Slashdot Mirror
Apple Pulls VLC Media Player From AppStore
An anonymous reader writes "Apple has removed VLC media player from the App Store, putting an end to the controversy on the license (in)compatibilities. Indeed, the iTunes page for VLC media player stopped working. VLC developer Rémi Denis-Courmont notes that he is 'not going to pity the owners of iDevices, and not even the MobileVLC developers who doubtless wasted a lot of their time. This end should not have come to a surprise to anyone.'"
a glimpse of the future - when the only way to get "apps" on any computer have to come from the company store.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
The shame is that the companies seem to feel that it's an all or nothing choice. Flash up a big red warning that states "Unsupported software" if you must, but give me the option to use the hardware freely.
You know the creators of VLC were calling for it to be removed, yes?
You talk as if you own the hardware or something.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Not "the creators", but rather "one of the creators" (or possibly "some of".)
The organization VideoLAN officially promoted its use and listing, in spite of one vocal member's protests.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
I was a VLC user until recently. But lately, I just absolutely refuse to use anything with their brand on it because of this precise behavior. Ohh, and the bugs with missing audio in some MPEG2 files that no other player has, and that they haven't been able to fix for the last couple of years.
Fandroids hate facts.
You're just plain wrong. Android phones have been by far outselling the iPhone, and they just recently surpassed the total iPhone sales numbers. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/01/05/androids-users-eclipse-iphones-for-first-time-comscore-says/
What the hell do Apple think they are anyway?
People who respect software licenses when the license holders request software be removed from their store?
I'm a dedicated linux user for the past 5 years and I'm thinking of dumping it all and going to macs.
I spend way too much time fiddling and screwing around trying to get normal things to work. The other day for example my wife wanted a sound to come on when she got an email in thunderbird. Should be easy, no? Doesn't work on ubuntu without some serious googling/screwing around. Google earth which for some reason vanished from the medibuntu repository... same deal. For some reason the installer set the symlink to point somewhere else. And still the fonts are screwed up, don't know why.
Or one of my favorites? Kdenlive, a great video editor, can't export to h.264 out of the box on ubuntu because it uses lame so you have to put your own custom export in. Or a recent clean install of Kubuntu 10.10 that left the master mixing channel muted (not through kmix but through alsamixer). Or the fact that the newest ubuntu amarok packages kill it's ability to talk to my wife's ipod. On and on. I'm not pointing fingers here, the devs and packagers do a fab job for the most part but it's always just shy of the goal line it seems.
Look, I loves me linux, but I have 3 kids, a wife, a job, and a life. And I won't do windows not for the least part because of the safety factor for my kids and wife not downloading shite. So do I want to come home from my IT job and have a nice safe controlled environment for my wife and kids to hop on, do email, surf the web, etc in a reasonably safe way where I don't need to spend hours on end fiddling when something doesn't work? Sounds f'ing great to me.
"You disturb me to the point of insanity. There. I am insane now." - The Sprockets
I was a Mac user until recently, and an Apple II user before I started with Macs. But lately, I just absolutely refuse to use anything with their brand on it because of this precise behavior.
What behavior? Apple clearly stated their terms for the use of the service. The VLC media player developers use a license which is not compatible with those terms. In fact, it was those developers who took the first action:
Today, a formal notification of copyright infringement was sent to Apple Inc. regarding distribution of the VLC media player for iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch.
Apple simply complied with the notification and took down the app in question. If the developers want their software in Apple's App Store then they should release it under a compatible license. I'm sure they can (and perhaps they have) also try to convince Apple to change the terms of the app store.
Every store has to have rules or it'd be complete anarchy. Sometimes these rules are going to get in the way of someone's idea of how it should all work. This is one of those times. Obviously Apple's rules work for a lot of cases since there are tons of apps, both good and bad, in the app store. There's nothing evil going on here, it's just two entities enforcing the terms of use for their properties.
Sapere aude!
Android has never 'eaten Apple's lunch' on iPhone sales.
Google (Android), per comScore, passed Apple (iOS) as #2 in total active smartphone subscribers. (Still trails Blackberry, though if Android climbs and Blackberry falls in the next quarter at the same rate, Android will be #1 and Blackberry and iOS will be number #2.)
Now, comScore may overstate Google's position (Nielsen, for instance, has Apple ahead of Google -- and RIM -- with Google predicted to take the number 1 slot in Q1 2011), but pretty much all sources have Android growing fast, and on the verge of passing Apple in the smartphone market if not actually ahead.
It's sales also leveled off a few months ago.
Well, no. The Apple Insider forum post you link to interprets an 8% increase in the daily activation rate between August and October as a sign that the activation rate has reached a "plateau", but increasing by 8% in two months is not a plateau. It might be a reduction in the previous rate of increase, but an 8% increase in two months is a 58% annualized rate of increase, which is pretty far from flat.
Its not surprising that Apple Insider distorts things in that direction, of course, but it is a distortion, and not a particularly subtle one.
As interpreted (by me) from the horse's mouth [fsf.org]: the appStore licence says you can only install the software on 5 approved devices, whereas of course the GPL specifically prohibits that type of restriction. Plus, the appStore licence says, "The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party." That means, the software author cannot undercut the appStore restrictions with a less restrictive licence such as the GPL, even if they want to.
Here is what the app store _actually_ says:
"You acknowledge that: you are purchasing the license to each Third-Party Product from the third-party licensor of that Third-Party Product (the "Application Provider"); Apple is acting as agent for the Application Provider in providing each such Third-Party Product to you; and Apple is not a party to the license between you and the Application Provider with respect to that Third-Party Product. The Application Provider of each Third-Party Product is solely responsible for that Third-Party Product, the content therein, any warranties to the extent that such warranties have not been disclaimed, and any claims that you or any other party may have relating to that Third-Party Product."
So for GPL licensed software, Apple just provides a downloading service to the end user; there is no software license agreement between you and Apple at all. Apple limits what Apple will do for the end user: They are willing to put copies onto five computers owned by one person, but not six. That doesn't limit what the end user is allowed to do. They don't get any further assistance from Apple, so making more copies is a bit more complicated (involves downloading the software, modifying it as you like, recompiling it, possible for another device), but Apple is _not_ restricting what they allow you to do. And you only have to jump through these hoops if you decide to be an ass; if you want to give the same software to all your iPhone owning friends, just tell them where to find it on the store.
There is a little bit of subtleness: Apple sells software licenses on behalf of third parties, and that is what the end user pays for, not the application itself. As GPL allows charging for the software, but not for the license, you can't publish GPL licensed software through the AppStore unless it is free as in free bear.
One of the developers, Rémi Denis-Courmont, was calling on Apple to allow users to use VLC in the manner that the GPL requires. However Apple decided that they would rather remove VLC from the repository than modify their ToS to allow developers to set their own licensing terms.
You mean a group of handset manufacturers outsold a single manufacturer of handsets.
Ever thought about Windows 7? It's actually quite stable and well-designed.
BOOM! Oh, man, you really faced that dude. You, like, obliterated him. "Eating Apple's lunch" he said, and you were all like "More like eating Apple's ASS"!! Fuckin'-A right, eating Apple's ass. Apple is like so completely awesome, and you're awesome too for handling that weak-ass Android shit.
He'll think twice before he ever disrespects the primacy of the Apple Nation.
Apple totally rules. 4 EVER!!
You are welcome on my lawn.
He means that given the choice, the market decided that they preferred something other than Apple more than they preferred Apple.