Racy Danish Tabloid May Sue Apple For App Rejection

the_arrow writes "In Denmark the tabloid newspaper Ekstra Bladet usually have scantily clad ladies on page 9. When making an iPad application, Apple of course rejected it because of that. However, Ekstra Bladet is not happy with that, and many sites report that Ekstra Bladet is thinking about taking Apple to European court for 'unfair censorship and anti-competitive behaviour.'"

Comments

Porn.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

There's no app for that.

Re:Porn.

[PsyciatricHelp]

There are many Apps for that. You just have to jailbreak.

Re:Porn.

[fyngyrz]

No, you just have to open Safari, which comes with every iPad -- it's the perfect porn delivery system, and Apple provides it for free. In, fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you can't find porn using Safari, you're too stupid to reliably remember to draw your next breath.

As to Apple's unwillingness to put porn in the app store itself, that's simply distasteful -- Jobs imposing his limited, socially crippled idea of what an app store should be... on his (Apple's) app store. He's not preventing any content from reaching you -- any content you imagine can be put on a web site, and Safari will deliver it (and very well, too.) He's just pretending to be socially acceptable to the mentally challenged, that's all.

All Ekstra Bladet has to do to get those "racy" chicks to you is pop them on a web site; google will find them in about five minutes, and you can find them a second later. So in no way are you stymied, nor is Ekstra Bladet.

Re:Porn.

[guyminuslife]

If everything is so peachy when you "just use the browser," then why have apps (or an app store) in the first place? Could it be that iPad apps provide services or user experiences that web pages (with or without HTML5 or Flash) don't?

You know, I'll be the first to say that Apple doesn't have to sell any apps in its store that it doesn't want to. If they're not interested in taking their cut from nudie pic apps (or nudie streaming video apps, or h-games, or what-have-you, the Next Big Thing in Porn), then that's their prerogative. But to say that there is only One True Retailer for apps, and that jailbreaking is against their Terms of Service, well, that's what stinks to high heaven.

Re:Porn.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

In all fairness though, I'd say there are too many mobile apps on many platforms that are really just a media redistribution app for a single media business, which is what this is. Having a native app that displays articles and images fetched from the internet seems a little contrived when there is a web browser built into the device. It's very different from games and other software that need local resources to a greater degree than can be used from a web page.

Re:Porn.

[RazorSharp]

If everything is so peachy when you "just use the browser," then why have apps (or an app store) in the first place? Could it be that iPad apps provide services or user experiences that web pages (with or without HTML5 or Flash) don't?

Maybe, but porn's not one of them.

Re:Porn.

[fyngyrz]

Could it be that iPad apps provide services or user experiences that web pages (with or without HTML5 or Flash) don't?

Such as what? Sound? Browser. Movies? Browser. Movies with sound? Browser. Board games? Browser. Stills? Browser. Live Chat (probably with someone's grandmother, but..)? Browser. Escorts? Browser. Live sex shows? Browser. Purchase and/or contemplation of Realdolls? Browser. Buying sex toys? Browser.

Also, WRT stills, the iPhoto app can load up your iPad with enormous amounts of locally stored "whatever", and that also comes with every iPad. So to speak. Ahem.

Seriously, what do you imagine you're being, uh, "deprived" of here?

Re:Porn.

[the_womble]

Its perfectly reasonable for a company to decide that they do not want to distribute porn, or profit from it. I would not want to be in that business either.

On the other hand, people should have the right to install this software if they want it.

The simple solution is to allow third party app stores. Ideally people could enter the details of whatever app store they liked, and then it would "just work". I heard that there is an OS that does that, and all the apps are free as well.

Re:Porn.

[arivanov]

Their raciness is kinda... Well, there is a saying that the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Hope you are geting my drift here... In fact, I suspect that Apple's problem is probably not so much with the ladies on page 9, but the rather large collection of pages of "alternative services" advertised in the vicinity of page 9.

In any case, Jobs has no entitlement to enforce his puritanian beliefs on the European population. He is running a service, not a religious sect and this service is quickly approaching what in EU is considered "significan market power". That ends up with regulator attention. Getting it because of page 3, page 9, etc is plain silly.

Re:Porn.

[sznupi]

Curiously, this decision of Jobs basically means that the excluded services are more likely to function like the internet is supposed to (do we really need separate UIs for every webpage, separate app for every radiostation, separate app for every e-book and audiobook?) - perhaps inhibiting the rush towards something quite dysfunctional.

(though it might complicate a bit benefiting from the walled garden approach, certainly useful for porn)

Re:Porn.

[Serious Callers Only]

There are many Apps for that. You just have to jailbreak.

No, worse than that, there is an app for that if you are powerful or rich enough to sway Apple:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/playboy/id340150554?mt=8

This is hypocrisy of the highest order from Apple, and they should learn that the hard way - I hope the company takes them to court and wins.

They should have an adult section for all this stuff (including playboy), and let it all in, along with those dangerous dictionaries and books including swearwords.

Re:Porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're implicitly referring to heterosexual porn, you're 100% right.

Re:Porn.

[Hognoxious]

Hope you are geting my drift here... In fact, I suspect that Apple's problem is probably not so much with the ladies on page 9

Come on, the last thing Apple users want to see is nekkid chicks.

He is running a service, not a religious sect

+1 funny

Re:Porn.

[t2t10]

He's not preventing any content from reaching you -- any content you imagine can be put on a web site, and Safari will deliver it

Except when it's Flash or any of a number of codecs or scripting languages Apple disapproves of.

Re:Porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its perfectly reasonable for a company to decide that they do not want to distribute porn, or profit from it.

It seems strange that some here insist that companies in the USA are beholden to their shareholders and obliged to maximise profits regardless of the law, yet here is a corporation that is turning down a completely lawful and potentially massive revenue stream because it might be distasteful?

Re:Porn.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I'd mod you off topic if i had mod points >:

Re:Porn.

[tehcyder]

What are you talking about?

If I am a company selling widgets, I have no obligation (legal, moral or otherwise) to invest in arms trading, just because it can be highly profitable.

Re:Porn.

[tehcyder]

Re parent, I'd forgotten there was a "-1 for daring to criticise Apple" moderation.

Re:Porn.

[xnpu]

I'm much more likely to open an App than I am to go to my bookmarks and open a website. In the early days, Twitter clients on iPhone were crap, but I still preferred them over the website. They logged in automatically if nothing else.

The idea is that the apps API becomes more capable with every release, while Safari lags behind. Whether it's in-app payments, NFC or whatever else. At some point there will be a feature that you can use, maybe even monetize, and it's likely to be in the apps api well before it hits Safari.

Re:Porn.

[Bender Unit 22]

Indeed, half of the apps out there could have been done in just html. Sometimes all they do is open webpages.

Re:Porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not the perfect porn delivery system since a large number of popular porn sites use FLASH to deliver their porn

Re:Porn.

[commodore64_love]

>>>Jobs imposing his limited, socially crippled idea of what an app store should be... on his (Apple's) app store.

I can't speak to EU law but in the US stores are defined as "public facilities" which limits their freedom. They can't discriminate against customers based upon color or sex for example. Neither can they censor free speech unless the content is illegal (such as the obscene goatse.cx), and nudity in a magazine is not illegal. Which is why you'll find Playboy on store shelves (except in Utah).

Re:Porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, what do you imagine you're being, uh, "deprived" of here?

The right to hate on Apple, of course.

Re:Porn.

[node 3]

Except when it's Flash or any of a number of codecs or scripting languages Apple disapproves of.

VLC, among others, is available for iOS. As for scripting languages... what exactly did you have in mind? Javascript is ubiquitous on the web and works across all major browsers across all major platforms.

You're right about Flash though. I'm amused that you seem to be stating this as though it's a bad thing.

Re:Porn.

[h4rm0ny]

Then it seems to me that one of the key driving forces for apps (if not the key force), is the ability of the provider to monetise their product. If there were a widely available and convenient to use (and secure) micro-payments system, perhaps we'd be seeing the same progress in web-apps as we are in Apps.

Re:Porn.

[node 3]

This is hypocrisy of the highest order from Apple, and they should learn that the hard way

How exactly is this "hypocrisy of the highest order"?

They should have an adult section for all this stuff (including playboy), and let it all in, along with those dangerous dictionaries and books including swearwords.

What "dangerous dictionaries" and "books including swearwords" are you talking about? You do realize that both are perfectly allowed on the App Store and iBookstore, right? All without an adult section (which the Playboy app would not belong in, and neither would this tabloid (I'm assuming it's a relatively mainstream newspaper in Denmark)).

Re:Porn.

[Posting=!Working]

Except if you actually read the Playboy app description, it says this at the bottom:

"*This app does NOT contain any nude content."

Re:Porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Utah doesn't like boobies.

Re:Porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is exactly why it is anti-competitive.

Re:Porn.

[wrf3]

Oh, lookie... Moderators that disagree. Isn't that cute? I love me some abusive moderators. This is slashdot's strength, ladieez and gentlemen; hiding posts the mods disagree with. C'mon, mod me down some more. No, no, a little to the left. There you go. Ah!

And thus, the "modded TSA" tag was born...

Re:Porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no nudes in the Playboy app, a quick scan of the page you linked to makes that pretty clear.

So, no, no hypocrisy here, I'm afraid.

Re:Porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you smoking? Stores in the U.S. can carry or not carry porn or anything else as they choose. They certainly can require censored versions of products or refuse to carry them. You've never been in a Walmart, the largest purveyor of censored music anywhere?

Legally speaking, censorship is when a law or agent of the government censors or inhibits free expression. Choosing not to carry certain items because a store owner finds them offensive is perfectly legal unless there are licensing laws for those items that specify otherwise and that's not about censorship, but limited licensing.

Re:Porn.

[mcgrew]

I don't have an iPhone or Android, so something has been puzzling me. A local radio station has been advertising "want to listen live on your iPhone? There's an app for that!" The app is downloadable from their web site.

You can listen to almost any radio station in the world over the internet with a computer, why would one need an app to listen to one particular station on an iPhone?

Re:Porn.

[Andrewkov]

They can't discriminate against customers, but they can against vendors and what products they chose to sell.

Re:Porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't really look at the link for the article, but the summary says "scantily clad", which != nude. On the surface, it does appear to be hypocrisy.

Re:Porn.

[gstoddart]

In all fairness though, I'd say there are too many mobile apps on many platforms that are really just a media redistribution app for a single media business, which is what this is. Having a native app that displays articles and images fetched from the internet seems a little contrived when there is a web browser built into the device.

Well, the native apps are generally much better rendered and laid out, and work better -- they can also make use of the better interface, as well as do better caching and using local resources (which you don't seem to think happens with these apps).

The problem with using the web for every interface for everything, is all of those really nice fat-client GUIs we used to have before were better than the web -- which sent us back into the dark ages. A friend of mine use to say that the web put user-interface design back by a decade -- and that was 15 years ago. I'm not convinced we've caught up yet in some cases.

I'm glad we're finally moving away from "everything is a web page", because, quite frankly, the user experience has generally been crap. Heck, some web sites still render poorly on small mobile devices. There have been advances in web-based GUIs, but generally speaking, it's a limited, lowest-common denominator kind of interface.

If you've never seen the difference between just another web page and a native app, you're missing out on something. The native app an be made so much better than the web page.

Re:Porn.

[gabebear]

Except when it's Flash or any of a number of codecs or scripting languages Apple disapproves of.

It also doesn't run Internet Explorer so I can't access anything that requires ActiveX... the iPhone actually doesn't run any Windows apps.

Re:Porn.

[anegg]

Perhaps the success of the Apple App store is in part due to the content filtering that Apple applies to the material that many people would at least partially attribute to Apple. If so, it would be contradictory to say that because the Apple service is so popular, the Apple service must change the rules that made it so popular. Apple has the right to offer or not offer whatever they want; consumers have the right to buy or not buy whatever they want, including Apple's products and services. Even the Apple service was the sole provider of all mass media, I believe that Apple would have both a right and a responsibility to have rules and restrictions around the type of content that was served. I suspect that there would be lots of disagreements about those rules and restrictions, but I would find it beyond belief that most people would not expect at least some rules and restrictions.

Should newspapers should be taken to court because they have an advertisements policy? Should TV networks be taken to court for the same thing? Many services with "significant market power" have rules and restrictions on the type of content that provide through that service, whether directly attributable to them (i.e., their programming) or indirectly (the material from their advertisers).

Jobs isn't enforcing his puritanical beliefs on anyone. Apple is choosing what to publish and what not to publish, as is their right. Perhaps we need to see a European company produce products that successfully compete with Apple's - say Nokia, for example. And then the Nokia App store can offer the material that it sees fit. The argument that Apple should have to offer whatever others want Apple to offer simply because Apple produces a product that many people want to buy and use doesn't wash.

Re:Porn.

[bluesatin]

It's not really the case on whether there is a system out there already, chances are there are plenty that could be likely candidates to explode in popularity; all it takes is the bandwagon to start.

I recently attended a quite interesting lecture by Toby Moore that talked about the 'Cool Curve', which essentially says that things just usually have to be there at the right time; there were plenty of better services than Twitter before Twitter existed, but people's comfort moved up a little bit which moved twitter into the cool curve.

Toby Moore on the Cool Curve

Re:Porn.

[gabebear]

This app is probably stupid... there are a million ways to listen to internet radio on the iPhone without a station-specific app. If you start listening to a stream in Safari it even lets you play/pause it with the iPod controls while you are in another app.

Re:Porn.

[arivanov]

Wrong analogy.

Apple is not the publisher. If newspaper analogies are to go along it is the printing press and the man who commands the paperboys doing the delivery.

The law is very explicit here. While it is fine for either one of these to refuse to work with a newspaper if there is a healthy competition, they are not entitled to if they control a significant portion of the market. Apple controls a significant portion of the "distribute content to smartphone" market so it is actually very limited in what it can and what it cannot discriminate against by monopoly law.

Re:Porn.

[mcgrew]

He is running a service, not a religious sect

Sects, sects, secst. Is sects all you kids ever think about???

Re:Porn.

[Posting=!Working]

"Scantily clad" was definitely the wrong term. "Nude" would have been correct, although they do hide their pubic regions.

Re:Porn.

[tlhIngan]

As to Apple's unwillingness to put porn in the app store itself, that's simply distasteful -- Jobs imposing his limited, socially crippled idea of what an app store should be... on his (Apple's) app store. He's not preventing any content from reaching you -- any content you imagine can be put on a web site, and Safari will deliver it (and very well, too.) He's just pretending to be socially acceptable to the mentally challenged, that's all.

Two reasons for that actually.

1) The PTC, an activist organization set out to censor the world, organized a mass complaint against porn apps. It came after the FCC decided to start ignoring them. Why do you think that the "wardrobe malfunction", Family GUy and other shows easily drew 200,000+ complaints on that event? (average is in the hundreds). It's not overall, it's just the one episode or one event.

2) Jobs gave the reason out - parents don't do a good job parenting, and they probably won't ever set the parental controls on their children's iPhone and iPod Touch, so 17+ apps are essentially open to all. They can't do anything about the browser, so all the power they have is to simply tell parents there's a web browser and hey, it's like the browser on their PC. Instead they'll let groups like the PTC to censor the web themselves.

Anyhow, it gives a good selling point for Android, and Jobs even said it himself. And until Apple makes a big dent worldwide, they're not likely to stop applying US-centric views, either.

Re:Porn.

[m50d]

Such as what? Sound? Browser. Movies? Browser. Movies with sound? Browser. Board games? Browser. Stills? Browser. Live Chat (probably with someone's grandmother, but..)? Browser. Escorts? Browser. Live sex shows? Browser. Purchase and/or contemplation of Realdolls? Browser. Buying sex toys? Browser

Again: why is it, then, that the New York Times has an app, when they could do all this in the browser? Why, in fact, are there any apps at all?

Re:Porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me? What do you think FaceTime was built for but porn?

Re:Porn.

[DrgnDancer]

There are two primary reason that a lot of apps are popular, despite basically showing the same info you could get from a web site.

1) Time
2) Money

If I go to weather.com to see what today's weather will be like, I have to download the whole page. Layout, images, stupid flash adds that won't even display because my phone doesn't have flash installed, all of it. If I open the Weather.com app, the layout and images are already on the phone, and the ads are really tiny custom designed jobs intended for the really small amount of space they've been given. All my phone is downloading is the actual weather information, and maybe a small banner jpeg. Much less data.

Since most cell networks are still relatively slow data pipes, and since some people still pay for limited data plans, less data saves time and money. Probably not a lot of either I'll grant you (unless you have really bad coverage or a really bad data plan), but hey.

Re:Porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you just have to open Safari, which comes with every iPad -- it's the perfect porn delivery system, and Apple provides it for free. In, fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you can't find porn using Safari, you're too stupid to reliably remember to draw your next breath.

As to Apple's unwillingness to put porn in the app store itself, that's simply distasteful -- Jobs imposing his limited, socially crippled idea of what an app store should be... on his (Apple's) app store. He's not preventing any content from reaching you -- any content you imagine can be put on a web site, and Safari will deliver it (and very well, too.) He's just pretending to be socially acceptable to the mentally challenged, that's all.

All Ekstra Bladet has to do to get those "racy" chicks to you is pop them on a web site; google will find them in about five minutes, and you can find them a second later. So in no way are you stymied, nor is Ekstra Bladet.

You just seem to lack actual values. If people want porn they can go and get it, I think that people have a right to a clean environment. I am no fan of Apple's business model with the app store but this is one area I happen to agree on.

Re:Porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are ignoring content that can be saved for offline usage.

Mobile Safari's caching isn't very good. Try opening 8 news articles. Wait for them all to load. Go through each tab and give yourself enough time so that it's like you actually read everything. After a couple tabs Safari will reach out to the website for images. Even though the text is cached, if you are not connected to 3G/E/wifi then the page will not load. (You can verify that the text is cached by going to a forum and then returning to the same forum later (say, days). Safari will fetch images from the site but the actual text will still be the same as your first visit, until you refresh the page.)

Enter news apps specifically designed to get around this by caching everything needed for offline viewing from articles you've opened while you did have an internet connection.

Re:Porn.

[t2t10]

The fact that ActiveX doesn't run on iPhone/iPad is Microsoft's choice.

The fact that Flash and various scripting languages don't run on it is because Apple disallows it.

Re:Porn.

[t2t10]

VLC, among others, is available for iOS.

Yup, as a stand-alone app, not as an integrated media player.

As for scripting languages... what exactly did you have in mind?

Gosh, like the kinds of things Apple keeps denying: Lua, Python, tons of other things.

You're right about Flash though. I'm amused that you seem to be stating this as though it's a bad thing.

What is a "bad thing" is that Apple tries to tell me what software I can run on my hardware.

Re:Porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except neither flash nor scripting languages are content. They are tools used to deliver content, and they have substitutes.

Re:Porn.

[agm]

Unless you consider "Safari" to be an app.

Re:Porn.

[node 3]

VLC, among others, is available for iOS.

Yup, as a stand-alone app, not as an integrated media player.

Absolutely not true. VLC (and other media players) will open AVIs (and other formats) from Safari just fine.

As for scripting languages... what exactly did you have in mind?

Gosh, like the kinds of things Apple keeps denying: Lua, Python, tons of other things.

Which have fuck-all to do with Safari.

You're right about Flash though. I'm amused that you seem to be stating this as though it's a bad thing.

What is a "bad thing" is that Apple tries to tell me what software I can run on my hardware.

That's not what they are doing at all. They aren't supporting Flash because it is crap on handhelds, not because Apple has any desire whatsoever to tell you what you can or cannot run on your hardware.

Re:Porn.

[cbhacking]

Funny thing... most "adult video" sites (that aren't actually malicious conent in disguise) require Flash. Yes, they probably *could* use HTML5 - but they don't. Lack of Flash really does impair ability to use the iPad for some types of browsing.

Re:Porn.

[zopial]

Actually theyre not even naked. Not more porn than you will normally see on a beach. In denmark that is.

Re:Porn.

[t2t10]

Absolutely not true. VLC (and other media players) will open AVIs (and other formats) from Safari just fine.

Yeah, but they won't play *in* Safari, while Apple's preferred formats will.

Which have fuck-all to do with Safari.

Scripts are content that I download from the web, and I can't use them on the iPad, not because of any technical issues, but simply because Apple doesn't allow it.

That's not what they are doing at all. They aren't supporting Flash because it is crap on handhelds, not because Apple has any desire whatsoever to tell you what you can or cannot run on your hardware.

Bullshit. Apple has been denying applications that can run Flash natively.

Re:Porn.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The native app an be made so much better than the web page.

Now if only we could trust the native app not to do stuff behind our backs.
At least with regular web pages we have the option to run it all through filters like privoxy or use plugins like adblock.
With native apps, at best you'll have to put together app-specific filters.

Re:Porn.

[fyngyrz]

the New York Times has an app, when they could do all this in the browser?

Funny you picked the NYT. I'm a regular reader. They made an app because they're trying to be "cool." Compare the app to the NYT website. The website is many times more functional. Blogs have links that work, and comments. The app shows exactly one blog entry. The links are text-only (no URL) and don't work. The app crashes a lot too, though hopefully they'll fix that. Overall, the NYT experience is far better in the browser. I would guess they're going to (re)-erect a paywall and see if it works within the Apple ecosystem; it definitely didn't work outside it (nor do I actually expect it to work inside), but I can't blame them for trying. But if you're looking for some kind of functionality the website can't or doesn't offer... don't think you're going to find it.

Why, in fact, are there any apps at all?

Well, I don't think you're going to implement a fully live astronomy application on a website - no one has managed it yet, anyway - but the iPxd environment does it well. It's a dedicated computer. This is great for complex games (none in porn I ever heard of), for compute heavy tasks that you don't want server-side and are really cumbersome client-side within a supposedly secure environment (again, nothing like that in porn.) Apps also run away from a connected situation, whereas you have to be connected for anything beyond the basics if the functionality is being provided by the website. That's a good reason for an NYT app, but not for porn - no need to be connected there at all, just save the content you want and there you have it. Active tools like ping and trace are better as apps (the network may be in trouble.) Terminals are great apps and lousy websites. Anything where you don't want to share your data with unknowns; spreadsheets, word processing -- that all works pretty well on the iPad, not so much on the iPod. Music apps, like iSequence or Digidrummer... pretty useless over a laggy network connection. As apps, though, they're awesome. GPS apps... that's hardware specific, you need an app for that... Seismograph and Acceleration apps, again, website won't cut it... meditation and the like where loops and generated sound with images give you something to zone out by, that's a pure waste of network bandwidth but a great job for an app... Chinese character tutor is a great app, works on the web, but when you're not connected, an app is better. A nice banner app is great for when you're in a car and you want to tell someone their lights are/are-not on, or pass your cell number...

Emulators would be *really* great apps... if they were allowed. Sigh. My single greatest regret about the Apple ecosystem. Emulated classic computers, HP calculators, genetic code generators... these all call to me.

See, porn is easily available media, at least at the moment. There's nothing about it that requires an app. And Apple does, in fact, have every right to say they're not going to get involved. I think it's cowardly, wrong-headed (especially in light of all the extreme violence they're perfectly happy to sell) and socially retarded (in a nutshell, sex is good, even in casual form) but still, they have the right. If it really trips your trigger, just jailbreak the thing and be done with it. Otherwise, you're dealing with Apple, not some porn firm. Get used to it. Jobs is stubborn, and the odds of him admitting he made a socially poor choice... they seem low to me. Very. Especially since it seems to be a financially high quality choice.

not an app for that ?

[__aaeuwj6541]

i thought their was an app for boobs?

Suing for what exactly?

[NanoGeek]

What exactly is the tabloid suing for? Apple's policies are very well known, and I cannot believe he didn't know what the outcome would be before he submitted his app. Sounds like someone just wants come money and free publicity.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Aerynvala]

I was under the impression that Apple's app approval requirements were not clear and well known, actually. That said, a tabloid with 'racy' pictures that don't even pretend to have artistic value doesn't sound like a good trial case.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[tolydude]

What exactly is the tabloid suing for? Apple's policies are very well known, and I cannot believe he didn't know what the outcome would be before he submitted his app. Sounds like someone just wants come money and free publicity.

The probably knew exactly what Apple's response would be and are simply following a publicity strategy. Good for them.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is the tabloid suing for? Apple's policies are very well known, and I cannot believe he didn't know what the outcome would be before he submitted his app.

Europe's policies are very well known too. Apple should respect them or leave.

(Not yet determined of course. That's what courts are for...)

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[MoonBuggy]

They may well be able to have Apple's policy overturned by a European court. It's not like they could file a case on the basis that "they'd probably reject us if we applied", thus they sent their app in and now have solid evidence of rejection to show the court.

Of course, it may also just be publicity hunting, but simply knowing beforehand that they would be rejected isn't anything to hold against them.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[billcopc]

How do you define "artistic value" ? As Andres Serrano has shown, one man's bodily fluids is another man's art. Some would argue that the human form is a work of art. Others are ashamed of it. So who is wrong, and who is right ?

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[angus77]

It doesn't matter how well known a company's policies are if it turns out they're against the law.

Do you think it's legal to sue a hitman for failing to follow through on the terms of his contract?

Are you familiar with the legislation regarding censorship in Denmark? It may be like "sexual assault" in Sweden.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[NanoGeek]

The publishers agreed to Apple's license agreement before they submitted the app to the App Store. If they didn't bother to read it then too bad for them, but don't go crying to the government over it. There are plenty of other methods other than the App Store to get the magazine on the iPhone.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[BasilBrush]

The App Store approval guidelines have been on Apple's developer website for a while now. Here's a snapshot from the day they were first published.

http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/app-store-guidelines.pdf

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

true ... like : open safari (on iPhone) - type URL in question - watch (- ??? - profit)

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Aerynvala]

If I were to try to define artistic value I would first probably look to see where the item in question is meant to be displayed/used. Context is vital to me. If you've got a magazine that is full of gossip and other questionable 'facts' that appeal to the lowest common denominator I would be hard pressed to buy that there was any artistic intent behind a page of half-naked women. Which is why I think that this guy suing Apple is kind of an idiot. You're not going to get a lot of people to believe that a trashy magazine has anything artistic about it.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate frivolous lawsuits, but I actually think there's a case here. Just because Apple's policies are well known doesn't mean they're right.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Aerynvala]

Thank you. I was deriving my knowledge from the hissy fits I'd seen rejected developers throw.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[E IS mC(Square)]

>> a tabloid with 'racy' pictures that don't even pretend to have artistic value doesn't sound like a good trial case.

Ignoring your ignorant comment where you go on imposing your definition of artistic values, there still seems to be a very minor case of Hustler v Falwell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Warwick Allison]

From TFA: for allowing other iPad apps (lists "German paper Bild and British The Sun") to do what they have been prevented from. Duh.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[DurendalMac]

It's Apple's fucking market, not anyone else's. These guys are welcome to use an alternate delivery system or put their rag out for any other device. This is horseshit.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Sparr0]

Your definition of the word "The" seems to be faulty.

[An example of likely] App Store approval guidelines have been on Apple's developer website for a while now[, but are not guaranteed to be, or even often, accurate].
FTFY

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[TheLink]

It also depends on whether Apple does significant business in Denmark/Europe or not.

Apple is welcome to use an alternate country.

Libertarians would do well to realize that if Governments are too weak and small, Corporations would become defacto governments.

Then a Corporation could tell people "These are my fucking private Company Towns and Roads, you are welcome to live elsewhere, if you don't like the way I do things".

If you say Corporations can't do that because the Government would stop them, well then that's why there's this case going on. In Europe at least the Corporations are not yet the final authorities on what is allowed or not, no matter what some EULA or Company Policy says.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[SplatMan_DK]

What exactly is the tabloid suing for? Apple's policies are very well known, and I cannot believe he didn't know what the outcome would be before he submitted his app. Sounds like someone just wants come money and free publicity.

Haha. I LOL'ed at that statement. Shows a little about the way some people think of lawsuits :-)

There are no laws for "punitive damages" in Denmark from which the tabloid (Ekstra Bladet) can win any money. Not a dime.

The only way the tabloid stands to get money, is by being allowed to sell their app to their readers.

Yes. Really. :-)
Free publicity? Sure, any media/newspaper loves that, but they wouldn't have gotten that if it wasn't for Apples lame and discriminatory way of handling their app approvals.

And Apples policies are certainly not "well known". Other large newspapers, and even Playboy, publish naked women through the appstore every day.

As you may well be aware of, Apples app-approval process is often criticized for seeming random, arbitrarily and without explanation. This is just another example in a very long list of similar cases.

With any luck, Apple will learn as time goes by.

- Jesper

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Carewolf]

Are you familiar with the legislation regarding censorship in Denmark? It may be like "sexual assault" in Sweden.

You are not completely off. We just don't make it into laws in Denmark, but when US TV shows started being shown on Danish TV, worried parents called in and complained because of the beeps over offensive words. They argued that censorship is wrong and harmfull to children.

Then again. The racist party recently suggested in parliament that we should add topless girls to the citizenship test, apparently thinking that would scare off muslims.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[sonamchauhan]

I really do hope refusing to be a porn delivery vehicle is not against the law in Denmark. :)

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[t2t10]

With any luck, Apple will learn as time goes by.

They haven't in the past 30 years, why should they in the next?

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[angus77]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be +1 Funny, I was trying to make the point that you can't just put something into a contract if it breaks a country's laws--what may be perfectly legal to put into a contract in one country may be illegal in another.

To reiterate, you emphatically CANNOT put something into a contract that breaks the law, and each of the countries that Apple does business in has its own set of laws---just as "sexual assault" in Sweden doesn't mean what most Americans would assume (most would (and do) assume forceable violent rape).

Are Apple's policies for approval the same in all countries? It may not actually be legal for them to have an international blanket policy.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Dexy]

Sounds like someone just wants come money and free publicity.

I see what you did there.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[tehcyder]

How do you define "artistic value" ? As Andres Serrano has shown, one man's bodily fluids is another man's art. Some would argue that the human form is a work of art. Others are ashamed of it. So who is wrong, and who is right ?

Duh, Steve Jobs, obviously.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[node 3]

How do you define "artistic value" ? As Andres Serrano has shown, one man's bodily fluids is another man's art. Some would argue that the human form is a work of art. Others are ashamed of it. So who is wrong, and who is right ?

It's up to each person to decide for themselves, including Apple (they are not a person, but are run by people). Apple isn't stopping anyone from calling a jar of piss "art", they're just deciding what they'll carry in their store or not.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Eivind Eklund]

I think the definition of "porn" here is dependent on a particular country you're from. I'm from a less liberal country than Denmark (Norway), and I don't consider topless pictures to be anywhere near porn. I consider the page 3/9/whatever girls to be slightly tacky, but that's all.

My regular newspaper is the 3rd largest newspaper in Norway, and probably the one with the most influential mainstream cultural debate. They've fairly regularly had full frontal nudity on the front page of their online newspaper. They've also had people having sex (though not "moving private parts", as is the former porn limitation in Norway). And they're not considered an at all racy newspaper here. (It's also the second largest direct sales newspaper.)

The problem is that if Apple gets a stranglehold on a large part of the (paid) online market, then the censorship necessary to avoid offending the outer mainstream in the least liberal parts of America suddenly becomes global. And for many of us, this seems bad.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[BasilBrush]

Those are not "likely" guidelines, those are the actual guidelines. Or at least, as I said, a snapshot of them taken by engadget. To see the up to date ones you need to be a logged in as a registered developer, hence why I couldn't link to them.

Of course they are accurate. Those are the guidelines that Apple use. What they are not is legislation or a contract; they are not a promise that anything that is not expressly forbidden in them is OK; they are not an invitation to find loopholes. They are guidelines of what is unacceptable based on what Apple has already seen in submissions and what they can reasonably predict. As and when new categories of unacceptable apps are submitted, they'll get added to the guidelines.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Libertarians would do well to realize that if Governments are too weak and small, Corporations would become defacto governments.

The difference is that there is more than 1 corporation per country. So I'm fine with that.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[MadKeithV]

In the next 30 years, Apple predicts reality will change to accommodate Steve Jobs' points of view.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[tepples]

The difference is that there is more than 1 corporation per country.

There is not necessarily more than one corporation providing a given essential service. Have you tried to choose your power company or water company lately?

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[anegg]

Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner .

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[mr_gorkajuice]

Do you even know the first thing about the magazin you're referring to here?
Sure enough, it wouldn't be the #1 recommended newspaper if you asked a danish academic. It would probably not even be considered objective. Still, I truly don't know any dane who would be embarrased to have Ekstra Bladet lying around in plain sight in their living room.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet I understand you can get a copy of the Sun (UK tabloid) from the App Store - which is little more than a gossip rag full of questionable 'facts' that appeals to those below the lowest common denominator, and contains half-naked women. Why allow one and not the other?

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[mr_gorkajuice]

I'm danish too, and I can honestly say that parent should be modded Informative, not Funny.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[LodCrappo]

I think I like this country.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Hieronymus Howard]

Except that this case is being brought in Europe, so Hustler vs Falwell is completely irrelevant.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[E IS mC(Square)]

I know. My point was not about the case, it was more towards GP's comment of something not having 'artistic' value - and that it has nothing to do with legality - in most of the countries.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[sac13]

Libertarians would do well to realize that if Governments are too weak and small, Corporations would become defacto governments.

Interesting assertion since the complete existence of corporations is due to government. If government didn't create corporations through law, there would be none in existence.

Corporations are a creation of government... they don't naturally exist without it. And without, they certainly couldn't dominate since they wouldn't exist to begin with.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[MysteriousPreacher]

If it's anything like The Sun then I'd be embarrassed to have it lying around. Not because of the nudity - more because it's I'd hate people to think that I got my news from a rag like that.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[Sparr0]

Apple allows apps that violate their published guidelines, and deny apps that do not, on a regular basis. They often deny apps they have previously allowed, and allow apps they have previously denied, with no change to the offending features. If that doesn't perfectly describe the inaccuracy of the published criteria, I don't know what would.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[BasilBrush]

So it's a judgement call based on published guidelines, and not mathematics. Who the fuck didn't realise that? Are you an idiot?

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[TheLink]

Corporations are a creation of government... they don't naturally exist without it. And without, they certainly couldn't dominate since they wouldn't exist to begin with.

Maybe some Corporations will go "Oh no, there's no government, we can't exist anymore" and just go poof and vanish.

But some will do as I said: if Governments are too weak and small, Corporations would become defacto governments.

Corporations in such areas will have their own "military"/security forces, own courts/tribunals etc.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[sac13]

Corporations are a creation of government... they don't naturally exist without it. And without, they certainly couldn't dominate since they wouldn't exist to begin with.

Maybe some Corporations will go "Oh no, there's no government, we can't exist anymore" and just go poof and vanish.

But some will do as I said: if Governments are too weak and small, Corporations would become defacto governments.

Corporations in such areas will have their own "military"/security forces, own courts/tribunals etc.

No. They wouldn't say that. People would just ignore them and move on. They can't use force. And, if the government isn't there creating the structure and laws that support their existence, they have no rights to be violated. They can't sue you because there has to be an actual party in existence to file a suit. They can't enforce property rights, because nothing that doesn't exist can legally own anything. So, they can't pay people to do what they want because they don't have any resources. The people in the corporation might still cooperate, but there's no legal rules in place to force them to play nice amongst themselves. So, they either completely collapse or fall apart into much smaller organizations based around people, not some artificial, non-person, government-created entity.

Look at the recording/movie industry. Assuming the corporate organization remained, if the government was weaker, do you think they'd be able to enforce their artificial scarcity laws of patents and copyrights?

It's exactly the power of government that allows the corporations to do what they do. Every single thing they have a "right" to do is defined by government. It's the complete opposite of people, that are assumed to have natural rights. The entire character and accepted behavior of corporations is defined by government. Everything you hate about them exists only because of government.

Of course, the government wants you to think that you need them to protect you from the corporations. Never mind that they're the one's that give the corporations all their power. And, most people buy that ridiculous argument, assuming that corporations are the natural state of things.

When you actually look at it for what it really is without all the brainwashing that has been done on both sides (pro and anti corporation), it looks a lot like a mob protection racket. "It'd be a shame if one of those evil corporations took advantage of you, wouldn't it?"

But, where does the real threat actually originate from? Why should we have to pay the government to protect us from something that they have created and could easily destroy completely? Why is the solution always more regulation and power for government instead of less power or even complete dissolution of the concept of artificial entities?

You can hate corporations if you like. I'm right there with you. But, if you're really interested in removing the threat and intellectually honest about it, the answer isn't more government involvement with corporations. The problem is that government has any rules regarding corporations to begin with.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[TheLink]

No. They wouldn't say that. People would just ignore them and move on. They can't use force.

Can't use force? Why not? If the government is weaker, or absent who is there to tell them what not to do? You and whose army?

Say a corporation hires the services of Blackwater Worldwide, can you outgun them?

Governments allow the creation of Corporations, but just because a Government vanishes or gets too weak to maintain its monopoly on violence, it doesn't mean the Corporations it help create/nurture will vanish.

Do you really believe that the Dutch East India Company would have dissolved itself if the Dutch Government vanished overnight? It'll have continued to rule its territories. Business as usual... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company

I don't hate corporations.

But to me Countries and Governments might wish to consider giving incentives to encourage the formation of Cooperatives. Cooperatives seem less prone to certain abuses. The problem with Cooperatives is creating a Cooperative requires people to sacrifice a lot of effort and possibly resources, without them getting a big share of the whatever resulting profits (which they would get if they started a Corporation instead). So if a Government steps in to help make it less painful, more Cooperatives might be formed to do stuff that cooperatives seem better at.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[sac13]

No. They wouldn't say that. People would just ignore them and move on. They can't use force.

Can't use force? Why not? If the government is weaker, or absent who is there to tell them what not to do? You and whose army?

If they have no legal standing to own property since they don't legally exist, they're not going to be able to get anyone to do anything. Any violence would be purpatrated by individuals, not a corporation. And, individuals are subject to laws and can be held accountable by being imprisoned or executed if necessary. Corporations can never be held accountable.

And, if there's no government whatsoever, it's not a corporation running things, it's warlords or tribal leaders. It's not corporations.

I'm not arguing for no government to protect people from other people. I'm arguing that corporations and all the resulting problems are due to government power in the market. No government in the market with respect to creating artificial entities (and artificial scarcity while I'm on it) would be a much better alternative than the government created problems being "regulated" by government created "solutions" to the problems it created in the first place.

Say a corporation hires the services of Blackwater Worldwide, can you outgun them?

No, but a corporation wouldn't be doing that. There would be no such thing. It would be individuals with the means to hire them.

But, I would expect the government to perform it's core role in that situation, which is to protect people from other people. It's not government creating problems in that scenario. It's government doing what it is supposed to do.

Governments allow the creation of Corporations, but just because a Government vanishes or gets too weak to maintain its monopoly on violence, it doesn't mean the Corporations it help create/nurture will vanish.

Governments don't allow the creation of corporations. They create them. Period. If they didn't define what a corporation was, there would be no way to do it. It's not a natural entity.

And, you're confusing two issues here. One, is the governments role in protecting people from other people. There it can take peoples property, liberty or life if they get out of hand. That is a proper role for government to have. The other is the government inventing artificial beings with little liability that allow people to hide behind them and get away with things an individual never would be allowed to get away with.

No government is an impossibility. Something always fills that vacuum. But, government created problems can and should be avoided. Corporations are one of those things. They exist because of too much government involvement. The answer to the problem of too much government involvement isn't more government involvement.

Do you really believe that the Dutch East India Company would have dissolved itself if the Dutch Government vanished overnight? It'll have continued to rule its territories. Business as usual... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company

No, it probably wouldn't have. Different place. Different time. Financial resources are much more widely distributed today. Individual capabilities are much greater today than at that time. Information is more available. More people are able today to take advantage of the weakness that would exist from the loss of government sanctioning for the corporation. Without the ability to use courts to enforce their "rights," they'd have a difficult time lasting today. The pace of the world and level of competition is much, much greater.

We have to look at what we're dealing with today, not some place and time with circumstances that are virtually alien to the present.

Of course, with the multinationals today, you'd need other governments to simi

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[TheLink]

Can't use force? Why not? If the government is weaker, or absent who is there to tell them what not to do? You and whose army?

If they have no legal standing to own property since they don't legally exist, they're not going to be able to get anyone to do anything.

That's ridiculous. That's like saying if a thug has no legal standing to own property he's not going to be able to get anyone to do anything.

You've got it backwards.

All that fancy "legally exist" and "legal standing" stuff are mere words. Words that hold no POWER unless they are ultimately backed by force e.g. the threat of violence.

If a Government has vanished, and a Corporation has its "private security team" they certainly can force you to do whatever they want, even if they don't "legally exist", as long as they pay that private security team whatever that team wants to do the job. And if you think the private security team would just turn on the Corporation, you should figure out why Dictators continue stay in power even if they are not very strong physically.

Governments exist and hold power in an area so long as they maintain a monopoly over violence in that area. Anyone who establishes and maintains a monopoly over violence in an area becomes the Government of that area by default. If a Government is too weak or absent, others take over.

Any violence would be purpatrated by individuals, not a corporation.

I suppose it does make a big difference to you to only get killed by "a Group of People Formerly Known As A Corporation" rather than some Corporation.

Won't make a big difference to people who live in the real world.

Re:Suing for what exactly?

[sac13]

Can't use force? Why not? If the government is weaker, or absent who is there to tell them what not to do? You and whose army?

If they have no legal standing to own property since they don't legally exist, they're not going to be able to get anyone to do anything.

That's ridiculous. That's like saying if a thug has no legal standing to own property he's not going to be able to get anyone to do anything.

You've got it backwards.

All that fancy "legally exist" and "legal standing" stuff are mere words. Words that hold no POWER unless they are ultimately backed by force e.g. the threat of violence.

If a Government has vanished, and a Corporation has its "private security team" they certainly can force you to do whatever they want, even if they don't "legally exist", as long as they pay that private security team whatever that team wants to do the job. And if you think the private security team would just turn on the Corporation, you should figure out why Dictators continue stay in power even if they are not very strong physically.

Governments exist and hold power in an area so long as they maintain a monopoly over violence in that area. Anyone who establishes and maintains a monopoly over violence in an area becomes the Government of that area by default. If a Government is too weak or absent, others take over.

Any violence would be purpatrated by individuals, not a corporation.

I suppose it does make a big difference to you to only get killed by "a Group of People Formerly Known As A Corporation" rather than some Corporation.

Won't make a big difference to people who live in the real world.

Why does a government need to have it's mitts fully up the ass of the market to be able to also defend individual rights? Just because government doesn't sanction corporations or muck around in the market doesn't mean it has to be weak in defending individual rights.

You're too stuck in the status quo to see that there's actually a much simpler solution. Obviously, you've bought into the protection racket like most others have. Government has to have all the power we can give it... enough to create the problems and enough to pretend to solve the problems it creates while still ending up with a system where normal people are disenfranchised and power and wealth are concentrated in those that have the resources.

While the little guy might still get screwed in a less regulated system without government created private power structures, he would at least have a chance. When the system requires so many lawyers to just navigate within it, it's a sure thing that the animal that will dominate is the one that can hire the lawyers. And, the strange coincidence is that the lawyers are the one's that are running the government and making the laws.

If you believe the government is the answer, they've already got you. So, now we all get to pay our protection money.

I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[ShooterNeo]

Will someone please link to the part of the website for that tabloid that contains the alleged prurient content? I would like to verify myself to determine if the offending content warrants censorship. Let's not be hasty about condemning apple for their possibly righteous behavior without examining very carefully page 9 to see if it offends our sensibilities.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[ColdWetDog]

Sorry your having so much difficulty with your search engine. Google even helpfully points to ""Side 9" (Not really SFW, natch).

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[ColdWetDog]

Doing a bit of research here. Haven't seen that much airbrushing since I quit looking at Playboy years ago....

Shiney!

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[fightinfilipino]

i do not know if such a standard would apply in European courts, but at least in the U.S., your logic would find strong purchase, Mr. Neo. after all, for U.S. judges, they "know it when they see it."

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[ShooterNeo]

These young ladies have offensive tattoos. Clearly this is obscene content by the standards of my community. Ban is justified. (sound of gavel pounding)

Also, the ladies are showing their anatomy used for feeding infants. Clearly this is offensive and should not bee viewed by children under 17.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[billcopc]

Perhaps Apple banned it because the photos are so horribly shooped, it would make the Retina display look like shit.

</justsayin'>

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[pitchpipe]

Perhaps Apple banned it because the photos are so horribly shooped

Shooped: pictures that have been pooped out by Photoshop.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[Warwick Allison]

So why doesn't Ekstra Bladet just publish a "Ekstra Bladet Web Browser" app instead of a "Ekstra Bladet Newspaper" app? Certainly Atomic Web Browser for iPad causes Apple to warn me that it might expose me to explicit content. I assume the "Ekstra Bladet Web Browser" would similarly warn me of that moral peril.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[c0lo]

TFA:

Ekstra Bladet today launched a campaign, which, according to Madsen, will expose Apple’s double standards. The paper is asking its readers to send in examples of other tabloids, such as German paper Bild and British The Sun, which are allowed to show topless girls on their iPad applications.

What would the US judges say about that?
'Cause I reckon Mr Neo would like to reserve his judgements only after carefuly examing the evidence (in Bild and The Sun) by himself.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[Shadow of Eternity]

Damn I haven't seen something that looked that laminated since the last time I played Doom 3

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[Ethanol-fueled]

I was breast-fed until I was 17, you insensitive clod.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[jIyajbe]

In the interest of science: http://side6.dk/6-galleri/

Glad to help.

(Personally, I think this material is more appropriate to an android...

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[Jharish]

http://ekstrabladet.dk/side9/

It is linked from the front page which is in the article.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[bennomatic]

Woah. I think some of those pictures are stuck squarely in the uncanny valley.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

OMG! Titties! Fellow Americans, please avert your eyes off this European Godless smut!

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. Looks more like a 3d model than a model. The chilie tattoo is pretty amusing though.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[Andy Smith]

"I would like to verify myself"

Euphamism?

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[tehcyder]

Page 9 is sandwiched bewtween pages 1 to 8 (bestiality) and pages 10 to 29 (scat).

Joking...

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[tehcyder]

Too. Much. Information.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[yotto]

Not SFW? It's not SFE(eyes). That woman looks like she's made out of plastic. Like, literally made out of plastic. And the proportions are all wrong. I find myself hoping that she's actually quite pretty and just a victim of an overzealous Photoshop treatment.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[gilbert644]

Don't know, jerking off to photoshop isn't that serious, even in the US.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go: http://ekstrabladet.dk/side9/

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[Anonymous Coward]

http://ekstrabladet.dk/side9/

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[anegg]

Interesting. Lots of females. A distinct lack of males. Why doesn't ekstrabladet publish partially/fully naked males in the same quantity as females? Could they possibly be exercising their editorial rights towards the content that they provide? Maybe we need a court action to get equal time for the lads?

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[Eevee]

Also, the ladies are showing their anatomy used for feeding infants. Clearly this is offensive and should not bee viewed by children under 17.

So you have to blindfold the infants before they can feed?

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[gabebear]

http://side6.dk/6-nyt/article1456688.ece

Run through Google Translate:

After downloading the free app on mikandi.com , your mobile a penis icon screen. By touching it you can make it longer or shorter, and thereby get the phone to vibrate more or less.Application also allows users to download small free sexklip on the Private-owned gamelink.com - or buy some other single location.Androidmobiler is becoming the dominant in the smartphone market, so sexindutrien who already have problems with Apple sexcensur, hoping for big things this market.After downloading the free app on mikandi.com , your mobile a penis icon screen. By touching it you can make it longer or shorter, and thereby get the phone to vibrate more or less.Application also allows users to download small free sexklip on the Private-owned gamelink.com - or buy some other single location.Androidmobiler is becoming the dominant in the smartphone market, so sexindutrien who already have problems with Apple sexcensur, hoping for big things this market.

So how are Side9/Side6 related to the app that was rejected? Side6 is porn by pretty much anyone's standards, but I think they label the pictures of Side9 as "Hot Women" because people might be confused otherwise.

What's in the print version and what were they trying to put in their app?

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, Air Marshal Obvious!

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[IrquiM]

Haven't seen that much airbrushing since I quit looking at Playboy years ago....

That's how all the Scandinavian girls look like!

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[StikyPad]

I'm not sure how to put this delicately, but your priest can't produce milk. Those weren't breasts. :(

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[Anonymous Coward]

Will someone please link to the part of the website for that tabloid that contains the alleged prurient content? I would like to verify myself to determine if the offending content warrants censorship. Let's not be hasty about condemning apple for their possibly righteous behavior without examining very carefully page 9 to see if it offends our sensibilities.

I've examined side9 very carefully to see whether it offended my sensibilities. I'm afraid that I have to admit that it did As far as I can tell, Side9 does not feature a single twat-shot of any kind. I don't find anything pornographic about the naked female body. Indeed, I find it very pleasant to look at. But, not a single twat-shot? WTF? That doesn't even sink to the level of soft-core, for God's sake! Lighten up, Steverino!

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Doing a bit of research here. Haven't seen that much airbrushing since I quit looking at Playboy years ago....

Even more bizarre, they didn't air-brush out the boob-job scars around the girl's areole - at least not for the picture of "Christel" that loaded up on the first page when I researched the issue.

Please.

[Frosty Piss]

Yet another SLASHERTISMENT. I know, porn, geeks, porn, geeks... Seriously, why is this shit on Slashdot?

Re:Please.

[igreaterthanu]

Seriously, why is this shit on Slashdot?

What would Slashdot be without the occasional bashing of each and every big software company? That's like half of the reason to be here!

Re:Please.

[jcombel]

keeping updated on progressive developers (and the money that is backing them) who push against censorship, for freedoms and rights in an economic ecosystem (App Store) completely controlled by a private monopoly (Apple) is one of the very few reasons i read slashdot.
 
to be honest, it is the only variety of news that i actually see here before other news aggregates, as opposed to days after

Re:Please.

[c0lo]

Yet another SLASHERTISMENT. I know, porn, geeks, porn, geeks... Seriously, why is this shit on Slashdot?

Keeping us informed with various attempts along/against the "information wants to be free"?

(hint: YRO category? Assuming that the tabloid would be granted the sentence against Apple, would this have an influence on the Turbo Hercules case?)

Re:Please.

[brucmack]

What? This is about Apple potentially having their App Store policies tried in European court, something that could potentially be a game-changer. But no, it must be a slashvertisement targeted at the millions of Danish Slashdot readers...

Re:Please.

[md65536]

It took 1 click and then about 1 second to figure out what "Side 9" means in Danish.

Re:Please.

[bertoelcon]

Seriously, why is this shit on Slashdot?

You answered that yourself here.

I know, porn, geeks, porn, geeks.

Add a dash of Anti-Whatever and you have a instant Slashdot story.

Re:Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Denmark is way too small to allow you to say "millions of Danish Slashdot readers" ;)

Re:Please.

[polle404]

That, and Ekstrabladet is like Nat. Enquirer or The Sun, sleazy journalism and they like the "see? poor us" and "we're fighting for YOUR rights" attention.
believe me, if this has any impact on the Danish iPad users rights, it's purely accidental.

It's slashvertisement alright.

I kinda doubt we can muster /. users in the millions, though...
maybe in the thousands...

Re:Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Advertising what?? Ekstra Bladet is the equivalent of "The Sun" in Britain - no one in Denmark doesn't know what it is.

And believe me, they wouldn't target Slashdot readers in any case - there are far easier pickings out there for their kind of tripe.

Re:Please.

[Tukz]

woooosh

Re:Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

with only 5,5 millon danish people i doubt there are millions of danish readers. and everyone in denmark knows about side 9 anyway.

Re:Please.

[brucmack]

Well, I wouldn't put Ekstra Bladet in the same bin as the National Enquirer - they may not have the journalistic integrity of a "real" newspaper, but their stories are generally not completely made up. Sure, it's mostly entertainment, but let's face the facts: many Danes use Ekstra Bladet and BT as their main source of news, however irresponsible that may be.

But all of that is glossing over the real issue here, which is how Apple runs their app store. Like them or not, Ekstra Bladet's app should not have been rejected. Their content is nothing that would ever be censored in Denmark, so they should have some recourse when Apple rejects their app.

The "millions" comment was (I thought) obviously sarcastic. There is very little overlap between the Slashdot readers and potential customers of Ekstra Bladet, so I don't see how anyone could think this article was slashvertisement.

Re:Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Women in underwear is not porn.

Re:Please.

[mcgrew]

I know, porn, geeks, porn, geeks... Seriously, why is this shit on Slashdot?

because, well, you know, porn, geeks, porn, geeks...

Re:Please.

[MichaelKristopeit176]

why are you on slashdot?

you cower behind a chosen urine based pseudonym while accusing others, while holding no supporting evidence, that they beat their wife and were raped by religious figures.

you're completely pathetic.

cower some more, feeb

Re:Please.

[Lunzo]

What's the other half of the reason???

Re:Wecome to the world of nazi computing!

[jo_ham]

Godwinned after 11 comments. Not quite the record. Try harder next time.

It's a good point

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Back in the days of printed stuff, there were thousands of outlets. If one barred a certain publication, it was no big deal. The public could buy it in the other shop down the road.

With e-publishing, there's massive consolidation that changes this situation. Amazon or Apple blocking a publication is *not* analogous to a shop choosing not to stock a publication.

Re:It's a good point

[jo_ham]

Yes it is.

It's only different if copyright infringement (of GPL code; let's move this into an area slashdot might care about) is somehow different on the web too, because "there's no longer a physical good to deprive from the owner". That argument is bullshit, just as yours is, amounting to a special case because epublishing is limited to a smaller number of stores.

By your logic, if the news outlets, distribution channels and magazines were owned by one or two large corporations, then the same rules would apply in the real world.... oh wait...

Re:It's a good point

[ColdWetDog]

Back in the days of printed stuff, there were thousands of outlets. If one barred a certain publication, it was no big deal. The public could buy it in the other shop down the road.

With e-publishing, there's massive consolidation that changes this situation. Amazon or Apple blocking a publication is *not* analogous to a shop choosing not to stock a publication.

You're kidding, right? 15 seconds on Google gets you there.... Even on a MacBook. I bet I could even look at it on my iPhone [insert tasteless small breast joke here] You can't really seriously consider an iPad as the be all and end all of e-publishing. It doesn't even run Flash.

Re:It's a good point

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the days of printed stuff, there were thousands of outlets. If one barred a certain publication, it was no big deal. The public could buy it in the other shop down the road.

With e-publishing, there's massive consolidation that changes this situation. Amazon or Apple blocking a publication is *not* analogous to a shop choosing not to stock a publication.

But Apple isn't blocking a publication. They can still make their publication available to iPad users; they just can't do it through the App Store.

The proper analogy? Suppose all the stores stopped putting the printed magazine in the front of the store. You'd still be able to buy the magazine from any store you wanted; you just would have to go to the back.

Re:It's a good point

[DurendalMac]

Really? You mean they couldn't make a subscription website, put out an app for Jailbroken devices, or put it on any other device out there that could support it?

This is very analogous to a newsstand. In this case, it may be a large chain newsstand, but this is just slippery slope bullshit.

Re:It's a good point

[RazorSharp]

Safari doesn't block their website so I don't buy it. If Apple was legally forced to accept every pornographic App/e-mag, then their store would turn into nothing but a huge hub for porn. The web is for openness, Apple's App Store and E-book stores are for the select items they wish to sell. This suit is pretty much like saying the iTunes store has to publish my crappy garage band because they're being anti-competitive for not doing so.

Re:It's a good point

[Sparr0]

The difference is monopoly. If I buy my car from Dealer A, and replacement parts from Dealer B, all is well. If Dealer A sells me a car that stops running when I put in parts from another dealer, then they are being illegally (in some jurisdictions) anticompetitive. Dealer A is building a market in which they have a monopoly (see: Microsoft / Windows), then leveraging that monopoly to make more money than they could in a free market.

Re:It's a good point

[mark-t]

The problem with that is that the App Store is the only place that anybody without a jailbroken device can get apps. Jailbreaking may be legal, but it is not something that can be done openly because if Apple ever finds out, your warranty is broken and you can never get the unit serviced.

Re:It's a good point

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? There are millions of apps available to any iPad user. They're called "web apps". Crazy, I know, but you don't have to have a special little app running on your little crappy iPod XL to access content!

Re:It's a good point

[jo_ham]

And Apple have a monopoly on apps on the iPhone in what world?

You can still deliver apps via HTML5 - the original method promoted by Apple, and still in use and supported by them before the App Store came along.

Also nothing stopping them providing paywalled online content to iPhone customers - you can even have it preload data for times when you'll be out of network range.

There's no way for them to claim that iPhone users are restricted solely by the App Store, unless the only other way to get their content is via flash or something.

Also, which day of the week is it right now? It seems to go back and forth on slashdot whether Apple has a monopoly on smartphones, depending on whether it paints them in a positive or negative light (ie, they're "a tiny, insignificant portion" of the smartphone market when it suits, or "a monopoly" when it suits, depending on the story - I see both, quite often). Either way, they don;t actually have a monopoly on web-delivered content (which this magazine clearly must be - either the app was designed to update from a remote server, or you needed to buy a new app every time there's a new issue) on the iPhone.

Re:It's a good point

[Anonymous Coward]

First, thousands of outlets? Where I grew up (in the 80s) there was the Ben Franklin, and a couple of gas stations in town. If they didn't carry it, well, Wal-Mart in the next town over might -- well, not in this case. Otherwise it's 50 miles over to get to the city, hoping someone carries it there.

Second, why does this need to be an app? Apple doesn't block websites, and that would reduce or eliminate effort to get something that'd work across mobile platforms. Seems just like the lame Danish Android app that /. put up a slashvertisement for -- create an unnecessary app that you know beforehand won't be accepted because it breaks the guidelines, then try to get free PR by making a stink about it.

Re:It's a good point

[brucmack]

You're oversimplifying things. Jailbreaking your phone or switching to a different device are much larger steps than simply finding another newsstand.

Following with the analogy, jailbreaking would be like finding an underground distributor of the newspaper, potentially breaking the law in order to buy the publication. Switching devices would be like moving to another city where the publication isn't banned.

The iPhone isn't quite as standard as Windows on PCs, but think of what would happen if Microsoft decided that you could only install apps on Windows 8 from their own app store.

I understand their reasons for wanting to do it, but like it or not, Apple is being anti-competitive by refusing to allow alternatives to their own app store. And as this is exactly the kind of thing that European courts don't like, this should be interesting to follow.

Re:It's a good point

[brucmack]

If Apple opened up for other third-party app stores, then they can feel free to continue to decide on what they put in their own. But as long as they are the only option, they need to be held accountable for what they do.

Re:It's a good point

[Zironic]

"By your logic, if the news outlets, distribution channels and magazines were owned by one or two large corporations, then the same rules would apply in the real world.... oh wait..."

They would actually. Most civilized countries have all sorts of rules and laws that forces monopolies or near monopolies to play nice with others.

Re:It's a good point

[tepples]

but think of what would happen if Microsoft decided that you could only install apps on Windows 8 from their own app store.

Three words: Windows Phone 7. This is one of the big changes in WP7 compared to Windows Mobile 6, along with dropping support for PDAs.

Re:It's a good point

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need an app to read an online newspaper. You need a webbrowser, which the iPhone has.

Re:It's a good point

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were to advertise an application for a jailbroken device, I would be willing to guess that they might attract undue and unfriendly attention from Apple. Not to mention if they included instructions on how to jailbreak one's device and get the application installed upon it.

While I agree that the above was a slippery slope arguement, the gist of cairan_o_riordan's point, as I read it, is that times have changed. In the past, distributors were independent of the medium. If a newstand chose to not carry a particular publication, you went to a different newstand. Today, the newstand is irrelevant, and the medium (previously paper, now a device) decides what can be published. So, if a newstand doesn't carry a publication one desires, one has no other newstand to visit, as the medium cannot carry that publication without breaking an agreement you made with that medium (!). One can, of course, chose another medium, and that is exactly what the medium maker's want, to transfer control of the publisher to themselves.

We didn't used to sign agreements with our miller, agreeing that we would only print what the miller approves on their paper, nor did printing presses run each sheet by the miller. Times have changed...that was the gist of the comment, to my reading.

Isn't it interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that people, who don't like the rules that they accept when submitting an app, get upset when their app is denied due to those rules?

Much less go crying to the EU - who survives not because of it's member states, but because of penalizing big business with heavy penalties...

Re:Isn't it interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least that is better than surviving creating wars like the U.S.A, or is C.S.A.

Sue on what grounds?

[igreaterthanu]

Now as much as I don't like Apple, I must say that Apple is free to enter and to not enter into contracts as they please.

If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone and his own app store, or take his business to Apple's competitors, such as Android.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the flip side, what happens in Wal-Mart banned all black people because they considered them racy and offensive? Even while you and/or me considered their behavour to be normal to that specific culture and tolerable?

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[vux984]

I must say that Apple is free to enter and to not enter into contracts as they please.

Yes, and we're also free to publicly ridicule them, take them to court, and even to pass laws describing what can and cannot be put into a contract.

Apple is free to do try to make the world the way it sees fit, but the rest of the world is free to try to change that world as they see fit too.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

7-11 won't sell the cookies I bake.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Bullshit. I'm fairly sure that the appstore is illegal. Just think about it:

If Ford prevented you by technical and contractual measures, from installing any accessory in one of their cars that wasn't purchased through Ford's official store, where they only approve a few select brands .... that would be absolutely illegal.

If Sony forced you to use your brand-new TV set with comcast and nothing but comcast, and you had to purchase said service through Sony, that would be fucking illegal too.

So, when Apple forces you to buy software for your brand-new iPad through their store, and they only allow certain vendors, why is that not illegal too?

Years ago we were all against microsoft bundling a browser and a media player in their OS. But now it's ok for Apple to not only bundle their own software, but it's ok too for them to forbid you to install anything not sold by them?

Let them have their appstore, but force them to allow you to configure external repositories legally and easily, even if that voids your warranty. I still wouldn't buy their overpriced, elitist, proprietary crap anyway.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[RazorSharp]

On the flip side, what happens in Wal-Mart banned all black people because they considered them racy and offensive? Even while you and/or me considered their behavour to be normal to that specific culture and tolerable?

That's the worst analogy I've ever seen. It doesn't even mention cars. But seriously, did you just compare Apple rejecting an Application for sale on their online store to a civil rights violation? What the fuck were you thinking?

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[c0lo]

On the flip side, what happens in Wal-Mart banned all black people because they considered them racy and offensive?

An analogy of limited value. In this case, to correct your analogy: Wal-Mart refusing to stock merchendise from suppliers it doesn't like (which, I guess, it does already happen).
For your analogy to be valid, Wal-Mart would have to stop stocking black-people and continue... what... stocking/selling white people... because Wal-Mart consider them less offensive?

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now as much as I don't like Apple, I must say that Apple is free to enter and to not enter into contracts as they please.

If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone and his own app store, or take his business to Apple's competitors, such as Android.

A phone that I purchased is my own phone.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[Splab]

Actually no, they are not.

The TFA is missing the point quite badly. Ekstrabladet is complaining because the british newspaper The Sun is allowed to have toples girls on their application - it is illegal to differantiate like that.

Also, since the appstore is a defacto monopoly, Apple can get in really hot water for acting like this.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[igreaterthanu]

A phone that I purchased is my own phone.

True, but iOS which you can license from Apple with an iPhone still belongs to Apple. If you don't want to go by Apple's rules, you can purchase an iPhone and install some other OS on it. Apple is also under no obligation to help you to use their product outside of their intended use for it either.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[Weirsbaski]

If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone and his own app store

App store I understand, but why would he have to create his own phone/tablet? Why can't the people who own an iPad be able to run what they darn well please?

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[igreaterthanu]

Now I know the current law disallows it, but why shouldn't Wal-Mart be allowed to choose which customers it sells to on any grounds whatsoever?

Religious groups are allowed to discriminate, private clubs are allowed to discriminate. Why should businesses not be given that same right? It's not as if in your hypothetical situation that black people would be any worse off than before Wal-Mark turned up. They would simply not get the added benefit of being able to take part in transactions with Wal-Mart.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone and his own app store, or take his business to Apple's competitors, such as Android.

Good luck with that, with the state of patent law what it is. You'll be squashed like a bug unless you have as many big patents as they do, in which case you will merely be drawn into a long and expensive court battle(s).

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly how we see it in Europe. Welcome to a place in the world not (yet) run by corporations but governments, for the people.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[SplatMan_DK]

Now as much as I don't like Apple, I must say that Apple is free to enter and to not enter into contracts as they please.

Ah, but you are wrong about that. Fortunately. :-)

In civilized countries there are rules to govern trade and business. In the US and the EU, businesses fortunately have to follow rules set forth by society - rules designed to ensure and enforce out liberal freedoms, free trade, fair markets.

As such, Apple is NOT free to "enter and not enter into contracts as they please" because they are not allowed to discriminate other businesses, engage in unfair trade practices, discriminate ethnic minorities, etc. They also must adhere to consumer protection laws, and other national regulation.

Most people think that is a good thing. It makes the real world function even in spite of the mind-numbing consolidation and accumulation of corporate power thats been going on for the last decade. :-)

If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone and his own app store, or take his business to Apple's competitors, such as Android.

As other have pointed out, this case is not similar to a retailer refusing to sell a specific publication - because Apple essentially has monopoly in the App store.

Your view would only be correct if Apple allowed 3rd party Appstores on the iOS platform - which they don't. Apples business model gives them an unprecedented level of control with the distribution channel, and because of that they may (fortunately) be forced to play nice. Antitrust laws and consumer protection laws are there for a reason. This is a good example.

:-)

- Jesper

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[SplatMan_DK]

That's the worst analogy I've ever seen. It doesn't even mention cars. But seriously, did you just compare Apple rejecting an Application for sale on their online store to a civil rights violation? What the fuck were you thinking?

Yes. Obviously Apple is discriminating naked people in their Appstore. Surely you must see that!

- Jesper

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[mini me]

Even if you own the iPad hardware, Apple still owns iOS. If you wish to install software on your iPad that has no connection with Apple in order to allow you to install your own software, you are free to do so.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[catbutt]

I think you missed his point. Apple isn't under any obligation to help you to use their product outside of their intended use for it, but Europe isn't under any obligation to let Apple sell iPhones in Europe. If you don't want to go by Europe's rules, you can do business in another continent. Works both ways.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[catbutt]

why shouldn't Wal-Mart be allowed to choose which customers it sells to on any grounds whatsoever?

Because we live in a society with rules. Although it's very indirect, ultimately those rules are chosen by the people (all the way back to the people that chose to ratify the Constitution). And those people don't want Wal-Mart to be allowed to do that.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[t2t10]

Now as much as I don't like Apple, I must say that Apple is free to enter and to not enter into contracts as they please.

Not if they are part of a monopoly or oligopoly.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[gmhowell]

Well, traditionally in the US (I know, European story) it has been black people who might be put on the shelves for sale. OTOH, Wal mart DOES love Chinese suppliers...

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[tehcyder]

Ah, the sweet smell of libertarianism in the morning. It doesn't matter what a company does, we must let the market decide. Unless it's Microsoft, obviously. Or Sony.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[tehcyder]

The point is, that in Europe, the rights of corporations do not trump the rights of individuals.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[tehcyder]

Why shouldn't Wal-Mart be allowed to murder black people if they feel like it?

Because we have fucking rules controlling companies.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[ray_mccrae]

Your view would only be correct if Apple allowed 3rd party Appstores on the iOS platform - which they don't. Apples business model gives them an unprecedented level of control with the distribution channel, and because of that they may (fortunately) be forced to play nice. Antitrust laws and consumer protection laws are there for a reason. This is a good example.

As was determined in the Psystar vs Apple case, you can not just define a market as you please. Back then Psystar tried to claim Apple was a monopoly on OS X compatible hardware. The judge quickly threw that claim out as the market is personal computers. Similarly you can not just claim Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution, the market is mobile software and Apple does not have a monopoly on that.

Your other point about discrimination, as far as I'm aware Apple applies the same rules to everyone. If Apple let some developers flout the rules and not others then that would be discrimination, but simply having rules is not discrimination.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Essential facilities doctrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_facilities_doctrine

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[igreaterthanu]

That is a completely ridiculous analogy, in your case Wal-Mart would be taking away something from a specific set of people, instead of not granting some service in exchange for money. Those are completely different things.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is about what you want to do with your phone, the iOS platform is a distribution system, the App store is a monopoly. Once they become large enough (and I think they are there), they are no longer a competive product able to do what they want, they become a distribution system that can be and is regulated and with that regulation comes non-competivite stuff for their monopoly on their own system.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[SplatMan_DK]

As was determined in the Psystar vs Apple case, you can not just define a market as you please. Back then Psystar tried to claim Apple was a monopoly on OS X compatible hardware. The judge quickly threw that claim out as the market is personal computers. Similarly you can not just claim Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution, the market is mobile software and Apple does not have a monopoly on that.

Well they do in fact have a monopoly on delivering any software what-so-ever to any iOS device. In addition they have a very powerful position in the portable device market - powerful enough to attract the interest of government officials at the antitrust offices around the world.

And why not?

Just as we should not accept Microsoft being the only supplier of software for Windows, or Oracle being the only supplier of Java applications/tools, Apple should not be allowed to be the only supplier of iOS software.

With their current business model, they have a de-facto monopoly on a very important distribution channel that moves billions of dollars.

No, the market is not "mobile software". The market is mobile software for the devices used by the readers of the tabloid newspaper in question. Devices purchased and governed by more laws than Apples arbitrary rules.

Your other point about discrimination, as far as I'm aware Apple applies the same rules to everyone. If Apple let some developers flout the rules and not others then that would be discrimination, but simply having rules is not discrimination.

I wish that was true. But the Danish tabloid is specifically taking this action because they feel they are discriminated. Larger publishing companies have been allowed to distribute the exact same content that they have been denied. Several English newspapers and the dedicated Playboy app are good examples.


And even if Apple wasn't discriminating, and even if they didn't have a monopoly on delivering software to iOS devices, they must still conduct their business in a fair manner that is compatible with fair markets laws and consumer protection laws.

:-)

- Jesper

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[anegg]

So, you are arguing that the "European government" should restrict the products available to European customers, even if those European customers don't see the harm in those products?

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[anegg]

I wonder if there are any restrictions on the content provided through the Kindle by Amazon? How about other single-channel provider publishing devices?

Any company providing a device specifically designed to publish material their own material exercises control over the material published there. I'm pretty sure Apple specifically designed the iPhone/iPod Touch to only publish the material that they offer through the App store, in addition to each devices other uses (such as telephony, music playback, web browsing, etc.). The iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad devices have clearly been designed to specifically *not* be general purpose computing devices, but special purpose devices that happen to include the ability to publish their vendor's content (i.e., App Store material).

Other vendors are free to produce their own devices with a similar technology/format, and these devices may be special purpose publishing platforms (such as the Kindle) or general purpose devices (such as the Android-based phones). Apple's monopoly in the App store seems to me to be the same monopoly any publisher exercises in their own publications. Could these arguments be tailored to that reality - I would like to see if debated whether publishers have the right to control the content provided in their publications or not.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[RazorSharp]

But this has nothing to do with individuals. This is a corporation rejecting a business deal with another corporation. A better analogy an AC posted in this thread, "7-11 won't sell the cookies I bake."

If every store was required to stock every item any random company wanted to sell in their store, then they wouldn't have the space to shelve all that crap. And even if they did, organization would be impossible and they'd lose money on many items that wouldn't sell. They may be discriminating, but discrimination isn't necessarily illegal.

Let's take the Wal-Mart analogy and try to work with it. If a group of black people walk into Wal-Mart and are being racy and offensive, Wal-Mart can kick them out. They can't kick them out because they're black, but they can kick them out for being racy and offensive because they will drive other customers out. If the group of kicked out individuals took it to court, they would have to have a good case that they were being discriminated against for being black. They cannot make the claim that they have the right to be racy and offensive in Wal-Mart. Evidence would have to be provided one way or another: testimonials from witnesses, video footage from the security cameras, ect. If the evidence showed that there's little reason to suspect they were actually being racy and offensive and were kicked out anyway, it's a civil rights violation. If the witnesses and video footage clearly show the individuals behaving in an offensive manner, then it's not a civl rights violation. It's legal to discriminate against offensive behavior, it's illegal to discriminate against race.

Using Wal-Mart as analogy further: Wal-Mart doesn't sell movies or music that is excessively vulgar. In the case of music they sell censored CDs. Are they discriminating against certain content providers? Yes. Do they have the right to do so? Until they have a monopoly on retail (which is pretty impossible, even for Wal-Mart), then yes.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[ray_mccrae]

Well they do in fact have a monopoly on delivering any software what-so-ever to any iOS device.

If that was the definition of a monopoly then every company would have a monopoly on their product.

Just as we should not accept Microsoft being the only supplier of software for Windows, or Oracle being the only supplier of Java applications/tools, Apple should not be allowed to be the only supplier of iOS software.

Well I hope you add to your list that nintendo should not be allowed to be the approver of all Wii & DS software, Sony should not be allowed to be the approver of all PS3 &PSP software and Microsoft should not be allowed to be the approver of all X-box software. However that type of closed system model has been going on for years with little outcry.

I wish that was true. But the Danish tabloid is specifically taking this action because they feel they are discriminated. Larger publishing companies have been allowed to distribute the exact same content that they have been denied.

If that's true then they will have a good case for discrimination then.

I get that many people don't like the closed model of the iOS platform, but that doesn't mean that it's illegal. I think what really incenses some people is that they believe open is the one true way, and Apple being successful with a closed platform is an affront to their core beliefs.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, of course, when WalMart shows up, prices all the other stores out of business and then stops selling to black people, they'll be just as well off as they were before. Just like when WalMart destroyed local drug stores and refuses now to sell the pill. It's enforcing its masters values on the rest of us by using its bully-boy position in the market, and that is why we have to have laws saying that you serve everyone equally.

Fucking libertarians - you have NO idea of the real world, do you? You love that invisible hand that keeps fisting you because you think that one day it might jerk you off.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[Kaz Kylheku]

The correct ethic is that I own that licensed copy of iOS, and can do whatever I want with it that doesn't involve copyright infringment.

Although it is true that Apple is also under no obligation to help me to use their product outside of its intended use, it is not correct to void the warranty for the device a whole because I wanted to install non-approved software.

If, say, the LCD dies on your device, and you bring that device in for repair in a jailbroken state, they will refuse to fix it, right?

Dirty.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In civilized countries there are rules to govern trade and business. In the US and the EU, businesses fortunately have to follow rules set forth by society - rules designed to ensure and enforce out liberal freedoms, free trade, fair markets.

Most of these rules are not civilized at all. They are various ways by which the collectivist mob steals from the producing strong to coddle the nonproducing weak. No intereference in the market makes it fair, because it involves taking from someone who is successful in the market to help someone who is losing. Discrimination against minorities is wrong, but it's equally wrong to dictate to someone not to do it. Legislation against discrimination invariably leads to reverse discrimination (e.g. a job goes to a less qualified canditate from an identified minority, just to fill a racial quota) or extortion (someone justly refused resorts to racial accusations).

If someone doesn't want to have customers or employees from a certain country or race, that is his right. And anyway it happens, because you can disguise race as other attributes such as knowledge of culture or language. If the job application says "fluent Mandarin speaker required", that is practically as good as "Chinese applicants only, please".

Here, Apple is wrong simply because it steals. Once it sells you a phone or tablet, that tablet is yours. They behave as if its is not yours. They are engaging in extortion.

One man has the skills to develop a program which another wants to put on a device that he owns. But, no the thieving extortionist puts himself in the middle. The device is locked; you must go through me to approve the program, and have me sell it through my store.

Apple should do the honest thing and proclaim that the devices are not sold, but only leased. When you buy an iPhone or iPad, you are borrowing it indefinitely, and the price is a rental fee amortized over the life of the product, and not a purchase price which secures ownership of the device.

The device, being leased, comes with restrictions as to what the lessee can put on it and from where such materials can be obtained.

They might also offer the device unlocked, for the full price.

And support both with a warranty.

It's unethical to void the warranty which protects the hardware just because someone wanted to run a program which is not approved. ``Oh, your display stopped working after six months? Sorry, can't help you; your phone is jailbroken. That means a big bad program mighta come and ate your LCD.''

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[StikyPad]

Oh yeah? Well my security clearance is so high it thinks it's an orange and it's freaking out that everyone's going to try to squeeze the juice out.

Re:Sue on what grounds?

[SplatMan_DK]

Cute...

It's actually a quote from a sci-fi series called Andromeda :-)

- Jesper

Patents

[tepples]

If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone

Mobile phones are a patent minefield. Without a patent war chest of its own to cross-license, a new entrant in the mobile phone business isn't likely to get far.

Sales

[UBfusion]

I seriously doubt this incident would affect sales of the iPad in Denmark (or other Scandinavian countries in the future). But I sure bet the tabloid's sales will go up the roof... You can't beat human nature and Steve knows it better than anybody.

Re:Sales

[SplatMan_DK]

I seriously doubt this incident would affect sales of the iPad in Denmark (or other Scandinavian countries in the future). But I sure bet the tabloid's sales will go up the roof... You can't beat human nature and Steve knows it better than anybody.

Doubtful. Their readers are not big on expensive technology gadgets. I don't think this will change a lot for them.

Their real agenda is actually getting their app in the appstore.

- Jesper

Klik her? Damn near killed her!

[Brannon]

or something.

Re:jerseys and hats

[pem]

Man, I'd be happy to contribute some bandwidth and cycles for a DDOS on this shit.

Re:jerseys and hats

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, you are a moron.

Re:jerseys and hats

[Anonymous Coward]

seconded!

The funny thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if MS tried to limit what could be put on your PC (unless you jailbroke it ;) ).

How the hell do people even find this acceptable? How the hell isn't it illegal?

I have an iPhone. You know what is in the app store? The same old boring shit from last week. I'm so bored of iPhone apps. I dont even check the store any more unless there are only two things I could possibly do at that moment... and suicide is the other one.

Re:The funny thing is...

[ledow]

Yeah, it's not like they modified Windows 3.1 to pretend to not run under DR DOS.
And it's not like you're not authorised to use DirectX 10 on Windows XP.
And it's not like they support the use of BIOS-reading licensing that fails to work on other machines.
And it's not like they support, use and rely on TPM features in modern systems.
And it's not like certain Steam modifications can ban your entire account.
And it's not like scanning money into Adobe Photoshop applications is detected and denied.

With any device, software or anything else - ignore the technology. Look at the contracts you've agreed to (or failed to contest) - if the agreement says that Apple decides on your behalf, or that you aren't authorised to do certain things, or that you can't resell the item, then that's a contract that can *easily* be seen as legally binding (and at best, one that will cost you an AWFUL lot of money to wriggle out of in a court). It doesn't matter if you signed the hire-purchase agreement on your car that says you may only use Esso petrol, or whether you agreed to an EULA that says you won't jailbreak your phone, or whether you agreed that your email could be printed in large print on the moon when you signed up to a website - that agreement is legally binding if you agreed to it, had a reasonable opportunity NOT to agree to it, and don't contest it later. Even if it's deemed unfair later in court, you still have to spend YEARS getting that far before you get your way.

Or you could just NOT agree to stupid contracts on things that you buy - either by not buying them, returning them, or contesting them. The idiot is not the person that bans the app from the iPhone Store. The idiot is the one that, when their app is banned, has ALREADY agreed months before that such decisions could be taken and would be binding. Sure, you can fight unfair contract terms in court but that's something you should have done FIRST, not after the event actually affects you.

If you agree to a contract that says your car may only be used on Tuesdays, or only be turned on if BMW allow it, or only for non-racing events - all of those are *identical* contract terms in terms of enforceability. The last one is actually written on my car insurance, which I've agreed to, so it's just a question of what you are dumb enough to agree to when you buy a product, agree to the EULA, and then continue to use the product/service/license under those terms.

Caveat emptor. Don't agree to stupid shit that you disagree with just in order to use a product. Instead, don't agree and DON'T use that product.

Anti-competitive?

[jcr]

I don't see how it can be anti-competitive, if Apple's got a consistent policy that applies to all publishers.

-jcr

Re:Anti-competitive?

[OrangeTide]

Think of a broader definition, there isn't a different App publishing company they can go to so therefor Apple has control of the market. If Apple restricts access to that market then it is anti-competitive behavior.

Re:Anti-competitive?

[_merlin]

They don't apply the same rules to everyone. They've approved Playboy and Sports Illustrated booby apps while removing others from the store.

Re:Anti-competitive?

[gnasher719]

They don't apply the same rules to everyone. They've approved Playboy and Sports Illustrated booby apps while removing others from the store.

I would just assume that there is always some judgement call, how much they are in line with the license terms they accepted, and how far out some contents is. Quite possible that some similar apps will be on one side, and some apps will be on the other side. That's like you are failing your driving test because you made mistakes, and I passed even though I made mistakes. There is a level that is allowed, and a level outside.

Re:Anti-competitive?

[Serious Callers Only]

I don't see how it can be anti-competitive, if Apple's got a consistent policy that applies to all publishers.

As usual, it doesn't.

Re:Anti-competitive?

[Serious Callers Only]

That's like you are failing your driving test because you made mistakes, and I passed even though I made mistakes. There is a level that is allowed, and a level outside.

To extend your analogy, it'd be like a driving test if:

* The rules were constantly changing, subjective and ill-defined, for example - drivers who annoy other road users will be rejected, drivers who have those awful dice in the front of their car will be rejected
* The rules were applied in wildly different ways to different test subjects
* Your tester communicated with you purely by sending different canned email responses to your actions
* You were retested every time you changed car
* With every test you got a different anonymous examiner, who appeared to have different interpretations of the vague rules of the test, but refused to explain them

Re:Anti-competitive?

[jcr]

The first review I see at that link says that the app doesn't show any nudity.

-jcr

Re:Anti-competitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually diving tests are a lot like that. In some places the examiner can fail you for any reason they see fit, and I've known some to do things like fail boys on their first try just because "everyone knows" boys are more reckless drivers than girls.

New app idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Suing Apple... there should be an app for that.

market position

[Nineteen-Delta]

~One would assume that if Apple were an 'also-ran' in the pad market, they'd only be too eager to publish gossip, celeb news and porn over their more prudish competitiors.

Re:market position

[Anonymous Coward]

-Yeah, its not like every big American tech company got burned in Europe.

Re:market position

[phantomfive]

Well, fortunately we'll be in a position to see what an also-ran would do in such a situation, since Microsoft has just released Windows Phone 7 :)

Discrimination? Liberal freedoms? Western culture?

[SplatMan_DK]

It's Apple's fucking market, not anyone else's. These guys are welcome to use an alternate delivery system or put their rag out for any other device. This is horseshit.

Ah, but owning a market place does not give you absolute power to do with it as you please.

In civilized countries there are rules to govern trade and business. I don't know which African Banana republic you live in, but in the US and the EU, businesses fortunately have to follow rules set forth by society - rules designed to ensure and enforce out liberal freedoms, free trade, fair markets.

As such, Apple is NOT free to discriminate other businesses, engage in unfair trade practices, discriminate ethnic minorities, etc. They also must adhere to consumer protection laws, and other national regulation.

Please read up on "real world", and "western culture" on Gooogle or wikipedia before you visit us.

:-)

Oh, and don't bring your horseshit with you.

- Jesper

I wish I could read Danish

[EricX2]

What does this say?

http://multimedia.ekstrabladet.dk/archive/00612/stribenr2218til7749_612896a.jpg

Re:I wish I could read Danish

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hurry up, I notice you're starting to melt"

Re:I wish I could read Danish

[MoellerPlesset2]

"Hurry up Fnuggi! I can feel you're about to thaw!"

At the bottom: "Icicle time..!"

Do it.

[Socguy]

Do it.

While it's not much of a deterrent to this kind of garbage that we've come to expect from apple in the short term. I'll still take a decision 5-10 years from now that might humble them a bit.

Although, take what I have to say with a grain of salt. I use to pull for Apple, but I've got a growing distaste for the business practices of almighty Jobs. Not that any of this would really matter to Apple because I'm not, nor will I ever be, a customer unless or until they amend their ways! Come to think of it: I've got to be the least desireable customer out there. I'm not an early adopter, nor do I feel the slighted pressure to buy the new 'it' item. Frankly, I'll go out of my way to spite a company that I feel deserves it and do my best to make sure others do as well.

Re:jerseys and hats

[SplatMan_DK]

Man, I'd be happy to contribute some bandwidth and cycles for a DDOS on this shit.

You're absolutely right. Apple deserves a good DDOS for their shitty behavior.

So glad you understand the importance of the issue at hand. We need more people like you to make society and fair competition prosper.

More power to ya' I say. More power to ya'!

- Jesper

Re:Hang on a moment...

[brucmack]

Can you buy apps for your iPhone / iPad at the Microsoft or Google app stores?

Re:Discrimination? Liberal freedoms? Western cultu

[SplatMan_DK]

OMG - LOL - thats probably my first Troll rating right there :-D

Clearly I should have used words like "fuck" and "shit" more, like the original poster, to stay clear of the troll rating... instead of writing about such horrible concepts as "western culture" and "liberal freedoms"...

:-)

- Jesper

Why is parent modded "troll"???

[SplatMan_DK]

Why is parent modded "troll"???

I don't necessarily agree with 130905 but... disagree != troll ???

- Jesper

Re:Why is parent modded "troll"???

[tehcyder]

Why is parent modded "troll"??? I don't necessarily agree with 130905 but... disagree != troll ??? - Jesper

The Apple fanboy moderators are out in force today.

A post combining anti-Apple with anti-Libertarian sentiments is always going to go down like a bucket of cold sick on slashdot anyway

please

[Anonymous Coward]

Ekstrabladet needs to stop whining. Their website is available via www.eb.dk on any iPhone. The problem they are facing is that they want users to pay for access, but don't want to do it on the web, since they'll cripple their userbase. So they figure they'll make an app that costs a dollar and put more content on that then the web to slowly migrate their userbase. This isn't about censorship, they are already pressent on the device, it's about wanting apple to change the terms of agreement on their webportal so ekstrebladet can cash in, because it's an attactive salesvector. Well guess what, Apple's store Apple's rules. If they want a pornfree store, they should have a pornfree store. Noone's crying sensorship when my goatse application gets rejected.

Ratings

[xnpu]

I've never understood why Apple doesn't simply use a ratings system like movies or TV programs. They can have "inapproriate" content disabled by default and subject to age verification, while still profiting from the "perverts" who enable it.

Re:Ratings

[OrangeMonkey11]

That would just make too much sense, and i do not think there is an app for that yet

It is just one, not multiple.

[Bender Unit 22]

And it is not really any worse than the official sex games in the itunes store(google them yourself). So I don't see the problem. Apple are just being up to their usual American bashful behaviour.

(I have an iPhone, although the removal of wifiscanning programs i used for work might make me consider something else)

Re:Discrimination? Liberal freedoms? Western cultu

[tehcyder]

It is amusing to imagine the reaction here if it was Microsoft doing this. You wouldn't be able to breathe for the phrase "convicted monopolist" as though that was all that mattered.

Yes, it is a HUGE deal

[SmallFurryCreature]

You can see it with Wikileaks. They are under huge strain to keep their site up, at enormous cost. You can say what you want on the internet, as long as you can pay for the DDOS attack, the security and rape charges. Freedom of speech? Only if you can outshout the megacorp.

Some claim the TSA is hurting travel, but few are actually stopped from travelling and that only at great expense. A far more effective method of stopping people from travelling is to make it to expensive. A farmer who needs to spend every day tending his cow can't spend a week travelling the to capitol to make his voice heard. Only the rich farmer with plenty of staff can afford to do that. So the rich farmer is heard, the poor one is not. But EVERYONE is free to have their say in the capitol, nobody's fault that not everyone can afford to... just very handy.

Congress doesn't have to sign any laws to ban porn from the net. The public buys more and more devices closed of by public companies that do all the work for the christian puritans. How convenient and in return the government keeps the patent system in place that makes it impossible for a small competitor to get started without endless patent battles.

It is not just the web. Farmers have been sued for growing crops cross-polinated by accident with patented crops. Be a farmer as long as the mega-corp wants you to.

We are at fundemental risk to loose freedoms that we won't miss until it is to late.

Forbidden for Jews. Remember that one? Or "No blacks allowed"? Do you think every store that carried that sign was run by a racist biggotted asswipe? No, but if they didn't, then they wouldn't be supplied, couldn't get a loan etc etc. The power of the business to control society has grown enormously since then and we depend on it far more. Just think how depended you are on the bank system. How does a office clerk switch back to the barter system when the shit hits his fan?

The telephone companies were NOT allowed to censor the use of their telephone network. Hookers could NOT be prevented from getting a phone line. Why do we now accept that Apple does censor its service network? When does a service become a utiltiy? When do we not want our use of a public service to be restricted by a board director?

Apple and others are offering services that become so widespread they become common usage but still under control of a handfull of people with no public accountability. Your electricty manager dictates that you cannot use his electricity to watch porn. Turn of that computer NOW.

Re:Yes, it is a HUGE deal

[vlm]

When does a service become a utiltiy?

Usually about the same time the govt makes competition in that field illegal. For example, I cannot legally sell you electricity or cable TV service.

I would prefer American style cultural lunacy (the more violence the better, but no sex allowed) over the FBI busting peoples doors down for running "illegal" app stores.

Re:Yes, it is a HUGE deal

[anegg]

I think you are confused, sir. The Internet is the network. No one corporation censors the use of the Internet. Your ISP doesn't cut you off because of the web sites that you chose to view on your home computer.

Apple is not acting as a network. They are acting as a publisher. Some of the material they publish is their own, other material is offered by them on behalf of others. Please carry on with your argument with this understanding, and show how publishers in the United States/Europe should be required to publish whatever material is submitted to them. Then think about which is the worser tyranny - a publishing company choosing what material to publish or not publish, or a government forcing a private company to publish the material that the government wants them to publish. If you advocate government being able to control publishers, then you advocate *for* government censorship, not against it.

Re:Yes, it is a HUGE deal

[FloydTheDroid]

Slippery slope much? How did we get from not publishing a Danish magazine application to Nazi Germany?

Re:Yes, it is a HUGE deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure most of the jewish communities and african-american communities would be quite pleased with you equivocating racism and bigotry against them with restrictions on nudity or porn.

Re:Yes, it is a HUGE deal

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re:Yes, it is a HUGE deal

[mcgrew]

We are at fundemental risk to loose freedoms that we won't miss until it is to late.

I know it's a typo, but we are indeed loosing our freedoms. Like when you loose your dog, you may lose him as well. Same with freedoms.

However you have no right to preclude their use

[Anonymous Coward]

However you have no right to preclude their use in arms traded.

This is about the App Store selling stuff to people that is the ONLY way to get them their applications for their iProduct.

If they allowed you to use someone else's widget distribution, then there would be no (or less of) a problem.

They don't.

They DEMAND you use theirs.

And then DEMAND you don't get nekkid people.

For, as an earlier poster pointed out, no effect, since you can browse www.nekkidchicks.cx

Re:However you have no right to preclude their use

[node 3]

They DEMAND you use theirs.

And then DEMAND you don't get nekkid people.

Actually, they demand neither.

Hanging around here too long, one would begin to think that Apple forces people to buy iDevices, forces them to buy content from them, and implants some sort of mind-control device that keeps their customers from doing anything not sanctioned from some imaginary bond super villain.

Re:However you have no right to preclude their use

[digitig]

Hanging around here too long, one would begin to think that Apple forces people to buy iDevices, forces them to buy content from them, and implants some sort of mind-control device that keeps their customers from doing anything not sanctioned from some imaginary bond super villain.

You mean they don't? Why do people buy iPhones, then?

I'm OK with the way it is.

[rainer_d]

In fact, I'm glad the App-Store isn't full of single-picture "porn"-apps - would be unusable in a short timeframe.

Re:I'm OK with the way it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, fart and flashlight apps FTW!

Not "Porn", some tits and no ass

[1u3hr]

Everyone is assuming this is simply a porn delivery app. If anyone bothers to RTFA, they'd see it was actually a e-paper: the whole newspaper. And that happens to include a page of fairly tame girly photos -- bikinis, topless sometimes; no genitalia I can see. (http://ekstrabladet.dk/side9/). Maybe 50 years ago that was "porn", now you can see more on any HBO drama or workshop calendar. Apple really are being bluenosed about this.

Get real, everybody

[jandersen]

This has nothing to do with high principles on either side; as a Dane myself I know Ekstra Bladet as an average rag a small step down from the Sun in UK. What they are after with this is not to win an important case for "Freedom and Democracy" or whatever, but to generate some cheap advertising. The group of the Danish population that is the target for Ekstra Bladet are the people who feel that "being free" is all about drinking beer, fondling their balls and bullying immigrants of a murky complexion.

No Apps on Websites.

[Anonymous Coward]

No Apps on Websites. They're called "Web Apps". You can ONLY buy apps for your iProduct on the Apple App Store.

And as to the "monopoly", Apple maintain they CONTINUE to have control of any Apple product. Since they own all Apple product, they have a monopoly.

Additionally, if Apple don't like having to let people install boobie apps on the iProduct they bought, then Apple can always refuse to accept payment for the iProduct. If they don't like monopoly laws in the EU, they can not sell in the EU. If they don't like people complaining about their policy, they can change their policy.

Re:No Apps on Websites.

[jo_ham]

Of course Apple has a monopoly on Apple products - they are the only people who make Apple products, but it is a meaningless assertion.

Nike have a monopoly on making Nike products too.

I live in the EU, and the monopoly laws do not say what you think they say, if that is your argument. Since you posted AC, it seems you think your argument is too weak to back up, thus proving the point.

Re:No Apps on Websites.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you posted AC, it seems you think your argument is too weak to back up, thus proving the point.

Um, say what? I am a different AC who agrees with your main point, but this is a blatant ad hominem fallacy.

Re:No Apps on Websites.

[jo_ham]

Perhaps it is an ad hominem, but I don't think it is a fallacy.

People rarely stand behind arguments that they know to be false, at least if they know it is easy to call them on such a fact.

Bookmark on home screen

[tepples]

I'm much more likely to open an App than I am to go to my bookmarks and open a website.

Then put the bookmark on the home screen next to the apps.

CACHE MANIFEST

[tepples]

Sound? Browser. Movies? Browser. Movies with sound? Browser.

I imagine that the iPad browser won't cache files this large for offline use, even if the web page specifies a CACHE MANIFEST.

Board games? Browser.

More complex graphics made with DHTML or Canvas? It'll likely run as a slideshow. WebGL? Nope.

Re:I notice you didn't address the point.

[tepples]

You MUST use their App store to get apps.

Only if you are Apple's customer. It is currently not the case that you MUST become Apple's customer; instead of buying an iPhone you can buy a Samsung or HTC phone.

Where else to discuss?

[tepples]

If I don't want to discuss Slashdot moderation patterns in an article about alleged conflicts between Apple's App Store policy and competition law in EU member states, then where are Slashdot moderation patterns on-topic?

Re:Where else to discuss?

[fyngyrz]

The first rule of slashdot is that all criticism of slashdot moderation gets modded down.

The second rule is that moderation is meaningless because (a) it can't bring the worthwhile posts to the top not due to enough mod points and (b) because moderation *down* is allowed, quality content is guaranteed to be hidden via effective "-1 disagree" moderations.

The third and final rule is that you either read at -1 or you miss great posts, which in turn goes right back to moderation is meaningless.

The only worthwhile moderation scheme is one where only upwards mods are allowed; that way, minority voices have a chance.

As it stands here, if a moderator with an agenda that doesn't match yours has points, you would be generally screwed. If anyone serious paid attention to the mod points. Which we don't :)

What competes with iPod touch?

[tepples]

Hanging around here too long, one would begin to think that Apple forces people to buy iDevices,

What's the viable alternative to the $230 iPod touch in the market of portable media and game players with an app store? Google won't let an Android device officially access its Market unless the device meets requirements that appear unrealistic for devices in the iPod touch's price range, such as a GPS and camera. Archos makes the Archos 43, which works around this by running its own app store, but I've read reports that AppsLib has almost no selection. Besides, Best Buy and Sears didn't carry Archos 43 when I asked a sales associate.

Re:What competes with iPod touch?

[DrgnDancer]

But how is that Apple's problem? It keeps coming back to this. People's argument often (not always, plenty of people just don't like iDevices, which in my opinion is a much more reasonable position to hold) boil down to: "Apple makes the best in class device, and I want the best in class device, but I don't like how Apple manages their device. Therefore Apple should be forced to manage their device in a way that is more appealing to me, so I don't fell bad about buying this thing that I really want"

If there's no direct alternative to the iPod Touch on the market than you option is "buy something that's close, but not as nice, or which costs more". In and of itself, the fact that the iPod Touch or the iPhone are best in class devices (which is not true in the case of iPhone, by most definitions of "best", but simplifies the argument) does not make Apple a monopoly in any "market" that most courts would accept. There are many alternative devices and many people own them. The fact that they don't meet some particular arbitrary requirement of yours is fairly immaterial.

On a personal level I'd love to see Apple open up to additional app stores, or open up their own app store so that it's content neutral. It's not a deal breaker for me, my iPhone does everything I need it too, but more options are always good. On a legal level, I don't see any good argument to *force* Apple to do either of these things. "People who own iDevices" isn't a market. "People who own smartphones/tablets/PDAs" are markets, but there are plenty of alternatives to Apple in all of them.

Re:What competes with iPod touch?

[tepples]

"People who own smartphones/tablets/PDAs" are markets, but there are plenty of alternatives to Apple in all of them.

Then allow me to rephrase: what current PDA do you recommend if not the iPod touch? Or do you recommend buying an unlocked cell phone and just never inserting a SIM?

Re:What competes with iPod touch?

[DrgnDancer]

It would appear that HP still makes the iPAQ. $300 with Window Mobile, WiFi, Mobile Office, Bluetooth, USB port and SD slot. You can still get most of the last run of Palm's stuff too. Or a SIMless smartphone I guess. Really, I think "pure" PDAs are a dying market. Most people prefer smartphones. IMO Apple only makes the iPod Touch because it's a cheap to engineer also-ran piggy backing on their iPhone development. (And they make nice giveaways. I swear it seem like you can't turn around without Apple coming up with a new reason to give one away with a Mac purchase).

Re:What competes with iPod touch?

[node 3]

Hanging around here too long, one would begin to think that Apple forces people to buy iDevices,

What's the viable alternative to the $230 iPod touch in the market of portable media and game players with an app store?

How is that Apple forcing people to buy something?

Re:What competes with iPod touch?

[tepples]

Or a SIMless smartphone I guess.

PDAs are priced like portable computers, priced for the end user to afford them. Unlocked smartphones in the United States, on the other hand, are priced with a heavier markup so that only carriers are expected to afford them.

IMO Apple only makes the iPod Touch because it's a cheap to engineer also-ran piggy backing on their iPhone development.

Then why haven't HTC and the like released Android PDAs that piggyback on their phone development? Samsung announced the Galaxy Player a couple months ago, but I've never seen it. The best excuse I've read is that Google blocks Android Market access from devices that don't have a GPS and some other expensive components that are more useful on a phone than on a PDA.

Re:What competes with iPod touch?

[DrgnDancer]

Then why haven't HTC and the like released Android PDAs that piggyback on their phone development? Samsung announced the Galaxy Player a couple months ago, but I've never seen it. The best excuse I've read is that Google blocks Android Market access from devices that don't have a GPS and some other expensive components that are more useful on a phone than on a PDA.

You don't see the irony here? The reason is the opposite side of the coin of Apple's highly integrated model. You're complaining because Apple's model of controlling all the verticals (hardware, OS, and apps) doesn't give you the freedom you want, but the flip side is that Apple can say "Meh, it doesn't cost much more to throw a PDA out there too while we're at it." and release the iPod touch. They aren't beholden to anyone, so they can do what they want.

Android manufacturers are limited by what Google allows. Everything is give and take, everything is partnership with someone else. The model has lots of advantages, but it also has disadvantages. The lack of Android PDA is a result of a combination of limited market for them and one of the disadvantages of the Android Model. Google's current policy is that "official" Android devices *must* have a cell phone chip. Unless or until they change that policy there won't be "official" (ie able to access the official app store) Android PDAs.

Re:What competes with iPod touch?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a possible caveat here: my (UK) T-Mobile G1 doesn't allow access to the Home screen without a SIM inserted. Without any SIM, the device only allows you to make emergency calls.

I've inserted a out-of-date SIM and can access the Home screen and everything else fine. I can't make or receive calls or SMS.

View offline

[tepples]

Safari doesn't block their website so I don't buy it.

But how much localStorage and how much space for files listed in CACHE MANIFEST will Safari allocate for offline use of a web site? Some iPad products lack a cellular radio.

How big is an offline web app?

[tepples]

There are millions of apps available to any iPad user. They're called "web apps".

Under Safari for iPad, how large can a web application's cached pages be, and how large can its localStorage be?

Re:How big is an offline web app?

[ZFox]

For those interested: 1.5MB for the cache and 50MB for localStorage (user is prompted every 5MB to increase the db size).

What alternative to iPod touch?

[tepples]

Similarly you can not just claim Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution, the market is mobile software and Apple does not have a monopoly on that.

So if a developer wants to develop and publish mobile software, then what alternative to iPod touch should the developer recommend that its customers buy? As far as I can tell, Apple has market power in mobile software for devices other than phones.

Re:What alternative to iPod touch?

[Duradin]

PDAs have been consumed by the smart phone market so try there. The iPod Touch is a spin off of a smart phone itself.

Re:What alternative to iPod touch?

[tepples]

PDAs have been consumed by the smart phone market so try there.

So what do I buy if I want a PDA but I don't want another phone bill? Must I buy an unlocked smartphone sight unseen?

The iPod Touch is a spin off of a smart phone itself.

Then Apple has a near monopoly on the dedicated PDA market.

Re:Discrimination? Liberal freedoms? Western cultu

[tepples]

It is amusing to imagine the reaction here if it was Microsoft doing this. You wouldn't be able to breathe for the phrase "convicted monopolist" as though that was all that mattered.

Apple is a monopolist; it just hasn't been convicted yet. Case in point: can you name the close substitutes for an iPod touch? (In the context of an article about an app store, close substitutes include an app store that is more than a token app store, and I've been told AppsLib on Archos 43 is just that.)

HUH!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That Tabliod is written in gibberish.
  I don't read gibberish.

Re:Discrimination? Liberal freedoms? Western cultu

[Dog-Cow]

I don't know about EU antitrust law, but in the US, MS was convicted of abusing their monopoly, not of having one.

So, even if you think Apple has a monopoly via the iPod Touch, you'd be extremely hard-pressed (read: would not be able) to show that they abuse it (in a legal sense).

Why shouldn't I rob Wal Mart?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't I rob Wal Mart? Shouldn't I be allowed to choose whether to pay for the goods I have chosen on whatever grounds I choose? If I don't like WalMart, why should I HAVE to pay them? I should be allowed to just go in and take what I want and walk out.

They're always welcome to keep the doors closed or stock no products. I'm not *forcing* them to put stuff on shelves I can reach, am I.

More money to hire a lawywer

[tepples]

So, even if you think Apple has a monopoly via the iPod Touch, you'd be extremely hard-pressed (read: would not be able) to show that they abuse it (in a legal sense).

I would be hard-pressed because I lack dollars to hire a lawyer. But this tabloid might have a better chance to show that Apple is abusing a monopoly by rejecting an app because it has more kroner to hire better lawyers.

Re:Discrimination? Liberal freedoms? Western cultu

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the owner of a mall MUST allow a gun retailer to set up shop there? MUST allow an adult bookstore next to your Chuck E Cheese?

Or if you want those things, do you go to the mall that allows it, and simply ignore the other mall?

It's not like Apple owns every mall across the country, if you want to use the Android mall instead because it has porn, then so be it.

And guess what! You can even buy porn and go to the strip club directly beside Apple's mall, and they don't even care! And Apple doesn't even charge you for it! Imagine that!

If you are like me, it took about 2 weeks to find out that there are dedicated streaming video porn apps that you can subscribe to, they even come with a home screen shortcut, giving the same exact "app" experience! You can get them from that "other" appstore, known as the world wide web. The button is labeled "Safari" instead of appstore, and you have to use a "Google", which is a built-in search function, but the result is exactly the same.

I dunno, normally I'm all for government regulation, but in this case is it really needed?

Why would you buy a device that you know doesn't do what you want it to? Your solution is to force the company to give you what you want, instead of buying a product from a company that already does?

They have advertisments for hookers and bordellos

[Anonymous Coward]

Like most (all?) Danish newspapers, Ekstra Bladet have a lot of advertisements promoting brothels.

And Apple choose to react to one rather innocent picture of bare breasts. There is something seriously wrong with Apple.

Re:Discrimination? Liberal freedoms? Western cultu

[cdrguru]

The US is clearly a Banana Republic according to your rules. The US has no such laws about censorship and discrimination in the marketplace.

The EU certainly does have these. The governments in the EU can certainly order companies to sell products that they do not wish to and to service people they do not wish to. A common sign in the US is "No shirt, no service" and this would clearly be illegal in the EU.

I am sure it is unimaginable to the civilized world but there are clubs in the US which forbid women. There are allowed to exist organizations which exist specifically for the exclusion of certain racial groups, such as whites (NACCP, for instance) and for the exclusion of religions (LDS - you will not be getting in with a standard Bible I assure you). The US is a place that has a lot of discrimination which would not be tolerated in the EU.

Apple to be clubbed by EU

[glittermage]

EU will take a bite out of that Apple.

Censorship...

[soup]

With the migration towards a non-PC-centric world of handsets and tablets under a corporation's control of apps you are "allowed" to download, it reminds me of Brian Stableford's story "The Florians". When does "approved censorship" expand in scope to hide information from us? The first amendment to the US Constitution (FWIW these days) was to ensure an unencumbered ability to not merely express opinions, but, really to ensure that we can hear as many voices as we want to. "Political correctness is an effort to abrogate the First Amendment under the assumption that there exists a right to not be offended and that it has priority." - The Toberman

Re:jerseys and hats

[pem]

OK, bad on me for browsing at -1, bad on you for not looking at what I was responding to, but good on you for giving enough context that it became obvious what the disconnect was.

Re:jerseys and hats

[pem]

Actually, I realized I wasn't browsing at -1; I was browsing at 1, but I saw and responded before the parent got torched into -1 oblivion. So, bad on me for paying attention to the trolls before somebody else had a chance to kill 'em.

Page 9 is blocked for me :(

[imscarr]

McAfee blocks Web sites which contain inappropriate content, those that contain malicious code, and those that provide services that may be unsafe to the company network and or its resources.

URL: http://ekstrabladet.dk/side9/
Categories: Pornography

Danish Bite

[andersh]

Oh, yes, very amusing.

Actually the article just mentions "court", as in a Danish court, the EU court is for important cases that cannot be solved by national courts. This is hardly a ground breaking case, freedom of expression and publishing is at the core of Danish and EU law.

The EU is not the federal government of Europe, in any way, it is wrong to imply that this has anything to do with the EU.

Education and Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple does not have anything against breasts, but it does have to cater to American tastes and laws.

To be in the education market in the US requires very strict rules to the point of stupidity.

It's all about the money, nothing to do with Apple's own views.

Re:I notice you didn't address the point.

[node 3]

Apple's store is the only way to get apps on your iProduct that will keep your product fully working.

That's absolutely not true (and I'm not referring to jailbreaking).

Therefore they are abusing their monopoly (their App Store) to the detriment of their customers (buying iProduct).

Having a "monopoly" over your own products is not a monopoly.

They demand both.

You MUST use their App store to get apps.

Apple doesn't demand that people buy apps.

You MUST NOT get boobies from apps on their app store.

That's not what was originally written.

Hobson's choice

[tepples]

one would begin to think that Apple forces people to buy iDevices

What's the viable alternative to the $230 iPod touch in the market of portable media and game players with an app store?

How is that Apple forcing people to buy something?

Actually, you're right. It's Google forcing people to buy Apple products by not licensing the Android Market application in a way friendly to PDA manufacturers.

Re:Hobson's choice

[node 3]

Actually, you're right. It's Google forcing people to buy Apple products by not licensing the Android Market application in a way friendly to PDA manufacturers.

Kind of, but still I don't see anyone being forced to buy anything.

Re:Hobson's choice

[tepples]

True, you're not forced to buy a PDA. You're also not forced to use your local electric power monopoly; you could join the Amish instead. But practically, if you take as an axiom that you want to buy a PDA with an app store, you're forced to buy Apple's because Google won't let Android PDAs access the Market. That's the Hobson's choice to which I was trying to allude.

Re:Hobson's choice

[node 3]

But practically, if you take as an axiom that you want to buy a PDA with an app store, you're forced to buy Apple's because Google won't let Android PDAs access the Market.

But no one is required to buy a "PDA with an app store", and is very much a different thing from electricity. Doing without an iPod touch is far less of a burden than doing without electricity.

I do get the gist of what you're trying to say, which is why I replied with "king of" above, but no one's being forced into these things (which is the original claim I'm addressing).

Apple has sold iPod touches for years now. The fact that no one has created a reasonable competitor in that time isn't Apple's fault (I do realize you redirected the blame at Google). Also, there is the Zune.

Anyway, Hobson's choice generally refers to more dire and farcical meanings of choice, like how people could vote in Russia, even though the ticket was just Communists, or how the TSA searches are "voluntary" because you can choose not to fly. Sure, the concept has some merit in describing, albeit not strongly, the situation, but it doesn't translate into saying that people are forced into buying iPod touches.

Good...

[twoHats]

... Maybe Steve will get the stick out of his a$$ and realize that some of us are grownups.

Re:Discrimination? Liberal freedoms? Western cultu

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? Bit of cocky prick, aren't ya. It is their fucking app store, their rules, they turn the entire fucking mobile industry on its collective ass, because the buyers want their stuff and accept their terms for curated software (delivered by the maker--no networks shit), the networks want the devices, but can't bully this one, and have to pay for it. Understanding it yet? Go back to that android shite and 'android marketplaces' that you and another 500 million idiots will be using in 2 years. Shops can barely give that shit away, and this one will have 10% 'smart phone' market share but 1/3 of all worldwide mobile device profits to itself.

p.s. Wonder when google will transfer its first billion USD to android developers.... you know, the first billion dollars that android users have forked over for their unfettered apps that must be so great! ...kinda like waiting for the 'year of the linux desktop'.

http://www.aldawaghranet.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's not like they modified Windows 3.1 to pretend to not run under DR DOS. http://www.aldawaghranet.com/ thanks