The demise of a mobile app, Apple cult-style

[styx]

Its ridiculous that people still say its wrong of apple to remove an app that discusses their competition. They're in business to make money, not educate the public on alternative products. And to compare an app store, which apple owns, to the internet, which isn't owned by anyone, is like comparing apples and sneakers, its just makes zero sense. It's a false argument.

Like it was said before, apple didn't get to where they are by not knowing what they're doing. To the people crying foul, start a business then provide ads for your competitors. See how great that works out for you.

It happens every single day in radio, newspaper and TV.

 

[Asperity]

It happens every single day in radio, newspaper and TV.

When's the last time you saw ABC run a commercial for a Fox television show?

 

[czerdrill]

It happens every single day in radio, newspaper and TV.

When's the last time you saw ABC run a commercial for a Fox television show?

yeah i don't know about you but fox is clearly a cult. i mean, no ABC commercials? the amount of censorship that fox exhibits is sickening.

....hmmm...still sounds dumb.

 

[Darkseider]

It is censorship plain and simple. Just like they censored that political satirist and Pulitzer prize winner Mark Fiore's app. They then of course rescinded that ban and the app was published because of the fact that he is a Pulitzer Prize winner. So they did indeed ban/censor whatever word you want to use. They are doing the same with this. It is censorship plain and simple. No more, no less.

Apple App Store Bans Pulitzer-Winning Satirist for Satire | Epicenter| Wired.com

Linked above is the article about Mark Fiore's ban and eventual rescinding.

 

[czerdrill]

Interesting thing I found.

http://www.eff.org/files/20100302_iphone_dev_agr.pdf

Which is the developer's agreement. Page 12 of that agreement is pretty interesting....Section 6.2 says and I quote:

-----
You understand and agree that Apple may, in its sole discretion:
(a) determine that Your Application does not meet all or any part of the Documentation or
Program Requirements then in effect;
(b) reject Your Application for distribution for any reason, even if Your Application meets the
Documentation and Program Requirements; or
(c) select and digitally sign Your Application for distribution via the App Store.
-------

I don't know...to me that sounds like an app doesn't have to be pornographic or malicious in order to be rejected. I figured that out because Apple used the words "any reason" which as I understood it means...any reason. They also used the words "sole discretion" which as I understood it means they're the final authority regardless of what a dev may think.

i guess that little one sentence blurb on the apple website wasn't the full story about how they reject apps...i'm shocked, because i thought it was. i thought a multibillion dollar corporation would be able to consolidate their policy into one sentence. oh wait...no i didnt.

Again, arguing censorship to a private company whose policies you've agreed to is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. But android fanboys clearly are not alien to stupid things I guess.

 

[pyro6128]

It happens every single day in radio, newspaper and TV.

When's the last time you saw ABC run a commercial for a Fox television show?

Exactly, people don't understand that businesses don't (in almost all cases) advertise their competitor. I've just given up trying to explain that concept.

 

[czerdrill]

It happens every single day in radio, newspaper and TV.

When's the last time you saw ABC run a commercial for a Fox television show?

Exactly, people don't understand that businesses don't (in almost all cases) advertise their competitor. I've just given up trying to explain that concept.

i think the real root of the problem is trying to figure out why people can't figure that out. it's pretty disheartening.

 

[hookbill]

Thread clean up. I understand some of the resentment towards Apple but you guys are taking it too far. Darksider, tone it down. Let's be sensitive to the fact that not everyone hates apple. I own apple products and I found the remarks insulting. But the only reason i edited it was I'm getting complaints from other people. So either tone it down or don't say anything at all.

 

[kodiak799]

Exactly, people don't understand that businesses don't (in almost all cases) advertise their competitor. I've just given up trying to explain that concept.

Except it's a ginormous stretch to call allowing this app "advertising" Android. With 250k apps or whatever it is, the impact of this app would be miniscule. And it begs the question how many Apple users would really even care about Android which I why I'd be shocked if Apple was really making some sort of anti-competitive decision here. Why the developer really even cares to be on Apple is also a bit puzzling - smells like a publicity stunt with him expecting to be rejected for whatever reason and playing that up into free promotion for his site.

And the simple fact is, Apple already has approved other tech news that talks about Android. You also have to realize that the app store is really a stand-alone business line/profit center with the intent to deliver apps/content to devices. A good example would be Ruport Murdoch's News Corp, which owns a number of broadcast stations, newspapers, and magazines. You think those different mediums don't take ad revenue from competitors of other business units? You bet they do.

As mentioned, Apple tried to block Google Voice and backed down when the FCC started investigating. That's a lot bigger deal than this tiny Android mag start-up that may or may not survive. It's pretty obvious that Apple can't just willy nilly sensor apps for anti-competitive business reasons. With the size of Apple, it's a different ball game than trying to say "private company (oops, Apple is not a private company) can do what it wants".

 

[Darkseider]

Thread clean up. I understand some of the resentment towards Apple but you guys are taking it too far. Darksider, tone it down. Let's be sensitive to the fact that not everyone hates apple. I own apple products and I found the remarks insulting. But the only reason i edited it was I'm getting complaints from other people. So either tone it down or don't say anything at all.

Yes dear. Ooh and it's Darkseider with an "e". So I won't call you B*** but I will call you Hook.

 

[pyro6128]

Actually Ill take one more go at trying to simply it.

Lets say you own a store and sell widgets (anyone who knows econ is probably sick of dealing in widgets haha). And I own a store across the street that sells widgets. These two stores represent the app stores. Now I decide to go into your store and leave a bunch of fliers on your counter that say how my widgets are amazing, and it says all the cool new features my widgets have, blah blah blah. These fliers represent the app (stay with me). Are you people honestly saying that you would let me go into your store and leave a bunch of info about my product? Of course not, because its your store and you're trying to maximize your profit. So you throw out my fliers. This holds true whether its me putting the fliers there, or a third party (the app developer).

Now part two of the analogy. Think of the street as the internet. I don't own the street and you don't own the street, so its wrong for me to put a barricade down and prevent people from going into your store to check your widgets against mine. Because streets are public, I have to allow traffic to move about as it wishes. If people walk into my store great, but I surely can't stop them from walking into your store.

So to wrap it up. People need to stop confusing public and private. The apple app store is owned by apple. Radio stations, tv channels, newspapers, etc are also private. They decide what type of content they will carry. It is foolish for them to advertise for their competition. The internet however is public, and no one owns it, so to prevent users from accessing certain aspects of it is wrong.

To sum up yet again, put yourself in the position of a business owner, or one responsible for the performance of a business, then think what the appropriate strategy is. In addition, stop making analogies where you compare privately owned things to public goods. It does not work that way.

 

[czerdrill]

Actually Ill take one more go at trying to simply it.

Lets say you own a store and sell widgets (anyone who knows econ is probably sick of dealing in widgets haha). And I own a store across the street that sells widgets. These two stores represent the app stores. Now I decide to go into your store and leave a bunch of fliers on your counter that say how my widgets are amazing, and it says all the cool new features my widgets have, blah blah blah. These fliers represent the app (stay with me). Are you people honestly saying that you would let me go into your store and leave a bunch of info about my product? Of course not, because its your store and you're trying to maximize your profit. So you throw out my fliers. This holds true whether its me putting the fliers there, or a third party (the app developer).

Now part two of the analogy. Think of the street as the internet. I don't own the street and you don't own the street, so its wrong for me to put a barricade down and prevent people from going into your store to check your widgets against mine. Because streets are public, I have to allow traffic to move about as it wishes. If people walk into my store great, but I surely can't stop them from walking into your store.

So to wrap it up. People need to stop confusing public and private. The apple app store is owned by apple. Radio stations, tv channels, newspapers, etc are also private. They decide what type of content they will carry. It is foolish for them to advertise for their competition. The internet however is public, and no one owns it, so to prevent users from accessing certain aspects of it is wrong.

To sum up yet again, put yourself in the position of a business owner, or one responsible for the performance of a business, then think what the appropriate strategy is. In addition, stop making analogies where you compare privately owned things to public goods. It does not work that way.

yes, your analogy is exactly what is happening here

apple absolutely CANNOT stop you from reading about android, they absolutely CANNOT terminate your contract if you visit an android website, they absolutely cannot block safari from being able to access information about android, but they absolutely CAN stop an android-related app from being distributed in their private company store as per their developer agreement, common sense and business model. not rocket science, but 11 pages later, people still don't get it

 

[kodiak799]

Actually Ill take one more go at trying to simply it.

Lets say you own a store and sell widgets (anyone who knows econ is probably sick of dealing in widgets haha). And I own a store across the street that sells widgets. These two stores represent the app stores. Now I decide to go into your store and leave a bunch of fliers on your counter that say how my widgets are amazing, and it says all the cool new features my widgets have, blah blah blah.

So to wrap it up. People need to stop confusing public and private. The apple app store is owned by apple.

Bad example. Apple has a monopoly over apps for the IPhone.

So let's make your example apples to apples (really confusing, like an intentionally unintended pun). You own Sears, the sole distributor/provider of tools in the eastern US (stay with me here). You have your own Craftsman tools you sell. A competitor to Craftsman tools wants to sell in your store. You say no. You cannot do that. Sears here would be using it's vertically integrated and monopolistic power to damage competition of a related business. That is illegal. What is being missed here is it is not Craftsman advertising its competitor. This is why the FCC started sniffing around when Apple tried to block Google Voice.

By the way, Apple IS NOT a private company. There are a host of additional rules and regulations that public companies are subjected to that private companies are not.

 

[pyro6128]

The issue with google voice is different, Google voice is not a direct competitor to apple's operating system. They would be intentionally preventing someone from using software just to harm a competitor, rather than compete. Thats a big no no. The difference is the android app provides only information about android, a direct competitor. The other apps that feature android among other tech info is different, because they would be censoring all of the other information.

And yes, obviously apple is a publicly traded company. You say it like no one knows it. However, apple is owned by people, as opposed to the internet which is free. So in that regard, it would still be public vs private. I can go out and walk in a public street. I can't just walk into apples headquarters, regardless of whether or not it is publicly traded

 

[Darkseider]

Actually Ill take one more go at trying to simply it.

Lets say you own a store and sell widgets (anyone who knows econ is probably sick of dealing in widgets haha). And I own a store across the street that sells widgets. These two stores represent the app stores. Now I decide to go into your store and leave a bunch of fliers on your counter that say how my widgets are amazing, and it says all the cool new features my widgets have, blah blah blah.

So to wrap it up. People need to stop confusing public and private. The apple app store is owned by apple.

Bad example. Apple has a monopoly over apps for the IPhone.

So let's make your example apples to apples (really confusing, like an intentionally unintended pun). You own Sears, the sole distributor/provider of tools in the eastern US (stay with me here). You have your own Craftsman tools you sell. A competitor to Craftsman tools wants to sell in your store. You say no. You cannot do that. Sears here would be using it's vertically integrated and monopolistic power to damage competition of a related business. That is illegal. What is being missed here is it is not Craftsman advertising its competitor. This is why the FCC started sniffing around when Apple tried to block Google Voice.

By the way, Apple IS NOT a private company. There are a host of additional rules and regulations that public companies are subjected to that private companies are not.

YAY! Someone who gets it! dancedroid I knew there was another voice of reason here besides me.