Bad PR Forces Apple To Reconsider Banning Mark Fiore's App 241
cmiller173 writes with word from Wired that "After bad press over banning Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist Mark Fiore's app from the app store, Apple has asked him to re-submit the entry."
App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems like Apple is rethinking some of it's heavy-handed decisions and approving apps that would surely be rejected like Vonage's VoIP, Opera's web browser, and this one and letting them in on their delayed applications, or calling up submitters and asking them to resubmit previously rejected apps. This is far from an isolated incident, and I wouldn't be surprised if we find Google Voice in the app store soon.
I think there's several factors involved here:
- FCC investigation into AT&T... if they can't allow streaming video from Sling but can allow streaming video from MLB, what's the difference? If they can't allow streaming video because of lack of bandwidth, why didn't they buy more when spectrum recently went up for auction?
- Government investigation into Apple... If they're abusing a monopoly app store when there's clearly ways to implement competitors on jailbroken devices... why the monopoly?
- Bad press... every major app rejected is a reason to get a Droid or some other more open development platform's device.
- Competition... When the EDGE iPhone first came out, it was revolutionary carrying only the default 20 apps because it was doing things that it's at-the-time competitors couldn't do. Now there's several platforms that look like the iPhone and do things the iPhone doesn't... that iDon't/Droid Does ad must have gotten to them.
So there you have it... the tide is changing, and we might see some more "impossible" things happening soon.
Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (Score:5, Funny)
It seems like Apple is rethinking some of it's heavy-handed decisions ...
Naw ... they just want to reject it again to prove they were right the first time. Remember that "Think Different" really means "Think like us" ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
I figure they must have meant "Think Duplicate", not "Think Different"
No rethinking (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems like Apple is rethinking some of it's heavy-handed decisions and approving apps that would surely be rejected like Vonage's VoIP, Opera's web browser, and this one
The first two would now "surely be rejected". There was no reason for Vonage or Opera Mini not to be accepted, they fell perfectly fine within the existing rules.
The last one, the cartoon app - that did NOT fall within any published rule, and that is the problem. If you are going to have a rule, fine - but tell people what it is. There
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No rethinking (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing about Opera Mini that crosses even the unwritten rules Apple has, only the rules anti-Apple people THINK Apple has.
I think that the reason the anti-Apple people THINK this "duplicate functionality" rule exists might be because there were:
a few rejections with that wording.
I can't imagine why the zealots would think a rule existed merely because it had been cited by Apple as the rule that justifies banning an application.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a rule on defamation, the mistake the reviewer made was in consider defamation and ridicule to be the same thing.
Terms of app, not categories (Score:2)
No, Apple's terms said that you cannot use VoIP over 3G, as part of the AT&T agreement I imagine. Now Apple has reversed themselves on that and allowing Skype over 3G as well as other apps like Fring
Yes but that was not disallowing the app, just one use of it - and was probably as you say always blocked at the request of AT&T, not Apple - thus not a sign of Apple rethinking anything.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (Score:5, Insightful)
The lesson here is that as consumers, if you don't hold a companies feet to the fire with things like bad publicity, they're not looking out for your best interests.
Unswerving fandom to a corporation is not only misplaced, but always works against consumers. You want to be a fan of a person, an artist, a writer, a great athlete, a craftsman, that's fine, because as a human being, he has a desire to do something of value, even if for the appreciation of one other person. A corporation's only reason for existence is to make a profit, and profit does not respond to people's desires or needs or appreciation of beauty or excellence. You think a product is a good value, or makes you happy, then by all means buy it, but when you start tattooing a logo on your tricep, you are going to spoil it for everyone. A corporation sees that and the response is: here's another one that will take whatever we dish out. After all, what are you going to do once you've defined yourself by the companies from which you buy? Once you've entered the 21st century phenomenon of corporate fandom, are you really capable of making a rational decision, even for yourself?
Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be new here.
The first generation iPhone lacked the 3G technology and therefore would only work on AT&T's EDGE data network. These are the models that are too old and slow to get the forthcoming iPhone OS 4.0. Time for those users to upgrade...
As for monopoly on their own store... yep. Remember the Microsoft bundling mess? Taking one thing you have a monopoly on and using it to get an advantage somewhere else is not allowed.
Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (Score:4, Insightful)
As for monopoly on their own store... yep. Remember the Microsoft bundling mess? Taking one thing you have a monopoly on and using it to get an advantage somewhere else is not allowed.
Here's the thing, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone market like Microsoft had (and has) on the desktop operating system market. You can't have a monopoly on your on products and services. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on integrated software downloads and purchases for smartphones, it would be impossible for them to have this without having a monopoly on the smartphone market.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh please, that argument doesn't stand up against any scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (Score:5, Informative)
Taking a step back from smart phones, and considering something more general, such as wifi-enabled portable entertainment devices, it's possible that Apple could have an undue influence on such a market.
"Undue influence" doesn't just mean "a lot of influence". It means influence that they haven't earned or are not allowed (i.e., it's not due them). Aside from the fact that there are plenty of WiFi-enabled portable entertainment devices, Apple hasn't used underhanded tactics against the market. They just sold more because people wanted them, not because Apple did anything to limit the consumers' choices. In other words, they earned their influence, and they earned with fair and square. Unlike the situation MS found itself in with its Windows monopoly (which in and of itself wasn't illegal), that they used to unduly influence the browser market (which was illegal) and create an IE monopoly.
Now, if Apple has undue influence on this market, are they abusing that influence by restricting these devices to run only those applications that they approve and allow into iTunes?
Just like MS, Sony and Nintendo do on their consoles. The notion of "undue influence" becomes rather absurd when you are applying it to their own products. It should be standard that a company would have total influence over their own products (within regulations, such as safety and emissions regulations on cars and FCC regulations on radio transmissions).
If somehow Apple had a portable computer monopoly, and they used that monopoly to destroy the Android Market (for example), then there might be a case. But they don't have a portable computer monopoly. Not by a long shot. And the Android Market isn't directly targeted by the App Store, because they are not interchangeable the way browsers are. You, by definition, cannot buy iPhone apps on the Android Market any more than you can buy Android apps at the App Store.
Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple does have a monopoly on OKing & installing apps onto iphones.
Well that's the way I understand it.
Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple hasn't changed the rules you agreed to when you bought the product, no mater how much the market has changed.
Of course they have - if they accept Fiore's app today when they turned it down a couple of months ago, then either they have changed the rules or there was a secret rule that "Pulitizer prize winners are exempt from the rest of the rules." Either way, the rules are different than when he bought the product.
Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You mix monopoly with authority. You should stop doing that.
I also suggest if you have an issue with it you go talk to Nintendo and Microsoft which have done similar things for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on integrated software downloads and purchases for smartphones
Actually, I'll bet Apple's market share in smartphone applications is already larger than Microsoft's market share in PC operating systems at the time they first came under scrutiny by the DOJ.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'll bet Apple's market share in smartphone applications is already larger than Microsoft's market share in PC operating systems at the time they first came under scrutiny by the DOJ.
When was the last time Microsoft's market share was less than 25%?
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time Microsoft's market share was less than 25%?
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you trying to argue that some other mobile phone application vendor -- or all of the rest combined, for that matter -- has racked up anywhere close to 3,000,000,000 downloads?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, in terms of dollars Apple does have a pretty strong monopoly on mobile application sales. Yeah, Android is closing the gap in terms of amount of apps Apple still completely dominates in terms of revenue. So much so that in 2009 99.4% of all the dollars spent mobile application purchases went through apples store. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-for-994-of-mobile-app-sales-in-2009.ars [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
i'm a little tipsy and some of the grammar and specifics i screwed up. but the general point is valid: apple dominates the mobile app market.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They can certainly be called to task for anti-competitive trade practices - like not allowing flash thereby creating a situation where untold numbers of companies are forced to modify their websites, drop certain advertisers and and thereby materially affecting Adobe's business.- just so they can use that to enter into the advertising market....
Don't be fooled by the pretty box cover, it's pretty dank and dark inside.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do Burger King's sell Big Macs where you come from?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that possibly the same document that forced you to buy a Windows machine?
A monopoly is a monopoly. Apple has one on the iPhone. Having a monopoly isn't illegal, using your monopoly illegally is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the argument that many of the people who call it a monopoly are trying to make is this:
If I have a Ford truck, I can put non-ford replacement parts in it if they fit (compile for that architecture).
However the the apple app store would be akin to your truck not starting if you don't have all Ford branded parts in it.
Its not a monopoly in the actual meaning of the word as there is no-one forcing you to buy a Ford, but it comes back to the "I bought a physical thing, I want to do whatever I want with
Re: (Score:2)
The first and second generation iPhones have little discernable difference in CPU speed or ram. Why is the 1st generation too old, and the 2nd isn't?
Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, not exactly [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple's remarkable hostility to competion (Score:4, Informative)
Actually free software stands in contradiction to "Every manufacturer has the monopoly on his own products." because free software means users have the freedom (permission) to develop competing products based on the free software they run. Hardware manufacturers are beginning to appear which allow one to develop competing products in much the same way. Apple's restrictions in their iPhone API license agreement are unusually hostile to distributing applications Apple does not approve of (see section 7.3 [eff.org] which says rejected iPhone applications can't be distributed anywhere else). The thing to note about Fiore's second bite at the Apple (so to speak) is that Fiore has an audience large enough to complain. Others who would use their freedom of speech (permission) by "ridiculing public figures" won't get a second chance because nobody will chat up their misfortune at choosing to deal with such an arbitrary power [eff.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's more to government regulation of the market than the word "monopoly". There's also a broader concept known as "restraint of trade", which is what Apple is wandering into when it arbitrarily limits what other businesses can develop for its system.
p.s. No EDGE iPhone? You seem to know less about the iPhone than you do about commerce law. Shutting up would be smart.
Re: (Score:2)
You say Apple has the monopoly on WHAT? It's own store? Every manufacturer has the monopoly on his own products. I doubt the government wants to change that. And since when is there an EDGE iPhone? I don't think there's something like that.
To me, bad publicity is the most likely reason.
Not bad publicity, just time to make way for the Store to expand it's ratings and categories to handle such content.
Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's clearly not the case, at least, not in the way intended by the people raising the issue.
If you buy a Ford automobile, you don't have to buy Ford tires.
If you buy an HP computer, you're not required to buy HP-branded software
It's one thing for Apple to have an app store. It's another thing entirely for them to artificially bar other methods of getting software on the iPhone. (And it's a third thing for them to use their "appopoly" to artificially limit the categories of software one can use.)
The fact of the matter is that Apple could appear much less heavy-handed simply by legitimizing jailbreaking. "Oh, you want install your own apps? Go right ahead. But 'for safety reasons' we will then disable your access to the app store and any apps you've installed from the app store. And you'll void your warranty and get no support from us." Most people would keep on using the app store anyway when faced with such a choice, but at least they would feel it was their own choice.
Do I think that Apple is doing something illegal, or should be forced to open up their product? No. But I do think they deserve to get hammered on this issue in the court of public opinion.
Wrong article? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wrong article? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here...
Re: (Score:2)
911878 calling 625375 new? You must think higher numbers rule around here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But this is Slashdot!
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he didn't read the article.
It's the fact that he even tried that he should be ostracized from our community.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it's a bit much to expect Slashdot editors to actually check the links in a summary, huh?
The great thing is that's the link from the previous Slashdot story about - well, the Iceland volcano eruption. Which means that, presumably, they did check the link in the story and then managed to change it to the wrong link.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the memo? Recycling is in. Gotta help out with this global warming thingy.
Warning low flying satellites... (Score:2)
....all aircraft steer clear of Iceland & its low flying satellites.
Maybe the satellites want to keep all the aerial shots of the volcanic cloud to themselves.
Simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If AT&T's network can't take apps that the Verizon/Sprint/T-mobile networks can... then is the money they're getting for exclusivity from AT&T worth it?
Don't get your panties in a twist (Score:2, Insightful)
Now if only they would change their policy (Score:5, Insightful)
so that any publisher could submit apps without Apple's editorializing.
It would be nice if more publishers were allowed onto the app store, instead of only Pulitzer-prize winners.
Re:Now if only they would change their policy (Score:4, Insightful)
Fortunately, you don't have to be a Pulitzer prize winner to develop an Android app.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it, stop using your iPhone/iPad/iWhatever, use something else, and get on with your life.
Check. Will do, thanks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That number of 185,000 is VERY SUSPICIOUS. Tucows says that they only have 40,000 [twocows.com] software listings. In 2007, Freshmeat.net only listed just over 43,000 [archive.org] projects. Even SourceForge only claims to have 230,000 [sourceforge.net] projects.
I find it very hard to believe that there are 185,000 apps in the App Store. Oh, wait, where did that number from the Wikipedia article actually come from? MacRumors.com. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Now I see why it sounds like bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it, stop using your iPhone/iPad/iWhatever, use something else, and get on with your life.
I agree 100%. That's why I dropped Apple products back in 1981 and haven't looked back.
huh (Score:2)
Wow. Overzealous Slashdot babble may have actually done some good for a change. I feel stupid for bitching about it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like Apple was called out just on Slashdot. I doubt that Slashdot in particular contributed to this decision.
I'd put anti-Apple links in it (Score:5, Interesting)
If I were him, I'd put links indicating what Apple did wrong right in the splash/main screen of the app when I re-submit it. Then see if Apple dares to reject it again or will instead swallow their pride and approve it. I'd really hope for the latter, but either would help raise awareness of how problematic Apple's policies are.
do no evil (Score:4, Funny)
google's motto is "do no evil",
apple's moto is "do no bad pulicity"
and they both suck at it.
Two with one stone? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps instead this will help him to use a more open format for displaying his cartoons and not one that requires an interpreter
Re: (Score:2)
Why should you care what the underlying implementation is?
Why can't the developer be free to write their application in the best language / tool for the job? You may not agree that Flash is the best for this purpose, but you're not the developer.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why should you care what the underlying implementation is?
Why can't the developer be free to write their application in the best language / tool for the job? You may not agree that Flash is the best for this purpose, but you're not the developer.
I really don't care what tools a developer uses but if his product requires me to install software from another party before I can use it, it then becomes my concern. It is my computer, after all.
If you'd ever used Flash on a Macintosh, you'd understand this. Adobe has a long history of producing second-rate Flash implementations for Apple products./p.
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't want Flash on my iPhone, however.
I don't particularly see a need for Flash on the iTouch/iPhone but leaving it off of the iPad was a stupid move, IMO.
Of course if pigs fly and Flash does becomes available you can always just not install it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, pigs may be flying - the new 10.1 release candidate flash build for OS X is *much* better than the total dog's breakfast that the 10.0 stable is.
CPU use for a 480 SD stream is down from 60-65% on a 2Ghz Core 2 Duo to 45%. For the 720p HD stream, core use is down from 103% (cpu meter measures up to 200%, with the graphs showing up to 100% per core) down to 86% usage, as long as it is played full screen. If you play the HD stream in the window, you still get noticeable frame dropping, but at least that
They delete them after rejecting them? (Score:4, Interesting)
He has to *resubmit* it? What, do they delete them after they reject them? That seems odd.
Re:They delete them after rejecting them? (Score:4, Interesting)
He has to *resubmit* it? What, do they delete them after they reject them? That seems odd.
Probably so that they can say that the second application was slightly different and/or more appropriately reviewed. If they just change their minds, it would be a blatant acknowledgment that they "screwed up" or whatever.
Re:They delete them after rejecting them? (Score:5, Insightful)
He has to *resubmit* it? What, do they delete them after they reject them? That seems odd.
It's all about control. He must respect their little system, whereby he asks them for permission and they get to exercise total arbitrary power over him. Even in fault, the plaintiff must do the grovelling and play his part as head-bowing subject.
I think around Apple, the 'Submit' button means something far yuckier than it does, say, when posting on Slashdot.
-FL
Kafka's app (Score:3, Funny)
Makes me wish Kafka was still around to try submitting an app.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well it's not as flashy, but there are some possible reasons to ask him to resubmit. First, their system might not really be build for retrieving rejected apps. It is possible that rejected apps are discarded, and they don't have easy access to a copy.
Also, it could specifically be about the PR. If they simply say, "Oh, yes, we changed our mind and we'll put this application on the store," then it's unclear what that means. It could be a specific instance of bending the rules for a Pulitzer Prize winne
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Facts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says it was due to bad PR? You might want to avoid stating guesses as facts.
Re:Facts? (Score:5, Insightful)
What else could it have been? They rejected the app in December. He won the Pulitzer Prize recently and "Apple rejects Pulitzer Prize winner" is all over the news now. You think it's coincidence that they changed their mind 5 months later?
Told Ya (Score:3, Informative)
And here's [slashdot.org] the proof
I wouldn't do it (Score:4, Informative)
Fuck Apple. I'd go with the google app store and call it a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course then that would defeat the purpose because no one would see your cartoons. If you had said: F*CK apple I am going to convert my web site to something that will work on every platform, I would be with you. Going to Android would be silly.
Re: (Score:2)
To me the issue is simple: Apple claims jailbreaking your iPhone in order to run apps of your choosing is a violation of the DMCA. The DMCA is a piss poor, innovation-stifling, megacorp-appeasing law. As long as Apple supports the DMCA I will not buy one of their products, I will not buy from iTunes, and I will not recommend their products to my family, my friends, or my clients.
Go with the Slate (Score:2)
meh. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
wake me up when apple reconsiders its near-moronic app policy, not a single case. because it is the policy that is the problem, not its application.
Even if they do, what's to stop them from going right back to it when the heat's off? I'll stick with my Android phone for the time being: does what I want and more, and I don't have to contend with stupid policies. I'm on T-Mobile and while they initially had Google pull all tethering apps off the Android Market, they seem to have rethought that particular policy. Hell, right on their website they tell you how to do it. As the 3G underdog they're doing things right, competitively speaking: I wouldn't cons
DOJ getting tough on monopolies (Score:2)
I just got a cease and desist letter from the Department of Justice - they claim I'm monopolizing my wife.
Thank you! I'll be here all week - be sure to try the buffet!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They lied.
I'm Continually Surprised... (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks Apple for introducing me to Mark Fiore !! (Score:3, Funny)
Never heard of Mark Fiore before Apple making a stink out of an app. Checked out Fiore's website and love it, can't wait for the iPad app !!
Pulitzer Zombies v. Apple Zombies (Score:2, Insightful)
The upshot of this seems to be that we're all now expected to seek out this "comic" b/c (1) it's been given a Pulitzer, and (2) reading it "sticks it to the man" (the man in this case is Steve Jobs).
Free PR notwithstanding, this "comic" is not really up to the standards of most parodies on youtube.
It seems to be a choice between being a "Pulitzer-zombie", or an "Apple-zombie".
In the end, a zombie is a zombie: "They're all messed up." -- John Russo & George A. Romero [imdb.com]
Apple reconsidered to stop scaring news media. (Score:4, Informative)
Both Apple and news media organizations (press/newspapers, radio, television, etc.) were interested in the possibilities of the iPad (and other similar devices) as a news consumption device. This is especially true for newspapers that have been suffering due to falling revenue, especially from classifieds because of Craig's List and eBay, and a public less interested in reading news on dead trees.
But Apple's censorship of a Pulitzer winning cartoonist send chills down the spines of all of the news media organizations, since they suddenly realize how vulnerable their content is to the arbitrary and inconsistent censorship whims of companies like Apple, Amazon, Sony, etc. which have total control over the applications and media on their devices.
Imagine if Sony blocked all news publications on its Sony's Reader Store which have published accident and recall information about Toyotas in order not to harm or offend a fellow Japanese companies. Imagine if this was 60 years ago and each electronics company only sold TV's which would only receive programming from their affiliated stations.
Apple hoped that by allowing Mark Fiorre's app, they could do damage control, but I think that it is too late, since this incident really drove home how bad the censorship situation is with these locked down platforms.
At the end of the day, consumers pressure is not enough to be able to force companies to open up their platforms. In the growing mobile phone, media players, e-reader, and game console markets, not one of the major platforms is fully open for the consumer and are full of DRM that restricts options and allow censorship. (Yes that includes Google Android devices which are being locked down by many carriers!)
Governments need to step in and force all hardware and operating system manufactories and distributers to have an application and data distribution and execution model that is fully open to all. If you buy the device, it should be yours to do with as you see fit, as long as it does not interfere with others.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey it is only 80million + devices versus um how many for android again?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey it is only 80million + devices versus um how many for android again?
I love how in one breath the Apple-ites are claiming Apple doesn't have a monopoly and in the next they are saying developers can't afford to the miss the market.
You gotta choose one guys...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you need to go figure out was is a monopoly according to the Sherman act [wikipedia.org] and subsequent case law. Controlling the contents of a privately held store isn't a monopoly as far as Federal regulation is concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Phew, because I didn't mean that at all!
Re:This why phones need to be open and open networ (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This why phones need to be open and open networ (Score:4, Insightful)
And when Microsoft Windows was declared a monopoly, you were perfectly free to go buy a Macintosh. By your description, you weren't locked in to Windows. (In fact, you were less locked in than you are with the iPhone, because you always could install OS/2 or Linux on your PC hardware - while there is no viable alternate OS for the iPhone.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but commercial (and Linux) alternatives were squeezed out by MS by bullying the OEMs - "Only sell Windows preinstalled or you may just find your OEM licence cost increases".
There is no viable alternative OS for the Xbox 360 either, but they are not telling game shops that they mustn't stock PS3s or they may find the wholesale cost of the 360 might go up...
It's not illegal to be a monopoly - it's what you do when you are one that matters. Even at the height of the Windows monopoly, you were never locked
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is responsible for setting up the system this way. Either train the reviewers better, or stop exerting such anal-retentive control over your device.