Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Iphone Apple

Apple Bans Android Magazine App From App Store 574

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the every-day-a-little-more-evil dept.
recoiledsnake writes "Apple dialed its battle with Android up a notch today by banning an Android magazine app from its App Store, leaving no way for users to install the app on iPads, iPhones and iPod Touches without jailbreaking. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep, was: 'You know... your magazine...It's just about Android.... we can't have that in our App Store.' The bi-monthly publication — the Android counterpart to an iPhone magazine Dixon began putting out earlier this year — launched Nov. 11. 'It's funny really because I don't think we would sell many magazines on Android through Apple App Store,' Dixon told Media Watch. 'But the question is where this is going.' This comes on the heels of Jobs lashing out at Android, calling it fragmented, and its patent attacks on Android."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Bans Android Magazine App From App Store

Comments Filter:
  • by yog (19073) * on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:29PM (#34376076) Homepage Journal

    This seems like an act of desperation. Is Apple that insecure that it can't allow a stupid app like this onto its platform? What, are people going to read about Android and immediately dump their iPhones? If the iPhone is that good, Apple has nothing to worry about. If it's not competitive with Android handsets, then Apple should fix the deficiencies.

    So far the main problem with iPhone is how closed and censored the app store is, from the point of view of an Android phone user anyway.

  • by nametaken (610866) * on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:31PM (#34376118)

    I don't think Apple remembers what desperation feels like. ;)

  • Remember, kids, (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:33PM (#34376138)

    "Free Market" types will incessantly remind you that censorship only happens with governments. This isn't "censorship", just "good business."

  • by hjf (703092) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:37PM (#34376190) Homepage

    Well, Apple hates Microsoft, they've been mocking windows forever... yet Microsoft sells software for Mac.

  • Open Source FTW (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rubypossum (693765) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:39PM (#34376212)
    This level of anti-competitive and just... asshole behavior has probably never been seen before, not even with Microsoft. How can Apple ever hope to become a serious part of community infrastructure when they display this level of disrespect for their customers? Is the fear that some bumbling iPhone user might accidentally install the Android magazine app and have a sudden flash of inspiration that iPhone is inferior? Why do we, as customers, take this? Not even Microsoft had the greedy foolishness to prohibit its competitor's software from running on their platform. Why don't we demand control of the devices that we have purchased? Lets hope that MeeGo can deliver a genuinely open phone experience. Ubuntu and Linux Mint both show how an app store could be done.
  • by stg (43177) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:39PM (#34376214) Homepage

    There is a big difference between accepting ads and accepting content about your competition.

    I imagine that any Windows developer that hoped to use an iPad for e-books on Windows shouldn't be able to get them, either?

    Do you also think that Amazon should refuse to sell any Kindle e-books about iPads next?

  • Success (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DigiShaman (671371) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:40PM (#34376226) Homepage

    You know you've achieved success in the market place when your major competitor lashes out at you in anger. Nice going Google, keep up the good work :)

  • by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) <taiki@co[ ]et ['x.n' in gap]> on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:40PM (#34376230)

    A better analogy would be, "Why should Amazon/Borders be forced to carry books about how great the Nook/Kindle is?"

  • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:41PM (#34376236) Journal

    You're right, I guess they are still selling a whole lot of iPhones, so it can't be damaging their credibility that much, but it's been enough to put me off buying one. For a company known for their good marketing this does seem like somewhat strange behaviour - it's pissing off some potential buyers and I honestly can't believe that it's doing that much good for Apple. I see their desire to exert some control (although I disagree with it), but they seem to be going about it in a rather unpleasant manner.

    Then again, Android is only faring a little better - not only is it fragmented, it's also fairly locked down thanks to the asshats selling the devices. I think now that it's gained some traction, it's time for Google to put their foot down a little - exert control not in the manner that Apple does, but more the manner that the GPL does. License the new versions in such a manner that certain user rights must be respected.

  • by timeOday (582209) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:41PM (#34376244)
    McDonald's restaurants are owned by McDonald's (or a franchisee). Who owns my iPhone?* That is the heart of the question.

    It would be different if Apple's app store were just one app provider, but it's the only way to get apps onto the phone!

    * Disclaimer, I don't actually own an iPhone.

  • by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@noSPam.gmail.com> on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:41PM (#34376254) Homepage Journal

    They shouldn't be required to promote the competition, but banning the competition on your platform can get you in trouble.

    As a 100 billion dollar gorilla, they need to be careful when it comes to antitrust and perception.

    Imagine if Internet Explorer refused to load apple.com, or Microsoft refused to allow iTunes on Windows.

  • by wygit (696674) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:42PM (#34376266)

    But Apple is trying to get newspaper and magazine publisher to go to subscription models through the App Store?

    Sure, as long as publishers don't want to say anything that isn't in Apple's interests.

    I don't think Mickey D's is trying to set themselves as the world's newsstand.

  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:43PM (#34376280) Journal

    If you can't see the difference between trying to control what the owner of a smart phone sees on his screen and what ads a restaurant puts in what is *there* property, then I posit that your average pile of dogshit on the front lawn has more brains than you.

  • Later on... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wonkavader (605434) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:44PM (#34376284)

    And a little down the line, some other magazine app gets removed. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep is "You know... your magazine...It had a negative review of the iPad.... we can't have that in our App Store."

    Same principle.

    Apple certainly can do this sort of thing, but it shows a lack of integrity and a lack of self-confidence. It's the behaviour of a small, petty person. It's short-sighted and it will push people to Android tablets all the more.

    It seems like the aim is to keep all the passive people on Apple and to let the people who think independently go. That may be a winning business strategy, but I find it horrifying.

  • by EyelessFade (618151) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:44PM (#34376290) Homepage
    Or Microsoft denying itunes or safari on Windows
  • Re:Open Source FTW (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pr100 (653298) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:45PM (#34376294)

    Why do we, as customers, take this?

    Who's "we"? I don't have any apple products...

  • Where's the EU? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:50PM (#34376364)
    Microsoft gets sued for simply including it's own browser in it's OS, meanwhile Apple literally trys to prevent its users from even know a competing product exists by limiting their access to actual journalism. Where's the EU now? Where are the antitrust lawsuits? Imagine if Microsoft wouldn't allow you to go to Apples website?
  • by Arkham (10779) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:52PM (#34376396)

    This is a non-story.

    1) Developer submits an app intentionally to get it rejected.
    2) App gets rejected.
    3) ???
    4) Profit!

    The funny thing is, this is actually happening here. 3 seems to be getting the "press" to cover you so people hear about your other apps.

  • by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:52PM (#34376406)

    This epitomizes the reason I don't buy Apple any more. I've got an iPod Nano that is a couple years old and it is the last Apple product I will ever buy. I didn't even want to buy it at the time, but it was the best music player I could find - that isn't enough to sway me any more.

    It's a damn magazine. There is no reason to deny it other than spite.

    Apple can have the best hardware in the world, but that company and the man who runs it are pure ego, and I refuse to buy Apple products on principle.

  • by Shivetya (243324) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:54PM (#34376450) Homepage Journal

    and Apple has no reason to be part of it, you can become a "useful" member of "their" community provided you follow the rules.

    After all, all the cool kids will do so. See if you get any respect sitting in Starbucks without an Apple product, hell, see if they will serve you.

    Yes, the above line was a bit of sarcasm, however Apple doesn't really care, they really don't think they have too.

  • by jeffmeden (135043) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:55PM (#34376462) Homepage Journal

    Or Microsoft denying itunes or safari on Windows

    THIS-Y THIS THIS.

    iFans would shit a golden brick if Microsoft banned iTunes from Windows 7, yet they apparently have no problem rationalizing the wielding of the mighty App Store banhammer against information about (not even an ad for) someone elses platform.

    telling. very telling. Looks like I have one less reason to buy an iWhatever any time soon.

  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:56PM (#34376476)

    Can you imagine the outrage if Amazon banned their partners from selling iPads? While Amazon themselves doesn't seem to stock it, they have about 100 partners that do, and handle fulfillment for some of them. Same for the Nook, Sony reader, and so on. They certainly don't go out of their way to promote them (though if you search for them they'll show up as recommendation on the front page, along with the Kindle) but they don't ban them just because they happen to compete with a product Amazon makes.

    While I don't expect a company to promote or help a competitor, I don't expect them to be dicks either. How would people react if Windows refused to install iTunes and Safari because Apple competes with them? I imagine the whargarbl would reach critical mass in about 5 seconds, and a lawsuit would follow not long after.

  • by Buelldozer (713671) <cliff@gindu l i s . net> on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:57PM (#34376482)

    Did you know that you can BUY a Nook from Amazon.com?

    http://www.amazon.com/Barnes-Noble-NOOK-reader-3G/dp/1400599997 [amazon.com]

  • Re:Later on... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:03PM (#34376566)

    It's the behaviour of a small, petty person.

    Small petty people who gain power tend to become bullies.

    This describes Apple perfectly.

  • by captainproton1971 (1838798) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:05PM (#34376600)

    Who owns my iPhone?* That is the heart of the question.

    I would think the heart of the question is Who Owns the App Store? Are you really suggesting that Apple be forced to sell particular items through their own store? If that's the case, who would you envision as the arbiter of what they should be forced to carry?

    It would be different if Apple's app store were just one app provider, but it's the only way to get apps onto the phone!

    If that's a problem for you, or if you generally object to their business practices, vote with your wallet and don't buy their phone. It's not like there aren't alternatives readily available. If you just gotta have shiny, jailbreak it.

    It's not like controlling behaviour is something new to Apple.

  • by vux984 (928602) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:05PM (#34376602)

    Wouldn't a monopoly have... I dunno... a large market share?

    100% big enough for you?

    They are the sole marketplace for i-apps. You aren't allowed to create or use a different app store. And you need their approval to buy and sell your product in this one. If there were a few app stores consumers could use, nobody would blink at what apple decided to host in its store.

    The ONLY reason apple's app bannings are news is because they assert 100% control over what 3rd party software consumers are allowed to purchase and put onto their own phones.

  • Re:Where's the EU? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DigiShaman (671371) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:10PM (#34376694) Homepage

    Doubt it's going to ever happen. EU is full of socialites. Apple caters to that kind of culture.

  • Re:Later on... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by recoiledsnake (879048) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:10PM (#34376712)

    And a little down the line, some other magazine app gets removed. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep is "You know... your magazine...It had a negative review of the iPad.... we can't have that in our App Store."

    Same principle.

    Apple certainly can do this sort of thing, but it shows a lack of integrity and a lack of self-confidence. It's the behaviour of a small, petty person. It's short-sighted and it will push people to Android tablets all the more.

    It seems like the aim is to keep all the passive people on Apple and to let the people who think independently go. That may be a winning business strategy, but I find it horrifying.

    That has already happened http://www.newser.com/off-the-grid/post/451/creepy-steve-jobs-may-not-want-you-to-read-this-or-will-break-down-your-door.html?utm_source=otg&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20100427 [newser.com]

    in a column that dealt with Jobs’ recently announced intention to police apps for violations of Apple’s new (and undisclosed) rules against porn. I suggested that Jobs was overreaching—and, maybe too, a little messianic and off his nut. (I did not know then that his cop mentality would soon enough involve actual police action.)

    The stated reason for the rejection of my free app is that Apple requires "sufficient amounts of content to appeal to a broad audience." Putting aside the fact that this pretty much makes specialty content ineligible for iPhone or iPad apps, it’s also a pretty fudgy standard. For instance, I get a bigger readership for my online columns than I do for my Vanity Fair columns—so Vanity Fair shouldn’t make the cut?

    Truth is stranger than fiction.

  • by sootman (158191) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:14PM (#34376794) Homepage Journal

    ... I bet this was just one of those dumb little things and will probably get overturned very soon. I know Apple has denied some things in the past for questionable reasons but something like this--a harmless little magazine--sounds to me more like it belongs in the "Never attribute to malice..." category.

  • by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@noSPam.gmail.com> on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:14PM (#34376798) Homepage Journal

    The only way to load software is through the App Store, and the App Store is banning an app that they feel is focused on a competitor. Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust merely for bundling products. Apple's anti-competitive practices are actually worse than Microsoft's. The main reason they haven't caught as much flak is that they've been seen as the plucky underdog with 10% market share.

    That is changing with their massive market cap.

  • by madmark1 (1946846) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:17PM (#34376852)
    And you let me know the next time you are on Alaskan, and find that they cut out magazine articles about Southwest from all magazines on board. Dumbass. This isn't and ad, it isn't a flier, its a MAGAZINE, containing content. Are you suggesting that you shouldn't be able to read iTunes for Idiots on your Windows 7 machine, or a book on Cocoa programming on your Nook running Android? This isn't someone choosing not to allow an app, this is censorship more than anything. This is Apple denying any news of their competitors from ending up on their products. Which is interesting, since they aren't Apple's products at all, they are YOURS, you paid for it. This is certain to run afoul of anti-trust/unfair business practice laws, should someone choose to push the issue. As long as they set themselves up to be the sole supplier of applications for their platform, they hold a monopoly, and exerting it in such a way is wrong. This is fundamentally the same as the Windows/Internet Explorer lockdown, though even in that case, Microsoft held a high percentage of the market, but did not restrict you from installing someone else's product.
  • Re:Later on... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Archangel Michael (180766) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:22PM (#34376940) Journal

    so don't buy iPhone and don't worry about Apple's shenanigans. It really is that simple folks. Apple will learn one way or another, and either adapt or die.

    If sufficient number of people take issue with Apple's App Store policies, they will lose market share to Android and the others. We still have a choice, so choose.

  • by bennomatic (691188) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:22PM (#34376946) Homepage
    More likely, it was a mistake, or a poor judgement call of one user. It's happened before, and lots of rejections have been re-instated without much fuss. Dollars to donuts, I'll bet this one gets approved just fine, and probably would have even without this level of outrage.
  • by scubamage (727538) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:24PM (#34376970)
    Some of us use an iPad for some things (namely being a reader), while owning an android phone. Myself, for example. I own an iPad specifically to function as an ebook reader, and as a magazine reader. I have a few games, but for the most part, I use it for reading stuff. I would be more than happy to read a magazine about android. And my platform of choice to read that? Either paper, or on my iPad. And apple just said I can't do that because it is throwing a 3 year old temper tantrum against its competition.
  • Re:Where's the EU? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:29PM (#34377032)
    Actually, they are in more of a monopolistic postition than microsoft was. Microsoft has at dozens of other OS's that can run on PC Hardware. Apple is the ONLY OS that can run on theirs. You're locked in a contract, can't put any other OS on the phone and they won't let you see competing products on that phone. At least with a PC you could tell MSFT to go stuff it and install Ubuntu or something. With the IPhone you literally have to throw the device away and pay huge fines. Seems worse than a monopoly to me.
  • by Firethorn (177587) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:34PM (#34377086) Homepage Journal

    Ford Cars use only Ford Engines and Parts

    If you dig deep enough, it might have a 'Ford' label on it, but there's a lot of parts commanility even between makes.

    Personally, I'd have allowed it to account for Iphone purchasers/users who have to keep up with android news - perhaps because they have to support others who use it?

  • by jpmorgan (517966) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:36PM (#34377114) Homepage

    Except, no. If you want to buy or sell a new entertainment system for your car, you don't need to ask Ford for permission.

    Nobody has a problem with Apple selling their product in a state they like. The problem is with Apple trying to assert control over how people use their product after they've sold it.

  • by tompaulco (629533) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:36PM (#34377124) Homepage Journal
    How about a related industry analogy instead of a car analogy?
    Like for instance, what if Dell decided that on your Dell computer, you could only install applications that they approved? Trying to install an HP printer driver? No, not approved. Trying to install Microsoft Media Player? No, only Dell's MusicMatch is approved.
  • Re:Open Source FTW (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rubypossum (693765) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:49PM (#34377282)
    It would be more like designing Chevy vehicles to drive only on roads that Chevy approves of. Then banning all roads that go near Ford dealerships.

    What Apple is doing is unconscionable. I have always been anti-Microsoft, in this regard I was always pulling for Apple. But it's important to realize WHY I was anti-Microsoft. Namely because of their anti-competitive and asshole behavior. A set of behavior that Apple has perfected and made even more grotesquely anti-consumer, anti-choice and ultimately insulting to all intelligent customers of their products. At least Microsoft had enough respect for you to give you a choice. Now you have nanny-Apple deciding what you can and cannot install on the device you purchased and now legally own.
  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:55PM (#34377378)

    I am so tired of these individuals and groups trying to replace already-long-solved problems with their own private apps. Why do I need an NPR podcast app, or an ESPN app, or a Digital Story app? I can already access all their content easily through a web browser. I can already subscribe to, and automatically download, their podcasts. There is no real benefit to me as an end user from using these apps - it actually makes the process of accessing their content more difficult, and even the most casual observer can see any purported added value content being offered is of little interest or value.

    So now these publishers want us to read their magazines and newspapers through their individual app? How is this different than a web paywall, exactly? I personally have nothing against subscriber-only web content - but if that model isn't working, why do these guys think doing the exact same thing but calling it an "app" is going to change anything?

    Why would anyone think replacing one web browser and one general program for listening to podcasts with 50+ separate apps is a good thing?

    Okay, back on topic. This rejection is wrong, and Apple should correct it ASAP.

  • by vux984 (928602) on Monday November 29, 2010 @02:56PM (#34377386)

    And in related news ... Ford Cars use only Ford Engines and Parts ... unless you root it.

    Sure if I go to the ford dealership I am sold ford approved parts.

    But I don't have to buy parts at the ford dealership. And I don't need fords permission to install them.

    And I don't have to do anything special to install non-ford parts.

  • by vux984 (928602) on Monday November 29, 2010 @03:09PM (#34377574)

    Should the government decide what products 7-11 sells?

    Irrelevant.

    Anyone can open a corner store and sell the same 3rd party items 7-11 sells. Anyone can buy the 3rd party items 7-11 sells from anywhere.

    I can't shop for iphone apps elsewhere. I can even make iphone apps and sell them directly to consumers.

    How about Best Buy? Should they be required by law to sell Sony laptops?

    Irrelevant.

    If I want a Sony laptop I can buy one from multiple places, including directly from sony.

    I can't buy the "iSony app" except from Apple. I can't even even buy it directly from Sony.

    As far as having 100% market share for iPhone apps, that is also a ridiculous statement. Sears has 100% market share for Craftsman products.

    Not a valid comparison. Craftsman is Sears own product. Apple isn't making the apps in the app store. I have no issue that the Apple App store is the only place I can buy the Apple remote app. I have no issue that I can only buy apple computers from apple authorized dealers.

    Why exactly do I need Apple authorization to buy non-Apple products?

    Should they be forced to sell third party drill bits or extension cords for their Craftsman tools?

    Of course not. But that's not the situation here. The question here is should Sears be allowed to prevent me from buying 3rd party drill bits or extension cords *somewhere else*?

  • by StuartHankins (1020819) on Monday November 29, 2010 @03:28PM (#34377902)
    If you seriously believe that "Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust merely for bundling products" you need to do a bit more research. Microsoft created code designed to degrade users' experiences when using competitors' products (DR DOS etc). Microsoft threatened hardware vendors into carrying only Microsoft Windows OS on their machines. Microsoft restricted browser choice in the OS, claiming it couldn't be removed (and continuing to claim that even when it was demonstrated that they were lying about it). Etc. Even today it's difficult to purchase a new non-Apple computer without purchasing Windows; major manufacturers such as Dell have only offered low-end machines with limited options compared to the rest of their PC's.

    As bad as Apple's recent behavior has been, Microsoft has always been more evil.
  • by adisakp (705706) on Monday November 29, 2010 @03:32PM (#34377946) Journal

    How about a related industry analogy instead of a car analogy? Like for instance, what if Dell decided that on your Dell computer, you could only install applications that they approved? Trying to install an HP printer driver? No, not approved. Trying to install Microsoft Media Player? No, only Dell's MusicMatch is approved.

    How about if you bought a PS, PS2, PS3, XBOX, XBOX 360, GameCube, Wii, DS, PSP, etc. etc. and could only install applications that they approved. How about if you could only play protected music or copy protected DVD's / BluRay's on supported players without using illegal circumvention methods?

    Oh wait, that's already the world we live in.

    You see, related industry for phone apps isn't generic computer, it's treated more as a "game console" or "media consumption" device.

    Not saying that DRM / Copy-Protection / Censorship is right or wrong... just saying you're using the wrong analogy.

  • Re:Yes you are... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vux984 (928602) on Monday November 29, 2010 @03:43PM (#34378110)

    I shouldn't need to jailbreak my phone.

    Putthing this up as an alternative to allow the vendor to do whatever it wants is just feeding yourself the rope to hang yourself with.

    Sooner or later they will tighten the noose; and a device will be manufactured that you can't easily break, or they'll pass a law making it illegal to break. Probably both.

    One needs to vocally resist their grabs for control, so that we don't HAVE to resort to going underground to exercise the freedom we should legitimately have.

    The recent jailbreaking victory is hardly a conclusive win:

    All the Copyright Office has said is they're not going to prosecute jailbreakers.

    "Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. ? 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking."

    http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ [copyright.gov]

    And with "the next rulemaking", they may change their mind and start prosecuting people again.

    And, as noted above, *nothing* in this policy says that Apple can't prosecute jailbreakers for violating their license agreement.

  • by recoiledsnake (879048) on Monday November 29, 2010 @03:58PM (#34378312)

    Who ever said there was a law being broken? It may be Apple's right to be a dick, but we are free to discuss about it without a bunch of apologists supporting their unethical actions.

  • Re:Where's the EU? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by spire3661 (1038968) on Monday November 29, 2010 @04:19PM (#34378608) Journal
    The key part you are missing here is ILLEGAL monopoly. IM not going to get into a semantics argument about what level of 'monopoly' Apple holds. But LEGALLY, it is nowhere near a true monopoly in the context of the law. Having a walled garden is not illegal. Please dont confuse mindshare with monopoly status. Apple is in no way anywhere near 'microsoftian' levels of monopoly power, not by a long shot. If Android and blackberry didnt exist, then yeah MAYBE Apple could approach a monopoly, but then theres still Sony, LG, Samsung, HTC, Motorola most whom have at least some form of roll-their-own mobile OS. All of them make competing and viable products.

    Apple's biggest effect on the marketplace is most often people REACTING to Apple, not Apple's actions themselves. Apple says 'We are reducing Flash's importance on our platforms' and the world gasped.
  • by Gregg M (2076) on Monday November 29, 2010 @06:23PM (#34380840) Homepage

    And you need their approval to buy and sell your product in this one.

    Doesn't Microsoft do the same for the Xbox 360? You can't release a game without Microsoft's approval.

Wernher von Braun settled for a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8.

Working...