Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship The Courts The Media Your Rights Online Apple

Racy Danish Tabloid May Sue Apple For App Rejection 319

Posted by timothy
from the bikinis-verboten dept.
the_arrow writes "In Denmark the tabloid newspaper Ekstra Bladet usually have scantily clad ladies on page 9. When making an iPad application, Apple of course rejected it because of that. However, Ekstra Bladet is not happy with that, and many sites report that Ekstra Bladet is thinking about taking Apple to European court for 'unfair censorship and anti-competitive behaviour.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Racy Danish Tabloid May Sue Apple For App Rejection

Comments Filter:
  • Porn. (Score:5, Funny)

    by MokuMokuRyoushi (1701196) on Tuesday December 07, 2010 @10:54PM (#34483118) Journal
    There's no app for that.
    • There are many Apps for that. You just have to jailbreak.
      • Re:Porn. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fyngyrz (762201) on Tuesday December 07, 2010 @11:42PM (#34483426) Homepage Journal

        No, you just have to open Safari, which comes with every iPad -- it's the perfect porn delivery system, and Apple provides it for free. In, fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you can't find porn using Safari, you're too stupid to reliably remember to draw your next breath.

        As to Apple's unwillingness to put porn in the app store itself, that's simply distasteful -- Jobs imposing his limited, socially crippled idea of what an app store should be... on his (Apple's) app store. He's not preventing any content from reaching you -- any content you imagine can be put on a web site, and Safari will deliver it (and very well, too.) He's just pretending to be socially acceptable to the mentally challenged, that's all.

        All Ekstra Bladet has to do to get those "racy" chicks to you is pop them on a web site; google will find them in about five minutes, and you can find them a second later. So in no way are you stymied, nor is Ekstra Bladet.

        • Re:Porn. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by guyminuslife (1349809) on Tuesday December 07, 2010 @11:54PM (#34483504)

          If everything is so peachy when you "just use the browser," then why have apps (or an app store) in the first place? Could it be that iPad apps provide services or user experiences that web pages (with or without HTML5 or Flash) don't?

          You know, I'll be the first to say that Apple doesn't have to sell any apps in its store that it doesn't want to. If they're not interested in taking their cut from nudie pic apps (or nudie streaming video apps, or h-games, or what-have-you, the Next Big Thing in Porn), then that's their prerogative. But to say that there is only One True Retailer for apps, and that jailbreaking is against their Terms of Service, well, that's what stinks to high heaven.

          • Re:Porn. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @12:04AM (#34483554) Homepage Journal

            In all fairness though, I'd say there are too many mobile apps on many platforms that are really just a media redistribution app for a single media business, which is what this is. Having a native app that displays articles and images fetched from the internet seems a little contrived when there is a web browser built into the device. It's very different from games and other software that need local resources to a greater degree than can be used from a web page.

            • Re:Porn. (Score:4, Insightful)

              by xnpu (963139) on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @05:17AM (#34484728)

              I'm much more likely to open an App than I am to go to my bookmarks and open a website. In the early days, Twitter clients on iPhone were crap, but I still preferred them over the website. They logged in automatically if nothing else.

              The idea is that the apps API becomes more capable with every release, while Safari lags behind. Whether it's in-app payments, NFC or whatever else. At some point there will be a feature that you can use, maybe even monetize, and it's likely to be in the apps api well before it hits Safari.

              • Re:Porn. (Score:5, Insightful)

                by h4rm0ny (722443) on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @07:12AM (#34485104) Journal
                Then it seems to me that one of the key driving forces for apps (if not the key force), is the ability of the provider to monetise their product. If there were a widely available and convenient to use (and secure) micro-payments system, perhaps we'd be seeing the same progress in web-apps as we are in Apps.
              • I'm much more likely to open an App than I am to go to my bookmarks and open a website.

                Then put the bookmark on the home screen next to the apps.

            • by gstoddart (321705)

              In all fairness though, I'd say there are too many mobile apps on many platforms that are really just a media redistribution app for a single media business, which is what this is. Having a native app that displays articles and images fetched from the internet seems a little contrived when there is a web browser built into the device.

              Well, the native apps are generally much better rendered and laid out, and work better -- they can also make use of the better interface, as well as do better caching and using

          • If everything is so peachy when you "just use the browser," then why have apps (or an app store) in the first place? Could it be that iPad apps provide services or user experiences that web pages (with or without HTML5 or Flash) don't?

            Maybe, but porn's not one of them.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by fyngyrz (762201)


            Could it be that iPad apps provide services or user experiences that web pages (with or without HTML5 or Flash) don't?

            Such as what? Sound? Browser. Movies? Browser. Movies with sound? Browser. Board games? Browser. Stills? Browser. Live Chat (probably with someone's grandmother, but..)? Browser. Escorts? Browser. Live sex shows? Browser. Purchase and/or contemplation of Realdolls? Browser. Buying sex toys? Browser.

            Also, WRT stills, the iPhoto app can load up your iPad with enormous amounts of locally store

        • Its perfectly reasonable for a company to decide that they do not want to distribute porn, or profit from it. I would not want to be in that business either.

          On the other hand, people should have the right to install this software if they want it.

          The simple solution is to allow third party app stores. Ideally people could enter the details of whatever app store they liked, and then it would "just work". I heard that there is an OS that does that, and all the apps are free as well.

        • Re:Porn. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by arivanov (12034) on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @01:48AM (#34483966) Homepage

          Their raciness is kinda... Well, there is a saying that the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Hope you are geting my drift here... In fact, I suspect that Apple's problem is probably not so much with the ladies on page 9, but the rather large collection of pages of "alternative services" advertised in the vicinity of page 9.

          In any case, Jobs has no entitlement to enforce his puritanian beliefs on the European population. He is running a service, not a religious sect and this service is quickly approaching what in EU is considered "significan market power". That ends up with regulator attention. Getting it because of page 3, page 9, etc is plain silly.

        • by sznupi (719324)

          Curiously, this decision of Jobs basically means that the excluded services are more likely to function like the internet is supposed to (do we really need separate UIs for every webpage, separate app for every radiostation, separate app for every e-book and audiobook?) - perhaps inhibiting the rush towards something quite dysfunctional.

          (though it might complicate a bit benefiting from the walled garden approach, certainly useful for porn)

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by t2t10 (1909766)

          He's not preventing any content from reaching you -- any content you imagine can be put on a web site, and Safari will deliver it

          Except when it's Flash or any of a number of codecs or scripting languages Apple disapproves of.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        There are many Apps for that. You just have to jailbreak.

        No, worse than that, there is an app for that if you are powerful or rich enough to sway Apple:

        http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/playboy/id340150554?mt=8 [apple.com]

        This is hypocrisy of the highest order from Apple, and they should learn that the hard way - I hope the company takes them to court and wins.

        They should have an adult section for all this stuff (including playboy), and let it all in, along with those dangerous dictionaries and books including swearwords.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Except if you actually read the Playboy app description, it says this at the bottom:

          "*This app does NOT contain any nude content."

  • by ShooterNeo (555040) on Tuesday December 07, 2010 @11:03PM (#34483184)

    Will someone please link to the part of the website for that tabloid that contains the alleged prurient content? I would like to verify myself to determine if the offending content warrants censorship. Let's not be hasty about condemning apple for their possibly righteous behavior without examining very carefully page 9 to see if it offends our sensibilities.

  • Please. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) *
    Yet another SLASHERTISMENT. I know, porn, geeks, porn, geeks... Seriously, why is this shit on Slashdot?
    • Re:Please. (Score:5, Funny)

      by igreaterthanu (1942456) * on Tuesday December 07, 2010 @11:20PM (#34483312)

      Seriously, why is this shit on Slashdot?

      What would Slashdot be without the occasional bashing of each and every big software company? That's like half of the reason to be here!

    • by c0lo (1497653)

      Yet another SLASHERTISMENT. I know, porn, geeks, porn, geeks... Seriously, why is this shit on Slashdot?

      Keeping us informed with various attempts along/against the "information wants to be free"?

      (hint: YRO category? Assuming that the tabloid would be granted the sentence against Apple, would this have an influence on the Turbo Hercules case?)

    • Re:Please. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by brucmack (572780) on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @12:53AM (#34483760)

      What? This is about Apple potentially having their App Store policies tried in European court, something that could potentially be a game-changer. But no, it must be a slashvertisement targeted at the millions of Danish Slashdot readers...

      • by polle404 (727386)

        That, and Ekstrabladet is like Nat. Enquirer or The Sun, sleazy journalism and they like the "see? poor us" and "we're fighting for YOUR rights" attention.
        believe me, if this has any impact on the Danish iPad users rights, it's purely accidental.

        It's slashvertisement alright.

        I kinda doubt we can muster /. users in the millions, though...
        maybe in the thousands...

    • by md65536 (670240)

      It took 1 click and then about 1 second to figure out what "Side 9" means in Danish.

    • Seriously, why is this shit on Slashdot?

      You answered that yourself here.

      I know, porn, geeks, porn, geeks.

      Add a dash of Anti-Whatever and you have a instant Slashdot story.

  • It's a good point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ciaran_o_riordan (662132) on Tuesday December 07, 2010 @11:12PM (#34483252) Homepage

    Back in the days of printed stuff, there were thousands of outlets. If one barred a certain publication, it was no big deal. The public could buy it in the other shop down the road.

    With e-publishing, there's massive consolidation that changes this situation. Amazon or Apple blocking a publication is *not* analogous to a shop choosing not to stock a publication.

    • by jo_ham (604554)

      Yes it is.

      It's only different if copyright infringement (of GPL code; let's move this into an area slashdot might care about) is somehow different on the web too, because "there's no longer a physical good to deprive from the owner". That argument is bullshit, just as yours is, amounting to a special case because epublishing is limited to a smaller number of stores.

      By your logic, if the news outlets, distribution channels and magazines were owned by one or two large corporations, then the same rules would a

      • by Sparr0 (451780)

        The difference is monopoly. If I buy my car from Dealer A, and replacement parts from Dealer B, all is well. If Dealer A sells me a car that stops running when I put in parts from another dealer, then they are being illegally (in some jurisdictions) anticompetitive. Dealer A is building a market in which they have a monopoly (see: Microsoft / Windows), then leveraging that monopoly to make more money than they could in a free market.

    • Back in the days of printed stuff, there were thousands of outlets. If one barred a certain publication, it was no big deal. The public could buy it in the other shop down the road.

      With e-publishing, there's massive consolidation that changes this situation. Amazon or Apple blocking a publication is *not* analogous to a shop choosing not to stock a publication.

      You're kidding, right? 15 seconds on Google gets you there.... Even on a MacBook. I bet I could even look at it on my iPhone [insert tasteless small breast joke here] You can't really seriously consider an iPad as the be all and end all of e-publishing. It doesn't even run Flash.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Back in the days of printed stuff, there were thousands of outlets. If one barred a certain publication, it was no big deal. The public could buy it in the other shop down the road.

      With e-publishing, there's massive consolidation that changes this situation. Amazon or Apple blocking a publication is *not* analogous to a shop choosing not to stock a publication.

      But Apple isn't blocking a publication. They can still make their publication available to iPad users; they just can't do it through the App Store.

      The proper analogy? Suppose all the stores stopped putting the printed magazine in the front of the store. You'd still be able to buy the magazine from any store you wanted; you just would have to go to the back.

      • by mark-t (151149)
        The problem with that is that the App Store is the only place that anybody without a jailbroken device can get apps. Jailbreaking may be legal, but it is not something that can be done openly because if Apple ever finds out, your warranty is broken and you can never get the unit serviced.
    • Really? You mean they couldn't make a subscription website, put out an app for Jailbroken devices, or put it on any other device out there that could support it?

      This is very analogous to a newsstand. In this case, it may be a large chain newsstand, but this is just slippery slope bullshit.
      • by brucmack (572780)

        You're oversimplifying things. Jailbreaking your phone or switching to a different device are much larger steps than simply finding another newsstand.

        Following with the analogy, jailbreaking would be like finding an underground distributor of the newspaper, potentially breaking the law in order to buy the publication. Switching devices would be like moving to another city where the publication isn't banned.

        The iPhone isn't quite as standard as Windows on PCs, but think of what would happen if Microsoft deci

    • by RazorSharp (1418697) on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @12:11AM (#34483584)

      Safari doesn't block their website so I don't buy it. If Apple was legally forced to accept every pornographic App/e-mag, then their store would turn into nothing but a huge hub for porn. The web is for openness, Apple's App Store and E-book stores are for the select items they wish to sell. This suit is pretty much like saying the iTunes store has to publish my crappy garage band because they're being anti-competitive for not doing so.

      • by brucmack (572780)

        If Apple opened up for other third-party app stores, then they can feel free to continue to decide on what they put in their own. But as long as they are the only option, they need to be held accountable for what they do.

    • You can see it with Wikileaks. They are under huge strain to keep their site up, at enormous cost. You can say what you want on the internet, as long as you can pay for the DDOS attack, the security and rape charges. Freedom of speech? Only if you can outshout the megacorp.

      Some claim the TSA is hurting travel, but few are actually stopped from travelling and that only at great expense. A far more effective method of stopping people from travelling is to make it to expensive. A farmer who needs to spend eve

  • Sue on what grounds? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by igreaterthanu (1942456) * on Tuesday December 07, 2010 @11:13PM (#34483268)

    Now as much as I don't like Apple, I must say that Apple is free to enter and to not enter into contracts as they please.

    If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone and his own app store, or take his business to Apple's competitors, such as Android.

    • If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone

      Mobile phones are a patent minefield. Without a patent war chest of its own to cross-license, a new entrant in the mobile phone business isn't likely to get far.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by vux984 (928602)

      I must say that Apple is free to enter and to not enter into contracts as they please.

      Yes, and we're also free to publicly ridicule them, take them to court, and even to pass laws describing what can and cannot be put into a contract.

      Apple is free to do try to make the world the way it sees fit, but the rest of the world is free to try to change that world as they see fit too.

    • by Splab (574204)

      Actually no, they are not.

      The TFA is missing the point quite badly. Ekstrabladet is complaining because the british newspaper The Sun is allowed to have toples girls on their application - it is illegal to differantiate like that.

      Also, since the appstore is a defacto monopoly, Apple can get in really hot water for acting like this.

    • If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone and his own app store

      App store I understand, but why would he have to create his own phone/tablet? Why can't the people who own an iPad be able to run what they darn well please?

      • by mini me (132455)

        Even if you own the iPad hardware, Apple still owns iOS. If you wish to install software on your iPad that has no connection with Apple in order to allow you to install your own software, you are free to do so.

    • by SplatMan_DK (1035528) on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @02:23AM (#34484124) Homepage Journal

      Now as much as I don't like Apple, I must say that Apple is free to enter and to not enter into contracts as they please.

      Ah, but you are wrong about that. Fortunately. :-)

      In civilized countries there are rules to govern trade and business. In the US and the EU, businesses fortunately have to follow rules set forth by society - rules designed to ensure and enforce out liberal freedoms, free trade, fair markets.

      As such, Apple is NOT free to "enter and not enter into contracts as they please" because they are not allowed to discriminate other businesses, engage in unfair trade practices, discriminate ethnic minorities, etc. They also must adhere to consumer protection laws, and other national regulation.

      Most people think that is a good thing. It makes the real world function even in spite of the mind-numbing consolidation and accumulation of corporate power thats been going on for the last decade. :-)

      If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone and his own app store, or take his business to Apple's competitors, such as Android.

      As other have pointed out, this case is not similar to a retailer refusing to sell a specific publication - because Apple essentially has monopoly in the App store.

      Your view would only be correct if Apple allowed 3rd party Appstores on the iOS platform - which they don't. Apples business model gives them an unprecedented level of control with the distribution channel, and because of that they may (fortunately) be forced to play nice. Antitrust laws and consumer protection laws are there for a reason. This is a good example.

      :-)

      - Jesper

      • by Kaz Kylheku (1484)

        In civilized countries there are rules to govern trade and business. In the US and the EU, businesses fortunately have to follow rules set forth by society - rules designed to ensure and enforce out liberal freedoms, free trade, fair markets.

        Most of these rules are not civilized at all. They are various ways by which the collectivist mob steals from the producing strong to coddle the nonproducing weak. No intereference in the market makes it fair, because it involves taking from someone who is successful in the market to help someone who is losing. Discrimination against minorities is wrong, but it's equally wrong to dictate to someone not to do it. Legislation against discrimination invariably leads to reverse discrimination (e.g. a job goes

  • ~One would assume that if Apple were an 'also-ran' in the pad market, they'd only be too eager to publish gossip, celeb news and porn over their more prudish competitiors.
  • by Socguy (933973)
    Do it.

    While it's not much of a deterrent to this kind of garbage that we've come to expect from apple in the short term. I'll still take a decision 5-10 years from now that might humble them a bit.

    Although, take what I have to say with a grain of salt. I use to pull for Apple, but I've got a growing distaste for the business practices of almighty Jobs. Not that any of this would really matter to Apple because I'm not, nor will I ever be, a customer unless or until they amend their ways! Come to t
  • Ratings (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xnpu (963139) on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @05:02AM (#34484660)

    I've never understood why Apple doesn't simply use a ratings system like movies or TV programs. They can have "inapproriate" content disabled by default and subject to age verification, while still profiting from the "perverts" who enable it.

"Out of register space (ugh)" -- vi

Working...