I find this curious. The sex apps, I'm not completely happy about, but I can understand.
The lawsuit, again not real happy about, but I can understand that one too. Though, getting the import of these devices blocked seems like a bad PR move on their part.
This shenanigans about Wi-Fi scanner apps though? This one really has me confused. Most of these are legitimately good apps that provide some useful functionality for techs and other power users. Why remove these applications?
I was considering buying an iPad later this month, but now I find myself rethinking that decision. If this is what I have to look forward to, I think I'll pass. I'm missing my iPhone, but with the stream of bad moves lately, I think I'm going to stick with Android.
See response #10. The wifi apps likely all used private APIs to make it work. Using private APIs makes it likely that your app will break as Apple continues evolving its frameworks and code.
I don't want to have to have a jailbroken iPhone to have functionality that is important to me. I have KisMac on my laptop to see networks and figure out why I am having problems with an AP. I don't have such an app on my iPhone (for whatever reason), but it would have come in handy several times in understanding what I need to do to improve my connection, especially when in a hotel.
Ultimately I jailbroke my iPhone so I could fix the g0ddamn auto-correction feature. One of my contacts has M&E in their vcard... so now the word 'me' auto-corrects to M&E every time. It drives me fscking nuts... and Apple doesn't give you any way to fix it!
It's one thing if their exposed APIs can do everything someone needs, but it is a real pain in the ass when they don't let "power users" be able to get under the hood a little sometimes.
First Apple emasculated iStat which, for me, was a critical memory management tool to make up for the lousy 128MB of RAM in the 3G.
Now Apple trashes WiFiTrak, which I use *all the time* as it enables me to see the number of available channels, provides very specific signal strength information, and enables me to differentiate among various bridged access points with the same name. This application is straightforward, works well and is USEFUL. It is *much better* than the built-in Wifi interface in the 3GS.
If Apple's business model is hardware centric - as we know it to be - then how is it possible that Apple's best interests are served by killing useful apps? If Apple eases up and makes their platform more open, they will have happier customers who have more choices and a more satisfying experience.
Why does Apple need to reserve certain functionality for itself? Why blow off - if not officially disallow - Google apps? What will Apple do when presented with the Opera Mini browser for approval?
Setting aside the issue of "inappropriate content", won't enhanced user choice - particularly if the app is better than what Apple natively provides - drive increased H/W sales and profitability.
I know that it's in Apple's best interests to keep illegal, malware, and bug ridden software out of their store, but just because they don't like something, or think it provides little value is way too arbitrary.
And who are they to decide what is of value? A particular product may be of great value to someone who needs or wants it, even if Apple doesn't think so.
This is not how you build developer or customer interest in your platform. Not smart Apple.
Indeed, WifiTrak is a very useful app. When there are multiple WAPs in the vicinity, these scanning apps make it very easy to figure out which ones to try and which ones are a waste of time.
I previously used WiFinder, but it looks like the author has given up developing iPhone apps. Shame.
I also use WifiTrak, in fact Skyhook suggested that I download it so I could find the proper mac address for the map app. so my location would show up. Seems the built in wifi app could not tell me that.
Second; Why did Apple approve WifiTrak in the first place if it violated Apples rules.
And also, what does happen to the app now, does Apple remove it from my device? And if so, will Apple refund the money I spent on the app.
Is stupidity part of the job description for working in the Apple department that screens and blacklists iPhone apps. There seems to be no other explanation for its behavior.
Do Wi-Fi scanners have "minimum user functionality"? First, that's for me to decide and not Apple. I know what I need better than they. Second, these apps are quite useful. Just a few days ago, I used eWifi to discover the best channel for my WiFi and to tailor its coverage so I interfere as little as possible with my neighbors. For that, it's much more useful than Apple's woefully deficient built-in app. Am I seeing a pattern here? Does Apple get envious when others do something better than they?
Nor does it matter that these apps use unpublished APIs. Apple should address that problem by publishing the APIs and leaving us to use our iPhones as we see fit. If those APIs are a bit buggy, all they need to do is say so. eWiFi hasn't given me a lick of trouble, something I can't say for Safari on my iMac.
At the executive level, these policies are foolish. An aggressive policy of approving or rejecting apps opens the company up to legitimate criticism for the applications that they do accept. They can't be niggling and dictatorial in one area and claim 'this is not our responsibility' in another. It's all of one or all of the other.
AppleInsider would do well to look for Apple insiders who're as ticked off about this silliness as the rest of us and willing to leak details about what's actually going on. Perhaps we can embarrass these screeners and their boss into behaving better.
If this trend continues, the tech crowd will eventually move away from the iPhone. If they go, the rest will follow.
"The rest will follow"? Hardly. The "rest" will continue thinking the tech crowd is a bunch of self-important losers with too much free time and an over-inflated sense of entitlement.
It's seems to me that Apple is now is just cherry picking it's future customers for a closed and controlled ecosystem.
If they are, that's probably a good thing. As we've seen with the Internet as a whole, and now the App Store, once you allow a complete free for all you end up with so much utter crap out there that you can't find the good stuff and it ceases to be a useful resource. If this means Apple are going to clamp down on all the iFart rubbish out there, I for one would welcome this.
On the other hand, while I welcome some degree of quality control and filtering, I do object to censorship. Perhaps the ultimate solution is to have a regular, free-for-all AppStore where anyone can submit apps, and a new, up-market, "AppStore Pro", maybe one where developers have to pay $1000 for each app that's listed and where Apple are free to arbitrarily reject apps they don't think are "worthy" ("but that's ok, we'll still let you go in the regular AppStore").
Words evolve. Typically, censorship refers to government action. It can, however, refer to a company suppressing speech negative to it's interests. It seems a stretch to call Apple's actions censorship. Apple merely is choosing what applications to allow in it's store. I find no fault in that. What I find a fault in is that Apple actively tries real hard to prevent jail breaking, which limits choice of what applications I can install on hardware I bought and own. It is one thing to not sell an application in your store, it is another to completely deny me the means to use it on hardware I own.
At some point when Apple gets to big, it will be subject to anti-trust lawsuits. Apple essentially is using it's power in one market: hardware sales to control the market in another market: software sales. That is the almost the same thing Microsoft got busted over.
Apple needs to provide adults the means to view what we want on their hardware. Failing to do so sets Apple up as Big Brother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
How do you define censorship?
Certainly not as the Supreme Court or the founding fathers would.
"According to the development studio Three Jacks Software, Apple removed its application, called "WiFi-Where," due to its alleged use of unpublished APIs within the iPhone OS software development kit."
Of course, some nut job in CA will decide this infringes on his/her free speech and sue Apple, but that's another post.
Well, they can try. Won't work though. The First Amendment applies to the government limiting speech, not to what someone sells or refuses to sell in their store. In other words, you can't sue the little mom-and-pop convenience store and force them to sell anything racier than Reader's Digest if they don't want to.
What I find a fault in is that Apple actively tries real hard to prevent jail breaking, which limits choice of what applications I can install on hardware I bought and own. It is one thing to not sell an application in your store, it is another to completely deny me the means to use it on hardware I own.
Tricky one, I'm not sure where I stand on that. You can jailbreak your phone, it's not illegal to do so. And Apple don't have a monopoly on smart phones, so the rules on anti-competitive behaviour don't apply in the same way that they did for Microsoft. If Apple ever end up in the position where 90% of all phones and 90% of all music players came from them then yes, they would have to be a lot more careful about what they do, but until then you're free to buy an Android phone or whatever.
I really really really do not understand the griping.
You bought the iPhone, you know Apple's history of control. None of this is in the least bit surprising.
Apple is not going to open their OS, because this will increase the number of blue screens of death so to speak. Why do you think Windows has problems - mostly (according to my programming friends) because of crappy 3rd party software, not because of the OS.
Do you want your iPhone to crash and hang more frequently? Then you will complain about that.
Apple has always been about a closed, controlled environment to produce an easy "user experience"
One either lives with the limitations and constraints or one moves to Linux or Windows.
As to jailbreaking. I have a hunch that Apple tries to prevent it because people are going to try and jailbreak their phone, they will brick their phone and then want a new one under warranty. So, this is a way to stop that.
Words evolve. Typically, censorship refers to government action. It can, however, refer to a company suppressing speech negative to it's interests. It seems a stretch to call Apple's actions censorship. Apple merely is choosing what applications to allow in it's store. I find no fault in that. What I find a fault in is that Apple actively tries real hard to prevent jail breaking, which limits choice of what applications I can install on hardware I bought and own. It is one thing to not sell an application in your store, it is another to completely deny me the means to use it on hardware I own.
Wrong And car manufacturers actively try hard to prevent you from using leading gas, diesel or rocket fuel in car engines not made to use it.
Perhaps you should become more familiar with the law, i.e.,
The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment only applies to prohibit direct government censorship. Exceptions apply, e.g., The protection from libel suits recognizes that the power of the state is needed to enforce a libel judgment between private persons.
And most important,
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has never interpreted the First Amendment as having the same power to alter private property rights, or provide any other protection against purely private action.
When considering private authority figures (such as a child's parents or an employee's employer), Constitutional free speech provides no protection. A private authority figure may reserve the right to censor their subordinate's speech, or discriminate on the basis of speech, without any legal consequences. For example, per the at-will employment doctrine, an employee may be fired from their occupation for speaking out against a politician that the employer likes.
Owning your own home does not allow you to burn it down. Or putting a thousand plastic flamingoes on your front lawn.
OK, so I bought an Ipod Touch knowing that Apple controls the software I can access (jailbreaking aside). And, I also bought an app that I really like and use....so.....what if Apple then decides that the app uses an unapproved API, or is inappropriate, or somehow upsets King Steve.... next time I upgrade the app disappears or is at least made non-functional. No, hasn't happened, at least to my knowledge, but theoretically?
Makes me worry a bit. Who gets to determine the quality? Does Apple hold the patent on quality? Obviously if the app violates the developer agreement (API's), or violates a specific portion of the legal code, but just because Apple deemed it as having "minimum functionality"?
I know that there are concerns about the level of control that Apple exerts over the iPhone/Touch, App Store. However, the trade-off is that this is a very secure environment, especially to do financial transactions.
I have use Windows with Cisco PIX 500 Firewall, anti virus and spam software. I still got hit with the computer rendered unusable. The MacOSX is better, but it is exposed.
I am looking forward to the iPad to use it for secure encrypted transactions.
Anyways, anybody who wants to roam wild, they can jail-break the iPhone OS, get into all kinds of sites and download porn, or anything else. Or get another OS device and take their chances. It is a matter of choice.
Comments
I find this curious. The sex apps, I'm not completely happy about, but I can understand.
The lawsuit, again not real happy about, but I can understand that one too. Though, getting the import of these devices blocked seems like a bad PR move on their part.
This shenanigans about Wi-Fi scanner apps though? This one really has me confused. Most of these are legitimately good apps that provide some useful functionality for techs and other power users. Why remove these applications?
I was considering buying an iPad later this month, but now I find myself rethinking that decision. If this is what I have to look forward to, I think I'll pass. I'm missing my iPhone, but with the stream of bad moves lately, I think I'm going to stick with Android.
See response #10. The wifi apps likely all used private APIs to make it work. Using private APIs makes it likely that your app will break as Apple continues evolving its frameworks and code.
Ultimately I jailbroke my iPhone so I could fix the g0ddamn auto-correction feature. One of my contacts has M&E in their vcard... so now the word 'me' auto-corrects to M&E every time. It drives me fscking nuts... and Apple doesn't give you any way to fix it!
It's one thing if their exposed APIs can do everything someone needs, but it is a real pain in the ass when they don't let "power users" be able to get under the hood a little sometimes.
Now Apple trashes WiFiTrak, which I use *all the time* as it enables me to see the number of available channels, provides very specific signal strength information, and enables me to differentiate among various bridged access points with the same name. This application is straightforward, works well and is USEFUL. It is *much better* than the built-in Wifi interface in the 3GS.
If Apple's business model is hardware centric - as we know it to be - then how is it possible that Apple's best interests are served by killing useful apps? If Apple eases up and makes their platform more open, they will have happier customers who have more choices and a more satisfying experience.
Why does Apple need to reserve certain functionality for itself? Why blow off - if not officially disallow - Google apps? What will Apple do when presented with the Opera Mini browser for approval?
Setting aside the issue of "inappropriate content", won't enhanced user choice - particularly if the app is better than what Apple natively provides - drive increased H/W sales and profitability.
This is crazy.
And who are they to decide what is of value? A particular product may be of great value to someone who needs or wants it, even if Apple doesn't think so.
This is not how you build developer or customer interest in your platform. Not smart Apple.
Indeed, WifiTrak is a very useful app. When there are multiple WAPs in the vicinity, these scanning apps make it very easy to figure out which ones to try and which ones are a waste of time.
I previously used WiFinder, but it looks like the author has given up developing iPhone apps. Shame.
I also use WifiTrak, in fact Skyhook suggested that I download it so I could find the proper mac address for the map app. so my location would show up. Seems the built in wifi app could not tell me that.
Second; Why did Apple approve WifiTrak in the first place if it violated Apples rules.
And also, what does happen to the app now, does Apple remove it from my device? And if so, will Apple refund the money I spent on the app.
Do Wi-Fi scanners have "minimum user functionality"? First, that's for me to decide and not Apple. I know what I need better than they. Second, these apps are quite useful. Just a few days ago, I used eWifi to discover the best channel for my WiFi and to tailor its coverage so I interfere as little as possible with my neighbors. For that, it's much more useful than Apple's woefully deficient built-in app. Am I seeing a pattern here? Does Apple get envious when others do something better than they?
Nor does it matter that these apps use unpublished APIs. Apple should address that problem by publishing the APIs and leaving us to use our iPhones as we see fit. If those APIs are a bit buggy, all they need to do is say so. eWiFi hasn't given me a lick of trouble, something I can't say for Safari on my iMac.
At the executive level, these policies are foolish. An aggressive policy of approving or rejecting apps opens the company up to legitimate criticism for the applications that they do accept. They can't be niggling and dictatorial in one area and claim 'this is not our responsibility' in another. It's all of one or all of the other.
AppleInsider would do well to look for Apple insiders who're as ticked off about this silliness as the rest of us and willing to leak details about what's actually going on. Perhaps we can embarrass these screeners and their boss into behaving better.
If this trend continues, the tech crowd will eventually move away from the iPhone. If they go, the rest will follow.
"The rest will follow"? Hardly. The "rest" will continue thinking the tech crowd is a bunch of self-important losers with too much free time and an over-inflated sense of entitlement.
It's seems to me that Apple is now is just cherry picking it's future customers for a closed and controlled ecosystem.
If they are, that's probably a good thing. As we've seen with the Internet as a whole, and now the App Store, once you allow a complete free for all you end up with so much utter crap out there that you can't find the good stuff and it ceases to be a useful resource. If this means Apple are going to clamp down on all the iFart rubbish out there, I for one would welcome this.
On the other hand, while I welcome some degree of quality control and filtering, I do object to censorship. Perhaps the ultimate solution is to have a regular, free-for-all AppStore where anyone can submit apps, and a new, up-market, "AppStore Pro", maybe one where developers have to pay $1000 for each app that's listed and where Apple are free to arbitrarily reject apps they don't think are "worthy" ("but that's ok, we'll still let you go in the regular AppStore").
and adds one more reason to Jailbreak.
At some point when Apple gets to big, it will be subject to anti-trust lawsuits. Apple essentially is using it's power in one market: hardware sales to control the market in another market: software sales. That is the almost the same thing Microsoft got busted over.
Apple needs to provide adults the means to view what we want on their hardware. Failing to do so sets Apple up as Big Brother.
How do you define censorship?
Certainly not as the Supreme Court or the founding fathers would.
I'm really confused by this
"According to the development studio Three Jacks Software, Apple removed its application, called "WiFi-Where," due to its alleged use of unpublished APIs within the iPhone OS software development kit."
Both from mobilutions.
- Joe's NetWork Diagnostics.
and
- Network Diagnostics Pro.
App home page URL: http://www.mobilutions.eu/
It is a very sad day, the apps were great in finding OPEN/FREE WiFi APs.
MrMagoo
Of course, some nut job in CA will decide this infringes on his/her free speech and sue Apple, but that's another post.
Well, they can try. Won't work though. The First Amendment applies to the government limiting speech, not to what someone sells or refuses to sell in their store. In other words, you can't sue the little mom-and-pop convenience store and force them to sell anything racier than Reader's Digest if they don't want to.
What I find a fault in is that Apple actively tries real hard to prevent jail breaking, which limits choice of what applications I can install on hardware I bought and own. It is one thing to not sell an application in your store, it is another to completely deny me the means to use it on hardware I own.
Tricky one, I'm not sure where I stand on that. You can jailbreak your phone, it's not illegal to do so. And Apple don't have a monopoly on smart phones, so the rules on anti-competitive behaviour don't apply in the same way that they did for Microsoft. If Apple ever end up in the position where 90% of all phones and 90% of all music players came from them then yes, they would have to be a lot more careful about what they do, but until then you're free to buy an Android phone or whatever.
You bought the iPhone, you know Apple's history of control. None of this is in the least bit surprising.
Apple is not going to open their OS, because this will increase the number of blue screens of death so to speak. Why do you think Windows has problems - mostly (according to my programming friends) because of crappy 3rd party software, not because of the OS.
Do you want your iPhone to crash and hang more frequently? Then you will complain about that.
Apple has always been about a closed, controlled environment to produce an easy "user experience"
One either lives with the limitations and constraints or one moves to Linux or Windows.
As to jailbreaking. I have a hunch that Apple tries to prevent it because people are going to try and jailbreak their phone, they will brick their phone and then want a new one under warranty. So, this is a way to stop that.
Words evolve. Typically, censorship refers to government action. It can, however, refer to a company suppressing speech negative to it's interests. It seems a stretch to call Apple's actions censorship. Apple merely is choosing what applications to allow in it's store. I find no fault in that. What I find a fault in is that Apple actively tries real hard to prevent jail breaking, which limits choice of what applications I can install on hardware I bought and own. It is one thing to not sell an application in your store, it is another to completely deny me the means to use it on hardware I own.
Wrong And car manufacturers actively try hard to prevent you from using leading gas, diesel or rocket fuel in car engines not made to use it.
Perhaps you should become more familiar with the law, i.e., The First Amendment only applies to prohibit direct government censorship. Exceptions apply, e.g., The protection from libel suits recognizes that the power of the state is needed to enforce a libel judgment between private persons.
And most important,
The U.S. Supreme Court has never interpreted the First Amendment as having the same power to alter private property rights, or provide any other protection against purely private action.
When considering private authority figures (such as a child's parents or an employee's employer), Constitutional free speech provides no protection. A private authority figure may reserve the right to censor their subordinate's speech, or discriminate on the basis of speech, without any legal consequences. For example, per the at-will employment doctrine, an employee may be fired from their occupation for speaking out against a politician that the employer likes.
Owning your own home does not allow you to burn it down. Or putting a thousand plastic flamingoes on your front lawn.
censorship |ˈsensərˌ sh ip|
noun
the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts
Makes me worry a bit. Who gets to determine the quality? Does Apple hold the patent on quality? Obviously if the app violates the developer agreement (API's), or violates a specific portion of the legal code, but just because Apple deemed it as having "minimum functionality"?
Come on now let's get real.
I have use Windows with Cisco PIX 500 Firewall, anti virus and spam software. I still got hit with the computer rendered unusable. The MacOSX is better, but it is exposed.
I am looking forward to the iPad to use it for secure encrypted transactions.
Anyways, anybody who wants to roam wild, they can jail-break the iPhone OS, get into all kinds of sites and download porn, or anything else. Or get another OS device and take their chances. It is a matter of choice.