Apple IS Big Brother
Apple controls the content that it allows on its machines, and Apple doesn’t like a lot of things:
Apple’s crusade to free all owners of iPhones and iPads from the terrible burden of seeing a nude figure is having some comically absurd results. There’s its insistence that a graphic-novel iPad app based on Ulysses remove some tame nudity – while remaining oblivious to the historical ironies. There’s the lampooning that some pranksters engaged in even as Steve Jobs was gushing over the iPhone 4 this week.
But the more examples I see of Apple’s capricious censoring, the less funny it is. Apple not only censored an iPad app based on Ulysses, it blacked out multiple panels in another graphic novel for the iPad based on Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest. The app’s apparent sin: images of two men kissing [a cartoon of two men kissing, for the love of God! – LG].
No, I won’t be buying one of those. Too much solicitous control, like an overprotective mom. I don’t feel that I need that. In fact, I don’t even want it.
Was I the only one who thought the iPad was just plain…STUPID?
“Oh it’s…a giant iPod Touch.” Might as well get a laptop! And for a lot less!
Anthony
15 June 2010 at 12:36 pm
I think the concern is overblown and Apple’s problems are largely due to the staggering success of it’s app store. These guys get 15,000 app submissions per week and approve 95% of them within 7 days. The top reasons they aren’t approved are a) they don’t do what they’re supposed to do, b) they crash and c) they use private APIs which will break every time Apple updates the OS on the device. The number of apps rejected based upon content must be very small. And I’m inclined to believe—and you may not be, I guess—that their goofier rejections are simply a matter of a room full of people who have never done this before trying to establish sensible rules that work. My guess is that a year from now it’ll be mostly sorted out. People who want to sell apps that compete with Apple or AT&T inside Apple’s own store, or people who want to put adult-oriented apps in the app store, or people who want to peddle apps for nefarious purposes are always going to be annoyed that they can’t. Me, I think it’s a small price to pay for having a resource for high quality apps that will leave my phone running with appliance-like reliability rather than PC-like unreliability. I mean, it’s not like there’s no other way to get adult content or other stuff not in the app store. You’ve got the whole internet to browse and use. There’s no restriction on that.
I guess you either believe as I do, or you genuinely believe that someone at Apple is so prude that it really is their intent to ban Ulysses or Pulitzer-winning political cartoonists. No matter how many times I ask myself, I can’t bring myself to believe that they do.
I once imagined that other devices in our lives—cars, televisions, phones–would eventually become computer-like and internet aware. But that simply cannot happen using the PC-based, freewheeling model we used for our desktop computers. Not unless you want a car or a television or a phone that’s as reliable as your computer has been over the last 20 years. Something’s gotta give. And as Jobs noted at his recent Everything Digital interview “that makes some people uncomfortable.”
scottfeldstein
15 June 2010 at 12:58 pm
I think part of the problem is with the closed system (rather than allowing people to add apps from other sources — knowing that they would be taking their chances on unvetted material). It puts Apple in a different place as a purveyor of all the material, as they have to “approve” it and thus I can see the corporation being concerned with the content as well as functionality. They want to avoid being portrayed as promoting/approving controversial material and positions (thus at times ends up with a bigger black eye by rejecting certain apps), let alone be tarred as a purveyor of porn (and yes, they overreact at times in avoiding even the mildly titillating). I foresee a lot of potentially useful political apps (from all parts of the spectrum) being rejected for such reasons (there are a few political apps, but very few).
Don’t get me wrong — I love Apple products and have used them since the 80′s. But I think Apple hasn’t foreseen — or doesn’t care about — all negative ramifications of the closed system, esp. that they do end up caring about content as well as functionality.
TYD
15 June 2010 at 1:14 pm
I think that there will indeed be a learning curve on Apple’s part. I am surprised that they are rejecting apps based on content, though. Why does that even come up? It’s as though a DVD player could not be allowed to play certain DVDs, based on their content.
The “PC-based, freewheeling model” is normally just called “open architecture,” and in many ways its a good thing. It’s quite similar to the way the original Apple II operated. But Apple is locking down its products more and more, and while that does make things easier, it also has some tradeoffs—like a company deciding it doesn’t like the content of a book and thus you can’t read it on their machine.
LeisureGuy
15 June 2010 at 1:17 pm
And in many ways that “openness” is a bad thing. I know I don’t want my phone crashing every day or having to get a degree in computer security to keep it functioning correctly.
And Apple isn’t locking down it’s products more and more. It’s introduced a set of new products which operate under different rules. I’m still as free as ever to wreck my Macbook Pro.
The issue with content is simply about protecting their brand. I imagine they’ll get smarter about this as time goes on. And in that sense, critics are playing a useful role. I think a lot of the criticism is relatively thoughtless, however. There’s a reason Apple’s iPhone and it’s app store are way more popular and have way higher customer satisfaction than it’s competitors. There’s a tradeoff here, to be sure, but many critics are only seeing one side of it. They’re coming directly from the PC-world and believe that if you can’t recompile your kernel while torrenting a porn movie then the platform is inherently bad.
There’s a reason that one of the first thing Andriod users download is a task manager.
All that said, I don’t think open computing is in jeopardy. And I certainly wouldn’t want to see it end. But it’s also a fact that computers haven’t gotten a lot more reliable or easier to use since the original Mac. Clearly smart phones (or smart refrigerators) can’t operate this way.
scottfeldstein
15 June 2010 at 1:28 pm
I think there is a false argument in that Apple is protecting us from faulty apps. While I do agree that my Apple products have generally been much more reliable than my windows machine at work, this applies to both my open architecture MacBook and my closed iPhone. BUT many apps available on iTunes aren’t reliable and will crash repeatedly, despite being approved of by Apple (which is why I carefully read reviews before purchasing an app). The statistic that you quoted “15,000 app submissions per week and approve 95% of them within 7 days” may be the reason that so much junk gets through.
“The issue with content is simply about protecting their brand.” Absolutely — which is the biggest argument against closed architecture. I don’t want the content I can access via my electronic devices to be limited by a single, for-profit corporation.
TYD
15 June 2010 at 2:03 pm
The app store doesn’t constitute the totality of “the content I can access via my electronic device.” It’s one avenue of content and services—the one Apple provides. Corporate users can side-load their own apps, no approval necessary. And then there’s the entirety of the web out there, with all it’s programability. It’s simply overstating the case to say that everything you do or see with your iPhone is vetted by Apple.
scottfeldstein
15 June 2010 at 2:08 pm
Sadly, I am not a corporation. And I had not meant to overstate my case — yes, there is the web and yes I can upload my own music etc. to my iPod app and YouTube is not Apple vetted. But that wasn’t really our discussion, was it? It was about getting applications and personal (not corporate) choices.
TYD
15 June 2010 at 2:28 pm
There’s web apps.
What kind of app do you think Apple is rejecting that you couldn’t deliver on the web? Or is it the case that what people really want is not the ability to get their app “on” the iPhone, but that they want Apple to promote it in their store?
scottfeldstein
15 June 2010 at 2:30 pm
I am not looking to deliver but consume. And the comic Ulysses does sound quite appealing, as has already been given as an example. But I see that you are a die hard blindly faithful Apple supporter and thus will yield the field to you rather than continue a fruitless discussion.
Personally, I can be a fan of instruments (and people) while still admitting their limitations and short comings.
TYD
15 June 2010 at 2:41 pm
Look, of course I agree that Ulysses and Mark Fiore should be available through Apple’s store. Rejecting them was a mistake that should be corrected, as it makes no sense. It doesn’t protect their brand, it doesn’t enhance my experience, it doesn’t achieve any goal at all. It’s a mistake.
But a vetted app store ITSELF isn’t a mistake. It’s a calculated tradeoff that so far I think is working pretty damned well for people. It just so happens that a few rejected developers find an overeager online audience to listen to how Apple’s “closed” policy is against everything netizens hold dear and simultaneously polluting our precious bodily fluids.
scottfeldstein
15 June 2010 at 2:46 pm
I do appreciate your Dr. Strangelove reference, but I still find the tradeoff questionable.
TYD
15 June 2010 at 3:29 pm
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/comic-riffs/2010/06/the_plump_irony_come_bloomsday.html
TYD
16 June 2010 at 6:36 am
I’m less interested in the iPad then the ability of Apple to lead the industry in directions it had previously been unwilling to go. I’m hoping for an Android tablet at the very least.
Sean
16 June 2010 at 3:32 pm
And you’re for sure going to get one. And it’ll be great in its own way. Probably more like a PC in openness. It’ll also be less reliable, harder to use, inconsistently designed and come on hardware whose quality definitely varies. Much like the Android phones are at present.
I’m still wondering, though. What killer app is available for more open smartphones that isn’t available for the curated iPhone app store?
scott
16 June 2010 at 3:41 pm