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 week's controversy swirling around Apple's retroactive ban of sexy apps in the App Store seems trivial, but the implications of Apple's 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 Apple's 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 Apple's App Store to Wal-Mart, which also doesn't allow porn.
But the lack of bikini-clad ladies in the App Store isn't the issue here. It's 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 Apple's iPad, which will be served through Apple's 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 iPad's 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:
Filloux admits his scenario is imaginary, and it might not pass legal muster since Apple indemnifies itself against developer liability, but it demonstrates the dangers of a single point of control.
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.
It seems inconsistent to me that Apple has inked deals with book publishers, musicians and movie studios to sell their content through iTunes — partnerships that are based on contracts, and that allow adult-oriented content to be sold with "explicit" warning tags — while magazines and newspapers are left at the mercy of the App Store and Apple's prudish internal reviewers.
I'm optimistic that Apple will eventually create a separate section in iTunes for digital newspapers and magazines, giving publishers a platform to distribute their digital content based on a strict, contractual agreement that prevents their content from being arbitrarily removed at Apple's discretion. Publishers should be waiting until Apple delivers that platform, rather than whipping up iPad apps and subjecting them to the gauntlet of Apple's approval process.
There are other possible solutions as well. Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, said he understands Apple's intention to keep its App Store immaculate, but its censorship — and the rise of more open alternatives such as Google Android — will drive loyal customers away.
"What you're limited to right now is Apple wants you to see in its little neighborhood, and it doesn't want you to go into other neighborhoods," Scheer said. "Eventually you embitter a lot of people who don't understand why they're being denied access to something they'd like to have on a device they have and they own."
Scheer's suggestion was to give iPhone and iPad customers the choice to leave the "neighborhood" to download apps that are not available through the App Store, either through an alternative store that's not regulated by Apple or through websites serving individual apps.
"If they let people stray out of their neighborhood, they could have only the G-rated stuff in their store and let people go into 'bad neighborhoods' with their phone if that's the choice they want to make," Scheer said. "Apple's neighborhood will still be safe for kids. Parents, if they want to control it, I'm sure there could be some way they can lock their phone so it doesn't have access to these bad neighborhoods."
My colleague Nilay Patel, a blogger of Engadget and former attorney, made the same suggestion with a solution he calls "sideloading." (Patel wrote up his opinion on this topic when Apple faced an FCC audit after rejecting the Google Voice app from the App Store.)
"Apple is the single point of control for the iPhone ecosystem, and it's simply not fast or flexible enough to keep up with the rapid pace of innovation we're seeing on the platform," Patel wrote. "Like it or not, what's happening on the iPhone is leading the entire tech industry, and Apple should be doing everything in its power to enhance that.... If that means releasing some control over the platform, then so be it -- especially since allowing sideloading would make almost all of these problems simply disappear."
Of course, giving consumers the freedom to transcend the App Store would raise some questions, such as whether developers could charge for non-App Store apps, or how to deal with apps that violate AT&T's terms of service -- but they're all solvable problems, says Patel.
One thing's for sure: With the iPad looming and the iPhone continuing to grow in popularity, Apple has to make some dramatic changes to the way it handles apps and runs the App Store. For now, the iPad and the App Store are hardly an ideal environment for newspapers and magazines to be reborn.
Updated 6 p.m. to add that Apple indemnifies itself against App Store developer liability.
See Also:
- Can Apple's iPad Save the Media After All?
- Essay: Steve Jobs' Legacy Is Missing Clue to Apple Tablet
- Apple's iPad Tablet: Full Coverage
Photo: Jon Snyder/Wired.com
*
