[Macworld]

Post your comments for Drivetrain rejection highlights App Store approval flaws here

[flowney]

Some commenters have speculated that there will come the day when all applications for Apple Computers (desktop, laptop and ultra-portable) will have to come from a future version of the App Store. They further predict that other platforms will follow suit.
Given the experience so far, this is a truly frightening prospect.

[adobephile]

Apple App Store is a publisher. They get to choose what they publish. They don't have to be consistent. They don't have to pander to or answer to anyone, especially inciteful (sic) hacks like Moren.

[Moebius]

When are we going to start telling brick and mortar stores what products that have to approve to sell on their shelves?

[flowney]

As long as Apple's App Store is the sole source for iPhone and iPod touch applications, the consumer who is already heavily invested in the hardware is put into an untenable position. This is part of the reason why the EFF is requesting a DMCA exception for "jailbreaking" these devices.

I believe that it is in Apple's best interests to address this issue to the satisfaction of most of its customers. If Apple fails in this, remedies will be enforced by government intervention (courts, legislation, etc.) and Apple might get the shorter end of that stick.

The "growing pains" argument is getting rather thin.

[HobbesDoo]

One missing point here is that BitTorrent is not solely used to pirate or for illegal purposes. Many legit companies use BitTorrent as a way to share files, e.g. Linux distributions, etc.
A poor analogy would be to compare it to a knife. Sure it can be used as a weapon, but that's not its main purpose and having or using a knife should not be considered illegal or banned.
It bugs me to no end that every time torrents are mentioned they're immediately only associated with piracy.

[Rhywun]

Some commenters have speculated ...
Some commenters will say anything to get attention, no matter how unhinged.

[himbo]

It's almost guaranteed to bring out complaints for the repetitive nature of the message, but I think this is a significant enough subject that it warrants pointing out how flawed and arbitrary this approval process is every single time it happens until the approval process is either removed altogether or tuned to a level of consistency that developers will be able to understand before submitting their apps (or even updates!) with crossed fingers and a hope that they haven't crossed some invisible line somewhere. It's not going to get fixed without all the problems with it being publicized, and if the problems are not shown to be ongoing, people might start thinking that the process has been fixed.

As long as Apple demands sole control of the apps that can be put in your iPhone, they need to do a better job of managing it than they have. The analogy of "Apple is a publisher; they can publish what they want," is not sufficient when there is only one place in the world where you can buy books.

HobbesDoo said:

One missing point here is that BitTorrent is not solely used to pirate or for illegal purposes. Many legit companies use BitTorrent as a way to share files, e.g. Linux distributions, etc.

This point is mentioned and discussed in the article, so I'm not sure where you think it's been missed.

[dingonv]

Well, they better ban their own Remote app, since it can be used to remotely control and play music, through iTunes, that might have been pirated.

[tbutler67]

HobbesDoo said:

It bugs me to no end that every time torrents are mentioned they're immediately only associated with piracy.

Well... Perhaps a valid question to ask, then, is what percentage of torrent use is legitimate vs. illegitimate? In other words, perhaps people's opinions/associations are being shaped by how they encounter torrents in real-world usage?

[sporks]

Moebius said:

When are we going to start telling brick and mortar stores what products that have to approve to sell on their shelves?

Much sooner than you might think. Just ask the puppet CEO at Government Motors.

[sporks]

[quote name='tbutler67']
>

HobbesDoo said:

> It bugs me to no end that every time torrents are mentioned they're immediately only associated with piracy.

Well... Perhaps a valid question to ask, then, is what percentage of torrent use is legitimate vs. illegitimate? In other words, perhaps people's opinions/associations are being shaped by how they encounter torrents in real-world usage?

The number would almost certainly be very close to 99% pirated, 1% legitimate.

[velocipede]

We've something like this argument before:
Piracy-facilitating software does not pirate software,
People pirate software.

[AnubisIV]

sporks said:

The number would almost certainly be very close to 99% pirated, 1% legitimate.

I have to agree. When you ask people to name legitimate uses of BitTorrent that are in use today, people will immediately cite Linux distros and then one or two examples of free media (SXSW, in this article). After that though? Not so much. Some people can name a few more, but not many. Ask them about illegitimate uses though, and most people (off the record) can rattle off a half dozen that they themselves have committed in the last year.

I'm not saying that BT is only used for illegitimate purposes, and the folks behind the technology (both the protocol itself, as well as the various clients) have made every effort to distance themselves from illegal use as much as possible, which is why, I suspect, they aren't getting shut down. But the fact remains that the primary use of the technology is illegitimate. I'm not advocating that BT goes away by any means, since the technology itself is not the problem, but I would like to see people being honest about the use of the technology, and not denying what is patently obvious to most people already.