Racy Danish Tabloid May Sue Apple For App Rejection 319
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.'"
Porn. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Porn. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bookmark on home screen (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
What competes with iPod touch? (Score:3)
Hanging around here too long, one would begin to think that Apple forces people to buy iDevices,
What's the viable alternative to the $230 iPod touch in the market of portable media and game players with an app store? Google won't let an Android device officially access its Market unless the device meets requirements that appear unrealistic for devices in the iPod touch's price range, such as a GPS and camera. Archos makes the Archos 43, which works around this by running its own app store, but I've read reports that AppsLib has almost no selection. Besides, Best Buy and Sears didn't carry Archos 43 wh
Re: (Score:3)
You MUST use their App store to get apps.
Only if you are Apple's customer. It is currently not the case that you MUST become Apple's customer; instead of buying an iPhone you can buy a Samsung or HTC phone.
Re:Porn. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Porn. (Score:5, Funny)
Come on, the last thing Apple users want to see is nekkid chicks.
+1 funny
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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."
I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (Score:5, Informative)
Shiney!
Re: (Score:2)
Damn I haven't seen something that looked that laminated since the last time I played Doom 3
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I would like to verify the legitimacy myself (Score:5, Informative)
OMG! Titties! Fellow Americans, please avert your eyes off this European Godless smut!
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps Apple banned it because the photos are so horribly shooped, it would make the Retina display look like shit.
</justsayin'>
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Apple banned it because the photos are so horribly shooped
Shooped: pictures that have been pooped out by Photoshop.
Re: (Score:3)
In the interest of science: http://side6.dk/6-galleri/ [side6.dk]
Glad to help.
(Personally, I think this material is more appropriate to an android...
Re: (Score:3)
These young ladies have offensive tattoos. Clearly this is obscene content by the standards of my community. Ban is justified. (sound of gavel pounding)
Also, the ladies are showing their anatomy used for feeding infants. Clearly this is offensive and should not bee viewed by children under 17.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ekstra Bladet today launched a campaign, which, according to Madsen, will expose Apple’s double standards. The paper is asking its readers to send in examples of other tabloids, such as German paper Bild and British The Sun, which are allowed to show topless girls on their iPad applications.
What would the US judges say about that?
'Cause I reckon Mr Neo would like to reserve his judgements only after carefuly examing the evidence (in Bild and The Sun) by himself.
Please. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Please. (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
woooosh
Re: (Score:2)
It took 1 click and then about 1 second to figure out what "Side 9" means in Danish.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is very analogous to a newsstand. In this case, it may be a large chain newsstand, but this is just slippery slope bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:It's a good point (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Yes, it is a HUGE deal (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
Patents (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Sue on what grounds? (Score:4, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
On the flip side, what happens in Wal-Mart banned all black people because they considered them racy and offensive? Even while you and/or me considered their behavour to be normal to that specific culture and tolerable?
That's the worst analogy I've ever seen. It doesn't even mention cars. But seriously, did you just compare Apple rejecting an Application for sale on their online store to a civil rights violation? What the fuck were you thinking?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the worst analogy I've ever seen. It doesn't even mention cars. But seriously, did you just compare Apple rejecting an Application for sale on their online store to a civil rights violation? What the fuck were you thinking?
Yes. Obviously Apple is discriminating naked people in their Appstore. Surely you must see that!
- Jesper
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, what happens in Wal-Mart banned all black people because they considered them racy and offensive?
An analogy of limited value. In this case, to correct your analogy: Wal-Mart refusing to stock merchendise from suppliers it doesn't like (which, I guess, it does already happen).
For your analogy to be valid, Wal-Mart would have to stop stocking black-people and continue... what... stocking/selling white people... because Wal-Mart consider them less offensive?
Re: (Score:2)
Now I know the current law disallows it, but why shouldn't Wal-Mart be allowed to choose which customers it sells to on any grounds whatsoever?
Religious groups are allowed to discriminate, private clubs are allowed to discriminate. Why should businesses not be given that same right? It's not as if in your hypothetical situation that black people would be any worse off than before Wal-Mark turned up. They would simply not get the added benefit of being able to take part in transactions with Wal-Mart.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we live in a society with rules. Although it's very indirect, ultimately those rules are chosen by the people (all the way back to the people that chose to ratify the Constitution). And those people don't want Wal-Mart to be allowed to do that.
Re: (Score:3)
A phone that I purchased is my own phone.
True, but iOS which you can license from Apple with an iPhone still belongs to Apple. If you don't want to go by Apple's rules, you can purchase an iPhone and install some other OS on it. Apple is also under no obligation to help you to use their product outside of their intended use for it either.
Re: (Score:2)
market position (Score:2)
Do it. (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How do you define "artistic value" ? As Andres Serrano has shown, one man's bodily fluids is another man's art. Some would argue that the human form is a work of art. Others are ashamed of it. So who is wrong, and who is right ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The App Store approval guidelines have been on Apple's developer website for a while now. Here's a snapshot from the day they were first published.
http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/app-store-guidelines.pdf [weblogsinc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your definition of the word "The" seems to be faulty.
[An example of likely] App Store approval guidelines have been on Apple's developer website for a while now[, but are not guaranteed to be, or even often, accurate].
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Suing for what exactly? (Score:4, Informative)
>> a tabloid with 'racy' pictures that don't even pretend to have artistic value doesn't sound like a good trial case.
Ignoring your ignorant comment where you go on imposing your definition of artistic values, there still seems to be a very minor case of Hustler v Falwell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Suing for what exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think it's legal to sue a hitman for failing to follow through on the terms of his contract?
Are you familiar with the legislation regarding censorship in Denmark? It may be like "sexual assault" in Sweden.
Re:Suing for what exactly? (Score:5, Interesting)
You are not completely off. We just don't make it into laws in Denmark, but when US TV shows started being shown on Danish TV, worried parents called in and complained because of the beeps over offensive words. They argued that censorship is wrong and harmfull to children.
Then again. The racist party recently suggested in parliament that we should add topless girls to the citizenship test, apparently thinking that would scare off muslims.
Re: (Score:2)
I really do hope refusing to be a porn delivery vehicle is not against the law in Denmark. :)
Re:Suing for what exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA: for allowing other iPad apps (lists "German paper Bild and British The Sun") to do what they have been prevented from. Duh.
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly is the tabloid suing for? Apple's policies are very well known, and I cannot believe he didn't know what the outcome would be before he submitted his app. Sounds like someone just wants come money and free publicity.
Haha. I LOL'ed at that statement. Shows a little about the way some people think of lawsuits :-)
:-)
There are no laws for "punitive damages" in Denmark from which the tabloid (Ekstra Bladet) can win any money. Not a dime.
The only way the tabloid stands to get money, is by being allowed to sell their app to their readers.
Yes. Really.
Free publicity? Sure, any media/newspaper loves that, but they wouldn't have gotten that if it wasn't for Apples lame and discriminatory way of handling their app approva
Re: (Score:2)
With any luck, Apple will learn as time goes by.
They haven't in the past 30 years, why should they in the next?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Suing for what exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is welcome to use an alternate country.
Libertarians would do well to realize that if Governments are too weak and small, Corporations would become defacto governments.
Then a Corporation could tell people "These are my fucking private Company Towns and Roads, you are welcome to live elsewhere, if you don't like the way I do things".
If you say Corporations can't do that because the Government would stop them, well then that's why there's this case going on. In Europe at least the Corporations are not yet the final authorities on what is allowed or not, no matter what some EULA or Company Policy says.
Why is parent modded "troll"??? (Score:2)
I don't necessarily agree with 130905 but... disagree != troll ???
- Jesper
Discrimination? Liberal freedoms? Western culture? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's Apple's fucking market, not anyone else's. These guys are welcome to use an alternate delivery system or put their rag out for any other device. This is horseshit.
Ah, but owning a market place does not give you absolute power to do with it as you please.
:-)
In civilized countries there are rules to govern trade and business. I don't know which African Banana republic you live in, but 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 discriminate other businesses, engage in unfair trade practices, discriminate ethnic minorities, etc. They also must adhere to consumer protection laws, and other national regulation.
Please read up on "real world", and "western culture" on Gooogle or wikipedia before you visit us.
Oh, and don't bring your horseshit with you.
- Jesper
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly I should have used words like "fuck" and "shit" more, like the original poster, to stay clear of the troll rating... instead of writing about such horrible concepts as "western culture" and "liberal freedoms"...
- Jesper
More money to hire a lawywer (Score:3)
So, even if you think Apple has a monopoly via the iPod Touch, you'd be extremely hard-pressed (read: would not be able) to show that they abuse it (in a legal sense).
I would be hard-pressed because I lack dollars to hire a lawyer. But this tabloid might have a better chance to show that Apple is abusing a monopoly by rejecting an app because it has more kroner to hire better lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I'd be happy to contribute some bandwidth and cycles for a DDOS on this shit.
You're absolutely right. Apple deserves a good DDOS for their shitty behavior.
So glad you understand the importance of the issue at hand. We need more people like you to make society and fair competition prosper.
More power to ya' I say. More power to ya'!
- Jesper
Re: (Score:2)
Think of a broader definition, there isn't a different App publishing company they can go to so therefor Apple has control of the market. If Apple restricts access to that market then it is anti-competitive behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you buy apps for your iPhone / iPad at the Microsoft or Google app stores?
Re: (Score:3)
They don't apply the same rules to everyone. They've approved Playboy and Sports Illustrated booby apps while removing others from the store.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't apply the same rules to everyone. They've approved Playboy and Sports Illustrated booby apps while removing others from the store.
I would just assume that there is always some judgement call, how much they are in line with the license terms they accepted, and how far out some contents is. Quite possible that some similar apps will be on one side, and some apps will be on the other side. That's like you are failing your driving test because you made mistakes, and I passed even though I made mistakes. There is a level that is allowed, and a level outside.
Re: (Score:3)
To extend your analogy, it'd be like a driving test if:
* The rules were constantly changing, subjective and ill-defined, for example - drivers who annoy other road users will be rejected, drivers who have those awful dice in the front of their car will be rejected
* The rules were applied in wildly different ways to different test subjects
* Y
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, it doesn't [apple.com].
Re: (Score:2)
"Hurry up Fnuggi! I can feel you're about to thaw!"
At the bottom: "Icicle time..!"
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt this incident would affect sales of the iPad in Denmark (or other Scandinavian countries in the future). But I sure bet the tabloid's sales will go up the roof... You can't beat human nature and Steve knows it better than anybody.
Doubtful. Their readers are not big on expensive technology gadgets. I don't think this will change a lot for them.
Their real agenda is actually getting their app in the appstore.
- Jesper