The demise of a mobile app, Apple cult-style

[Larry_ThaGr81]

Don't care much for Apple, but for once I can't fault them on their actions. Why would anyone in there right mine that is notorious for banning apps want to put a app in their store that is centered around their biggest competition. They are trying to retain customers not give them a reason to leave. That is just good business strategy on Apple's part. Of course declining market share for Apple in terms of phone sales isn't helping either.

 

[MoeDaddy]

Censorship? Hmmm Not directly from the looks of it no... However... The one thing many forget is that unless you jailbreak your iphone you cannot install apps from outside itunes. So in effect they have censored all iphone users from installing any app they do not approve. So the good business decision aside they are censoring iphone owners from buying the subscription to a magazine that is legal and by all reports not objectionable in any other way except that it is about android. So while you can say it is just a business decision that is too simple an answer when you consider the way the phone is locked down. It sets apple up as a solitary voice in what you can and cannot read on your own devices or what news you have access to. The devices we should also remember streams the media over licenced public airways that are regulated and that same media, if legal, is not so easily censored in other forms.

So as it stands apple has the right to say to any ios user that you CANNOT have this magazine app on your phone period! To me the larger issue is with that control comes more responsibility on apple’s part to be fair and honest or open up ios to outside app installation. The bigger picture is that apple is not the only company deciding what you have access to. Reports seem to confirm that windows phone 7 will be just as locked down if not more so and you will not be able to install outside apps unless it is hacked as well. So M$ may do the same thing as apple or worse...

While in this singular instance it may appear harmless, the app and magazine author goes on to say that apple must approve every issue individually... So what if say... Time, has a magazine subscription app and one month the cover is about android's dominance in the phone market and apple decides to ban that? Apple would never do that you say? But why not they just proved that they can... Well is that still a business decision? What about the rest of the news in that magazine? What about a hypothetical future media app that has said negative things or has a negative outlook for apple? What if they decide having those app subscriptions are bad business as well because hey they shed a bad light on apple? Hey that makes perfect business sense but with the way the phone is locked down to where the user is in fact censored from any app NOT approved by apple is this still right? Well then I say this is a grey area and quite frankly one that may need to be resolved by the courts. Just like apple not approving google voice but approving skype. Yah, google is a competitor but the boys in washington were looking into that and asking questions until apple finally approved it. How far does apple or ANY company have to go before we say ok enough is enough?

 

[czerdrill]

i have to comment on this as well. first, do you have a list of all apps that Apple has rejected from the app store since its inception?

You asked for guidelines and I provided that. You were wrong and now you spin and backpedal, which is par for the course. Besides which, it's irrelevant. If Apple tells you they are going to censor their app store (which, ummm, they do) it doesn't magically make it not censorship.

Every one of your "counterarguments", if you can call it that, was thoroughly proven off point and irrelevant. Pardon me if I don't respond any more. I'm not going to get sucked into this again where, for example, I can't even figure out if you've acknowledged this is censorship or not at this point. If you have, which logical & common sense would dictate you must, then there is nothing really more to debate.

ah there it is. the infamous "you're backpedaling" statement. you're right, i can't get into this with you again, so this will be my last post in this thread directed at you, because talking to you is akin to talking to a brick wall unfortunately. and also unfortunate is that i have to dumb things down to make you understand (and even that doesn't work 90% of the time). so here goes:

1) absolutely i asked for guidelines. the reason i asked was to show you that their guidelines are not going to be one sentence: "We only ban malicious or pornographic apps. Thanks devs!!" Their guidelines are going to be a long page of legal jargon and mumbo jumbo which will essentially state that they can ban an app for whatever reason they choose. providing me with a blurb that says "we want to keep our app store clean of malicious and explicit material" (a blurb which i freakin mentioned in my post haha, you can go read what i wrote, although i know you won't understand it) is pointless. You cannot possibly think that that is all there is to their app review guidelines could you? Are you suggesting that their guidelines is that little blurb on that page you sent me? Are you denying that their guidelines are going to be a long wall of text detailing all the reasons they'd reject an app? How ignorant can one fanboy be?

2) you again seem to think that by saying "you're wrong and i've proven it" somehow makes it so. it doesn't. it's what a kid does to win an argument. "i don't care what you say, you're wrong". you're not giving me anything concrete, you're telling me things with no proof whatsoever, and then you're passing it along as fact. i don't know why i bother to keep responding to you, i guess i'm a glutton for punishment, because you really, really have some kind of issue personally. it's strange how much you hate apple as if they stole your first born. or maybe you think you'll get a royalty check from google for supporting them? whatever the case may be, you're always the first one here to talk about how horrible a company Apple is, and how Steve Jobs is a greedy, selfish, idiot who doesn't know anything and is the devil. Again, these are personal issues that you have to get over. I can't help you there.

3)

Try reading the relevant portion at the top of the page, which amounts to a mission statement and the spirit/purpose of their policy which is really the relevant point to this discussion. Here, allow me to paste a copy for you:
"The app approval process is in place to ensure that applications are reliable, perform as expected, and are free of explicit and offensive material. We review every app on the App Store based on a set of technical, content, and design criteria. This review criteria is now available to you in the App Store Review Guidelines. These guidelines are designed to help you prepare your iOS and Mac OS X apps for the approval process"

Again it baffles me that you can cut and paste these things but still not understand what you're presenting to me. This thing that you cut and paste CLEARLY implies that there is more to read (I mean it's like night and day, black and white, it's very obviously implying that there is more to read), and that the criteria is available to iphone devs in detail. Yet, you're continuing to pass along as fact that the only criteria is malicious and pornographic. You're wrong. No one's backpedaling. Stop trying to win arguments by trying to convince yourself that you're winning. Give me something concrete. Or better yet, answer the questions that are asked of you.

I don't get why you have such a hard time understanding what you read, or why you refuse to see any side of the argument other than your own. What I do know, is that your issue is deeper then just "is this censorship or isn't it?" In essence your argument is that Apple should allow an app about their competitor in their own private store and the fact that they don't amounts to censorship and to be honest it's a little sad. In essence you're saying that Apple has to allow certain things in their own store. You're telling a private company what they have to sell. i mean...it's pure and utter foolishness, in every sense of the word. How you don't realize this is almost unimaginable. But again, this goes deeper then just you trying to prove your point. It's some other psychological issue, and unfortunately I can't help you with that. I touched on that in the last thread where you were arguing foolishness with no merit before it was locked. It's become more evident here.

Don't bother responding (although we both know you will) because as I mentioned I won't be responding back to you in this thread, and yes...you can have the last word...you seem to yearn for that more than anything.

 

[czerdrill]

Don't care much for Apple, but for once I can't fault them on their actions. Why would anyone in there right mine that is notorious for banning apps want to put a app in their store that is centered around their biggest competition. They are trying to retain customers not give them a reason to leave. That is just good business strategy on Apple's part. Of course declining market share for Apple in terms of phone sales isn't helping either.

This should be obvious to everyone. The fact that it's not obvious to some people in this thread is amazing (or sad)

 

[Bilgediver]

Onetenderrebel, your arguments about openness still don't hold much water.

the average user can still do amazing customizations straight out of the box. When was the last time you heard of a non-jailbreaked iphone running a different home replacement? You don't see Google Market banning home replacements like ADW launcher or Launcherpro? Or how about GDE home? Openhome? Users who bhave an HTC phone can use something other than HTC Sense, users who have a Motorola phone can use something other than MotoBlur. You know, There is also that little settings menu item called "install non-market" apps. When was the last time you heard of Apple allowing non-market apps on the iphone or ipad?

I know its a business decision, it helps so Apple doesn't have to deal with idiots (the percentage of iphone users that don't know technology is greater than Android....if you say otherwise you don't understand what's been going on) installing stuff that won't run right. It may make sense from Apples end, but it doesn't make it open.

Droidforums.net appified!

 

[OneTenderRebel]

Umm I never said it was open, but its also not as closed as people try to say it is. The debate isn't whether its open or closed anyway. This in no way is censorship and people are just blinded by their hatred for all things apple to see that. Whatever though I understand it. As a red sox fan I refuse to believe the Yankees are better even though they have almost 20 more world series wins.

sent from the great depths of my phones internet (thanks Al Gore)

 

[Bilgediver]

Well since Apple really doesn't say exactly why it was banned, we will never truly know.

For all we know it ran a bit glitchy, but they didn't say that.

The biggest reason we do love to hate on them IS because they ban an app for any reason they wish, and in many cases WON'T tell the developer why.

I personally won't choose an iphone because I like more personal control over my device, yes I know verizon, google and motorola exert SOME sort of control (actually less since I still have the original droid), but I still get more. Control by default than if I had an iphone.

If google banned an app called "iOs news", I could still BY DEFAULT go into settings, check "install nonmarket apps" and find an .apk online, if I so choose. I could even go to an android app store not run by google, too.

This argument IS about openness, FOR THAT VERY REASON.

Droidforums.net appified!

 

[OneTenderRebel]

Well since Apple really doesn't say exactly why it was banned, we will never truly know.

For all we know it ran a bit glitchy, but they didn't say that.

The biggest reason we do love to hate on them IS because they ban an app for any reason they wish, and in many cases WON'T tell the developer why.

I personally won't choose an iphone because I like more personal control over my device, yes I know verizon, google and motorola exert SOME sort of control (actually less since I still have the original droid), but I still get more. Control by default than if I had an iphone.

If google banned an app called "iOs news", I could still BY DEFAULT go into settings, check "install nonmarket apps" and find an .apk online, if I so choose. I could even go to an android app store not run by google, too.

This argument IS about openness, FOR THAT VERY REASON.

Droidforums.net appified!

You could also open the iPhone built in browser and find android news, so your argument holds no weight there.

 

[OneTenderRebel]

Not to mention 99% of the world doesn't know or care about open source. As Droid owners we learn to appreciate it.

 

[supr2nr]

I will say one thing and then I will be done with it, and please don't ridicule me too much for what I have to say.

Like it or not competition is great for business. It gives the consumer a chance to say I want to try something different and then after trying it and not liking it, return back to the product you know and love. For apple's sake this would mean someone buying an iPhone, deciding to try an android based phone, and then buying a new iPhone. Effectively giving Apple two sales. Now granted this is not always the case. Some users may leave and never return. That's just the way it is.

But saying that I think it would have been a smarter choice for Apple to have privately communicated with the maker of the app and say why don't we come to an agreement here that works for both of our companies. We'll allow the app if you allow us to place a minimum of two ads in the app. This still gives the user a choice to look at content they want but also gives apple to occasionally intervene and say hey don't forget about our product that has been so good to you.

However, either choice they would have made would have given them publicity they likely would not have liked. Either they ban the app as they did and get negative comments about how they are censoring material, or they allow the app and they get negative comments about how users can't believe they allowed an all android content app to be allowed. It's a no win situation for Apple.

 

[Bilgediver]

Well since Apple really doesn't say exactly why it was banned, we will never truly know.

For all we know it ran a bit glitchy, but they didn't say that.

The biggest reason we do love to hate on them IS because they ban an app for any reason they wish, and in many cases WON'T tell the developer why.

I personally won't choose an iphone because I like more personal control over my device, yes I know verizon, google and motorola exert SOME sort of control (actually less since I still have the original droid), but I still get more. Control by default than if I had an iphone.

If google banned an app called "iOs news", I could still BY DEFAULT go into settings, check "install nonmarket apps" and find an .apk online, if I so choose. I could even go to an android app store not run by google, too.

This argument IS about openness, FOR THAT VERY REASON.

Droidforums.net appified!

You could also open the iPhone built in browser and find android news, so your argument holds no weight there.

? I'm not making that argument at all. This argument isn't about one specific app in question, its about the ability to run any app you want.
Think what you want, but an iphone is nothing but a featured up version of a sumbphone. This news segment makes a point by using one single app. But this app is NOT the only app to be banned for apparently no reason at all (that we can tell), and that's why we're "piling on the hate", according to you.

Tell me why, oh why ONLY lately has skyfire browser been banned until now? Skyfire converst flash to html5 ON skyfire's servers, so the security risks shouldn't be an issue.

Its not about censorship, its about the lack of competition. Some could say that Apple just doesn't want the competition, and they are allowed to do that on their devices, but just as they are allowed to ban anything that might compete bwith their own services, we are allowed to hate on them for it.

That's freedom baby.


Droidforums.net appified!

 

[OneTenderRebel]

I guess we all have to agree to disagree here. Clearly no one is going to sway opinions.

sent from the great depths of my phones internet (thanks Al Gore)

 

[czerdrill]

I guess we all have to agree to disagree here. Clearly no one is going to sway opinions.

sent from the great depths of my phones internet (thanks Al Gore)

yeah that's usually how it ends up in threads like these. in this case though, why do i get the feeling that this is like we're agreeing to disagreeing that the world is round haha....i mean are there really people out there who disagree with this stuff? strange world we live in, indeed.

 

[Asperity]

If google banned an app called "iOs news", I could still BY DEFAULT go into settings, check "install nonmarket apps" and find an .apk online, if I so choose. I could even go to an android app store not run by google, too.

This argument IS about openness, FOR THAT VERY REASON.

If you have any AT&T Android phone, you absolutely cannot. All AT&T Android phones are modified and have the "Install Non-market" Apps" option removed. You'd have to flash a custom rom to do it which is akin to jailbreaking your iPhone.

 

[czerdrill]

If google banned an app called "iOs news", I could still BY DEFAULT go into settings, check "install nonmarket apps" and find an .apk online, if I so choose. I could even go to an android app store not run by google, too.

This argument IS about openness, FOR THAT VERY REASON.

If you have any AT&T Android phone, you absolutely cannot. All AT&T Android phones are modified and have the "Install Non-market" Apps" option removed. You'd have to flash a custom rom to do it which is akin to jailbreaking your iPhone.

are you serious? wow, i've seen some crazy stuff in my day, but to block third party apks is absolutely cultist. i guess i can't say i'm surprised. eric schmidt just wants to define "open source" the way he sees fit. but geez, talk about a cult. and the android sheep allow this to happen??? this is censorship in the highest form. for a private company to dictate how you use their software which they provide for you, is, unbelievably arrogant. here's hoping that schmidt and his gang of android sheep open their eyes and escape this clearly dangerous cult.

...see it sounds pretty stupid when you apply it to Google too...