Apple Blocks Cartoonist From App Store 664
ink writes "Here is another troubling anecdote on the iWeb front: 'This week cartoonist Mark Fiore made Internet and journalism history as the first online-only journalist to win a Pulitzer Prize. Fiore took home the editorial cartooning prize for animations he created for SFGate, the website for the San Francisco Chronicle... But there's just one problem. In December, Apple rejected his iPhone app, NewsToons, because, as Apple put it, his satire "ridicules public figures," a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, which bars any apps whose content in "Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory."' Whether or not you agree with Fiore's political sentiments, I believe we can all agree that the censorship of his work should be denigrated."
News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Apple has a locked down system that rejects apps for arbitrary reasons.
This is a known fact, can we stop pretending its "stuff that matters?"
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed it does put it in perspective. Apple is run by a bunch of cowardly, vile morons.
I don't think it matters to 99.999% of people (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think it matters to 99.999% of people
Here's why:
They buy an iPhone or an iPod Touch or an iPad for what they can see it can do.
The do NOT buy it for what they can see it *might* be able to do.
Only engineers and visionaries will buy something for the second reason. Consider that most cars which run on hydrogen are conversions of ordinary petroleum vehicles which were bought specifically to make them do something that they ordinarily would not have been able to do. Someone converting a Ford Escort to run on Hydrogen, though, is highly unlikely to encourage someone to buy a Ford Escort in the hope that conversion kits will be available "at some point in the future". It's even more likely that someone bought a Ford Escort 4 years before the first person converting it to run on Hydrogen in order to have one on hand when conversions kits became available on the off chance that someone would think of converting one to do that four years in the future.
Likewise, the person buying the iPad is not going to do so on the basis of anticipating some killer app that hasn't been thought of by the person who will eventually implement it only have their idea rejected by the app store. We're never going to see a lot of people who fall into the category of: "Oh crap! I bought this thing 4 years ago because I knew someday someone would write this program, and now they have, but I have no way to buy it!".
Yeah, it may piss you off on general principles, but all you're ding is trying to get everyone else to adopt your general principles by compplaining, you're not the white knight errant saving the world from censorship, so get over it.
-- Terry
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There isn't anyone upset with the app store inconsistency and stupidity that owns an iPhone? Really?
And I'm not sure what you are betting on. That this will get widespread attention or that it will be news to anyone. You stated in the first post that everyone already knows about the problems with app store approval, so I'm guessing you believe that it already gained widespread attention.
So I'm guessing that you are betting 1 grand that there wont be a single person surprised by Apple's decision in this i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'm not sure what you are betting on.
I'm betting that probably 99% of iPhone users will never hear about this and even they did they would give a resigned yawn and not care.
Those that do hear will rant viciously about it, only to forget it happened within the week. The vast majority will continue to use their iPhone, purchase another is lost or broken, and may even upgrade.
For an example of this behavior in alpha-male geeks, see the Modern Warfare 2 'boycott' [flickr.com]. Most people will rant about it, but not change their purchasing decisions, which is why Apple/IW/every other company can do almost whatever they want without hurting their bottom line.
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think the major problem is that they refuse to sell some apps - it's that they've made it so that the only way to obtain apps for the platform is through them, and THEN refused to carry certain apps. If Apple offered the app store as one method to obtain apps, and then allowed the user to upload whatever other apps he wanted (and he could obtain through whatever means), then people wouldn't really care.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, Apple has a locked down system that rejects apps for arbitrary reasons.
This is a known fact, can we stop pretending its "stuff that matters?"
We're trying to find the pattern in the reasoning, if you don't mind.
I think they show it to a judgmental old lady and reject what she objects to. The reason for long approval times? Naps.
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Apple has a locked down system that rejects apps for arbitrary reasons.
This is a known fact, can we stop pretending its "stuff that matters?"
And accept defeat? I'll keep pointing it out to people until Apple changes the system or kills it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"I'll keep pointing it out to people until Apple changes the system or kills it."
I'll keep pointing out that if people want Open-ness and Free-dom they should starve the beast(s) and not buy from EITHER Apple or Microsoft.
Re:I am unbeatable! (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is the chilling effect when few organizations control many media channels.
You lose when thousands of people self-censor, because otherwise they'd be unable to reach the iPhone market. You lose when you have no chance of reaching the iPhone market. This is not an all-or-nothing winning or losing, but a graded one. But communication and expression is not isolated: it occurs in the context of networks of people and platforms. If the population of iPhone customers is big enough to affect when does and does not get made and distributed, then it affects you even if you aren't an iPhone customer.
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to keep bringing up this stupid behaviour. We need to talk about it, think about it, and most importantly share this idiotic stories with those we know who don't read Slashdot.
Why? Because this isn't okay. Like copyright extensions to infinity and like DMCA issues, Joe Average simply doesn't know what bad stuff is going on. The only way to cause change is by votes. Those votes might be at a ballot box, or at a cash register.
You and I know what's going on. Each of these stories is a new bit of ammunition to us. Or would you rather we just accept corruption, bias, and philosophically repugnant behaviour so we don't need to hear about it anymore?
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:4, Insightful)
buuuuut this is not like DMCA or copyright extensions to infinity.
This is a private company, not the government. Also, this is a closed box -- think of the app store as a way for people to make nintendo games. Are you upset at the standards nintendo enforces on people making games for its platform? Then why get your panties in a bunch about the standards apple enforces on people making applications for its console?
In other words, get over it and find something useful to do with your protests. If you don't like how they do it, make a competing product.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe because it does matter to a big part of this sites readership. Many people who read this site are developers, many write iPhone apps. Knowing that if they make something too politically charged will cause it to be rejected wasting the developers time.
Do you see why it might count as stuff that matters now?
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:4, Informative)
Where did you read "freedom of speech" in TFA? I don't recall typing that....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't but the Censorship line is what I am not fond of. Just like every store on the planet the have every right to pick and choose what they carry. The fact that Apple will not carry this cartoon app is nothing really shocking or any threat to anybodies freedom. It is also not censorship.
The iPhone isn't the only smartphone. It is now and always has been a walled garden. So this is a big woop.
If you don't like the product then don't buy it. If enough people don't buy it then things may change.
As someo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We can't all agree on what to have for lunch, you think that we should agree that censorship of this artist (who was unknown to many if not most of us before his Pulitzer work) should be anything but what it is, the privilege of the owner of the store?
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:5, Informative)
It is censorship. Nowhere in the definition of that word is there anything about an obligation to publish something. You're just making up an arbitrary definition to support Apple. Wikipedia:
The media organisation Apple's action fits the definition like a glove.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
supression != unwilling to use my resources to help you.
Do you seriously believe that every printing press, web server, megaphone, etc. has to convey your message when you demand it?
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:5, Insightful)
supression != unwilling to use my resources to help you.
Which of Apple's resources are required here? In fact Apple stands to gain from this transaction, and is declining it in spite of this.
It isn't as if Apple just doesn't have the manpower to approve this app.
Do you seriously believe that every printing press, web server, megaphone, etc. has to convey your message when you demand it?
Do you seriously support needing the permission of the megaphone's manufacturer for every word spoken through it?
Hyperbole can be fun!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is censorship. Nowhere in the definition of that word is there anything about an obligation to publish something. You're just making up an arbitrary definition to support Apple. Wikipedia:
The media organisation Apple's action fits the definition like a glove.
No, Apple is not a media organization -- it does not create consumable content. It distributes it, much like the corner magazine stand. If your local magazine vendor chooses not to stock your favorite magazine, you can stand up and holler "censorship!" all you like ... or you can simply vote with your wallet and take your business elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Do you have an actual point? If you are going to claim censorship with this then any refusal by any newspaper, book publisher, music label to publish someone's work would have to be censorship. Such an idea is patently absurd.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why argue? Just use a dictionary:
To censor [reference.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That does not address the argument that was presented to you: if this is a case of censorship, then every single case where someone refuses to publish someone else's work is also censorship.
Answer the question: is it censorship whenever someone refuses to publish someone else's work? Give a yes or no answer, please, don't hem and haw, just address the argument that was presented to you.
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:4, Insightful)
It certainly does answer the question -- you just don't like the answer.
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:4, Insightful)
The important point here is the fact that Apple goes out of it's way to be the only publisher available for the iPad.
This is simply a side effect of Apple's Walled Garden.
What's going to be next? George Orwell novels?
Oddly enough, some of the big names getting behind the iPad might publish this guys work. These big names might be able to get away with activity that the "little guy" would be banned from doing.
That's another interesting and important aspect of the Walled Garden.
Regardless of how you want to label it, it is a problem for anyone that likes to "Think Different".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Amazon has prior art on that. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, it's just selection. Every band or author that got turned down isn't a victim of censorship. They simply didn't produce a product that the company in question wanted to take on.
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:5, Informative)
Walmart opting not to carry certain songs with explicit lyric is censorship.
Publishers declining to publish works that make them uncomfortable, despite whether or not it would sell, is censorship.
A government body stopping such is unconstitutional censorship, but other kinds can and do exist.
When you deny access due to content arbitrarily, and without using any reasonable standard, that is a form of censorship - whether or not it is conducted by a government body.
Your definition is untenable -- according to you, any expression of choice in selection of content is censorship; that just doesn't cut it. In a free market, content creators have the right to create (or decline to create) content; distributors have the right to distribute (or decline to distribute) content products; and consumers have the right to buy (or decline to buy) products. Period.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How about a DVD shop that does not feel the need for a live concerts section, are they censoring out all the music artists of the world?
If Apple has a policy of items they will not accept, that is their choice. Since the items are not actually censored in your country, perhaps you hsould try a different vendor?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Declining to purchase anything for a reason implies an agenda. You have the cart before the horse.
It is, however, deplorable and should be noted when it happens, particularly when it happens despite the best interests of their customer base and the company itself.
But you are implying that declining to sell anything would then not be in their customers best interests. I hope and believe that most retailers have customer safety as an agenda.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My caring about this issue is completely non-existent due to the fact that even IF by some pedantic definition and argument about what "censorship" is (and arriving at a meaning that is not relevant to the common usage), Apple has simply chosen to not stock a product.
If the artist's works were also available online, or on a site for pay, and Apple blocked access to his site, THEN I would view that as censorship.
Declining to carry a product? Yeah, you may not like it, and it certainly is Apple censoring wha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He could easily just make a website, and make an iPhone optimized version of it then.
And as far as mobile app stores go, he has plenty of other options. He can go to the Android store, or he can go to one of the ten billion other stores that sell Blackberry and WinMobile software. He is certainly not shut out of the mobile application market. Just one store found that his application was against their terms of service. Perhaps he should have read his dev agreement.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It could be a colloquial use of the word, but it does get used that way whether it tracks with you or not.
It's like rain on your wedding day!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The mere mention of the word censorship implies that you believe your rights have been stepped on 1st amendment or otherwise.
Please read the first word of the amendment. Congress. How does that apply to a private company? If I was a bookstore and didn't like you or the books you've theoretically authored, it'd be the same scenario.
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody's talking about freedom of speech, just about idiot censors censoring something that is obviously cultural, because they're too dumb, or scared of offending, to appreciate it.
Therein really lies the risk of censorship:
1- censors are not gods: they can fail, and either censor worthy stuff or not censor bad stuff
2- in the case of "commercial" censors like Apple (who does it for the money) they'll always err on the side of not offending, at the expense of promoting challenging, meaningful stuff.
I'm not saying that Apple doesn't have the right to do that... it may even be good for them.
It is bad for us though, and we shouldn't encourage them. There are plenty of much freer platforms for use to support and move to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only difference is that Apple is a private corporation and not a government (somewhat ironic for Libertarians, one would suppose).
A corporation does not have the power to forbid you to express yourself. They only have the same power any of us have: the power to forbid you to express yourself on our property. A government can compel censorship with force. That's a HUGE difference.
That being said, does Apple deserve to be made fun of for this? Hell yes. But let's not overblow our case and invite ridicule. Pretending Apple's actions are the same as those of a repressive state is just silly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, due to Apple's monopoly (yes, monopoly) as publisher on the iApps platform, they also have the power to suppress speech on other people's property. The monopoly really isn't in anyone's interest but Apple's, and this case does make that very clear.
Is it a case of someone's constitutional rights being trampled on? Certainly not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A corporation does not have the power to forbid you to express yourself.
I used to agree with you until Wal-Mart took over a large chunk of media distribution in the US and started dictating content guidelines to publishers.
Any sufficiently-dominant corporation is indistinguishable from a government.
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a shame there isn't some sort of recognized internet protocol, where people could transfer text files that included links and images (we could call it "hypertext")..
Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (Score:5, Funny)
that's a stupid name, and a stupid idea. it'll never work.
George Orwell must be turning in his grave (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (Score:4, Informative)
Because Apple has neither a monopoly on desktop computers nor on smart phones? And thus can not be guilty of "monopolistic" behavior?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (Score:4, Insightful)
Except unlike IBM or MS, Apple has never held a monopoly on anything. Its funny how people on Slashdot will both be quick to point out how the iPhone's market share is smaller than other smartphones yet at the same time will try to also claim that Apple is a monopoly. You can't have it both ways.
Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple displays monopolistic, i.e. anti-competitive, behaviour. Who cares whether they're a monopoly? unless your aim is to punish success (i.e. Microsoft) out of spite rather than to stop activity which is damaging to the marketplace.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Apple displays competitive behaviour. 'Comptition' is pretty cut-throat and there is never any love lost between competitiors. Such behaviour only becomes 'anti-competitive' (i.e. contrary to the Sherman Act or similar) when you have a monopoly. For example, a new startup wants to get their product out there so they give away free samples; fine if you are a startup with no market power, but not if you are a monopoly who is thereby foreclosing competition.
Apple also displays control-freak behaviour. Bein
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not synonyms. Nor does one imply the other. They mean something completely different.
99.4% marketshare is a monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple has a 99.4% marketshare in smartphone applications. Sounds like a monopoly to me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't have a monopoly over what gets sold on the iTunes store? They don't have a monopoly over iPads? iPhones?
By that vein, then Best Buy has a monopoly over what gets sold in Best Buy. And Microsoft has a monopoly over the Xbox.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you choose to play on the old man's lawn, he doesn't affect you. He's a jerk, but he's avoidable, much like Apple is.
Microsoft is more like the protection racket; either strong vigilante action (for which Linux is emblematic) or law enforcement are the only way to stand up to those guys.
Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (Score:4, Insightful)
You can indeed distribute any app you want for MS phones, but if it competes with one of their favored apps, they won't simply say that releasing it is in violation of their T instead they will rapaciously put you out of business.
Here's the thing, though; there's a back door into every iPhone: the web. Apple has made it clear that they support a totally open web. They also make it easy for people to set up a home page icon for any web site. So for a cartoonist's app, there's no reason that they couldn't simply set up a one-time paywall on a mobile site for iPod users and cut Apple completely out of the loop.
This is really a tempest in a teapot.
Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it not censorship when a news organization cuts a story because it offends a sponsor?
This notion that only governments can be censors is a relatively recent invention, and is a form of newspeak to enable censors in all other walks of life.
Had similar experience (Score:5, Interesting)
I wrote an app called Sort [apple.com], which is a simple sorting "game" with various topics (sort the letters of various alphabets, sort states alphabetically, sort President years, etc).
We had one topic called "Madoff Victims" where you were to sort the 10 highest losers of money due to Bernie Madoff's schemes, in order of loss.
I don't remember the exact wording, but Apple rejected our app because they didn't like us implying bad things about him, even though exploits are well known. We removed that topic and the app was accepted.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And I can still load iPhone apps that consist of nothing more than audio clips of farts.
Go figure.
Reason #238... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why... (Score:3, Insightful)
... I don't own a Mac, iPhone, iPod, or any other iStuff. Apple does produce some really great technology. But I just can't deal with the whole Apple technology ecosystem. The company, its developers, and its users buy into a really obnoxious kind of groupthink, typified by those weird lovefests where the audience goes orgasmic every time Steve demonstrates something. Can you imagine any other place where they'd even consider a rule against "ridiculing public figures"? Gives a certain irony to that stupid commercial [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
the worst part about that commercial is there are far too many people who have zero idea what it was trying to say.. they would just wonder why the hooters girl was carrying a sledge hammer
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot is a collection of groupthink communities (Linux, Apple, MS, opensource, copyrights, etc., etc., etc.).
Only so far as any themed discussion group is. There is plenty of disagreement on all sorts of topics on Slashdot (as evidenced by your worrying about being modded down -- if Slashdot was really groupthink, there wouldn't be any need for moderation). You might as well call a sewing circle "groupthink" because all of the people in it like to sew.
Ridicules public figures? (Score:5, Insightful)
Chairmans Mao and Stalin would be proud.
Dollars to Donuts... (Score:4, Informative)
...that this decision gets reversed before very long. Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened with Apple.
Inconsistent (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Inconsistent (Score:5, Insightful)
MSNBC have money. Apple like money.
I predicted the corporate dominance over the Apple App store some time ago (2008, when the Iphone was released in Australia), small developers are being pushed out in favour of larger developers which deliver Apple more profit and are easier to control. From my perspective the App store was designed for this from the word go.
*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
"Whether or not you agree with Fiore's political sentiments, I believe we can all agree that the censorship of his work should be denigrated."
The righteous never think that what they say is propaganda.
Oblig. (Score:3, Funny)
Agent Smith: But, as you well know, appearances [like a nice UI] can be deceiving, which brings me back to the reason why we're here [on the iPhone]. We're not here because we're free. We're here because we are not free.
Funny how far Apple has come (Score:4, Interesting)
... from their "1984 ad" that announced the Macintosh.
They've gone from releasing the system advertised as "challenging Big Brother" to becoming very much like Big Brother's Thought Police...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
... from their "1984 ad" that announced the Macintosh.
Hey, 1984 wasn't like 1984, the moon did not blow up in 1999, pod bay doors opened just fine in 2001, and Jupiter shows no sign of exploding into a new sun in 2010. They have delivered in their promise of not accomplishing any sci-fi prophecy, you gotta give them that. Even their phones don't look like the ones from star trek.
Redundant (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple fanboys will do what Apple says, regardless of what anyone thinks. And those of us who aren't in Apple's lap really aren't affect by this. So long story short - who cares? Apple is performing the sacred duty of separating fools from their money.
THIS is why we don't like Apple, people! (Score:3, Interesting)
Jobs has long history of censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Read iCon [amazon.com] the bio of Jobs that Jobs hated so much that he banned all Wiley books from Apple stores.
iCon is available for the Kindle. Some Kindle books are available for the iPad. "iCon" does not appear to be one of them.
The real reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of whether you agree with his views (and I think it's entirely possible for you to make your own choice whether to install an app whose function is to deliver political satire) his work is widely regarded as technically innovative and artistically stylish. And the Apple principals can't stand to be seen in conflict with anyone more innovative and stylish than they are.
So rather than have him outclass them at the party, they'll just escort him out of the house, so to speak. There you go Apple, problem solved!
Ipad newspapers? (Score:3, Interesting)
how does this work if a newspaper has an app for the ipad? Do they have to censor the politcal cartoons?
Macheads, own your fascism (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether or not you agree with Fiore's political sentiments, I believe we can all agree that the censorship of his work should be denigrated.
No, Apple denigrated themselves long ago, and Steve's fans continuously denigrate themselves by supporting his behavior with their wallet.
We saw this coming from miles away when we first learned Apple would be policing what people run with their phone, why are people surprised now? A megalomaniac does fascist things with his company? I am shocked!
Apple is the new AOL (Score:5, Funny)
While there are going to be exceptions, (ie, geeks excited about trying new technological solutions), most iPad/Pod/Phone users I've met typify AOL customers of old.
With one significant added dimension. . .
There's a weird Christian-ness about them which is hard to put my finger on. Clean-shaven, pleasant-but-fake facade which feels cultish. They make my stomach squelch nervously when I'm around one of them. -Which either means I'm the anti-Christ, or something deep in my DNA is reacting with fight/flight chemistry to the smiling pod people.
-FL
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But this isn't censorship because Apple is not obligated to publish his app anymore than the SFGate is not obligated to publish every cartoonist in existence in their paper.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But this isn't censorship because Apple is not obligated to publish his app
It is censorship, it's just ordinary censorship. Like how you can't say in fuck in school. Why the fuck not? It doesn't hurt anybody: Fuck fuckety fuck fuckfuck. ...
"Eric!"
Sorry, I launched in a south park quote there, anyway, my point was that as I am now voluntarily censoring myself from quoting the rest of that Cartman diatribe, there are many common forms of censorship that happen in life, and Apple censoring stuff that might get them sued is unfortunate but tolerable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should they allow you to install any app you want?
Re:Boo censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should they allow you to install any app you want?
Because it's my phone, my hardware, I paid for it with my money. Apple does not own it, nor any piece of it. I have the full right to use the software it came with in any way I see fit. And I have the right to put whatever software I want on it.
Apple tries to assert that I do not have that right. Apple's only valid assertion is that if I install software from another source that they shouldn't have to support my stuff any more. Fine, void my warranty. It's still my device.
Re:Control freak. (Score:5, Funny)
just which community standard is against satire and making fun of public figures?
Muslims, Jews and Catholics.
If you draw a picture of baby Mohamed sucking the Pope's penis while a Hasidic jew films the scene with cash sticking out of his pocket and the camera connected to the internet, you will get sued AND you will explode.
In fact that's such a horrible image, I think my karma might take a hit just by pointing out that people would not react well to something like that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In fact that's such a horrible image, I think my karma might take a hit just by pointing out that people would not react well to something like that.
Don't worry, karma is a Buddhist thing. But you are going to Hell.
Re:Absolutely! (Score:5, Insightful)
I take it you've never heard of network censors?
Hint: Network censors don't work for the government, they aren't government agents, and the rules they impose are often more restrictive than those required by the FCC.
Re:It's not censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it's censorship. It's just not illegal censorship, since Apple is a private corporation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You point out some intriguing subtle differences.
I think this is considered "censorship" because it rejects things for political reasons. For example, Slashdot would not reject a story because it involved racism or politics. Or because it shows Microsoft in a good light, or Linux in a bad light. They have a criteria: News for nerds, stuff that matters. While this is certainly subjective, it is never used to quash anyone.
I think some of Apples other rejections would qualify as "censorship" in that they a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, which is why the people that enforce such criteria (e.g., in broadcast networks) are often known as "censors".
And, whether or not it is legal or moral, the fact that there is a single institutional censor with control of the native apps available for a platform is, for a certain segment of the market, an important consideration.
The DMCA and common carrier regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
If Apple was the telephone company and it blocked the ability of Mr Fiore to communicate his satire to me, I think we would agree that (regardless of Apple's ownership of the wires) this was censorship, that it was bad, and that it should not be allowed. Indeed there are regulations to this effect.
If Microsoft implemented something in Windows that blocked my ability to view Mr Fiore's cartoons on my PC, I think we would be likely to come to the same conclusion. In this case it I own the computer; there is a strong argument to be made that I should be able to choose how to use it.
Now say I own an iPad. Mr Fiore would like to distribute his cartoons to me. Apple owns the app store, and they say No. They have implemented technical measures to prevent me from finding another way to get Mr Fiore's work onto the device I own. Furthermore, there is a law in place - the DMCA - that makes it illegal for me to work around those restrictions - even though I own the device, even though Mr Fiore would like to communicate (or sell) his work to me.
In other words, the government has already intervened in this situation. It has done so on Apple's behalf. Citizens have every right to intervene in the public interest.
As a society we use companies in the market as means to ends. We value communication; we have found the market is an effective way of enabling it. We have therefore regulated in order to create markets (through property rights, enforcement of contracts, and so on). We regulation different modes of communication in different ways. The telephone system is one example. The PC is another. Sometimes that regulation is done through government statutes, sometimes through regulatory bodies, sometimes the market is the regulating mechanism.
Your technical question of whether Apple's actions constitute a dictionary or legal definition of "censorship" ignores any ethical considerations. I think Apple's actions here are bad. I am not interested in "hating" Apple because it is a company fulfilling obligations, not a human being capable of moral choice. What I am interested in is how we can encourage and enable human speech, expression and communication. This story demonstrates a failure in this regard.
The question, then, is how to improve matters. Replacing Apple's control of the iPad with outright government control, to pick an extreme example, would likely do more harm than good. But there are other choices. One obvious response is to publicize and educate the problem, as Slashdot is doing. The government could fix the DMCA so that Apple can't use it to restrict my legitimate use of the product I own. Copyright and patent law are often used to create monopolies of distribution, to the detriment of artists and consumers: if Hollywood and the recording industry back Apple's approach, for example, we could end up with a single dominant channel of distribution. Our legislators should be concerned with this. We might also consider some kind of common carrier- or net neutrality-type regulation to ensure that channels like this are open. For example, it seems to me incredibly unreasonable that Apple gets the DMCA on side and is then able to behave like this. The law grants rights: it should also require the fulfillment responsibilities.
Why an app? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does your hypothetical iPad have a web browser? Can it visit www.markfiore.com? Could he post an iPad-compatible version of his cartoons there? Then why do you need an app for that?
That's what really bugs me about all these smart phones and tablet computers advertising how many apps they have. We used to call most of those things "web pages". But now that they are "apps", we can't use them on our general purpose computers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If a book publisher doesn't publish your book, you can always try another publisher.
You can always try another platform. Apple doesn't owe anyone a place in their store.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your points are all very valid. People must be allowed to choose to be retarded if they wish it.
But it's still retarded, and worth making noise about. That's how the opposite choice is made clear. We're just coloring the two jars you can throw your chit into.
-Because, with the amount of media support Job's is getting, (essentially billions in free advertising), complaining and guffawing now is probably what will make the difference between a world where Apple exercises far too much power over the interne