God Apple are so childish
Or scared of Android.
Apple has apparently banned an iPad-based magazine from its online store - because the titled focuses on Google's Android platform. The app comes from Danish tech publisher Mediaprovider, whose boss, Brian Dixen, told local newssite Digitale Medier this his app, Android Magasinet, had been rejected by Apple's App Store …
...just how many people are actually going to read it?
I mean it's not as if Android and iPhone are the same thing, if you've got an iPhone then you don't have Android, so you're not going to give a fuck about this magazine... it's only possible purpose may be to try and tempt iPhone users over to Android.
"...just how many people are actually going to read it?
I mean it's not as if Android and iPhone are the same thing, if you've got an iPhone then you don't have Android, so you're not going to give a fuck about this magazine... it's only possible purpose may be to try and tempt iPhone users over to Android."
1) It said iPad, not iPhone.
2) If nobody's going to read it, then what's the problem?
3) This is why you need to separate the various functions that Apple is doing all in one, i.e., hardware, software, and applications. The walled garden keeps just getting shadier and shadier.
I guess no one has an ipod and an android phone? Humm, let me think... no, I definatly know a chap that has both.
I guess though, your right. They shouldn't bother to publish things hardly any one is interested in reading. Makes sense, apple saved him wasting a lot of time publishing all that good info that no one would be interested because they happen to own an iPhone.
Are you saying iPhone owners are closed minded and have no interest in any thing outside of their love for the Jobs device?
Apple rejected the app, and has good reason to. Android is a competing device OS. Granted, banning a magazine written about Android is a bit harsh, as they could, theoretically, ban PC Magazine, PC World, etc, etc under the same premise. It just emphasizes that iOS and the app store are not actually yours. You just get to pick from the apps that Apple thinks you might need, and of course which of their 3000 app-number-inflating fart apps you should use, since you can't even have a biological mechanism that they don't control.
This is the way that Apple, twitterbook et. al. are privatising the internet.
If you want this android information, or any other information, get onto a web page and find it! With improved facility to keep favourites/bookmarks and sync them across devices, most browsers are much easier to use now when looking at the same site for updated info. DO use the web pages and keep the net open and working to modern standards. DON'T buy into closed access/walled garden systems.
ChromeOS is doing compared to android (NOT!)
It wasn't pre-release hype. Apple continued to follow the line that the web browser is how people deliver applications for the iPhone for the first full year of sales. The jailbreaking community and various aggressive blogs forced their hand, and I assume that App Store revenues have cemented their change in direction. However, it's a sign of their attitude in general that I almost feel I have to say that they're dedicated to keeping the browser completely open.
See my post history on other threads for my willingness to jump in when people are making unsupported claims or overreaching on an issue, but on this issue I think the analysis is correct: here Apple are damaging their consumers, damaging their own reputation and damaging the marketplace. Their controlling tendency is going to cost them, even if it takes death by a thousand cuts rather than a single, watershed moment. If I were a serious content producer I would continue to pursue an iPad distribution channel for the simple reason of market share; I would nevertheless ensure that everything I produce is easily portable elsewhere. Pragmatically I'd want to fully embrace the iPad to maximise profits right now, but I'd certainly have an exit strategy in place.
WTF has politics got to do with this? Do you really think that stating *fact* (go look on Youtube for the launch Steve-note and check the archives here for the caterwauling developers lamenting the lack of an SDK) is an expression of political belief? Apple have not 'abandoned' web apps at all. Why do you think that Jobs and his cronies are still pushing HTML5 as the saviour of the interwebs? No, it's not just to piss Adobe off! And what does "someone who believes that pre-release hype is just as good as post-release performance" even mean? The iPhone's web performance has always been good; in the US, AT&T's network has been the week link. Twat.
FTR, I voted Liberal Democrat and use a Nexus One.
I have an android phone and an ipod touch. I often use my ipod touch to surf the net and read books etc...
I have even browsed the net for android related stuff on the ipod.
While i think it is deplorable that apple seek to censor the content of yoru ipod / iphone (ansd this is why i bought an android phone over an iphone), the app support is much better on ipod / iphone. For example companies like memorymap, ordinate survey etc only release ipod apps.
Anyway, apple are either ego maniacs or scared of android hoping that if they can censor android away from their customers then they wont know about it and wont buy it.
Censorship has a great track record though doesnt it?
Better app support for android please!s
I am amazed that more people don't raise a stink over Apples business policies. If Mozilla or Microsoft said you cannot read any web pages that are about the opposition there would be hell to pay.
I have an iphone but my next phone will in all likelihood not be apple and I certainly won't buy an IPAD until Apple grow up and realise that they cannot control content in the long term. What with this and the Flash debacle Apple are beginning to look very dark.
Think El Reg need to develop an "Apple bans x application from the App Store", filled with generic text, and perhaps even an autopopulated comments board.
Apple operate their walled garden and grant/deny apps based upon a complex algorithm of their whims and which way the wind is blowing today. Nothing new, can we all move on from being shocked and outraged?
So we should all just sit there and take it? This is outrageous behaviour and should be highlighted. We should remain "shocked and outraged" or this will become the norm. Worse still, as everyone tends to copy Apple, it will become the norm elsewhere when Apple are seen to get away with it.
There is no way you can justify or blithely brush off this kind of pathetic censorship.
Like I was entitiled to piss off my remaining 1.5 year APC (Australian Personal Computer) magazine subscription because they drifted from being PC(wintel)-centric, to iApple-centric.
Heck, even their online (downloadable) magazine subscription is dedicated ONLY to the iPad.
I might be biased. My next smartphone is definately going to be some flavour of Android.
Steve's toybox, so it's Steve's rules! You don't like him or his fruity company, don't go near it. Simple!
"Oh God! Steve ( like it was him personally!) turned down my app! Quick, call out the national guard!", FFS!
As a fully grown adult, you are free to make choices. You are free to choose whatever you wish based on what you wish to see or use. You do not need to follow the herd.
I don't like it, so I don't use it. I made a decision based on conclusions I made on my own and taking in the evidence of what I do and don't like. I don't like Steve's stilly app-store, so I don't use it.
"As a fully grown adult, you are free to make choices. You are free to choose whatever you wish based on what you wish to see or use." But you're not are you. That's the whole point of this. Apple has decided that fully grown adults do not get a choice in this.
You are touting the well worn "well if you don't like it then don't buy an iPad" bollocks. The thing is that you simply have no idea what might be allowed or banned subsequent to your expensive purchase. The fundamental rules can change at any time after you buy one. Any Joe Public owner who does not visit sites like this will be simply unaware of Apple's business practices.
The iPad is being sold as a media consumption device. If that media is being censored (especially in such a pathetic manner) then it is not right and no amount of wriggling and twisting can justify it. I can't honestly believe people are defending this.
Did you even read what I wrote, especially the last paragraph?
"But you're not are you. That's the whole point of this. Apple has decided that fully grown adults do not get a choice in this."
BUT YOU ARE! Don't buy Apple kit! Choose something that WILL allow you to choose what you wish to see. Galaxy Tab for instance?
"You are touting the well worn "well if you don't like it then don't buy an iPad" bollocks. The thing is that you simply have no idea what might be allowed or banned subsequent to your expensive purchase."
EXACTLY MY POINT! You have no idea what will happen, but given Steve's past record, why trust him? Why would you even consider going anywhere near his draconian app-store to purchase locked down devices and secured and restricted software, with it's restricted media content. You call it bollocks, then back it up with a sound supportive argument?
"The fundamental rules can change at any time after you buy one."
EXACTLY! Don't buy Apple!
"The iPad is being sold as a media consumption device. "
Disagree. The iPad is being sold as a device to secure a very lucrative market for a very rich comapny. There is no such noble goal as media consumption device, it's like every other device from every other manufacturer is designed for one purpose. To make money, nothing else. They only want the middle ground, safe media, that's where the money is, that's where the big media corps will jump on board. The more big media corps sign up, the money rolls in. The media corps know that if their content is safe on the device, they will sign up huge cheque in hand, empty money bag in the other, ready to collect the profit from the "beloved leader".
Re. all your "EXACTLY! Don't buy Apple!" shouts. As I said in my post, the normal everyday person on the street will probably be blissfully unaware of Job's behaviour. So they shell out £600 on Amazon, Curry's, BestBuy etc and then subsequently find themselves subject to censorship further down the line.
It is only by publically highlighting this kind of behaviour that ordinary people will get the opportunity to make the informed purchasing decision you are advocating.
The iPad is being heavily advertised as a media consumption device. I can't see their TV ads and outdoor material saying "look mate, we're just in it to make money to be honest with you"
while it is true that... "Any Joe Public owner who does not visit sites like this will be simply unaware of Apple's business practices."
It could also be said that.... Any Joe public owner will never know, or care, that apps such as this are being banned (or for that matter that there is an approval process, or that all Apps aren't made by apple.....)
Further more, it 'could' be said that most Joe Public owners care not that there are differences between iOS devices and Android devices, and would also not be interested in reading about one, on the other.
"As a fully grown adult, you are free to make choices. You are free to choose whatever you wish based on what you wish to see or use. You do not need to follow the herd."
Erm, I think you may have miss understood..... yes, people should be able to choose what they read, and it isn't apples job to tell them.
Apple is anti choice, Steves way or the high way.
This is yet another sensationalist grab at free publicity. Think about - "I want to distribute an Android magazine, so I'm sure the Apple Store would be a great place to sell it". Riiiiiight.
If you're the owner of a supermarket, do you ask your competitors to hand out flyers or magazines advertising your products and specials? This magazine will be funded by Apple's competitors - why should Apple feature them in its own store? The Apple Store (online or physical) is Apple's. Who in their right mind would go to the Apple store to learn about Android phones?
The attempt to push this through - and the subsequent noise at its completely predictable failure - is banking on hysteria to generate publicity.
Sorry, but I really think you are missing the point. Imagine going to Tesco and being told "We're not carry Private Eye this week because they keep criticising us" - or "We're not selling the Daily Redtop today because they decided to run a full page advert for Lidl"
But why am I arguing with you? If you already read Neil Mitchell's post and you still stand by yours, there's little point in me or anyone trying to change your mind.
It appears that you never do any shopping at a supermarket. I walk into my local supermarket and purchase the newspaper, which includes all sorts of advertising and coupons for the competitors of that supermarket. That, friend, is business as usual.
Now, if that supermarket told the local newspaper publisher that they would have to print and distribute special versions of the newspaper that didn't contain any mention or advertising of the market's competitors, then it would be different -- and newsworthy -- just as it is newsworthy that Apple has apparently decided that an iPad application (Note: PAD not PHONE) that discusses a platform that competes with their other products cannot be installed on ANY of their devices.
For most people, iTunes is the only way they have of installing apps - and Apple goes out of their way to keep it that way even so far as to unsuccessfully trying to make it a CRIMINAL offense to install something that doesn't go through iTunes. For Apple to say that on a device that they market and sell as an e-book reader that the user may not read a publication that discusses Apple's competition... well, it would seem to me as an abuse of their monopoly powers, censorship, and perhaps even false advertising.
Er... Don't really *want* to comment - just feel like I have to.
Despite how outrageous this is, what's even more outrageous is that some apple fans will defend it! Some comments above already point to this. The rest will pretend they don't know.
The extent to which these people will bend over backwards to deny the truth that their beloved apple is bad is just amazing.
I have an iPad which I will sell in the next few weeks, prompted by similar such problems I have with Apple's attitude.
What's more, in future I will find it really tough to own any apple product, for fear of being bundled in with this, most idiotic segment of the population. Honestly, I don't think I could take the idea I'm part of a species so blind it gives the dodo a run for its money.
Sorry to be mean fanbois. But you deserve it for being evil. Like evil Steve above:-)
No matey, it's like Tesco's not carrying the Sainsbury's magazine - which it doesn't, btw, since that magazine concentrates solely on its closest competitor. See a trend here?
This is blatantly someone stirring some free publicity (fair play; it worked). He might as well have tried to publish some hardcore porn to the app store, the outcome was so predictable.
Furthermore, Apple don't/can't censor what ebooks you read on the ipad, particularly if you are a Kindle app user.
@doug johnston: Have I missed some story about Apple refusing to render web pages that have the word 'Android' in them? No-one is censoring your web...
It's a DANISH magazine submitted to a non-Dane Apple store using unlicensed graphics from a 3rd party. Not only was this questionable per apple policy on promoting the competition (for which there is no such policy to reject an app simple because it mentions or even focuses on Android) but it's questionable even for international law and money issues, and possible even IP rights. More so, this magazine does seem to focus on hacking androids a bit much, so it;s not just android, but the hacking in general that could easily run afoul here.
See, Apple is a legitimate seller, and as a seller, if they're aware the developer is doing something illegally, allowing the sale is an issue that can lead to liability issues. Some things are banned for legal reasons, not policy. This has little to do with it containing "Android" in the title. It may have very well to do with the content of said rag, licensing issues, or international issues.
...but I've seen adverts for BBC "specials" on Canadian TV channels. I've also seen SciFi, Discovery and others advertising their Neat Stuff on other channels. Round here, it's required that you allow that. You can't ban someone from advertising with you just because they compete. Mind you, I do have to admit that was all about eight years ago.
I haven't had cable for seven years and I don't miss it. Between El Reg, Netflix, Ars Technica, the odd video game and Real Freaking Life...I have all the media I could possibly want!
Still, this banning someone from publishing a magazine because you disagree with the content is crap. If you are claiming to be a platform for the distribution of magazines, then you should be forced to allow all (legal) content, regardless of origin. Similarly, it should be illegal to sell a car radio that won't play a specific radio station simply because you don't like the content!
Well I don't watch ITV much, but on the Channel 5 children's morning slot (Milkshake) there are frequently adverts for tie-in products from CBeebies (eg In the Night Garden or Waybuloo), complete with theme tunes. These products are generally produced by third parties under licence from the BBC. And to my mind that's really not very different at all from the Android magazine case. The magazine isn't advertising Android or produced by Google, it's a third-party commercial product on the subject of Android.
...you saw a Ford brochure at a Chevrolet dealership? Let me answer that for you: never. It's business guys, something techy nerds and the IT staffers never seem to understand. "Oh duuhhhh, why can't my Jaguar key start my Mini Cooper. It's all so unfair ... blah, blah, blah.?
The inevitable pointless Apple thread car analogy! Well done sir!
Manufacturer sales brochures and media content are not the same thing my friend. Of course You wouldn't expect a Chevvy dealer to have Ford brochures. Everyone buying a car expects that when they walk into the showroom.
However, you wouldn't expect to walk into a book store to be told that the Manager personally doesn't like vegan cook books so you can't buy one. You point out that you didn't realise this before buying a £100 gift card the week before, but they tell you it's tough that's just how it is. Oh, and there's a restocking fee if you want a refund.
this is more like telling you not to drive your already bought and paid for Chevrolet down any road/street with the name Ford in it or vice versa.
it's not cool with me, but if it works for you then good luck to you. I'll stick with my slightly less censored version of the world rather than be dictated to by Skeletor in a bad jumper.
However I call possible bluff here. It appears all the people here have just taken this at face value from a man who wants to sell his magazine?
a) No actual detail, no copy of an official response by email. Only response mentioned anywhere is a "phone conversation" that was had, so no evidence then.
b) Only one persons interpretation, and no direct quotes??
c) is it possible that they have been "banned" for content? Does that mean Android, or the actual content of the magazine? Considering android mags are available on app store, so there are precedents (although some argument on what they are doing right) for android only content.
Did the ceo ask what they could do like the other sellers? Or did he think "I can get some great exposure for my magazine absolutely free"? I know what I would do in his position. Some suggestion he might have done similar before too :).
He submitted an app, that he knew could possibly contravene TOS as he publishes an iPad magazine too, and didn't know it might be a problem?
Jobs is a tit, but reading the facts for yourself first, rather than the Daily Mail type reporting and responses you get here. Lets get some actual detail then stamp on it.
"Microsoft encourages immigration and benefit fraud, and allows paedos to kill kids" for the next headline?
Cue fandrones.. the new fanbois
Enough with this There's an App for That crap. Last time I checked, we had this wonderful, stable (ish), well established medium for formatting articles for online publishing that Just Works on just about every device ever made. It's called... erm...... oh, that's right, I remember now: HTML.
Paris because even she knows not to reinvent the wheel.
The majority of you lots are hilarious and like a bunch of of woman with a gossip magazine. I think I've only seen a handful reasonable comments.
This so called publisher is playing the oldest trick by crying wolf as he/she gets lots of free publicity for a minor magazine.
There are lots of unix and windows and music and all sorts of magazines. This has nothing to do with android but all to do with what the developer has submitted. But of course that wouldn't be news worthy and just boring would it. So much nicer to cause a stir.
What if I went to the opticians, and spotted some reading specs, that worked great, but the optician said I wouldnt be allowed to read certain books, and I could only buy my books from them. I may still decide to get them, it may seem stupid, but they are really nice specs and the prohibited list doesn't bother me too much, I don't read that crap anyway. What would annoy me though, would be if the optician suddenly revealed that actually the list wasn't a fixed list and that they could add or remove restrictions whenever they liked. My specs would be amazing for approved content, and useless for non-approved content that the optician didn't like. If the restrictions are fixed, measurable and consistent then I make my own decision about whether or not they are suitable for me. If they are subject to the vagaries of personal influence then I have little control over whether my specs are any use. The question that I need to ask is, how much do I trust the taste of my optician at this point?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019