

Apple At Its Worst: It's Time to Stop Censoring Apps - johnpaultitlow
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/apple-should-reinstate-drone-stop-censoring-apps.php
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.
======
magicalist
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.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
True.

Censorship counts even for "bad" things. The US has free speech, unless it is
child porn, for instance.

------
josteink
Apple censoring apps in its own proprietary app-store isn't really a big deal
to society as a whole.

Apple censoring what other devices are allowed to exist outside their
production-lines and what competing products customers are allowed to choose
is.

~~~
gwright
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".

~~~
bookwormAT
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.

~~~
gwright
Ok so now 'business' is the same as 'politics'?

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.

------
rjd
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.

~~~
drcube
You bought an iPhone because you _don't_ want the ability to be notified of
drone strikes?

~~~
rjd
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.

------
Steko
"25 Billion Apps Later, Things Have Changed"

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.

------
andyfleming
If you don't like it buy an Android!

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.

------
drcube
"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.

~~~
cjensen
For $99/year, you can put any open source program on it you like. That's all
it costs to be a developer.

~~~
bookwormAT
But you can not distribute that program.

~~~
k-mcgrady
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.

------
crgt
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.

~~~
mikeash
"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.

------
hcarvalhoalves
Focusing on the wrong point.

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.

~~~
thwest
Are any of these articles criticizing Apple calling for the government to
forcibly open the AppStore? No. We are making demands as Apple customers.

------
ScottBurson
I was planning to replace my Android phone with an iPhone when my current
contract ran out. Now I think I won't.

------
drivebyacct2
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.

~~~
gavinlynch
>> "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.

~~~
onetimeuse001
_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._

Too bad Bill Gates isn't looking for a lawyer or advocate now.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft>

~~~
gavinlynch
Are you suggesting Apple is a monopoly?

~~~
onetimeuse001
No, not yet (~30% share) but what you said it's not true. They cannot do
"whatever they want." Eventually the Feds will start asking questions.

~~~
gavinlynch
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.)

