Publishers should think twice before worshipping the iPad as the future platform for magazines and newspapers. That is, if they value their independence from an often-capricious corporate gatekeeper.
The past weeks controversy swirling around Apples retroactive ban of sexy apps in the App Store seems trivial, but the implications of Apples arbitrariness should be disconcerting to members of the press and those who rely on the media for unbiased information.
Apple last week began removing thousands of apps containing overtly sexual content from its App Store apps it had previously approved in response to complaints from customers and parents. However, still remaining are apps from major publishers such as Playboy and Sports Illustrated, which contain images of partially nude women, just like the removed apps did.
While it may initially appear publishers are more shielded from Apples ban hammer, the severity of the retroactive ban should be concerning for freedom-of-speech advocates.
From a legal perspective, Apple can do whatever it wants with the content in its App Store. Apple is not government, and thus it is not governed by the First Amendment. In light of the recent ban, many have correctly compared Apples App Store to Wal-Mart, which also doesnt allow porn.
But the lack of bikini-clad ladies in the App Store isnt the issue here. Its the fact that Apple has so much market power, combined with the fact that magazine and newspaper publishers are getting pumped to produce apps for Apples iPad, which will be served through Apples tightly regulated App Store. The iPad could very well play a major role in the future of publishing, with several of the biggest book publishers already on board to sell e-books through the iPads iBooks store, and major publications, including Wired, already working on iPad apps to launch in the App Store.
What will happen when a journalist writes a controversial story about abortion or vaccines? Will displeased readers skip writing angry letters to the publisher and go straight to Apple to get the article pulled? And would Apple then comply?
Take another scenario posed by Frederic Filloux of The Washington Post:
An iPad newsmagazine publishes an investigative piece that triggers a legal injunction: Remove that from the publication or face a $10,000 penalty per day. No, says the publisher, who has guts and money (proof that this is a fiction): We want to fight in court. The plaintiff then turns to Apple (AAPL). Same threat: Face a huge fine or remove the offending content. Furthermore, says the plaintiffs attorney, thanks to the permanent and unique electronic link to your proprietary devices and the fact that the electronic kiosk now resides on the device, you must extend the deletion to each users tablet. Just as you keep pushing updates and various content bits to these gizmos, you can push a delete instruction code.
These are both extreme hypothetical scenarios that seem unlikely to occur, but the fact that magazines or newspapers are putting themselves in such a capriciously censored environment is a disturbing thought.
The past weeks controversy swirling around Apples retroactive ban of sexy apps in the App Store seems trivial, but the implications of Apples arbitrariness should be disconcerting to members of the press and those who rely on the media for unbiased information.
Apple last week began removing thousands of apps containing overtly sexual content from its App Store apps it had previously approved in response to complaints from customers and parents. However, still remaining are apps from major publishers such as Playboy and Sports Illustrated, which contain images of partially nude women, just like the removed apps did.
While it may initially appear publishers are more shielded from Apples ban hammer, the severity of the retroactive ban should be concerning for freedom-of-speech advocates.
From a legal perspective, Apple can do whatever it wants with the content in its App Store. Apple is not government, and thus it is not governed by the First Amendment. In light of the recent ban, many have correctly compared Apples App Store to Wal-Mart, which also doesnt allow porn.
But the lack of bikini-clad ladies in the App Store isnt the issue here. Its the fact that Apple has so much market power, combined with the fact that magazine and newspaper publishers are getting pumped to produce apps for Apples iPad, which will be served through Apples tightly regulated App Store. The iPad could very well play a major role in the future of publishing, with several of the biggest book publishers already on board to sell e-books through the iPads iBooks store, and major publications, including Wired, already working on iPad apps to launch in the App Store.
What will happen when a journalist writes a controversial story about abortion or vaccines? Will displeased readers skip writing angry letters to the publisher and go straight to Apple to get the article pulled? And would Apple then comply?
Take another scenario posed by Frederic Filloux of The Washington Post:
An iPad newsmagazine publishes an investigative piece that triggers a legal injunction: Remove that from the publication or face a $10,000 penalty per day. No, says the publisher, who has guts and money (proof that this is a fiction): We want to fight in court. The plaintiff then turns to Apple (AAPL). Same threat: Face a huge fine or remove the offending content. Furthermore, says the plaintiffs attorney, thanks to the permanent and unique electronic link to your proprietary devices and the fact that the electronic kiosk now resides on the device, you must extend the deletion to each users tablet. Just as you keep pushing updates and various content bits to these gizmos, you can push a delete instruction code.
These are both extreme hypothetical scenarios that seem unlikely to occur, but the fact that magazines or newspapers are putting themselves in such a capriciously censored environment is a disturbing thought.
For more information contact All About Jazz.
