<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;arbitrary&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:52:31 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Why Do So Many People Rely On Facebook For Communications, Given Its Arbitrary Removal Process?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121101/17533020912/why-do-so-many-people-rely-facebook-communications-given-its-arbitrary-removal-process.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121101/17533020912/why-do-so-many-people-rely-facebook-communications-given-its-arbitrary-removal-process.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Washington Post has an interesting story about Facebook's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/facebook-admits-error-in-censoring-anti-obama-message/2012/10/31/d6063c22-235e-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html" target="_blank">admission that it erroneously took down a widely shared image</a> posted by an anti-Obama group over the weekend.  The somewhat viral image (which, as the article notes, isn't exactly the most truthful of images -- but perhaps par for the course when it comes to political speech) was removed after Facebook said it "violated Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities."  However, people going through Facebook's official list of Rights &#038; Responsibilities didn't turn up anything that the content violated.
<br /><br />
Leaving aside the question of exaggerated political speech, this raises the same question that we've wondered in the past: why do so many people rely on closed platforms today, that allow somewhat arbitrary removal of speech?  While Facebook eventually admitted its error, this is hardly the first such case of Facebook deciding what you can or cannot talk about.  That's a tremendously powerful position that Facebook's users have granted to Facebook in making it their communications platform of choice.  Many people will say that this is "the price" that people pay to be on a platform where everyone else is -- and that the convenience of Facebook outweighs such costs.  But it's also why so many people are a bit nervous about Facebook these days.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121101/17533020912/why-do-so-many-people-rely-facebook-communications-given-its-arbitrary-removal-process.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121101/17533020912/why-do-so-many-people-rely-facebook-communications-given-its-arbitrary-removal-process.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121101/17533020912/why-do-so-many-people-rely-facebook-communications-given-its-arbitrary-removal-process.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>questionable-platform-reliance</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121101/17533020912</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:56:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple Feels Reporting Drone Strikes 'Objectionable And Crude' And Rejects App</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120830/14470520223/apple-feels-reporting-drone-strikes-objectionable-crude-rejects-app.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120830/14470520223/apple-feels-reporting-drone-strikes-objectionable-crude-rejects-app.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It seems that today you can&#39;t spit in the wind without hitting a story about some US drone killing a bunch of people in a country somewhere overseas. Every known drone strike is accompanied by news reports of the location and the number of people killed. Yet, even with all these stories about drone strikes, it can a daunting task for those interested in following them to keep up with them all. So what is a drone enthusiast, or someone just appalled by the frequency of the strikes, to do?<br />
<br />
One creative iPhone developer, Josh Begley, took the time to create an app that sought out news articles about drone strikes. When it would find one, it would send a push notification to the owner of the iPhone and then display a Google map of the area with a push pin of the location of the strike. He had hoped to have it released in the wild by now, but <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/drone-app/" target="_blank">Apple keeps rejecting his application</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>It&rsquo;s the third time in a month that Apple has turned Drones+ away, says Josh Begley, the program&rsquo;s New York-based developer. The company&rsquo;s reasons for keeping the program out of the App Store keep shifting. First, Apple called the bare-bones application that aggregates news of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia &ldquo;not useful.&rdquo; Then there was an issue with hiding a corporate logo. And now, there&rsquo;s this crude content problem.</i></blockquote>
It's this last rejection that has Josh scratching his head. How can a news aggregating application be in any way crude or objectionable? Yes, I know that many people feel that news reports from the mainstream media could easily be classified as such, but that is beside the point. This app provides a useful service for those who want to keep abreast of the latest news regarding drone strikes. It doesn&#39;t show graphic images or other caricatures of the attacks, merely a push pin and a link to the story. If it is the content that is objectionable, he may just turn to a less strict operating system for the next version.
<blockquote>
<i>Begley is about at his wits end over the iOS version of Drones+. &ldquo;I&rsquo;m kind of back at the drawing board about what exactly I&rsquo;m supposed to do,&rdquo; Begley said. The basic idea was to see if he could get App Store denizens a bit more interested in the U.S.&rsquo; secretive, robotic wars, with information on those wars popping up on their phones the same way an Instagram comment or retweet might. Instead, Begley&rsquo;s thinking about whether he&rsquo;d have a better shot making the same point in the Android Market.</i></blockquote>
Its this kind of rejection of an interesting and thought provoking app that will turn people away from walled gardens. We talked recently about Microsoft&#39;s moves toward further locking down Windows resulting in developers seeking the more <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120801/16375119910/game-developers-concerned-about-potentially-closed-windows-8.shtml">open alternative</a> of Linux. The same will happen with the iPhone. As more developers continue to have their apps rejected with little to no context, those developers will become much more frustrated with the whole process and leave for Android. Is this really the lesson that Apple wants young developers taking from this and similar experiences?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120830/14470520223/apple-feels-reporting-drone-strikes-objectionable-crude-rejects-app.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120830/14470520223/apple-feels-reporting-drone-strikes-objectionable-crude-rejects-app.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120830/14470520223/apple-feels-reporting-drone-strikes-objectionable-crude-rejects-app.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>reporting-the-news-is-bad</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120830/14470520223</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:46:12 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Gibson Guitars CEO Calls Out The Government For 'Regulating Business Through Criminal Law' [Updated]</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120731/18073219900/gibson-guitars-ceo-calls-out-government-regulating-business-through-criminal-law.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120731/18073219900/gibson-guitars-ceo-calls-out-government-regulating-business-through-criminal-law.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <i><b>Update</b>: Of course, just about the time we posted this, the news came out that <a href="http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/gibson-guitar-settles-claim-over-imported-ebony/" target="_blank">Gibson has decided to settle</a>, though it still mainstains it did nothing wrong.  It got off by having to pay $350,000 and by forfeiting the confiscated wood, which it notes is much less onerous than fighting this through.  So this story is now done, but the original post below still highlights the ridiculous situations that Gibson was put in, and which many others could easily end up in.</i>
<br /><br />
It's been close to a year since the Justice Department <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110829/00215015722/feds-raid-gibson-musicians-now-worried-govt-will-take-their-guitars-away.shtml" target="_blank">raided Gibson Guitars</a> for using "illegal wood" on the fingerboards. You&#39;d think something like "illegal wood" wouldn't require the use of the term "raid," or the services of 30 agents with guns and bulletproof vests, but hey, welcome to America. The raid was authorized under the Lacey Act, an act whose original use was to curb poaching of illegal species, but soon spread (as these things do) to cover the importing other wildlife and plants.<br />
<br />
The fun thing about the law is that staying in compliance requires knowing <i>not only</i> the particular details of <i>over 200 other countries' laws</i>, but also a bit of mind-reading in order to suss out how the federal government will interpret each one of these laws. Put it all together and you've got Gibson's situation, which is detailed in a post for the <a href="http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303830204577448351409946024.html" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal</a> (gated) but also <a href="http://www.policemisconduct.net/now-ignorance-foreign-law-is-apparently-no-excuse/" target="_blank">helpfully detailed at Cato's new National Police Misconduct Reporting Project</a>. The first indication that this raid was a complete abortion of justice is the fact that the wood Gibson used had made it into the country without being seized:
<blockquote>
<i>The fingerboards of our guitars are made with wood that is imported from India. The wood seized during the Aug. 24 raid, however, was from a Forest Stewardship Council-certified supplier, meaning the wood complies with FSC's rules requiring that it be harvested legally and in compliance with traditional and civil rights, among other protections. Indian authorities have provided sworn statements approving the shipment, and U.S. Custom allowed the shipment to pass through America's border and to our factories.</i></blockquote>
Having made it through the safeguards that were set up to stop illegal imports, one would think that the material was cleared for use. But this sort of clear thinking fails to take into account that every law is somehow still open to multiple interpretations:
<blockquote>
<i>Nonetheless, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to enforce its own interpretation of Indian law, arguing that because the fingerboards weren't finished in India, they were illegal exports. In effect, the agency is arguing that to be in compliance with the law, Gibson must outsource the jobs of finishing craftsmen in Tennessee.</i></blockquote>
Seizure laws are incredibly popular with everyone from large government agencies to small town police departments and having 4,000 federal criminal offenses on the books makes it very simple for law enforcers to find inadvertent or unwitting criminals and inflict damage on them through seizures and imprisonment. Any avenue that looks as if it may provide agencies like this with more power and control is generally explored to its fullest.
<blockquote>
<i>This is an overreach of government authority and indicative of the kinds of burdens the federal government routinely imposes on growing businesses. It also highlights a dangerous trend: an attempt to punish even paperwork errors with criminal charges and to regulate business activities through criminal law. Policy wonks call this &ldquo;overcriminalization.&rdquo; I call it a job killer.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Many business owners have inadvertently broken obscure and highly technical foreign laws, landing them in prison for things like importing lobster tails in plastic rather than cardboard packaging (the violation of that Honduran law earned one man an eight-year prison sentence). Cases like this make it clear that the justice system has strayed from its constitutional purpose like stopping the real bad guys from bringing harm.</i></blockquote>
That is exactly where the system is now. Criminal intent is no longer factored in to the equation. The old chestnut, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," is actually a completely valid excuse. 4,000 federal criminal offenses on the books means that heavier sentences and fines are levied against criminals who in the past would have been subject to less harsh civil and/or local judgments. Add to that <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/1229/With-2012-state-laws-kick-in-on-everything-from-immigration-to-shark-fins">40,000 new state laws</a> introduced in 2012 alone, and you've got the perfect recipe for government overreach and thousands of chances to be hauled into court to attempt to prove a negative.<br />
<br />
Cato's Tim Lynch <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/1229/With-2012-state-laws-kick-in-on-everything-from-immigration-to-shark-finshttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/1229/With-2012-state-laws-kick-in-on-everything-from-immigration-to-shark-fins" target="_blank">pointed out the absurdity of the current situation</a> during an address to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security:
<blockquote>
<i>The sheer volume of modern law makes it impossible for an ordinary American household to stay informed. And yet, prosecutors vigorously defend the old legal maxim that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." That maxim may have been appropriate for a society that simply criminalized inherently evil conduct, such as murder, rape, and theft, but it is wholly inappropriate in a labyrinthine regulatory regime that criminalizes activities that are morally neutral. As Professor Henry M. Hart opined, "In no respect is contemporary law subject to greater reproach than for its obtuseness to this fact."</i><br />
<br />
<i>It is absurd and unjust for the government to impose a legal duty on every citizen to "know" all of the mind-boggling rules and regulations that have been promulgated over the years. Policymakers can and should discard the "ignorance-is-no-excuse" maxim by enacting a law that would require prosecutors to prove that regulatory violations are "willful" or, in the alternative, that would permit a good-faith belief in the legality of one&#39;s conduct to be pleaded and proved as a defense. The former rule is already in place for our complicated tax laws &mdash; but it should also shield unwary Americans from all of the laws and regulations as well.</i></blockquote>

Gibson Guitars had every reason to presume the wood it was using was perfectly legal. The company had taken great care to stay within the confines of the laws as it understood them. Instead of being given the benefit of a doubt when the issue of legality arose (and <i>after </i> the wood had already cleared Customs), the company was raided as though it were cranking out black market explosives rather than ordinary, harmless guitars. Gibson always has the option to sue but the odds of getting this case to be heard, much less winning it, are low. Even with higher odds, the time and expense would far outweigh the losses sustained by Gibson at the hand of the federal government.<br />
<br />
This leaves companies like Gibson in the unenviable position of putting even more time and money into compliance, rather than innovation, expansion or outside investments. In today's economy, the private sector really can't afford another "job killer," especially one they have to pay for out of their own pockets.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120731/18073219900/gibson-guitars-ceo-calls-out-government-regulating-business-through-criminal-law.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120731/18073219900/gibson-guitars-ceo-calls-out-government-regulating-business-through-criminal-law.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120731/18073219900/gibson-guitars-ceo-calls-out-government-regulating-business-through-criminal-law.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>violating-obscure-statutes?-that's-a-paddlin'</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120731/18073219900</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:59:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Vancouver Olympics 'Brand Protection Guidelines' Almost Entirely Arbitrary</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100114/1227357759.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100114/1227357759.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=leigh">Marcus Carab</a> writes <i>"VANOC (the Vancouver Olympics organization) has a <a href="http://www.vancouver2010.com/more-2010-information/about-vanoc/the-vancouver-2010-brand/protecting-the-brand/" target="_blank">22-page booklet on their site covering trademark issues</a> around the Olympics.<br />
<br />
Most of it isn't new, but I found the description of their method (starts on page 12) to be very interesting. They describe a rubric with six categories that they use to determine if any given reference to the Olympics is potentially infringing. There are a few things about the method that stood out to me (beyond the broader fact that they are essentially attempting to rewrite trademark law as they see fit):
<ul>
<li>Each category is scored from 1 to 3, with a lower score being ideal. There is no option for zero in their ranking, and yet the final grading scale begins with "Unlikely to Infringe" rather than "Not Infringing"
</li><li>They offer a bunch of examples and walk you through the math, then they <b>ignore the outcome</b> in some of them. Seriously. A bakery called "Olympic Bakery" that has existed since 1965 scores a 10 out of 18 on their system ("potential infringement"). Almost as if they realized how ridiculous that was while writing it, they decided to say it falls under "unlikely to infringe" even though it very clearly doesn't by their own math. A few pages later, a Winter Festival scores a "potential infringement", but they class it as "likely to infringe" with no explanation given.
</li></ul>
Mostly this is just the same old Olympic shenanigans, but I found this booklet quite illustrative of just how ridiculous things can get."</i>
<br /><br />
It sounds kind of like the way they judge some of the events in the Olympics themselves.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100114/1227357759.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100114/1227357759.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100114/1227357759.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>where-do-we-include-the-drake-equation</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100114/1227357759</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:08:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple Approves Spotify App... Spotify Should Thank Google</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090827/1845456026.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090827/1845456026.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Just before the whole mess -- including an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/1748485734.shtml">FCC inquiry</a> -- of why Apple <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090727/2339285677.shtml">rejected Google voice</a> on the iPhone, we were among those who wondered if Apple would <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090727/0205195670.shtml">approve Spotify</a>, the well-hyped (perhaps over-hyped) music app that in many ways competes directly with iTunes.  Well, it looks like <a href="http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090827/apple-signs-off-on-spotify-when-will-big-music-play-along/" target="_new">Apple has approved the software</a>, though Spotify is still only available in certain European countries (though there are promises of a North American launch later this year).  You really have to wonder, though, how much of the approval was due to the mess and attention that Apple received following the rejection of Google Voice.  It seems likely that the company is now (finally) a bit more sensitive to this issue, and may have decided that it didn't need another PR headache... or to give any more fodder to the FCC.  Spotify probably owes Google a nice bouquet of flowers.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090827/1845456026.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090827/1845456026.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090827/1845456026.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-timing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090827/1845456026</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:44:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple Now Censoring A Dictionary iPhone App?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090805/1832305780.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090805/1832305780.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apple's continued arbitrariness in banning iPhone apps continues in weird and somewhat incomprehensible ways.  The latest getting attention (and sent in by a lot of people) is that a dictionary app called Ninjawords <a href="http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/ninjawords" target="_new">was forced to block out the definitions of certain words</a> in order to get approval to be in the App Store.  Even though the app itself has a 17+ rating, apparently Apple came back with a list of "objectionable" words in the dictionary which had to be removed.  Never mind the fact that anyone could just go to a website with the very same device and look up those same words... Oh, and of course other dictionaries available at the App Store seem to have those same words.  The article also points out that Wal-Mart -- notorious for refusing to sell "objectionable" material sells dictionaries with these sorts of words included.  The whole thing is bizarre, and again makes you wonder what Apple is accomplishing with its app review process, other than pissing people off. <b>Update</b>: Apple has <a href="http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/phil_schiller_app_store" target="_new">responded and explained its side of the story</a>.  They're claiming it wasn't censorship, so much as an issue of timing.  The app did have what Apple felt were offensive words/definitions, and asked the developer to wait until parental controls had been turned on for the iPhone.  The developer then chose to block those words to try to get the app launched prior to parental controls being in place.  Fair enough... but it still seems odd that Apple should be able to object to any definitions.  It's a dictionary, based on Wiktionary.org... which anyone can visit with their browser.  Still, this is one of the first times we've actually seen Apple <i>respond</i> to one of these stories.  So that's progress...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090805/1832305780.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090805/1832305780.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090805/1832305780.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>really?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090805/1832305780</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:15:31 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple Says No To Google Voice On The iPhone</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090727/2339285677.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090727/2339285677.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As we wait to hear if Spotify's mobile app gets <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090727/0205195670.shtml">approved</a> (I heard a rumor that it was, but have seen no proof yet), we hear of another questionable Apple iPhone rejection: <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/28/google-voice-iphone-app-rejected-current-gv-apps-lose-connectio/" target="_new">the Google Voice iPhone app has been forbidden from the iPhone</a>, though the reasons aren't entirely clear.  Still, it does show that Apple doesn't care who you are, or how big a name.  If it doesn't like your app, too bad.  Once again, this seems like an argument for why more open solutions will <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/1514125593.shtml">win out</a> in the end.  Not only do users not have to worry about arbitrary rejections like this, but innovation will happen much faster on open platforms where each innovation doesn't need to be approved by a mercurial secret cabal.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090727/2339285677.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090727/2339285677.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090727/2339285677.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>shameless</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090727/2339285677</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:59:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Will Apple Allow Spotify On The iPhone?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090727/0205195670.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090727/0205195670.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Having used Spotify a bit, I can definitely see how some people think it could potentially replace iTunes completely.  It basically acts like an iTunes that has access to millions of songs at no additional cost (and, yes, it's all licensed and legal).  The songs are streamed, but you almost never notice it.   It really does feel just like iTunes, while also having "Pandora-like" features for creating specialized stations or sharing others' playlists.  Unfortunately, it's only available in the UK for now, though the rumor is it will be available in the US before the end of the year.  However, where things could get really impressive is with Spotify's mobile app.  For a few months, there's been a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ALGPknOsiU" target="_new">YouTube video of Spotify Mobile on Android</a>:
<center>
<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ALGPknOsiU&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1&#038;"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ALGPknOsiU&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1&#038;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>
</center>
The demo highlights the fact that you can sync any playlist for "offline" play, solving the biggest question about weak mobile signals on the go, or how you use it on a plane or somewhere without wireless access.  With offline syncing, it's basically everything that an iPod can do -- with access to 6 million songs without having to pay for each individual song.  But, of course, Android is still a limited platform.  The big fish these days is the iPhone App Store, and Spotify has now <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8169971.stm" target="_new">submitted an iPhone app for approval</a>, which raises all sorts of questions.  With Apple's history of rather arbitrary rejections -- including ones for things Apple has deemed "competitive" -- will it block Spotify as a rather direct competitor to iTunes?  That would be very unfortunate, and again demonstrate the risk of a closed platform.
<br /><br />
That said, the initial reviews of the iPhone app seem quite strong.  Eliot Van Buskirk at Wired <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/spotify-iphone-app/" target="_new">loves the syncing feature</a>, and warns that "you'd have to pry it out of my cold, dead iPhone before I'll delete it from my phone."  Meanwhile Music Ally <a href="http://musically.com/blog/2009/07/27/video-spotify-unveils-its-official-iphone-app/" target="_new">points out</a> that Spotify has uploaded a video of the iPhone app as well:
<center>
<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QNCb1IdmJ_0&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1&#038;"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QNCb1IdmJ_0&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1&#038;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>
</center>
It really does look pretty slick.  So now the ball's in Apple's court.  I have no idea if Spotify can survive as a business (and I suspect that the royalty rates the music industry wants will make that difficult), but it is great to see more innovation in the space.  Now we get to see how Apple feels about that sort of innovation.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090727/0205195670.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090727/0205195670.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090727/0205195670.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>one-to-watch</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090727/0205195670</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:34:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple's Confused iPhone App Censors: Softcore Porn? Ok.</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090610/1648105192.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090610/1648105192.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The near total arbitrariness of Apple's iPhone morality police continues... We've already noted how odd it is that certain apps got rejected -- such as an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1051084979.shtml">eBook reader</a> that users <i>might, possibly</i> be able to read the Kama Sutra with, because it provided access to the public domain library at Project Gutenberg.  Never mind the fact that the same content could be accessed easily via a browser -- such as the included Safari browser on the iPhone.  However, other apps seem to get through with no problem.  Dave Title notes that Apple apparently had <a href="http://mymediamusings.com/2009/06/03/apple-loves-soft-core-porn-apps-like-suicidegirls-flip-strip/" target="_new">no problem with a Suicide Girls' app</a> that allowed users to "strip" women down to their underwear simply by flipping the phone.  It's a silly meaningless app (and doesn't contain any actual nudity), but it does make you wonder.  Why is one app potentially harmful according to Apple's morality police, while the other is perfectly fine?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090610/1648105192.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090610/1648105192.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090610/1648105192.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-time-around</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090610/1648105192</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 2 Jun 2009 13:52:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple's Rejection Of EFF RSS Reader App Sort Of Proves EFF's Point About Arbitrary App Rejections</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/1036185098.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/1036185098.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's pretty clear that Apple's policies covering what iPhone applications are acceptable for its App Store are pretty absurd and arbitrary. The company has repeatedly blocked applications that could allow users to access content Apple deems "objectionable" -- like an e-book reader that can <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1051084979.shtml">display</a> the Kama Sutra, among thousands of other books -- when that same content is accessible through the iPhone's built-in web browser or other applications. This rejection process led the Electronic Frontier Foundation to ask the Copyright Office to grant a DMCA exemption covering the jailbreaking of iPhones, so they could be used with any app the user wanted instead of just Apple-approved ones, as well as other phone unlocking techniques. Apple, of course, responded by saying that jailbreaking was <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090213/0326103758.shtml">copyright infringment</a>. 
<br /><br />
The company may have now unwittingly given a little more juice to the EFF's claims that the approval process is arbitrary, censorial and anti-competitive, though, by <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/oh-come-apple-reject">rejecting an application that displays the EFF's RSS feed</a>. Not because they dislike the EFF (ostensibly), but because it contained "objectionable content" in the form of a blog post that linked to a YouTube video containing the f-word in a subtitle. Once again, this content is available elsewhere on the iPhone, namely via the web browser and YouTube app pre-installed on the device, reinforcing the asinine nature of the rejection. Whether this will help the EFF's case with the Copyright Office -- or help change Apple's policy -- remains to be seen. But for now, it still looks like Apple's app rejection process is a digital equivalent of a "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/1036185098.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/1036185098.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/1036185098.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>thanks-for-making-it-easy</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090602/1036185098</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 18:55:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple Drops Another Arbitrary Rejection On An E-Book App, Because Somebody Might Read The Kama Sutra With It</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1051084979.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1051084979.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apple's double standards in deciding which iPhone apps to reject have hit plenty of developers. Apparently it's fine to access any sort of content through the device's web browser, but if you have an app that accesses anything Apple deems objectionable, <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090507/1524324785.shtml">it's obscene</a> and therefore blocked. The latest rejection along these lines is of an e-book reader which lets people download and read books from <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page">Project Gutenberg</a>, a trove of digitized public-domain works. One book in its collection is the ancient Indian sex guide <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/27827">The Kama Sutra</a>; in Apple's eyes, the ability to access the book from the app <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/may/21/apple-iphone">is grounds enough to reject it</a>. The app is simply designed to access Project Gutenberg, and users select which titles they want to read. The developer says he wasn't even aware that The Kama Sutra was in Gutenberg's archives, but he also points out that <a href="http://www.blog.montgomerie.net/whither-eucalyptus">several other e-book apps can access it</a>, while, of course, it's also available <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27827/27827-h/27827-h.htm">on the web</a>. The guy has now created a version of the app that specifically blocks access to The Kama Sutra, in hopes Apple will deem it acceptable. Fair enough, since he just wants to get the app out there. But it doesn't make Apple's arbitrary approval process -- and the stupidity it regularly displays -- any better. <b>Update</b>: And, once again, following a bit of press coverage, <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10248736-37.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5" target="_new">Apple caves</a>.  Still, it really shouldn't take press coverage to force Apple to fix situations like this.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1051084979.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1051084979.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1051084979.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>know-it-when-i-see-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090522/1051084979</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 8 May 2009 09:58:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Wait, So The iPhone's Browser Can Access The Sun's Page 3... But If Another App Does, It's Obscene?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090507/1524324785.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090507/1524324785.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Trent Reznor already did a wonderful job explaining <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090503/2009584726.shtml">Apple's hypocrisy</a> in rejecting the NIN iPhone app because you could stream some content from <i>The Downward Spiral</i>, which Apple found objectionable... even though you could buy the same music via the iTunes store.  However, reader Yakko Warner points us to a similar case as well.   Apparently, Apple has <a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/91508-Apple-Blocks-Obscene-Newsreader-App" target="_new">rejected an app that pulls in newspaper content from many newspapers</a> because some of that content includes the famous (or infamous) "Page 3" from The Sun, in the UK, which is normally filled with images of topless women.  But, of course, anyone with an iPhone could just as easily use the web browser to surf right over to <a href="http://www.page3.com/" target="_new">the website for Page 3</a> and see the exact same photos.  So why is it suddenly "objectionable" when the very same functionality comes in a separate app?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090507/1524324785.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090507/1524324785.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090507/1524324785.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>please-explain</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090507/1524324785</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>