Hacker News Reader

Comment by rickmb | Hacker News Reader

As an Apple fanboy, I've been able to rationalize everything Apple has done concerning the app-store up to now, even if I personally would have like to have seen a way more open and liberal approach. And the overblown anti-Apple FUD, using misplaced terms like "censorship" and "monopoly" whenever an app was thwarted by Apples opaque policies has made it easy to ignore the objections of detractors.

But I find it impossible to justify what is quite obviously a politically motivated rejection.

I still believe this is Apple's store, and they can admit and reject what they like. But if politics comes into it, than that changes my personal perspective on buying Apple products.

Just imagine if the subject would be "places that legalize gay marriage" instead of drone strikes. The only "objectionable" part of the drone strike app is that it may have a political agenda. That should never be grounds for rejection.

View on HN

Android FTW. I know this pops up constantly, but this is EXACTLY the reason I advocate for android. This sort of shit does not fly there. Apple has the ability to censor which even the government can't and worse is that it's fully legal.

I really wish people would take these stories as a sign that we need to focus on the android market.

FWIW: I am not advocating for the baby & bathwater argument. I think we must focus on android because it will put market pressure on apple to have a more fair/just approval process.

Even if both Google's and Amazon's app stores reject an app, there are still other markets. And you can just download APKs from websites/ftp/etc and install them to your android, no market required.

That is until all the three (Apple, Google and Microsoft) decides to only allow installs from the maketplace, you know for "security" reasons. The problem is if one company gets away with it, others follow suit.

I don't get your logic. Apple pretty much got away with it, Microsoft wasn't really in this space at that time, and still Google didn't follow.

If Google decides to only allow installs from their market, someone will just fork android and change that.

And how will that fork get on any phones for customers to use? "People can just sideload the OS" is not a feasible answer here.

> "People can just sideload the OS" is not a feasible answer here.

Well, it's not feasible as long as bootloaders remain encrypted/non-unlockable. That's the problem with restricting the software that can run on hardware after the user has purchased the hardware and owns it.

People will just buy different Android phones from someone else.

We've already been through this. AT&T (uniquely among US carriers, I believe) blocked non-Market applications on all of their devices. The success of the Amazon Appstore forced them to change that policy.

Saying "the success" was what caused it isn't really accurate, though.

If it hadn't been for a large, US corporation lobbying AT&T to allow their product on the handsets, would it have gone through?

A future where AT&T allows the Amazon and Google app stores only is still one that could happen.

Only a part of Android is open source.

I doubt that very much- Android has the perfect middle ground right now. Only installs from approved sources, but has a checkbox in the settings that basically allows you to say "I know what I'm doing, let me do whatever I want". I doubt they'll change that.

How do you propose enforcing that on an open-source operating system?

The same way chromium has become obsolete with chrome becoming less and less open-source. The same goes with MySQL. In case of android, most consumers will deal with what the manufacturers decides to put on their phones and less than 1% will resort to installing another O/S. Keep in mind even with Android you are forced to register a Google account. What if you din't want to use Google or worst case, they ban you from their network?

The point is, just because something is open-source now doesn't mean it will remain that way in the future.

What is with the downvotes and no comment? I would love to hear your side of the argument too.

It was a combination of FUD and objective falsehood. You presented no evidence that Google intends to close off Android source, and Android doesn't force users to create or use a Google account.

> You presented no evidence that Google intends to close off Android source.

You are right, but the statement was meant to be more of a what-if situation and not a it is. Either-ways we all can agree that based on the past events that it is not in Google's priority list to keep the open-source community updated:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/googles-decision-to-de...

http://www.itworld.com/open-source/164153/how-google-can-del...

>and Android doesn't force users to create or use a Google account.

If so, could you tell me how I could use an android phone without setting up a Google account? The first screen to hit you when you switch on a brand new android phone is the Google Login/Signup screen.

Every Android device I've ever set up (all the way back to the G1) has a skip button on that same screen. You're free to hit that and never associate a Google account with that device (and get your apps from Amazon, etc.).

The Nexus 7 doesn't.

I was quite surprised when I saw that.

From day one you could always install any .apk you wanted, I don't see that changing.

It's not a very effective defense of Apple to say, "Yeah, Google's phones and tablets don't currently have the same central, fundamental limitation that all Apple's iOS devices do, but someday they probably will."

Not really. The competition between Amazon and Google (and other app stores overseas) has made selling an Android device tied to a single app store untenable. For example, the volume of customer complaints about the Amazon Appstore even forced AT&T to give up on blocking non-Market applications.

While this is true, security is a massive concern. Just look at how many malicious apps were in the Android store just last year, vs. in the Apple store.

How many malicious apps were in the Android store? A few? A dozen? Thats a pretty good ratio out of the hundreds of thousands available.

On a similar line of argument: "How many blocked apps were in the App Store? A few? A dozen? Thats a pretty good ratio out of the hundreds of thousands available."

How would you know how many apps were blocked, if they never showed up in the store?

I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings

The free bird leaps on the back of the win and floats downstream till the current ends and dips his wings in the orange sun rays and dares to claim the sky.

But a bird that stalks down his narrow cage can seldom see through his bars of rage his wings are clipped and his feet are tied so he opens his throat to sing.

The caged bird sings with fearful trill of the things unknown but longed for still and is tune is heard on the distant hillfor the caged bird sings of freedom

The free bird thinks of another breeze an the trade winds soft through the sighing trees and the fat worms waiting on a dawn-bright lawn and he names the sky his own.

But a caged bird stands on the grave of dreams his shadow shouts on a nightmare scream his wings are clipped and his feet are tied so he opens his throat to sing

The caged bird sings with a fearful trill of things unknown but longed for still and his tune is heard on the distant hill for the caged bird sings of freedom.

Maya Angelou

> How many blocked apps were in the App Store?

An oxymoron?

Part of the problem with the app store is a chilling effect - people don't even try to make controversial apps if they run a large risk of being blocked.

Perhaps you could look at the number of apps in Cydia, since the primary reason to put an app on Cydia is that it does something that would be blocked in the App store. I couldn't find an actual figure but simple searches on the Cydia store show > 35,000 results. I'd say that's much higher than the number of truly malicious Android apps that made it into Google's store and lasted any length of time there.

Maybe I'm being harsh, but if someone downloads a clearly sketchy looking app (DOWNLOAD FREE MP3S) I have no sympathy for them when it ends up being malicious.

Just like I wouldn't pick up a candy bar off the street and eat it, I wouldn't download a disreputable looking app. Common sense.

Blame the user straw man. I mean did you see how he was dressed, practically asking for it.

I'd rather live in a world where grownups are allowed to make their own choices than in one where daddy decides what's best for everyone.

Weird that I agree with all three parents at once (no pun intended).

Grownups can make their own life choices to some extent, but society everywhere forbids certain behaviours and activities.

An OS with a software distribution platform that tries to prevent the average user from making mistakes, and that attempts to prevent malicious activity while avoiding being overly restrictive seems a good model.

Not a bad shout for government as well.

App store == France, Marketplace == UK, Play == US?

Or something like that.

As long as the full ramifications of said decisions are clear, sure, allow people to make their own. But it's not possible to know at a glance what Android app is malicious and which is not. Even an application that looks legitimate and works legitimately may steal your data behind the curtain without you knowing, which is what usually happens anyway. This is why an approval process for the app store is good. It's true that Apple's is a bit draconian, but that's because they care about protecting their users. I'm okay with this even if that protection borders on sheltering.

So would you agree that Mountain Lion's Gatekeeper is insufficient, and that Apple should lock down Macs in the same way? If not, what's the difference?

It's true that Apple's is a bit draconian, but that's because they care about protecting their users.

I hear the TSA's marketing department is hiring.

I think it's up to Apple whether they want to make updates to their OS that lock it down like iOS.

I think it would be a clear mistake for them to do it now.

I also think eventually there is little doubt they will do it but we're at least 3-4 years away from that.

What does "should" even mean here? For Apple's best interest or your's and mine? Clearly Apple should buy us all ponies for xmas, it's not like they can't afford it. Man, who doesn't want a free pony?

>I also think eventually there is little doubt they will do it but we're at least 3-4 years away from that.

I certainly hope not. I'm fine with them "locking down" phones and tablets. These are appliances and I can't put Android on my toaster either (well, maybe it's possible). But a computer is something totally different. They can have it locked down by default but they have to always provide a way for power users to do whatever they want. The day they lock down Mac OSX the way their appliances are locked down is the day that every developer who uses them now to have a unix with a decent UI is going to leave.

I support Apple's right to offer you that choice as long as they're not using a broken patent system to take away my choice.

Clearly suing obvious copycat products is what broke the patent system.

If it looks legitimately and works legitimately it will pass the App store review and steal your data on iOS too. This already happened. And it is impossible for the App store reviewers to find all apps that do this. Even if they had the source code they would still need very skilled people to find malicious apps if someone tried to hide the maliciousness. This problem will never be solved. Even with a review process.

I'd love to live in a world where winning arguments are met with seeing your enemies driven before you and the lamentation of the womenfolk instead of moving goalposts but here we are.

"grownups are allowed to make their own choices"

Apple didn't force anyone to buy an iphone. It's always been a curated app market. Grownups should take responsibility for their decisions. If you want a wild west app market you should not buy iOS products and that has always been the case.

> Apple didn't force anyone to buy an iphone.

After Apple has sued the top three Android OEMs in the US (Samsung, HTC and Motorola) and more competitors overseas that statement rings more than a little hollow.

Are Android phones not on sale in every telco store and kiosk where you live? Seems like a strawman argument. We all have choices:

You can buy Apple and use the iOS app store, you can buy Apple and jailbreak, you can buy dozens of different Android phones and use a number of different Android stores many of which are curated beyond what Apple does, you can buy WP7 and use that store (also heavily curated), you can buy a Blackberry and use that store (also curated), etc.

Everyone knows why Samsung got sued, even Google told them to change their design. Motorola sued Apple first and Apple sued HTC first. Nokia sued everyone before any of that but somehow only Apple is the big bad that's taken away everyone's ability to buy non-Apple phones.

> Maybe I'm being harsh, but if someone downloads a clearly sketchy looking app (DOWNLOAD FREE MP3S) I have no sympathy for them when it ends up being malicious.

Yes you're being harsh. Kids use smartphones. And while some of them are really the clever "digital natives" we were promised, a lot of them also are not.

Similar reasoning goes for my mother (62) who is very good with computers compared to others of her generation, indeed smart enough to not trust "DOWNLOAD FREE MP3s!", but still if she were to be tricked by something that might seem real obvious to us, there will be loads of sympathy. (And also a lot of fist-shaking at the unknown malware pusher that got my mom)

Regardless, I wouldn't recommend them iOS. It's a good learning experience even if you get burned and keeps you in a feeling of control and responsibility and freedom.

Maybe my grandmother. There's some bitter irony in the term "walled garden" there, though.

I actually would've thought the MS Windows Phone App Store would be even more fertile ground. Not sure how stringent their policies are, but a quick Google search only turned up a rejected Twitter content scraping app which was rejected.

Not to mention if anybody needs more apps, its the Windows Phone App store.

Yeah, as far as I know, the Windows Phone Store certification policies are pretty lax (not sure if that’s reflected in their official terms or their implementation of them; I’m guessing it’s the latter). The only times I hear of apps being rejected or pulled seem to in cases of trademark infringement; and, even-then, only if the infringed-upon company requests them to do so..

I saw this play-out with Vimeo apps not too long ago. Prior to the company launching their (really nice btw) official app there were a few a third-party clients which used the Vimeo name and logo; since then, they've all rebranded or disappeared (I’m guessing at the request of Vimeo to avoid confusion).

Other than that, pretty much everything else seems to fly (I’m guessing security issues and serious bugs that come-up during review aside). This is all anecdotal (I don’t work at Microsoft or review apps for certification) but I’d be pretty shocked if they blocked an app like this.

Anyways, it looks pretty cool, maybe if iOS certification doesn’t go over the dev can port it to WP. For simpler apps (no offense here) I’ve heard it’s fairly quick work and involves a lot less on the testing/optimizing for 1,000+ device SKUs (Android) front.

The WP store is a little more relaxed than the iOS app store - but - it still doesn't have any way to sideload any apps, which means it's still up to Microsoft, a single central entity, to decide what apps you can install on your device. The same is true for any Metro apps.

Does the WP SDK give you the ability to sideload apps?

At the very least, WP is different from iOS in that their SDK is provided for free (using the express edition of Visual Studio).

No it doesn't. You have to register your phone as one of three with your developer program account which is 79$ per year. The difference to iOS is that your phone is then unlocked for every other developers app signature.

This is not the first time that Apple has rejected an app on purely political grounds. This may be the first time they've removed something and offended liberal/libertarian sensibilities, but a couple clear examples from a while back:

http://mashable.com/2011/03/23/apple-removes-gay-cure/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/apple-manhattan-dec...

Or rejecting apps by pulitzer prize winning political cartoonists for "Ridiculing Public Figures" - http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/15/when-youre-good-enough-for-a-...

Jobs responded to that case at D8 conference. He said it was a mistake ("We had a rule: you can't defame people. We thought it was sane to have such a rule, but the problem is that political cartoons, by definition, defame politicians. So, we made an exception for political cartoons") and they soon changed their guidelines to let the app in, but the developer never bothered to re-submit the app.

That app isn't defamatory though. Caricature isn't defamatory without associated symbolism or represented actions to make claims about the individual represented. Drawing a silly picture isn't enough, you would have to draw a picture of someone doing something negative that they do not do, in a way that implies to the viewer that this person really does this thing and that you are not just joking about it.

Well that's the problem eh, you can't do censorship without bumping into hypocrisy (be it on the left or the right side).

    UPDATE: NYT is reporting Mr. Fiore has been "encouraged" 
    by Apple to re-submit. So the lesson here? Win a 
    Pulitzer, get a 2nd chance at the App Store.

Cute. Also this part, so very clearly underlines the reason why so many people start screaming about slippery slopes as soon as censorship enters the picture (even though the article's author does not seem to realize this):

    Look Apple, I supported some of your bans in the past 
    -- like your ban on sexy junk apps -- but political 
    cartooning is *slightly* different.

First they came for the "sexy junk" apps, but I didn't speak out ...

There's also the "phone story" app that was intended to raise awareness of human rights abuses that go into manufacturing devices such as the iPhone itself.

http://phonestory.org/banned.html

"Phone Story was pulled from the iTunes App Store on Tuesday September 13 at 11.35am, only few hours after its official announcement."

And this illustrates exactly why I haven't taken most of the attacks on Apple seriously up to now.

Hatred an bigotry aren't "purely political". The fact that certain sick fucks leverage those sentiment for political gain doesn't change that. You can ban apps that are hateful and bigoted for that reason only, without it being a political statement.

This is very different from the drone strike app, which is not objectionable in any way if you remove the political dimension.

I was actually remarkably offended when they removed the former app. Exodus is wrong and ex-gay conversion violates APA guidelines, but that doesn't make the app inherently bigoted, which is a remarkably weighty term that I'd prefer leave reserved for people like the Westboro Baptist Church.

Exodus claims to 'provide support' for people who want to 'recover' from homosexuality. Predatory? Misleading? Sure. Immoral? I'd say so.

But unlike homophobes, I don't agree with censoring speech that I disagree with and forcing my beliefs on other people.

I'd much rather let the app stand, have it receive 1-star ratings, have alternate competing apps (ie, from pro-gay groups) come up in the search results, etc.

Why? Because I'm certain I'm right and that ex-gay conversion is wrong, and I'm certain that, if the truth and the lies are laid out side-by-side in the plain light of day, eventually, the truth will prove itself.

"Predatory? Misleading? Sure. Immoral? I'd say so.

But unlike homophobes, I don't agree with censoring speech that I disagree with and forcing my beliefs on other people."

Does this even follow? "Predatory" and "misleading" should be enough to remove the app in the first place -- you don't need to assume they removed it because they disagreed with its politics.

One man's "predatory and misleading" is another man's gospel truth. Putting the authority to decide who is right and wrong on these matters in the hands of a single, all-powerful arbiter is just begging for abuse.

"Putting the authority to decide who is right and wrong on these matters in the hands of a single, all-powerful arbiter is just begging for abuse."

For all of society yes but for one company's store, that's just how the free market works. Walmart like Apple and many other merchants decided they didn't want to sell porn in their store. If you're offended by this decision of theirs you are free to take your business elsewhere.

That argument is getting old. I can buy some things from Walmart, and the things they don't sell from some other store. In the mobile apps world this is not possible.

Apple has a monopoly on iOS app distribution, and that makes their behavior so worrying. And of course it has enboldened Microsoft to follow the same model, something they probably would have never attempted on their own.

I'm offended by that decision for the exact reason of the slippery slopes that such things invariably lead to as the original article clearly demonstrates.

I'm not taking my business elsewhere because they won't put porn in their store, I have already taken my business elsewhere because I KNEW beforehand that it would ultimately lead to censoring arbitrary stuff for all the wrong reasons.

Turns out I was right.

That said, why has simplistic stuff like this to be an App? You could implement that in an email newsletter, a Twitter account, an RSS feed. An old-fashioned web site.

> politically motivated rejection

Probably that is the reason. But when I first heard of that App I did think of "torture porn". You practically track the death of people. How is that App used? Imagine being at lunch and you get a new notification. What do you do with that kind of Information? Why do you want that? Certainly not to grief, because it would desensitize you. I imagine the people who would install it (and leave it installed) would be from the opposite side of the spectrum and militaristic nuts: "Hell yeah, another 7 terrorist brownies taken down!"

  How is that App used? Imagine being at launch and you get
  a new notification. What do you do with that kind of 
  Information? Why do you want that?

I for one would want that because we're so separated from our actions that even those of us who are appalled by it don't think about it daily. I say _our_ because we as a people could put the screws to our government if enough of us actually cared. As to what you do with it, I think the intent is to start a conversation then and there. Tell other people what just happened, tell them to install the app. If that happens enough times I think it might jar something loose in the social consciousness.

It sounds better than sticking my head in the sand and pretending it's not happening. As for being desensitized, are you serious? _That's_ your argument against raising awareness of drone strikes? We're already desensitized to the violence we perpetrate on others. It doesn't even make the news if it has to compete with the latest celebrity gossip.

Stifling of political opinions by a media corporation is no less censorship than actions undertaken by a government. You can check the dictionary, there are plenty of non-governmental definitions.

This isn't the first time Apple's removed an app for political reasons:

http://techland.time.com/2011/03/23/apple-removes-ex-gay-con...

Now, I happen to agree with the politics in that case, but it also illustrates the broader point: A curated app store is inevitably entangled in politics. Approving an app can be just as political a decision as rejecting it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com