×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Blocks Cartoonist From App Store

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the so-don't-support-apple's-gateway dept.

Censorship 664

ink writes "Here is another troubling anecdote on the iWeb front: 'This week cartoonist Mark Fiore made Internet and journalism history as the first online-only journalist to win a Pulitzer Prize. Fiore took home the editorial cartooning prize for animations he created for SFGate, the website for the San Francisco Chronicle... But there's just one problem. In December, Apple rejected his iPhone app, NewsToons, because, as Apple put it, his satire "ridicules public figures," a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, which bars any apps whose content in "Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory."' Whether or not you agree with Fiore's political sentiments, I believe we can all agree that the censorship of his work should be denigrated."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

664 comments

News Flash: Apple limits app store! (5, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 4 years ago | (#31863642)

Yes, Apple has a locked down system that rejects apps for arbitrary reasons.

This is a known fact, can we stop pretending its "stuff that matters?"

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (1, Insightful)

spun (1352) | about 4 years ago | (#31863694)

More importantly, can we stop pretending that this sort of censorship is what 'freedom of speech' protects against? If you honestly think that everyone should be required to publish the opinions of anyone who asks, tell me your address so I can come and paper over your house with my crazy rants, on your dime.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (3, Informative)

ink (4325) | about 4 years ago | (#31863802)

Where did you read "freedom of speech" in TFA? I don't recall typing that....

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (0, Offtopic)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 4 years ago | (#31863826)

Then your claims of "censorship" are even more absurd. Is it "censhorship" if the SFGate refuses to publish a cartoon that I might draw up?

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (0, Flamebait)

ink (4325) | about 4 years ago | (#31863870)

Have you used a dictionary recently?

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (2, Insightful)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 4 years ago | (#31863916)

Yes. Do you have an actual point? If you are going to claim censorship with this then any refusal by any newspaper, book publisher, music label to publish someone's work would have to be censorship. Such an idea is patently absurd.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (1)

spun (1352) | about 4 years ago | (#31863922)

Have you addressed his argument?

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (2, Insightful)

ink (4325) | about 4 years ago | (#31863976)

Why argue? Just use a dictionary:

To censor [reference.com]

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (0, Troll)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 4 years ago | (#31864042)

Yeah exactly. Why actually address arguments when you can make a faulty argumentum ad dictionary?

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (3, Interesting)

spun (1352) | about 4 years ago | (#31864078)

That does not address the argument that was presented to you: if this is a case of censorship, then every single case where someone refuses to publish someone else's work is also censorship.

Answer the question: is it censorship whenever someone refuses to publish someone else's work? Give a yes or no answer, please, don't hem and haw, just address the argument that was presented to you.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (4, Insightful)

ink (4325) | about 4 years ago | (#31864152)

That does not address the argument that was presented to you: if this is a case of censorship, then every single case where someone refuses to publish someone else's work is also censorship.

It certainly does answer the question -- you just don't like the answer.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (2, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 4 years ago | (#31864014)

Have you used a dictionary recently?

The other poster is right. You're confused.
A shop declining to stock an item is not censorship.
A publisher declining to publish a work is not censorship.
A government body stopping speach or a work from being shared is censorship. But that's not what we have here.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 4 years ago | (#31863974)

Then your claims of "censorship" are even more absurd. Is it "censhorship" if the SFGate refuses to publish a cartoon that I might draw up?

If they are part of a government mandated oligopoly on newspapers than yes it is censorship.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 4 years ago | (#31864024)

Fine. Is it censorship if EA choose not to publish my game? Is it censorship if a Warner Music refuses to publish my music? Is it censorship if the Penguin Group refuses to publish my book? It would be ridiculous to claim so just as it's ridiculous to claim that this is censorship.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (4, Informative)

MrHanky (141717) | about 4 years ago | (#31864120)

It is censorship. Nowhere in the definition of that word is there anything about an obligation to publish something. You're just making up an arbitrary definition to support Apple. Wikipedia:

Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.

The media organisation Apple's action fits the definition like a glove.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31863884)

The only difference is that Apple is a private corporation and not a government (somewhat ironic for Libertarians, one would suppose).

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | about 4 years ago | (#31864034)

The only difference is that Apple is a private corporation and not a government (somewhat ironic for Libertarians, one would suppose).

A corporation does not have the power to forbid you to express yourself. They only have the same power any of us have: the power to forbid you to express yourself on our property. A government can compel censorship with force. That's a HUGE difference.

That being said, does Apple deserve to be made fun of for this? Hell yes. But let's not overblow our case and invite ridicule. Pretending Apple's actions are the same as those of a repressive state is just silly.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (5, Insightful)

xbeefsupreme (1690182) | about 4 years ago | (#31863766)

It really does matter: saying that apple can reject any app they want may not mean much to the general public, but a specific example like this really puts it into perspective and gets potential iphone buyers/developers thinking "If they block an app in this circumstance, then apple can block apps for any circumstance".

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (0, Troll)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 4 years ago | (#31863780)

"If they block an app in this circumstance, then apple can block apps for any circumstance".

Duh? Is this really news to anyone?

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 4 years ago | (#31863838)

Yes, it will be.

This is the kind of thing, as xbeefsupreme points out, that will rise to the level that it garners attention beyond the realm of geekdom.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (0, Troll)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 4 years ago | (#31863858)

This is the kind of thing, as xbeefsupreme points out, that will rise to the level that it garners attention beyond the realm of geekdom.

I'd bet 1000 bucks against anyone that it won't. Especially since all the outrage is from people who aren't even iPhone users anyway.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (2, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 4 years ago | (#31863972)

There isn't anyone upset with the app store inconsistency and stupidity that owns an iPhone? Really?

And I'm not sure what you are betting on. That this will get widespread attention or that it will be news to anyone. You stated in the first post that everyone already knows about the problems with app store approval, so I'm guessing you believe that it already gained widespread attention.

So I'm guessing that you are betting 1 grand that there wont be a single person surprised by Apple's decision in this instance. If that's the case I may want to take you up on it.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (0, Troll)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 4 years ago | (#31864076)

There isn't anyone upset with the app store inconsistency and stupidity that owns an iPhone? Really?

Didn't say so. I'm sure there are but they seem to be a small minority.

And I'm not sure what you are betting on.

I'm betting that probably 99% of iPhone users will never hear about this and even they did they would give a resigned yawn and not care.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 4 years ago | (#31864140)

We could never verify either way on those conditions. I could really use a grand.

I see a lot of iphone users and developers going on about it incessantly - techcrunch would be a good place to get a taste. Apple's policies and their enforcement of them are absurd to the point of being comical.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 4 years ago | (#31864064)

This is the kind of thing, as xbeefsupreme points out, that will rise to the level that it garners attention beyond the realm of geekdom

I'd bet 1000 bucks against anyone that it won't. Especially since all the outrage is from people who aren't even iPhone users anyway.

I'm an iPhone owner, but things like this have been souring me to Apple a lot lately. This story will make the rounds in writer's circles, and filter into the view of other artists who have iPhones. Would their free iPhone art gallery idea be banned? Better choose Android. Would a news article mocking Apple be banned? Better choose Kindle to publish instead (despite Amazon's record, it's not the story of the moment).

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (5, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 4 years ago | (#31863958)

Indeed it does put it in perspective. Apple is run by a bunch of cowardly, vile morons.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (0, Troll)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 4 years ago | (#31864084)

It really does matter: saying that apple can reject any app they want may not mean much to the general public, but a specific example like this really puts it into perspective and gets potential iphone buyers/developers thinking "If they block an app in this circumstance, then apple can block apps for any circumstance".

No store or a publisher will sell every item that someone requests them to sell. The very idea that they should is ludicrous. Where's the venom because Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft won't publish every console game that someone proposes to them?

Some people's Apple hatred is leading them to not think very clearly.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 4 years ago | (#31864146)

Where's the venom because Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft won't publish every console game that someone proposes to them?

I've seen each of those companies criticized for that exact reason on many occasions over many years. Why do you argue that Apple should be exempt from such criticism?

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (4, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 4 years ago | (#31863834)

Yes, Apple has a locked down system that rejects apps for arbitrary reasons.

This is a known fact, can we stop pretending its "stuff that matters?"

We're trying to find the pattern in the reasoning, if you don't mind.

I think they show it to a judgmental old lady and reject what she objects to. The reason for long approval times? Naps.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (5, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | about 4 years ago | (#31863928)

Yes, Apple has a locked down system that rejects apps for arbitrary reasons.
This is a known fact, can we stop pretending its "stuff that matters?"

And accept defeat? I'll keep pointing it out to people until Apple changes the system or kills it.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 4 years ago | (#31863982)

Maybe it's just me, but I thought they blocked apps more for economic reasons, like blocking competitors and saving bandwidth. That's bad enough. But blocking political expression is even worse, and the tie to Apple's bottom line seems very tenuous indeed. I can see a cellphone provider blocking me from tethering to my laptop and saturating their network uploading DVD rips, but I cannot see them interrupting a phone call because it got too political. Google should make a 1984-style Android commercial for this.

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (5, Insightful)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | about 4 years ago | (#31863990)

We need to keep bringing up this stupid behaviour. We need to talk about it, think about it, and most importantly share this idiotic stories with those we know who don't read Slashdot.

Why? Because this isn't okay. Like copyright extensions to infinity and like DMCA issues, Joe Average simply doesn't know what bad stuff is going on. The only way to cause change is by votes. Those votes might be at a ballot box, or at a cash register.

You and I know what's going on. Each of these stories is a new bit of ammunition to us. Or would you rather we just accept corruption, bias, and philosophically repugnant behaviour so we don't need to hear about it anymore?

Re:News Flash: Apple limits app store! (3, Insightful)

windex82 (696915) | about 4 years ago | (#31864092)

Maybe because it does matter to a big part of this sites readership. Many people who read this site are developers, many write iPhone apps. Knowing that if they make something too politically charged will cause it to be rejected wasting the developers time.

Do you see why it might count as stuff that matters now?

It's not censorship (2, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | about 4 years ago | (#31863662)

It's refusing to publish based on arbitrary criteria. But the same goes for all publishers. He's unlikely to be published in a cat magazine either because his work isn't about cats. That's not censorship either.

The App store doesn't do satire. That's all.

Re:It's not censorship (2, Informative)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 4 years ago | (#31863962)

What about Apple demanding from Bild that they remove content from their (not part of their app, but accessible through their app) PDF edition?
What's next? Apple demanding web site content to be edited to its liking? After all, you can browse the web with the iPhone.

George Orwell must be turning in his grave (3, Interesting)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about 4 years ago | (#31863670)

I honestly cannot understand how apple's monopolistic behavior hasn't attracted the same attention that Microsoft's did

Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31863698)

Because Apple has neither a monopoly on desktop computers nor on smart phones? And thus can not be guilty of "monopolistic" behavior?

Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31863840)

Ipod has 72% of the MP3 player market share.
Iphone has 18% of the smart phone market share.

IE market share is 50-60%, trending down, and yet MS is required by the EU to install the Browser ballot. MS attained its monopoly by installing IE on Windows and restricting OEMs from installing Navigator or other browers - or "rewarding" them with incentives to not put other browsers on.

Apple is taking a page from MS' book on how to obtain a monopoly.

Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 4 years ago | (#31863876)

IE market share is 50-60%, trending down, and yet MS is required by the EU to install the Browser ballot. MS attained its monopoly by installing IE on Windows and restricting OEMs from installing Navigator or other browers - or "rewarding" them with incentives to not put other browsers on.

The reason why MS is required such thing is not due to the market share of IE, but due to the market share of Windows. Way to fail, numbnuts.

Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 4 years ago | (#31863914)

Windows market share is about 90%. They're using this dominance to increase the browser's market share. The market share of the browser is irrelevant.

Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (2, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 4 years ago | (#31864020)

Ipod has 72% of the MP3 player market share.

I don't have an iPod, but from what I've read I think you can put arbitrary MP3s on it, not just stuff from the iTunes shop. Therefore the problem doesn't exist there.

Iphone has 18% of the smart phone market share.

That's not even nearly a monopoly. It's less than 1/5 of the market.

Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 4 years ago | (#31863710)

They're not a monopoly?

As cool as an 'app' is for this, what the hell happened to a bookmark? http://example.com/latest_cartoon.jpg [example.com]. There now if people want to see the latest, they can click the book mark and tada. Your cartoon.

Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (2, Funny)

Servaas (1050156) | about 4 years ago | (#31863764)

You tricked me tricksie hobbit! There was no cartoon there.

Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (2, Informative)

Itninja (937614) | about 4 years ago | (#31863754)

Because nothing that MS has made in the last decade gave the fanboi's hard-ons like Mac products. Go back in time 20 years and IBM was in the role of MS and MS was in the role currently held by Apple. Apple is well on their way to being the Borg.....

Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (3, Insightful)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 4 years ago | (#31863812)

Except unlike IBM or MS, Apple has never held a monopoly on anything. Its funny how people on Slashdot will both be quick to point out how the iPhone's market share is smaller than other smartphones yet at the same time will try to also claim that Apple is a monopoly. You can't have it both ways.

Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31863850)

You can't have it both ways.

What about bi-sexual individuals?

Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (4, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | about 4 years ago | (#31863966)

Apple displays monopolistic, i.e. anti-competitive, behaviour. Who cares whether they're a monopoly? unless your aim is to punish success (i.e. Microsoft) out of spite rather than to stop activity which is damaging to the marketplace.

Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (1)

Itninja (937614) | about 4 years ago | (#31864016)

A recent study said that Apple has 91% of the $1000+ computer market. Among the demographic that equates price tag to quality, that could be getting close to a monopoly. Microsoft has 92.2% of the non-server OS market. Among the demographic that equates familiarity with quality, that could be getting close to a monopoly.

Re:George Orwell must be turning in his grave (5, Insightful)

bennomatic (691188) | about 4 years ago | (#31863814)

The difference between Apple and Microsoft in these actions is like the difference between an old man shouting to get off their lawn and a protection racket.

Unless you choose to play on the old man's lawn, he doesn't affect you. He's a jerk, but he's avoidable, much like Apple is.

Microsoft is more like the protection racket; either strong vigilante action (for which Linux is emblematic) or law enforcement are the only way to stand up to those guys.

Solution (5, Interesting)

spleen_blender (949762) | about 4 years ago | (#31863678)

Make an android app instead.

Re:Solution (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31864008)

Exactly, smart people move on, others quibble about things they really don't full grasp.

Boo censorship (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 4 years ago | (#31863686)

But you know Apple is just trying to not get sued.

I blame that crazy old man that used to sue video games every time some young guy shot somebody. He proved you could harass companies over things that are not their fault for years. And that Jackson girl for showing her evil nipple of trauma, empowering prudes to new heights of shrill objections.

Re:Boo censorship (2, Insightful)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 4 years ago | (#31863738)

But this isn't censorship because Apple is not obligated to publish his app anymore than the SFGate is not obligated to publish every cartoonist in existence in their paper.

Re:Boo censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31863832)

Except that they don't allow *the user* to install anything outside of the appstore. I don't care whether they don't want to publish some third party app, I care that I am not allowed to use a device I bought and own.

Re:Boo censorship (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 4 years ago | (#31863890)

That's great. What does that have to do with the topic at hand which is someone claiming that Apple is guilty of "censorship"?

Re:Boo censorship (2, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 4 years ago | (#31863956)

But this isn't censorship because Apple is not obligated to publish his app

It is censorship, it's just ordinary censorship. Like how you can't say in fuck in school. Why the fuck not? It doesn't hurt anybody: Fuck fuckety fuck fuckfuck.
"Eric!" ...

Sorry, I launched in a south park quote there, anyway, my point was that as I am now voluntarily censoring myself from quoting the rest of that Cartman diatribe, there are many common forms of censorship that happen in life, and Apple censoring stuff that might get them sued is unfortunate but tolerable.

Control freak. (2, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#31863810)

But we're not talking about violence or a nipple or booby: we're talking about cartoons that would appear in your Sunday paper. Satire of public figures is nothing that the anti violence or anti-sex crowd would have a problem with - just which community standard is against satire and making fun of public figures?

How would they get sued? If someone were to sue them then they'd have to sue the papers and everywhere else this man's cartoons appear. That would be a daunting task.

I just see Apple being a bit too control freaky here.

Re:Control freak. (5, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 4 years ago | (#31864068)

just which community standard is against satire and making fun of public figures?

Muslims, Jews and Catholics.

If you draw a picture of baby Mohamed sucking the Pope's penis while a Hasidic jew films the scene with cash sticking out of his pocket and the camera connected to the internet, you will get sued AND you will explode.

In fact that's such a horrible image, I think my karma might take a hit just by pointing out that people would not react well to something like that.

Re:Boo censorship (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | about 4 years ago | (#31863822)

But you know Apple is just trying to not get sued.

Exactly, if I were in charge of curating items to publish, I would avoid those which could be considered libelous or slanderous. Doubly so if these applications could be released in multiple nations which have unique sets of laws regarding defamation. And it's a no brainer, since I would be under no compulsion to approve it, legally or otherwise.

Re:Boo censorship (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | about 4 years ago | (#31863960)

If you're talking about Jack Thompson he got disbarred for stuff like that. He even harassed judges routinely. Pretty much everyone should know he's a nutcase now. We just need to inform people about Hillary.

Absolutely! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31863692)

I absolutely agree, and when censorship starts happening of his work, we should be mad as hell.

Oh, I'm sorry, you mean you thought that Apple not permitting things that violate a license agreement onto things that are restricted in terms of what they can load by Apple is a form of censorship. Well no, no more so than the SFGate site not permitting other random cartoonists onto their site is censorship.

Censorship is performed by the government or an agent thereof, not by individual corporations. Any cartoonist, pulitzer prize or no, has a right to publish what they want - but they DO NOT have a right to force a publisher or anyone else to carry their content. Nothing is stopping him from providing the app for jailbroken phones.

So if you're mad Apple is doing this - cool, it is definitely bullcrap, but don't start screaming about censorship without knowing what you're talking about.

Re:Absolutely! (0)

bennomatic (691188) | about 4 years ago | (#31863854)

Right; freedom of the press goes both ways. If publishes--what Apple would effectively become if they allowed the app in their store--had to accept all content, it would not only destroy the signal-to-noise ratio, but it would also make all media vulnerable to malicious manipulation. Or more so, as it were.

Had similar experience (5, Interesting)

Stele (9443) | about 4 years ago | (#31863702)

I wrote an app called Sort [apple.com], which is a simple sorting "game" with various topics (sort the letters of various alphabets, sort states alphabetically, sort President years, etc).

We had one topic called "Madoff Victims" where you were to sort the 10 highest losers of money due to Bernie Madoff's schemes, in order of loss.

I don't remember the exact wording, but Apple rejected our app because they didn't like us implying bad things about him, even though exploits are well known. We removed that topic and the app was accepted.

Re:Had similar experience (0, Troll)

bennomatic (691188) | about 4 years ago | (#31863880)

Maybe he hadn't been convicted yet. That's probably what they're worried about. Since they're curating the content of their app store, they could be held liable for libel in published apps.

Re:Had similar experience (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31863944)

Whaa wha whaa. Stop making excuses for fucking Apple! They are worse than IBM, worse than Microsoft, yet you zealots refuse to see what's in front of you. Do you masturbate over your shiny toys, or is it only S. Jobs photos?

Re:Had similar experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31864098)

liable for libel.

Say that one ten times fast!

Re:Had similar experience (2, Interesting)

wsanders (114993) | about 4 years ago | (#31864114)

And I can still load iPhone apps that consist of nothing more than audio clips of farts.

Go figure.

Not unusual (2, Informative)

AmericanGladiator (848223) | about 4 years ago | (#31863706)

Just Wal-Mart deciding it isn't going to carry porn in its DVD collection. Nobody's freedom of speech is being violated here.

People denigrate Mentifex also undeservingly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31863712)

Even though Mentifex has solved AI [google.com], people say the nastiest things about him. The Internet and the Apple App store are simply not fair.

Oh well... (1)

IANAAC (692242) | about 4 years ago | (#31863716)

That's all.

No, wait. Just don't use the f'ing thing. Get something that's not so restrictive.

Yeah, the newstoon app was written specifically for the iPhone, but I bet s/he or they will be looking at something a bit more open going forward.

Re:Oh well... (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 4 years ago | (#31863882)

the newstoon app was written specifically for the iPhone, but

Maybe the name reminded them of the Newton, and the memory was too painful to bear, so they rejected it out of misplaced grief?

Is there... (2, Interesting)

Gaian-Orlanthii (1032980) | about 4 years ago | (#31863728)

...some kind of tipping point for corporate bullshit? A point when the most zealous of fanboys (or fangirls) realises that their beloved corporate overlords are just too evil, stupid or evil and stupid to be allowed anyone's money anymore? I live in hope.

This is why... (3, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | about 4 years ago | (#31863772)

... I don't own a Mac, iPhone, iPod, or any other iStuff. Apple does produce some really great technology. But I just can't deal with the whole Apple technology ecosystem. The company, its developers, and its users buy into a really obnoxious kind of groupthink, typified by those weird lovefests where the audience goes orgasmic every time Steve demonstrates something. Can you imagine any other place where they'd even consider a rule against "ridiculing public figures"? Gives a certain irony to that stupid commercial [youtube.com].

Re:This is why... (2, Funny)

Amouth (879122) | about 4 years ago | (#31864036)

the worst part about that commercial is there are far too many people who have zero idea what it was trying to say.. they would just wonder why the hooters girl was carrying a sledge hammer

Re:This is why... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31864122)

How the fuck is this "insightful"?

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31863836)

In other news, brick-and-mortar stores everywhere refuse to carry my RandomPlasticCrap 2.0 - clearly this is censorship!

Dollars to Donuts... (3, Informative)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | about 4 years ago | (#31863886)

...that this decision gets reversed before very long. Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened with Apple.

*sigh* (4, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 4 years ago | (#31863936)

"Whether or not you agree with Fiore's political sentiments, I believe we can all agree that the censorship of his work should be denigrated."

The righteous never think that what they say is propaganda.

Your belief is incorrect. (1, Troll)

mea37 (1201159) | about 4 years ago | (#31864000)

"Whether or not you agree with Fiore's political sentiments, I believe we can all agree that the censorship of his work should be denigrated"

Well, don't feel bad; lots of people believe things that are untrue.

I have no problem with Apple deciding what their product does. What a lot of people can't seem to get their brains around is: the iPod (and iPhone, and now iPad) is not a general-purpose computer.

Also, I do not regard this as censorship and wish people would quit abusing that term to the point that it has no meaning.

Oblig. (3, Funny)

masmullin (1479239) | about 4 years ago | (#31864006)

Agent Smith: But, as you well know, appearances [like a nice UI] can be deceiving, which brings me back to the reason why we're here [on the iPhone]. We're not here because we're free. We're here because we are not free.

Funny how far Apple has come (3, Interesting)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 4 years ago | (#31864048)

... from their "1984 ad" that announced the Macintosh.

They've gone from releasing the system advertised as "challenging Big Brother" to becoming very much like Big Brother's Thought Police...

Apple is a corporate feudal state.... (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 4 years ago | (#31864052)

And Baron Jobs is not amused. Don't you serfs know better than to ridicule your betters? Now go, and till the internet to make me more profit lest I ship your puny job to India! Away! Away Peasant!

Redundant (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 years ago | (#31864080)

Apple fanboys will do what Apple says, regardless of what anyone thinks. And those of us who aren't in Apple's lap really aren't affect by this. So long story short - who cares? Apple is performing the sacred duty of separating fools from their money.

Imagine That (1)

Kenoli (934612) | about 4 years ago | (#31864108)

You don't seem to agree with Apple's policy of doing whatever is best for Apple.

Perhaps you should have mentioned this when they first disclosed the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, rather than later on when they were enforcing it.

Oh, you did? And nobody cared then, either?

Meta-political correctness (1)

hessian (467078) | about 4 years ago | (#31864116)

Ban all that offends.

Ban all that might hurt.

Restrain the stupid from doing things that might hurt themselves, and also restrain the smart from doing anything similar.

Soon, we will be perfectly safe because our activities will be as standardized as production in factories.

How boring. It's what I don't like about GUIs: they are so eager to "hide complexity" that they also tie your hands when you need to execute any complex task outside what 90% of the users are doing 90% of the time.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...