Apple Reverses Rejection of Ulysses Comic 422
gyrogeerloose writes "In yet another of what's become an almost predictable cycle of events, Apple today reversed its rejection of the 'Ulysses Seen' web comic, admitting, 'We made a mistake.' The comic is now available in the App Store — just in time for Bloomsday, June 16. The comic's author, Robert Berry, is pleased, and adds that Apple 'never acted as a censor, never told us what we could or could not say. ... We didn't believe these were good guidelines for art, but respected their rights to sell content that met their guidelines at their own store. Apple is not a museum or a library for new content then, so much as they are a grocer.'"
It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies... (Score:5, Funny)
It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies, when they work out in your favor. :)
Re: (Score:2)
"It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies, when they work out in your favor. :)"
When one is a fanboi/fangrrl/fan-nullo ALL their policies can be creatively construed as tasty.
I, for one, welcome my Applelicious overlords and hope their stay atop my queening stool will meet with their favor. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies, when they work out in your favor. In much the same way as it is easy to feel good about lynchings when you are white, yes.
Geeze. That's even more offensive than a Godwin. Congratulations. You may be interested to know that over the years many people of all colors have taken stands against lynchings, risking their own skin, regardless of its hue, for the sake of their brethren.
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it really is, just not censorship performed by a government. Apple censors the content available on these devices, plain and simple -- why state it any other way? Frankly, what other way is there to describe Apple's behavior: they actively prevent certain material from being published.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By such an absurd standard any store that choose not to sell someone's product is also engaging in "censorship".
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If the publisher made a web-accessible version of the same content, the iPad/Phone owners could access it just fine. And if they made an Android version of the app, then people who don't like Apple's policies could just buy a different device and buy it from a different app store.
Further, they admitted their mistake, so the accurate answer would actually be that they delayed anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
since when did the right to display content on your mobile device become a first amendment right?
There's your answer
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:5, Insightful)
is there any legal way to obtain and install an iApp apart from the official apple appstore ?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes. Jailbreak your iPhone and download it from someone else. Neither act is illegal.
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Jailbreak your iPhone and download it from someone else. Neither act is illegal.
Wrong.
This is Apple's response to EFF's request for an exemption for jailbreaking to the Copyright office:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf [copyright.gov]
Some excerpts:
Current jailbreak techniques now in widespread use utilize unauthorized modifications to
the copyrighted bootloader and OS, resulting in infringement of the copyrights in those
programs. For example, the current most popular jailbreaking software for the iPhone,
PwnageTool (cited by EFF in its submission), causes a modified bootloader and OS to be
installed in the iPhone, resulting in infringement of Apple’s reproduction and derivative works
rights. Specifically, in the spring of 2008, hackers were able to determine how to circumvent the
secure ROM in the iPhone and falsely sign the bootloader. Using such knowledge, a falsely
signed modified version of Apple’s bootloader was created that will fool the secure ROM into
loading it, thereby circumventing the TPM implemented by the secure ROM. PwnageTool
directly modifies a copy of the bootloader and loads it onto the iPhone. The modified bootloader
is configured so that it does not perform the authentication check of the OS, and it therefore
loads a modified version of Apple’s OS that is not signed, thereby circumventing the TPM
implemented by the bootloader. The modified OS, in turn, is configured so that it does not
perform authentication checks on application programs loaded onto the iPhone, thereby
jailbreaking the device. In sum, PwnageTool circumvents every link of Apple’s “chain of trust”
TPMs in the iPhone. More generally, as the EFF submission admits, “decryption and
modification of the iPhone firmware appears to be necessary for any jailbreak technique to
succeed on a persistent basis.”32
Jailbreaking therefore involves infringing uses of the bootloader and OS, the copyrighted
works that are protected by the TPMs being circumvented. Unauthorized derivative versions of
the bootloader and OS have been created. Copies of those infringing works have been stored on
web sites, and infringing reproductions of those works are created each time they are
downloaded through Pwnage Tool and loaded onto the iPhone.33 In addition, as discussed in
Section II.B.2 above, the jailbroken OS enables pirated copies of Apple copyrighted content and
other third party content such as games and applications to play on the iPhone, resulting in
further infringing uses of copyrighted works and diminished incentive to create those works in
the first place.
In sum, the jailbreaking of the iPhone that would be permitted by the proposed Class #1
exemption in 5A and 11A would result in infringing uses of copyrighted works. It would
involve the creation, distribution, and copying of unauthorized modified versions of the
bootloader and OS, and it would facilitate and encourage the making, distribution, and use of
infringing copies of copyrighted material such as games and applications, owned by both Apple
and third parties, that run only on jailbroken phones. The proposed exemption therefore does not
satisfy the fundamental prerequisite of the statute that it aid “noninfringing uses” of copyrighted
works and should be rejected.
The infringing uses of copyrighted works that result from jailbreaking distinguish the
proposed Class #1 exemption in 5A and 11A from that of the 2006 exemption for circumvention
of firmware in a wireless telephone handset in order to connect to a wireless telephone
communication network.34 With respect to that exemption, the Librarian of Congress found in
2006 that the reason the four statutory factors “appear[] to be neutral is that in this case, the
access controls do not appear to actual
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a "law of no jailbreaking" it's a "law of no copyright infringement". Making a copy of Apple's bootloader and modifying it is copyright infringement. If you want to wipe your device and build an OS for it from the ground up, you are absolutely free to do so.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Something else to throw in: the ad hoc deployment profiles expire after 90 days. So yes, you can install whatever you want, but 90 days later it will stop working. You can then rebuild and sign the package and install it again. Of course, you will also need to keep in mind that Apple's developer terms apply to you whether you put apps on the app store or not. So you are breaking the agreement if you, for example, code in the wrong language or do any of the other things, even if you just deploy to your
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:5, Insightful)
or through their website to owners of jailbroken iDevices.
Since when did hacking a device the same thing as using the device "as intended"?
Listen people. I know you can do a whole hell of a lot with a jailbroken ipod/iphone/ipad, but saying you can just hack your device if you want other sources of apps is not an argument that should used to support your hardware of choice Seriously.
A modification != a feature. Stop treating it like one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated."
Apple uses its power over iPhones and iPads to control freedom of expression (e.g. by preventing comics that happen to contain nudity from being installed). No, it is not absolute control, but it certainly is control.
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:4, Insightful)
There would be nothing Apple can do to stop this person from selling it in an alternative store or through their website to owners of jailbroken iDevices.
No, but it means a user has to choose between a valid warranty plus software updates and access to non-Apple-approved applications. I'd have zero probalem with Apple applying arbitrary and unspecified criteria in their app approval process if they didn't actively work to prevent people from acquiring apps from other sources.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Then don't buy their phone if you disagree with the terms of use. Did Apple force you or anyone else to buy an iPhone and agree to their terms?
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:5, Informative)
Stop changing the subject. The point is, you linked to an "alternate" app store that requires someone to hack their phone, thereby voiding their warranty...and presented the option as if it were a feature, as if it was something anyone could do without any consequences.
That's the parent's point.
As I've said multiple times in this thread, stop treating a mod like it's a feature.
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:5, Informative)
Then don't buy their phone if you disagree with the terms of use. Did Apple force you or anyone else to buy an iPhone and agree to their terms?
Not at all. In addition to being free to not buy their phone, I'm also free to explain why it's a bad idea for others to do so. And you're free to explain why those reasons are invalid.
You're also free to say "Then don't buy their phones" in response. There's no rule against non sequiturs. You should no, however, that you haven't said anything relevant on the topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there is only one store, and it has unlimited shelf space and guaranteed profits, and by driving to any other store you risk having your car banned, then an editorial decision like "we refuse to sell anything involving cartoon wangs" quite effectively removes objectionable content from the public discourse. It's not as objectionable as government censorship, but it is still a form of censorship.
If an area only had Comcast as a potential ISP, and Comcast decided to block 4chan because it offended their C
Re: (Score:2)
If an area only had Comcast as a potential ISP, and Comcast decided to block 4chan because it offended their Christian sensibilities, that would be a form of censorship.
Yes, because that is a suppression of speech.
If Walmart convinced your town to pass a rule saying that all garage sales must happen in Walmart parking lots, and Walmart kicked your garage sale out of its parking lot because it didn't like your novelty lamp that looked like a woman's leg, that would be censorship.
No it wouldn't be. Censorship is about the suppression of speech or other forms of communication. Selling things in your front yard is not a form of speech.
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cydia. And that's not the only alternative App Store.
From your link:
"...a software application for iOS that lets a user browse and download applications for a jailbroken iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad" (emphasis mine)
Again. Telling someone "oh sure, you can use a different store...just hack your phone" is misleading at best.
Like I said in response to one of your previous posts, a mod isn't the same thing as a feature. Stop treating it like one.
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:5, Insightful)
In this particular parent's case, that is true...but you still presented jailbreaking as a viable option for anybody. Again, stop touting a mod as a feature.
If it's really just that simple, what's the point of the walled garden in the first place? And if your response is "well, just stick to the appstore if that's all you want", why would Apple force someone to hack their phone just to use applications from another source? Why not offer the walled garden for those that want/need it, and allow people to freely download from another source as they saw fit?
That is the question I would like answered: Why does Apple force people to stick with the appstore unless they modify the hardware? Why can't we have the walled garden and a key to the gate?
PS: don't respond with "just don't buy one". I haven't, for this very reason. Respond to the actual question posted above in italics, please.
Re:A mod IS a feature (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets say you love application X. You love and need it so much, you buy platform Y because it's can run on that.
Why is that not then considered a feature of the device? To you, as the user, there is no difference - you bought Y and it can do X.
It's a feature because it can run on it without modifying the underlying operating system. Doy?
According to your logic, you could not consider any PC to have a feature that was not included in the original box, since all software updates had to be downloaded.
Wrong. With a PC, it's a feature that I can install whatever the hell I want on there.
You could never buy a car because it was easily tunable for better performance or handling.
Cars are designed in a way that enables you to change parts on them. The iPhone wasn't designed to be jailbroken. If it was, the software to do it wouldn't have been developed by someone other than Apple.
People buy PC's because it can run Autocad. Autocad itself is not a feature, but the ability to run Autocad IS. You can buy and iPhone and run any Cydia app on it - the ability to run Cydia apps IS A FEATURE BECAUSE YOU CAN DO IT.
You don't have to modify your PC to run Autocad. You do have to modify your iPhone to run a Cydia app on it. There is a distinct difference. Do you really not see this?
You are confused because you know something is technically distinct.
Wait...so you agree that there is a difference?
But to REAL users, all they care about is the ability to buy a device to perform a task.
Oh, I get it. Now I'm not a real user because I care about the details of said task?
So they buy the device that gets them as close as they can, and then if that's not far enough take it the rest of the way. They still consider it a feature that it can do X, even if they had to add it later.
Again, Apple didn't make the software that jailbreaks an iPhone. How can you possibly consider utilizing a third-party utility to modify the original operation of a device to be a feature and not a modification?
You are just trying to redefine "Feature" so as to specifically exclude a use case you don't like. As with most attempts to redefine what people do every day and label it uncommon, it simply doesn't work.
Once again, Apple didn't design or release the Jailbreak utility, and they actively try to squash it with every update. If it were a feature, you wouldn't have to hack the fucking phone. What about this don't you understand?
I'm not redefining anything; I'm merely calling a spade a spade. You're trying to tell me that it's not a spade, but in fact a poorly endowed titmouse. Sorry buddy. If I have to hack a device to enable it to do something, that is not a feature, that is a modification. If it was a feature, I wouldn't have to hack the damn thing in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Just like with the iPhone. I am able to install whatever I want. That is a fact."
nly if you MODIFY it beyonsd Apples design.
I can drive a car off a pier, but that doesn't mkae it a feature.
Hear is a clue dip wad: Go to the ieee spec and look up the definition of feature. There are actual definition of this, and you are provable wrong.
It's like arguing over the definition of 'chair' when there is a dictionary in the room.
You fucking twad.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Describe them as a grocer. :-) I think that's an apt analogy. My grocer might not let me buy Edy's Low-Fat Cookies'n'Cream, but that's not because he's a bad person. He simply chose not to carry that flavor.
And so instead I drive another block to the other grocer to get my cookies-n-cream.
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, where are all those other places that people can download iPhone/iPad applications?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, clearly anyone who does not share your exact values must be stupid.
It couldn't be that they value other things than you and then go on to make rational decisions or anything.
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:5, Informative)
Apple considers jailbreaking highly illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, but my grocer doesn't sew my mouth shut when I leave his store!
Re: (Score:2)
And, that, of course, is the most evil and pernicious form of censorship of all. Censorship NOT by a Government is unbounded and unrestricted yet, especially when one or two companies are involved, actually has the potential for greater harm. There is no protection from it, and with increased restrictions against reverse-engineering, no place to hide.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
let me know when you open a store someplace so I can demand you sell my porn...otherwise I'll complain you are censoring my porn.
It's Apple's product and Apple's store. The idea you can force a company to sell anything doesn't sound very cool to me. If you don't like that, you are free to choose a competing product or build one yourself.
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Being censored by its definition implies a much darker--existentially speaking--scenario than
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it *is* really censorship. Stop making excuses for corporations. Just because Apple backpedals when public opinion goes against them doesn't mean their initial impulse was out of line with what they truly believe. In fact, this episode reveals their total lack of actual integrity since they don't actually stand behind a coherent set of beliefs, just the desire to reap maximum profits. Don't condone it just because it's wrapped up in the warm blanket of corporate rhetoric.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the iDevices are all about the exact same DRM(only allowing trusted apps to run) and Trusted Computing that everyone here was railing about a few years ago. But once it's wrapped in a shiny package, there are legions of supporters who leave no end justifying these practices. Instead we had a great brouhaha about DRM in Vista which doesn't really stop a user from installing or playing back any other content.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it might turn out like some of the Android horror stories where users ended up with viruses on their mobile phone...
Re: (Score:2)
My response to that is why not allow the walled garden and, if you so chose, alternative stores?
Think about it: have the phone ship, by default, to only run apps from Apple's official App Store. That way your Mom won't accidentally install something that will screw her phone up. However, you could buy the same hardware, enable the "install from any source" option, and boom goes the dynamite.
I already know the answer to this ("business reasons", or, more simply, "revenue"), but why would Apple not allow yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or alternately, people have different opinions on what the big issue is, and don't regard engineering tradeoffs as "evil".
Linux/Android/OSS fanboys are outspoken about ignoring practical usability issues and focusing on it being "open".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Because if you don't follow along with the group think you'll get modded flamebait, troll, offtopic -- and then your karma will take a hit. Oh wait -- different organization -- my bad.
Re:It's easy to feel good about Apple's policies.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you care why someone else buys something? Unless you're employees in apples marketing department does it really matter? My wife's ear rings have no functional value there were purchased strictly because they were shinny. Does that make them less valued? I haven't purchased an iPad, iPod or iPhone, although I have nothing against them I just haven't had the need. Though I am considering an iPad as it does run pretty slick and allows much easier access to the things I fumble through to get at now.
Gatekeepers (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that Apple *could* reject apps for not meeting their rather precise ideas about what "The Apple Experience" should be like is still a big problem. If it's not an open platform, it's a step backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are correct then an IPad/IPhone with an open app store should sell like crazy. It sounds like you are the next Steve Jobs. What's holding you back?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He forgot to invent a superior web search algorithm in 1997, thereby failing to found Google and becoming a billionaire corporate executive able to fund Android development.
Let the experiment play out (Score:2)
The fact that Apple *could* reject apps for not meeting their rather precise ideas about what "The Apple Experience" should be like is still a big problem.
I disagree. The fact is, Apple is offering a choice that we've only seen in one other case so far - Steam.
The App Store is Steam, generalized to all applications. The favorite word of the moment is curated - Apple says the store is curated, my which they mean the apps in the app store have some level of QA and editorial filtering applied, just as you wo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That'll be why the app store contains quality apps like Less Cigarette [apple.com], iWatermelon [apple.com], Mirror [apple.com], Wart Healer [warthealing.com] and Farting Grandmas [apple.com], while blocking the Google Voice app.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now you would say, but users can create applications outside of Steam. That is true - but the same is true of the iPhone, via two paths.
The first is of course Jailbreaking, millions of people do this and Cydia will sell you anything you want to buy. It's not as huge a market but it is plenty viable, and it's most viable for the users that care the most about a truly open system - developers.
The second path is web apps. Given the abilities of HTML 5, and the hooks into most (if not all) of the device sensors like location, orientation, and touches - you can produce most of the applications people would want to use these days in a web app. That path is also totally open as Apple cannot block (and does not try to block) whatever you visit via the web.
Yeah. And my TV can do the dishes, as long as I build customized hardware for it, then rewrite the TV's firmware to allow it to control my dish-washing extension, and then add the dish-washing functions to my remote.
There's possible and then there's practical, and neither Jailbreaking nor Web Apps are the latter, sorry. The former because few users have the technical how-to to even attempt it, the latter because you simply *can't* make a Web App as polished as a native one, nor can you charge for it in the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yea, cause the anarchy of the 'open' world works so bloody well, hence the last 10 years of 'The year of the Linux desktop'
The years of the Windows desktops beg to differ.
Yeah, the problems with the Linux user experience aren't a result of access to the platform being unrestricted by any controlling organization. They're a result of many other issues - lack of central leadership, lack of sufficient development resources devoted to improving the situation... matters of ideology blocking the use of certain pre-existing code, and so on. The argument isn't about Apple's approach with the iPhone compared software libre or open source - it's about Apple's approach with the iPho
It's kind of a matter of perspective... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never seen ads targeted towards consumers for Linux, yet I've seen tons for Mac computers and for Windows.
Granted, Windows is the big gorilla, but all things considered, the fact that Linux has about 20% of the number of users as the Mac is pretty impressive, considering the level of advertising and brand name recognition they both have. Linux has survived and kept a small niche user base and maintained a certain level of respect.
All things considered, I don't think it's done too shabby.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Yea, cause the anarchy of the 'open' world works so bloody well, hence the last 10 years of 'The year of the Linux desktop' ...not to mention Windows. ...or the Macintosh.
The iPad is the only thing that simultaneously pretends to be a general purpose computing platform while also being a restrictive walled garden that would make Sony blush.
Of course the Apple faithful want us to forget about the Mac and all of those years of "I'm a Mac" commercials. They even discontinued those because they would contr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple's closed ecosystem works for the non-technical masses. Open platform work for those who like to tinker.
Re: (Score:2)
Content creators can't trust Apple. Of course, Apple is alright with this, since they still haul in boat-loads of money.
Re: (Score:2)
O, Stephen will apologize ...if not, the eagles will come and pluck out his eyes...
Big surprise there (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Big surprise there (Score:5, Interesting)
Every day (Score:4, Informative)
I wonder if they ever review and reverse rejections that are not widely publicized. If anyone had a story like that, it would be interesting to hear.
Yes.
In some cases of course, rejections are because an app crashed or the UI was bad. In each and every case, Apple tells you what you need to fix to be accepted.
In cases where you violate policy, you can state your case and say why you think your application does not violate the things they think it does.
Bloomsday, 2010 (Score:4, Funny)
Good analogy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is not a museum or a library, and free speech is not at issue.
Agreed. It's reasonable to disagree with the policy when it does things wrong or stupid. It's unreasonable to bring topics like 'free speech' and 'programmers rights' into it, because they either don't apply, or don't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the only source in any way (Score:2)
I would be perfectly happy with Apple being as autocratic as they like with their app store if it weren't the *only* source for apps for their platforms.
Then it is your lucky day!
Millions of users continue to buy full applications from Cydia with no Apple control whatsoever.
Even more users use the unrestricted Web, where anyone can build a web app that does pretty much anything.
Apple never was the only source, just the easiest. The same way Apple was never the only course for music for most people - just t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't mind Apple's policies at all. If they don't want to sell certain kinds of things, that's fine. I would actually prefer they get rid of more of the ultra-juvenile stuff, like the fart apps.
The biggest problem Apple has is how arbitrary this stuff feels. An app was OK for 3 revisions, but the new bug fix, which doesn't change content, is suddenly bad because of something that's been there for quite a while. There is no good checklist that you can look through and be reasonably certain that your app w
Ah, but will the museum and library always be ther (Score:5, Insightful)
What you and your fellow capitalists presume is that the museum and library despite endless cost cuttings will always be there. What is iTunes becomes the ONLY music seller and music publishers no longer give libraries the right to lend out music for free? What then?
What when Amazon becomes only the book seller? What then? The issue at hand is NOT what happens now when Apple is a relatively minor player in the distribution of content but what might happen if it continues to grow.
Would anyone have cared about Microsofts security problems if OS2 has not been made to fail (with a lot of help from MS). If you could still go into any shop and buy an Amiga? If Sinclair had a 2010 version? No. Then MS would never have been in court for abusing its monopoly and we would have laughed heartily at its attempts to do so.
When a Christian book store decides to carry only proper Christian books, they should be free to do so. But when that book store becomes a national chain, replacing all the other book stores, then this freedom becomes a serious liability. We could end-up with the self-censored state. Were you are free to publish anything you want, you just can't get it published. Or rather, sold. Everyone has a printing press but the market is locked up. Not by the state but by people who conveniently think the same as the most repressive censors.
Think of the Walmart effect applied to freedom of speech. Walmart ain't the devil. It doesn't force you as a manufacturer to work by their rules. You just won't be selling your items in their store if you don't. If the local grocery tries to get a manufacturer to dictate its terms, it will be told to get shafted. A large retailer might be able to negiotate a deal but Walmart TELLS you how things are going to go. it doesn't negiotate a price-cut. It tells you that you are going to cut your prices. You WILL play by their rules and the bigger they get, the more they can do this and the more you will hurt for not playing by their rules.
Look at the rise of the censored music cd spefically editted for the large retailers. It ain't state censorship, although it is mighty coincidental that what some in power want to be censored happens to be censored in the largest retail chains.
Ever noticed the curious lack of reporting of the issues around copyright by the big media? Or how if Futurama mentions filesharing this is always a bad thing? Gosh, well it must be true then because media producers would NEVER report one-sided on an issue that affects them.
Now imagine say MS-NBC be the only news source (or at least the only one most people access). How often do you think you would get reports on Windows security issues then? And NO, the CURRENT situation with PLENTY of competition for MS-NBC does NOT count. Now they have to, because people will hear it somewhere else. But what if they don't have to?
You only have to look to Italy for the effect. Berlusconi controls the media and amazingly they completly fail to report on any of the issues around him. Or whenthey do they just happen so share his point of view. Freedom of the press? Yes, the state ain't telling them what and what not to report, but I don't think it is the freedom you imagine.
In MS world, exploits don't happen and since they don't happen you don't report on them and you don't patch them. Luckily it ain't a MS world and some people do find exploits and publish them and then MS has to patch them but they get very miffed about it.
What if it was an Apple world? What if iTunes was the music store for 99% of the people. Sure there are alternatives but nobody uses it. What if the iPad becomes THE new way to read books and if you don't get accepted by Apple, your book just doesn't get noticed. Would you then still defend their censorship?
You claim that Apple is like a grocer. That means you are an idiot. Because Apple is a grocer then it is Walmart. Do you LIKE Walmarts censoring of music? How about 10 years in the future when they are the only store left?
Protecting freedom is not about what you have today, but what you would have in 10 years if you do not fight for it now.
Give the Man a Prize (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is not a museum or a library for new content then, so much as they are a grocer.
While many may have troubles understanding this (which is why I'm going to quote it in the hopes of it being read again), it is nice to see that the person directly impacted by things least understands it well (which speaks greatly of his character).
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it's the only grocer in the town for the iDevice users. And Apple considers it illegal to try to shop at other groceries.
Re: (Score:2)
Or did I just miss the news of people being arrested for deciding to jailbreak their device and
Bad analogy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoah, you didn't warn me about the 's' at the end of a word there. And you were talking about grocer's of all thing's.
They do (Score:2)
Grocer's keep the objectionable content behind the counter in plain brown wrappers.
Apple does. They have a rating system and a number of apps are rated 17+. You can set up parental controls on a device to block some levels of content.
However grocers have limits on pornography they will sell, just as Apple has limits on how sexual in nature an application will be. You can't buy hardcore materials in the average grocery store, and you can't buy outright porn in the App Store.
Sony, Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why no complaints about Sony and Microsoft? They both have a number of machines for which you must pass a draconian test to even get a dev kit. Basically, if Apple made the devkit $10k then you'd all be happy? Locked in systems have been around for more than a decade. The difference with Apple is that the devkit is $100 and anyone can publish on them.
I've had games rejected by Sony and Microsoft: you fix the problem and send it back. No different on the Apple store. Apple is usually quicker tho.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the dev kit is free. It's only $100 to get the signing certificate to allow you to deploy to a device, rather than just run on the simulator. However, when you consider that in order to write for an Apple mobile device, you also have to have an Apple computer, you may as well factor in the cost of your macbook or imac or whatever in as part of the cost of the dev kit. Of course, if you already had the Mac anyway, then sure, the dev kit is free. But it's still a higher barrier to entry if you i
Re: (Score:2)
consider that in order to write for an Apple mobile device, you also have to have an Apple computer
Downside: you have to buy a Mac
Upside: you get to have a Mac
Dislaimer: I just bought a Mac for exactly this reason. NextStep is pretty cool even if it is 20 years old now.
Re:Sony, Microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
The complaints are there because the iPhone is a mobile phone, not a game console.
Gamers are used to the idea that their systems can only play "approved" media, with the indie/homebrew developers being seen as on the fringe.
With mobile phones, at least with smart phones, you can install whatever program you can manage to find. A Blackberry, Win Mo., Symbian, etc. device doesn't require you to get approval before installing a program. They act like most PCs, where you can install what you want, but it's your responsibility to not install harmful stuff.
While Apple's strict control over their App store may have had a hand in the success of their products, but it's a phone, not a video game system. Treating it the same as a Xbox is disingenuous at best.
Re:Sony, Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
The complaints are there because the iPhone is a mobile phone, not a game console.
Gamers are used to the idea that their systems can only play "approved" media, with the indie/homebrew developers being seen as on the fringe.
With mobile phones, at least with smart phones, you can install whatever program you can manage to find. A Blackberry, Win Mo., Symbian, etc. device doesn't require you to get approval before installing a program. They act like most PCs, where you can install what you want, but it's your responsibility to not install harmful stuff.
In that sense, it's like a battle to control people's expectations. Gamers are, as you say, used to game consoles being inaccessible to homebrew. In that case, if mobile phone users become "used to" paying for ringtone versions of songs they already have, or getting charged disproportionately large amounts of money for simple features like text messaging, or arbitrary restrictions on how they can use "unlimited" data plans, or (as in the case of Apple) losing the right to install software that's not been authorized by Apple - then will these policies then be OK? If people's expectations are adjusted to fit what the device provides, then there's no problem, right?
Re: (Score:2)
It's the question of gaming console vs. mobille computers.
New form of media? (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem may be that Apple (or rather developers using Apple) is presenting Apps as a content distribution media (iTunes). People with content that could easily be placed on the (unrestricted) web, are choosing to use Apps as a means of selling their wares. I doubt very much that Apple will restrict what books it sells on the iBooks store based on their content. Or maybe they will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say ebook APP, I said iBooks, as in the epub books Apple sells on the iBooks section of iTunes. That was the whole point.
Re: (Score:2)
That is interesting. Of course, one could say that now about any major news outlet. Fox news (cough) can basically say what they want to (and they do) regardless of actual facts. They can cover the stories they choose and exclude others at will. Is that not censorship?
The thing to me is that "apps" were never intended as a content medium. Sure, you CAN use them that way, but it's really a poor way to do so. It's slow (approval), and a lousy format (only works on Apple's stuff). The reason it's hot is becaus
-sigh- (Score:5, Informative)
They review on the order of 10,000 apps a week. This kind of thing is inevitable when you have a limited number of people with that kind of workload. People are making judgment calls all day, so some edge cases are going to get miscalled. Humans are making the decisions, and humans make mistakes.
They say that 95% of apps get approved within one week. That means that about 500 apps a week are rejected for various reasons. Here on /. we see these rejection stories about once every two weeks. That means for every 999 apps that are rejected, 1 is controversial. Almost all of those controversial decisions get reversed.
I wish my record of decision making was 1/1000 blown calls.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You really think that is all they fuck up? Really? That is just the number that they fuck up that are big enough to make slashdot.
I don't care why it is hard for them to do it correctly, I care that they do it at all.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's almost certainly too low. People seem to forget that the iPhone dev kit still comes with an NDA that prevents you talking about rejection. The fact that there's a constant flow of stories despite that indicates that the rejection rate is almost certainly far higher than anyone suspects.
And no I don't believe Apples 95% figure. Why should I? They have put apps into a "not rejected yet not accepted" state before, so as far as I'm concerned anything they say about the app store has to be treated with a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They review on the order of 10,000 apps a week. This kind of thing is inevitable when you have a limited number of people with that kind of workload. People are making judgment calls all day, so some edge cases are going to get miscalled. Humans are making the decisions, and humans make mistakes.
The review process is there solely because Apple has decided to put it their, for their own benefit. Consequently, they have a moral obligation to contribute whatever resources necessary to reasonably minimize mistakes - such as, you know, having more than one reviewer go over any given app separately, and only reject if all reviewers unanimously agree that this should be the case.
If Apple is a grocer... (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, let's follow this analogy out. If Apple is a grocer, then the iPhone and iPad are like refrigerators for the goods you purchase at the Apple grocery. Funny thing, though -- I can put products from any grocery I want into my refrigerator. Obviously, the iPhone/iPad are brand-specific refrigerators, something that doesn't actually exist in the real world.
This is what we call a reductio ad absurdum or, in modern parlance, calling bullshit.
What Apple is really like is one of those totalitarian homeowners' associations in an expensive condominium development. You bought the condo, but if you want to change anything about it, you have to pick from a list of approved changes and pay the association to have one of their hand-picked contractors do it for you.
Some people like living in those developments despite the restrictions because there's a certain amount of prestige -- mostly among other residents -- involved in paying way too much for a tiny space that you don't actually control. And like iPhone/iPad owners, the residents of such developments are baffled that everyone else doesn't want to live there, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the appliances in my house refused to work with food that didn't come from Whole Foods then I would be complaining about their limited selection and arbitrary standards. And more so about the appliances.
Re:Apple is like Whole Foods (Score:5, Insightful)
so why aren't people complaining about Whole Foods' limited selection and arbitrary standards?
Gee, maybe it's because there are other stores where we can buy food?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)