every month on their Iproduct.
Yeah, cause if we band the mag from the app store nobody will ever hear about the alternative to the iPhone whose name must not be spoken aloud.
First, as many others have pointed out, why does there need to be an Android magazine app, as opposed to a web page and RSS feed?
Second, who in their right mind thinks that the market for an Android magazine app on the iPhone is large enough to justify (any) development effort?
Third, yeah, Apple probably should have rubber-stamped it just to avoid this publicity. But seriously, does Apple really have an ethical obligation to approve an app that nobody will want anyway?
The answer to the question of where this is going is: nowhere.
Only idiots waste their time and that of others', by trying to piss off people.
You know... this Google... it's our competitor. We can't have that in your browser. Never mind that we don't even provide a competing search engine.
In June they had 28% of the market
Of smartphones. What's Apple's share of smart MP3 players with a notable selection of applications? As of right now, Google won't let Android devices without 3G data officially access the Market; such devices are limited to the much smaller selection of applications in AppsLib. So what meaningful competitors to iPod touch exist?
possibly apple zealots will que in reply to this post to provide innumerable justifications - but you know, dont. there is only so many excuses you can give until something hits rock bottom. the wise man perceives the rate and way things are going, and foresees rock bottom. and the rate things are going with this apple control mania, is bad.
Read radical news here
Actually, it would be more like stocking the BestBuy catalog in the magazine section at Wal-Mart.
Actually no, it would be more like stocking "Mac developer" magazine at Wal-Mart, or even Barnes and Noble, which in fact they DO. They sell a rather large selection of Apple based magazine content at B&N. Amazon sells books about the Nook, B&N sells books about the Kindle. This is a magazine they blocked, you know, CONTENT.
Why do you think "iFans" have no problem rationalizing this? Sure, a few may be attempting to rationalize this here... but they aren't doing a good job. I would suspect that the rest of them either find this a shitty reason to reject an app or just don't care. Plus, this is a stupid reason to reject an app and will probably be overturned like many other stupid rejections have.
Um... Amazon DOES carry magazines and books about the iPad, and the nook...
Hell, they even carry "Good E-Reader Magazine. Our mandate is to write about all of the latest E-Reader, E-Book and Slate/Tablet news."
ON THE KINDLE!
How many times does Steve Jobs or Apple have to do something like this before people realize that Steve Jobs is EVIL. He makes Bill Gates look like little miss goody two shoes.
He's not Big Brother, yet. Let's just call him "Skinny Brother".
You mean, like Barnes & Noble: Groundbreaking Entrepreneurs, which is already in Amazon's store?
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
100% big enough for you?
The App Store is not 100% of apps sold.
They are the sole marketplace for i-apps.
No they aren't. There are something north of three to four million jailbroken phones at this point, all of which can use the Cydia store. And the jailbreaking tools are so easy anyone who cares to can use them.
The ONLY reason apple's app bannings are news is because they assert 100% control
Since they don't I guess there is another reason. It appears it's the Apple Hating Fever.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I am so tired of these individuals and groups trying to replace already-long-solved problems with their own private apps. Why do I need an NPR podcast app, or an ESPN app, or a Digital Story app? I can already access all their content easily through a web browser. I can already subscribe to, and automatically download, their podcasts. There is no real benefit to me as an end user from using these apps - it actually makes the process of accessing their content more difficult, and even the most casual observer can see any purported added value content being offered is of little interest or value.
So now these publishers want us to read their magazines and newspapers through their individual app? How is this different than a web paywall, exactly? I personally have nothing against subscriber-only web content - but if that model isn't working, why do these guys think doing the exact same thing but calling it an "app" is going to change anything?
Why would anyone think replacing one web browser and one general program for listening to podcasts with 50+ separate apps is a good thing?
Okay, back on topic. This rejection is wrong, and Apple should correct it ASAP.
#DeleteChrome
When someone says something about Apple you disagree with, that's not a troll. Sorry but people are allowed to have opinions that differ from yours. Deal with it.
If Best Buy were to rig up their DVD players so that they would only play DVDs you bought at Best Buy, that would be similar to what we are seeing here.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Mobile app stores: BlackBerry App World, Google Android App Market, Nokia Ovi Store, Palm App Catalog, and Windows Marketplace for Mobile. Android App Market has over 30k apps and is growing rapidly.
Mobile operating systems: Blackberry, Android, Symbian, Palm, Windows Phone. By some measures Android has already overtaken iOS in marketshare.
Mobile hardware OEMs: Nokia, LG, Samsung, HTC, RIM, Motorola. Apple is well behind the leaders in global volume of mobile hardware sales.
So if we're talking about smartphone operating systems, Apple does not have a monopoly. Nor does it have a monopoly in mobile hardware. Finally, it doesn't have a monopoly on mobile application app stores.
Apple controls on its own app store, in the same way that Amazon controls its online store, or Microsoft controls the XBox Live Marketplace. You can call it a monopoly if you like, but there the fact that Apple decides not to allow some apps in its store does not curtail consumer choice at a level that comes even remotely close to being a monopoly.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I wonder what Jobs would think if Google decides to take Apple off their search engine.
It is their store, they can refuse to sell whatever product they want, for whatever reason or for no reason.
What they CANNOT do, and apparently what they have DONE is to limit people from installing applications on their iphone unless those applications come from the Apple store. I don't know if what they are doing is illegal, but it very well could be. At any rate, i can certainly see why such a policy would put a serious hamper on their sales. I mean sales are doing well already, and their stock is doing well, but just imagine how much more money they would be making if they had a reasonable policy about third party sellers. If I was one of their investors, I would be pissed.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust merely for bundling products.?
Not it wasn't.
This is nothing new, I've known what Apple has been up to for years.
My buddy, who was all happy with his gift of an Ipod a few months ago, was complaining last weekend, "Don't ever buy anything from Apple, they try to control your gear like it was their own, even after you buy it." Didn't need to tell me that, I knew, and they'll never get a dime of mine.
It would be more like a Ford not refusing to turn into the Chevy dealership. OH wait, they don't!
Most companies dont care to cater to their competition, its not fear its logic.
Most companies don't try and control what you can see and do with their products after you've bought them. Apple do.
How so?
Terrible analogy.
It's more like Sky TV (satellite) letter Virgin Media (cable) advertise on their channels. Which they do.
Scratch that, that's not great either. It's more like being able to read the e-edition of "Macworld" Apple magazine on your Windows 7 PC. Which you can.
Hell, let's extrapolate further. Would it be OK for Apple to block the ability to play podcasts on your iPod if they're critical of Apple products, perhaps from a blogger who is a big fan of Linux? How about listening to music with lyrics that satirizes Steve Jobs? Blocking a "Slashdot" app from their app store because of Slashdot's well known hostility to both MS and Apple (a la this story)?
Even if it's not illegal (it's probably not) and even if they're well within their rights to do it (they probably are) it's still a douchey thing to do.
no, but they can't kick them out of the store for working at their competition. As to the store, it's just like seeing ads for shows on other networks on your TV. If someone has the only outlet (the iphone app store in this case), the exclusion of something that might promote the competition is both monopolistic and anti-competitive.
As to why, they aren't required to promote the competition, but as they are the sole channel, they can't exclude the competition. It boils down to a simple choice if they want to avoid being in violation of the anti-monopoly laws. Either allow the app store to sell damn near anything legal, even stuff from the competition for the phone, or allow people to get iphone apps from another store. Period.
The government is slow, and the old fogies in it (politicians and justice department types) tend to avoid technology that's not from before 1940, but they will eventually get around to crucifying Apple for this stuff. But Apple should be glad that so many people want them to clean up their act even before the government starts handing out pitchforks.
If you seriously believe that "Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust merely for bundling products" you need to do a bit more research. Microsoft created code designed to degrade users' experiences when using competitors' products (DR DOS etc). Microsoft threatened hardware vendors into carrying only Microsoft Windows OS on their machines. Microsoft restricted browser choice in the OS, claiming it couldn't be removed (and continuing to claim that even when it was demonstrated that they were lying about it). Etc. Even today it's difficult to purchase a new non-Apple computer without purchasing Windows; major manufacturers such as Dell have only offered low-end machines with limited options compared to the rest of their PC's.
As bad as Apple's recent behavior has been, Microsoft has always been more evil.
Very stupid call on the part of whoever made it, but how does it merit a headline?
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
The article says nothing about what level the rep was at.
Anyone here who has released an iPhone app can tell you that the developer reps have their share of morons who will reject apps they can't figure out, have moral objection to, or mistakenly think it falls under some amorphous guideline.
I smell overcooked ham, and expect that this will be overturned in short order.
Disclaimer: I still think Apple is a collection of evil douchebags.
This is no different than Barnes and Noble choosing not to stock a magazine.
Well, if that space wasn't paid for than I would agree, but the developer license costs $99 per year.
... Also worth mentioning that while there's a cute paraphrase on the summary (supplied by the Wronged Party), that's no-where near "fact". Just to throw an opposite opinion out there, if I wanted some free publicity for being "BANNED BY APPLE!", it'd be a no-brainer to submit an app that has obvious problems - because no-one's going to read past the headline to see that the app actually bricks the device or something ...
What you offer makes me suspect a marketing stunt even more. That is marvelously crafted "spin". While ordinary readers may not look past the headline the editors and publishers would. How many articles do you see on the web about apps that were rejected because they were buggy? You need the political angle of the content to get the story on the web in the first place so that ordinary readers can see that headline.
The quote you offer also fails logically. If a reader only sees the headline then they never learn about the app, magazine or publisher. A buggy app offers no PR value.
A final nail in the "buggy app" theory's coffin is that a fully functional magazine app can be done in a single day, a "buggy app" would take more work. Apple provides a user interface widget, UIWebView IIRC, that lets you display full HTML on the screen. A trivial app can display a UIWebView displaying a URL served by the publisher's website. It's hard to imagine a simpler functional app, it can probably be coded in less than an hour. The rest of the day being needed for the administrative overhead of creating and submitting the app to the app store.
Yesterday I posted my personal factual experience with an Apple product, and I got troll-bombed by Apple zealots. (See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1886760&cid=34369764)
From where did all these zealots come?
What happened to meta moderation?
iFans would shit a golden brick if Microsoft banned iTunes from Windows 7
You don't run iTunes on iPhone either, you know?
I was referring to the subset of iTunes Store that runs on the iDevice.
Land owner kicks homeless drug dealer off his property.
IPhone is a huge chunk of their cashflow and their stock is now pumped up to the limits. In order to maintain price of their shares they need constant growth. I suppose they can't afford even a moderate margin loss on iPhone sales and Android has potential to cut quite deeply into their sales.
I'm a fanboi, and i think Apple made a boneheaded move here. I think they should allow the android magazine on the app store. However, android magazine people. Why are you making a stupid magazine app? Why aren't you doing this as an HTML5 app?
I'm not aware of many national anthems that start with "We're Number Two!"
Not national, but corporate: Avis Car Rental plays up its underdog market position in its commercials. "We try harder."
Could you tell us what the functionality is literally impossible in current Android APIs but possible on iOS?
It may be an interpreted (ex. java) versus native binary (ex. code for ARM CPU) problem. Are native binary apps an option for all Android devices? Some? How portable(*) is such code amongst the more popular Android devices? I've heard about including a binary file with native code and having a java app change its permission and execute it but I'm not sure how ubiquitous a solution this is.
If executing a native binary is a problem on a particular device then performance needs could be a barrier (ex. action oriented games).
(*) Portability does not have to be limited by API versions or vendor specific features. A user interface could use the device's built-in java API and only use native binary for platform independent calculations (ex. manipulating a binary image). So by portable I'm referring to these platform independent calculations. Or perhaps calls to a highly standardized and common API such as OpenGL (ex. a game where settings and other menus are in java and the "play" button launches a native binary that only calls OpenGL and POSIX?).
I would very much debate the premise that "As bad as Apple's recent behavior has been, Microsoft has always been more evil."
Microsoft has always been about a singular thing: making money. To this day, that's their primary concern. Now, don't misunderstand me: I'm NOT saying Microsoft hasn't done some truly terrible things, and you point out just a few. But for them, if what they did could ever be considered "evil" (a debatable classification, but one I'm willing to give you for the sake of argument) then it was in the service of improving the bottom line.
Now, when it comes to Apple, I for one do not believe one bit that making money is the main driver. I say this for one reason and one reason only: Steve Jobs. He has gone out of his way to convince me that's not his driving motivation. Some examples?
* No overtly sexual content in the app store. He I believe feels the need to "protect" people from this sort of "smut".
* No "crappy" apps in the app store. That *seems* like a good thing to say on the surface, but ultimately it means he and he alone (ultimately) decide what constitutes a "crappy" app, not you the customer.
* Telling a developer to simply change his app's name. Now Steve (directly this time) even gets to decide what someone calls their app (and yes, I know, he asserted a trademark issue, so it this can't be dismissed as a valid reply out of hand, but come on, doesn't it strike you as a bit much??)
* And now, of course, the ban of the Android magazine app.
All of this, and much more that supports the conclusion, points to a man, and by extension a company, who isn't thinking about profits as the basic motivation. No, they are acting more like thought police in my opinion, deciding what's right, wrong, good and bad for consumers.
Look, I'm not going to deny that some good actually does result from this. I mean, I think it's fairly evident that the overall quality of iOS apps tends to be superior to Android and other more open platforms where anyone can play. The rules and regulations *do* seem to me to result in a better ecosystem of apps and even overall device experience.
But is it worth it? I don't think so. I'd rather have to sift through crap, would rather have to deal with trojans and whatnot, then be told what I can and can't do with a device I purchased. The fact, in my mind, is that nobody at this point purchases an Apple product, they simply rent them, to be used in the manner and at the discretion of Jobs and his minions.
So is Apple more evil than Microsoft? If you view a company trying to usurp your freedom to do what you want with something you purchased than it's hard to argue Apple isn't more evil than Microsoft. I suppose in the new world, where the economy is sputtering along at best and poorer folks want to point at the rich and say they're the cause of all the worlds' ills, in that case Microsoft may be a more attractive target.
But at the end of the day, I am *MUCH* more worried about where Apple is headed than Microsoft. The fact is that Apple produces some really good products that people want to own. But people are often times blinded by the "bling" and don't even notice that Apple is controlling them little by little, more and more. Ironically, Microsoft has been opening up ever so slightly and actually has become *less* controlling then they once were... and you might argue that the legal action taken against them was the proximal cause... you might be right... but if you are, then the same needs to be done to Apple before they even get to where Microsoft was (and some may say they already are) because, as I've said, I find Apple's motivations far more sinister and yes, even evil, than Microsoft's ever were.
Microsoft wanted money. Apple wants control. They are not equal things to give up, and if you think they are, or worse, think it's better to give up control than money, then you deserve the life you get... or lack thereof.
I'm sorry if this all seems melodramatic... I certainly wonder if it is sometimes... but then again, I'm pretty certain I can see one hell of a slippery slope coming up fast, *ESPECIALLY* given our collective experiences with Microsoft. Have we learned nothing?
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
Yes. The other intriguing thing is you can buy a Nook directly from Amazon's website. And Barnes and Nobles has books about Amazon.com for sale.
Not that I am claiming Amazon, B-N, and WM are Model citizens, but they do prove taking underhanded jabs against your "competitors" are not necessary to sell your products.
Besides, there's nothing mutually exclusive about Android/Apple.
Many people could have good reasons to own different types of devices running both platforms.
Apples micro-managing content could coudl them severe legal problems down the road. Media carriers are generally legally immune to legal problems with content, a crime planned on the telephone. But if they start managing they content then they could be responsible for anything then. I imagine lawyers are salivating for access to the $50B cash horde Apple has.
so don't buy iPhone and don't worry about Apple's shenanigans
So what should I buy instead of an iPod touch?
Microsoft gets sued for simply including it's own browser in it's OS, meanwhile Apple literally trys to prevent its users from even know a competing product exists by limiting their access to actual journalism. Where's the EU now?
Apple isn't close to having a monopoly on smartphones even in its home country, let alone in the European Union where Nokia has a stronger presence. Apparently the EU doesn't yet care about smart MP3 players, where Apple's iPod touch holds a much larger share.
Market share of iPhone / iPad etc is nowhere near what Windows has
This may be true of mobile telephones, but what's the market share of iPod touch among smart MP3 players? Or are Android-based MP3 players significantly more popular in the European Union than in the United States?
Once again...Slashdot needs to update the Apple logo to "Steve Jobs Borg" image. Way way waaaaaay overdue.
It used to be that Apple products were products that "just worked". That has changed in the last 5 years or so. Now Apple has become a big brother that will only let you use their products as they see fit. Its a cornucopia of walled gardens anymore with Apple.
"There's an app for that"...............not so much.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
The only way to load software is through the App Store
Except that's not true... so you've based your entire stance on a lie.
And in related news ... Ford Cars use only Ford Engines and Parts ... unless you root it.
Actually no. My Ford had a 'Vauxhall Gear Box', the Vauxhall Astra had a 'Golf Clutch' system (or something like that I forget now) and a slew of other 'French Car OEM' parts were in my Leyland Rover. The car analogy is bad in this case because the 'industry' shares components on many of its mid-range cars.
iPhone users, you agreed to this when you bought the phone.
Stores are allowed to refuse service and allowed to pick and choose what they carry just like any other stores. Are console makers forced to carry content that promotes their competitors platforms? No.
If you want to read about android, use a web browser.
Do you really expect them to sell what basically amounts to "advertising" for the other platform in their store? Really?!?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The didn't block the content. The magazine is free to deliver that content via the web to iDevices. They blocked a specific content delivery mechanism that is designed to support their competition.
The facts aren't hard to get straight, so why is this entire story full of comments that make points with misinformation?
"So what's the problem?"
"You know... your magazine. It's just about fishing.... we can't have that in our App Store."
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
'You know... your magazine...It's just about Android.... we can't have that in our App Store.'.
Are those pauses or are they words that have been edited out, because if they're edits then the quote is probably misleading
See subject.
I think they wanted their app to be rejected. Think about it, wouldn't most Android developers be more likely to have an Android device to run their app on than an iOS device? But if Apple bans their app they get some free publicity.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
It's more like figuring out how to crack the lock on the hood so you can get the parts in your car, which will void your warranty, against the manufacturer's wishes.
If I want to make aftermarket shocks for a Ford Focus, I don't have to get Ford's permission, they don't get to take a cut of the profits, and they don't get any say in their design. I just make them and sell them however I want, and they go on as easily as the official Ford shocks.
If you want to sell an app for an iShiny, you have to get Apple's blessing on your design decisions, and give them a cut of the profits, otherwise users have to hack their devices and void their warranty.
If you want to make a car analogy, compare Apple iShinies to a car like the Maybach or McLaren F1 - a car you don't own, you just rent in a lump sum. If anything goes wrong, only the manufacturer can fix it. If you want something changed, only the manufacturer can do it.
If your F1 throws an error code, it's disabled until McLaren can remote-diagnose it and ship it back to the UK / send a technician for repairs. You can't install aftermarket parts of any kind in your Maybach / F1 unless they're approved by and sold through the manufacturer.
Oh and outside of an average car warranty, you pay for all this. Dearly.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1985
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
compared to apple products, open source is:
slower
less secure
hard to use
etc
same thing applies to windows
apple "gets away" with this because their products are simply BETTER
that is why you see almost nothing but macbooks and iphones at EVERY university and open source conference
because closed source apple products are BETTER and you lot know it, even if you refuse to admit it
Chances are that those numbers are extremely skewed based on Amazon shoppers being far more likely to purchase Amazon's offering. I applaud Amazon for making both available, however. It's most likely people ALREADY having decided to get a Kindle, clicking on a link to compare them before they purchase, to make sure they will be satisfied with their purchase before buying.
No, the only way to load NATIVE apps on an iDevice running an official OS instead of a "jailbreak" is via the App Store. This is, as many people have pointed out, well known and should be taken into consideration when purchasing a smartphone. (Many in this discussion act like it came as a surprise to them that this was the case, and has been so for a number of years.)
But you can run HTML 5 apps in Safari no problem. And according to the strongest promoters of that platform, native apps are dying and everything will be written using HTML 5 and friends later... this century...
The only way to load software is through the App Store,
Or (if its javascript/HTML) running it online from any website, which can even provide a manifest file so that it has a desktop icon, gets cached and looks for all the world like an App. Maybe not the best solution for your FPS game but for a magazine thats actually far more sensible than a native app. Of course, if you are talking "software" in the wider sense, you could also distribute it as a PDF, ePub, Kindle edition, podcast, whatever, all readable on iPad without Steve's permission.
The main reason they haven't caught as much flak is that they've been seen as the plucky underdog with 10% market share.
Plucky underdog is irrelevant. 10% market share is the relevant bit because that means that they are not a monopoly and anybody who doesnt like their practices is free to go elsewhere. The reason the EU came down on MS like a ton of bricks is that they used their monopoly in one market (operating systems) to take over a different market (web browser software) - although the EU took so long to act that everybody had forgotten that, once upon a time, OSs didnt come with a free web brower.
Meanwhile, you might want to reflect what would happen if you asked Walmart to stock your new magazine "This month at Tesco".
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
People seem to be confusing the App Store with an internet provider or a web forum.
When you buy something from the App Store you are buying it from Apple - they are not the mail man, they are not the phone company, they are the vendor. I don't know about the US, but in most of the EU that means they (not the app author) are liable to the customer for any defects. I'm sure that, even in the US, that means they are first in line to get sued if somebody's kid finds an undeclared nipple in an app .
That's why Apple won't allow pr0n (complaints on a postcard to Litigious Soccer Moms of the US) and why they won't advertise competitors.
If you want drug abuse tips, racial hatred, hard-core porn or (God help you) Android product reviews then the iPad has a perfectly servicable and uncensored web browser for accessing content for which Apple can't be held responsible.
(ISTR they did allow a Well Known Soft Porn magazine, but Apple probably judged they were big enough and reputable enough not to get sued)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I thought sensationalist FUD posts about the horrors of AppStore admissions were in the past. Clearly not.
It's Possible Another Delightful product will have to be their next driver for growth. Another Product Produced Later Eventually Taking Volume away from consumer products they don't currently cover would have to continue the trend.
Apple's doing fine. If you're going to worry about somebody, there are other vendors whose products aren't selling so well - who haven't seen capitalization growth in a long time.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
That's dirty pool.
In fact, you can buy the nook device itself through Amazon.
If I could afford it, I'd buy a significant share of Apple and suggest that it's time we fire Mr. Jobs again. Just another time-out. The company is going to suffer from his megalomania, and this is coming from someone who owns (or owned, anyway, before certain things started really pissing me off) a version of every product they've produced in the last three years. Someone better start speaking up before he kills his own dreams again.
This might be true, but presently we're running the risk of losing the Operating System altogether, in favor of some sort of walled-garden thing where you can only buy your software if Apple approves it. This is dangerous for innovation, because it allows Steve Jobs and whatever other assholes to set the parameters by which that innovation can take place. There's also a certain dumbing-down of things taking place, though that is not bad for the vast majority of consumers. My fear is that in two years my Macbook will no longer function unless I pay for an upgrade, and that I will be forced, by whatever licensing terms I've agreed to over the years, to either switch back to the wild world of IBM-based stuff or buy every little user experience I want. It wouldn't very much surprise me to learn that Apple has spied on the way its products are used in order to improve user experiences and maximize profit initiatives. I don't know. What I'm sure of is that Steve Jobs has got to go, again, just for a couple years, to let the company get back on track.
Microsoft restricted browser choice in the OS, claiming it couldn't be removed (and continuing to claim that even when it was demonstrated that they were lying about it).
Does Apple support removing Safari from Mac OS X? If so, how do they expect you to change your default browser (from say Chrome to Firefox)? Apparently you need to run Safari to do that ...
Etc. Even today it's difficult to purchase a new non-Apple computer without purchasing Windows;
Can I buy an Apple computer without Mac OS X? Can I (while complying with EULAs) buy Mac OS X without an Apple computer?
major manufacturers such as Dell have only offered low-end machines with limited options compared to the rest of their PC's.
Really?? Oh, you meant laptops?. While it would be nice if there was a greater selection, there are more than just "low-end machines" available.
As bad as Apple's recent behavior has been, Microsoft has always been more evil.
If Apple is less evil, why don't they offer Mac OS X to other laptop vendors? Why don't they offer Mac OS X separately? Why don't they offer Macbooks without Mac OS X (for less)?
They are both as evil, but Microsoft is in the software monopoly business, and Apple is in the hardware and content distribution monopoly business.
It's like a book store that refuses to sell a book about eBook readers
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
They do have a monopoly. iApps can only be bought from Apple. That is a monopoly. If someone can get a full refund (less the used contract, pro-rata'd) on their iPhone then they can move. But once you've bought the iPhone, you have no choice but to bin it or suck on it. This is the choice of a monopoly.
Your argument didn't work for IBM, didn't work for Microsoft and didn't work for AT&T (you could, after all, use letters to communicate).
Lets see - Apple refuses to allow GPL software to run on its IOS devices, and the same rule will apply to the future OSX App store. But Microsoft is more evil. Just glad that I'm clear on that.
Why would microsoft reject iTunes from running on wp7?
Just as RIM doesn't want third-party native code on BlackBerry, Microsoft doesn't want third-party native code on Windows Phone 7. Because iTunes wasn't written from the start in a programming language that compiles to 100% pure .NET bytecode, any "port" of iTunes Store to Windows Phone 7 would have to be a line-by-line rewrite in a managed language that the .NET runtime supports.
Actually, not true. Apple has approved GPL apps in their App Store. Stallman and the FSF is upset that they feel the App Store violates the GPL, and they are arguing that GPL apps shouldn't be allowed in the store.
At the moment I believe you can see get the VLC and Wesnoth apps in the store, both under a GPL license.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
If you don't like what Apple is doing with their products, THEN STOP BUYING APPLE PRODUCTS. Forget about lord Jobs changing his mind, he's got so many people so far up his ass telling him he is always right that there is no point in trying. As usual the ONLY way to get companies to take you seriously is to use (or not use) your wallet. Next time your Mac/iPhone/iPod craps out or gets lost then buy a competing product.
It's difficult to take you seriously because either you are lying about owning an iPad or you are just stupid. If all you use your ipad is to read books and magazines you should have bought a Kindle, which is both superior for that task and a lot cheaper.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Did a validation check on the premise. Several apps on the iTunes App Store that talk about Android, although none focus on Android exclusively.
Smartphone Essentials, DevNews Mobile for two.
What's interesting is that there is a book app specifically all about Blackberries.
http://www.appstorehq.com/blackberryhacks-iphone-125371/app
The increasingly complex web that's developed from all of the mobile patent enforcement actions is truly mind-boggling. What's more, it all seems rather wasteful, when one considers the fact that the likely result of all these lawsuits will be settlements and cross-licensing deals. How anticlimactic.