Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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...)
Yet another SLASHERTISMENT. I know, porn, geeks, porn, geeks... Seriously, why is this shit on Slashdot?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
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.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
From TFA: for allowing other iPad apps (lists "German paper Bild and British The Sun") to do what they have been prevented from. Duh.
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.
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.
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?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
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
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
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.
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?
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.
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
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
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.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Except if you actually read the Playboy app description, it says this at the bottom:
"*This app does NOT contain any nude content."
This sentence no verb.