Why Apple Should Stop Censoring Apps

An anonymous reader writes "ReadWriteWeb makes the case that Apple should stop censoring submissions to the App Store. The company made headlines last week for banning an app showing the locations of drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The article says Apple should restrict its bans to apps that have terrible functionality or a poor UI, and 'get out of the business of censorship.' Quoting: 'Last year in Syria, antigovernment activists began using an iPhone app to disseminate news, maps, photos and videos about the conflict in a country that doesn't exactly rank highly for its press freedom. Mobile tech in the hands of Syrian dissidents proved enough of a nuisance that the government banned the iPhone in late 2011, presumably to quash content that the regime found, um, objectionable. This example raises a few questions. First, why are pins on a map more objectionable than photos and video clips from a war zone? Why does content that effectively agitates for one government to be overthrown make the cut, while content that may make another government look bad (depending on one's own perspective) doesn't? Is Apple taking sides in international conflicts? Perhaps more disturbing is the notion that, were Apple to apply these standards consistently, apps like the one used by Syrian dissidents — and perhaps some news apps — would be barred from the App Store as well.'"

Comments

No.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Is Apple taking sides in international conflicts?

Um, no. Apple is taking sides based on the PR it might get. They banned the 'shake the baby' app for exactly the same reason. They're not going to stop doing it, either, because 'image' is a big part of their marketing strategy.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Image is 100% of their marketing strategy.

What Apple should be afraid of is the day they become an unhip cliche.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

and image is the exact reason that Linux has failed on the Desk Top. Not everyone wants a Neck Beard.

It's easy to make up BS as an AC

Re:No.

[Sarten-X]

Exactly.

Apple isn't trying to fight for any particular ideals of freedom. They're fighting to fill a walled garden that people will pay money to use. Things that offend the American right-wing militants will get banned. Things that offend the American left-wing socialists will get banned. Things that piss off people with "complex standards" will get banned. Things that piss off people with "common sense" will get banned.

All that is left is apps that appeal to the middle-of-the-road masses, because that's where Apple's money comes from.

Re:No.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

No, it's not. They could not maintain their success for so many generations of products if they didn't have a strong platform to build on. Face it, if image were really all there was to it, then many Android phones would be 'fashionable' just because s'not Apple. We stopped living in that world years ago when Android became a viable alternative to iOS.

Re:No.

[Namarrgon]

Apple is taking sides based on the American PR it might get. The rest of the world (arguably the larger portion of the market) is probably a lot more interested in a list of US drone strikes.

Intentionally or not, their image-centred policies may be causing them more harm than good.

Re:No.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I didn't realize tens of millions of people bought Louis Vuitton bags.

Re:No.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I believe image is 100% of most companies' marketing strategy.

Re:No.

[jbolden]

And if the app were go abroad and ever passed on information to foreigners which was under government quarantine that would be espionage. They would need to be insane to provide that app outside the United States under almost any circumstance.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Apple taking sides in international conflicts?

Um, no.

Selective censorship IS taking sides, independent of the reasons behind the decision.

Re:No.

[Beardo the Bearded]

Not just image, but even an easy distro like Ubuntu requires command-line tweaking to get it to work properly.

The problem is, and XKCD nailed this, was that the OS doesn't matter. Everyone's using the Interwebs for Facebook, LOLCats, YouTube, and porn. So you want the computer that'll deliver the goods with the least amount of fucking around.

The cheap solution is Windows. That's the default OS on most computers sold. Reboots are acceptable for 99% of users.

The heavily-marketed "just works" solution is Apple's walled garden. Most people don't care about the open or closed nature, "wait, I can get the stuff on the list and it won't break if I've installed an new program? Yeah, I can afford the Mac Tax, gimmie." I know, it only works on their special parts, and nothing else. Their users don't care about DRM, or the shift of computers from creative to consumptive devices.

Any flavour of Linux requires a lot of tinkering. That's great if the tinkering is part of your hobby, or if you want to actually own your machine. (I've had the touchpad break when installing SMPlayer, FFS.) Linux is a pain in the ass to use, end of story. Once it's working, it's great, but to get it to that point requires a massive amount of patience.

Re:No.

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Agreed wholeheartedly! I run nothing but vanilla Debian (testing on my workstations, stable on my servers) but am the exact opposite of a Linux evangelical. Tweaking the OS is part of my hobby and I get a happy glowing feeling when my computers act like well-oiled machines. I also acknowledge that I represent about .1% of actual users and that most people just want it to work. Would a gear head ever buy a brand new car with an automatic transmission and the hood welded shut?

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and I'm sure if we examined your life we'd find a shining example of common sense and complex standard, right?

It's a subjective matter to begin with, so in my opinion doesn't much matter what others think. But what does this have to do with people demanding censorship? That's okay because you believe he won't be a shining example of "common sense and complex standard"? What exactly was the point of your comment?

That just made them all the more hideous and utterly impossible to be around for any sane person.

Well, I don't know what you mean by "sane person." You're acting just as arrogantly as the people you're insulting right now. If we examined your life would we find a shining example of a sane person?

Are people who oppose the TSA sane? What about those that oppose censorship? Anyone that you don't like isn't sane? Honestly, I have no idea. Maybe anyone who doesn't think things should be banned just because they offend someone isn't sane to you.

Re:No.

[cob666]

And if the app were go abroad and ever passed on information to foreigners which was under government quarantine that would be espionage. They would need to be insane to provide that app outside the United States under almost any circumstance.

Seriously? The application that was banned was relaying information from the U.K.'s Bureau of Investigative Journalism. The source data is ALREADY coming from outside the United States.

Re:No.

[Sarten-X]

And in the joyous world of American criminal law, that doesn't matter. You take information that the government thinks is harmful, and you make it accessible to people the government thinks is harmful, in a way that the government thinks is harmful, and you're in for a lot of trouble. Sure, you might come out of it just fine in a decade or two, but in the mean time you're branded a traitor by the media, blackballed from your industry, and will almost certainly be placed on every watch list in the country. Thank you, USA PATRIOT Act, for keeping us "safe"!

Re:No.

[tooyoung]

How is this different from other stores? My local grocery chain doesn't stock Playboy in the magazine section. McDonalds doesn't offer Pepsi products. Target doesn't sell Walmart generics. Barnes and Noble doesn't carry my novel. It seems pretty common for stores to limit products that they sell based on all sorts of criteria. I assume you have the same disdain for their censorship and mourn the spiral to mediocrity they create.

Re:No.

[Toonol]

And, there is not anything necessarily wrong with taking sides. One would hope they would, in fact.

However, censorship is a stupid and ineffective way to do it.

Re:No.

[grcumb]

How is this different from other stores? My local grocery chain doesn't stock Playboy in the magazine section. McDonalds doesn't offer Pepsi products. Target doesn't sell Walmart generics. Barnes and Noble doesn't carry my novel. It seems pretty common for stores to limit products that they sell based on all sorts of criteria. I assume you have the same disdain for their censorship and mourn the spiral to mediocrity they create.

The fact that other businesses exercise arbitrary logic does nothing to change the validity (or lack thereof) of the writer's contention that Apple is censoring based on a particular ideological stance. You've just indulged in an appeal to popularity (i.e. 'everybody does X, so it's not wrong' - which doesn't sound so great when you apply different values to X, like slavery, rape or drunk driving).

Now, to look at each of the examples: Exclusivity doesn't seem to be driving Apple's thinking here, so McDonalds doesn't apply. Space is not an issue, so (brick and mortar) Barnes and Noble isn't pertinent. Sales numbers are not the criterion in question here, so B&N online doesn't apply either.

That leaves us with the Playboy example. But the problem is that Soldier of Fortune would be a closer analogy, and to abuse it a little further, the problem is that Apple does stock Soldier of Fortune, but does not stock the Human Rights Watch publication that publishes nothing but the places where violence occurs.

The disdain for Apple's behaviour therefore, isn't just that it's censorious (though it is), nor that it's inconsistent (though it is). The complaint seems to arise from the perception that Apple's behaviour is being driven by a particular ideology that simply refuses to acknowledge anything that might reflect poorly on the US government and its foreign policy.

Draw what conclusions you like about that, but don't do so based entirely on false equivalency.

Re:No.

[jbolden]

Section 3 of the espionage act makes it a crime to convey false reports for the purpose of disruption. So for example if the U.K.'s Bureau of Investigative Journalism got something wrong and had anti-American motivations (which they might of)....

This is not something you do casually. You want to publish this stuff you don't write an app, you have your legal team examine each word and think carefully about it. In most cases you ask for a military review.

Re:No.

[Keen Anthony]

Gear/petrol heads are as diverse as computer enthusiasts are. I might buy a sealed up automatic, depending on the car. I'd have to really trust the car and feel more confidence in the brand's technicians than in myself. I would buy an automatic Ferrari Californian easily, or a Lamborghini Aventador. Many of gear heads aren't tinkerers. I myself am a driver, and I like exotic super cars. My father is into old American muscle and hot rods. He likes the idea of building a car, and I just want to a really great road to drive on. I would never go tinkering around under the hood of a Lamborghini or a Ferrari or a Bugatti. I would, and do, for BMWs and Hondas however, but I have the tools and know-how for older BMWs and a Honda is just a Honda. Some guys love taking Honda Civics and Ford Focuses and turning them into street racers. To me, they're the metaphor for the typical gaming PC enthusiast, even down to the glowing lights under the chassis. They create some awesome machines - both PC enthusiasts and car tuners. I, like other super car lovers, want the specific native experience each car offers. It's fun talking about Ferrari vs Lamborghini, but it's not fun (for me) trying to find a way of blending the two experiences. So, as primarily a Macintosh guy, I prefer my Mac experience enough that having a totally closed system that doesn't give me much customization isn't a problem. That's not to say that the Macintosh way is always the better way. Frequently it isn't.

Re:No.

[R3d M3rcury]

My local grocery chain doesn't stock Playboy in the magazine section. McDonalds doesn't offer Pepsi products. Target doesn't sell Walmart generics. Barnes and Noble doesn't carry my novel.

There's a few differences.

First, in the physical world, shelf-space is limited. A store can't carry everything because there isn't room. Thus, Barnes and Noble doesn't carry your novel because they'd rather stock their shelves with something they believe will sell. Needless to say, this isn't a factor in the digital world.

Second, companies will often make "exclusive" deals. McDonalds doesn't offer Pepsi products because Coke offered them a better deal in return for not carrying Pepsi products. Other political factors also are involved--remember back when Pepsi owned Burger King and Pizza Hut? All the Burger King and Pizza Hut restaurants carried only Pepsi products because that's what the owners wanted. This isn't the case with Apple's Store, either. There are no exclusives.

Third, "Store Brands" are usually repackaged versions of other known products. "Charles Shaw" wine (infamously known as "Two-Buck Chuck") can be pretty good wine--it's the same wine that sells for $20 a bottle. But does a famous wine-maker want their wine to sell for that cheap? Nope. Bad for the image. So rather than "discounting" their wine, they sell it to Trader Joe's who relabel it as "Charles Shaw." They make money on the bulk purchase and they keep their fancy name. Needless to say, this certainly doesn't apply to Apple's Store, either.

Finally, the issue I have with Apple's Store is that it's the only one. While your grocery store doesn't stock Playboy because they want to "Think of the Children," I can buy Playboy at the local liquor store or magazine stand or various other places.

That's where the store analogy starts to break down. Apple runs the store. They're also the mayor of the town. They've decided that anybody who wants to run a store in their town has to pay them a 30% tax. The mayor will decide what kind of stores will be in his town. And if you don't like it, you can move out of town.

Re:No.

[marcosdumay]

Their users don't care about DRM

Until it bites them, then they start to care. That said, DRM isn't very malign yet, and has bitten just a tiny minority.

Re:No.

[marcosdumay]

That's only one problem. Once you get into that route, you must weight it very well how many people you are willing to annoy, and how many people you'll nanny. If you banish too many oppinions, there won't be much people left, and if you banish too little oppinions, there will be too many people offended. Nobody seems to be able to weight it right for a long time. For a while it always looks like a simple task, but it gains complexity with time.

That's in fact a great receipt for a ninche player. But I bet Apple doesn't want to be a ninche player.

Re:No.

[tlhIngan]

First, in the physical world, shelf-space is limited. A store can't carry everything because there isn't room. Thus, Barnes and Noble doesn't carry your novel because they'd rather stock their shelves with something they believe will sell. Needless to say, this isn't a factor in the digital world.

Well, I'm pretty sure if I wrote a game, Valve won't sell it on Steam, which is a perfectly virtual marketplace - adding my game would consume little on Valve's servers.

Hell, I know they're also being picky because there's a campaign to get a game ported to PC and distributed by Steam (it's on PS3, Xbox360, iOS, Android, and Mac, but not on PC and Valve for some reason won't talk to the developer to put it on Steam).

Anyhow, the other thing is well, you can bet Apple's actually sitting pretty - considering Androids are outselling iOS 2:1, iOS users though are buying apps and spending money on the whole ecosystem. (They're also using a LOT more data - Mobile Safari is still getting way more traffic than any mobile browser out there... so unless every Android user is using a different browser that fakes desktop user-agents...).

Apple's making money, developers are making money (compared to Google Play for the most part - there are a few devs making more money off Android than iOS), the question becomes - if Apple decided to be a free-for-all like Google Play, will they and developers earn even MORE money?

And that's the real question that needs to be asked. Apple's about making money. If opening up the App Store means Apple can sell even MORE iOS devices (iTunes makes very little money for Apple, so app sales really don't factor in) than they do now, then yes, it makes sense for Apple to open it up. If however, it does diddly, it's not worth it.

Re:No.

[SuperKendall]

Finally, the issue I have with Apple's Store is that it's the only one. While your grocery store doesn't stock Playboy because they want to "Think of the Children," I can buy Playboy at the local liquor store

You could either look on the Cydia store (which features a number of apps Apple will not allow), or any user can use the web to get Playboy.

Apple store is not the only way to get content or apps for the device.

Re:No.

[sumdumass]

In my younger years, I used to be a trend setter- well me and some of the people I hung around. I would start wearing things like jewelry or brand name shirts and shoes, and all the other people my age in my school would copy it. We would do things like flick our lighters in the air to greet each other and they would too (yes, I'm old enough they let us smoke at school and even carry pocket knives).

The reason I'm bringing this up is because I would see things that were fading from popularity and there would be cliques of kids and people jut starting to jump onto it. I don't know if they were purposely messing around by doing it or if it just took them that long to see it happening, or even if it wasn't their fault and their parents though it was the in thing and got it for their birthday or something. The point is, even when something stops being popular, there will be a residual effect for quite a while- even years while it fades into obscurity. what you see could be this effect.

that or the carriers who offer Iphones don't offer decent alternatives.

Re:No.

[scot4875]

Your first analogy is alright; after that they fall apart.

McDonald's doesn't offer Pepsi because they have a contract with Coke. It has nothing to do with not offending customers or The Jobs. (Offending The Jobs includes things like releasing software that competes with Apple's own offerings in any way)

Target doesn't sell Walmart generics for obvious reasons, but they do sell their own generics. It has nothing to do with not offending customers or The Jobs.

Barnes and Noble doesn't carry your novel because it's probably got no publisher and they have no way of even getting your novel on their shelves. It has nothing to do with not offending customers or The Jobs.

--Jeremy

Re:No.

[scot4875]

Apple store is not the only way to get content or apps for the device.

Though that's not due to Apple's lack of trying. And make no mistake: when they can get you locked out of your iOS devices and have you completely dependent on their services, they will.

Cydia isn't even remotely comparable to Android alternatives; no matter how much lock-down Motorola or any other manufacturer applies to their devices, the Nexus line will *always* be available for those of us who actually want to own our hardware. Your alternatives for iOS are Apple and Apple, or Apple if you're really desperate.

--Jeremy

Re:No.

[nilbog]

This is exactly why the responsibility for what you can install on a device you own should rest with you and not a company. Do you want a PR department, compliance department, marketing, lawyers, licensing issues, etc. to dictate what you can install on your device?

If Apple would relax and allow you to install apps outside of the app store they would lose almost no mojo for the actual app store, and they would silence all the haters like me.

Re:No.

[Ravaldy]

You nailed it!

I'm happy I wasn't the only one who noticed this.

Re:No.

[shutdown -p now]

The obvious difference is that Apple's App Store is the only place where you can get apps for your iOS device. So if they don't "stock" it, there's nowhere else to go.

Re:No.

[shutdown -p now]

Section 3 of the espionage act makes it a crime to convey false reports for the purpose of disruption.

I would expect this to only apply if done on purpose. Otherwise, well, you could swipe people by the thousands today, right into all those FEMA detainment camps (see what I did there?).

So for example if the U.K.'s Bureau of Investigative Journalism got something wrong and had anti-American motivations (which they might of)....

... then US government is free to sue UK's Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Seriously. You're defying basic common sense. By your logic, if a web browser is used to read the corresponding news items on the Bureau's website, that could potentially constitute a crime under the Espionage Act on behalf of the browser maker. That's obviously false.

Re:No.

[jbolden]

... then US government is free to sue UK's Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Espionage isn't a tort it is a crime. You don't get sued, you get jailed.

Seriously. You're defying basic common sense. By your logic, if a web browser is used to read the corresponding news items on the Bureau's website, that could potentially constitute a crime under the Espionage Act on behalf of the browser maker. That's obviously false.

No there is a big difference. A browser renders all content without concern about the content. Common carrier laws apply to browsers. This app would be specifically designed to transmit military information that the government has already indicated is part fo the national defense and that they do not wish decimated. Knowingly going this far, without creating additional safeguards is problematic.

An analogy might be something like felony murder. If I'm engaging in a legal and perfectly safe activity and someone dies that probably is not a crime. If I'm doing something questionable and someone dies that becomes involuntary manslaughter. If I'm doing something illegal but only slightly, it rises to misdemeanor manslaughter. If on the other hand I'm committing a major crime and because I'm doing it kill someone accidentally it becomes felony murder.

A judge is unlikely to agree that because Apple was trying to fall just short of espionage, in decimating military information widely, that they should be excused when they accidentally stepped over the line. Their intent was clear. Lots of people have been jailed for espionage who just meant to fall slightly short of spying for the enemy.

Your problem is with the espionage act, not Apple.

Re:No.

[milkmage]

"the problem is that Apple does stock Soldier of Fortune, but does not stock the Human Rights Watch publication that publishes nothing but the places where violence occurs."

just a second now.. it's not like apple hand picks from a large pool of apps and decides which to sell. DId HRW submit one too and get denied?

woah. hey. nope. they didn't

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/human-rights-watch-for-ipad/id414155415?mt=8 /i get your point, but I'm a stickler for detail ;)
(and there is no SoF app)

Re:No.

[grcumb]

i get your point, but I'm a stickler for detail ;)

Talk about putting the anal back into analogy.

I get your point too, but I couldn't resist.... 8^)

Re:No.

[milkmage]

touché
bravo, sir. bravo.

Re:No.

[jmcvetta]

but even an easy distro like Ubuntu requires command-line tweaking to get it to work properly.

Huh? Have you used Ubuntu in the past, say, 4+ years? If you're having to do command line tweaking with any remotely recent version, you must be running it on some pretty funky hardware.

Make it a web app

[the computer guy nex]

No reason to need a native app for pins on a map.

The only reason to make it a native app is to get the exposure from the App Store, which is the exact reason apps like this get denied.

Re:Make it a web app

[betterunixthanunix]

There is also the security model of the app store: the app is digitally signed by Apple, which helps provide some confidence that it was not tampered with by a third party. For someone living under a repressive government (or even in some American high schools), having your TLS connection be tampered with is common -- so how could such a person know that they are seeing the real locations of those strikes, and not the picture that their government wanted them to see?

Of course, this whole situation could be avoided by allowing users to download software from other app stores. Not that Apple is willing to give up on the vice grip it has on iOS users.

Re:Make it a web app

[Plumpaquatsch]

No reason to need a native app for pins on a map. The only reason to make it a native app is to get the exposure from the App Store, which is the exact reason apps like this get denied.

Actually, having the app denied is probably the best thing that ever happened to the project, because that way they get a thousand times the public exposure they'd get from just the app on the App Store. We certainly wouldn't be talking about it now, just like Slashdot has never mentioned them before.

Come to think of it - where is the proof that the app wasn't denied to give it that exposure?

it's APPLE

[kenorland]

There are lots of things Apple should do. But it's APPLE. They will do whatever it takes to maximize their profits and profit margins, and if that takes censorship or lying they will do it, just like they have no qualms about misusing the patent and trademark systems.

Re:it's APPLE

[the computer guy nex]

Actually, if you bothered to RTFA, Apple is lowering their profits and profit margins by censoring.

Please tell me how not selling apps maximizes profits? Tell me how spending the man hours to censor increases margins?

Re:it's APPLE

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because Apple has deemed the profit they make from an "objectionable" app is less than the cost of dealing with the complaints they'd receive if they did approve it.

$0.30 per sale vs the profit of selling a new iPhone to someone who might've boycotted you platform due to objectionable content.

Re:it's APPLE

[Karlt1]

"There are lots of things Apple should do. But it's APPLE. They will do whatever it takes to maximize their profits and profit margins, and if that takes censorship or lying they will do it, just like they have no qualms about misusing the patent and trademark systems."

And how is this different from every single publicly traded company in existence?

Re:it's APPLE

[Namarrgon]

It's promotion, pure and simple. They sell more iPhones as a result.

Apple customers want to feel they're being looked after; protected from malware, objectionable content, and any other potentially poor experiences. They're willing to pay extra for that.

Re:it's APPLE

[Mike Buddha]

Actually, if you bothered to RTFA, Apple is lowering their profits and profit margins by censoring.
  Please tell me how not selling apps maximizes profits? Tell me how spending the man hours to censor increases margins?

You really can't see how maintaining a positive image would result in potentially higher sales? Seriously?

Re:it's APPLE

[LodCrappo]

christ your comment is stupid.

Apple is clearly raising their profits by refusing to allow content that might make their little walled garden less appealing.

They could care less about profits of one or two censored apps, they are protecting the money train that *all the other* apps bring them.

How can anyone believe Apple would do anything for any reason besides profit? Do you think they because the most *profitable* company around by accident? Or because their crap is really that good? Wake up.

Re:it's APPLE

[EGSonikku]

To be fair, a lot of porn sites default to an HTML 5 video player if it detects the Safari iOS user agent, such as http://xvideos.com/ , http://pornhub.com/ , etc.

Re:it's APPLE

[tlhIngan]

Actually, if you bothered to RTFA, Apple is lowering their profits and profit margins by censoring.

Please tell me how not selling apps maximizes profits? Tell me how spending the man hours to censor increases margins?

Well, when it avoids having to have users deal with trojans and other stuff in the marketplace (see Google Play malware that Google has had to forcibly remove from people's devices).

Right now, despite Android having a 2:1 advantage over iOS (500,000 new activations a day, according to Google, or close to 15M new Androids a month), it seems Android revenue is far lower than iOS revenue for app developers. Now there can be many factors for this, including piracy, but it seems at the moment, regardless of whatever the cause, the App Store sells apps, which attracts developers. And apps sell hardware, which is where Apple makes money (close to a couple of orders of magnitude more from iOS than iTunes).

Apple realized the profitable segment of the population doesn't want the "PC experience" on their phones - that users really just want to install the app, use it and get on with their day.

Same went for pornographic apps - a profitable segment of the population complained.

Re:it's APPLE

[shutdown -p now]

It seems to be working much better for them than it ever did for anyone else.

Re:it's APPLE

[Karlt1]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/nokia-apple-payments-to-nokia-settle-all-litigation.html

Re:it's APPLE

[shutdown -p now]

That's chump change compared to that $1B (or is it $3B already?) that Apple is shaking down Samsung for. And they're only getting started there, they haven't even covered all Samsung devices yet, not to mention other Android manufacturers in the line to the chopping block.

Re:This is a problem with consumers, not Apple.

[lsllll]

Yup. The magic keywords in your sentence were if Apple customers acted responsibly . I know many Apple users and the last thing they're worried about is acting responsibly in choosing the company they're going to trust their digital life to. They range from kids and teenagers to doctors and lawyers. They just want something that works all the time (which Apple products do) without much hastle.

What really scares me, though, is that you put me in front of an Apple laptop and I suddenly don't know WTF I'm doing, even though I can work the innards of Linux with little problem. I am pretty glad that I'm enough computer savvy to have the option of not using Windows or iOS.

Isn't this a bit conflicting?

[BorgAssimilator]

The article says Apple should restrict its bans to apps that have terrible functionality or a poor UI, and 'get out of the business of censorship.'

TFA explains the difference between quality control and censorship, but isn't it kindof the same thing? I understand that yes, there are differences, but why ban an app with a bad UI? Who decides whether it's good or bad?

It seems that if they're against censorship, they'd be against apple banning a third-party app (with no affiliation to apple other than being sold on an Apple market) just because it's not "quality".

Personally, I think apple should let the consumers decide what's good or bad, but it's their company, and it's their prerogative to make that decision.

Re:Isn't this a bit conflicting?

[CanHasDIY]

The article says Apple should restrict its bans to apps that have terrible functionality or a poor UI, and 'get out of the business of censorship.'

TFA explains the difference between quality control and censorship, but isn't it kindof the same thing?

No; barring an app because it doesn't work, or has a visually jarring UI that makes you want to claw your eyes out is quality control. Barring an app because it contains the word "Nigger" or exposes the bad behavior of certain Apple-friendly governments is censorship.

Now, as to whether or not Apple should be doing quality control for apps they did not create, on devices their customers paid for (notice I did not say "owned").

I understand that yes, there are differences, but why ban an app with a bad UI? Who decides whether it's good or bad?

THAT, my friend, is a fair question. To me, as the consumer who paid for and thus owns my devices, I feel that decision should be up to me. My thought process is, "It's my toy, I'll fuck it up if I want to."

As you can probably guess from my aforementioned philosophic stance, I do not own any iDevices, nor shall I.

Ban apps that break the law

[Qwavel]

Users can decide which apps "have terrible functionality or a poor UI".

Getting Apple out of the business of censorship entirely - they should ban apps that are malware or those that they are forced to remove anyway because they break the law (e.g. hate laws).

The question of which countries' laws should be heeded (if we move beyond just heeding U.S. laws) is complicated, but I think it would have to be the app publisher's country.

Re:Ban apps that break the law

[farble1670]

The question of which countries' laws should be heeded (if we move beyond just heeding U.S. laws) is complicated, but I think it would have to be the app publisher's country.

actually, it has to be the lowest common denominator of the laws in all countries where the app is available. they aren't going to allow an app with full XXX action for all countries just because it's legal in the publisher's home.

Content Neutrality

[accessbob]

Given the ever-shrinking range of platforms on offer, it's time we had content neutrality rules. Verizon shouldn't get to interfere with how I use my bandwidth, and nor should Apple (or Google, or RIM, or Nokia).

Re:Content Neutrality

[Karlt1]

"Verizon shouldn't get to interfere with how I use my bandwidth, and nor should Apple (or Google, or RIM, or Nokia)."

You're free to use the included web browser to view in content you desire. So if someone can force Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Netflix to sell any content, then does that mean they should be forced to sell porn?

Re:Content Neutrality

[accessbob]

You're free to use the included web browser to view in content you desire. So if someone can force Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Netflix to sell any content, then does that mean they should be forced to sell porn?

Only if the business acts as a controlled gateway to a very restricted market, which is the case with the current mobile platforms (and only if the content is legal). It is not for Apple to play at being the arbiter of morality and taste any more than it is for Verizon or AT&T.

Btw there is currently a significant performance gap between native and web apps, you can't compare the two.

Re:Content Neutrality

[Karlt1]

"Only if the business acts as a controlled gateway to a very restricted market, which is the case with the current mobile platforms (and only if the content is legal)."

Let's take this to a logical conclusion. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo strictly control what is on their gaming platform. So if someone made a game where you get points for how many people you rape, should the platform vendor be forced to make the game available? Even though the act is illegal, the game isn't.

Re:Content Neutrality

[betterunixthanunix]

You are not so free if you live in a place where your TLS connections are being tampered with -- which is, unfortunately, quite a lot of places. The App Store gives you a digitally signed program, so you have at least some assurance that it was not tampered with (there are no CAs involved; Apple's key is built in). That is the benefit of the App Store; the problem is that the key holder (Apple) has absurd, far-right policies banning applications that might offend anyone or which criticize politicians (and don't think for a moment that this is anything less than an enforcement of conservative values; yes, Democrats are conservative).

Re:Content Neutrality

[Americano]

Only if the business acts as a controlled gateway to a very restricted market, which is the case with the current mobile platforms (and only if the content is legal). It is not for Apple to play at being the arbiter of morality and taste any more than it is for Verizon or AT&T.

But they're not restricting you from accessing and viewing porn on their devices - fire up any of the numerous porn-oriented tube sites online in the safari browser, and you will have a plethora of porn available, right there on your device. Snap some sexy pictures of your lady friend and you engaged in a romantic liasion. Record some video of the same thing. Download all kinds of fiction (including plenty burly-chested-men with heaving-bosomed women types of semi-erotic, erotic, and downright pornographic fiction available via the Kindle Apps and even the iBooks store), add all kinds of photos and videos as well if you want - the possibilities are quite diverse. You just won't buy the porn content from Apple, because Apple declines to carry apps that include (or directly sell) pornography in its store.

Why should Apple (or ANYBODY ELSE) be forced to sell something they don't care to sell in their store? You wouldn't argue that Best Buy should be *compelled* to carry porn because they sell DVD players... you wouldn't argue that Blockbuster should be *compelled* to carry porn because they rent other types of movies... each store selects the merchandise it's willing to sell based on the values of the company - and you know the restriction is there from the moment you buy an Apple device, there's no bait and switch happening; if you don't like those terms, the Android and Windows and RIM phones are still quite available, and some of them DO allow porn on their app markets, so perhaps one of those would be a better choice.

But your argument that Apple is somehow controlling your access to this content by declining to sell it in their own store space is a little foolish. There's no shortage of iphone and ipad-capable porn, and in fact, you can load all kinds of pornographic content on your iPhone, if you want to - you just have to buy it (or access it) at sites other than the itunes store.

Re:Content Neutrality

[Americano]

You are not so free if you live in a place where your TLS connections are being tampered with -- which is, unfortunately, quite a lot of places. The App Store gives you a digitally signed program, so you have at least some assurance that it was not tampered with (there are no CAs involved; Apple's key is built in). That is the benefit of the App Store; the problem is that the key holder (Apple) has absurd, far-right policies banning applications that might offend anyone or which criticize politicians (and don't think for a moment that this is anything less than an enforcement of conservative values; yes, Democrats are conservative).

How absurd. Apple's policies are no more "far right" than they are "far left." Their policies are "adhere to the blandly inoffensive at all times."

You will no more find "Whack the Christ-Loving White Trash" app for the iPhone than you will find "Whack a San Francisco Queer." Both would be wildly offensive to differing segments of the population, and Apple would ban both, because they don't want any potential customers to be offended into buying a competitor's product. You'll probably find "Whack a Mole" and other inoffensive variants of that same game, though; and apps like Evernote, Netflix, and Facebook are pretty much entirely inoffensive in their functionality, and so may be safely sold. (Best Buy will sell you a DVD player... but they won't sell you porn, will they? Why do you imagine that is?)

This leaves you - the self-styled free-thinker demographic that just likes to get offended and cries "censorship" because somebody tries to keep their store bland and inoffensive, even though all the "offensive" content you want is a single click away in a web browser on ANY device. Fortunately for Apple, you're a fairly small market, and you would've bought a competitor's device anyway, so you're both irrelevant to and happily negligible in their business decisions.

Re:Content Neutrality

[Americano]

I'm fairly confident in predicting that there aren't too many people around you who will pay attention.

Re:This is a problem with consumers, not Apple.

[EGSonikku]

I'm guessing because of the "OMG! Stupid iSheep should just switch the Android ZOMG it has teh Linux!!1 posts"

Free the Apps

[pubwvj]

Well, you don't have to buy from Apple. You can Jailbreak your iOS device or just use other hardware. It isn't like this is 1984 with Big Apple telling you that you must buy an iPhone. Heck, you don't have to buy a cell phone either. Stick with a land line. Or not.

Me things some people have too much time to complain about too little.

Re:Free the Apps

[betterunixthanunix]

It isn't like this is 1984 with Big Apple telling you that you must buy an iPhone

No, this is more like Brave New World, where you are a social outcast if you do not choose to participate in the attacks on your freedom. I do not have Facebook, I do not have a smart phone and I do not even carry my dumb phone around, and I have to keep reminding people to email me if they want to invite me to something. Now, I am in a position where not being invited to parties is OK (grad school can really take up one's life) and I have little time for gossip, but I can understand that to be part of the mainstream of modern society, one must have certain online accounts / electronics / etc.

The problem is that we have not yet acknowledged that Apple's control over iOS requires them to behave ethically and responsibly; we are still clinging to the "greed is good" fantasy that says, "Well if they are making money, all is well with the world!" If Apple is going to control an important communications tool that the mainstream of society relies on, they are going to have to stop censoring political uses of that tool, period.

Re:Free the Apps

[pubwvj]

I'm sorry you feel like a social outcast because you don't have something. Get over it. Buck up.

Instead of Google being the worst job, Apple could

[justcauseisjustthat]

I remember there being a story about youtube sensors having the worst job in the world (in some peoples opinion), if Apple opened the floodgate they would have the same issue.

I think they should release Gatekeeper with iOS 6 (or as an update)!!

Counter question...

[Yaa 101]

Why do you think that Apple has a 100 billion cashflow and is the highest ranked business on the stock exchange?
There are many defense companies of which you would say, why are they rated lower than a consumer grade shiny mirror company?
Could it be that the consumer grade shiny mirror company is worth more to the 1% and the authorities than all the other defense companies?

Why would you think that is? You connect the dots.
If you found the answer then you would also have found the answer to why Apple is banning people to see where dronestrikes take place.

Re:Counter question...

[LodCrappo]

While I applaud your suggestion of grand conspiracy, I think in this case it's likely Apple is simply rated so highly because they manage to sell stuff for a massive amount more than it costs them to make it. Apple is better at converting their customer's money into their own money than maybe any other corporation in the world.

Re:Counter question...

[Yaa 101]

No conspiracy here, just how the world turns.

Draw Mohammed's Face

[gelfling]

And your iPhone sets itself on fire. There's an app for that.

Insane

[jbolden]

The article is insane. Apple processes credit cards in exchange for applications it sells on its stores. It acts as reviewer, agent, payment processor and takes a percentage of proceeds. They are not common carriers of applications. There is not a court in the United States and I suspect in most other places in the world that wouldn't consider them liable for what is sold in the online Apple Store. They simply cannot adopt a policy of non-censorship.

I would like to see a more open process but total freedom isn't possible with their model.

Re:This is a problem with consumers, not Apple.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If customers need to act responsibly, then they should know how the competition works as well. Objectivity is a virtue.

3rd party apps stores are need and they should

[Joe_Dragon]

3rd party apps stores are need and they should part of the base software or are open to be installed without needing to do any hacking.

Re:3rd party apps stores are need and they should

[gagol]

Gravy: Add flags to tag content as Mature, Violent, etc and have parental lock and preferences... Also please add "Im not a retard, show me more options" setting.

Re:This is a problem with consumers, not Apple.

[Macrat]

VLC was banned from the app store due to GPL violations/incompatabilities

Apple has no problem with open source apps on their store.

The reason VLC was pulled was because one of the contributors to the main code base (who also works for a rival phone company) complained to Apple which resulted in the app being pulled.

Re:This is a problem with consumers, not Apple.

[exomondo]

What really scares me, though, is that you put me in front of an Apple laptop and I suddenly don't know WTF I'm doing, even though I can work the innards of Linux with little problem. I am pretty glad that I'm enough computer savvy to have the option of not using Windows or iOS.

So is there something specific or are you just completely baffled by OSX? It's not really much different to any of the other unix-like OSes out there so i don't see how you can be so confused by it if you are as computer savvy as you claim to be.

Re:This is a problem with consumers, not Apple.

[thetoadwarrior]

You're an idiot is what you are. MacBooks don't run iOS and if you struggle with it, you're a computer noob.

The content doedn't matter

[thetoadwarrior]

The app is basically a web page. It doesn't belong in the app store and should be used via safari.

Apple runs their store like many shops and decides what they want to sell. You can do whatever you want in the browser. Which is fine by me. We need to start pushing HTML 5 harder. It's pretty good to go on real browsers.

Re:The content doedn't matter

[martin_dk]

Let me just call Apple and have them turn on the html file upload tag

I'm sure they won't mind.

Re:The content doedn't matter

[StripedCow]

I agree with your point.

The problem is that developers can't make a profit with real browsers. At least not as much and easy as by selling apps. And Apple gets a cut from those profits.

Re:The content doedn't matter

[shutdown -p now]

You can do whatever you want in the browser.

No, you cannot do whatever you want in the browser - in a sense that you can't write a web app that does all the things that a native iOS app can do.

Re:The content doedn't matter

[thetoadwarrior]

No, but for his particular app that's the case.

Re:This is a problem with consumers, not Apple.

[Kethinov]

No, this is a problem with Apple.

You're right that Apple should be free to censor their app store however they want.

But everyone in this thread seems to be ignoring the fact that users should be free to install whatever apps they want on their device. Not permitting users the ability to sideload apps is the real censorship that we should be raging against.

Name one retailer that doesn't vet its wares

[Anonymous Coward]

Brick-and-mortar retailers like Walmart and Sears obviously vet their products and wares very carefully.

An online retailer like Amazon does the same. Same with iTunes music and movie selection.

Even EBay, of all companies, has standards for the products that get sold in its marketplace.

So where does an "App Store" paradigm fall? Is Apple no longer a "retailer", but just a generic go-between like Craigslist?

I completely disagree...

[stevenfuzz]

What happens when a developer releases an app that is better than a stock app? Siri for example (most unbelievably over-hyped and useless thing I have ever tried to use). If not all IPhones have complete stock functionality (like phones didn't have siri), then obviously Apple should not allow any Apps that emulate Apple App functionality. I mean, if they didn't, why would anyone have bought the IPhone 4s? It just makes sense. As customers, Apple is right to decide what we can and can't do on their phones. Hell, if they didn't moderate apps, someone could design something to allow HTML uploads, or worse, imagine you could use google GPS? Apple is smarter and cooler than us, it just seams like we should bow down and agree with what they choose. I don't even understand the point of this article.

Re:This is a problem with consumers, not Apple.

[EGSonikku]

Right, there are TONS of things you could say that would make me believe you in regards to hating Apple. But calling OS X not intuitive just marks you a troll. Intuitive, easy to use, and pretty are all it is. Also overpriced, and not th greatest for gaming. Go for those talking points next time, cause so far you're talking out your ass.

Re:This is a problem with consumers, not Apple.

[EGSonikku]

Why are so many malware infected apps getting on the store in the first place?

Re:This is a problem with consumers, not Apple.

[methano]

A little rough on the poor guy, but basically well said.

Apple also censors orthodox Christianity

[INowRegretThesePosts]

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

Re:Apple also censors orthodox Christianity

[PatrickEinheber]

Here's a letter I sent to Apple last year about this:

Dear Mr. Jobs and Mr. Cook,

You've probably received a lot of positive and negative feedback lately about Apple's ban of the Manhattan Declaration app.

As a person who experiences same-sex attraction, I'd like to say that I am not intimidated or alarmed by this document. What does intimidate and alarm me, however, is Apple's refusal to allow an application expressing a particular religious/political view to be presented in the App Store.

It is difficult to understand why Apple would take the position that this particular document represents an occasion of harm to a group
when the document insists that everyone is deserving of compassion and respect and has equal dignity. I cannot help but be left with the notion that Apple has stood in judgement over the point of view expressed and has decided it should not be allowed in the arena of
discussion. In my opinion, this type of censorship has a much greater potential for harm than any religious or political statement and it
affects us all adversely. As someone once wrote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This ought to be the position of all guardians and repositories of information such as Apple.

In summary, I would like to request that Apple allow freedom of religious and political expression in the App Store and reinstate the
Manhattan Declaration app. I've always enjoyed Apple products and felt they were of the highest quality, but if anything will persuade me to part ways with the company, this type of censorship will.

Sincerely,
Patrick Einheber

Re:Apple also censors orthodox Christianity

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Thank you very much for your principles.
We need more people like this: people who respect the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment.

Re:Apple also censors orthodox Christianity

[shutdown -p now]

I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, but in what sense the Manhattan Declaration is specific to Orthodox Christianity? My understanding is that it is a joint project between various denominations, which includes Orthodox alongside Catholics and various Protestant denominations.

Re:Apple also censors orthodox Christianity

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, but in what sense the Manhattan Declaration is specific to Orthodox Christianity?

I am using "orthodox" in the sense of "right teaching"; I was not referring to the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Today's PC Police only accepts "Christianity" in its "Liberal Protestant" form; all faithful Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Protestants are considered "fundamentalists".

And in fact, the "Liberal Protestants" cannot even be reasonably considered Christians. Once you stop believing in Jesus, you might as well admit you are not Christian and stop going to church. Which is, in fact, why the membership of Liberal Protestantism is collapsing.

Re:Apple also censors orthodox Christianity

[shutdown -p now]

Last I checked, most non-evangelical Protestants believe in Jesus, too.

Today's "PC police" has a problem with more conservative denominations, because the social policies of those denominations often directly conflict with the modern tolerant society. If you engage in e.g. gay bashing, why be all offended when someone calls you a bigot?

Re:Apple also censors orthodox Christianity

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Last I checked, most non-evangelical Protestants believe in Jesus, too.

Many "Liberal Protestants" believe in a radical division between the "historical Jesus" and the "Jesus of Faith"

Today's "PC police" has a problem with more conservative denominations, because the social policies of those denominations often directly conflict with the modern tolerant society. If you engage in e.g. gay bashing, why be all offended when someone calls you a bigot?

Today's cultural elite is far more concerned with sexual diversity than with intellectual diversity. Any person with common sense would see that these priorities are upside-down.

And the homosexualism "debate" is depressing. The cultural elite unilaterally declared traditional morality to be "bigotry", and refuses to even debate the issue.

Re:Apple also censors orthodox Christianity

[shutdown -p now]

Today's cultural elite is far more concerned with sexual diversity than with intellectual diversity. Any person with common sense would see that these priorities are upside-down.

This is an obvious fallacy of claiming that these two things are somehow related. They aren't. You don't have to prioritize one to de-prioritize another.

Also, it's about sexual freedom, not sexual diversity. The latter naturally follows from the former, but it's not a goal.

And the homosexualism "debate" is depressing. The cultural elite unilaterally declared traditional morality to be "bigotry", and refuses to even debate the issue.

That's because there is nothing to debate. Your freedom ends where my nose (and my dick) begins, and this applies to sexual orientation as well. Traditional morality (traditional to whom?) does not recognize this basic statement of individual freedom, and insists that private matters between two consenting adults are somehow of anyone else's business - to the point of suggesting criminalizing it. There's no debating that this is bigotry, a textbook definition of it in fact.

Re:Apple also censors orthodox Christianity

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Today's cultural elite is far more concerned with sexual diversity than with intellectual diversity. Any person with common sense would see that these priorities are upside-down.

This is an obvious fallacy of claiming that these two things are somehow related. They aren't. You don't have to prioritize one to de-prioritize another.

It is not a fallacy. See the "hate speech" legislation proposed around the world, which makes it a crime to say "homosexual acts are sinful". In Brazil, this legislation has already been approved by the lower house. If it is approved by the upper house, then politically incorrect people will face 5 years of prison. The US is relatively safe from a legal standpoint because of the First Amendment. But in many places in the USA, there is a culture of hatred against orthodox Christians. If you want to speak at a university about traditional marriage, you better bring bodyguards.

Also, it's about sexual freedom, not sexual diversity. The latter naturally follows from the former, but it's not a goal.

The homosexual activists are very clearly saying "celebrate diversity". And there are even people who say homosexualism is a good thing to "control overpopulation".

And the homosexualism "debate" is depressing. The cultural elite unilaterally declared traditional morality to be "bigotry", and refuses to even debate the issue.

That's because there is nothing to debate. Your freedom ends where my nose (and my dick) begins, and this applies to sexual orientation as well. Traditional morality (traditional to whom?) does not recognize this basic statement of individual freedom, and insists that private matters between two consenting adults are somehow of anyone else's business - to the point of suggesting criminalizing it. There's no debating that this is bigotry, a textbook definition of it in fact.

Today's "liberals" are pushing "anti-discrimination" legislation that would force adoption agencies to hand children to same-sex pairs, would force people to collaborate with same-sex union ceremonies, would force kindergarten schools to accept a teacher who dresses as a drag and calls himself "Cindy Butterfly".

In the UK, "same-sex marriage" has not even been legalized yet, and they have already closed down every Catholic adoption agency in the country for "discrimination".

For one small example: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/photographers-guilty-of-discrimination-for-refusing-to-shoot-same-sex-weddi

It is not about the right to perform homosexual acts in the privacy of one's home; it is about shoveling homosexualism down everyone's throat.

In the "liberal" world, everything that is not forbidden is mandatory - lest you be judged guilty of "discrimination". I advance for you two truly radical ideas:
1) Not everything which is legal should be mandatory, so people would be able to choose.
2) Ideas should be openly debated without violence and hatred.

Re:Apple also censors orthodox Christianity

[shutdown -p now]

It is not a fallacy. See the "hate speech" legislation proposed around the world, which makes it a crime to say "homosexual acts are sinful". In Brazil, this legislation has already been approved by the lower house. If it is approved by the upper house, then politically incorrect people will face 5 years of prison. The US is relatively safe from a legal standpoint because of the First Amendment. But in many places in the USA, there is a culture of hatred against orthodox Christians. If you want to speak at a university about traditional marriage, you better bring bodyguards.

It's a fallacy because hate speech laws are not a requirement nor related to "sexual diversity". It's just people legislating into law their desire to not be offended. It's pretty much the same thing as blasphemy laws, only the other way around. Both are stupid and harmful.

The homosexual activists are very clearly saying "celebrate diversity". And there are even people who say homosexualism is a good thing to "control overpopulation".

I'm pretty sure there are some mentally confused people saying all kinds of things, but I certainly haven't heard of either of those from mainstream LGBT rights activists.

Today's "liberals" are pushing "anti-discrimination" legislation that would force adoption agencies to hand children to same-sex pairs

Well, it is anti-discrimination, no scare quotes needed - unless you can demonstrate that this is somehow harmful for the children. Which so far no-one has managed to do.

would force people to collaborate with same-sex union ceremonies,

I'm not aware on any laws, present or proposed, that require churches to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies or otherwise recognize them. Various affiliated organizations have to recognize them for the purposes of the law (taxation, spousal benefits etc) - which is perfectly reasonable, since the point of those things is to provide social benefits that the society as a whole agrees (through its democratic institution) to be available; there's no reason why organizations affiliated with various religions (like hospitals or schools) should be able to claim an exemption.

would force kindergarten schools to accept a teacher who dresses as a drag and calls himself "Cindy Butterfly".

Again, unless that is somehow demonstrably harmful, I don't see a problem. Of course, dressing in a sexually provocative manner regardless of one's orientation is another thing, but mere crossdressing - why would that be an issue?

Not everything which is legal should be mandatory, so people would be able to choose.

I can sign up to that. But I haven't seen LGBT activists forcing people to become gay. If you've had such an encounter, I suspect this would fall under the category of sexual harassment, and can be reported to proper authorities as such.

Ideas should be openly debated without violence and hatred.

Without violence, certainly, so long as other side is not engaging in violence.

Hatred is an interesting thing. Why shouldn't I hate someone who already hates me, and tries hard to demonstrate it in all imaginable ways?

And the article failed to explain why.

[gr8_phk]

I'd agree with parent:

Um, no. Apple is taking sides based on the PR it might get. They banned the 'shake the baby' app for exactly the same reason. They're not going to stop doing it, either, because 'image' is a big part of their marketing strategy.

But TFA says Apple SHOULD change. Why? Because someone with a semi-public voice thinks so? In order to change, they're going to need a reason that benefits Apple, not just some guys opinion who got himself some clicks.