Feds break Apple's code of App Store silence Oh, Apple Computer. What sorts of antics are you into this month? Since the iPhone was released two years ago, watching Apple keep its obsessive vise grip on the device while trying to promote third party application development has been one solid I-didn't-know-you-could-do-that after another. Battle the recording industry …
Where does the US gov't have the right to determine what app a corporation should allow. The gov't doesn't make Wal-mart or Sears carry a certain item. This is pure BS and part of some larger agenda.
If people want the app and the iphone doesn't have go to another device. There are plenty of other smart phones. If enough people stop buying iphones then apple would probably reconsider. This is how a free market operates.
I would tell the government to fuck off too, if they tried to force me to sell something.
There are many choices available in this market and Ted is free to choose from anything on offer.
As an outsider it seems to me that the iPhone is a general purpose computing device and as such can be broken really easily by poorly designed software. Also, the phone is not the only component being purchased - the network access is also 'purchased' and much of the value of the phone comes from this access and one way or another it must be paid for . Apple have just crossed the border between a computer company and a consumer electronics manufacturer and they are seeking to make sure that 'product' the provide 'just works' and continues to 'just work'. There are all kinds of things which can impact on that.
For example a VOIP app for iPhone in which the amount paid to the network operator falls below expectations means that - one way or another - the network is overused/underpaid.
There are loads of companies that don't take the care that apple do and -generalising - their products are poorer for it.
I think Ted Dziuba is the failure here - he just wants to rant about something and hint that he could be violent or use rude words. Pathetic.
Apple continues: "The iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways."
You mean like upgrade the user to an Android phone? *rings Apple alarm bells* that sums it up, Apple would of lost control of its captive market, and with it the normal Apple method of screwing every last drop of cash from them.
Some may call it protectionism, meanwhile to Apple its just a user experience :P
ah but the difference is that you can't go and buy the app from somewhere else to put on your Iphone (without hacing it).
If you bought a pair of trousers from Walmart - you can use any belt you want without - Walmart can't stop you from buying and using someone elses belt even if they don't sell it (and you don't have to sew in new belt thingys)..
I have a device from ABc and software from ABc.
I also have an app that runs on the device from EFg.
The trouble is that my personal information as required in software supplied by ABc is being accessed and purloined by software from EFg.
I've then found out that EFg has been doing something naughty with my data.
Who do I sue?
I think you rather missed the point here. The FCC asked *why* Google Voice was rejected - it was not a demand for Apple to carry it.
Apple operate a near-monopoly in the smartphone application space now, and it is right that such questions be asked if this position is being abused. Already we heard of applications being passed by Apple, and then subsequently revoked, forcing developers into refunding customers who may have been perfectly happy with their purchase. Indeed, there was some concern that the store terms meant that developers would have to refund 100% of the purchase price themselves with Apple keeping their 30% cut, though I do not know if this ever came to pass.
I like Apple products - I have an iMac sitting on my desk here and a Macbook in the room next door, but I am really beginning to question how this company operates because I'm not sure it is in the consumers best interests.
Regards,
Dave
So Apple control what installs in an Apple device? Amazing. I never thought that would happen.
They have always done this. Why the surprise with the iPhone?
I have to agree with the AC. If people what to be able to do something and the iPhone doesn't do it get a different phone. There are plenty to choose from. It is an apple device, you agree by buying it that you don't mind getting to choose what Apple wants you to choose to run on your device. You agree with your service provider to certain conditions as to what your device is allowed to do, be that data limits or free call minutes. If your phone doesn't do what you want get a different one.
There are plenty of Android based devices available now and more out in the coming months. You can install what you want on that platform. Or write your own apps.
Congratulations!! this is the kind of article that makes me come back to "The Register" every day.
Of course I agree. The bottom line is that the iPhone's market share already reached "monopoly"-concerning dimensions. The usual practices of niche market player cannot be accepted anymore. It is time the US. government & EU commission re-start their great traditions of suing for anti-trust violations.
Apple: I'm afraid with success come obligations and restrictions... and there is no workaround that!
PS: Apple, of course, if you send me a new IPhone 3Gs I will stop making this kind of posts... ( you don't know how far people has to go to get one these days)
Of course the government shouldn't tell companies what to do!
Who needs antimonopoly laws when it is absolutely clear the government should only pay bailouts and STFU!
I think that Anonymous Coward is absolutely right. It is a conspiracy and I can smell it in the air.
Clearly, the Obama administration has decided to avenge Jobb's donation to the democratic cause by picking on the saint Apple corporation, which did nothing wrong because all it does is right.
"Once a developer has access to a piece of data, he can copy it and do with it anything inside the realm of Turing completeness, but this is the type of control that the RIAA drools over." ..... with some more adept and enabled that others who would be droolers and wannabes, Ted.
And don't whatever you do, mess with things you don't or yet can't understand for they will always Wwwwhelm you, whether IT be Topside with Really Everything ZerodDaily up in the AIR, or Underground with Everything Virtually on the Dark Side and in Black Operations.
Rules and Regulations? Oh please, do me a favour and stop with that Silly Nonsense and Get Real. Enough is Enough Already ....... http://amanfrommars.baywords.com/2009/08/31/090831/
Time for the Boys and Girls to Grow Up and Create a Brave NeuReal World with Better Beta Order, MeThinks, ....... which is what Renegade promised Renaissance, n'est ce pas, or was he just Spinning a False Trail and Tall Tale ....... and Stinking Yarn?
All your Information does not belong to US until IT is handsomely Purchased is Fair and Equitable.
And the Jolly Roger because of Shafting in the Realm which is Endemic and Systemic.
In general, you're right there. However, there are certain conditions in which the U.S. government can and historically has interfered in commerce, with that interference ranging from mild regulation to draconian control. Examples include medicine and drugs, abusive monopolies, and natural monopolies - i.e., utilities, including telecommunications.
From the very moment that Apple started selling the iPhone they risked government interference. You may disagree whether or not the U.S. gov should have the right, or whether this falls under the remit in question, but still, the danger was there from the beginning. What's more, Apple had to know this.
-d
"Where does the US gov't have the right to determine what app a corporation should allow. The gov't doesn't make Wal-mart or Sears carry a certain item. This is pure BS and part of some larger agenda."
So you'd be happy for Microsoft to block Firefox from running on Windows? Or Apple to block it from running on OS X?
The reason that they can determine what a corporation should allow is for innovation. Someone could write a browser for iPhone that is a million times better than Safari but Apple will block it because it duplicates functionality. Flash on the iPhone could allow iPhone-specific websites to be even richer than they currently are, but Apple blocks it because it runs an interpreted language. Java could allow the same app to be distributed to lots of different phones, but Apple blocks it for the same reason it blocks Flash.
This wouldn't be an issue if Apple allowed you to install arbitrary applications on your phone - then they really could do whatever the hell they wanted to do with their App Store. But since the App Store is the only legitimate way to get applications for the iPhone, Apple has a duty to be fully frank about their conditions, and as open as possible with regards to the applications they allow.
The moment it looks like kartel practices have been used to deny a competing company a right that would otherwise be extended anyone else, or when business practices are not documented and can only be backed up by subjective, rather than objectively verifiable arguments.
It's called running a company. You don't retain the right to say fuck you, you suddenly have the obligation to show that you're treating everyone the way your company policies say they should be treated, and that those policies are not in violation of local, federal, and international law.
You would tell the government to fuck off, because you're just a person. Apple can't tell it to fuck off, because apple is a participant of the US domestic economy, which means they have to obey the law, and have to answer any and all questions asked in regards to possible violation of trade laws. There's a price to getting to play in the big kid's playground. If you don't want to play, stay a person. If you do want to play, read the rulebook and then make sure you don't slip up by making it too obvious you're not following the rules. Apple slipped up, the FCC asked questions.
As a general educator, the "free market" is about how producers and consumers reach an agreement on pricing for products and services. A supplier is free to charge what they like, and a consumer is free to find a different supplier if the pricing is unacceptable. It's a term used to indicate market-driving pricing. This scheme means that the government cannot step in and say "you know, this iphone app is too expensive, lower the price". However, the free market is not a legal no man's land: free market operates WITHIN the domestic and international laws, so the government *can* step in and say "you know, it's interesting how you're allowing people to make these applications, but you reject the one made by a competitor, even though there's nothing in your policies that say competitors aren't allowed to make applications. care to explain that, because that sounds very much like illegal business practices."
Maybe, if FCC told Apple that "hey, you're not to tell us how to do things!" then wen off and said "sorry, your electronic devices have failed our testing, please remove any FCC approved stamps on any gear made by apple", that would be a tad worse than a fine, wouldn't it?
And it's about bloody time that someone gave crapple a little lesson in "playing by the rules".
@Anonymous Coward:
Under normal circumstances, sure, but there are laws governing anti-competition behaviour, which are there to keep various markets healthy. Ultimately, this is to the benefit of the consumer / public, who can wind up with a particularly bad deal if one company is allowed to sew up a whole market.
This post has been deleted by its author
Apple, who own the iPhone, don't want to approve an application from a supplier. So?
Apple, who own the iPhone, approve applications to run on their iPhone (not your iPhone, you're just a licensee...) and if they want to give preference, or not, to a supplier that is their right? Obviously competition laws apply and the iPhone is not a monopoly product so......?
Those who set the rules run the game. Don't like the rules, don't play the game.
What will be interesting is the back story when a voice application similar to that prepared by AT&T is finally released for the iPhone. Then there will be a feeding frenzy!
So we've two voice call apps: Google Talk and Skype.
Skype is allowed by Apple, and can use your address book, but doesn't upload it onto their servers (but you can still use the contacts you've added to your servers already).
Google Talk would apparently want to upload all your contacts onto their servers, and so far hasn't been approved as an app by Apple.
There has already been huge (well, huge within the iPhone community...) uproar over apps uploading all your contact data from your address book (i.e. Aurora Feint when it was first released). So it seems very likely to me that Apple are actually delaying approving the Google app because of data privacy issues. Apples approach to apps certainly isn't consistent - but in this case they may well have a valid reason.
Where that philosophy has brought the US and the rest of the World can be studied in the recent BCotUSA = Banking Crisis of the United Stated of America.
The government has to enforce policies on the industry, and if anyone doesn't like that, he should f**k off and drop his gadgets into a garbage can.
So 20 teams of two people have to go through 1214 apps each day?
60 apps per team?
7 apps per hour? (assume an 8 hour day)
Do they get bathroom breaks?
And is this why a previously approved app will fail the next time an update with a minor fix is submitted? Because someone needs to go to the toilet?
"No prizes for guessing what whould happen if Microsoft tried to set up a panel to decide which software (browsers) would or would not run on windows..."
No need to guess what would happen. We're living it and the world is watching it, live on Network 23, twenty minutes into the future.
Just go read about "Windows isn't done till {Lotus|Netscape|Wordperfect|etc} doesn't run" (you may have to adjust the words slightly).
"Of course I agree. The bottom line is that the iPhone's market share already reached "monopoly"-concerning dimensions."
Maybe you should tell Nokia that because they still sell a hell of a lot more phones than Apple. If the iPhone were close to monopoly share levels I think Steve Jobs would be jumping around like a Ballmer
Congrats!
Finally a Fail and You thats both informative and genuinely funny.
And to all those people saying the government shouldn't tell Apple what they can do with "their" App Store - consider that if that logic had been applied to Microsoft, the only way you'd be able to view this website would be with IE4, cos no other browsers would run on Windows, and with no competition, MS wouldn't bother to upgrade a free piece of software.
A number of posts have based their responses on apple's iPhone having a 'monopoly' or 'near monopoly'. I must have missed something somewhere, but the last figures I saw (which admittedly were in May) gave Apple about 11% compared with RM 20% and Nokia's 41%. Yup .. apple has an app store, but 45% of smartphone users still prefer Nokia's offering, with or without an app store.
@Allen Ruthland: Since the iPhone syncs with a number of contact databases already, theres NOTHING preventing an iPhone users from easily and quickly moving theit contacts to another platform. The problem with Google's app doing it from the phone directly is that the user has no CONTROL over the process of moving the data, and knows not what google does with it, as to be honest, it;s not required to upload that sata to make the app work (GV adds numbers automatically as you call/are called by them).
@Dave Fox. Apple may be a "majority" in the smartphone market, and even a greater majority in the application market for such devices, but they are by no means a "near monopoly" and consumers clearly have choice. The govenmernt may "question" Apple's tactics, but to be honest, the bulk of the governments power in this case is simply the ability tyo make their findings public, and let consumers decide. To become regulated, the government would have to determine that Apple had complete control of a market without the posibility (or through actions defeats the poissibility) of a viable competition. If they can't prove that against Microsoft, they have a looooong way to go before Apple meets that condition. Yes, on their OWN DEVICE, they have this power, but their device is not the MARKET SPACE, and that's how government regulates... Besides, the device can be easily (and LEGALLY) unlocked, removing Apple's control.
At the numerous ACs: 1) grow some balls and log in before you post. 2) The government can NOT regulate what products you do and do not carry in your store, so long as there is another store that can reasonably compete. A monopoly means you are the ONLY one devoid of ANY competition. Having a "near" monopoly does NOT give the gov't any power, it has to be a true and complete monopoly. Next, The iPhone is one of MANY smartphones in the market. The government can not look at a single product as a marketplace, regardless of how its locked in. I want my new car to come with an aftermarket radio, but do you think Ford, or Toyota is going to allow the dealer to have one pre-installed when i buy it without voiding my brand new car warranty? no. If I want an F150 with a kicking stereo (btw, i most decidedly do not), is not Ford preventing me from having choice? No, I have the choice to legally void my waranty and modify my car, or i have the choice to buy an alternate car... Just becasue Ford lets me only use ford approved parts, ford approved services, and only offers options from incumbant pre-approved vbendors (and they have CONTRACTS in place barring additional vendors), does not mean Ford is a monopoily on the F150... The iPhone is a phone, a smartphone that runs applications. There is a THRIVING market providing choices to consumers. The only thing the government can investigate is if AT&T was involved in stopping the application from being released. If there was multicompany collusion, against a COMPETITOR (google), then Monopoly or not, they violated FTC regulations, THAT is what the gov't is interested in...
@Soupdragon: Microsoft does not have a complete monopoly on PC operating systems, however, it has a very near monopoly on enterprise software solutions including that OS. Apple has for yearss denied competing in the enterprise marketplace, and Novel is bankrupt, Sun is backing out, and IBM only sells in the mainframe spaces now. Linux is a competitor on the desktop, and in web services, but not in the enterprise space. In that market, microsoft's attempts to stifle competition by refusing to allow 3rd party apps would be a violation of multiple laws. This is for a few reasons: 1) there is existing competition, and doing so would be a direct act to stifle active competitors. but 2) more importantly, you BOUGHT the OS... In Apple;'s case, you have not, it remains theirs under license to you on the device. In micrsoft's case, doctrine makes it YOUR software, Microsoft's EULA can only restrict you from using certain versaions for certain purposes, forcing you into certain licence fees/purchase prices. Once you own it, you can do as you will with it (short of decompiling and selling the code, or using it to break laws) Apple is not subject to this. Should they at some point become a true monopoly, and eliminate all viable competition naturally, even then, so long as there remains a way to unlock the device, seperating it from their OS and wardware waranty, they still can't be acused of being a monopoly, not unless they start approving one competitors app and denying another for reasons that can not be made clear (and in every case, even when it's seemed unclear, Apple has in fact had a specific, documentable reason, they just do NOt by policy (and in the NDA and in the developer contract this is made clear), disclose the reasons for declining one app over another...
My own 2 cents: The FCC and FTC are not asking the RIGHT questions. They asked about Apple's review process, and asked about AT&T's pressures. I think it;s actually Verizon and t-Mobile, and potentially even international companies, who are trying to ensure this app does not make it onto the phone. There's also a KEY difference between Google Voice and Skype: Skype ONLY uses WiFi. Though Google can't make CALLS across 3G, because of it's unique central dispatch system, it would be possible on many plans from many providers to make unlimited calls 24/7 over 3G while only paying for the lowest available calling tier, and further redirect all TXT and MMS messages through a free service. Apple IS under strict contract provisions to not provide any application that permits bypassing billable services for the provider. All 3 parties are being VERY careful not to reveal this, as doing so by Google would get their app banned not only on the iPhone, but on all phones, including their OWN, and a provider mentioning this might let too many in the public catch on to the idea and cost them billions, and Apple will have a hard time getting NEW providers (like Verizon, who's "My 5" plan is by far the easist to exploit using Google's app), to sell the device. Of course, wether the app is on the device or not hasd no impact on using google voice to bypass toll charges, this can still easily be done, but having the app allows 2 thing not having it doesn't: A) get caller ID via the app instead of via the traditional caller ID service (getting free calls requires turning off caller ID forwarding from google voice), and B) wifi calling when cell signals are weak/not available.
Many years ago I made a lot of money and had lots of fun with a trusty Apple II writing, believe it or not, medical and pathology equipment control applications.
When the Mac finally arrived (after the Apple III and Lisa got their just deserts) I planned to transfer my software to the new and exciting platform. Without going into the gory details, I was at every stage hindered, frustrated and ripped off by an organisation filled from top to bottom with smug, arrogant, fuckwits who knew nothing about customer relations and who thought that I should be grateful that they were even talking to me let alone deigning to sell me one of their new Marvellous Machines.
Needless to say I told Apple to get stuffed and since then, after buying well over a hundred computers of all kinds for my businesses and family, I never again touched an Apple PC.
From the above article it looks like nothing's changed over at cloud Cupertino cuckoo land!
The The Sherman Antitrust Act (obviously only applicable in the US) *would* apply here if Apple had a significant share in the mobile handset market place. They don't. Not even close. There is no grounds for an accusation of anti-trust. As someone else pointed out, don't like iPhone? Buy something else, The Pre is out soon, and the next generation HTC Android handsets look good too, as does the Samsung one, if the ever manage to release it. As for the name calling, you just look stupid cause you got it wrong.
Sorry, but Apple is wrong to interfere with any apps approval unless it is a security/malware threat, based on fraud or violates a terms of service agreement with the wireless carrier (I don't like the terms either, but you signed the contract and agreed to those terms.) Other than that they need to stop being a gatekeeper of duplicate functionality or morality. Let the customers decide those with their wallets.
I love Apple products and agree that Apple's unconventional approach of having some control of hardware and software does have merit, but Apple has crossed the line with some of its app store behavior.
Mainly because apple called it a phone - which mean the FCC get to play. The FCC like interoperability, that's what makes a phone so useful - the ability to call other people without them having to have the same model of phone.
It's not an anti-monopoly investigation, it's not the FCC approving apps - it's the FCC asking Apple if ATT are blocking certain other telecom providers.
"Where does the US gov't have the right to determine what app a corporation should allow"
From that FDR guy, you remember, the President who bitch slapped the Supremes into being his personal arse lickers. In case you forgot, they can and will tell you exactly what to do and when to do it. If you would like to look it up kindly see Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich. Oddly enough, so many people are fooled into loving a guy who prolonged the depression far longer than necessary and robbed them of so many basic rights. But hey, he gave us So-So Security. I guess a switch in time does save nine but fucks the rest of us.
Missing "s" appart, I kinda thought that once they had taken my hard-earned, the precioussss was mine, all mine? Or are they just licencing the darn thing?
Actually the whole "Apple store-only" policy is already very much on the borderline to illegalland, they got off the hook by saying "it's only to ensure maximum smoothness and shininess" -which was bollocks from the start, they should have said, like "installing any non-approved app will void the warranty" or sumfin, instead-, but then they started rejecting apps for entirely different reasons (such as "we don't approve of boobs or anything distantly related to sex". They do seem to like farts very much though. Apparently the Turtle-Necked One is asexual, but does have an arsehole). So they should darn well be spanked. Imagine what would happen if the Big Bad MS prevented people from running OpenOffice or FF/Opera/whatever on windows? MS didn't do that, they just used bundling, and even then they are being spanked (and rightfully so). Now time for Jobs and co to learn that their pixie-juice-powered business is not entirely above the law, either.
"This is how a free market operates." No, telling people (who are not your employees) what they can and cannot not produce, or else they may take their business elsewhere, was how guilds used to operate in the dark ages before there was a free market.
Also: "This is pure BS and part of some larger agenda."? I didn't know Apple fanboys had a tinfoil-hat division?
I hate people using this as a mitigating factor. If it's wrong for a monopoly to use some kind of business practice then surely it's wrong for any other business to use the exact same practice? The only difference is that, until you're a monopoly, the government doesn't usually care.
The real problem with Apple's practice is that the App Store is a monopoly in terms of legitimate app stores for the iPhone, so if you want your phone's warranty to remain valid (and to avoid any litigation Apple may decide to bring against you) you have to put up with Apple's practices. And there are apps on the App Store that you can't get for any other platform, so if you want a particular app then you have to buy an iPhone to get it.
The iPhone isn't a monopoly in the smartphone market, but the App Store is a monopoly in the iPhone ecosystem.
As long as the consumer is aware Google is scraping the contacts, who the carp is Apple to say "no, we cannot allow that".
Those are MY fleeking contacts, and if I want Google to have them the Apple can just go f-off.
Come up with a better reason for denying the app; the Government is nanny enough, I don't need Cupertino changing my diapers too.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
