

Apple, Give Us a "Freedom of Choice" Button - there
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/06/eff-nothing-new-about-iphones-closed-platform

======
moxiemk1
Has Apple started suing people for jailbreaking or unlocking their iPhones?
The people experimenting with running Android on them?

No?

They don't have to make it _easy_ for you to do anything you want. They can
choose what functionality they put in. But they're hardly stopping you from
doing whatever you want with the device.

~~~
benbeltran
This is true. My only bug with apple right now is the lack of transparency in
the App Store Submission Process. The rest is really their decision, the
hacking community is relatively free to do what they want, and apple knows
it's good for them.

~~~
invisible
While I tend to agree, deciding whether an app will probably get allowed in
doesn't take serious brain power. Does it duplicate something that Apple
spends tons of R&D money on (e.g. phone capabilities, "redoing" what the
iPhone normally does, etc)? Probably avoid stepping on too many toes. Do you
use private APIs? I'd rewrite. Is it illicit? Good luck on that one.

~~~
chc
You forgot these actual reasons apps have been rejected:

\- Is it a picture frame?

\- Does it include political cartoons?

\- Does it include an ideograph of a clock?

\- Does it do the exact same thing as the previous version, which was
accepted?

\- Does it include legally licensed song lyrics that mention sex (with the
appropriate "adult content" black mark)?

\- Does it display an unoffensive screenshot from a Mac?

\- Does it allow access to the Internet through public APIs?

\- Does it mention the price of the Voyager spacecraft?

\- Does it use the extremely popular OpenFeint network and the reviewer
happens to be in a bad mood that day?

~~~
invisible
I have never seen 1/3 of those reasons and I'd wager there is more to the
story than is let on. The problem is you see a developer crying foul when we
have no idea - and the app may go on to be "fixed" and then approved. Just
because someone writes a blog post as soon as they freak out about being
rejected doesn't mean they're correct.

~~~
chc
I'm sure you have never seen 1/3 of those reasons. That was my point — Apple
can and does reject apps for any completely unpredictable, off-the-wall
reasons. It's not nearly as cut-and-dried as you made it sound.

Also, can you give an example of a major rejection story where the developer
"freaked out about being rejected" and wasn't right? I don't think that
happens. Apple usually tells you in no uncertain terms when your submission
has been rejected.

And yes, the app may go on to be "fixed" and then approved, or it might not.
That doesn't change the fact that it was rejected for a bizarre reason to
begin with, in contradiction of your claim that only apps that use private
APIs and illegal and confusing apps get turned down. There are many more
reasons, a lot of which aren't written down and a lot of which _don't exist
yet_. That's the scariest part — Apple will just change their minds. Remember
the Great Skin Purge, where they deleted tens of thousands of apps for
"showing skin"?

------
naz
It's quite simple -- you can choose not to buy an iPhone.

~~~
rpledge
Exactly... People should vote with their wallet. Why should Apple be forced to
conform to what the EFF thinks is right? If enough people cared about these
issues and stopped buying Apple would take notice, but until that happens this
is all noise few will hear.

~~~
commandar
Well, the reason groups like the EFF are important is because they're there to
raise the issue before it becomes a problem. Sometimes people don't realize
how serious a problem is until it bites them in the ass, like the MyFrame
developer that defended Apple's approval process up until the point that his
app got arbitrarily rejected.[1]

The point of watchdog groups like the EFF is to make some noise and get people
to realize they _should_ care about having alternatives.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1394958>

~~~
rpledge
I think the EFF has bigger battles to fight: net neutrality, fair use, freedom
of speech, etc...

And preemptive to the reply I'll get: apple rejecting an app doesn't infringe
on free speech anymore than not getting your letter printed in the NY times.

~~~
commandar
I don't see how those fights preclude the EFF from taking a position on this.
It's not like they're litigating against Apple or anything; they're merely
pointing out an example of what is essentially a major part of their core
mission - "software lock-in is bad."

------
nwjsmith
Apple doesn't add buttons. It only removes them.

------
brisance
>>The principle is simple: just as you get to choose whatever after-market
modification you want to make to your car,<<

I'm sorry, but I stopped reading beyond that bit. There is no functioning
government regulatory body in this world that would allow exhaust systems
without catalytic converters or external wastegates, for example.

