I got this and thought it would be of interest to some n the list. Not sure what I think yet. Carolyn > Mark Fiore's job is making fun of political figures. And he's actually quite > good at it, according to the Pulitzer Prize Committee. > > Earlier this week it named him the winner of the Pulitzer Prize in editorial > cartooning, but Apple rejected an iPhone app containing Fiore's cartoons in > December. The reason? Apple said applications that ridicule public figures > are not allowed. > > That presents a problem for Fiore, and all editorial cartoonists and > political satirists who'd like to submit their work to the App Store for that > matter, > because, well, that's what they do. > > Luckily for Fiore, the Nieman Journalism Lab took up his cause and wrote > about his app's rejection. A day later Apple relented, and on Friday asked > Fiore > to resubmit. The New York Times reported Friday afternoon that Steve Jobs > himself called it "a mistake that's being fixed." That's great for Fiore, but > not every political satirist is a Pulitzer winner who can get publicity for > his app's unfair rejection. > > So what does that mean for the future of news or editorial products on the > iPad and iPhone? It's safe to assume that quashing political satire isn't > Apple's > goal here. But it's a legitimate concern for the journalism community that to > be featured on the App Store they have to submit their news content to a > company unafraid to exercise what sometimes seems like arbitrary control. The > thinking goes, what if Apple finds a headline offensive? Or what if there's > an unfavorable article about Apple itself even? That's not to say Apple would > do that, but its inconsistent handling of App Store submissions sets a > troubling > precedent. > > The rejected-then-unrejected brouhaha surrounding Fiore's cartoon app, and > others like it--the Mad Magazine artist's Bobble Rep app comes to mind--also > illuminate the central issue facing Apple with the App Store right now. The > company's decision to tightly control what is and is not allowed on the iPhone > or iPad has led it to develop a review process that is not sustainable. > > Having individuals look at each one of the hundreds of thousands of apps that > pour into the App Store and accurately and consistently police them for both > technical and content issues is impossible now and will only be more so as > the App Store inevitably grows. The solution would be to have clear, stated > rules of what can or can't be put on the App Store, but that's not what Apple > has chosen. And that gray area is what scares developers who put a lot of > work into their apps, and who could be rejected outright for some subjective > problem an App Store reviewer has found with that particular app. > > Which brings us back to the news issue. The problem of Apple's lack of > transparency with App Store rules and tendency toward control is compounded > by Apple > luring the print news industry to the iPad. It's a device that (rightly or > wrongly) is being praised as a way to save print publications. And that > control > inevitably raises new questions about Apple's relationship with newspapers, > like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal for example, that are > putting > their content on the App Store via paid applications. > > The Columbia Journalism Review has issued a call to media companies not to > get too cozy with Apple. Writes Ryan Chittum: > > Look, let's face it. The iPad is the most exciting opportunity for the media > in many years. But if the press is ceding gatekeeper status, even if it's > only nominally, over its speech, then it is making a dangerous mistake. > Unless Apple explicitly gives the press complete control over its ability to > publish > what it sees fit, the news media needs to yank its apps in protest. > > Yes, this is that serious. It needs to wrest back control of its speech from > Apple Inc. > > The CJR then points out the obvious: newspapers and magazines wouldn't put > itself under the influence of the government like this, so why is a > corporation, > especially one with control-freak tendencies like Apple, any different? > > If the iPad does become a significant revenue source for print publications > who turn their newspapers or magazines into iPad apps, it is logical that it > could be harder for them to stand up to Apple. > > > >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
