×

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 Bans Android Magazine App From App Store

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the every-day-a-little-more-evil dept.

Censorship 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

574 comments

Apple getting desperate? (5, Insightful)

yog (19073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376076)

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? (5, Insightful)

nametaken (610866) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376118)

I don't think Apple remembers what desperation feels like. ;)

Re:Apple getting desperate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376166)

There is now power that has not been abused.

Apple should not have been allowed to control the sole path by which applications are installed on the iPhone.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (1)

MrLint (519792) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376338)

Ya know, from the laymans POV, this is starting to sound like an illegal monopoly

Re:Apple getting desperate? (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376408)

Wouldn't a monopoly have... I dunno... a large market share?

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:Apple getting desperate? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376518)

Forgive him... he is a practicing journalism. It is much more sensational to use "illegal monopoly" than "silly action".

Re:Apple getting desperate? (1, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376602)

Wouldn't a monopoly have... I dunno... a large market share?

100% big enough for you?

They are the sole marketplace for i-apps. You aren't allowed to create or use a different app store. And you need their approval to buy and sell your product in this one. If there were a few app stores consumers could use, nobody would blink at what apple decided to host in its store.

The ONLY reason apple's app bannings are news is because they assert 100% control over what 3rd party software consumers are allowed to purchase and put onto their own phones.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (2, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376236)

You're right, I guess they are still selling a whole lot of iPhones, so it can't be damaging their credibility that much, but it's been enough to put me off buying one. For a company known for their good marketing this does seem like somewhat strange behaviour - it's pissing off some potential buyers and I honestly can't believe that it's doing that much good for Apple. I see their desire to exert some control (although I disagree with it), but they seem to be going about it in a rather unpleasant manner.

Then again, Android is only faring a little better - not only is it fragmented, it's also fairly locked down thanks to the asshats selling the devices. I think now that it's gained some traction, it's time for Google to put their foot down a little - exert control not in the manner that Apple does, but more the manner that the GPL does. License the new versions in such a manner that certain user rights must be respected.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (2, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376406)

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? (0, Troll)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376132)

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**

Re:Apple getting desperate? (3, Insightful)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376190)

Well, Apple hates Microsoft, they've been mocking windows forever... yet Microsoft sells software for Mac.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (5, Insightful)

stg (43177) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376214)

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? (4, Insightful)

EyelessFade (618151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376290)

Or Microsoft denying itunes or safari on Windows

Re:Apple getting desperate? (5, Insightful)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376462)

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:Apple getting desperate? (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376544)

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.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376322)

What I think is you're not very bright, frankly. Let me know the next time you fly Alaskan and find they hand out complimentary fliers for SouthWest, dumbass.

It's Clippy the friendly automated thought police! (5, Funny)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376390)

Hi, it looks like you're trying to access material that's specifically banned by the corporate overlords.
Would you like help with:
  • Purging your thoughts of infidelity against your loving masters
  • Praising the environment you're allowed to work in
  • Protecting yourself against the black death, a common affliction caused by our competitors ads

Please continue working while a black-bagger is dispatched to your cubical.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376422)

FWIW, I often see ads for Bing on gmail.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376532)

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:Apple getting desperate? (0, Troll)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376446)

The main thing I think about this is "Why would an iPhone user waste their time on this app?"

Or how about if they banned iPads entirely? (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376476)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376242)

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**

More like how we don't see Sony installing filters on their TVs that prevent ads for LG TVs from showing up. Or how we don't see Comcast blocking any online content talking about DirecTV (yet). Or how we don't see the Android Market blocking apps talking about iPhones.

And come to think of it, I've been in McDonald'ses with news channels on their TVs where they DO advertise BK, and I didn't see a manager rushing up to block it from our eyes...

Re:Apple getting desperate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376320)

On the other hand, I doubt we'll be seeing very many DirecTV adverts on NBC anymore.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376244)

McDonald's restaurants are owned by McDonald's (or a franchisee). Who owns my iPhone?* That is the heart of the question.

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? (4, Insightful)

captainproton1971 (1838798) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376600)

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:Apple getting desperate? (2, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376264)

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:Apple getting desperate? (2, Insightful)

wygit (696674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376266)

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:Apple getting desperate? (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376280)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376362)

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.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (4, Informative)

wygit (696674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376410)

They are refusing to publish a magazine in what they're trying to promote as a publishing platform.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376420)

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**

But the LA times and CNN will report on anything newsworthy going on over at the NY Post or on Fox News, and vice versa.

Whether or not the "Android Magazine", let alone any magazine, is an ad or a news source is in the eye of the beholder, not the almighty jobs.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (1)

InfiniteWisdom (530090) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376440)

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:Apple getting desperate? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376594)

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.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376142)

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 stages by making it sound like the magazine was about actual robotic-human-cybernetic Androids.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376352)

Its a "We don't want our competitors to be advertising their stuff on our devices."

Good call. I can't wait until the android website is blocked by Safari. And maybe the microsoft website too. In fact, why does the ipad need an open browser at all, it can just go to a walled apple garden of approved sites...

Someone in marketing decided to ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376434)

... 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 publicity, which of course is a perfectly fair thing for them to do.

Long standing policy not desperation? (2, Informative)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376314)

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:Apple getting desperate? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376346)

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:Apple getting desperate? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376350)

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.

That's nothing! Did you know that you can't even run any of the apps on your Android? Talk about restrictions!

Re:Apple getting desperate? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376372)

Android is the one real competitor to Apple's iPhone product, so apple is taking on this anticompetitive behavior, by removing information about competitors from the market.

This would be like Google censoring search keywords like Bing and Yahoo.

IMNSHO, the FTC should take severe punitive action against Apple for this.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376496)

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 of themselves to allow an app relating to Android in their store. Go sit somewhere else, you can't sit here.

Re:Apple getting desperate? (1)

PORNorART (1949708) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376582)

This seems like an act of desperation. Is Apple that insecure that it can't allow a stupid app like this onto its platform?

On the one hand I don't think it's a big deal. I don't walk into Lowe's and expect to see find Home Depot repair books.

On the other hand.... For most of Apple's existence they haven't been leader of the pack. Then the iPod comes along and all of a sudden they're finally top dog for one market segment. The comes the iPhone.

AAPL has trippled in price (or somewhere around there) since the iPod came out.

Google could be a real threat and Apple could go back to becoming "that company that has similar products but nobody really uses them except freaky design people". They fought hard to get where they are and they're probably worried about going back. It's hard to go back to coach after you've spent so much time in first class.

Remember, kids, (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376138)

"Free Market" types will incessantly remind you that censorship only happens with governments. This isn't "censorship", just "good business."

Re:Remember, kids, (1, Flamebait)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376356)

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...

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 framework to achieve similar effects may be prohibitively high, but that's life. Not everybody can own a massive content distribution mechanism.

Re:Remember, kids, (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376608)

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" need to be publicly humiliated for such a blatantly anti-competitive move considering that the App Store isn't by ANY stretch *just* about Apple products; it's apparently about as much as they can get it to be about, except for their competition. The notion of "openness" is hereby worthless when advocated by Apple.

Re:Remember, kids, (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376490)

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 deal with a competitor's product, so why let a competitor use your resources, even if it is indirectly?

Someone that's interested in Android to the point of subscribing to the magazine probably has an Android device. Also, Apple has no restrictions on PDF files or web sites, so anyone can produce content compatible with iOS without approval from Apple.

Do what I say. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376140)

Not what you want, or what you think is reasonable. I only sold you a license to that hardware. Oh... wait... *runs off to find a fresh mock turtle-neck and call a lawyer*

Why does this matter? (-1, Flamebait)

VoxMagis (1036530) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376152)

I'm sorry - but do we now insist that WalMart have Best Buy employees in their store? Maybe we should make Borders put up an Amazon order kiosk?

I don't really agree with many of Apples AppStore policies, but geez, why are they supposed to be required to promote the competition?

Re:Why does this matter? (5, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376254)

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? (4, Funny)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376504)

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:Why does this matter? (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376564)

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.

You can buy your stuff from other places (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376256)

You can buy your stuff from other places, but you aren't allowed to buy your iPhone magazine app from anyone else.

They aren't being asked to promote the competition. Does WalMart promote the competition when their store sells Hershey bars? Or when an issue of "Home Economics" has stuff about superstores ranked.

No, they're being asked not to block an application that is a magazine. Nothing against acceptable policy there, nothing inflammatory or illegal or likely to offend minors. WalMart would sell the dead-tree version. Apple should sell this.

It's not like Apple won't get their cut, is it.

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

pdbogen (596723) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376260)

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 Borders.

And also- yeah. Fair competition is generally accepted to be good for the market and good for consumers. In this instance, "fair" meaning that products compete on their own merits (and flaws), and not on how well one company can suppress information about a competitor.

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376596)

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:Why does this matter? (1)

wygit (696674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376318)

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:Why does this matter? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376344)

Actually, it would be more like stocking the BestBuy catalog in the magazine section at Wal-Mart. But really, to fully understand this situation, someone will have to develop a Car Analogy.

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:Why does this matter? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376514)

I'm sorry - but do we now insist that WalMart have Best Buy employees in their store? Maybe we should make Borders put up an Amazon order kiosk?

No, well, this equivalent to Amazon refusing to sell books about Barnes and Nobles, like this one [amazon.com].

If someone writes a book about Barnes and Noble; you can be sure Amazon will carry it, or if they don't, the reason they won't is not because it's a book about the competition.

This is harsh by Apple, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376158)

...really, an APPLICATION to browse a magazine, instead of just making the magazine html-based to be read with a browser by anyone, anywhere? What the fuck? Talk about a completely boneheaded move - it really deserves a kick in the nuts.

Open Source FTW (5, Insightful)

rubypossum (693765) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376212)

This level of anti-competitive and just... asshole behavior has probably never been seen before, not even with Microsoft. How can Apple ever hope to become a serious part of community infrastructure when they display this level of disrespect for their customers? Is the fear that some bumbling iPhone user might accidentally install the Android magazine app and have a sudden flash of inspiration that iPhone is inferior? Why do we, as customers, take this? Not even Microsoft had the greedy foolishness to prohibit its competitor's software from running on their platform. Why don't we demand control of the devices that we have purchased? Lets hope that MeeGo can deliver a genuinely open phone experience. Ubuntu and Linux Mint both show how an app store could be done.

Re:Open Source FTW (5, Insightful)

pr100 (653298) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376294)

Why do we, as customers, take this?

Who's "we"? I don't have any apple products...

Re:Open Source FTW (1)

eparker05 (1738842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376400)

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.

Re:Open Source FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376438)

Microsoft used to do this. They cheated "linux" search results to raise FUD reports to the top, rather than the obvious high volume highly linked sites.

They also used to go out of their way to ensure important business applications performed abysmally or failed altogether on other DOS variants.

Ever tried hooking up a Zune to an OS X, Linux or BSD system? Every bit as bad as Apple and ipod and forcing everyone through itunes.

Apple doesn't care about your community (4, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376450)

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:Open Source FTW (1)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376520)

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:Open Source FTW (1)

somaTh (1154199) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376550)

Where did you get the idea that Apple wants to be a part of the community? I thought the bulk of their selling point was that everything "just works." Sometimes, that means saying "suck it" to Flash. Sometimes that means building a walled garden and ignoring the people who just want to replace a battery. In this particular instance, I don't have a problem with removing an item from THEIR store that is just there to serve their COMPETITOR. From here, it sounds like whining that a Chevy dealership removed all the Ford pamphlets that someone left on the front desk (best car analogy I had). I'm not an Apple fanboy by any stretch of the imagination, but I honestly don't get why people think this is wrong.

Success (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376226)

You know you've achieved success in the market place when your major competitor lashes out at you in anger. Nice going Google, keep up the good work :)

Re:Success (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376488)

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.

Re:Success (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376588)

If you actually read [macworld.com] or listened to the earnings call it would be hard to describe what Jobs did as "lashing out". Really the poster just repeated another news story that described it as "lashing" out. In reality, Jobs stated his opinion on Android and Google. He has some points in there and some of which people would disagree with, but he didn't raise his voice or throw a chair or anything like that.

While were at it? (-1, Troll)

grapeape (137008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376246)

Why doesn't Amazon allow Borders banner ads, why is there no Engadget section on Slashdot, and why cant I subscribe to Sony's Qore magazine on Xbox Live? Most companies dont care to cater to their competition, its not fear its logic.

Re:While were at it? (1)

kyz (225372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376386)

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:While were at it? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376428)

You dipshit cocksucker. Your analogy is fucking terrible. This is more like Microsoft refusing to allow competitors programs run on windows. Dickhead.

Re:While were at it? (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376540)

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.

Later on... (4, Insightful)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376284)

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... (5, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376566)

It's the behaviour of a small, petty person.

Small petty people who gain power tend to become bullies.

This describes Apple perfectly.

The Time of The iPhone Has Come And Gone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376288)

I see plenty of Direct TV add on Comcast...

Counter-productive move, I'd say. (2, Informative)

rogerdugans (902614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376316)

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.

Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376360)

Well as a mobile developer who touches all platforms, yet owns an iPad and enjoys it as a reading device, this is just another bullet point in the long list of why Apple will eventually make themselves irrelevant again.

Why not publish this shit as an HTML5 web app, though? For something of this sort, one need not enter the walled garden at all. Hell, the app is no doubt just a wrapper around a browser pointed at a particular url.

Where's the EU? (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376364)

Microsoft gets sued for simply including it's own browser in it's OS, meanwhile Apple literally trys to prevent its users from even know a competing product exists by limiting their access to actual journalism. Where's the EU now? Where are the antitrust lawsuits? Imagine if Microsoft wouldn't allow you to go to Apples website?

Re:Where's the EU? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376522)

Microsoft gets sued for simply including it's own browser in it's OS

No, Microsoft got sued for abusing their monopoly position to put IE in a favorable position on Windows . That kind of anti-free-market product bundling is illegal in the EU, and Microsoft broke the law and got busted for that - and their "punishment" was to give other browsers a fair chance too. (It is illegal in the US too, and there they broke the law too - but they did not get busted.)

Unverified quote (1)

greghodg (1453715) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376376)

Everyone just accepts the explanation from the guy whose app was rejected as fact? No one is even the slightest bit skeptical that the "'You know... your magazine...It's just about Android.... we can't have that in our App Store." quote is bogus?

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376388)

I think the reason that this is might aggravate people is that, for most intents and purposes, an iPhone is a personal computer, which should allow the user to decide what they want on it. Now, I agree with the argument that Apple doesn't have to advertise its competition (just like Best Buy doesn't carry Future Shop flyers). However, the difference is that there is only one 'storefront' for the iPod (putting aside the jailbreak method). As there is only one (and can be only one currently), it seems presuming that Apple would block like that.

Either give us the choice to download what we want, or allow other 'stores' to do it.

No-brainer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376392)

Does this really need explanation? I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't carry PC ads on their website, either.

Non-story: Developer generating product buzz (4, Insightful)

Arkham (10779) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376396)

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:Non-story: Developer generating product buzz (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376484)

I heartily agree. Gee, let's make the Dallas Cowboys sell Philadelphia Eagles jerseys in their fan shop. C'mon Cowboys, not selling the competitors wares just smacks of desperation.

Must be an incredibly slow news day...

Grounds for anti-trust? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376404)

There has been some other instances of apple banning apps for android relations. I'm pretty sure that's grounds for an anti-trust inquire into apple....

Because... (1)

MoriT (1747802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376460)

A single-source quote-based article that gets someone free publicity is always accurate. (They don't even make it clear whether the ellipses in the quote are supposed to be pauses or were selective editing. It seems especially fishy in light of the other quote from the same fellow, buried at the bottom of the article cited by this article: "I suspect it is because we have a "babe" on the front page."

I'm not an Apple lover (Google Voice only took how long to get approved?), but giving this guy the publicity he's clearly craving without anyone appearing to have fact-checked his story seems poor form to me.

Google, lock out Apple from your search engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376486)

I would like to see Google, lash back, by not referring any traffic to any pro Apple site for one week as a show of strength. They fear Google so much it is funny. Then after they link back to Apple sites, change the algorithms so that any negative sites get preference over positive apple sites.

AT&T albertross (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376494)

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.

Waaaa!! Waaaaa!! I want my mommy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34376530)

This sort of thing is just totally absurd. I'm glad I live in a world where a private corporation can censor the content that is available on *my* property just because they don't like it or it competes with them. In other news, my SuperMegaUltra branded PC just refused to let me view a web site where I could learn about and buy a PC from another company. Some billionaire at SuperMegaUltra thinks it is wrong for me to know what's available and he has "The Power (TM) to control what I can look at.

This is what makes me appreciate FOSS. A thanks goes out to all of the developers who built the Debian system I am currently using.

iphone = macintosh (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34376610)

how many times will apple learn this lesson? If you try to control every thing and all the software you open the door and eventually the Developers will go to a platform they can actually develop on (Android).
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...