Day: February 26, 2010

Apple flexing its “control freak” muscles

John Gruber’s recent post to Daring Fireball theorizes exactly why Apple has decided to crack down on sex apps in the App Store. While the explanation is plausible, it does not excuse Apple’s censorship and draconian control over the iPhone’s users and developers.

In summary, John explains the move as Apple protecting its brand image, inasmuch as the App Store is part of that brand image. While that’s understandable, Apple’s move still comes down to playing nanny and acting as final arbiter of what iPhone users can legally put on their iPhone. It’s an awful lot of control to exert on customers after they have already purchased a rather expensive device.

If there were legal alternatives to the App Store this would be less of an issue. (I’m assuming many, if not most, iPhone users are unwilling to enter the risky world of jailbreaking since this voids the warranty and Apple still asserts jailbreaking is illegal under the DMCA, and will always be officially unsupported.) If Apple is worried about its brand image, how about letting other companies run their own App Stores for the iPhone? That way, Apple keeps its brand clean, the porn freaks get their fix, and everyone’s happy.

Most of my beef with the iPhone would disappear if the following were the situation instead:

  1. An individual iPhone user has every choice available when deciding what apps are on that device, even those that Apple has not given its “iPhone nanny stamp of approval” to;
  2. Developers are able to approach alternative venues to sell applications where Apple denies approval in its store; and
  3. There is no longer a need to “jailbreak” an iPhone to accomplish either of these.

For Apple to let other companies run their own App Stores, or even individual software authors being allowed to offer apps direct to the public, would mean Apple gives up some degree of control. I think control is what this is really about and brand image is only a contributing factor. The lesson is clear: iPhones never really belong to you. You never really buy an iPhone; as far as being able to control what applications are allowed on it, it’s still Apple’s. “Purchase” is kind of meaningless when all kinds of digital locks are in place to prohibit the purchaser from exercising freedom of choice. I stand behind my analogy that it’s really more like a rental.

A party without honor

A recent article on the Equal Justice Society’s blog details a rather nauseating tale of intolerance at the University of California, San Diego (USCD).

From the article:

African American students at UC San Diego were shocked and demoralized by a “Compton Cookout” that took place this past Monday February 15.

According to the Facebook invitation, students from several fraternities organized this party in honor of Black History Month, inviting guests to “experience the various elements of life in the ghetto.”

And further on:

After protests from the Black Student Union and African American students on campus, on the evening of February 18, 2010, several students broke into the university-funded television station SR-TV in support of the Compton cookout, calling the African American community “ungrateful [racial slur].” Upon investigation of the program host’s media offices, the campus discovered a note on the studio floor with the words “Compton lynching.”

(The original is uncensored; I can’t bring myself to actually publish that word on my blog.)

I’m horrified that anyone, anywhere, deems this acceptable conduct. This kind of thing is absolutely, positively vile and putrid beyond redemption.

USCD now has a huge black mark on its reputation, especially in light of the fact the same group has planned another “Compton Cookout” this month–proving it’s not just a one-time mockery of Black History Month.

This is clearly hate speech and to allow it to persist makes places like USCD a lot worse. I hope the administration squashes this kind of overtly hateful act and fully sanctions those reponsible. At minimum, and only if there are massively mitigating circumstances, the culprits should be put on disciplinary probation and required to attend counseling. A far more appropriate response would be long-term suspensions or even expulsions from the university.