Another blocked app for questionable reasons! (Drivetrain)

Discussion in 'iOS Apps' started by JonHimself, May 11, 2009.

  1. JonHimself macrumors 68000

    JonHimself

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #1
  2. Peace macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #2
    I don't think a Bittorent client app on the iPhone is questionable. It could clog up the network real fast.
     
  3. JonHimself thread starter macrumors 68000

    JonHimself

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #3
    It's not a client though. The app doesn't download any files, all it does is control Transmission running on your computer (like the iTunes remote doesn't play anything on the iPhone, just controls itunes - I use that as an example only in that it controls something remotely, not in a way to say 'well they approved the iTunes remote')
     
  4. rockstarjoe macrumors 6502a

    rockstarjoe

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Location:
    washington dc
    #4
    This is one of the rare times that I don't see any need for the app... I mean, Transmission has a remote control web app built in!. It is even formatted nicely for the iPhone. Unless it let you add new torrents, I don't see the point.
     
  5. JonHimself thread starter macrumors 68000

    JonHimself

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #5
    I think it does. I only half-read the article but I think that was one of the features... but now that I think about it, I'm not sure how that would work so maybe I'm wrong.

    You're right about this feature being built-in already (accessible through Mobile Safari) so it's not a huge issue, but I figured it was quasi-newsworthy.
     
  6. rockstarjoe macrumors 6502a

    rockstarjoe

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Location:
    washington dc
    #6
    Agreed, thanks for posting!
     
  7. paepcke macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #7
    I think it is not the point. Maybe we do not need this App - the point is the censorship of Apple! This is an legal mobile remote control app for an legal macos application that is used for a lot of legal content from a lot of big corp. business worldwide. That people using this app for sharing copyright protected material, is that a reason?

    Why not block the internet access in general, on all Apple Devices and Computers, or just filter it? Cause it is possible to use the internet for copying copyright proctected content without a internet filter on macos? When we ignore the this, let Apple move away with this, maybe we are not even able to start a BT client on our next MacOS - for the same reasons!

    This is Censorship! I payed for this device a lot of money. It is mine. An why should I let Apple decide what software they allow me to run? When it is sucessful on your iphone, im sure we will see the same on your computer. Someday we are not even able to play video outside MacOS itunes DRM, cause amazon sales dont match the apple business plan?

    FIGHT BACK!
     
  8. JonHimself thread starter macrumors 68000

    JonHimself

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #8
    I hope this doesn't deteriorate into another "say no to censorship" argument. What I mean is, as part of purchasing the iPhone we all give an implied consent to accept that there is a restriction (however arbitrary it may be) on what apps will be allowed to be installed through the app store. My concern is not that they censor the apps - as far as I'm concerned, it's their service (app store) and they can control what is allowed in it - my concern is how they reject apps*.
    They seem to be putting pressure on themselves to clear themselves of any responsibility.. unfortunately controlling content goes hand-in-hand with being responsible for the content. If they had no restrictions and the baby shaker app went through it would be less of a PR issue but if they do reject apps and somehow something questionable makes it through, it's entirely Apple's responsibility.

    * I completely understand that this is a relatively new method they're using - at least new at such a large scale - and they seem to be dealing with things as they come up and that is likely why there are so many inconsistencies/questions.
     
  9. alchemistmuffin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    #9
    going to agree with apple on this, though.

    Allowing control of Transmission from iPhone is still questionable, since it allows users to remotely control app that might be used for copyright infringement, and piracy.

    But one thing: This app is certainly something for Cydia, not the app store.
     
  10. JonHimself thread starter macrumors 68000

    JonHimself

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #10
    I think the simplest response to that is that if you want to do whatever you want, you'll have to circumvent Apple's restriction (read: jailbreak) and then you can do whatever you want with it. I hate to use comparisons because rarely are they ever 100% comparable... BUT... (admittedly this is weak) when you purchase a car it is your 'device' and you shouldn't let Chrysler (or whoever) decide what you're able to do with it. Unfortunately there are restrictions on what you can do with it (this is where it falls apart) ie you can't drive over the speed limit with YOUR device, you can't run stop signs with YOUR device, you HAVE to put fuel into YOUR device for it to continue running, your vehicle will only go a certain speed (assuming you have no problems breaking the speed limit)... what I mean by this is that even though you own the device (car), there are still limitations that are put on the device for whatever reason. So obviously some of those are restrictions that are not controlled by the manufacturer (apple/chrysler) and those make less sense (if any at all) but my point is that just because you own the device, it doesn't necessarily guarantee you can do whatever you want with it - and if do want to do whatever you want with it, you do so at your own risk and without the consent of the original seller.
     
  11. JonHimself thread starter macrumors 68000

    JonHimself

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #11
    This then brings up the question about VNC apps though, doesn't it? While not specifically to be used for controlling illegal activities, it CAN be. THIS, I think, is the problem. Not that they're censoring apps (as I said above) just their rationale behind things is a bit suspect... having said that, I do *understand* what they're getting at in that it's reasonable to assume that a lot of people use bit torrent for illegal purposes (save the argument that it has legitimate uses because we're all aware that it does... being reasonable however, you have to agree that a lot of people don't use bit torrent for legal activity).
     
  12. alchemistmuffin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    #12
    Yes, I do use it on legal activity, such as downloading Linux ISO to be installed via Boot Camp.

    But then again, Apple might have rejected the app due to pressure from at&t. ?Don't ask why, I can just see it from my brain that this might be the reason. at&t does not want to be legally responsible for assisting with piracy.

    PS: VNC apps are allowed, but once again, at&t gets some words on all the VNC app. Apple wants to allow VNC, but it's at&t's pressure that gets them in the end.
     
  13. paepcke macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #13
    The problem with this is: Do you know any legal (!) ways to run non-appstore apps on YOUR device you paid for? No! Cause they do not allow you to decide what apps you would like to run on your paid Hardware! Do you own your iphone? Really? Why cant you decicde what code you would like to execute on your device? Cause your iphone is NOT yours ... it belongs to Apple and Apple controls it for you. You have NO control over "your" iphone. Apple has!

    Image Microsoft would try the same trick with "your" PC ... they decide what code you are allowed to execute or not ... or Apple & MacOS ... scary!
     
  14. alchemistmuffin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    #14
    once again, it's at&t's fault. Not Apple, for rejecting this app.

    They're network, they're choice. Apple just approves the hardware portion. at&t gets to decide how their network is going to be used for, including wi-fi not owned by at&t, since it uses hardware licensed for at&t.
     
  15. paepcke macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #15
    What has AT&T do to with a BT remote control application that is running over your local AP on your local Mac over a totally different internet network link? We are NOT discussing the Skype or Voip issue! AT&T has nothing to do with this decision! We discussing the Censorship of Apple. It is a 100% pure Apple decision.
     
  16. JonHimself thread starter macrumors 68000

    JonHimself

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #16
    I think they're point was that AT&T does (at some level) likely have a say in what goes through. Ultimately it may be Apple's final call but I would think AT&T gives input. No need to bold things and attack people... especially when that same member posted above that it *might* have been AT&T and their first post was quite topical (to this thread).
     
  17. Compile 'em all macrumors 601

    Compile 'em all

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    #17
    ATT have no say in the review process. Apple has some guidelines in place but that is about it. Most apps that were doing something questionable by att standards passed the review process and only when they were in the press Apple pulled them out.

    Anyway, rejecting the transmission frontend is dumb but I don't know what more does it do than the web interface which runs very well in mobile safari.
     
  18. JonHimself thread starter macrumors 68000

    JonHimself

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #18
    Good to know, thanks!
     
  19. kas23 macrumors 603

    kas23

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #19
    Of course they do. If they had no say, we likely would already have video streaming over 3G, VoIP over 3G, and tethering. It's abundantly clear that AT&T has some kind of veto power to reject apps. In this case though, I think this was soley Apple's decision. These types of rejections only serve to strengthen the JB community.

    Does anyone know if other smartphones have the ability to DL torrents?
     
  20. admanimal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    #20
    The illegality of jailbreaking is questionable at best. You most certainly do own your phone and can do anything you want with it. It's not up to Apple to promote or make it easy for you to do things that they don't want you to, however. Every other cell phone I've used is way more restricted than the iPhone. Most of the time you have to pay extra for features that are clearly already present in the software on your device.
     
  21. Babybandit macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    #21
    The simple reason. If the app causes a lawsuit, you're not the one in trouble, Apple is. Apple has rights to prevent themselves from these lawsuits. Sure, you've paid for the device, but Apple retains rights to what can go on their Mobile OS as you've signed in the TOS.
     
  22. kas23 macrumors 603

    kas23

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #22
    I don't think Apple would get sued. That's like Apple being sued because people pirate music using Safari. Or, suing Apple because they allow OS X to run a torrent downloader. The thing is, these 2 types of programs are not intrinsically illegal. They do serve completely licit purposes.

    I'm not sure about pirating software, but the RIAA is no longer pursuing individuals that illegally download music. The RIAA is placing the onus on the ISPs to block illegal downloading. Therefore, this looks to be another way Apple is helping to cover AT&T's butt. It does not explain why torrent downloaders aren't available in other countries though - Apple's probably just playing it safe and does not want to deal with the murky (at best) laws of other countries.
     
  23. marksman macrumors 603

    marksman

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    #23
    Should they remove e-mail, safari and a hundred other apps that meet the same criteria?

    I use transmission and would find this app useful. When given a choice between an Application and a web page, I want the application. We went through the whole web page thing and there are very few things that safari can provide that are not better in app form.

    I am usually willing to lean towards apple on this stuff, but they are just wrong. Transmission can be used for a lot of things. As someone else mentioned safari already supports the same ability with the same application.

    So Apple needs to remove safari from the iPhone.
     
  24. kas23 macrumors 603

    kas23

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #24
    And any other app that allows you to download content via the internet, like Readdle Docs, Folders, iDownload, iStorage, etc...
     
  25. JonHimself thread starter macrumors 68000

    JonHimself

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #25
    I think the issue is that Apple doesn't authorize apps in OSX they way they do on the iPhone. I can create an app for OSX and have it do whatever I want and release it without Apple being able to stop me... on the other hand, if I create an iPhone app, Apple has to approve it and because of that takes on *some* responsibility.
     

Share This Page