Tag: iphone

Yet more iPhone monkey business from Apple

A Techcrunch article (which references this prior article as well) slams Apple yet again for more iPhone App Store idiocy, this time centered around the Hottest Girls app.

It completely confuses me what Apple is thinking here: add parental controls to the 3.0 version of the iPhone OS, then when an application adds nudity to take advantage of this, pull the app from the App Store. Huh?

The addition of a nudity category and then pulling an app that has nudity is at best confusing. At worst, it looks like Apple is entrapping developers, or being selective on what apps get to stay in the store.

I’m not sure I can recommend anyone trust Apple at all for anything anymore.

A backdoor attack on net neutrality

Wired.com reports on Apple’s arbitrary iPhone application approval/rejection process, and how some believe it to be a de facto attack on net neutrality.

A group called Free Press calls out the inconsistent decisions Apple has when deciding which iPhone applications to approve or reject and why. In particular, an application called SlingPlayer was rejected by Apple in its original form. After Sling crippled it to only work on Wi-Fi and not the 3G or EDGE cellular connections, Apple was more than willing to approve it. Another Wired.com story says an anonymous source says Apple rejected the application in its original state at AT&T’s request, due to network congestion concerns.

This sounds reasonable, but there’s another half to this story. Apple approved the Major League Baseball application as-is, allowing it to stream live sports events over 3G and EDGE as well as Wi-Fi.

Another curious rejection is Ben Kahle’s “Me So Holy” app, the premise of which was to allow users to make Jesus-like portraits of themselves. Apple rejected it to “protect the sensitivity of the customers” in its “worldwide market.”

This is exactly why OpenMoko came about. The Neo FreeRunner (and/or its successor) is the smartphone I’m saving up for. Granted, they aren’t cheap (if they appear much less expensive than an iPhone and you’re reading this before 2009-07-15 or so, that’s a clearance deal for the previous hardware revision). But I would honestly rather take a price hit than voluntarily limit myself to what some giant corporation decides is suitable to have on my phone.

Apple rejects C64 emulator on iPhone

Few computer users from the 1980s will soon forget the rivalry between the myriad computer companies in business at the time. Apple and Commodore were at the forefront of that rivalry, as IBM’s PC didn’t really take off until later in the decade.

In fact, my earliest BBS experience from 1991 involved a fellow user–at the time he was actually a sysop–making a “Commode Commodore” joke to a friend (or maybe rival) of his who insisted upon using one of the things well past its prime. (Commodore was still in business making the Amiga line until their bankruptcy in 1994.)

So maybe it is only fitting, in a bizarre way, that Apple rejects a Commodore 64 emulator for the iPhone, as reported by Touch Arcade. It would almost be humorous except for the fact that the programmer spent several months on his project only to be censored by Apple. And I do use the term censored for a reason: this is censorship, and I fail to see a good reason for it. Several other emulator applications exist for the iPhone, and Apple still continues to leave them be.

Yet more evidence that Apple requiring the “seal of approval” on every iPhone application is unsustainable.

Apple rejects iPhone apps with no reason given

Ars Technica reports on Apple rejecting iPhone applications without offering an explanation. Of particular note:

Marco Arment, lead developer of Tumblr and creator of Instapaper, chronicled the situation on his blog. On the last day of WWDC ’09, Apple had a session dedicated to the process of publishing an iPhone app to its App Store. The session ended early, and lines of developers formed at the microphones to ask questions—ostensibly concerning App Store rejections and how best to resolve issues identified in the review process. However, at the end of the presentation, the presenter and other engineers quickly exited the room, leaving the assembled developers scratching their heads.

“It was a giant middle finger to iPhone developers,” wrote Arment. “Clearly, they had absolutely no interest in fielding even a single question from the topic that we have the most questions about.”

And later, as reported on tuaw.com, one unlucky developer got this in their e-mail:

“As you know, Apple reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to reject any application for any reason.”

So if you plan to develop for the iPhone, this is what you’re getting into. You’re at the mercy of Apple, and they may not even tell you why you can’t sell the application you just spent hours or days working on.

No other computing platform, anywhere, has one company deciding what can and can’t run on it. (And yes, I realize it may seem odd to call the iPhone a computing platform, but that is in effect what it is: a computer that can also make telephone calls.)

I believe the developers, at minimum, have the right to know why Apple rejects an application. However, I also believe a far wiser choice, one that might just get Apple’s attention, is for developers to stay away in droves until Apple takes a more hands-off approach with regards to the iPhone platform.

Personally, I believe the only valid reason for rejection of an iPhone application is if it has the potential to cause harm to the mobile networks that the iPhone connects to. I should note here, “harm” does not include the following:

  • letting the user make phone calls over a VoIP network like Skype or Gizmo;
  • content that Apple finds objectionable or that in Apple’s judgment does not belong on a mobile phone;
  • parodying Apple, AT&T, O2, or other carriers which Apple partners with;
  • any of the other reasons Apple has for rejecting applications for the iPhone.

It’ll probably be a cold day in hell before that actually becomes reality, however. I’m not going to wait.

Microsoft, remote Xbox 360 bricking, trust, and individuality

While slightly old, I only recently stumbled across a Technologizer article that claims Microsoft can remotely disable (“brick”) an Xbox 360 console.

The chilling effect here should be obvious. And I have two points to note about this.

One, I am really glad I don’t do proprietary game consoles anymore. I miss them less as time goes on.

Two, it has long been my viewpoint that any time a company releases a gadget like this, not designed to run a free software operating system (in this case, quite obviously designed never to run anything not bearing Microsoft’s digital signature equivalent of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval), it would greatly behoove one to treat the transaction as a rental, not a purchase. That is, when one buys an Xbox 360, one is renting that device from Microsoft for its useful life, for a flat rate, and one considers the device as actually being owned by Microsoft during this time. (Think of the “return” as being made to a recycling center. Even though one technically can sell the Xbox, it would still be wise to treat this more as the transferring of a rental contract than an actual sale, similar to what happens when one gets tired of the iPhone after a season’s worth of lousy service from AT&T and is no longer interested in paying the balance of the two-year contract.)

The Xbox is just an example here. It’s not just the Xbox, or just Microsoft; Apple’s iPhone and iPod would also qualify here, making the appropriate substitutions. As mentioned previously, I would also treat the Amazon Kindle in this fashion. There is unfortunately no neat place to draw a “line in the sand” here; some manufacturers are actually reasonable and do not resort to fascist tactics such as remotely disabling hardware on a whim.

The important thing to take away from all this: using a manufacturer’s hardware, especially when sold as a closed system, is trusting that manufacturer. When you use your Windows PC, play games on your Xbox 360, or use your Zune for playing music or video, you are trusting Microsoft. When you use your iMac or MacBook, or use your iPod for playing your music or video, you are trusting Apple. When you use your Kindle for reading e-books, you are trusting Amazon. The use of these devices and proprietary software are the transactions that define entrusting the companies behind them. There is no way around it. Not surprisingly, you find very few bloggers like myself willing to take the gloves off and expose misdeeds of companies like Microsoft and Apple.

I recently observed someone carrying an iPhone in her dress/shirt pocket, clearly displaying the Apple logo to the world, as if to show it off. (I don’t think she’s one of my readers, but she might be.) Now, I don’t always call people out for things like this in person. But here, where I don’t need to worry about making a scene, I feel I can safely say that I’m not sure what kind of fashion statement that’s supposed to make. Maybe it’s “I’m a sheep,” “I’m a lemming”, or “I have no individuality.” Or maybe even “I think the Apple logo looks so cool I’ll give them free advertising.” Perhaps, it’s “I still like Apple even though they sold Baby Shaker for a few days and censored the EFF application for no good reason.”

I don’t know. Maybe someone out there can explain it. That’s why I have a comment section. (And I’m not even requiring commenters to sign up for an Intense Debate account first.)