7 ms·

It’s Not the Control, It’s the Secrecy

66 points by mrshoe 17y ago

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
dkarl 17y ago
Part of me is hoping that the reviewer who rejected the app was fresh off the boat from some authoritarian country, and this has nothing to do with a company that is admired by millions of young Americans and accepted or respected by tens of millions more. I just can't fathom the idea of an American being able to formulate the phrase "content that ridicules public figures" without feeling sick and pretending never to have thought of it.
- groaner 17y ago
  Considering how many of our public figures (and their rabid supporters) would love to crack down on "content that ridicules public figures" while loudly touting how "American" they are, I think you're in for a rude awakening.
- patio11 17y ago
  feeling sick and pretending never to have thought of it Thoughtcrime has not been a major cherished feature of the American experience previously.
- vetinari 17y ago
  The irony is that people from authoritarian countries are much more sensitive to censorship, propaganda and other totalitarian bullshit than average American. I noticed this as someone who was born and grew up behind iron curtain.
sshumaker 17y ago
It's not just the secrecy, it's the fact that Apple changes the terms and applies them retroactively.
- apu 17y ago
  There's another factor: rules seem to apply non-uniformly. This is most pronounced when an app by an small-time developer is rejected, but a very similar app from a major publisher (EA, Playboy, etc.) is accepted. If this is what Apple wants (for whatever reason), then secrecy is the only way to do it while maintaining a semblance of fairness.
groaner 17y ago
Why can't it be both? I, for example, oppose the Patriot Act because: 1. The government can engage in warrantless surveillance, violating my privacy. 2. The government can do so without having to justify it at all, even requiring that the act itself does not get disclosed (e.g. the much-abused national security letter). Control and secrecy are both bad, and when combined is really staggeringly frightening.
alextgordon 17y ago
It's neither. It's that the only supported method of distribution is via the App Store. If, in addition to the App Store, developers were able to distribute apps themselves, there would be no problem. People would grumble whenever Apple introduced another asinine policy, but there wouldn't be such an outcry. Some restrictions in return for extra visibility and use of Apple's distribution system is a fair trade. This isn't what we have though. It isn't just Apple's store they're locking down, it's the whole device. A store that you can't freely put software on is unfortunate but understandable. A computer that you can't freely put software on is just wrong.
- orangecat 17y ago
  Agreed, and it's amazing how quickly Apple has been able to shift the terms of the debate on this. It's now apparently an extreme position ("abolitionist" in Gruber's post) that if Alice creates a program and wants to send it to Bob, they should be able to accomplish that without begging for permission from the computer manufacturer.
  - cgranade 17y ago
    In some sense, the shift in debate came as soon as DRM became acceptable to most people. Apple has capitalized on this shifted ground, to be sure, but I think that the iPad debates are reflective of a much more general struggle and debate.
- krainboltgreene 17y ago
  This isn't what we have though. It isn't just Apple's store they're locking down, it's the whole device. A store that you can't freely put software on is unfortunate but understandable. A computer that you can't freely put software on is just wrong. Wrong? For most of the world it's exactly what they need. Allowing people to freely put software on their computer leads to a lot of bullshit. Hell, even experienced people will put themselves through a lot of bullshit because they're allowed to change things. The regular people in the world want and need someone to man the gates of software. It may not be good for FSF or FOSS, but guess what? A whole fucking lot of people (And I mean a shit load) don't care about programming languages, kernels, drivers, or any other of that crap. (Sorry if this comes off ranty, I have a cold and I get heated really easily when sick)
lukifer 17y ago
It's ironic that a free market can lead to authoritarian, closed market platforms like the App Store or X-Box Live Arcade (and that, hypothetically, government intervention could force these markets to be more open, whether or not you think that's a good thing).
- cgranade 17y ago
  That's part of the whole motivation for mixed economic policies in the first place-- to correct market failures. Monopolies, trusts and other such anti-competitive behavior can undermine any good that comes out of the free market, to say nothing of doing things against the interests of the consumer. Honestly, I think that government intervention here would be a good thing, as it seems that DRM and closed platforms are symptoms of a market failure.
sjs 17y ago
I'm still wondering why nobody has funded a web-app store for iPhone and other modern phones. Hell, it doesn't even have to be limited to mobile devices (but supported resolutions, features, and device support should be prominent). There's clearly a huge market for systems that make it easy for customers to find and purchase apps, and for devs to reach those customers. People shouldn't be implementing payment systems over and over again for each product they create. It gives devs exposure and a market base. I guess the problem is bootstrapping such a market. That's no easy task and the pay-off might not come for years.
- vetinari 17y ago
  No, the problem is that nobody except Apple has private key, that can sign applications, so the iPhone will install them. Unless someone factors it (or find it in some way), it is going to stay this way. Have a look few threads above - Apple is the only party that can put appications on iPhone OS devices - it is not that others are unwilling to do so, but Apple locked them out and unless there is a breakthrough in asymetric cryptography, it is not going to change.
  - mortenjorck 17y ago
    Sjs is proposing not a third-party app store (impossible given the code signing requirement) but a third-party web app store. I could see this working.
    - vetinari 17y ago
      Mea culpa, you are right. There is something like this: http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/ http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/
nnutter 17y ago
It's not the secrecy, it's the monopoly on the sale of iPhone applications. Monopolies are OK as long as...
- kprobst 17y ago
  ... Gruber justifies them?
  - nnutter 17y ago
    =)
- ugh 17y ago
  McDonald’s has a monopoly on the sale of Big Macs – I don’t think that’s a problem :) All that aside, there is a problem: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-for-994-of-mobile-app-sales-in-2009.ars http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-...
  - nnutter 17y ago
    How is this a valid comparison? A Big Mac is an end product not an intermediate. I suppose you could say it is an intermediate product for condiments. In which case McDonald's does not have a monopoly on what condiments you can put on your Big Mac. Even if you did think it was a valid comparison they don't really have a monopoly on the sale of Big Macs. They have a trademark (or whatever) on the name Big Mac but there are plenty of burgers that are very similar and you are free to create a burger that is identical in form to what McDonald's sells.
    - ugh 17y ago
      There is Google, RIM, Palm. There soon will be Microsoft. Nokia, too. They all will sell mobile apps so I don’t see the problem with Apple being the only one to sell iPhone apps if – and only if – they lose their dominant position in this wider group of those who sell mobile apps. They can keep their monopoly on selling iPhone apps if they want to. I think that’s unfortunate but not something that has (necessarily) to be stopped. As I said: if they lose their dominant position, if you can get perfectly good mobile apps from any of those companies I mentioned.
Qz 17y ago
Hold on a sec... does anyone else see a problem with the concept of an App for one person's political cartoons? I remain convinced that the App Store is at its core an evolutionary dead end.
- wvenable 17y ago
  If web sites can be like apps, why can't apps be like web sites?
  - Qz 17y ago
    Because web sites have (mostly) visible source code. Ultra-specific apps are lock-in central.
    - ugh 17y ago
      Isn’t that a value judgment, not a answer to the question? There is a difference but it doesn’t matter for most people. It’s simply true that apps can present information just as good or better than websites. That’s just how it is. And I don’t like it either.
      - Qz 17y ago
        Actually, I think part of what's going on here is that the App Store just makes it really really easy to sell things. It's just that it requires them to be in the form of 'Apps'. I think the simplified billing aspect is the key popularity point. App-ness itself has no future though.
    - wvenable 17y ago
      What does source code have to do with anything if we're talking about a content site? You can't (legally) do anything with this person's political cartoons on his website. The point is moot.
      - Qz 17y ago
        You can legally do lots of things with the person's political cartoons.
blasdel 17y ago
The real problem with the rejections of Fiore's cartoon app or Mad Magazine's Bobblehead Federal Register app is not the App Store approval process itself. It's the same problem that underlies Apple's recent banning of auto-generated app frameworks. The real problem is that pure content is being treated as an application. There needs to be a separate whole section of the iTunes Store for this shit: Music, Movies, TV, Apps, Interactive. It'd come with its own Webkit-based development environment, like Apple is doing for their new iTunesLP format. The people making these pointless apps don't really give a shit about integrating with the phone, and they aren't doing anything they couldn't do in Mobile Safari -- they're in the App Store to get paid for their work.
gamble 17y ago
Considering how long the App Store has been like this, I think it's fair to assume that Apple wants the approvals process to be opaque. Objective, published criteria would make it harder to justify rejecting apps that threaten their business model. (Google Voice, for example) In addition, it prevents third parties from investing a significant amount in any one app. At this stage in the iPhone's development, Apple may actually prefer not to have highly sophisticated third-party apps. Third-party apps add value to the iPhone, but they don't supersede the core OS applications. If apps became more like proper desktop applications and users came to value them more than the core OS, it would be easier for Apple's customers to follow ports of those apps to another platform. By undermining the third-party ecosystem, Apple gives itself time find out what people want and ensure the core OS apps have an insurmountable lead.

66 points by mrshoe 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

dkarl 17y ago

Part of me is hoping that the reviewer who rejected the app was fresh off the boat from some authoritarian country, and this has nothing to do with a company that is admired by millions of young Americans and accepted or respected by tens of millions more. I just can't fathom the idea of an American being able to formulate the phrase "content that ridicules public figures" without feeling sick and pretending never to have thought of it.

groaner 17y ago
Considering how many of our public figures (and their rabid supporters) would love to crack down on "content that ridicules public figures" while loudly touting how "American" they are, I think you're in for a rude awakening.
patio11 17y ago
feeling sick and pretending never to have thought of it Thoughtcrime has not been a major cherished feature of the American experience previously.
vetinari 17y ago
The irony is that people from authoritarian countries are much more sensitive to censorship, propaganda and other totalitarian bullshit than average American. I noticed this as someone who was born and grew up behind iron curtain.

sshumaker 17y ago

It's not just the secrecy, it's the fact that Apple changes the terms and applies them retroactively.

apu 17y ago
There's another factor: rules seem to apply non-uniformly. This is most pronounced when an app by an small-time developer is rejected, but a very similar app from a major publisher (EA, Playboy, etc.) is accepted. If this is what Apple wants (for whatever reason), then secrecy is the only way to do it while maintaining a semblance of fairness.

groaner 17y ago

Why can't it be both? I, for example, oppose the Patriot Act because: 1. The government can engage in warrantless surveillance, violating my privacy. 2. The government can do so without having to justify it at all, even requiring that the act itself does not get disclosed (e.g. the much-abused national security letter). Control and secrecy are both bad, and when combined is really staggeringly frightening.

alextgordon 17y ago

It's neither. It's that the only supported method of distribution is via the App Store. If, in addition to the App Store, developers were able to distribute apps themselves, there would be no problem. People would grumble whenever Apple introduced another asinine policy, but there wouldn't be such an outcry. Some restrictions in return for extra visibility and use of Apple's distribution system is a fair trade. This isn't what we have though. It isn't just Apple's store they're locking down, it's the whole device. A store that you can't freely put software on is unfortunate but understandable. A computer that you can't freely put software on is just wrong.

orangecat 17y ago
Agreed, and it's amazing how quickly Apple has been able to shift the terms of the debate on this. It's now apparently an extreme position ("abolitionist" in Gruber's post) that if Alice creates a program and wants to send it to Bob, they should be able to accomplish that without begging for permission from the computer manufacturer.
- cgranade 17y ago
  In some sense, the shift in debate came as soon as DRM became acceptable to most people. Apple has capitalized on this shifted ground, to be sure, but I think that the iPad debates are reflective of a much more general struggle and debate.
krainboltgreene 17y ago
This isn't what we have though. It isn't just Apple's store they're locking down, it's the whole device. A store that you can't freely put software on is unfortunate but understandable. A computer that you can't freely put software on is just wrong. Wrong? For most of the world it's exactly what they need. Allowing people to freely put software on their computer leads to a lot of bullshit. Hell, even experienced people will put themselves through a lot of bullshit because they're allowed to change things. The regular people in the world want and need someone to man the gates of software. It may not be good for FSF or FOSS, but guess what? A whole fucking lot of people (And I mean a shit load) don't care about programming languages, kernels, drivers, or any other of that crap. (Sorry if this comes off ranty, I have a cold and I get heated really easily when sick)

lukifer 17y ago

It's ironic that a free market can lead to authoritarian, closed market platforms like the App Store or X-Box Live Arcade (and that, hypothetically, government intervention could force these markets to be more open, whether or not you think that's a good thing).

cgranade 17y ago
That's part of the whole motivation for mixed economic policies in the first place-- to correct market failures. Monopolies, trusts and other such anti-competitive behavior can undermine any good that comes out of the free market, to say nothing of doing things against the interests of the consumer. Honestly, I think that government intervention here would be a good thing, as it seems that DRM and closed platforms are symptoms of a market failure.

sjs 17y ago

I'm still wondering why nobody has funded a web-app store for iPhone and other modern phones. Hell, it doesn't even have to be limited to mobile devices (but supported resolutions, features, and device support should be prominent). There's clearly a huge market for systems that make it easy for customers to find and purchase apps, and for devs to reach those customers. People shouldn't be implementing payment systems over and over again for each product they create. It gives devs exposure and a market base. I guess the problem is bootstrapping such a market. That's no easy task and the pay-off might not come for years.

vetinari 17y ago
No, the problem is that nobody except Apple has private key, that can sign applications, so the iPhone will install them. Unless someone factors it (or find it in some way), it is going to stay this way. Have a look few threads above - Apple is the only party that can put appications on iPhone OS devices - it is not that others are unwilling to do so, but Apple locked them out and unless there is a breakthrough in asymetric cryptography, it is not going to change.
- mortenjorck 17y ago
  Sjs is proposing not a third-party app store (impossible given the code signing requirement) but a third-party web app store. I could see this working.
  - vetinari 17y ago
    Mea culpa, you are right. There is something like this: http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/ http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/

nnutter 17y ago

It's not the secrecy, it's the monopoly on the sale of iPhone applications. Monopolies are OK as long as...

kprobst 17y ago
... Gruber justifies them?
- nnutter 17y ago
  =)
ugh 17y ago
McDonald’s has a monopoly on the sale of Big Macs – I don’t think that’s a problem :) All that aside, there is a problem: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-for-994-of-mobile-app-sales-in-2009.ars http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-...
- nnutter 17y ago
  How is this a valid comparison? A Big Mac is an end product not an intermediate. I suppose you could say it is an intermediate product for condiments. In which case McDonald's does not have a monopoly on what condiments you can put on your Big Mac. Even if you did think it was a valid comparison they don't really have a monopoly on the sale of Big Macs. They have a trademark (or whatever) on the name Big Mac but there are plenty of burgers that are very similar and you are free to create a burger that is identical in form to what McDonald's sells.
  - ugh 17y ago
    There is Google, RIM, Palm. There soon will be Microsoft. Nokia, too. They all will sell mobile apps so I don’t see the problem with Apple being the only one to sell iPhone apps if – and only if – they lose their dominant position in this wider group of those who sell mobile apps. They can keep their monopoly on selling iPhone apps if they want to. I think that’s unfortunate but not something that has (necessarily) to be stopped. As I said: if they lose their dominant position, if you can get perfectly good mobile apps from any of those companies I mentioned.

Qz 17y ago

Hold on a sec... does anyone else see a problem with the concept of an App for one person's political cartoons? I remain convinced that the App Store is at its core an evolutionary dead end.

wvenable 17y ago
If web sites can be like apps, why can't apps be like web sites?
- Qz 17y ago
  Because web sites have (mostly) visible source code. Ultra-specific apps are lock-in central.
  - ugh 17y ago
    Isn’t that a value judgment, not a answer to the question? There is a difference but it doesn’t matter for most people. It’s simply true that apps can present information just as good or better than websites. That’s just how it is. And I don’t like it either.
    - Qz 17y ago
      Actually, I think part of what's going on here is that the App Store just makes it really really easy to sell things. It's just that it requires them to be in the form of 'Apps'. I think the simplified billing aspect is the key popularity point. App-ness itself has no future though.
  - wvenable 17y ago
    What does source code have to do with anything if we're talking about a content site? You can't (legally) do anything with this person's political cartoons on his website. The point is moot.
    - Qz 17y ago
      You can legally do lots of things with the person's political cartoons.

blasdel 17y ago

The real problem with the rejections of Fiore's cartoon app or Mad Magazine's Bobblehead Federal Register app is not the App Store approval process itself. It's the same problem that underlies Apple's recent banning of auto-generated app frameworks. The real problem is that pure content is being treated as an application. There needs to be a separate whole section of the iTunes Store for this shit: Music, Movies, TV, Apps, Interactive. It'd come with its own Webkit-based development environment, like Apple is doing for their new iTunesLP format. The people making these pointless apps don't really give a shit about integrating with the phone, and they aren't doing anything they couldn't do in Mobile Safari -- they're in the App Store to get paid for their work.

gamble 17y ago

Considering how long the App Store has been like this, I think it's fair to assume that Apple wants the approvals process to be opaque. Objective, published criteria would make it harder to justify rejecting apps that threaten their business model. (Google Voice, for example) In addition, it prevents third parties from investing a significant amount in any one app. At this stage in the iPhone's development, Apple may actually prefer not to have highly sophisticated third-party apps. Third-party apps add value to the iPhone, but they don't supersede the core OS applications. If apps became more like proper desktop applications and users came to value them more than the core OS, it would be easier for Apple's customers to follow ports of those apps to another platform. By undermining the third-party ecosystem, Apple gives itself time find out what people want and ensure the core OS apps have an insurmountable lead.