The demise of a mobile app, Apple cult-style

[Dave12308]

Google almost never bans an app unless its vulgar or illegal.

This made me LOL - Google almost never bans vulgar or illegal apps, either. A quick look through the "Games - Just In" section shows most submitted apps to be a) pornographic; b) some sort of copyright infringing rip of a Java game; or c) an app designed for illegal purposes.

I've reported apps fitting the above quite a few times, and it's obvious to me that Google does absolutely NOTHING about any of them. What really takes the cake is that some of the vulgar apps show full nudity in the screenshots, with no way for parents to filter these apps from showing up when the kids are browsing the market.

 

[spaz33g]

Actually its off topic but I do believe google is working on a rating system from everyone to adult.

Sent from my DROID2 using DroidForums App

 

[czerdrill]

it isn't censorship in any way. freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to say anything you want, wherever you want, especially not in a private setting.

I disagree. Blocking content is a form of censorship and it really can't be spun any other way unless there is legit concern for it doing harm to the user or hardware. Just because there may be a business interest/reason for doing so doesn't mean it still isn't censorship.

Let's make a more accurate comparison... Would you consider it censorship if Apple's browser blocked access to Android forums? How about if they blocked access to Fox News? The user buys the phone to access content on the web - what right does Apple have to say what content the user can access? Some censorship, such as porn and malicious apps, is within reason and has merit, but where is the harm justifying this action?

It's a much smaller scale, but not entirely dissimilar to that old Netscape anti-trust lawsuit against MS's Internet Explorer. By your logic, that's not censorship and MS was fully within their right to do so, but what did the courts have to say about that?

well i cant really comment on the anti-trust case as i dont know much about it, but did microsoft say "we will not allow other browsers on our system!!" or did they just not bundle other browsers with Windows? if it's the former, it's censorship, if it's the latter it's not. again, i don't know which one it is, but i'm pretty sure it's the latter, because i don't recall a time where i was ever not allowed to install another browser on my windows system. the distinction between the two should be obvious.

yes, if apple blocked websites that would be censorship, because they don't own the world wide web. if they block an app from appearing in their store that's a private company deciding not to have something in their product. that's not censorship.

by your logic, everything on the internet practices some sort of censorship. like i said, droidforums has a language filter, deletes posts that they find offensive, and bans people that troll. are they practicing censorship? would you be offended if droidforums deleted a post that you made that said, "Droidforums friggin suckss!!! worst forum ever, only a bunch of losers go to this forum and all people should go to the apple forums!"...i hope not. it's not censorship, and only a misinformed person would argue that it is.

apple has every right under the sun to decide what goes in their store. so does google. the fact that apple applies those rights doesn't mean they're censoring. people hear the words "freedom of speech" and think it's a license to speak their mind across every forum or media in existence. it's simply not the case.

 

[gadgetrants]

Yeah, it's kind of irritating. But if we set emotions aside, it's also an open question. Demanding strict control over the content/apps on your devices either:

(a) increases sales
(b) decreases sales
(c) has no influence on sales

Given the pretty clear success of Apple's business model (since the iPod, anyway), I'm betting on (a). Sure, on principle alone, trying so hard to control what your customers consume is downright unpatriotic and unAmerican. But if it ends up increasing profit, then--as any reasonable capitalist will conclude--it's a good business decision.

Come on folks...let's pretend we were on Apple's executive advisory board. Would you call banning an Android-magazine app a bad move? Obviously not.

(Personally, my decision would be based on principle. Which would make me a really lousy businessman.)

-Matt

 

[gadgetrants]

What really takes the cake is that some of the vulgar apps show full nudity in the screenshots, with no way for parents to filter these apps from showing up when the kids are browsing the market.

Please keep the graphic descriptions to a minimum. hmy:

I'm still at work.

-Matt

 

[czerdrill]

Yeah, it's kind of irritating. But if we set emotions aside, it's also an open question. Demanding strict control over the content/apps on your devices either:

(a) increases sales
(b) decreases sales
(c) has no influence on sales

Given the pretty clear success of Apple's business model (since the iPod, anyway), I'm betting on (a). Sure, on principle alone, trying so hard to control what your customers consume is downright unpatriotic and unAmerican. But if it ends up increasing profit, then--as any reasonable capitalist will conclude--it's a good business decision.

Come on folks...let's pretend we were on Apple's executive advisory board. Would you call banning an Android-magazine app a bad move? Obviously not.

(Personally, my decision would be based on principle. Which would make me a really lousy businessman.)

-Matt

and that's all it boils down to. Apple's decision to ban was not some "cult decision" to destroy the ideals of American businesses, it was a private company making a decision which they believed would further their company's interests. trying to find something malicious in everything Apple does is nonsensical

 

[gadgetrants]

and that's all it boils down to. Apple's decision to ban was not some "cult decision" to destroy the ideals of American businesses, it was a private company making a decision which they believed would further their company's interests. trying to find something malicious in everything Apple does is nonsensical

Well, I definitely tend to agree.

But don't you think comparisons to the "1984" commercial are still pretty cool, if not ironic? I wonder if Jobs ever dreams at night about how hypocritical it looks. As a business decision, it makes sense. As sociopolitical commentary, I think it's interesting.

-Matt

 

[czerdrill]

and that's all it boils down to. Apple's decision to ban was not some "cult decision" to destroy the ideals of American businesses, it was a private company making a decision which they believed would further their company's interests. trying to find something malicious in everything Apple does is nonsensical

Well, I definitely tend to agree.

But don't you think comparisons to the "1984" commercial are still pretty cool, if not ironic? I wonder if Jobs ever dreams at night about how hypocritical it looks. As a business decision, it makes sense. As sociopolitical commentary, I think it's interesting.

-Matt

yeah, no the 1984 commercial and their current practices fall into the realm of "what the heck were they thinking" haha, but still they're not doing anything wrong. business is there to make money, and believe me apple is making money and everytime people nitpick the little things they do, they make more money. you don't become a multibillion dollar company by not having some business sense.

 

[thesandman00]

it isn't censorship in any way. freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to say anything you want, wherever you want, especially not in a private setting.

I disagree. Blocking content is a form of censorship and it really can't be spun any other way unless there is legit concern for it doing harm to the user or hardware. Just because there may be a business interest/reason for doing so doesn't mean it still isn't censorship.

Let's make a more accurate comparison... Would you consider it censorship if Apple's browser blocked access to Android forums? How about if they blocked access to Fox News? The user buys the phone to access content on the web - what right does Apple have to say what content the user can access? Some censorship, such as porn and malicious apps, is within reason and has merit, but where is the harm justifying this action?

It's a much smaller scale, but not entirely dissimilar to that old Netscape anti-trust lawsuit against MS's Internet Explorer. By your logic, that's not censorship and MS was fully within their right to do so, but what did the courts have to say about that?

Thank you for introducing a bit of common sense to this thread.

 

[kodiak799]

yes, if apple blocked websites that would be censorship, because they don't own the world wide web. if they block an app from appearing in their store that's a private company deciding not to have something in their product. that's not censorship.

by your logic, everything on the internet practices some sort of censorship. like i said, droidforums has a language filter, deletes posts that they find offensive, and bans people that troll. are they practicing censorship?

Blocking websites vs. apps that deliver content is a distinction without a difference.

And, YES!, filtering language is a form of censorship. It's practically the definition. What do they say on tv when stuff gets bleeped or deleted - "didn't make it past the censors". Not all forms of censorship are bad or harmful and some actually have merit, but it is censorship nonetheless.

MS is not a great example because it was dealing with anti-competitive behavior and they did not block Netscape just didn't preload it while they did with IE - they were using a dominant market position to favor their own product, so bad example on my part. But as I said, it's not entirely dissimilar. By your logic, MS was fully within their right to favor their own product and making it difficult to choose an alternative and that was illegal.

Droidforums is not a form of censorship in providing targeted content. Many other websites have "off-topic" forums where virtually everything under the sun is free to be discussed. Apple's app store is really pretty similar - the guidelines are basically no porn and no malicious software but that's pretty much it. They made an exception that singled out this particular app and it's a clear form of censorship. Like I said, it's pretty trivial and immaterial, but it's censorship no matter how you spin it.

How do you feel about web neutrality? When you have apps designed to deliver content in a more accessible and user-friendly manner, it really becomes an extension of the web and censoring apps is part and parcel the same as censoring the web.

 

[kodiak799]

you don't become a multibillion dollar company by not having some business sense.

Don't disagree with any of that, but I'd also add that multi-billion dollar companies do fail and disappear after making a string of bad decisions. Some people forget that Apple has already had one large fall from grace, granted after Jobs left and before he returned.

Again, this whole bit is rather trivial and harmless, but it is a rather good example of what a lot of people find wrong with Apple. And it's not just Apple that engages in this behavior. But the criticism is justified because anti-competitive behavior in the interest of profits is always bad for the consumer.

On a related note, I don't think this is really a case of "any publicity is good publicity". While allowing the app would have been pretty innocuous, now Apple picks curiosity with people about "hmmm, what does that magazine have to say that Apple is so concerned about?"

Every time Apple comments on Android they pretty much are only validating the strength of the platform. Although the argument can be made that it's time to take Android seriously and marketing has to directly address that alternative.

 

[czerdrill]

yes, if apple blocked websites that would be censorship, because they don't own the world wide web. if they block an app from appearing in their store that's a private company deciding not to have something in their product. that's not censorship.

by your logic, everything on the internet practices some sort of censorship. like i said, droidforums has a language filter, deletes posts that they find offensive, and bans people that troll. are they practicing censorship?

Blocking websites vs. apps that deliver content is a distinction without a difference.

And, YES!, filtering language is a form of censorship. It's practically the definition. What do they say on tv when stuff gets bleeped or deleted - "didn't make it past the censors". Not all forms of censorship are bad or harmful and some actually have merit, but it is censorship nonetheless.

MS is not a great example because it was dealing with anti-competitive behavior and they did not block Netscape just didn't preload it while they did with IE - they were using a dominant market position to favor their own product, so bad example on my part. But as I said, it's not entirely dissimilar. By your logic, MS was fully within their right to favor their own product and making it difficult to choose an alternative and that was illegal.

Droidforums is not a form of censorship in providing targeted content. Many other websites have "off-topic" forums where virtually everything under the sun is free to be discussed. Apple's app store is really pretty similar - the guidelines are basically no porn and no malicious software but that's pretty much it. They made an exception that singled out this particular app and it's a clear form of censorship. Like I said, it's pretty trivial and immaterial, but it's censorship no matter how you spin it.

How do you feel about web neutrality? When you have apps designed to deliver content in a more accessible and user-friendly manner, it really becomes an extension of the web and censoring apps is part and parcel the same as censoring the web.

i'm talking about censorship in the sense that the OP presents it...as some cult like cutting down of an android related app by a cult-like organization.

if filtering language is censorship how come people on this site are not clamoring about droidforums being a cult? it goes back to my original point that a company, a website, an individual who provides something to the masses has every right to dictate how that is provided. droidforums doesn't have to allow cursing and trolling just because people think it's a freedom of speech violation (and it's not btw, because droidforums is not a public organization). droidforums also does not have to allow posts about iphones and iphone features and iphone hacking all over their forum (and they won't). if that's censorship (which you say it is), then why is apple so wrong? btw what website do you know that has an off topic forum where "anything under the sun" can be discussed? there is no website that is just an anarchy where anything that you want to be discussed is fair game. if there is one, please point it out. i have yet to come across a website that has an "everything goes, so go crazy" off topic forum. every website censors in some way, so why is apple a "cult" and a villain because they "censored" something? apple is doing what they have a right to do, and if you consider that censorship then everything on the web is censorship, so its just a moot point and this thread is just nitpicking what apple does for no reason.

you can't force a company to provide something to their users. that again, goes against everything business stands for. every business has a buyer and a seller and both have rights. you can't just tell apple "you have to include an android app" and punish them if they don't or call them a cult cuz they dont. it is 100% their choice what they want to include, and it is 100% your choice if you want to buy it.

the microsoft example that you gave proves it. was the final resolution of the case that microsoft MUST include other browsers in their pcs? nope. because you are violating the seller's rights by doing that.

 

[czerdrill]

you don't become a multibillion dollar company by not having some business sense.

Don't disagree with any of that, but I'd also add that multi-billion dollar companies do fail and disappear after making a string of bad decisions. Some people forget that Apple has already had one large fall from grace, granted after Jobs left and before he returned.

Again, this whole bit is rather trivial and harmless, but it is a rather good example of what a lot of people find wrong with Apple. And it's not just Apple that engages in this behavior. But the criticism is justified because anti-competitive behavior in the interest of profits is always bad for the consumer.

On a related note, I don't think this is really a case of "any publicity is good publicity". While allowing the app would have been pretty innocuous, now Apple picks curiosity with people about "hmmm, what does that magazine have to say that Apple is so concerned about?"

Every time Apple comments on Android they pretty much are only validating the strength of the platform. Although the argument can be made that it's time to take Android seriously and marketing has to directly address that alternative.

and every time a phone comes out and it is branded an "iPhone killer" it is pretty much validating the strength of Apple. We have a long way to go before something is referred to as a "Droid killer"...again, why are you seeing just one side of it and not the other?

everyone practices some form of censorship, but when apple does it they're a cult

EVERYONE and their mother tries to make their next phone the "iPhone killer" but when Apple comments on Android it's because Apple is terrified and cowering in a corner trying to fight off the Android onslaught.

if an iphone user comments on why they like their phone, they're labeled a fanboy, but if an android user comments on their phone, they're labeled a "smart consumer"...doesn't make sense.

 

[czerdrill]

yes, if apple blocked websites that would be censorship, because they don't own the world wide web. if they block an app from appearing in their store that's a private company deciding not to have something in their product. that's not censorship.

by your logic, everything on the internet practices some sort of censorship. like i said, droidforums has a language filter, deletes posts that they find offensive, and bans people that troll. are they practicing censorship?

Blocking websites vs. apps that deliver content is a distinction without a difference.

absolutely it is not. apple cannot tell you how to use something that is not theirs, they can decide if they want to provide you with something though.

if your cable company says "we won't allow you to visit foxnews.com if you sign up with us", that's ridiculous.

however if they say "we're not going to put a link to foxnews.com on our homepage" that's not "OMGGG censorship!!!"...it's a private company deciding not to include something in their product. there is a huge distinction between the two and i don't get how you fail to see that.

 

[kodiak799]

it's a private company deciding not to include something in their product. there is a huge distinction between the two and i don't get how you fail to see that.

It's a company making exceptions to its own standards and guidelines in anti-competitive behavior. It's censorship in every definition of the word, being private or business interest doesn't change that. If you want to play semantics about it's "not censorship in the manner the OP suggests", fine, but it's still censorship. I'd argue there's not even a valid business reason for blocking that app, but as brilliant as Jobs is he makes stupid and petty decisions just like everyone else.

Again, you have a problem with blocking the website but can't make the connection that the trend is toward apps to make interfacing with the web easier. The line of net neutrality is moving and you don't even realize you've been caught standing on the side you oppose.

And, by the way, Business 101 says you don't publicly acknowledge upstart competition (free publicity) until it becomes a real threat and viable market force. Apple is feeling the heat and that has nothing to do with being a fanboy it's just an objective observation of reality.