Slashdot Mirror


Apple Rejects Drone Strike App

eldavojohn writes "Developer Josh Begley, a student at Clay Shirky's NYU Media Lab, created an application called Drones+ that allows users to track U.S. drone strikes on a map of Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Far from innovative, the app in question merely relays and positions strikes as available from the U.K.'s Bureau of Investigative Journalism. First Apple rejected the application claiming it was 'not useful or entertaining enough,' then it was rejected for hiding a corporate logo. And the latest reason for objection is that Begley's content is 'objectionable and crude' and 'that many audiences would find [it] objectionable." Begley's at a loss for how to change information on a map. He's not showing images of the drone strikes nor even graphically describing the strikes. From the end of the article, 'The basic idea was to see if he could get App Store denizens a bit more interested in the U.S.' secretive, robotic wars, with information on those wars popping up on their phones the same way an Instagram comment or retweet might. Instead, Begley's thinking about whether he'd have a better shot making the same point in the Android Market.'"

157 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. apple just doesn't want to touch that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    with a ten foot pole.

    1. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      apple just doesn't want to touch that with a ten foot pole.

      Yep. That's one of the downsides of the walled garden. I'm still annoyed I can't get MAME on iOS.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think they're more afraid that the app will manage to get hold of an immediate report of their next operation, and the phones will all say "One drone strike on MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA launched from base in CUPERTINO, CA".

    3. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by tchuladdiass · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When you write for iOS, you aren't working for yourself. You are instead working as a contractor for Apple. You are given the job of coming up with product ideas, implementing and marketing them. And you get paid a hefty commission on the sales. But as an Apple contractor, they are free to reject any idea or implementation thereof -- it has to be in line with what they would want to develop themselves.

      If you think of it this way, it makes things so much easier.

    4. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's with all these oldthinkers? They just don't have a bellyfeel for the doubleplusfreedom Apple provides its users. They need more goodthink.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The correct term isn't so much "Contractor" as "Sharecropper."

    6. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by fm6 · · Score: 2

      Jeez, dude, if you can't learn to speak Newspeak properly, I'm going to report you to the Thought Police. You need to get rid of grammatical ornamentation and expressive subtlety. Try

      Why oldthink? Apple give doubleplusfreedom. Be goodthinkful.

    7. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > I'm still annoyed I can't get MAME on iOS.

      You can.

      Nobody has bothered to port it though. MAME is a huge project, the source tree is massive (+3500 files). The MAME guys are more then willing to work with someone who wants to invest the time and effort to port it to iOS properly.

      What you saw a long time ago (iMAME/iMAME4ALL)- the version that was taken down- was a dirty hack on a copy of the source tree that was over a decade old (12 years to be exact). None of the ROMs compatible with that version of MAME ran in the newer versions of MAME, because the ROMs had been re-dumped and renamed umpteen times since.

      The MAME guys had the iOS app pulled because it reflected badly on the project, not because of Apple's walled garden or any direct action from Apple. If you want to take the time to port a **recent** and modernized version of MAME to iOS, you're more then welcome to. That massive hack that made it into the app store was just that, and it was done by a bunch of buffoons who had absolutely no clue what they were doing (otherwise they should have used a recent version of MAME instead). The source code that was 12 years old had so many modifications and kludges applied to it that it barely resembled the original MAME source tree from back then, even though compatibility was identical.

      You probably don't care though, since you're just a consumer and you want your Donkey Kong on iOS. Nevertheless, not everything you read about is because of the "walled garden".

      -AC

    8. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by Black+LED · · Score: 1

      So you spend a bunch of time working on something and have Apple dismiss it out of hand because they don't like it or might potentially want to create something that competes at some point in the future. Sounds great.

    9. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      The MAME guys had the iOS app pulled because it reflected badly on the project, not because of Apple's walled garden or any direct action from Apple. ... Nevertheless, not everything you read about is because of the "walled garden"..

      Apple doesn't allow apps like MAME because they run interpreted code. The only way they can get MAME to work officially on the App Store is if the ROMs ONLY come from the App Store and aren't capable of being loaded onto the device externally. That pretty much defeats the purpose since a significant number of those ROMs will be licensable.

      Walled Garden. Sorry. I am able to play MAME just fine on my Galaxy Tab, though.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    10. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by dido · · Score: 2

      Apple has just become Big Brother in their 1984 Superbowl Ad

      . The irony.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    11. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Look up the history of the Commodore App.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    12. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      War is objectionable. Apple doesn't want US citizens to watch what the US does in war?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    13. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      It still bug the hell out of me that I can't find any WiFi diagnostic utilities for iOS. Something like an android version of "WiFi Analyzer" would have been nice. But, Apple banned them all.

      http://wlanbook.com/iphone-wifi-scanner-apps-banned-by-apple/

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    14. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by msauve · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    15. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      Apple has just become Big Brother in their 1984 Superbowl Ad

      . The irony.

      Well, in a way, yes. Because Steve Jobs, after years of experience with the first Mac and at NeXT, decided that maybe Big Brother existed for a good reason, was actually necessary, and that he was doing the world a favor by being a better Big Brother, and that the world would love him for it. And you know what? After billions in sales and millions of devices sold to adoring fans... the vast majority of which had never purchased an Apple product in the pre-comeback era... the world proved him right.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    16. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      Would you still be saying that if Android, the only viable competitor which permits sideloading, didn't exist? At what point does censorship become wrong?

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    17. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Truth hurts, eh?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    18. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by sjames · · Score: 2

      Big Brother in the novel was quite successful as well, but that didn't make it a force of good.

    19. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by sjames · · Score: 1

      You didn't read deep enough. ANY authority, corporate or government that operates through blocking the free flow of information or through disinformation is a problem. Orwell likely chose a government entity for the novel because at the time a corporate entity with enough reach to pull off a major censorship and disinformation campaign in the face of government and a vigorous free press would have been too big of a stretch to be believed./

      Consider, how does an oligarchy of interlocking corporate entities with total control of the media differ from a bad government (considering that through news manipulation they can get anyone elected or recalled at will)?

    20. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by icebraining · · Score: 2

      You should tell Apple that, they did the same thing with the ad.

    21. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by deains · · Score: 1

      And who can blame them? Last thing any company wants is the ire of the US government. It's just not worth the risk.

    22. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by medcalf · · Score: 1

      That's odd, because I have a couple of them installed on my iPhone.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    23. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      It also works with the iCade. It's very nice, actually. Unfortunately, that Android isn't all sunshine and roses. I can't run Chrome, for example, because ICS isn't available for the tablet I have.

      My problem isn't really OS choice, it's the policies of the parent company.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    24. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by Black+LED · · Score: 1

      What kind of tablet do you have?

    25. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      At what point does censorship become wrong?

      At the point that owning an iPhone-like device and sideloading it becomes a fundamental right. Until then, kindly refrain from hyperbole that compares one vendor's distribution model to the authoritarian nightmare portrayed in 1984. Theyre not even remotely similar.

      Consider that a few years ago the idea of "installing things" on your phone was restricted to a few niche devices. How did we go from "its amazing, I can install things on my iPhone" to "Apple is big brother for only letting me install certain things on my iPhone"?

    26. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I have a Samsung Galaxy Tab. I dig it.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    27. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by Black+LED · · Score: 1

      I was asking because XDA has a ton of ROMs for Android devices. I see a few ICS ROMs for the Galaxy Tab here if you want to give it a shot.

      I'm running of the XDA development ICS ROMs on my phone and it works great.

    28. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Thanks man, I'll have a peek. Have a good weekend!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    29. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by execthis · · Score: 1

      History is replete with "successes" which were disastrous, usually accompanied with copious amounts of hubris and arrogance.

    30. Re:apple just doesn't want to touch that by execthis · · Score: 1

      Wrong. We live in a time when companies like Apple are equivalent to feudal fiefdoms. The "freedoms" we seek are those granted or bestowed by one fiefdom or another, to which peasants can choose to be in allegiance with or not. The fiefdoms are what control the country. If you cannot see that this is the case and how the political system in America functions, you are blind.

  2. There is no problem with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple is, and should be, free to prohibit any content they want on their store. It's their store, we shouldn't force them to add stuff they don't want.

    The problem here is the locked down devices. You have no other way of installing things on an iPhone. Which is precisely why I don't own one.

    1. Re:There is no problem with this by aristotle-dude · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apple is, and should be, free to prohibit any content they want on their store. It's their store, we shouldn't force them to add stuff they don't want.

      The problem here is the locked down devices. You have no other way of installing things on an iPhone. Which is precisely why I don't own one.

      Solution: Use Safari Mobile.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    2. Re:There is no problem with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We as smartphone users have every right to pressure Apple to accept this application or any other application. We can decide where to spend our money based on how Apple treats us in meeting our demands.

    3. Re:There is no problem with this by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      No you can't. :)

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    4. Re:There is no problem with this by devilspgd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple is, and should be, free to prohibit any content they want on their store.

      Absolutely!

      It's their store, we shouldn't force them to add stuff they don't want.

      Nobody is forcing anything. Yet. For the same reason that Apple has a right to carry (or not carry) whatever they like, I have the right to complain about it.

      The problem here is the locked down devices. You have no other way of installing things on an iPhone.

      And this is the reason I'm actually alright with forcing Apple to carry certain things that they might not otherwise want to carry. If the App Store rules weren't such a moving target, I'd have less of a complaint, but the fact that limitations on what software I can install on my device are added after the initial purchase of my device is a bit of a problem, at least to me.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    5. Re:There is no problem with this by devilspgd · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've yet to see anything resembling a usable map interface implemented in Safari Mobile. Even Google's is clunky and painful to use vs a native app, so suggesting "Just use Safari" doesn't really scale until it can create as functional an interface as what native apps can do.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    6. Re:There is no problem with this by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      And this affects me none as an iOS user - and I'm sure most iOS users have given it even less thought.

      Apple wishes to keep this software out of their market as a CYA strategy. This is fine with me. They also keep emulators out for the same reason, which I'm less thrilled about but I can understand their position.

      If I felt some other platform offered me superior choices, I would use that platform. As it is, I prefer iOS, because I value convenience over software freedom. My communications remain unimpaired by Apple.

    7. Re:There is no problem with this by cffrost · · Score: 2

      This is fine with me. They also keep emulators out for the same reason, which I'm less thrilled about but I can understand their position.

      Which is: Apple right behind you, and you bent over and paying for the privilege. I understand Apple's position too, but I can't understand your position.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    8. Re:There is no problem with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, because charging for work you do is so wrong.

    9. Re:There is no problem with this by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple denying what you have an option to use affects you. Most iOS users don't know about it, so yeah they probably didn't think about it.

      Denying this app IS impairing communication. Sure, it's not a type of communication you would use, but next time it might be.
      Funny thin is, My Galaxy does many thing more convenient the the iPhone does.

      No that you should change, but don't kid yourself either.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:There is no problem with this by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      No you can't. :)

      If you're referring to "We can decide where to spend our money based on how Apple treats us in meeting our demands.", are you claiming that smartphone users are forced to purchase iPhones?

    11. Re:There is no problem with this by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought that I was pointing out that there are 2 types of iPhone users.
      Those too stupid to know that they have no choice and those that made the choice to not have one.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    12. Re:There is no problem with this by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      I thought that I was pointing out that there are 2 types of iPhone users. Those too stupid to know that they have no choice and those that made the choice to not have one.

      ("One" in "have one" presumably referring to "the choice as to which apps you want to have, including apps not approved by Apple". There is, however, a third type of iPhone users, namely those who made the choice to jailbreak their phones and run non-App Store apps on them.)

      Yes, but there are also people who have made the choice not to be iPhone users, which is the choice to which the AC to whom you replied was presumably referring.

    13. Re:There is no problem with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's the "Not a mentally ill sack of geek filth" position. Most people want to browse the web and stream stuff. Running a Python interpreter or some idiot l33t bugfest shitware is not important to sane people with actual lives. Got it, geek?

    14. Re:There is no problem with this by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Except the terms state you can't sell apps that are basically just a web page. As far as I know he did not even use map Apis or anything. It's website so quite rightly it's not and app and can be accessed via the browser.

    15. Re:There is no problem with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd come up with a snarky comeback for that, but I'm still busy configuring and customizing my Android phone... gimme an hour or so, then I'll be ready for ya...

    16. Re:There is no problem with this by tepples · · Score: 1

      How should a web application running in Safari access the camera and microphone of an iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad?

    17. Re:There is no problem with this by Smurf · · Score: 2

      Until I read your comment I had never tried to go to maps.google.com in Safari on my iPhone. It's quite pointless since there is a native app for that, but still I find funny that I never even tried to do it.

      So, I just went there, did a couple of searches including driving directions. Let me tell you that I am very impressed with how well it works, especially since it is very unlikely that Google has invested any significant amount of resources in it (again, because it's pointless since all devices from all major mobile platforms come with a Google Maps app preinstalled).

      It is very fast and easy to use. It is also very ugly, but that's easy to fix. I wouldn't use it instead of the native app if it was available, but if a service that I am really interested in performs as good as this web app does I would be OK with it.

    18. Re:There is no problem with this by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      The problem here is the locked down devices

      The problem is buyers remorse. Has anyone ever been misled into thinking that the AppStore was a free-for-all, un-curated software repository? If so, you probably should have returned the device once you discovered your error.

      Its like people are buying a SmartCar, and then getting upset that it doesnt have a truck bed in the back. Seems like the solution is to buy the product that has the features you want, rather than purchasing the wrong thing and then getting mad at everyone because its the wrong thing.

    19. Re:There is no problem with this by Narcogen · · Score: 1

      You don't even need that. This isn't an app, it's a KML layer for Google Earth, which is already in the store. Put the info into a KML file, put it online, and then enter the URL of the KML file in the Google Earth search field.

      Of course, this only gets the information out there in a useable form. It doesn't let you draw attention to yourself by claiming you've been censored by Apple. Which was really the entire point of this.

    20. Re:There is no problem with this by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Of course there are people who choose not to be iPhone users. I did not include them because I stated that there are 2 types of iPhone users.
      As far as those who jailbreak.
      Either they were to stupid to know that Apple had them on a leash but smart enough to figure out how to get off the leash or....
      they made a bad choice in the beginning and made the best of it.
      Anyone who bought an iPhone just so they could jailbreak it to make it usable for them would need to be mentally retarded.
      I did not mention them because speaking ill of the retarded is frowned upon. :)

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    21. Re:There is no problem with this by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      There is, however, a third type of iPhone users, namely those who made the choice to jailbreak their phones and run non-App Store apps on them.)

      Those are the ones too stupid to have supported the open phones that were made and helped contribute to curated computing's success.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    22. Re:There is no problem with this by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Haha helpless jock. Keep telling yourself that while Apple controls what you can do. Funny that you're smart enough to know that you're Apple's bitch but too dumb to do anything about it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    23. Re:There is no problem with this by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Of course there are people who choose not to be iPhone users. I did not include them because I stated that there are 2 types of iPhone users.

      In the post to which you originally replied, the person said "We can decide where to spend our money based on how Apple treats us in meeting our demands." It seems pretty obvious that one of the "decisions", if not the decision, to which that refers is the decision to spend your money with Samsung or HTC or Motorola or $PICK_YOUR_ANDROID_VENDOR rather than with Apple. (You could also go with $PICK_YOUR_WINDOWS_MOBILE_VENDOR if Microsoft's app store policies bother you less than Apple's app store policies.)

      So "we" in "we can decide where to spend our money" includes people who were iPhone users but have decided not to be iPhone users in the future. Yeah, they can't go back and un-spend the money that they spent on the iPhone (modulo getting some of it back by selling the iPhone), but they can refuse to spend any future money with Apple.

      In your first post, you said only "No you can't. :)" in response to that. If the "you" in that statement is the same as the "we" in the statement to which you're referring, then the statement is false, as, while they can't un-spend the money they already sent, they can, as indicated, choose not to spend more money with Apple in the future. I.e., "pointing out that there are 2 types of iPhone users", as a response to the original poster, completely misses the point of what the original poster was saying, and so it would be completely silly to read "No you can't." as "pointing out that there are 2 types of iPhone users".

    24. Re:There is no problem with this by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Both of those types are incapable of making decisions.
      Had they given a shit about it in the first place they would not be iPhone users.
      They do not care about lock in, they do not care about freedom, they only want either to puch the button and have it do the thing they told it to or they want to be cool.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    25. Re:There is no problem with this by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Both of those types are incapable of making decisions. Had they given a shit about it in the first place they would not be iPhone users.

      OK, so "can't" in "no you can't" meant "you are incapable of making decisions", not "the choice to no longer buy Apple phones is not available to you for some external reason". If so, then note that "made a decision that they later regretted" is different from "is inherently incapable of making good decisions now or in the future".

    26. Re:There is no problem with this by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Are you implying you can't understand someone who doesn't share your exact set of values? That would be a failure n your part.

      Because me too I own an iPhone, and I'm perfectly happy with it. I know Android, and yet, I've had three different models of iPhones so far (original, 3GS, 4S). So tell me, what exactly is it that you don't understand with me?

    27. Re:There is no problem with this by execthis · · Score: 1

      Absolutely wrong. As a provider of a platform for information exchange and communication, Apple's products must be required, by law, to be open and free.

      There is absolutely an overriding interest for the social good that a large platform provider, be it a cable company, large publishing house, or communications technology provider keep their platforms open and free.

      The opposite is essentially fascism. Right now the Obama administration is trying to prevent the content providers like Xfinity from controlling all the content. Xfinity already censors things like Al Jazeera and much other content which it doesn't want to compete with its own, inferior content that it controls.

      This case with Apple controlling everything is no different.

  3. app vs act(uality ) by tidepool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the 'app' is rated as objectionable and 'crude'', what does that make the actions themselves? Are we all so content as a society to hide our heads under our pillows, all the while chanting 'freedom in the USA!'?

    I think the guy had a valid point -- If the app exists or doesn't exist, it doesn't change the data points that are being created (Monthly/Weekly/Daily?) nor the map itself.

    Correlation is not causation - Apple should know this.

    1. Re:app vs act(uality ) by mark_elf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Head under pillows, going to the Apple store to buy more iPads, not questioning the consensus, super-consuming reality we live in. I turned on my facebook today and saw all my friends got new iphones so I went down and got one too! Drone strikes keep us safe, don't ask too many questions, don't rock the boat. Obama or Romney, Apple or Microsoft, Facebook or Google+. What do drone strikes have to do with it?

      --------------

      Posted from a 17" macbook pro.

    2. Re:app vs act(uality ) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apple's next gadget: iPillow. It censors your news so you don't have to feel like you should do something.

    3. Re:app vs act(uality ) by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It's just not good business, on many fronts, to show people the consequences of their vote. It could create an atmosphere of discontent and damage the reputation of the state.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:app vs act(uality ) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plus by making more and more of the public realm private they can use the private property excuse to suppress dissent. "It is Apple's product, too bad!"

    5. Re:app vs act(uality ) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Why do we need to know that you "Posted from a 17" macbook pro." ?

      Does it make the fonts look different on my screen or something?

    6. Re:app vs act(uality ) by fm6 · · Score: 2

      Whatever their official reasons, I doubt that this is about security or good taste or anything like that. Apple simply doesn't like controversy. That's why they wouldn't allow a Bush Leaves count down clock.

    7. Re:app vs act(uality ) by msauve · · Score: 1

      "What do drone strikes have to do with it?"

      Nothing. They're neither Bread, nor Circuses, so they don't qualify.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    8. Re:app vs act(uality ) by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I just heard such a loud Whoooosh that I got up and looked out the window to make sure it wasn't a drone flying by.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:app vs act(uality ) by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Somebody's figured it out ;)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  4. Of course they rejected it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A Drone Strike app which can't initiate strikes is like an email client which can't send email.

    Apple deserves our thanks for keeping unfinished apps out of the App Store.

    1. Re:Of course they rejected it! by bitt3n · · Score: 2

      A Drone Strike app which can't initiate strikes is like an email client which can't send email.

      Apple deserves our thanks for keeping unfinished apps out of the App Store.

      you say that now, but what happens when grandma hits Reply To All and levels the Maghreb?

  5. patents would be better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I want an app that pops up a map pointer to each court that Apple wages battle in.

  6. Or he could... you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Put it on a website!

    Why does everything have to be an app these days? If you just want to display information, isn't that exactly what the Web was designed for? Why turn it into something that only a minority of your potential audience can make use of?

    We already went through this whole proprietary wrappers nonsense back in the early days of the Internet. I thought we learned our lesson. Apparently not.

    End rant.

    Oh yeah, and get off my lawn!

    1. Re:Or he could... you know... by Githaron · · Score: 2

      Does iOS or Android even have the native ability to add website shortcuts to the home screens or application menu? If they did, I think people might be more willing to use them.

    2. Re:Or he could... you know... by guspasho · · Score: 1

      Apps are designed to the OS, websites are designed to standards. Apps are going to be inherently superior. If anything, the app is more direct and it's Safari and the web interface that is the obnoxious wrapper.

      Also, you get App Store visibility.

    3. Re:Or he could... you know... by Megahard · · Score: 1

      Android certainly does, it's one of the more useful features IMHO.

      --
      I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
    4. Re:Or he could... you know... by newcastlejon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Does iOS or Android even have the native ability to add website shortcuts to the home screens or application menu?

      I can't speak for Android, but in Safari you tap the icon next to bookmarks then "Add to Home Screen".

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    5. Re:Or he could... you know... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Does iOS or Android even have the native ability to add website shortcuts to the home screens or application menu? If they did, I think people might be more willing to use them.

      Not sure about Android, but iOS definitely has web apps - it was there even before the App Store was around. It's effectively a bookmark, but I believe it runs a separate instance so do it right and it can feel all "native".

      In fact, you can pin any web site to the home screen.

      Apple has always suggested that apps that don't want to be approved be done this way. I'm not sure how far Apple has gone with their proposals to have sensor capabilities (accellerometer, gyros, location, etc) available via HTML5 so they can be used by webapps...

      I would assume Android has similar functionality.

    6. Re:Or he could... you know... by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      iOS does, but it's severely hobbled. When you attempt to return to the app (via fast-app switching or the home-screen-icon) you get to see where you left off for a couple seconds, then it returns to the main URL for that web-app.

      This makes it a huge pain to actually use this functionality since if you save, say, /., then instead of being able to finish the comment you were writing, you'll end up at the /. homepage again.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    7. Re:Or he could... you know... by Wordplay · · Score: 1

      It's because it's the shortcut equivalent of launching Safari with a link. You see the old page for a moment because the UIWebView (embedded Safari) wrapper displaying the page is still in memory, then it navigates to the new.

      Does Android do this better?

    8. Re:Or he could... you know... by dodex1k · · Score: 1

      Hopefully people will see start to see that the same things apps do can be accomplished just as effectively by websites. For every single app in the Apple app store, there is probably a corresponding website that does the same thing. And it doesn't need to be approved by anyone.

      There's an app for that...
      And there's a website too.
      And it's free.

    9. Re:Or he could... you know... by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Works fine on Android too. Just hold and select bookmark. Like any other App shortcut or widget.

    10. Re:Or he could... you know... by tidepool · · Score: 1

      There is a large difference that I am seeing:

      A website is a GET request.
      An App allows for PUSH'ed content.

      GETTING the information at your whim, if you even remember that you HAVE the website 'bookmarked'/'shortcutted' is a COMPLETELY different mental stimulus than having the updated drone attack (who are we kidding,(?) I am using attack because it absolutely fits the bill) pop-up on screen when you're looking at weather.com or on the phone with your Mom.

      99% of the impact is LOST if it were to be all handled via GET; The PUSH is what makes it politically notable.

    11. Re:Or he could... you know... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Why does everything have to be an app these days?

      Because that's what all the kids are doing, and the entire purpose of the app is to get kids interested in what their country is actually doing. If you want to get peoples attention, go to where their attention already is. The fact that anyone who wants this information can get it easily doesn't help distribute this information to those who don't know that they are interested yet.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:Or he could... you know... by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      Understood. And with regards to relaunching the icon, this makes sense. However, when you fast-app-switch back to the web-app, it would be really nice if it left you where you left off instead of restarting like virtually all modern iOS apps do.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    13. Re:Or he could... you know... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Your rant doesn't go far enough. Browsers, especially mobile browsers, have gone way beyond just displaying information. I think that maybe 90% of all the apps I've seen could be implemented on the web. There are security and privacy issues of course, but that's true for apps as well.

      I think people write apps because that's what they know how to do. Writing an application that exists mainly in the cloud is a new paradigm, and it's going to be a while before developers adapt to it.

    14. Re:Or he could... you know... by GuldKalle · · Score: 1

      On Android, you just fast-switch back to the browser app, which displays the same as when you left it.

      --
      What?
  7. obviously by LodCrappo · · Score: 4, Funny

    The big new "magical" feature in the upcoming iPhone 5 is the ability to track drone strikes.

    --
    -Lod
  8. "objectionable" content.... by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other words, this guy has discovered first hand what happens when content gets censored on grounds of being "objectionable."

    It doesn't matter what the subject is, SOMEONE will find it objectionable.

    Evolution? Creationists.
    Fluffy Kittens? PETA.
    Babies? Malthists
    Picking flowers? Botanical conservationists.
    Vaccination? Antivac-ers.
    Birth control? Catholics
    Lipstick? Orthodox muslims
    Etc.

    If the metric for rejection was "objectionable", then the only way for apple's store to remain open is if it has nothing to sell.

    Rather, Apple has taken the shister path, and has conflated "unpopular" with "objectionable", since the real application of that word would exclude all products.

    As such, anything sociologically or politically unpopular, regardless of factual content, is banned.

    1. Re:"objectionable" content.... by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No contest. However, nobody would be forcing people to install this app. The utility provided is the centrality it offers as a data aggregator. The data is already in the wild. The issue here is that political apps are just another item in that list. SOMEONE will find the very idea of a politically motivated app to be objectionable.

      This is like porn. Some people want it, and pay money for it. Others find it objectionable. Rather than create a dedicated "restricted" section in the app store for such items (political apps, pornographic items, etc) apple has determined its own set of "decency", and "objectional" metrics which are poorly defined and purposefully ambiguous. The language used can be used to exclude any product, including fluffy kittens.

      It is one thing to say "I don't want to sell porn." It is entirely another to say "I am the only store in town, I actively destroy rival stores, and I don't want you to be buying porn because it is dirty, dirty filth."

      Getting such things on an idevice is a lot like buying crack; you have to use methods that are less than reputable or proper to get them. In some cases, apple may brick your device for posession.

      Simply because the app is political in nature does not mean that nobody would want it, or that nobody would find it desirable or useful. The fact that it is unpopular with the mainstream popular culture should not be grounds for exclusion. It should be "restricted", so people who don't want to see the add don't have to unless they actively look for it, but it shouldn't be banned.

    2. Re:"objectionable" content.... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      If the metric for rejection was "objectionable", then the only way for apple's store to remain open is if it has nothing to sell.

      Okay, let's not get silly here. We all know that their idea of objectionable is if they can picture this turning into a PR nightmare. For example: They didn't want the baby-shaking game on their store. They didn't want some news station running an article like: "Do you approve of your kids playing a game where you shake babies to death? Why doesn't Apple stop this sort of thing?"

      You're right that it's subjective, that sucks balls. But, no, it's not that hard to work out what's likely to get banned. They're not worried about offending anybody, they're worried about having to pay extra to their PR consultants.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:"objectionable" content.... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      If it is so easy to define, why don't they?

    4. Re:"objectionable" content.... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Because coming out and saying: "We don't allow stuff that damages our PR.." will damage their PR.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:"objectionable" content.... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Fancy that!

      So, basically they use language that sounds like it is in the consumer's interest, (we won't allow anything objectionable!) Knowing fully good and well that the language was actually chosen to permit them to restrict whatever they want, and clandestinely used such ambiguous language underhandedly to avoid bad PR, because the just can't handle a little tarnish on the glowing apple mecca's reputation?

      How exactly does the ue of such a ractic reflect upon their company?

      Or were they expecting me to be too stupid to know what "objectionable" means? If so, what does that say about their company?

      I would respect apple more if they came out and openly stated what they really mean instead of couching it in ambiguous doubletalk.

    6. Re:"objectionable" content.... by cvtan · · Score: 1

      I find the App Store objectionable.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    7. Re:"objectionable" content.... by Hatta · · Score: 2

      SOMEONE will find the very idea of a politically motivated app to be objectionable.

      I find the very idea of censorship objectionable.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:"objectionable" content.... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Orthodox Muslim women do buy and use makeup. They just don't show their made up faces in public.

      You're not wrong, though. A sufficiently conservative Muslim is offended by a anything resembling a "graven image", even a drawing of an animal.

    9. Re:"objectionable" content.... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      What the heck is a malthist?

    10. Re:"objectionable" content.... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      A malthist is someone who adheres to the ideas about population and sustainability argued by Thomas Malthus.

      Wikipedia page on Malthus

      Essentially, they believe that a massive dieoff is immenent, and that having more children is a gross and unethical thing to do given the already overpopulated condition of the planet.

      Reference, "malthusian catastrophe."

  9. Not a government website! by uslurper · · Score: 2, Informative

    The description of the article is misleading..
    "available from the U.K.'s Bureau of Investigative Journalism."

    -makes it sound like it is a government-sponsored website when it is fact a privately owned and operated site.

    from the site:
    "About the Bureau
    The Bureau of Investigative Journalism is a not-for-profit organisation based at City University, London. The Bureau bolsters original journalism by producing high-quality investigations for press and broadcast media with the aim of educating the public and the media on both the realities of today’s world and the value of honest reporting."

    "Donations
      The Bureau was established with a £2 million donation from the David & Elaine Potter Foundation. We have also received funding from the Andrew Wainwright Reform Trust, and the Green Park Foundation (based in the US).
    Media income
      We have received part payment for our stories from the BBC, Channel4, Al Jazeera, ITN, The Mail on Sunday, The Sunday Times, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph.
    Non media income
      We have received monies from Oxfam.
    City University
    The Bureau receives subsidised office space and facilities from City University. The Bureau has an ongoing relationship with City University’s Department of Journalism which includes offering work experience and internships to its journalism students. Senior members of the Bureau’s staff guest lecture at the department.
    Google
    The Bureau receives free email and document-sharing services from Google.
    Simons Muirhead & Burton Solicitors
    The Bureau has a relationship with Simons Muirhead & Burton, one of London’s leading law firms. The firm provides a comprehensive range of legal services particularly to those in the media. It advises the Bureau on a wide range of legal issues, with some of the work done on a pro bono basis.
    Managing Editor
    Iain Overton is employed by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. His annual salary is just under £65,000 with an additional pension provision on top. He has no political or commercial affiliations."
    also misleading from the description:

    " the app in question merely relays and positions strikes as available"
    -the app writer may not have permission to relay this information:
    also from the site:
    "Steal our stories
    The Bureau of Investigative Journalism is an independent, not-for-profit organisation that carries out research in the public interest. Unless otherwise stated our articles and graphics can be republished without charge. However, there are a few things we ask you to bear in mind:
    - If republishing online please link to us and include all of the links from our story.
    - Our material cannot be sold separately.
    - Photographs and video cannot be republished without specific permission from the licence holder.
    - If quoting from our research the Bureau of Investigative Journalism must be credited.
    The Bureau is licenced under Creative Commons, which provides the legal details. "

    --
    oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
    1. Re:Not a government website! by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      What on earth would a government be doing running a bureau of investigative journalism? Investigative journalism exists *precisely to* enhance the transparency of governments, companies, and individuals who don't want to be.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Not a government website! by Arker · · Score: 1

      No one but you read that and thought it had anything to do with a government agency. Investigative journalism, look it up.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  10. he just now considers android? by LodCrappo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Begley's thinking about whether he'd have a better shot making the same point in the Android Market.'"

    He'd be allowed to try. Considering there are considerably more Android users than iThing users, he'd also have a bigger impact if his app was popular.

    Freedom: it's not really so bad, despite what Apple would have you believe.

    --
    -Lod
    1. Re:he just now considers android? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Actually I'd say Apple's censorship is causing the app to have a bigger impact than it ever would have otherwise, even if people never see it. (The app itself would be relatively static and not that exciting to use.)

    2. Re:he just now considers android? by rk · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Interesting idea... take it a step further: could it be that Apple is secretly wearing a white hat here, "banning" the app for a few specious reasons in an attempt to publicize it through outrage, only to recant a few days later? How many of us would never have heard of this app if it were not for this? A way of advertising it without advertising it, perhaps?

    3. Re:he just now considers android? by Dr+Fro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Kind of like reverse psychology crossed with Barbara Streisand?

      --
      ********************
      I object to Intellect without Discipline.
  11. It is 'objectionable and crude' by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Informative

    to question or challenge US authority. He should be grateful his house isn't on the map.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  12. Re:First Mistake: making it political by JustOK · · Score: 2

    The pigs represent THE MAN, man.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  13. Is there a definitive list of blocked apps? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is anyone keeping track of the apps that Apple has forbidden from the appstore?

    I used to be reduced to pointing at the bouncy-boobs type apps (shake the phone and watch a girl's tits bounce) until recently when a friend had to deal with an abusive spouse.

    I went looking for an iphone app that records video and audio with the screen turned off - she wanted evidence of him being violent - but as far as I could tell apple doesn't permit such apps. There are some available in the jail-break version of the appstore, but jail-breaking is not an option for the typical battered woman.

    Then we went looking for an app that would automatically forward all received text messages to an email address, because the guy likes to send threatening texts and it would be helpful to automatically archive them. Again no go - apparently you have to cut-n-paste them one at a time or rely on a significant level of technical expertise to manually extract them from the icloud(?) backups of the phone.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Is there a definitive list of blocked apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Damn the apps, tell her to get away and stay away!

      Easy to say for someone who isn't a battered spouse.
      Real Life is a 1000x more complicated than that.

  14. Exactly by Tim+Ward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The problem is of course the current namby-pamby nanny-state commie liberal president you've got, who insists on signing every drone death warrant personally.

    A real red blooded conservative president, who upheld the US citizen's right to bear arms properly, would allow users of the app to kill foreigners with drones as easily as they are currently allowed to kill fellow Americans with handguns.

    1. Re:Exactly by sartin · · Score: 2

      would allow users of the app to kill foreigners with drones as easily as they are currently allowed to kill fellow Americans with handguns.

      I assume that would be through an in-app purchase? What an awesome way to work on deficit reduction.

    2. Re:Exactly by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Hey, Obama has launched twice as many drone strikes in 3 years as Bush launched in 8! That means he's killed twice as many terrorists.

      On the downside, he's killed twice as many innocent bystanders.

    3. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, probably more, propotionately. I'm assuming that under Bush the fewer strikes indicated more care to ensure the targets could be justified. . .

    4. Re:Exactly by anagama · · Score: 2

      Obama has launched twice as many drone strikes in 3 years as Bush launched in 8!

      Bzzzt.

      Bush: 52
      Obama: 291

      That's 5.6x Bush's score in half the time.

      http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/

      That means he's killed twice as many terrorists.

      That's pretty easy when you define "militant" to mean any male of military age irrespective of the beliefs, actions, or record. Essentially, all you have to be to be counted as a terrorist is be a non-infant male, but it sure sounds better in the headlines to say "militant" than "random innocent male kid".

      http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/

      On the downside, he's killed twice as many innocent bystanders.

      This is especially easy to do when one employs the classic terrorist tactic of a second bomb going off to get the rescuers or gangland notions that shooting up a funeral is a moral thing to do.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan

      But hey -- he passed the Lilly Leadbetter Act! O-ba-ma!

      (How's that lesser evil workin' out for ya?)

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    5. Re:Exactly by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You spoiled your routine by ending it with a Sarah Palin imitation, reminding us that the alternative to Obama was to put Mrs. Moose Hunter one aged heartbeat away from the Presidency. Whatever Obama's sins, I'm sure she could top them without even trying.

    6. Re:Exactly by fm6 · · Score: 2

      You're assuming that I share your view of Obama as evil and a betrayer of his principles. I disagree with many of his policies, but I don't believe that any leader of a major power can act as pure-mindedly as you want them to. Indeed, some of the worst evils in history are committed by people who insist on moral purity.

      The difference between Obama and the fool you choose to paraphrase is not between lesser and greater evils. It's a difference between an intelligent, well-educated person who's doing the best he can despite his moral errors and a person of limited intelligence and education who can't sustain a train of thought that doesn't end with a cute punchline.

      Really, there were three choices: I could vote for some third party zealot whose motives are pure but whose ability to influence events are nonexistent (that's true even if, by some miracle, we actually elected the zealot); an idiot whose rise to power would have represented my worst nightmares; and a guy who went on to do things I have moral qualms about but who has managed to accomplish stuff I consider important, Easy choice.

      You obviously disagree, judging from your big list on nothingchanged.org. I could try to explain to you why I think your list is BS, but I doubt that it would be a productive.

    7. Re:Exactly by muffen · · Score: 1

      ... and he got the Nobel peace-prize!

    8. Re:Exactly by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      innocent bystanders

      Ahem, "innocent bystanders" don't get killed in drone strikes. "Suspected militants" do.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  15. Truth is objectionable by ukemike · · Score: 1

    I think we can safely conclude that Apple considers journalism that falls outside of the narrow range of MSNBCNNBBCBSFOX to be objectionable.

    --
    -- QED
  16. bogus reason by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the latest reason for objection is that Begley's content is 'objectionable and crude' and 'that many audiences would find [it] objectionable.

    There are "many audiences" that would find the content on the Adult Swim app "objectionable and crude", too, but Apple doesn't have a problem with that.

    Here's the reason walled gardens are bad for you: Because you don't get to choose how to use your own device.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:bogus reason by cffrost · · Score: 2

      There are "many audiences" that would find the content on the Adult Swim app "objectionable and crude", too, but Apple doesn't have a problem with that.

      Well that's made by a corporate partner, so that's different, you see? Same deal with Playboy.

      Here's the reason walled gardens are bad for you: Because you don't get to choose how to use your own device.

      Terror talk, eh? Clearly you need to think different harder.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  17. pick and choose by geoffaus · · Score: 1

    ifart should have been rejected too for some of those reasons. Obviously apple worries that the gubberment wont like this hence the ban - dont remind the citizens that their tax $$ are being used in ways they probably wont like- just keep everyone calm and consuming

    --
    As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Godwin's Law approaches 1
  18. Re:First Mistake: making it political by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

    If apple censored every other political app, one could argue that apple does just like a random webhost who doesn't allow pornography. If apple lets some political apps through and this one gets blocked, it's like a society where female must wear a burqa and males are exempted.

    I am not surprised either, anyway.

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  19. Re:First Mistake: making it political by devilspgd · · Score: 1

    I'm not surprised that Apple has rejected an App that has the purpose of getting people interested in the author's own political agenda.

    This is true, Apple never approves applications that have the purpose of fostering a particular political agenda. I bet if Mitt Romney's campaign submitted an Amercia app, it would be rejected promptly.

    --
    Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
  20. Objectionable and Crude? by jc42 · · Score: 1

    Begley's content is 'objectionable and crude' ... 'many audiences would find [it] objectionable."

    It's, uh, "interesting" to read of this description being used while Apple's App Store sells the iFart app.

    Or maybe they really haven't received any complaints about iFart. Ya think?

    (And is it available for Android yet?)

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    1. Re:Objectionable and Crude? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The guy selling the only accepted fart apps is the App Store Director:

      http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/08/apple-fart-apps/all/1

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Objectionable and Crude? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      The guy selling the only accepted fart apps is the App Store Director:

      Of course! That explains it. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  21. This is campaign season (well, it always is) by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    The government could very well see this as a negative reflection on both sides of the ruling party. They would have every reason to put the squeeze on Apple to minimize this,and instead recommend that the app indicates where a fluffy kitten is born with little pink hearts.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  22. Re:Secretive Robotic Wars? by jc42 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, somehow when an incoming object explodes and injures or kills a bunch of people (or worse, destroys property ;-), it seems to be difficult to keep the fact secret. The friends and relatives of the victims have a way of noticing the event, and it's hard to prevent them from talking about it.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  23. Re:First Mistake: making it political by Knuckles · · Score: 2

    I'm not surprised that Apple has rejected an App that has the purpose of getting people interested in the author's own political agenda.

    There's a Mitt Romney app (and other politicians), apps for newspapers and TV news channels galore, and lots and lots of other apps that are about one political agenda or other. How is this one different?

    --
    "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  24. Re:First Mistake: making it political by JustOK · · Score: 1

    I know you are, but what am I?

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  25. phoneview by osssmkatz · · Score: 1

    Phoneview (mac) from ecamm software will archive voicemails and texts, or she can drop her iphone off at the police station.. they can get it off. I believe there's one called iphone explorer for the PC Good luck.

  26. Welcome to the App Store by Paul+Slocum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm an iOS developer, and keep in mind when you read this that there is an entire industry of developers whose business plan is to submit pointless novelty/spam games and apps to the App Store as fast as humanly possible. Because of this, Apple has made it so you can't submit any app that simply aggregates web content or has limited functionality, and I think it's good for the App Store to impose this. On the iOS forums I follow, people get rejected constantly for simple aggregator apps like this.

    So being a bit of a collector of these spam apps and having seen a lot of them, I don't really blame Apple for not being able to tell the different between those spam apps and this -- which maybe deserves a bit more consideration than the average spam aggregator app. I blame the app spammers who have wrecked the system, not Apple.

    And anyway, geez, just make the project a webpage and twitter account and it has the same effect and you aren't limited to iOS. Oh, but then it's not as "cool" because it's not an iPhone app!

  27. Probably afraid someone would use it.. by gatesstillborg · · Score: 1

    ...on one of their key jurors!

  28. Legal right != good decision by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 2

    Apple is, and should be, free to prohibit any content they want on their store. It's their store, we shouldn't force them to add stuff they don't want.

    There is a large difference between "I have a legal right to do it" and "It is good to do it".

    I have a legal right to say black people are inferior. Does not mean it is a good idea.

    Apple has the legal right to censor political/philosophical/religious ideas (see [1]), but at the same time we have a right and maybe even a duty to boycott it.

    1. http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-movement/latest-updates/10-12-23/Apple_Says_No_to_Manhattan_Declaration_App_2_0-1562643600.aspx

  29. Re:First Mistake: making it political by cffrost · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not surprised that Apple has rejected an App that has the purpose of getting people interested in the author's own political agenda.

    There's a Mitt Romney app (and other politicians), apps for newspapers and TV news channels galore, and lots and lots of other apps that are about one political agenda or other. How is this one different?

    This one is made by some filthy peasant... a mere citizen. The others were submitted by corporate partners, job creators, you know, the real American people.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  30. Re:Why does it have to be an app? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you didn't get the memo. Apps are trendy now. Apps are what AOL Keyword was in '98. Things that would work better as a simple webpage need to be released as an app.

  31. Apple's Walled Garden by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 1

    > Josh Begley's at a loss

    Come now, Josh. Apple is all-wise and even if their excuses don't make sense - and deep down they don't agree with your political beliefs - they only have your best interests at heart. Yield to their decision. You should be happy they even allow you to play with everyone else in their walled garden. If you don't like it, you can leave. Sense the moment, because this is as close to unbridled, unaccountable power as you will ever come.

    Seriously: It sucks. Talk to the EFF and ACLU. Apple refusing to rebroadcast information like this is like your phone company cutting your life because they don't like your politics.

    1. Re:Apple's Walled Garden by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Sense the moment, because this is as close to unbridled, unaccountable power as you will ever come.

      Only if he holes himself up like the Unabomber immediately...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  32. Sorry, wrong on two points & conclusion by tlambert · · Score: 2

    (1) Apple won't allow it because it's a general purpose emulator/interpreter; to use it, you'd have to bundle it with the ROMs so there was no download capability

    (2) You'd have to offer it for free, because the first term in the MAME license is "Redistributions may not be sold, nor may they be used in a commercial product or activity."

    Together, this means the MAME developers most certainly would not help you out unless you were laying out the costs ($99 + time and effort) with no way of recouping your sunk costs. This would also include an inability to recoup costs for ROM license fees for the game(s) you include, so basically you'd be paying the ROM owner a per copy royalty for a free download, which means an uncapped bleeding expense for you.

    So its a bit more than a matter of "not bothering".

    1. Re:Sorry, wrong on two points & conclusion by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      While all those are good points it's probably worth noting that macmame (i think that's that's what it's called) runs abysmally on most macs as well, it's nowhere near as polished as on windows, the sound tends to be stuttery and graphics performance is quite poor, presumably due to the high overhead of OSX. In fact, Lame for Linux has it's share of problems as well, in particular lack of a good front end.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  33. 2012 is the new 1984 by Pope+Raymond+Lama · · Score: 1

    If you missed Orwell's novel (perhaps in Amazon's remote erasing)... there is a war going on, somewhere in the World and we are winning, Big Brother is something good, and we are eing watched on what we do and what we consume by our gadgets' app stores - and everything is fine as far as we are not informed enough

    --
    -><- no .sig is good sig.
  34. Re:while by fm6 · · Score: 1

    Everybody sees it as a war, the decisions are made in secret, and the strikes are carried out by robot airplanes. What's loony about an accurate description?

  35. Re:First Mistake: making it political by InFire · · Score: 1

    Suspicion: The audiences that would find the app objectionable are the US government leaders.

  36. The revolution will not be an app by Torodung · · Score: 1

    You will not be able to stay home, brother.
    You will not be able to slide to unlock, tap open and app out.
    You will not be able to lose yourself in birds and pigs,
    iTune in and swill beer during the keynote,
    Because the revolution will not be an app.

    The revolution will be... um, Live... oh hell, that's a Microsoft product.

  37. who? by shentino · · Score: 1

    Was it Apple's idea to reject it or were they told to by someone in the US government with connections to the military?

  38. just when apple is becoming mainstream by issicus · · Score: 1

    I lose all faith in them.. pity .

  39. great App! by pbjones · · Score: 1

    what a great App, it's up there with an app that shows traffic crash sites, aircraft disasters and similar. And what would be really useful is a button to click on that shows the death and injury stats! /sarcasm

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  40. Pile of Meh. by untalkative_bunny · · Score: 1

    This isnt about censorship. The App is a giant pile of meh. A Mapkit view and a few buttons does not make a store worthy app. It could be knocked together in a day or two. Its similar in concept to all the me-too single radio station apps which came out.

  41. Ushahidi by einar.petersen · · Score: 1

    The Open Source Framework ushahidi from http://ushahidi.com/ might just enable the App developer to do what he wants for his audience with the use of a link imnstead. While Apple may, or may not engage in filtering links in their browsers, other browsers on the Apple platform should be able to convey the information properly - Apple could off course begin filtering content in other ways on your/their devices - But don't give up just because Apple are misguided regarding the sharing of information. This is exactly the reason to drop coding for iPhone or Android specifically - Create your stuff in HTML5 (the living standard) and they'll have a harder time shutting you up.

    --
    MS, ALS, Aphasia ? http://globability.org - Me http://einarpetersen.com
  42. Their app store model sucks by yt8znu35 · · Score: 1

    This is another reminder of why I am so glad I did not buy an iPhone. Compared to my phone, iPhones look like yesteryear's products anyway.

  43. Re:Secretive Robotic Wars? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Heard any news of the drone strikes in Yemen or Somalia or the US bases in that region?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  44. Re:Apple also censored the Manhattan Declaration A by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    What you thought Apple's censorship was politically neutral? The company's run by a gay man, of course your homophobic shit app got banned. You should have supported open computing if you wanted to be free to spread your hatred.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  45. Re:This is how Apple by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Hahaha your optimism is adorable, they're just getting started.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  46. my mother was an apple by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    This is the problem with allowing Apple to determine for you wat is and is not appropriate. If you like a manufacture deciding what you can and can not do, keep paying them for this.

  47. crowdsource anonymous bids to decide drone attacks by bd580slashdot · · Score: 1

    John Young from Cryptome.org once applied for a Chrysler Award for political innovation or some such thing. It went something like this:

    Anonymous money means you can create an assasination betting pool where people bet on the date of the assasination of a politician (or anybody). The assasin is most likely to win the pool. The pool might grow larger when one makes an unpopular decision, therefore decisions might become more democratic because of the increased risk of assasination as the pool grows.

    Couple that with drone crowdsourcing and we could democratize assasination!

    Think of the possibilities ...

    Politicians. CEO's. Lawyers. Reuters journalsists. Makers of Inconvenient Map Apps. Hippies and so on! Fox News whipping up the nation into a doubleplusgood 3-minute Hate with a side of a drone controlling frenzy. We'll need drone Republics to protect against the tyrany of the majority! And flooding attacks ... and ... and ... I know ... I know ... I'm a bit twisted! /sickhumor