But Why Does Apple Wants To Take On The Role Of Content Gatekeeper?
from the how-does-this-benefit-anyone? dept
Following the recent post we had about Apple taking down popular games from its App store, the latest buzz in on Apple denying a comic book reader entrance to its iPhone app store because the primary comic book being offered was too violent. This has created quite an uproar -- though, again, Apple has been upfront about the fact that this is a closed system from the beginning. So, it's not entirely clear why people are pissed off at Apple. It hasn't mislead anyone about the fact that it will block and censor content and apps.Still, it does make you wonder why Apple is bothering? All it seems to do is piss off people. It takes extra work and effort on Apple's part and it's hard to see who benefits. Plenty of other systems out there allow anyone to develop apps and content, and they get by just fine, often using user feedback systems to make sure that "bad" content and apps get weeded out fast, without any complaints from users. Having Apple set itself up as the ultimate gatekeeper isn't "censorship" -- it's just pointless.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: comic, content, gatekeeper, iphone, murderdrome
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It isn't censorship?
And don't give me any BS about how it isn't censorship because it isn't the government doing it. I know it isn't government censorship. Just because it's only illegal for the government to do it, doesn't mean that non-governmental entities can't do it nor does it make it non-evil just because it isn't illegal (again, I don't think this case is a particularly malevolent form of censorship).
And just for completeness the M-W.com definition of censor:
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
its not selling the app its an open source development that apple has banned from being used on something you own. That's like buying a car and the automotive company taking your aftermarket rims because they don't like them on the car they made. That's just not how it works, when you buy something its yours. Its not up to apple to decide what you can and cant do with your own property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It isn't censorship?
isn't a hardware store allowed to choose which tools it sells and which it doesn't?
isn't a software shop allowed to choose what programs it sells and what programs not to sell?
how is apple deciding what apps are sold on its App store any different?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It isn't censorship?
I never said they weren't allowed to do it. In fact, here is a quote from what I said illustrating this:
"Now, I'm not going to say that they are evil for doing this or that they have no right to keep whatever they want out of their store..."
All I said is that the issue of whether or not they are allowed to do it and whether or not they should do it is irrelevant. Even if what they were doing was determined by all to be the right thing to do, it would still be censorship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It isn't censorship?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It isn't censorship?
@ BK vague im not even sure this article is about the kill switch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It isn't censorship?
My entire comment was about this part of the post: 'Having Apple set itself up as the ultimate gatekeeper isn't "censorship" -- it's just pointless.
That is a patently false statement. It IS censorship, just not a particularly egregious example of it.
I see this misuse of the word most often with "free market" types who seem to do it for no other reason than the fact that they want this anti-knowledge act to be the sole occupation of the government and NOT free acting companies so they can point and say "See what the government does? That's why we need less regulation!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because it's what they have always done. Apple are, always have been and always will be control freaks in regards to all their products, even when apple themselves suffer for it
The loss of the whole Mac vs PC war was in a large portion down to this, they had the better product/os but the freedom offered to developers/hobbists/users on the pc platform garanteed apple would lose and they did.
This mentality of apple is why i have always did my best to stay away from their products, because at the end of the day they make MS look angels (and that takes some doing)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Assholes
How dare they decide what they'd like to offer.
Not to mention the fact that Youtube does allow Snuff or just plain good old porn clips.
Anyway, Apple's store should probably embrace the "T" rating compliance and get it over with. Put a big fat "T rating or better" and get it over with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
User-Created.
As far as I'm aware, there aren't many stores that sell "consumer-created" products, and advertise themselves as doing so.
If I remember correctly, one of the hypes of the Apple Store was the open-source capability of users being able to submit applications they created. Apple seemed mighty proud of that. Suddenly, some of those applications aren't good enough and the creators are stonewalled?
Put in user-feedback. Applications with very low scores are removed, or moved down the list. Something. Don't flat out say "It's not good enough, so we won't put it here.".
I don't think I'd call it "censorship". I think people just jump to use that word any time something is done they don't like, and it involves removal of anything from a public medium. I will call it bad business, arrogant business. Someone mentioned it above...Apple has ALWAYS been insanely steadfast in having unrelenting control over anything they do, and Steve Jobs (if you've ever met the guy) really, really puts off an arrogant demeanor. It fits his company.
Apple needs to step it up. The Apple fanboys aren't enough to keep the ship from sinking. Apple soon will not be a Multimedia company. They're quickly moving towards being an electronic manufacturer, and are losing touch with the internet. Maybe they should take a cue from MS's issues brought on by arrogance, and avoid that happening to themselves.
(Though...I have to admit...I'll be cheering when it hits them).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
you're an idiot sir
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It isn't censorship?
It is simple. You much be republican, you can't think for yourself, so listen to Rush. You buy something with outside access to anything on the internet, but you have help with what you need to think/read/use on the device you purchased.
Kind of funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
it is censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: User-Created.
they want to keep a certain standard (what ever it might be) and thats what they are doing, or at least they seem to be trying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is just more confusion...
To each their own, I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: User-Created.
Secondly, how is "Apple denying a comic book reader entrance to its iPhone app store because the primary comic book being offered was too violent." not censorship? What aspect of it disqualifies it from being censorship?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You don't have to buy an iPhone
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY AN IPHONE
AN IPHONE IS A TOY, A PRIVILEGED, NOT A RIGHT
APPLE IS A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, NOT A GOVERNMENT
THE IPHONE IS NOT A PUBLIC SERVICE
Buy a different phone. Get over it. Get your own PDA. Do what you want with it. Stop complaining that you can't get your way, its childish.
I spent a few hundred less on my Nokia N95 and I can use it in the US, Europe, Japan, over 3G networks, or even over 802.11 if I want. I get free GPS (would have to pay Nokia to enable voice activated GPS) with it as well.
Best part: It came completely unlocked. Popped in my T-Mobile SIM and I can use it anywhere. I can make calls wherever my T-Mobile plan allows. If I need to talk somewhere it doesn't cover, I'll get a different plan.
The phone's got a 5 megapixel digital camera. That's better quality than the digital camera I do have, and paid 90 dollars for. It's got a secondary camera as well so I can do video calls if I want.
I can browse the web from my mobile phone. Which means thanks to my gmail account I can send e-mails from it just fine.
Hell, its got an RSS feed reader. I can add as many as I want and I get the info for free whenever I connect it to a network.
With the right web apps I can do whatever I want with it. That comic was too violent? Host it on the web. Make it a pay to see like some newspapers have tried. I'll be able to look at it.
Hell, the iPhone users would be able to look at it then.
You people need to grow up. If something does something you don't like, too bad. Do something about it or shut up. Sniveling never solved anything. This is one of the biggest reasons we have so many problems in this country nowadays. People would rather whine their rights are being taken away than fix the problem, and they think they have a right to toys.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You don't have to buy an iPhone
AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK.
For the rest of your natural life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DAMN STRAIGHT!
Thats how it should be. Usually I don't bother commenting because it is, as a general rule, a complete waste of time, seeing as half of you won't even read my whole post before picking it to pieces.
However I made the exception this time simply to ask, why are you all spending so much time discussing this?
If you can do something about it then do it, if you cant then get over it.
At least Anonymous Coward has the right story. gratz.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You don't have to buy an iPhone
There is nothing inherently wrong with censorship. It's the specific use that is bad or not. Self-censoring to keep from blurting out something embarrassing in public is a good use. Apple is censoring this program because they don't want to be associated with something they consider to be overly violent. This is not a malevolent goal or act and I don't have a problem with them doing it. It *IS* censorship though. Not matter how much you, and apparently Mike, wish it to be, calling something censorship is not an indictment of wrongdoing which has, as it's sole purpose, the ability to mock or deride.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Missing point....
I would compare it to a village that has exactly one store and does not allow others to open new stores. In this case that store should not use its own discretion in deciding what to sell.
With these kind of rules and restrictions I feel the deal is more like "leasing" or "renting" the iPhone, not exactly "owning" one. I think apple should make it clear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Missing point....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Missing point....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Missing point....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You don't have to buy an iPhone
Also, on a sidenote, i find it hard to believe you got the N95 for hundreds less than $199. Even hundreds less than $499. Not that I really care. It just seems to be an odd statement to make. Even if you got it for free, that wouldn't be the norm, so it'd make a lousy argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grammar Alert
I do believe you mean "misled".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hypothetically, if a content gatekeeper could remove Sturgeon's 90%, that'd be immensely valuable.
Consider different retailers — some, when you walk in the store, you know 90% of the stuff in the store is going to be of poor quality. You have to figure out, for each item you wish to purchase, "is this of acceptable quality?". That takes time.
Other retailers try quite hard to make sure everything they sell is of high quality. You can grab a random item off the shelf, and be pretty confident that it's of good quality. You don't have to spend time determining that yourself.
Time is valuable.
Whether Apple is succeeding in this and if they're going about it in the best possible manner are different questions; but most definitely there is value in a gatekeeper.
Another fairly clear example: Consider back when FTP archives were a popular way to get freeware & shareware, back in the mid-to-late 90's. (Anyone remember the Info-Mac Archive?) Archive operators would perform an important and valuable content gatekeeper action: They would run a virus scan.
There are many problems with content gatekeepers, of course, but remember there are advantages too, and in some situations they may — overall — make sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Missing point....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It isn't censorship?
Once again, a perfect example of why we can't have a civil dialog.
Why did you find it necessary to inject politics into this, and to level an insult against what amounts to half of the country?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing point....
if everything thought like you slavery would still be allowed in america because it was the status qou. Prohibition would still be the case if people didn't voice their opinions. heck, America would never have fought for it's independence if people who disliked the status qou didn't stand up and voice their opinion.
complaining about things is how most of the world works. first they complain, then they find solutions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It isn't censorship?
isn't a book store allowed to sell the books it please and only those?
how is apple deciding what apps are sold on its App store any different?
~~~
How would you feel if the book store sold you a book then came and took it back saying "you can't read this"?
This is different from not having the book to sell you because they don't/wont sell it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gatekeeper
it happens all the time, people bargain-bin shop, they go to goodwill or other used stores, they buy the cheapest thing that does what they want because they don't care. and what about video-games and movies (or in this case books)? the gatekeeper may not like Hellboy, because it has religious tones, but I (and other people hopefully) would be interested in it because we view t as just a fun story.
while a gate keeper can be good, I don't lie them myself, and will seek other places without control. to me, the extra time spent finding the product with a good price to pay to be able to get whatever product I want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow! Enough with the political slurs!!!
All of the hate, guys. All of you are shouting at each other; probably most of you are all at least twice my age: act like it.
For the iPhone thing:
1. Don't buy it if you hate Apple.
2. Don't buy it if you expect open source, unlimited apps.
3. There are many other 'smart phones out there; pick one of those and stop bitching about things you don't own, and therefore shouldn't care about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It isn't censorship?
Yes. And if they decide not to sell a book because of its objectionable content, that's censorship too. For example, Wal-Mart censors music by not selling any with profanity*. The hardware store example isn't good because nobody censors tools. However if a bookstore doesn't carry a book because it doesn't sell well, or doesn't match their customer base's desires, not censorship. Someone posted a definition of censorship above, check it out.
* I never really liked the term "explicit language". As opposed to implicit language? The word "profane" isn't profane, just use it. Kind of like "graphic scenes". Contrasted with the usual textual scenes? It's TV, of course it's graphic!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Missing point....
I don't own a iPhone because my current phone is good enough for me (I don't go out and buy the shiniest product of the day just to boost my ego).
I don't have anything against apple/iphone. I do own a macbook, a ibook and a ipod and I am satisfied with all of them.
In case of iPhone, I think their strategy is stupid and exploits fleabrains like you. I am not asking them to completely open up their phone but at least be transparent about their policies.
I will be up for a new phone next summer and I would like to "buy" one not rent. (If I am renting it why should I pay $200 non-refundable?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow! Enough with the political slurs!!!
Oops, I just told you what not to say... I'm so conflicted now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In this era of instant customer feedback, I don't think we need a gatekeeper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
safe harbors?
Does this mean they lose DMCA section 230 safe harbor protection if an iPhone App violates copyright?
Someone should write an iPhone eBook reader. The first title can be Cheesing Off Fanboys for Fun and Profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How does this surprise anyone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Apple iPhone
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]