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.
"Free Market" types will incessantly remind you that censorship only happens with governments. This isn't "censorship", just "good business."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
More likely, it was a mistake, or a poor judgement call of one user. It's happened before, and lots of rejections have been re-instated without much fuss. Dollars to donuts, I'll bet this one gets approved just fine, and probably would have even without this level of outrage.
The CB App. What's your 20?
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
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.
I shouldn't need to jailbreak my phone.
Putthing this up as an alternative to allow the vendor to do whatever it wants is just feeding yourself the rope to hang yourself with.
Sooner or later they will tighten the noose; and a device will be manufactured that you can't easily break, or they'll pass a law making it illegal to break. Probably both.
One needs to vocally resist their grabs for control, so that we don't HAVE to resort to going underground to exercise the freedom we should legitimately have.
The recent jailbreaking victory is hardly a conclusive win:
All the Copyright Office has said is they're not going to prosecute jailbreakers.
"Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. ? 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking."
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
And with "the next rulemaking", they may change their mind and start prosecuting people again.
And, as noted above, *nothing* in this policy says that Apple can't prosecute jailbreakers for violating their license agreement.