backtop


Print 51 comment(s) - last by Brandon Hill.. on Sep 8 at 9:06 AM


Apple has rejected a µTorrent remote monitoring app, µMonitor, which it says could assist in copyright infringement. Separately, Apple finally allowed Vonage's app in a drawn out approval.  (Source: Torrent Freak)
Apple still is making some high profile rejections, but its also making some tough approvals

Just over a month ago Apple rejected Google Voice, a voice iPhone app that would allow international calling at reduced rates and free SMS text messaging.  Apple claimed the rejection was not due to the voice functionality, but rather because the app replaced parts of the iPhone's interface.

Now after controversy over whether the reaction was proper, Apple has approved a separate voice-over-IP (VoIP) app from Vonage.  Apple gave Vonage the green light to begin beta testing the new app among a select group of its customers.  The new app is available on the iPhone and iPod Touch to these testers.

Still, the approval process was not without its difficulties.  Apple last week admitted that Vonage's app approval was also hung up on technical issues (exact details were not specified), and the approval had been delayed.  Apple promised that it was working with the developer to resolve these issues, and apparently it was good to its word.

Meanwhile, another app met a less fortunate fate.  µMonitor, an app that would have allowed iPhone customers to control their home computer's uTorrent client on the go, has been unceremoniously rejected. 

Apple explains, "We’ve reviewed µMonitor and determined that we cannot post this version of your application to the App Store at this time because this category of applications is often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights. We have chosen to not publish this type of application to the App Store."

Perhaps µMonitor's makers should have known they had it coming.  In May, a separate torrent monitor for Transmission BitTorrent client also was rejected.  Interestingly, Apple allows Usenet related applications that serve a similar performance.  MyNZB is one such application currently in the app store. Usenet is a distributed message scheme that is at times used to fileshare with uploaded binaries, made from disc images, being one kind of commonly shared content.

It appears, though, that when it comes to torrents, Apple not only opposes actual clients -- apps that initiate the download and upload of content -- but also apps that communicate with these clients in anyway.  The developers of µMonitor have taken their rejected app to the growing underground app store Cydia.  It is now available for jailbroken iPhones.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Apple. Again.
By amanojaku on 9/2/2009 10:10:21 AM , Rating: 5
For a company that praised people for thinking differently Apple has done a 180 and joined the brainwashed anti-piracy witch hunt.

First, is paranoia.
quote:
We’ve reviewed µMonitor and determined that we cannot post this version of your application to the App Store at this time because this category of applications is often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights.
In other words, we can't prove you're doing anything wrong, but f*** it, this isn't America. You're guilty if we say you are.

Then it's business as usual. Saying "often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights" means NOT ALWAYS. So Apple is admitting there are legitimate uses for this, particularly as content providers realize bandwidth costs can be passed on to downloaders. Why give out 10M copies of the same file and pay for it when someone else can distribute it for you for free? This is really useful for free software, like Linux distros and GNU software.

And, no, I'm not naive. I know damn well people pirate. Banning this app won't stop that, but it WILL cripple legitimate users, or drive them away.




RE: Apple. Again.
By Spivonious on 9/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Apple. Again.
By mmntech on 9/2/2009 10:20:39 AM , Rating: 5
Apple runs it until you hack it.


RE: Apple. Again.
By mpjesse on 9/2/2009 12:10:47 PM , Rating: 5
Let me ask you a question. Say you just bought a brand new PC for the purpose of legally transcoding video, using VOIP, or something similar. You get it home only to find out that Microsoft has their own VOIP program and you're not allowed to use anyone else's. Or better yet, Microsoft disallows you to install a video encoder because it "could" be used to illegally copy movies. It's like buying a brand new sports car and being told "hey, you own this car but because you might screw it up we're locking the hood. Sorry, no K&N air filters allowed."

The pratice of locking the iPhone and controlling the App Store is along the same lines as what I just described. Apple likes to brag the iPhone OS is a paired down version of OSX. So why can I install whatever the hell I want on my Macbook, but not my iPhone? Why can I legally modify OSX and Windows, but not my iPhone? We're moving into an era where people are using mobile devices more than desktops and even notebooks. Apple threatens to destroy innovation (something it supposedly cherishes) by exerting complete control over your mobile device. You paid for it and you pay for the service, therefore you have a right to do whatever the hell you want with it. Apple and AT&T are not the piracy police and they certainly have no right to tell you what can ad cannot be installed on your phone. I understand the VOIP and 3G data network issue, but there's no excuse for disapproving an app that works solely over wifi.


RE: Apple. Again.
By Spivonious on 9/2/2009 1:52:07 PM , Rating: 3
We might not agree with what Apple is doing, but there is absolutely nothing illegal about it. If Ford wanted to install a lock on their hoods so no one but Ford dealerships could open them, there is nothing stopping them.

It's Apple's device, they can do whatever they want with it. It's your job as the consumer to not buy the device if you don't agree to Apple's terms.


RE: Apple. Again.
By JoshuaBuss on 9/2/2009 3:46:34 PM , Rating: 4
Why did this get rated down? He's right. The ridiculous thing isn't what Apple's doing.. what's ridiculous is people are still buying such a crippled product from such a controlling company. If Microsoft did this, you can imagine how poor sales would be.


RE: Apple. Again.
By dark matter on 9/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Apple. Again.
By JoshuaBuss on 9/2/2009 5:19:26 PM , Rating: 3
I'm fully prepared to listen to anything intelligent anyone here to say.

I don't think his comment was 'smart arse'.. I think it was accurate. Any company can sell a product however they wish as long as it isn't illegal.. and there's nothing illegal about selling a particularly limited product.

Think about one of those old-school tiger electronics hand-held games vs. a gameboy.. on the gameboy you can run many games depending on what you plug into it.. on the tiger you can only run the one game that's installed on the rom. this doesn't make the tiger illegal for not offering choice.. it's simply the design of the product.

apple's essentially doing the same thing, yet people don't want to accept it. instead, since apple still charges a premium and has managed to convince people their products are 'higher end', people feel that they're being wronged.

they're not being wronged, they're being naive.. and they simply refuse to accept that apple is in the business of selling less for more.


RE: Apple. Again.
By dark matter on 9/2/2009 7:36:50 PM , Rating: 3
Sure Apple are doing nothing illegal. Its the fact they want to make it illegal to do anything other than what they say is what is the issue.


RE: Apple. Again.
By Staples on 9/2/2009 9:43:34 PM , Rating: 3
Actually he got rated down because the majority of Daily Tech readers are morons. This happens when everyone cries about stupid things and then someone comes in and talks some ACTUAL sense.

In this case. Big deal. If you do not like the way Apple runs the app store, then do not buy an iPhone. For the rest of us who do not give a rat's ass about apps that a handful of people will use, I am sure I would not care much if I did have one.


RE: Apple. Again.
By Alexstarfire on 9/3/2009 12:43:57 AM , Rating: 2
Only a handful of people would use Google Voice? You must be crazy. Hell, even my dad has Google Voice on his iPhone and he's not THAT technically inclined.


RE: Apple. Again.
By Bryf50 on 9/2/2009 4:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yea your completely right...until Microsoft does the same thing and gets fined for billions of dollars.


RE: Apple. Again.
By dark matter on 9/2/2009 4:57:54 PM , Rating: 1
Apple = All your base are belong to us


RE: Apple. Again.
By toddnaomi7 on 9/2/2009 6:24:54 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with Spivonious. If you don't like it, don't buy it.


RE: Apple. Again.
By dark matter on 9/2/2009 7:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't buy it.

More to the point are you saying if we don't like it we should keep our mouths shut? Sounds like Apple all over.


RE: Apple. Again.
By kmmatney on 9/2/2009 9:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
your loss...


RE: Apple. Again.
By Alexstarfire on 9/3/2009 12:45:11 AM , Rating: 2
Not when he buys a superior product.


RE: Apple. Again.
By kmmatney on 9/3/2009 6:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
And that superior product is?...


RE: Apple. Again.
By jrollins on 9/3/2009 8:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, if we just kept our mouths shut about products, do think they would've improved? I dont think so, they woudln't have needed to change. "hey they're not complaining about our product, so lets make it crappier and charge more for it" hmmm....


RE: Apple. Again.
By hiscross on 9/2/2009 8:24:43 PM , Rating: 1
You are right. Apple is a capitalist company out to make as much money as they can. Your socialist libs eat your heart out. By a ROM/WinMobile device as see what you get.


RE: Apple. Again.
By SublimeSimplicity on 9/2/2009 10:30:25 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
We’ve reviewed µMonitor and determined that we cannot post this version of your application to the App Store at this time because this category of applications is often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights.


Yet they embed a YouTube viewer in the base install...


RE: Apple. Again.
By Alexstarfire on 9/2/2009 11:46:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. So you can watch all the pirated shows and music all you want.


RE: Apple. Again.
By Omega215D on 9/2/2009 2:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
Then someone comes out with a free app that downloads those Youtube videos... or go to keepvid.com...


RE: Apple. Again.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/2/2009 10:37:47 AM , Rating: 2
Screw that, I don't need a dedicated torrent app for my iPhone. All I have to do is login to my HP EX485 MediaSmart Windows Home Server which I hacked to have a built-in uTorrent server and add torrents that way -- from anywhere.

http://www.mediasmartserver.net/forums/viewtopic.p...


RE: Apple. Again.
By GreenEnvt on 9/2/2009 11:33:23 AM , Rating: 3
By hacked to have a utorrent server, you mean you installed the utorrent plugin for WHS?


RE: Apple. Again.
By Donovan on 9/2/2009 1:42:37 PM , Rating: 3
I guess we need to add a new phrase to the Urban Dictionary:
quote:
Installshield-kiddie (n): A "hacker" who needs their tools packaged as MSI installers to avoid any pesky script editing.


RE: Apple. Again.
By oab on 9/2/2009 1:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
Windows doesn't use scripts, that's unix.


RE: Apple. Again.
By Spivonious on 9/2/2009 1:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
Look up the file extensions .bat and .com.


RE: Apple. Again.
By Pirks on 9/2/2009 6:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
.cmd not .com you nasty dos user :P


RE: Apple. Again.
RE: Apple. Again.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/2/2009 2:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
Did you actually read the thread? There's nothing in there about installing a plugin.

It involved remote connecting to the server, installing uTorrent, editing the registry, installing a service on the server, and editing a few other files.

Where are you getting this "plugin" business from?


RE: Apple. Again.
By omnicronx on 9/2/2009 2:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
There is no plugin for WHS, you manually install the app as a service. (additional configuration is also required)

Stop pretending you know what you are talking about just because you can do a 10 second Google search.

I think there was a tool out a while back, but it rarely worked, and the almost everyone does it now is installing via service.


RE: Apple. Again.
By Gholam on 9/2/2009 11:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually there is a plugin for WHS - it adds uTorrent interface into the WHS console.


RE: Apple. Again.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/8/2009 9:06:38 AM , Rating: 2
There is a plugin, but it doesn't work properly


RE: Apple. Again.
By nafhan on 9/2/2009 10:39:01 AM , Rating: 2
The thing that bothers me is that this could not be used for (directly) putting illegal content on the iPhone. It's for controling an application on a remote computer.
Using this line of thinking, would that make remote desktop clients on the iPhone also illegal? Also, as others have mentioned in the past, Apple's own apps (Safari and iTunes, for example) are "often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights". The hypocrisy continues...


RE: Apple. Again.
By Griswold on 9/2/2009 12:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
Apple just doesnt have the balls to go toe to toe with the industry that is responsible for most of apples wealth these days - because you can bet your ass they will go after apple (legitimate or not, successful or not, it wont matter) if an app like that can be downloaded from the appstore.

Jobs should have, while he was getting his new liver, gotten a new set of stones as well...


RE: Apple. Again.
By omnicronx on 9/2/2009 2:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes because it makes sense for Apple to take on an entire industry, just so that you can download torrents remotely. Do you guys realize how ridiculous this sounds? The AppStore is a multi billion dollar a year industry, why put that in jeopardy for an app that brings absolutely no functionality to the iPhone itself?

The Appstore has got to the point where they have to watch where they are stepping, step on the wrong persons toes and they could be in for a surprise.

As I said in the post below, I don't normally agree with Apple blocking apps, but this one definitely makes sense.


RE: Apple. Again.
By dark matter on 9/2/2009 5:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
First they came for the bit torrenters, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a bit torrenter. Then they came for the VOIP's, and I didn't speak up, because I didn't use VOIP. Then they came for my apps, by that time there was no-one left to speak up for me.


RE: Apple. Again.
By omnicronx on 9/2/2009 2:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
No offense buddy, but you really can't be yelling at Apple here. Allowing a torrent app, regardless of where you are actually downloading torrents too could easily open the lawsuit floodgates. Its just not worth it for Apple, plain and simple. Your argument of 'not always' is irrelevent, it will happen, and you know it.

The only right you have here is to choose the phone/platform you would like that best curtails to your needs. There are at least two other platforms you could use to achieve the same thing as this app. Or better yet, jailbreak your phone as I am sure apps like this will be coming soon.

From a legal perspective it just does not make sense for Apple to allow this. This would not have been a hugely popular app anyways, as you would still be required to do special things such as have an environment to be remotely controlled, open ports, etc etc.. They have far more to lose than to gain here, so I am going to side with Apple on this one.


RE: Apple. Again.
By dark matter on 9/2/2009 7:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
The better ban google then, and email, imagine the naughty things you could get up to with those eh!


Oh rly?
By smackababy on 9/2/2009 10:29:08 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Apple explains, "We’ve reviewed µMonitor and determined that we cannot post this version of your application to the App Store at this time because this category of applications is often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights. We have chosen to not publish this type of application to the App Store."
I thought an MP3 player was a device that promoted storing tons of stolen music?




RE: Oh rly?
By xti on 9/2/2009 10:31:38 AM , Rating: 2
....annnnnndddd checkmate.


RE: Oh rly?
By PandaBear on 9/2/2009 12:03:37 PM , Rating: 3
So iTune and iPod should be banned from Apple as well.


RE: Oh rly?
By sprockkets on 9/2/2009 5:33:20 PM , Rating: 1
True, but we already went to court over this via the Rio MP3 player, and it set the precedent that MP3 players are not for pirates, just as the VCR isn't the "boston strangler."

http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/1...

Of course, why Apple worries is dumb, because they didn't make the app. Of course, who looked bad when the baby shaker app was approved? Apple, and rightfully so.


uTorrent Decision Silly
By Flunk on 9/2/2009 12:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
The decision on the uTorrent monitor is silly, uTorrent has a web interface that can already be used in this way. This just stops people from using a specially iPhone-designed app to check uTorrent. The only thing that this causes is a worse customer experience.




RE: uTorrent Decision Silly
By omnicronx on 9/2/2009 2:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
IMO you just gave a perfect reason why Apple made the right decision. A web based app already exists, why should Apple put themselves on the line for the few people that monitor torrents remotely (as it sure is not the majority of users).


By PandaBear on 9/2/2009 12:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"We’ve reviewed µMonitor and determined that we cannot post this version of your application to the App Store at this time because this category of applications is often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights. We have chosen to not publish this type of application to the App Store."


Yet allowing people to play mp3 on iPod at the loss of the record industry is ok?

Oh, I get it, it is ok when Apple makes money.




Breaking the first rule!
By invidious on 9/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Breaking the first rule!
By acase on 9/2/2009 10:16:23 AM , Rating: 3
...I don't think you are helping the cause either.


RE: Breaking the first rule!
By grath on 9/2/2009 4:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
Like anybody capable of using it doesnt already know about 30 year old usenet anyway. The average torrent clicking Joe takes one look at a usenet client and writes it off as confusing. People complain about torrents that are still in RARs, most arent going to want to bother with binaries.


RE: Breaking the first rule!
By Griswold on 9/2/09, Rating: 0
"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki