The purpose of these stories, involving Apple refusing to sell apps, is not to debate the rights of Apple to do so. Everyone recognizes that Apple has a right to sell or not sell anything it so desires.

The purpose of these stories is to warn people to stay away from Apple, because Apple does not have your best interests in mind, only its bottom line.

Looking at the Transmission control interface through Safari on my iPhone right now. I guess now that Safari might be used to facilitate "this category of application" Apple will be pulling it from the OS?

I'm as much of a fanboy as the next guy, but Apple really need to get the house in order over the app store.

Jailbreaking: "It may be your store, but it's my goddamn phone".

From what I heard, corporations are able to be criticized for their actions.

"Of course, many are quick to remind that it is Apple's store and they are free to do whatever they want with it."

By the same token isn't it my iPhone that I am free to do what I want with it? Sure that means I can jailbreak it, but why should I be forced to just to use an app that Apple doesn't want to sell on their store?

Or another way to put it might be that they are not trying to be everything to everyone, and while we do not necessarily know all the reasons for all of their decisions, anyone who is going to make a significant purchase ($200+ dollars plus ongoing fees) should have this information in order to make an informed decision.

If you're going to "warn people" to stay away from Apple because they're interested in their bottom line, you're going to have to warn people to stay away from pretty much all corporations. Of course, that means not having any sort of computing device...

Seriously. If Apple wants to engage in practices that result in a chilling effect on your target market why the fuck are you going to support them?
Because it's [LOVE]Apple{/LOVE]? Puh-leeze!
Because it enables you to reach a large market of consumers? Oh wait, they're denying those customers access to your products!

I'm sure Apple is great and wonderful and really really nice. I'm sure their app platform is the greatest thing since sliced stupid-people. But if they're going to actively interfere with your ability to reach customers FUCK THEM!

And yes, it's Apple's store. They can sell or not sell whatever they feel like.
However, it's not JUST Apple's store. It's the sole "legitimate" gateway into the devices you're writing apps for. That's part of the problem.

To use a baseball-related metaphor. You're a beer-hawker at a ballgame. Heaven help you if you try to sell booze in OTHER than the approved manner or brand.

If you don't like the way Apple runs its store, don't buy from it.

        If you don't like gay marriage, don't do it.

        If you don't like murder, don't commit it.

        If you don't like France, don't go there.

        If you don't like math, don't learn it.

        If you don't care for Enron, don't buy the stock.

        If you don't like subprime, don't take one out.

        -- And in any case, don't talk any more about it.

Why am I starting to wonder if there might not be something a little bit wrong with this form of argument?

You can use logmein or other vnc apps to control torrent programs on your computer. Better ban that. You could control it through a webui using safari. Better ban that too. Wait, you could set up a script to control it with a phone call or email! Better ban the phone and mail apps, just to be sure.

Rediculous.

Actually, I doubt that many of us "koolaid drinkers" are the ones complaining. In my experience, the ones who complain the most/loudest about the app store are the ones who don't even have an iPhone/iPod touch. The rest of us are quite content with the wide assortment of apps that are already available, and most of us probably don't have the need to run BitTorrent apps on our cell phones.

Just a thought.

obviously not about control because you can get apps by other means

Are you referring to the DMCA violation known as "jailbreaking"? How deliciously absurd.

Is driving in and of itself perfectly legal?

Sure.

But what percentage of commutes do you think are non-infringing?

And what percentage of drivers have never broken any traffic law?

Yes, Apple is free to do what they wish with their store, and we are free not to pay for their overpriced and overhyped products when saddled in this manner.

Don't bother replying Apple fanbois, I'm not interested. It's just another corporation acting in its own best interest.

Option A) Apple products.
Option B) The freedom to do what you want with the stuff you buy.

Pick one and stop complaining.

I fail to see your point.

If you want to buy an iPhone and jailbreak it, feel free. It's your iPhone, after all. If you want to buy an iPhone and get your apps from the App Store, cool. It's pretty useful that way, also. If you don't want to buy a iPhone, for whatever reason, that's fine too. That's how a healthy market economy works, and the iPhone isn't the only smart phone out there.

What I don't understand is why you think Apple should sell you precisely what you want in the way you want it. Apple is willing to sell you a product with certain capabilities and limitations. They aren't required to sell something similar but different, although they do have to live with any negative effects on their market share because of that.

So, buy or don't buy, jailbreak or don't jailbreak, but don't claim Apple is being unfair just because you find them inconvenient.

Or to put it another way, if Apple are going to continnue to present themselves as the fun, shiny, easy, nice answer to everything, and both explicitly and implicitly suggest that everyone else is a bunch of crusty old business-oriented, consumer-hating corporations, then it will be totally legitimate and arguably even necessary for there to be a continued awareness campaign about the fact that they are behaving in this way.

Maybe we need a revised iphone advertisement:

"The great thing about the iphone is, if you want to find the nearest restaurant, there's an app for that... and if you want to use a spirit level thingo, there's an app for that... and if you want to use useful software developed by someone Apple doesn't approve of, you can go to hell... and if you want to use technology which Apple is nervous about, you can also go to hell... and if you think you actually own that phone you got when you handed over money, you are living in a fantasy world.

The new iphone. It's whatever Apple says it is."

Exactly.

Example 2, you're Microsoft. No doubt the same people bleating about how Apple has the "right" to control what is available through the app store would also die in a ditch to defend Microsoft's "right" to tie whatever web browser it chooses to its own operating system, right? Right?

*sound of wind blowing... crickets chirp*

Actually, I doubt that many of us "koolaid drinkers" are the ones complaining. In my experience, the ones who complain the most/loudest about the app store are the ones who don't even have an iPhone/iPod touch. The rest of us are quite content with the wide assortment of apps that are already available, and most of us probably don't have the need to run BitTorrent apps on our cell phones.

Just a thought.

This message brought to you SteveJobsBot, astroturfing Slashdot since 2005!

Suing: "It's still my fucking phone, and my expensive lawyer will tear you a new one for purposely destroying my property."

Youre still operating under the assumption that you purchased the phone, in actual fact you just leased it and Apple retains all rights to the firmware, hardware design, drivers (where applicable) and whatever else they could patent/copyright. If you purchased the phone on a subsidised contract then "first sales" laws in many countries don't apply because you haven't finished paying for the contract.

Apple will have dozens of obscure lines buried deep in their Terms of Use/EULA that will cover them in the case that one of their own customers decides to sue. Remember when you install windows you always have to press F8 to accept the license agreement, well that agreement says that you give up all rights to sue Microsoft regardless of how bad the product fails, Apple will have done the same thing. EULA's may not be enforceable on the customer but that's not their purpose, they can and are being used to stop customers from attacking the supplier.

Seriously, just file it in Texas or something. Of the thousands of judges in the nation, you only need one crooked bastard to side with you

The problem with relying on a corrupt law system is that it naturally gravitates towards the most money, so all Apple have to do is offer the crooked bastard a few more dollars then you can.

Personally I just chose a device that wasn't made by a company that requires complete control. Yes I had to accept the Android EULA but that's just saying I cant sue Google or HTC if things go wrong, I'd have to accept that no matter who I go with so I've accepted it and moved on.

Yeah the phone isn't yours until it breaks outside of warranty, or you drop the damn thing. Than it quickly becomes yours while you pay a monthy.

It's a win-win really ... as long as you are ATT.

Although it is popular to believe that something is not "yours" until you have discharged all of the liabilities you accepted when you bought it, that is simply not the case.

The terms of the contract include: We'll sell you a phone for $X. You'll pay us $Y if you leave before Z months is up.

Note that the company is not obligated to accept return of the phone in lieu of an early termination penalty. (I've only had one company - DirectTV - state that they would accept their equipment back and let you off the hook if you left early.) Note who is responsible for dealing with the situation if the phone is lost, stolen, or damaged.

You own the phone (as an AT&T employee would quickly be reminded if he tried to take it from you). The software, as always, is held in a legal grey area by various lobbying interests.