The standard "they're a private company/Android is an alternative" reply to this argument remains shortsighted. I'm an actor in the economy as well, and and I can apply non-monetary pressure (like editorials) just as well as Apple can (like advertising) to try to get a product that I want and a policy that I want in the same place. "Accepting it" leads to non-optimal solutions. We can disagree on what is optimal, of course.
However, the argument in this article is weak. It's not an argument to stop censoring apps, it's just saying, "continue blocking speech, except when its speech that I like". The author seems perfectly OK with some of Apple's other fairly arbitrary standards because the experience is OK so far.
All curation is "censoring". Being absolutist here isn't that insightful -- obviously there are degrees of censorship and a significant difference between "censoring" political apps and "censoring" malware -- but it is an important point to keep in mind.
Personally, I believe the answer is to allow side loading, trading a bit of pain (especially for security reasons) to allow determination on your own of what is acceptable to run on your device beyond the curated apps. At that point, the curated app store as a good thing becomes a much stronger argument for me, because everything that particular curator disagrees with is still available somewhere, even if it turns out I almost always agree with the curator.
At least (AFAIK) Apple has been less hard on the jailbreakers in the last few years.
"the argument in this article is weak. It's not an argument to stop censoring apps, it's just saying, "continue blocking speech, except when its speech that I like". "
That's how a proper counter-argument has to be structured. "just do what I want to do" is bullshit and does nothing to counter to "Apple is a private company". It has to be "what you did in case X is outrageous". Not serving people without shirt and shoes as a policy is acceptable. Not serving black people as a policy is outrageous.
"Personally, I believe the answer is to allow side loading"
The "sideloading is enough" view concedes that not approving Drones+ fails the outrageousness test above.
I disagree: Apple convinced developers that censorship is cool, and that is at least as dangerous as the broken patent system.
Upcoming versions of both OS X and Windows take large steps in the same direction already. We all enjoyed a free software market for most of our lives. Now Android seems to be the only "personal computing" platform with a future.
And who knows when Samsung or Google are going to shut down that door on Android as well? It wouldn't hurt them, since neither consumers nor developers seem to care about independent software distribution anymore.
Apple did not convince developers that censorship was 'cool,' they convinced developers that they could make more money in a marketplace with censorship. As soon as that stops being true, or the frustrations mount, developers will change their mind. The patent system is enshrined in law, and a far bigger problem.
I know that this is a hopeless request but can we stop using the word "censor" when we are really talking about curation, or editorial policy, or private business decisions, etc?
Government imposed restrictions on speech and/or commerce is something entirely different from plain old business decisions and it would be nice if we didn't conflate the two things by overloading the meaning of "censorship".
IMHO, restrictions on speech and/or commerce do not need to be imposed by a government in order to count as censorship. Any controlling body will do.
If you control software distribution on a plaform, you directly or indirectly control every information that customers of that platform receive. I think this covers censorship.
Of course iOS does not have a dominant position in the market yet, so censorship is limited by the customers choice to switch to another device. But as I explained above, the moment to speak against the control is now, as long as there are still alternatives left.
I think this "plain old business decision" is a political issue of great importance.
The problem with tossing all these things into the same etymological barrel is that you lose the ability to communicate effectively about their differences.
Government restrictions imposed by force are not the same thing as market realities created by private decisions.
Business decisions are not the same thing as public policy crafted via the political process.
It is true that business decisions can have public policy implications and vice versa. That doesn't make them the same thing though.
"Mr. Tower's [your] distinction [...] is spurious. The essence of censorship is the suppression of a particular point of view [...] over the channels of the mass media, and the question of who does the censoring is one of form only."
Let's say roughly 1/3 Americans own an iphone [1]. So yes, wether you like them or not and weather it is legal or not, Apple's politics (and I think keeping information from US citizens about their militaries actions is bad politics) are important.
I think a lot of the App Store rules will have to change eventually. It is anti-competitive for them to not allow apps that duplicate their functionality and Apple has "market-power". I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that someone with strong market power and restrictions in place to slow competitors or ban them entirely is good grounds for an anti-trust suit.
Totally disagree, its a major part of why I brought an iPhone over anything else (as a consumer). Anything hooked to me financially I want locked down, and with the near field stuff creeping in day by day I'd prefer things to be getting tighter and tighter, not looser and looser.
That is exactly what I mean ;) Pretty getting a notification that a drone is near is not going to save your life. For one thing any drone coming to kill you is unlikely to be spotted until its to late. And places where it could be useful I doubt there is useful cell coverage anyway.
So I'd wager that app is nothing more than a titalating tool to fill peoples morbid curiosities. And at which point this is a conversation about culture, taste, censorship.
At that point I expect Apples well documented self protection guidelines to kick in and distance themselves from the app... leaving it up to people use other options not associated with apple to view that content i.e. creating a pseudo app by book marking to the home screen.
I love how the App's store's success is used against it here. You've been so successful with your approach you need to totally turn your back on it and be more like these relatively unsuccessful stores!
Huh, or maybe that success is partly because they curate and decided not to turn their device's third party app economy over to pirates and spammers.
Honestly, I love how Apple protects the user experience. Whether from spam, or "inappropriate content". They have created a relatively spam-free app store with pretty reliably "clean" content.
I don't even think it is an issue of free speech. I'm all for the web being open and free, but Apple has a right to manage their market the way they see fit. Just because so many people use iPhones doesn't change anything. You are FREE to choose a different phone. If you don't like their app market, go use a phone that has a market you do like.
"Apple at its worst" is the chicanery of not letting you own the device they sold you. App store censorship wouldn't be a problem if there were other ways to get the programs you want and/or need.
This is blatantly false and I'm getting sick of it. You own the device. For various reasons Apple designed the device to only work with one store. That isn't secret info not available to the buyer.
It isn't yours if you don't control it. Period. You can use it only by the grace of Apple. If Apple decides you shouldn't use it anymore, it's bricked. If Apple goes out of business, your iphone is worthless. That isn't ownership. Not in my book, at least. Maybe your definition is different.
"You can use it only by the grace of Apple. If Apple decides you shouldn't use it anymore, it's bricked."
If Apple bricked my phone tomorrow I would return it for nothing less then a full refund. So yeah, you're just making things up.
"If Apple goes out of business, your iphone is worthless."
Why does my iphone stop working if Apple goes out of business? This is just silliness.
"Maybe your definition is different."
My definition is the same as the lay definition. There are radios you can buy that only tune into the NOAA Weather stations. Conversely most radios aren't able to pick up these as they are broadcast outside the normal AM/FM bands. However no one claims they don't own their radio because they can't tune into stations on a different part of the band and no one claims they don't own their weather radio because they can't tune into commercial stations. Instead people realize that when they bought a weather radio which only plays one station that was part of the purchase decision. Anyone claiming non-ownership in this context is just flat out wrong.
Not any open source program, only open source programs that play well within the confines of the official app sandbox. The $99/year doesn't give you any way to escape that sandbox, meaning there are a ton of things you can't do. Also note that any apps installed with the $99/year certificate will expire when the certificate expires, which I believe is currently after a year, so you have to continually renew.
The only way to really get full control of your device is to jailbreak, but Apple is fighting jailbreakers hard. And of course this isn't hypothetical at all: Cydia is full of apps that not only can't go into the app store, but couldn't be usefully installed on a non-jailbroken device using a developer certificate.
You can distribute the source code and allow others who have paid $99 load it on to their device. Or distribute it via Ad hoc (limited to 100 per year), or purchase an Enterprise account which might give you more distribution options outside of the store.
I wonder what would happen if Apple allowed consumers to pay for the ability to sideload apps. It seems like this might address the concerns of the vocal minority of techies that truly care about this sort of thing, while still maintaining the sanctity of the walled garden for the masses. If you know what you're doing, signing up for the $99 dev program already effectively allows you to load whatever apps you want on your device. If Apple made this process a bit simpler and more accessible they might get a PR win & a (small?) incremental revenue stream. I don't expect that they'll do it, but it would at least be a new approach..maybe something for MSFT to consider to differentiate themselves.
"If you know what you're doing, signing up for the $99 dev program already effectively allows you to load whatever apps you want on your device."
Not even close, sadly. You still can't install any apps that do any system-level stuff, regardless of what you pay. Apple still exerts a good bit of control over what you can do even with your own device, your own code, and your own dev program membership.
It's not a matter of censoring anything, because the AppStore is theirs, and they can do whatever they want and not even have to explain their decision.
It's about defining who is the owner of the device, and who controls what goes or not in it. This is the case you can take to court.
People that keep writing articles like this should not buy Apple. Apple is going to do what they're going to do. Either accept it or buy Android. Those are your options.
But let's be serious, Apple risks "consumer trust"? Not in any way that is likely to be measurable.
>> "Still, it's a new kind of gatekeeper, and it holds the keys to a platform used by millions of people around the world. While not as horrifyingly Orwellian as it could be, the fact that the biggest company in U.S. history makes decisions about which content is too "objectionable" for its customers is unsettling."
I am forever bewildered by consumers that have this sense of entitlement around a company and "demand" this action or that action.
It's their company. They can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, that's great. Dissenting opinions are a foundation of this great country. But Apple also deserves the right to not care what you think, and not care if you go somewhere else. The majority of consumers have no problem with it.
If Apple wanted to wall of the entire platform, they could do that. But instead they have created the biggest app market for mobile devices (from what I understand, please correct me if this is not 100% accurate, but the point remains it's huge). Does it suck that a few apps are rejected for seemingly dubious reasons? Sure, I guess it does for those developers. But I've been hearing dire warnings about mass exoduses and public outcries since the inception of the app store. Hasn't really happened besides a few edge cases that we see on Hacker News every other month or so.
To be honest, I feel that this particular app's story is only popular because it has to do with the politics of the drone program.
>> "Some consumers are already beginning to grow uncomfortable with Facebook's privacy policies, Google's targeted advertising, and other cases in which, whether justified or not, technology starts to feel a little creepy. Twitter takes protecting privacy and free speech very seriously, and even if most users don't notice or care yet, that stance will serve the company well as social media continues to part and parcel of our daily lives."
Got it. FB and Google evil. Twitter good.
Except that's not really true either. Twitter has worked with several law enforcement offices, particularly when identifying Occupy Wall Street protestors that were accused of crimes.
So I just don't find this article very credible on the facts, or the opinions persuasive at all.
Tell me why we shouldn't demand devices that we can change, do whatever we please with? Why shouldn't we demand that computing devices has an override, or some way of running whatever software the owner wants it to? What would happen to Apple if we had these kinds of regulations? Would the iphone never have happened? I doubt it.
Businesses don't have any rights on their own, only the rights we give to them. When the interests of companies goes against the interests of the people, then we regulate. It's that simple. I'm against regulations that impose overhead for companies without good reason. Regulation to PREVENT companies from expending energy to actively keep users from doing what they want is not overhead. Forcing companies to keep their system somewhat open won't hurt them as much as it would benefit the world.
Tell me why we shouldn't demand devices that we can change, do whatever we please with?
You can demand this all you want, as long as the only way you enforce your demand is by choosing what products to buy.
But if you mean "demand" as in "make laws and regulations", as it's clear you do, then I disagree.
When the interests of companies goes against the interests of the people, then we regulate.
No, we buy something else or go without.
At the end of the day, we're talking about smartphones and apps here. You do not need to have an iPhone. You do not need to have apps. If you don't like what's on offer, and all your efforts at persuasion fail, then, as I said, you buy something else or go without.
For example, I can't stand the MPAA and RIAA. I've blogged repeatedly about their stupid, shortsighted business practices and their attempts to get draconian laws passed to emasculate general purpose computers. But I have no right to demand that they make their products the way I want them to, or else we'll get the government to regulate them. If they refuse to listen to reason, as they have, I simply buy something else or go without. Which means that I almost never buy music or movies now. I do not have an iPhone, or an iPad, or any other iDevice, and have no plans to buy one, for the same reason.
So the OP cannot express an opinion about what Apple should do, without "having a sense of entitlement"? Can you describe what an "un-entitled" criticism would look like, or how it would differ from the OP? Or should we just not ever criticize Apple because they are a private company and we can buy Android devices?
No not at all. My comment regarding bewilderment at the sense of entitlement behind making demands of companies has more to do with personality differences than anything else. I realize that I am a consumer, and they are the producer of a consumer good. That is my relationship with Apple. That's it.
The "entitlement" is just my perspective of what I see as a group of individuals who align themselves with the OP's viewpoint in scolding Apple, taking shots at, and generally nitpicking it's wall-garden philosophy; A very vocal, relatively speaking extremely small minority of consumers who demand that the company change it's policies to fit their whims and philosophies.
I guess I would never be so presumptuous to think like that. To me, the company does what it wants, and when the public votes with their dollars, their business decisions are either validated or they are not.
And there is something that I just can't grasp about the hand-wringing and scolding about the app store. The iPhone is a great product, the app store is arguably one of the most successful new ventures of apple in the last decade, arguably the most successful app store for any mobile device. And by and large, the system works. So this barrage of criticism of edge cases is just...confusing to me, to say the least.
I appreciate that the writer is concerned about Apple and about consumers. But this concept that the writer's ideas are protecting Apple's long-term survival as a company in a fluid land-scape while at the same time bringing about pro-consumer changes just rings hollow to me. It feels like energy misplaced.
It's their company. They can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, that's great. Dissenting opinions are a foundation of this great country. But Apple also deserves the right to not care what you think, and not care if you go somewhere else. The majority of consumers have no problem with it.
If they succeed in enjoining everyone else's smartphones, then yes, they are a monopolist, and should be held to the same standards that Microsoft was held to.
What kinds of questions will Federal Agents be asking Apple? What kinds of illegal activity are you insinuating Apple has perpetrated?
(edit: Disclaimer I previously assumed was unnecessary: Apple can't "do whatever they want", you are correct. For instance, if Tim Cook killed a hooker, that would be bad.)
Apple is going to do what they're going to do. Either accept it or buy Android.
That's not the only option. We don't allow property owners to randomly abuse other people as long as they're on their property. We don't tell those people, "well if you don't like it, just go somewhere else." We have laws that apply no matter who the owner is, to prevent abuse.
A closer analogy is we do allow private property owners to decide what signs and other publicly visible items may be present on their property. Property owners are allowed to dictate who's allowed on premises. We also allow private organizations to decide who may join their organization. Stores are allowed to decide what products they retail. Private media are allowed to decide what they broadcast.
The App Store, for better or worse, is not a public good. I may not necessarily approve of some of Apple's decisions, but they have the right to make those decisions.
And no one's being abused. If you don't like it, leave. You're not being forced to support Apple in any way.
Physical abuse isn't the only kind... ok let's use a real legal concept: After an item has been sold, the former owner has no say in how the item is used by its new owner. But Apple locks iPhones to only install software from their app store, and then censors the app store. This effectively limits what users can do with their devices even though Apple no longer owns them. Apple can't put legal restrictions on users (although they did try to claim that jailbreaking was illegal), and I don't see any defense for their technological restrictions.
Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony do the same with their consoles, but I don't really see a whole lot of complaining about that.
Why is the curated walled garden so egregious with a smartphone?
I'm not sure I recall Apple ever bragging about being an "open" marketplace past the "If you don't like our app store, build a web app" statements they've made in the past.
And as for "After an item has been sold, the former owner has no say in how the item is used by its new owner.", that depends. For commodities, sure, but there such things as sales contracts that can restrict what is done with an item that has been sold.
Yeah, but the OtherOS isn't really why the majority of people buy PS3s, they buy them for the games.
The point is that walled gardens have been around for a long time, but it seems like people are more likely to get their knickers in a knot when Apple does it.
The user is still not being abused. You may feel Apple is abusing their power, but they're not abusing the user.
Were this something happening against users' will the, yes, I might concede it's abuse. It's not; users love the app store and a large part of that reason is because the content is curated. It's Apple's store (not a public marketplace) and they know what they purchase isn't likely to be offensive and is likely to work as advertised. You may not like the App Store, but Apple is definitely not abusing users.
You can (and should) be removed from private property for not complying with the rules.
Apple makes it very clear:
"We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical app. It can get complicated, but we have decided to not allow certain kinds of content in the App Store."
Go to Walmart and take your clothes off and see what happens. Nobody dragged you into that party and I'm guessing nobody even invited you. You looked at the market and picked what you thought was the best.
Stallman and his "free" Chinese tech are always at hand if you really feel abused.
Does Windows Phone solve these issues? Ie, is there review process actually better than Apple's? Or do they have similar support to (the overwhelming majority of) Android phones for loading alternative app stores? I haven't really seen much evidence one way or the other at this point.
I intentionally left it out, despite Windows 8 and the new Nokia looking gorgeous. It's the same problem. If MS says "No", then you're done. It's not your phone, you don't get to side-load the app.
It's the same fundamental problem, but side-loading isn't the only way to address it. People leaving the platform can apply market pressure on Apple to do the right thing.
Fair point, but I see it more as a question of degree.
It's not preposterous to say "I'm leaving you because you do too much of something I don't want (pollute, overcharge, play bad hold music, whatever) for someone else that does a little less of that same thing that I don't want (pollute, overcharge, play bad hold music, whatever)"
If the market pressure is strong enough (I don't think it is, this is all hypothetical) then it could be something that Apple and Microsoft and Android and others actively compete on.
There's another option, which is to keep writing articles like these. By convincing many more people that the "curated walled garden" Apple has built is shiny, clean, and lifeless, they'll have even more of an impact. Maybe Apple will respond to this pressure and fix the problem. Quality control is great - but a sterile Disney channel experience is not what a lot of people want.
However, the argument in this article is weak. It's not an argument to stop censoring apps, it's just saying, "continue blocking speech, except when its speech that I like". The author seems perfectly OK with some of Apple's other fairly arbitrary standards because the experience is OK so far.
All curation is "censoring". Being absolutist here isn't that insightful -- obviously there are degrees of censorship and a significant difference between "censoring" political apps and "censoring" malware -- but it is an important point to keep in mind.
Personally, I believe the answer is to allow side loading, trading a bit of pain (especially for security reasons) to allow determination on your own of what is acceptable to run on your device beyond the curated apps. At that point, the curated app store as a good thing becomes a much stronger argument for me, because everything that particular curator disagrees with is still available somewhere, even if it turns out I almost always agree with the curator.
At least (AFAIK) Apple has been less hard on the jailbreakers in the last few years.