Beta
×

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!

Racy Danish Tabloid May Sue Apple For App Rejection

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the bikinis-verboten dept.

Censorship 319

the_arrow writes "In Denmark the tabloid newspaper Ekstra Bladet usually have scantily clad ladies on page 9. When making an iPad application, Apple of course rejected it because of that. However, Ekstra Bladet is not happy with that, and many sites report that Ekstra Bladet is thinking about taking Apple to European court for 'unfair censorship and anti-competitive behaviour.'"

cancel ×

319 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Porn. (5, Funny)

MokuMokuRyoushi (1701196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483118)

There's no app for that.

Re:Porn. (2)

PsyciatricHelp (951182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483290)

There are many Apps for that. You just have to jailbreak.

Re:Porn. (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483426)

No, you just have to open Safari, which comes with every iPad -- it's the perfect porn delivery system, and Apple provides it for free. In, fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you can't find porn using Safari, you're too stupid to reliably remember to draw your next breath.

As to Apple's unwillingness to put porn in the app store itself, that's simply distasteful -- Jobs imposing his limited, socially crippled idea of what an app store should be... on his (Apple's) app store. He's not preventing any content from reaching you -- any content you imagine can be put on a web site, and Safari will deliver it (and very well, too.) He's just pretending to be socially acceptable to the mentally challenged, that's all.

All Ekstra Bladet has to do to get those "racy" chicks to you is pop them on a web site; google will find them in about five minutes, and you can find them a second later. So in no way are you stymied, nor is Ekstra Bladet.

Re:Porn. (4, Insightful)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483504)

If everything is so peachy when you "just use the browser," then why have apps (or an app store) in the first place? Could it be that iPad apps provide services or user experiences that web pages (with or without HTML5 or Flash) don't?

You know, I'll be the first to say that Apple doesn't have to sell any apps in its store that it doesn't want to. If they're not interested in taking their cut from nudie pic apps (or nudie streaming video apps, or h-games, or what-have-you, the Next Big Thing in Porn), then that's their prerogative. But to say that there is only One True Retailer for apps, and that jailbreaking is against their Terms of Service, well, that's what stinks to high heaven.

Re:Porn. (4, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483554)

In all fairness though, I'd say there are too many mobile apps on many platforms that are really just a media redistribution app for a single media business, which is what this is. Having a native app that displays articles and images fetched from the internet seems a little contrived when there is a web browser built into the device. It's very different from games and other software that need local resources to a greater degree than can be used from a web page.

Re:Porn. (2)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483626)

If everything is so peachy when you "just use the browser," then why have apps (or an app store) in the first place? Could it be that iPad apps provide services or user experiences that web pages (with or without HTML5 or Flash) don't?

Maybe, but porn's not one of them.

Re:Porn. (3, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483682)


Could it be that iPad apps provide services or user experiences that web pages (with or without HTML5 or Flash) don't?

Such as what? Sound? Browser. Movies? Browser. Movies with sound? Browser. Board games? Browser. Stills? Browser. Live Chat (probably with someone's grandmother, but..)? Browser. Escorts? Browser. Live sex shows? Browser. Purchase and/or contemplation of Realdolls? Browser. Buying sex toys? Browser.

Also, WRT stills, the iPhoto app can load up your iPad with enormous amounts of locally stored "whatever", and that also comes with every iPad. So to speak. Ahem.

Seriously, what do you imagine you're being, uh, "deprived" of here?

Re:Porn. (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483808)

Its perfectly reasonable for a company to decide that they do not want to distribute porn, or profit from it. I would not want to be in that business either.

On the other hand, people should have the right to install this software if they want it.

The simple solution is to allow third party app stores. Ideally people could enter the details of whatever app store they liked, and then it would "just work". I heard that there is an OS that does that, and all the apps are free as well.

Re:Porn. (-1, Offtopic)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483810)

Oh, lookie... Moderators that disagree. Isn't that cute? I love me some abusive moderators. This is slashdot's strength, ladieez and gentlemen; hiding posts the mods disagree with. C'mon, mod me down some more. No, no, a little to the left. There you go. Ah!

Re:Porn. (3, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483966)

Their raciness is kinda... Well, there is a saying that the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Hope you are geting my drift here... In fact, I suspect that Apple's problem is probably not so much with the ladies on page 9, but the rather large collection of pages of "alternative services" advertised in the vicinity of page 9.

In any case, Jobs has no entitlement to enforce his puritanian beliefs on the European population. He is running a service, not a religious sect and this service is quickly approaching what in EU is considered "significan market power". That ends up with regulator attention. Getting it because of page 3, page 9, etc is plain silly.

Re:Porn. (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484082)

Curiously, this decision of Jobs basically means that the excluded services are more likely to function like the internet is supposed to (do we really need separate UIs for every webpage, separate app for every radiostation, separate app for every e-book and audiobook?) - perhaps inhibiting the rush towards something quite dysfunctional.

(though it might complicate a bit benefiting from the walled garden approach, certainly useful for porn)

not an app for that ? (1, Funny)

Mordie (1943326) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483120)

i thought their was an app for boobs?

Suing for what exactly? (1)

NanoGeek (1951202) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483138)

What exactly is the tabloid suing for? Apple's policies are very well known, and I cannot believe he didn't know what the outcome would be before he submitted his app. Sounds like someone just wants come money and free publicity.

Re:Suing for what exactly? (1)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483172)

I was under the impression that Apple's app approval requirements were not clear and well known, actually. That said, a tabloid with 'racy' pictures that don't even pretend to have artistic value doesn't sound like a good trial case.

Re:Suing for what exactly? (2)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483366)

How do you define "artistic value" ? As Andres Serrano has shown, one man's bodily fluids is another man's art. Some would argue that the human form is a work of art. Others are ashamed of it. So who is wrong, and who is right ?

Re:Suing for what exactly? (1)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483446)

If I were to try to define artistic value I would first probably look to see where the item in question is meant to be displayed/used. Context is vital to me. If you've got a magazine that is full of gossip and other questionable 'facts' that appeal to the lowest common denominator I would be hard pressed to buy that there was any artistic intent behind a page of half-naked women. Which is why I think that this guy suing Apple is kind of an idiot. You're not going to get a lot of people to believe that a trashy magazine has anything artistic about it.

Re:Suing for what exactly? (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483400)

The App Store approval guidelines have been on Apple's developer website for a while now. Here's a snapshot from the day they were first published.

http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/app-store-guidelines.pdf [weblogsinc.com]

Re:Suing for what exactly? (1)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483468)

Thank you. I was deriving my knowledge from the hissy fits I'd seen rejected developers throw.

Re:Suing for what exactly? (2)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483660)

Your definition of the word "The" seems to be faulty.

[An example of likely] App Store approval guidelines have been on Apple's developer website for a while now[, but are not guaranteed to be, or even often, accurate].
FTFY

Re:Suing for what exactly? (3, Informative)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483516)

>> a tabloid with 'racy' pictures that don't even pretend to have artistic value doesn't sound like a good trial case.

Ignoring your ignorant comment where you go on imposing your definition of artistic values, there still seems to be a very minor case of Hustler v Falwell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell [wikipedia.org]

Re:Suing for what exactly? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483176)

Yeah! Corporations should be able to do what they want! Its their network. Its private after all.

See...Europe isn't America. They get that there is more to society than what Corporations want.

Re:Suing for what exactly? (2)

NanoGeek (1951202) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483376)

The publishers agreed to Apple's license agreement before they submitted the app to the App Store. If they didn't bother to read it then too bad for them, but don't go crying to the government over it. There are plenty of other methods other than the App Store to get the magazine on the iPhone.

Re:Suing for what exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483420)

true ... like : open safari (on iPhone) - type URL in question - watch (- ??? - profit)

Re:Suing for what exactly? (1)

tolydude (1080033) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483180)

What exactly is the tabloid suing for? Apple's policies are very well known, and I cannot believe he didn't know what the outcome would be before he submitted his app. Sounds like someone just wants come money and free publicity.

The probably knew exactly what Apple's response would be and are simply following a publicity strategy. Good for them.

Re:Suing for what exactly? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483192)

What exactly is the tabloid suing for? Apple's policies are very well known, and I cannot believe he didn't know what the outcome would be before he submitted his app.

Europe's policies are very well known too. Apple should respect them or leave.

(Not yet determined of course. That's what courts are for...)

Re:Suing for what exactly? (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483256)

They may well be able to have Apple's policy overturned by a European court. It's not like they could file a case on the basis that "they'd probably reject us if we applied", thus they sent their app in and now have solid evidence of rejection to show the court.

Of course, it may also just be publicity hunting, but simply knowing beforehand that they would be rejected isn't anything to hold against them.

Re:Suing for what exactly? (4, Insightful)

angus77 (1520151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483368)

It doesn't matter how well known a company's policies are if it turns out they're against the law.

Do you think it's legal to sue a hitman for failing to follow through on the terms of his contract?

Are you familiar with the legislation regarding censorship in Denmark? It may be like "sexual assault" in Sweden.

Re:Suing for what exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483464)

I hate frivolous lawsuits, but I actually think there's a case here. Just because Apple's policies are well known doesn't mean they're right.

Re:Suing for what exactly? (1, Flamebait)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483546)

It's Apple's fucking market, not anyone else's. These guys are welcome to use an alternate delivery system or put their rag out for any other device. This is horseshit.

Re:Suing for what exactly? (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483826)

It also depends on whether Apple does significant business in Denmark/Europe or not.

Apple is welcome to use an alternate country.

Libertarians would do well to realize that if Governments are too weak and small, Corporations would become defacto governments.

Then a Corporation could tell people "These are my fucking private Company Towns and Roads, you are welcome to live elsewhere, if you don't like the way I do things".

If you say Corporations can't do that because the Government would stop them, well then that's why there's this case going on. In Europe at least the Corporations are not yet the final authorities on what is allowed or not, no matter what some EULA or Company Policy says.

Discrimination? Liberal freedoms? Western culture? (3, Insightful)

SplatMan_DK (1035528) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484010)

It's Apple's fucking market, not anyone else's. These guys are welcome to use an alternate delivery system or put their rag out for any other device. This is horseshit.

Ah, but owning a market place does not give you absolute power to do with it as you please.

In civilized countries there are rules to govern trade and business. I don't know which African Banana republic you live in, but in the US and the EU, businesses fortunately have to follow rules set forth by society - rules designed to ensure and enforce out liberal freedoms, free trade, fair markets.

As such, Apple is NOT free to discriminate other businesses, engage in unfair trade practices, discriminate ethnic minorities, etc. They also must adhere to consumer protection laws, and other national regulation.

Please read up on "real world", and "western culture" on Gooogle or wikipedia before you visit us.

:-)

Oh, and don't bring your horseshit with you.

- Jesper

Re:Suing for what exactly? (5, Insightful)

Warwick Allison (209388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483530)

From TFA: for allowing other iPad apps (lists "German paper Bild and British The Sun") to do what they have been prevented from. Duh.

Re:Suing for what exactly? (2)

SplatMan_DK (1035528) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484042)

What exactly is the tabloid suing for? Apple's policies are very well known, and I cannot believe he didn't know what the outcome would be before he submitted his app. Sounds like someone just wants come money and free publicity.

Haha. I LOL'ed at that statement. Shows a little about the way some people think of lawsuits :-)

There are no laws for "punitive damages" in Denmark from which the tabloid (Ekstra Bladet) can win any money. Not a dime.

The only way the tabloid stands to get money, is by being allowed to sell their app to their readers.

Yes. Really. :-)
Free publicity? Sure, any media/newspaper loves that, but they wouldn't have gotten that if it wasn't for Apples lame and discriminatory way of handling their app approvals.

And Apples policies are certainly not "well known". Other large newspapers, and even Playboy, publish naked women through the appstore every day.

As you may well be aware of, Apples app-approval process is often criticized for seeming random, arbitrarily and without explanation. This is just another example in a very long list of similar cases.

With any luck, Apple will learn as time goes by.

- Jesper

I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (4, Funny)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483184)

Will someone please link to the part of the website for that tabloid that contains the alleged prurient content? I would like to verify myself to determine if the offending content warrants censorship. Let's not be hasty about condemning apple for their possibly righteous behavior without examining very carefully page 9 to see if it offends our sensibilities.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (5, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483222)

Sorry your having so much difficulty with your search engine. Google even helpfully points to ""Side 9" [ekstrabladet.dk] (Not really SFW, natch).

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (4, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483234)

Doing a bit of research here. Haven't seen that much airbrushing since I quit looking at Playboy years ago....

Shiney!

Klik her? Damn near killed her! (1)

Brannon (221550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483514)

or something.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (1)

Warwick Allison (209388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483566)

So why doesn't Ekstra Bladet just publish a "Ekstra Bladet Web Browser" app instead of a "Ekstra Bladet Newspaper" app? Certainly Atomic Web Browser for iPad causes Apple to warn me that it might expose me to explicit content. I assume the "Ekstra Bladet Web Browser" would similarly warn me of that moral peril.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483658)

Damn I haven't seen something that looked that laminated since the last time I played Doom 3

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483892)

Woah. I think some of those pictures are stuck squarely in the uncanny valley.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (4, Informative)

YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484002)

OMG! Titties! Fellow Americans, please avert your eyes off this European Godless smut!

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (1)

fightinfilipino (1449273) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483272)

i do not know if such a standard would apply in European courts, but at least in the U.S., your logic would find strong purchase, Mr. Neo. after all, for U.S. judges, they "know it when they see it."

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (2)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483340)

These young ladies have offensive tattoos. Clearly this is obscene content by the standards of my community. Ban is justified. (sound of gavel pounding)

Also, the ladies are showing their anatomy used for feeding infants. Clearly this is offensive and should not bee viewed by children under 17.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (3, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483668)

I was breast-fed until I was 17, you insensitive clod.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483590)

TFA:

Ekstra Bladet today launched a campaign, which, according to Madsen, will expose Apple’s double standards. The paper is asking its readers to send in examples of other tabloids, such as German paper Bild and British The Sun, which are allowed to show topless girls on their iPad applications.

What would the US judges say about that?
'Cause I reckon Mr Neo would like to reserve his judgements only after carefuly examing the evidence (in Bild and The Sun) by himself.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (2)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483374)

Perhaps Apple banned it because the photos are so horribly shooped, it would make the Retina display look like shit.

</justsayin'>

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483410)

Perhaps Apple banned it because the photos are so horribly shooped

Shooped: pictures that have been pooped out by Photoshop.

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (2)

jIyajbe (662197) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483674)

In the interest of science: http://side6.dk/6-galleri/ [side6.dk]

Glad to help.

(Personally, I think this material is more appropriate to an android...

Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (1)

Jharish (101858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483888)

http://ekstrabladet.dk/side9/

It is linked from the front page which is in the article.

Wecome to the world of nazi computing! (-1, Troll)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483232)

Wecome to the world of nazi computing!

Re:Wecome to the world of nazi computing! (0)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483250)

Godwinned after 11 comments. Not quite the record. Try harder next time.

Please. (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483246)

Yet another SLASHERTISMENT. I know, porn, geeks, porn, geeks... Seriously, why is this shit on Slashdot?

Re:Please. (5, Funny)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483312)

Seriously, why is this shit on Slashdot?

What would Slashdot be without the occasional bashing of each and every big software company? That's like half of the reason to be here!

Re:Please. (1)

jcombel (1557059) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483586)

keeping updated on progressive developers (and the money that is backing them) who push against censorship, for freedoms and rights in an economic ecosystem (App Store) completely controlled by a private monopoly (Apple) is one of the very few reasons i read slashdot.
 
to be honest, it is the only variety of news that i actually see here before other news aggregates, as opposed to days after

Re:Please. (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483610)

Yet another SLASHERTISMENT. I know, porn, geeks, porn, geeks... Seriously, why is this shit on Slashdot?

Keeping us informed with various attempts along/against the "information wants to be free"?

(hint: YRO category? Assuming that the tabloid would be granted the sentence against Apple, would this have an influence on the Turbo Hercules case?)

Re:Please. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483896)

You're a moron. Strictly speaking, an idiot. Retarded? Perhaps.

Re:Please. (5, Insightful)

brucmack (572780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483760)

What? This is about Apple potentially having their App Store policies tried in European court, something that could potentially be a game-changer. But no, it must be a slashvertisement targeted at the millions of Danish Slashdot readers...

Re:Please. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483786)

Don't be such a dense idiot. Put down the fucking chardonnay and live in reality.

Re:Please. (1)

md65536 (670240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483880)

It took 1 click and then about 1 second to figure out what "Side 9" means in Danish.

Re:Please. (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484052)

Seriously, why is this shit on Slashdot?

You answered that yourself here.

I know, porn, geeks, porn, geeks.

Add a dash of Anti-Whatever and you have a instant Slashdot story.

It's a good point (5, Insightful)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483252)

Back in the days of printed stuff, there were thousands of outlets. If one barred a certain publication, it was no big deal. The public could buy it in the other shop down the road.

With e-publishing, there's massive consolidation that changes this situation. Amazon or Apple blocking a publication is *not* analogous to a shop choosing not to stock a publication.

Re:It's a good point (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483308)

Yes it is.

It's only different if copyright infringement (of GPL code; let's move this into an area slashdot might care about) is somehow different on the web too, because "there's no longer a physical good to deprive from the owner". That argument is bullshit, just as yours is, amounting to a special case because epublishing is limited to a smaller number of stores.

By your logic, if the news outlets, distribution channels and magazines were owned by one or two large corporations, then the same rules would apply in the real world.... oh wait...

Re:It's a good point (2)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483684)

The difference is monopoly. If I buy my car from Dealer A, and replacement parts from Dealer B, all is well. If Dealer A sells me a car that stops running when I put in parts from another dealer, then they are being illegally (in some jurisdictions) anticompetitive. Dealer A is building a market in which they have a monopoly (see: Microsoft / Windows), then leveraging that monopoly to make more money than they could in a free market.

Re:It's a good point (0)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483958)

And Apple have a monopoly on apps on the iPhone in what world?

You can still deliver apps via HTML5 - the original method promoted by Apple, and still in use and supported by them before the App Store came along.

Also nothing stopping them providing paywalled online content to iPhone customers - you can even have it preload data for times when you'll be out of network range.

There's no way for them to claim that iPhone users are restricted solely by the App Store, unless the only other way to get their content is via flash or something.

Also, which day of the week is it right now? It seems to go back and forth on slashdot whether Apple has a monopoly on smartphones, depending on whether it paints them in a positive or negative light (ie, they're "a tiny, insignificant portion" of the smartphone market when it suits, or "a monopoly" when it suits, depending on the story - I see both, quite often). Either way, they don;t actually have a monopoly on web-delivered content (which this magazine clearly must be - either the app was designed to update from a remote server, or you needed to buy a new app every time there's a new issue) on the iPhone.

Re:It's a good point (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483314)

Back in the days of printed stuff, there were thousands of outlets. If one barred a certain publication, it was no big deal. The public could buy it in the other shop down the road.

With e-publishing, there's massive consolidation that changes this situation. Amazon or Apple blocking a publication is *not* analogous to a shop choosing not to stock a publication.

You're kidding, right? 15 seconds on Google gets you there.... Even on a MacBook. I bet I could even look at it on my iPhone [insert tasteless small breast joke here] You can't really seriously consider an iPad as the be all and end all of e-publishing. It doesn't even run Flash.

Re:It's a good point (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483398)

Back in the days of printed stuff, there were thousands of outlets. If one barred a certain publication, it was no big deal. The public could buy it in the other shop down the road.

With e-publishing, there's massive consolidation that changes this situation. Amazon or Apple blocking a publication is *not* analogous to a shop choosing not to stock a publication.

But Apple isn't blocking a publication. They can still make their publication available to iPad users; they just can't do it through the App Store.

The proper analogy? Suppose all the stores stopped putting the printed magazine in the front of the store. You'd still be able to buy the magazine from any store you wanted; you just would have to go to the back.

Re:It's a good point (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483794)

The problem with that is that the App Store is the only place that anybody without a jailbroken device can get apps. Jailbreaking may be legal, but it is not something that can be done openly because if Apple ever finds out, your warranty is broken and you can never get the unit serviced.

Re:It's a good point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483850)

Huh? There are millions of apps available to any iPad user. They're called "web apps". Crazy, I know, but you don't have to have a special little app running on your little crappy iPod XL to access content!

Re:It's a good point (2)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483564)

Really? You mean they couldn't make a subscription website, put out an app for Jailbroken devices, or put it on any other device out there that could support it?

This is very analogous to a newsstand. In this case, it may be a large chain newsstand, but this is just slippery slope bullshit.

Re:It's a good point (3, Insightful)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483584)

Safari doesn't block their website so I don't buy it. If Apple was legally forced to accept every pornographic App/e-mag, then their store would turn into nothing but a huge hub for porn. The web is for openness, Apple's App Store and E-book stores are for the select items they wish to sell. This suit is pretty much like saying the iTunes store has to publish my crappy garage band because they're being anti-competitive for not doing so.

Re:It's a good point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34484006)

First, thousands of outlets? Where I grew up (in the 80s) there was the Ben Franklin, and a couple of gas stations in town. If they didn't carry it, well, Wal-Mart in the next town over might -- well, not in this case. Otherwise it's 50 miles over to get to the city, hoping someone carries it there.

Second, why does this need to be an app? Apple doesn't block websites, and that would reduce or eliminate effort to get something that'd work across mobile platforms. Seems just like the lame Danish Android app that /. put up a slashvertisement for -- create an unnecessary app that you know beforehand won't be accepted because it breaks the guidelines, then try to get free PR by making a stink about it.

Isn't it interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483254)

...that people, who don't like the rules that they accept when submitting an app, get upset when their app is denied due to those rules?

Much less go crying to the EU - who survives not because of it's member states, but because of penalizing big business with heavy penalties...

Sue on what grounds? (3, Interesting)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483268)

Now as much as I don't like Apple, I must say that Apple is free to enter and to not enter into contracts as they please.

If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone and his own app store, or take his business to Apple's competitors, such as Android.

Patents (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483328)

If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone

Mobile phones are a patent minefield. Without a patent war chest of its own to cross-license, a new entrant in the mobile phone business isn't likely to get far.

Re:Sue on what grounds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483534)

On the flip side, what happens in Wal-Mart banned all black people because they considered them racy and offensive? Even while you and/or me considered their behavour to be normal to that specific culture and tolerable?

Re:Sue on what grounds? (2)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483606)

On the flip side, what happens in Wal-Mart banned all black people because they considered them racy and offensive? Even while you and/or me considered their behavour to be normal to that specific culture and tolerable?

That's the worst analogy I've ever seen. It doesn't even mention cars. But seriously, did you just compare Apple rejecting an Application for sale on their online store to a civil rights violation? What the fuck were you thinking?

Re:Sue on what grounds? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34484038)

That's exactly how we see it in Europe. Welcome to a place in the world not (yet) run by corporations but governments, for the people.

Re:Sue on what grounds? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483644)

On the flip side, what happens in Wal-Mart banned all black people because they considered them racy and offensive?

An analogy of limited value. In this case, to correct your analogy: Wal-Mart refusing to stock merchendise from suppliers it doesn't like (which, I guess, it does already happen).
For your analogy to be valid, Wal-Mart would have to stop stocking black-people and continue... what... stocking/selling white people... because Wal-Mart consider them less offensive?

Re:Sue on what grounds? (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483886)

Now I know the current law disallows it, but why shouldn't Wal-Mart be allowed to choose which customers it sells to on any grounds whatsoever?

Religious groups are allowed to discriminate, private clubs are allowed to discriminate. Why should businesses not be given that same right? It's not as if in your hypothetical situation that black people would be any worse off than before Wal-Mark turned up. They would simply not get the added benefit of being able to take part in transactions with Wal-Mart.

Re:Sue on what grounds? (2, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483548)

I must say that Apple is free to enter and to not enter into contracts as they please.

Yes, and we're also free to publicly ridicule them, take them to court, and even to pass laws describing what can and cannot be put into a contract.

Apple is free to do try to make the world the way it sees fit, but the rest of the world is free to try to change that world as they see fit too.

Re:Sue on what grounds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483550)

7-11 won't sell the cookies I bake.

Re:Sue on what grounds? (0)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483602)

Bullshit. I'm fairly sure that the appstore is illegal. Just think about it:

If Ford prevented you by technical and contractual measures, from installing any accessory in one of their cars that wasn't purchased through Ford's official store, where they only approve a few select brands .... that would be absolutely illegal.

If Sony forced you to use your brand-new TV set with comcast and nothing but comcast, and you had to purchase said service through Sony, that would be fucking illegal too.

So, when Apple forces you to buy software for your brand-new iPad through their store, and they only allow certain vendors, why is that not illegal too?

Years ago we were all against microsoft bundling a browser and a media player in their OS. But now it's ok for Apple to not only bundle their own software, but it's ok too for them to forbid you to install anything not sold by them?

Let them have their appstore, but force them to allow you to configure external repositories legally and easily, even if that voids your warranty. I still wouldn't buy their overpriced, elitist, proprietary crap anyway.

Re:Sue on what grounds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483768)

Now as much as I don't like Apple, I must say that Apple is free to enter and to not enter into contracts as they please.

If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone and his own app store, or take his business to Apple's competitors, such as Android.

A phone that I purchased is my own phone.

Re:Sue on what grounds? (2)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483854)

A phone that I purchased is my own phone.

True, but iOS which you can license from Apple with an iPhone still belongs to Apple. If you don't want to go by Apple's rules, you can purchase an iPhone and install some other OS on it. Apple is also under no obligation to help you to use their product outside of their intended use for it either.

Re:Sue on what grounds? (2)

Splab (574204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483798)

Actually no, they are not.

The TFA is missing the point quite badly. Ekstrabladet is complaining because the british newspaper The Sun is allowed to have toples girls on their application - it is illegal to differantiate like that.

Also, since the appstore is a defacto monopoly, Apple can get in really hot water for acting like this.

Re:Sue on what grounds? (1)

Weirsbaski (585954) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483858)

If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone and his own app store

App store I understand, but why would he have to create his own phone/tablet? Why can't the people who own an iPad be able to run what they darn well please?

Re:Sue on what grounds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483916)

If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone and his own app store, or take his business to Apple's competitors, such as Android.

Good luck with that, with the state of patent law what it is. You'll be squashed like a bug unless you have as many big patents as they do, in which case you will merely be drawn into a long and expensive court battle(s).

Sales (1)

UBfusion (1303959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483356)

I seriously doubt this incident would affect sales of the iPad in Denmark (or other Scandinavian countries in the future). But I sure bet the tabloid's sales will go up the roof... You can't beat human nature and Steve knows it better than anybody.

jerseys and hats (-1, Offtopic)

adelamanda (1954906) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483494)

wholesale nfl jerseys [jerseys-2010.com] , cheap nhl jerseys [jerseys-2010.com] , football jerseys [jerseys-2010.com] , nba shop [jerseys-2010.com] , wholesale nfl jerseys [jerseys-2010.com] cheap nhl jerseys [jerseys-2010.com] football jerseys [jerseys-2010.com] nba shop [jerseys-2010.com] winter cap [hatonsale.com] , red bull cap [hatonsale.com] , monster hat [hatonsale.com] , new era hats [hatonsale.com] , dc winter cap [hatonsale.com] , winter cap [hatonsale.com] red bull cap [hatonsale.com] monster hat [hatonsale.com] new era hats [hatonsale.com] dc winter cap [hatonsale.com] moncler vest [sellingmoncler.com] , moncler shiny thomas [sellingmoncler.com] , moncler bulgarie [sellingmoncler.com] , moncler vest [sellingmoncler.com] moncler shiny thomas [sellingmoncler.com] moncler bulgarie [sellingmoncler.com] Monster Energy Hats [hatonsale.com] Dc Shoes Ken Block 43 Ford Monster [hatonsale.com] Dc Shoes Ken Block 43 Ford Monster [hatonsale.com] NBA Detroit Pistons [jerseys-2010.com] Reebok NFL Jerseys Philadelphia Eagles [jerseys-2010.com] Kids Kansas City Royals PHILLES [jerseys-2010.com] http://www.jerseys-2010.com/ [jerseys-2010.com] Our email:jerseys-2010@hotmail.com http://www.hatonsale.com/ [hatonsale.com] Our email:hatonsale@hotmail.com

Re:jerseys and hats (1)

pem (1013437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483544)

Man, I'd be happy to contribute some bandwidth and cycles for a DDOS on this shit.

Re:jerseys and hats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483600)

Clearly, you are a moron.

Re:jerseys and hats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483614)

seconded!

The funny thing is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483666)

Imagine if MS tried to limit what could be put on your PC (unless you jailbroke it ;) ).

How the hell do people even find this acceptable? How the hell isn't it illegal?

I have an iPhone. You know what is in the app store? The same old boring shit from last week. I'm so bored of iPhone apps. I dont even check the store any more unless there are only two things I could possibly do at that moment... and suicide is the other one.

Anti-competitive? (0)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483680)

I don't see how it can be anti-competitive, if Apple's got a consistent policy that applies to all publishers.

-jcr

Re:Anti-competitive? (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483776)

Think of a broader definition, there isn't a different App publishing company they can go to so therefor Apple has control of the market. If Apple restricts access to that market then it is anti-competitive behavior.

Hang on a moment... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483932)

Don't Microsoft and Android/Google have their own app stores? Why don't they just go there rather than whine to the EC courts about Apple?

Re:Anti-competitive? (2)

_merlin (160982) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483872)

They don't apply the same rules to everyone. They've approved Playboy and Sports Illustrated booby apps while removing others from the store.

New app idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483744)

Suing Apple... there should be an app for that.

market position (2)

Nineteen-Delta (1892866) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483874)

~One would assume that if Apple were an 'also-ran' in the pad market, they'd only be too eager to publish gossip, celeb news and porn over their more prudish competitiors.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>