Apple Bans Android Magazine App From App Store 574
recoiledsnake writes "Apple dialed its battle with Android up a notch today by banning an Android magazine app from its App Store, leaving no way for users to install the app on iPads, iPhones and iPod Touches without jailbreaking. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep, was: 'You know... your magazine...It's just about Android.... we can't have that in our App Store.' The bi-monthly publication — the Android counterpart to an iPhone magazine Dixon began putting out earlier this year — launched Nov. 11. 'It's funny really because I don't think we would sell many magazines on Android through Apple App Store,' Dixon told Media Watch. 'But the question is where this is going.' This comes on the heels of Jobs lashing out at Android, calling it fragmented, and its patent attacks on Android."
Apple getting desperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems like an act of desperation. Is Apple that insecure that it can't allow a stupid app like this onto its platform? What, are people going to read about Android and immediately dump their iPhones? If the iPhone is that good, Apple has nothing to worry about. If it's not competitive with Android handsets, then Apple should fix the deficiencies.
So far the main problem with iPhone is how closed and censored the app store is, from the point of view of an Android phone user anyway.
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Apple remembers what desperation feels like. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This epitomizes the reason I don't buy Apple any more. I've got an iPod Nano that is a couple years old and it is the last Apple product I will ever buy. I didn't even want to buy it at the time, but it was the best music player I could find - that isn't enough to sway me any more.
It's a damn magazine. There is no reason to deny it other than spite.
Apple can have the best hardware in the world, but that company and the man who runs it are pure ego, and I refuse to buy Apple products on principle.
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:4, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, you use Apple Products!
They have every reason to be desperate (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya know, from the laymans POV, this is starting to sound like an illegal monopoly
Re: (Score:2)
In June they had 28% of the market: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/06/apples_iphone_market_share_three_times_greater_than_android_in_us.html
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course
Re: (Score:3)
Sole marketplace? Sole market? Monopoly? (Score:3, Informative)
Mobile app stores: BlackBerry App World, Google Android App Market, Nokia Ovi Store, Palm App Catalog, and Windows Marketplace for Mobile. Android App Market has over 30k apps and is growing rapidly.
Mobile operating systems: Blackberry, Android, Symbian, Palm, Windows Phone. By some measures Android has already overtaken iOS in marketshare.
Mobile hardware OEMs: Nokia, LG, Samsung, HTC, RIM, Motorola. Apple is well behind the leaders in global volume of mobile hardware sales.
So if we're talking about smartph
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be saying that Apple's store is a monopoly, and that Android will prevail. Those seem to be contradictory statements.
As for the mobile phone market being a repeat of the PC market, I don't think that's likely. Apple may not continue to dominate, but I have a hard time seeing Android dominating, because while Microsoft could erect high barriers to entry in the form of Office and hardware licensing arrangement, Google has no such leverage with Android.
You don't have to have dominant market share i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you need their approval to buy and sell your product in this one.
Doesn't Microsoft do the same for the Xbox 360? You can't release a game without Microsoft's approval.
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ford Cars use only Ford Engines and Parts
If you dig deep enough, it might have a 'Ford' label on it, but there's a lot of parts commanility even between makes.
Personally, I'd have allowed it to account for Iphone purchasers/users who have to keep up with android news - perhaps because they have to support others who use it?
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, no. If you want to buy or sell a new entertainment system for your car, you don't need to ask Ford for permission.
Nobody has a problem with Apple selling their product in a state they like. The problem is with Apple trying to assert control over how people use their product after they've sold it.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a huge distinction between purposeful bricking and potential bricking due to a bad interaction between user-modifications and official updates. Nowhere does that say that the bricking is intentional. Apple is warning that an update may brick the phone, and that due to the jailbreak, it won't be covered under warranty.
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like for instance, what if Dell decided that on your Dell computer, you could only install applications that they approved? Trying to install an HP printer driver? No, not approved. Trying to install Microsoft Media Player? No, only Dell's MusicMatch is approved.
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a related industry analogy instead of a car analogy? Like for instance, what if Dell decided that on your Dell computer, you could only install applications that they approved? Trying to install an HP printer driver? No, not approved. Trying to install Microsoft Media Player? No, only Dell's MusicMatch is approved.
How about if you bought a PS, PS2, PS3, XBOX, XBOX 360, GameCube, Wii, DS, PSP, etc. etc. and could only install applications that they approved. How about if you could only play protected music or copy protected DVD's / BluRay's on supported players without using illegal circumvention methods?
Oh wait, that's already the world we live in.
You see, related industry for phone apps isn't generic computer, it's treated more as a "game console" or "media consumption" device.
Not saying that DRM / Copy-Protection / Censorship is right or wrong... just saying you're using the wrong analogy.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the problem. Phones/PDAs were always considered more like generic computers until the iPhone came along. But once a locked-in phone becomes popular, they're suddenly more like game consoles. WTF?
I had a Sanyo "web phone" before the iPhone and it only allowed me to install paid apps from their webstore and purchased ring tones. It was locked down and it existed for quite a few years before the iPhone.
Windows Phone OS (before Windows Phone 7) allowed users to install apps but that was because it was running on PDA formats with Phone functionality added on -- not on the modern generation of devices which are phone formats + media device with PDA stuff added.
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
And in related news ... Ford Cars use only Ford Engines and Parts ... unless you root it.
Sure if I go to the ford dealership I am sold ford approved parts.
But I don't have to buy parts at the ford dealership. And I don't need fords permission to install them.
And I don't have to do anything special to install non-ford parts.
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Should the government decide what products 7-11 sells?
Irrelevant.
Anyone can open a corner store and sell the same 3rd party items 7-11 sells. Anyone can buy the 3rd party items 7-11 sells from anywhere.
I can't shop for iphone apps elsewhere. I can even make iphone apps and sell them directly to consumers.
How about Best Buy? Should they be required by law to sell Sony laptops?
Irrelevant.
If I want a Sony laptop I can buy one from multiple places, including directly from sony.
I can't buy the "iSony app" except from Apple. I can't even even buy it directly from Sony.
As far as having 100% market share for iPhone apps, that is also a ridiculous statement. Sears has 100% market share for Craftsman products.
Not a valid comparison. Craftsman is Sears own product. Apple isn't making the apps in the app store. I have no issue that the Apple App store is the only place I can buy the Apple remote app. I have no issue that I can only buy apple computers from apple authorized dealers.
Why exactly do I need Apple authorization to buy non-Apple products?
Should they be forced to sell third party drill bits or extension cords for their Craftsman tools?
Of course not. But that's not the situation here. The question here is should Sears be allowed to prevent me from buying 3rd party drill bits or extension cords *somewhere else*?
Re:Yes you are... (Score:4, Insightful)
I shouldn't need to jailbreak my phone.
Putthing this up as an alternative to allow the vendor to do whatever it wants is just feeding yourself the rope to hang yourself with.
Sooner or later they will tighten the noose; and a device will be manufactured that you can't easily break, or they'll pass a law making it illegal to break. Probably both.
One needs to vocally resist their grabs for control, so that we don't HAVE to resort to going underground to exercise the freedom we should legitimately have.
The recent jailbreaking victory is hardly a conclusive win:
All the Copyright Office has said is they're not going to prosecute jailbreakers.
"Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. ? 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking."
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ [copyright.gov]
And with "the next rulemaking", they may change their mind and start prosecuting people again.
And, as noted above, *nothing* in this policy says that Apple can't prosecute jailbreakers for violating their license agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems like an act of desperation.
No - it seems like someone with a business degree or someone in marketting simply made this decision. It's not about insecurities, or about desperation, or anything like "Oh noooeees!"
Its a "We don't want our competitors to be advertising their stuff on our devices." Just like I don't see too many ways to sync iTunes with my Xbox, but hey theres a full suite for zune!
It's just business as usual. Honestly I'm surprised it was allowed in the first place. Perhaps they managed to slip it past the approval stage
Someone in marketing decided to ... (Score:2)
... it seems like someone with a business degree or someone in marketting simply made this decision ...
Probably, but the decision made by the marketing person was probably to create the app and use the expected ban for free publicity and guerilla marketing. IIRC apps promoting certain competing products or services have been banned from day 1 of the app store. The ban seems to be long standing policy not a recent decision. Developing and submitting such an app seems like a public relations stunt. The marketing folks at the Android magazine seem to have done a great job at leveraging Apple policy for publici
Long standing policy not desperation? (Score:3, Informative)
This seems like an act of desperation.
Or is it merely long standing policy? Haven't apps promoting/offering certain competing products and services been banned from day 1 of app store development? Whether this policy is right or wrong is a different question, but this app rejection does not seem to be any sort of reaction to Android's recent successes.
Re:Long standing policy not desperation? (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed it's longstanding policy.
App rejected for menioning Android [slashdot.org] in the description (it was an Android Developer Contest finalist). Once that was removed the app got posted.
Even on the app store guidelines [engadget.com] it mentions:
"Apps with metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected." We're guessing this means you can't advertise your app in the App Store by saying it's also available on Android, or has been ported from BlackBerry, or whatever.
So the question is, how was it approved in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
This seems like an act of desperation.
And yet, in a competition, saying that you're going to win before the race is over is not looked at as odd or unusual. And I'm not aware of many national anthems that start with "We're Number Two!" Or it could just be the Jobs Reality Distortion Field exhibiting harmonic disturbances due to passing through the Droid Nebula and becoming ionized...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's desperation. Sure they see the threat of Android, but they are doing so well it shouldn't make that much difference.
No, this is hubris, plain and simple. They won't allow apps relating to Android because Android is not Apple and so they don't like Android. It's like the mean girls in high school who won't let the new girl sit with them. The new girl may be smart and pretty, but she's also a little awkward, so they make fun of her instead. They are popular, egotistical, and too full o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, this is them playing dirty.
Real desperation is banning the CNET / GSMArena / Consumer reports apps if one of them posts a negative review. Oh wait, they did... http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-censoring-discussion-forums-ref-consumer-reports/50597 [cultofmac.com]
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, Apple hates Microsoft, they've been mocking windows forever... yet Microsoft sells software for Mac.
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a big difference between accepting ads and accepting content about your competition.
I imagine that any Windows developer that hoped to use an iPad for e-books on Windows shouldn't be able to get them, either?
Do you also think that Amazon should refuse to sell any Kindle e-books about iPads next?
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or Microsoft denying itunes or safari on Windows
THIS-Y THIS THIS.
iFans would shit a golden brick if Microsoft banned iTunes from Windows 7, yet they apparently have no problem rationalizing the wielding of the mighty App Store banhammer against information about (not even an ad for) someone elses platform.
telling. very telling. Looks like I have one less reason to buy an iWhatever any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't you forgetting about the monstrosity that is Quicktime? God how I hate that software. Even now you still have to buy the pro version to use the FULL SCREEN, basic functionality for a player.
Luckily there's at least 1 alternative with hacked codecs.
It's Clippy the friendly automated thought police! (Score:5, Funny)
Would you like help with:
Please continue working while a black-bagger is dispatched to your cubical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Half the ads on my HTC Desire are for iPad and iPhone 4-stuff in some form or another. It's rather annoying, but at least it proves Google aren't afraid.
(Nor should they be, in my case: I'd prefer even my old Sony Ericsson T39 over any of Jobs' gilded crap)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Odd, I'd assumed they were ads provided through Google's mobile ads service which embeds ads into otherwise free applications from the appstore.
But my Android phone is currently with an iPhone developer so I can't check directly..
Or how about if they banned iPads entirely? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you imagine the outrage if Amazon banned their partners from selling iPads? While Amazon themselves doesn't seem to stock it, they have about 100 partners that do, and handle fulfillment for some of them. Same for the Nook, Sony reader, and so on. They certainly don't go out of their way to promote them (though if you search for them they'll show up as recommendation on the front page, along with the Kindle) but they don't ban them just because they happen to compete with a product Amazon makes.
While I don't expect a company to promote or help a competitor, I don't expect them to be dicks either. How would people react if Windows refused to install iTunes and Safari because Apple competes with them? I imagine the whargarbl would reach critical mass in about 5 seconds, and a lawsuit would follow not long after.
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who ever said there was a law being broken? It may be Apple's right to be a dick, but we are free to discuss about it without a bunch of apologists supporting their unethical actions.
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be different if Apple's app store were just one app provider, but it's the only way to get apps onto the phone!
* Disclaimer, I don't actually own an iPhone.
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who owns my iPhone?* That is the heart of the question.
I would think the heart of the question is Who Owns the App Store? Are you really suggesting that Apple be forced to sell particular items through their own store? If that's the case, who would you envision as the arbiter of what they should be forced to carry?
It would be different if Apple's app store were just one app provider, but it's the only way to get apps onto the phone!
If that's a problem for you, or if you generally object to their business practices, vote with your wallet and don't buy their phone. It's not like there aren't alternatives readily available. If you just gotta have shiny, jailbreak it.
It's not like controlling behaviour is something new to Apple.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Really? Desperation? Is that what it is? And is that why we don't see more BK ads in McD's? Or Macy's promos at Marshall's? **rolls eyes**
Or ads for satellite TV on your cable TV service... oh wait. We do see those, all the time. **rolls eyes**.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:4, Funny)
Sure. You want fries with that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But Apple is trying to get newspaper and magazine publisher to go to subscription models through the App Store?
Sure, as long as publishers don't want to say anything that isn't in Apple's interests.
I don't think Mickey D's is trying to set themselves as the world's newsstand.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can't see the difference between trying to control what the owner of a smart phone sees on his screen and what ads a restaurant puts in what is *there* property, then I posit that your average pile of dogshit on the front lawn has more brains than you.
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:5, Informative)
They are refusing to publish a magazine in what they're trying to promote as a publishing platform.
Re:Apple getting desperate? (Score:4, Informative)
No one is trying to control what you see on your phone, that is your imagination running away with itself.
Apple is choosing to offer or not offer a product through their own store. I don't see any justification at all for you to force them to do something they don't want to do.
Seeing as how that store is the only way to install third party applications on your phone (outside of hacks), then "controlling what you see on your phone" is EXACTLY what what is happening here.
This is just denial at this point. It'd be as if Steve Jobs was personally running around crazy bashing people's toes with a hammer and your response was "lets not get carried away and say that Steve is going to start bashing toes with a hammer". It's flat out refusal to accept reality.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Really? Desperation? Is that what it is?
No, that's what it's.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Desperation? Is that what it is? And is that why we don't see more BK ads in McD's? Or Macy's promos at Marshall's? **rolls eyes**
Neither McDonald's nor Marshall's claim to be platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I see plenty of ads for DISH Network on my DirecTV service. I see promos for one network's shows while watching a different network.
You don't see BK ads in McD's because the product in McD's is typically all 1st party. When your business is in delivering 3rd party content though, as is the case with the app store, the precedent has long been set that you accept content from your competitors.
Open Source FTW (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open Source FTW (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we, as customers, take this?
Who's "we"? I don't have any apple products...
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1: Profit!!!
Step 2: ????
Step 3: block apps that mention your competitor
Step 4: block the iOS browser from viewing android blogs and news postings.
Apple doesn't care about your community (Score:5, Insightful)
and Apple has no reason to be part of it, you can become a "useful" member of "their" community provided you follow the rules.
After all, all the cool kids will do so. See if you get any respect sitting in Starbucks without an Apple product, hell, see if they will serve you.
Yes, the above line was a bit of sarcasm, however Apple doesn't really care, they really don't think they have too.
Re: (Score:2)
How can Apple ever hope to become a serious part of community infrastructure
News Flash: They already are.
Just because you don't particularly like what Apple is doing, doesn't mean it's not part (a huge part) of the technical community at large.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Open Source FTW (Score:4, Insightful)
What Apple is doing is unconscionable. I have always been anti-Microsoft, in this regard I was always pulling for Apple. But it's important to realize WHY I was anti-Microsoft. Namely because of their anti-competitive and asshole behavior. A set of behavior that Apple has perfected and made even more grotesquely anti-consumer, anti-choice and ultimately insulting to all intelligent customers of their products. At least Microsoft had enough respect for you to give you a choice. Now you have nanny-Apple deciding what you can and cannot install on the device you purchased and now legally own.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Success (Score:4, Informative)
I've started a company dedicated to making unique mobile apps -- the current product has no peer among Android apps because it's literally impossible to do the same thing in the current Android APIs, and so it's iOS-only. Do you think Google will let my company advertise in their conferences and meetings, or include my company's logo among the others they show off when they're advertising Android? Given that Android can't do what my app does, we're not even direct competitors and should therefore be brothers-in-mobile-innovation. Surely, they'd welcome us as an advertiser (if not highlight us among developers) and let us have a presence on the floor of any Android conferences, because to not would be evil or -- according to you -- it'd be lashing out at me in anger. I like Google, so that would be hurtful.
Could you tell us what the functionality is literally impossible in current Android APIs but possible on iOS? Also, you can submit an app to Android market which does nothing but promote your iPhone app. It will get on the Android Market place because there's no approval process. Sure, it may get bad ratings. Even if it's taken off the store, Android users can still download it from your website without jailbreaking their device.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Later on... (Score:5, Insightful)
And a little down the line, some other magazine app gets removed. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep is "You know... your magazine...It had a negative review of the iPad.... we can't have that in our App Store."
Same principle.
Apple certainly can do this sort of thing, but it shows a lack of integrity and a lack of self-confidence. It's the behaviour of a small, petty person. It's short-sighted and it will push people to Android tablets all the more.
It seems like the aim is to keep all the passive people on Apple and to let the people who think independently go. That may be a winning business strategy, but I find it horrifying.
Re:Later on... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the behaviour of a small, petty person.
Small petty people who gain power tend to become bullies.
This describes Apple perfectly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And a little down the line, some other magazine app gets removed. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep is "You know... your magazine...It had a negative review of the iPad.... we can't have that in our App Store."
Same principle.
Apple certainly can do this sort of thing, but it shows a lack of integrity and a lack of self-confidence. It's the behaviour of a small, petty person. It's short-sighted and it will push people to Android tablets all the more.
It seems like the aim is to keep all the passive people on Apple and to let the people who think independently go. That may be a winning business strategy, but I find it horrifying.
That has already happened http://www.newser.com/off-the-grid/post/451/creepy-steve-jobs-may-not-want-you-to-read-this-or-will-break-down-your-door.html?utm_source=otg&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20100427 [newser.com]
in a column that dealt with Jobs’ recently announced intention to police apps for violations of Apple’s new (and undisclosed) rules against porn. I suggested that Jobs was overreaching—and, maybe too, a little messianic and off his nut. (I did not know then that his cop mentality would soon enough involve actual police action.)
The stated reason for the rejection of my free app is that Apple requires "sufficient amounts of content to appeal to a broad audience." Putting aside the fact that this pretty much makes specialty content ineligible for iPhone or iPad apps, it’s also a pretty fudgy standard. For instance, I get a bigger readership for my online columns than I do for my Vanity Fair columns—so Vanity Fair shouldn’t make the cut?
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Re:Later on... (Score:4, Insightful)
so don't buy iPhone and don't worry about Apple's shenanigans. It really is that simple folks. Apple will learn one way or another, and either adapt or die.
If sufficient number of people take issue with Apple's App Store policies, they will lose market share to Android and the others. We still have a choice, so choose.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One of those gigantic Archos things with the half-finished software!
Counter-productive move, I'd say. (Score:2, Informative)
I see it as kind of funny, really.
Most Iphone users are very happy with their phones and I don't see them likely to switch- not due to a magazine app, anyway
The main thing I see this doing is again emphasizing how tightly Apple restricts content on the Iphone, and how limiting that is.
I DO know a few people who have chosen to get a different phone because of this.
I also know a couple of people who have switched from Iphone to Android because of this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's the EU? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where's the EU? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's biggest effect on the marketplace is most often people REACTING to Apple, not Apple's actions themselves. Apple says 'We are reducing Flash's importance on our platforms' and the world gasped.
Non-story: Developer generating product buzz (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a non-story.
1) Developer submits an app intentionally to get it rejected.
2) App gets rejected.
3) ???
4) Profit!
The funny thing is, this is actually happening here. 3 seems to be getting the "press" to cover you so people hear about your other apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Must be an incredibly slow news day...
AT&T albertross (Score:2)
The sooner Apple signs up other carriers besides AT&T (or just completely OPENS the damn thing) the better for their sales. The major thing driving Droid phone sales is that you can have one WITHOUT the AT&T albertross around your neck. Consumer reports and others have rated wireless networks, Tmobile and Verizon rated much better than you know who. Many people have said they will buy an iPhone when they can use ANYONE BUT AT&T.
iphone = macintosh (Score:2)
There's an app for that! (Score:5, Interesting)
Can someone enlighten me as to why a dedicated piece of standalone software is required to display words and some pictures? I thought HTML had that covered. Ohhh, or is this all about DRM? Are we Slashdot readers lamenting the fact that a piece of proprietary DRM-riddled software was rejected?
Not being an apologist here, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
... I bet this was just one of those dumb little things and will probably get overturned very soon. I know Apple has denied some things in the past for questionable reasons but something like this--a harmless little magazine--sounds to me more like it belongs in the "Never attribute to malice..." category.
Argh (tangential rant) (Score:5, Insightful)
I am so tired of these individuals and groups trying to replace already-long-solved problems with their own private apps. Why do I need an NPR podcast app, or an ESPN app, or a Digital Story app? I can already access all their content easily through a web browser. I can already subscribe to, and automatically download, their podcasts. There is no real benefit to me as an end user from using these apps - it actually makes the process of accessing their content more difficult, and even the most casual observer can see any purported added value content being offered is of little interest or value.
So now these publishers want us to read their magazines and newspapers through their individual app? How is this different than a web paywall, exactly? I personally have nothing against subscriber-only web content - but if that model isn't working, why do these guys think doing the exact same thing but calling it an "app" is going to change anything?
Why would anyone think replacing one web browser and one general program for listening to podcasts with 50+ separate apps is a good thing?
Okay, back on topic. This rejection is wrong, and Apple should correct it ASAP.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A better analogy would be, "Why should Amazon/Borders be forced to carry books about how great the Nook/Kindle is?"
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you know that you can BUY a Nook from Amazon.com?
http://www.amazon.com/Barnes-Noble-NOOK-reader-3G/dp/1400599997 [amazon.com]
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
They shouldn't be required to promote the competition, but banning the competition on your platform can get you in trouble.
As a 100 billion dollar gorilla, they need to be careful when it comes to antitrust and perception.
Imagine if Internet Explorer refused to load apple.com, or Microsoft refused to allow iTunes on Windows.
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft refused to allow iTunes on Windows.
Hey now.
Microsoft is evil and would never do something good like this.
Get your facts straight.
Re: (Score:2)
They shouldn't be required to promote the competition, but banning the competition on your platform can get you in trouble.
As a 100 billion dollar gorilla, they need to be careful when it comes to antitrust and perception.
Imagine if Internet Explorer refused to load apple.com, or Microsoft refused to allow iTunes on Windows.
But they're not banning the competition on their platform - you can still visit android.com via safari, or any number of competitor's websites. This is them merely saying "we're not going to give the competition space on our servers." The comparison to IE or iTunes would only be apt if Microsoft hosted all of the sites you visit and applications you install.
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way to load software is through the App Store, and the App Store is banning an app that they feel is focused on a competitor. Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust merely for bundling products. Apple's anti-competitive practices are actually worse than Microsoft's. The main reason they haven't caught as much flak is that they've been seen as the plucky underdog with 10% market share.
That is changing with their massive market cap.
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
As bad as Apple's recent behavior has been, Microsoft has always been more evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy is flawed- Wal Mart and Best Buy are two competing companies. In the article presented, Mediaprovider (a company that makes eMagazines, including one about the iPhone- i.e., not a direct competitor to Apple) wanted to sell one of their products through apple's app store.
So, it's more like Amazon or Borders selling a book about public libraries. The money wasn't going "to Android" and away from Apple in the way that an "Amazon order kiosok" would funnel money to Amazon, and take it away from Bor
Re: (Score:2)
Well it is probably more along the lines of buying a book on Amazon from Borders. I can understand why they did this, but I am not sure that it was the right move to make. I should be able to buy a book on Android from the Apple app store and a book on iOS from the Android market place. It could seem like a way of promoting competition, but it could also show that even Android users and developers prefer to use the iOS based devices for their reading - a nice little irony.
Re: (Score:2)
Walmart isn't trying to set themselves up as a publisher. Apple is. I guess as long as you don't want to publish anything Apple doesn't want you to publish.
Re: (Score:2)
But I agree: iProducts are not "open" platforms, they are a branded product that delivers an Apple "experience". There's really no reason Apple should be expected to allow the competition to promote itself on their product, it doesn't make business sense.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The free market means that a business is not *required* to do anything for anybody. It cannot however prevent you from going to another business or starting your own. That's the whole point of the free market. You cannot compel businesses, businesses cannot compel you. The cost of acting outside of a given
Re: (Score:2)
So, when can I come by your house to print some documents on your printer? I'm sure you wouldn't mind, as refusing to let me use your resources to distribute my content would be "censorship" after all...
So, when I show up for the free printing party, hosted at a place that makes it's living off of printing, and they let all the white people in and I get turned away for being an anthropomorphic green robot, they were just making a "business" decision, right? Seems to me that plenty of "business decisions" were made in the run up to 1968 that later turned out to be generally accepted as *terrible* ones.
Yes, I get that this is headed for a Godwin. The owners of said "massive content distribution system" nee
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if free market is intertwined with the concept that censorship only happens with governments, there's some overlap and some orthogonality too. I do think that free market means that you don't have to let your resources be used in the promotion of a product that competes with your own. Would Wal*mart stock a book that's positive about Target? Would it really be censorship if Wal*mart chose not to stock that book?
It's largely an unnecessary app, especially being an app whose only purpose is to de
Re: (Score:2)
Most companies dont care to cater to their competition, its not fear its logic.
Most companies don't try and control what you can see and do with their products after you've bought them. Apple do. This is what we are criticising.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got your analogies wrong.
This is like Slashdot not permitting a story about Engadget, or Amazon refusing to sell a book about Borders. Both of these situations are ridiculous, of course Slashdot will post stories about Engadget, and of course Amazon is going to sell a book about Borders or Barnes and Nobel or any of their other competitors.