Apple has been busy...bans Android magazine and blocks sale of Jobs Action Figure

[snipenekkid]

So Apple is indeed going to act as Big Brother...banning a magazine dedicated to the Android OS from the App Store:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373502,00.asp

I have to wonder about this one...does Apple allow other magazine specific apps in the store? If so, why not this one? Especially as the company, apparently, has had other approved apps in the store for a while.

On a funnier note Apple Orders Company to Stop Selling Steve Jobs Action Figure

"Apple has informed us that this phenomenal SJ action figure, has not consented to the use of Apple's copyrights and trademarks, therefore they request us immediately to cease the marketing and sale of this figure," Chris Chang from M.I.C Gadget wrote in a blog post.

Ya gotta read the article...the whole thing is funny but I don't know if it was kosher to just sell the figures w/o a person's permission...perhaps Apple has a copyright on Jobs' likeness? Or maybe they just worry about the things people would do to the doll. I can see it now...Barbie Does Odd Jobs...Barbie, Jobs and what the iPhone Saw....on YouTube...hahahaha....

[leebase]

I wonder if the NYT allows the WSJ to place ads. Would NBC allow ABC to advertise it's shows? Not much controversy here in my book

Nonny

[Dulin's Books]

NBC does and has placed adverts on competing stations. NYT can place adverts in the WSJ. I have seen adverts for one local paper in the other and articles in those papers concerning reports by the other paper.

Apple should not be allowed to block a magazine about a competing product. Google should not be allowed to block search results about Bing or vice versa etc

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

Apple should not be allowed to block a magazine about a competing product.

Why not?

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Why not?

no...why is it OK?

[SlowRain]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

NBC does and has placed adverts on competing stations. NYT can place adverts in the WSJ. I have seen adverts for one local paper in the other and articles in those papers concerning reports by the other paper.

Apple should not be allowed to block a magazine about a competing product. Google should not be allowed to block search results about Bing or vice versa etc

I thought Apple got in trouble before about something like this. I'm pretty sure an iPhone magazine in the Android app market would not be restricted. That's the beauty of openness. And a good point about Google's search engine not being allowed to filter out information on competitors.

I'd just assumed the Steve Jobs action figure had his approval when I first saw it (Steve Jobs shrinks down to action figure size, ego remains untouched [love the comment about the ego]). I'm not sure you can use someone else's likeness in a product without their permission. Plus, it had the Apple logo as a stand. Still, I hate Jobs so much I'd like to see the creativity some people would have shown with it. Hopefully some were shipped before the restriction came down. If not, maybe someone in China could make some and ship them out.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by leebase

I wonder if the NYT allows the WSJ to place ads. Would NBC allow ABC to advertise it's shows? Not much controversy here in my book

Nonny

Uhm, first, this is a magazine, not an ad. And Google does not ban iPhone ads from its search engine.

And Apple certainly allows a plethora of apps it needs, such as Maps, from Google. This move from Apple is just idiotic.

On the SJ action figures, Apple is obviously justified.

[trevgriff]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

no...why is it OK?

I would think that since its their business they have that right. I've never seen an ad for Sony laptops on the Dell website.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by trevgriff

I would think that since its their business they have that right. I've never seen an ad for Sony laptops on the Dell website.

Dells website is not a platform for contents, and Dell is selling hardware. It's a lousy analogy.

The argument that "it's their business, they have that right", could be used on everything - I mean, whatever a company does, "they have that right". The problem is, of course, that a lot of things are governed by rules and laws, and even if this isn't governed by anything, one can make an ethical call on the matter.

The problem I see here, is a lot of apologists who glorify their favourite company - or at least give them a carte blanche - by claiming that whatever that company does is "within their rights". Sure, it might be within their right in a legal sense (at least in some countries), but in the end that sort of apologism is what gives the consumer continuously less choice.

[Dulin's Books]

The action figure people could have an argument if they can show it was done as parody. It's how Mad Magazine, for instance, has been able to lampoon so many people since it's first publication.

[J. Strnad]

I don't think the action figure people have a leg to stand on. If the Onion had made up a prototype and run a fake ad, they'd clearly be engaging in parody. But selling figures of someone's likeness without their permission is most likely very illegal.

As for the other issue: Apple is showing its true character, which has always been a bit Big Brotherish despite the ironic ad to the contrary. (Which isn't to say that I don't love my iPod....)

[Kali Yuga]

This is all par for the course for Apple; they are routinely draconian, sometimes in specific and predictable ways (e.g. tight control over leaks) and somewhat capricious or arbitrary in other ways.

[Logseman]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Uhm, first, this is a magazine, not an ad. And Google does not ban iPhone ads from its search engine.

And Apple certainly allows a plethora of apps it needs, such as Maps, from Google. This move from Apple is just idiotic.

On the SJ action figures, Apple is obviously justified.

I think just the other way around. While it is Apple's business what comes in and out of the AppStore, and therefore I see no issue with them blocking the Android magazine, I wouldn't say Steve Jobs has any claim not to be reproduced as a doll. His name and appearance are not copyrighted though I'm sure he'd like that. Bullying companies into not producing dolls of him seems ridiculous IMO.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

Apple should not be allowed to block a magazine about a competing product. Google should not be allowed to block search results about Bing or vice versa etc

I disagree. What you're proposing involves interference from government and I object to them getting involved in trivial market issues.

Consumers need to take responsibility for their actions and not rely upon government to take the tough decisions out of their hands. IOW, if you don't like what Apple is doing, then boycott their products and send them a clear message that you find their actions objectionable.

Consumers are getting lazy; and it's time they stood up to these companies and voted with their wallets.

[Richey79]

You see plenty of masks of famous-people's likeness in fancy dress/joke shops. I can't imagine that Michael Jackson and Dubya were asked kindly for their permission on those items.

Apple can ban people from reading about open platforms on their closed platform, but it won't do anything to improve their public image. Knowledge is power, and Apple's corporate culture seems to run directly against that of the contemporary internet, which creates equality of information.

If people are allowed to see what they can do on other operating systems and what Apple's hardware is actually worth, they'll be able to make an informed decision on what represents the most rational buy. Let's be charitable and say that people tend to follow their heart rather than their head when buying - most - Apple products (for the time being, the iPad may remain at least partly an exception to this rule, with the lack of direct competitors).