Comments on: Washington Post and NPR: Yes, Apple Can Block Their iPad Journalism

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:46:35 +0000

By the way, an iPad native app gets to use the hardware in ways that developers aren’t allowed — there we go, permission to create again — with HTML services. It doesn’t just take better advantage of the hardware; it takes advantage of things HTML is barred from doing.

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:34:47 +0000

No, I’ll blame Apple for having installed the policy in the first place, which ran counter to their longstanding relationship with developers on the Mac. Moreover, Apple requires app developers to indemnify against absolutely every possible legal claim; the lawyers had that covered ages ago.

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:32:59 +0000

When there are at most 1 or 2 ISPs, your belief that you have choice is hardly more than wishful thinking. We’re talking here about markets that are increasingly concentrated with one or two or at most a few providers. They are not like a newspaper that has (if the ISPs allow it) countless competitors.

By: Shock Me

Shock Me — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:18:44 +0000

You’ve heard of Safari for iPad? Oh look HTML! An iPad app is just a more convenient form of webpage that takes better advantage of the hardware and sensors.

When the iPhone first appeared, Apple offered webkit-based developer tools. But developers wanted native apps. So an SDK was developed. Alongside came the app store. Then came parental controls. Then came liability for potential libel and defamation. Then came corporate policy and the employees to judge it. Now come reflexive backtracking by management when controversy erupts.

Blame the lawyers.

By: Shock Me

Shock Me — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:01:07 +0000

No that’s clearly the opposite of what I said. If a business does something I dislike, and alternatives are available, both parties are free to sever the relationship.

Editors keep all sorts of stories from readers for various reasons. They even make decisions on what stories to cover. Why not get up in arms with them as well?

If, for example you don’t like a paper’s editorial policy you buy a different paper. The consumer has the power in most instances especially with information.

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:43:46 +0000

1. Apple is, in fact, moving to become both the platform and the pipe with the iPad.

2. I am not putting journalism “higher than” anything. If other kinds of providers of content/info/etc. want to bow to Apple’s Disneyland rules, that’s their affair. But for journalists to do it is particularly odious, as it violates fundamental principles.

By: Pete

Pete — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:37:56 +0000

I think we are way too early in this new paradigm to to freak out because Apple reserves the right to end apps on its system. A logical conclusion is a series of devices able to access multiple news services either via specialized apps or via a web browser. Obviously, news media hopes to make money on online sales as they transition from print. Whether they will have to suffer under the anemic revenue system based on ads or they can transition to the app model and subscriptions is yet to be seen. A series of devices mean that Apple’s influence will be muted. Regardless, it is up to individual companies to develop their revenue streams/options, not Apple. Apple is providing a means to an end. In addition, the supposition that Apple will willy-nilly pull an app seems a bit over-reaching. The apps that they have pulled have typically been for very specific reasons or internal goofs despite the overreaction to such actions from a number of places.

This issue of net neutrality doesn’t apply here either. Apple is a distributor of content and not a network provider.

I find it disconcerting that journalism is given some sort of “higher than” status in this article. The importance of a a free press able to inform and educate the public is of great importance, but the press is not above other businesses in this day and age. If it feels it should have special status, it should develop its own systems similar to what Apple is trying to do. Barring that expense, diversifying their offerings through a variety of content distributors makes sense.

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:06:22 +0000

This is entirely what the network neutrality debate is about. We’re down to roughly two serious ISPs, if that many, in any given community. You want them to be able to pick and choose what you can read, watch and listen to?

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:04:49 +0000

Apple doesn’t let HTML 5 use the hardware of the iPad the same way native apps can do. It’s not necessarily the same content.

By: E.J.

E.J. — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:58:50 +0000

I have yet to see any content from any news source on any device that couldn’t be rendered by HTML5. It doesn’t make any sense to not develop your content for browser based consumption. Apple has no say in what you do, and the same content is available on any other HTML5 platform wether it’s a phone, tablet, netbook, laptop, desktop or DVD player.