Apple insult their customers, women, free speech(tech-no-media.com)
tech-no-media.com
Apple insult their customers, women, free speech
http://www.tech-no-media.com/2010/02/apple-insult-their-customers-women-free.html
13 comments
This is absurd. Apple isn't insulting anyone. what apple has done is what apple should have done long ago. That is, they have made the app store more usable by removing the thousands off "iBooble", "Bikini Girls", etc apps from the store so that people who want to actually find apps for their phones don't have to wade through as much trash. These apps were overwhelming the already terrible app store so much that they often appeared 5+ times in the top 25.
[deleted]
Why not just have an "adult" section that doesn't show up on the Top 25, or only shows up when you opt-in?
That seems to be a better solution than arbitrary censorship.
That seems to be a better solution than arbitrary censorship.
I agree, and I don't know why people don't see that Apple can totally have a half-hidden Adult category that requires you to login with your Apple ID and confirm your birth date before being able to view it in the dropdown list, with no mention whatsoever of the existence of the category on the main app store pages even if you're logged in.
I also don't know why people don't realize that Apple has parental controls and ratings for apps already both in the store and on the devices. They can piggyback on those to restrict adult apps even further.
Furthermore, the comment you replied to is mentioning a problem that is rampant in the entire store, which prompted Apple to do things like banning developers with thousands of near-identical apps (that I'm sure we can agree is abuse) and creating another category for books (remember those idiots that would upload 99 cent public domain ebooks?). Apple can improve the storefront in general to make it more optimized for searching/viewing applications, not music or movies.
Clearly these apps are popular and Apple needs to stop judging apps based on content (only rating, not judging) and just screen for security/stability purposes.
I also don't know why people don't realize that Apple has parental controls and ratings for apps already both in the store and on the devices. They can piggyback on those to restrict adult apps even further.
Furthermore, the comment you replied to is mentioning a problem that is rampant in the entire store, which prompted Apple to do things like banning developers with thousands of near-identical apps (that I'm sure we can agree is abuse) and creating another category for books (remember those idiots that would upload 99 cent public domain ebooks?). Apple can improve the storefront in general to make it more optimized for searching/viewing applications, not music or movies.
Clearly these apps are popular and Apple needs to stop judging apps based on content (only rating, not judging) and just screen for security/stability purposes.
First, if they appeared 5+ times in the top 25, the maybe that's a sign that their users want those apps. Secondly, it sounds more like a problem with the app store then with the applications offered. If the app store is displaying information you aren't interested in, then that's Apple's problem. They didn't solve the problem. The App Store's ability to show you apps hasn't improved. It was the easy way out.
If the app store is displaying information you aren't interested in, then that's Apple's problem. They didn't solve the problem.
Actually, for some set of their customers, they did. Not every adult is interested in buying softcore pornography.
Actually, for some set of their customers, they did. Not every adult is interested in buying softcore pornography.
I'm not interested at all in most of the Sports apps. I'm also not really interested in most of the Medical apps. Et cetera. Apple's not going to get rid of those, they're not as offensive to people, right?
It's not about the audience or who doesn't want to be part of that audience. It's about the idea that some people are just so offended at these apps being so popular they can't bear to let their kids potentially access them (oh, did we totally just gloss over the parental controls and ratings? oh why yes we did!)
It's not about the audience or who doesn't want to be part of that audience. It's about the idea that some people are just so offended at these apps being so popular they can't bear to let their kids potentially access them (oh, did we totally just gloss over the parental controls and ratings? oh why yes we did!)
Read what I wrote again. I said adults because presumably all of these applications were already age limited to adults. The thing is, as I said, not all adults want softcore pornography. Hence, for that set of users, the App Store just got better.
What Apple is assuming is that the set of their users who categorically do not want softcore pornography is larger than the set that do, and that removing themselves from the business of selling and distributing softcore pornography will be a net gain.
The same is probably not true of any other distinct class of applications.
What Apple is assuming is that the set of their users who categorically do not want softcore pornography is larger than the set that do, and that removing themselves from the business of selling and distributing softcore pornography will be a net gain.
The same is probably not true of any other distinct class of applications.
The only way the app would have been age limited for viewing and downloading was if the app was rated accordingly and parental controls were active. Otherwise anyone can see them, logged in or not, on the storefront (of all places!) in one of the top 10 lists or something. Anyone could have downloaded it as well, with only a warning about the application rating at download (you know, the same warning you see on apps with any user-generated content, adult rated or not). It didn't need to be like that.
Apple could have had an opt-in verification-required category for adult apps that only shows up at the bottom of the dropdown list of app categories and nowhere else only if you are signed into your verified account. They could have improved ratings and parental controls to satisfy parents and educators. Then the kids going to schools that want to use iPads for education don't have to see these, and the adults that don't want softcore porn in their face won't have to see them either.
Instead, Apple just went and removed these apps (well...not even all of them. nice double standard going on with SI and Playboy still on the app store...). That, I think, was a mistake.
Apple could have had an opt-in verification-required category for adult apps that only shows up at the bottom of the dropdown list of app categories and nowhere else only if you are signed into your verified account. They could have improved ratings and parental controls to satisfy parents and educators. Then the kids going to schools that want to use iPads for education don't have to see these, and the adults that don't want softcore porn in their face won't have to see them either.
Instead, Apple just went and removed these apps (well...not even all of them. nice double standard going on with SI and Playboy still on the app store...). That, I think, was a mistake.
The only way the app would have been age limited for viewing and downloading was if the app was rated accordingly and parental controls were active
This would seem to bolster my argument. The only way to not see them as an adult was to declare oneself a child. Whatever you may think of people who are categorically disinterested in these applications, this is not a good way to treat users. I know you're not saying it was fine the way it was, I just think it underscores the importance of a solution that fits in prevailing social mores. There are some things that people expect not to see unless they are specifically looking for them. That would seem to lead into the idea of segregating that stuff into a "back room", but as I explain below, I think that only follows if the retailer wants to sell that content in the first place.
Apple could have had...
What you and many others seem to avoid is explaining is why you believe that putting these applications in a ghetto would be preferable to simply not selling them at all. That Apple is demonstrably willing to go without them would seem to undermine such arguments. If they don't want to sell porn-like apps, why should they devote resources--any resources--to developing such a ghetto, classifying things which should and should not belong in that ghetto, verifying adult status through some unspecified system, ensuring the accuracy of that verification system, dealing with the complaints of ghetto-ized developers, complaints of developers afraid of being ghetto-ized, complaints of developers who wanted to get into the App Store via the ghetto but where rejected, complaints of adult users shafted by the verification system, complaints by users who don't think there should be a ghetto in the first place, complaints by users who thing the ghetto should include X, Y, and Z, and complaints from people who just like to complain. And this on top of an App Store review process that has borne criticism for inconsistency and delays from the start.
Again, why would they bother expending the resources to support something they don't appear to want to do in the first place? It may be that Apple is making a mistake that will hurt them in the long run, but it's not clear to me what they would get out of ghetto-izing that is in line with their aims.
This would seem to bolster my argument. The only way to not see them as an adult was to declare oneself a child. Whatever you may think of people who are categorically disinterested in these applications, this is not a good way to treat users. I know you're not saying it was fine the way it was, I just think it underscores the importance of a solution that fits in prevailing social mores. There are some things that people expect not to see unless they are specifically looking for them. That would seem to lead into the idea of segregating that stuff into a "back room", but as I explain below, I think that only follows if the retailer wants to sell that content in the first place.
Apple could have had...
What you and many others seem to avoid is explaining is why you believe that putting these applications in a ghetto would be preferable to simply not selling them at all. That Apple is demonstrably willing to go without them would seem to undermine such arguments. If they don't want to sell porn-like apps, why should they devote resources--any resources--to developing such a ghetto, classifying things which should and should not belong in that ghetto, verifying adult status through some unspecified system, ensuring the accuracy of that verification system, dealing with the complaints of ghetto-ized developers, complaints of developers afraid of being ghetto-ized, complaints of developers who wanted to get into the App Store via the ghetto but where rejected, complaints of adult users shafted by the verification system, complaints by users who don't think there should be a ghetto in the first place, complaints by users who thing the ghetto should include X, Y, and Z, and complaints from people who just like to complain. And this on top of an App Store review process that has borne criticism for inconsistency and delays from the start.
Again, why would they bother expending the resources to support something they don't appear to want to do in the first place? It may be that Apple is making a mistake that will hurt them in the long run, but it's not clear to me what they would get out of ghetto-izing that is in line with their aims.
> I know you're not saying it was fine the way it was, I just think it underscores the importance of a solution that fits in prevailing social mores.
Please understand that that is the problem with some of the arguments supporting what Apple did. The problems they list that are apparently now gone for adult content is still there for all the other apps. Just saying. :p
> What you and many others seem to avoid is explaining is why you believe that putting these applications in a ghetto would be preferable to simply not selling them at all.
Why? Because there are adults that don't want to see it at the same time there will be adults that do. By the app store rankings of some of the apps that were pulled, some of them were very very popular and are no doubt huge moneymakers for the developers and for Apple. I can't tell Apple that they should approve or reject content on their own store, but if there is not insignificant demand and Apple was profiting off these apps, why not? Presumably a "ghetto"/back room will be preferable to nothing at all or doing nothing at all for all parties negatively impacted (Apple, developers) and an acceptable compromise to the complainers.
> That Apple is demonstrably willing to go without them would seem to undermine such arguments
I don't know, for a few hours yesterday the new "Explicit" category on iTunes Connect seemed to say that Apple's first reaction was to pull apps, then their second was to do exactly what I suggested in my posts on HN about a separate category later, either because of the backlash and concerns from pulling apps, or because they're trying to figure out how to satisfy everyone ;)
> If they don't want to sell porn-like apps, why should they devote resources--any resources...
Who says Apple doesn't want to sell them? Schiller didn't come out and say that, he said that they pulled them because of complaints. Apple doesn't want complaints. If Apple didn't want to sell them, they would never have approved those apps to begin with. Apple will lose money no matter what if they pull adult content, or they leave it up there and face the wrath of parents and others that won't buy devices as a result. On the other hand, a "ghetto" for adult apps will probably work for everyone involved. It won't be as nice as being on the rest of the store, but not much adult content on the internet in general is out in the open, as opposed to behind some kind of age verification/login wall (see: lots of porn sites, youtube), and I'd honestly be surprised if some adult content distributor was whining about naked women not being next to Plants vs. Zombies and Navigon GPS apps if the alternative is not being on the store at all. Why should Apple devote resources otherwise? Oh, I don't know, they've chosen that position themselves and are failing hard at their inconsistency, and they're already doing it with all the apps on the store now (or else face removal/rejection/inability to even submit your app). Developers also pay for it via a yearly fee. :P
Which is another point. If they're going to pull all sexual content from the store but allow SI and Playboy to stay on there, and they're going to keep on insisting on those 17+ ratings for apps with UGC regardless of in-app content, that makes no sense.
So, I think the "why" is because Apple is still a business. They have working parental controls and ratings that just need refined. They have an app store that needs refined too. If they can successfully pull all that off, complaints about explicit content in the top 25 list and complaints about no explicit content at all will likely minimize into oblivion. And it seems that these alternative ideas are definitely something they're considering right now.
Please understand that that is the problem with some of the arguments supporting what Apple did. The problems they list that are apparently now gone for adult content is still there for all the other apps. Just saying. :p
> What you and many others seem to avoid is explaining is why you believe that putting these applications in a ghetto would be preferable to simply not selling them at all.
Why? Because there are adults that don't want to see it at the same time there will be adults that do. By the app store rankings of some of the apps that were pulled, some of them were very very popular and are no doubt huge moneymakers for the developers and for Apple. I can't tell Apple that they should approve or reject content on their own store, but if there is not insignificant demand and Apple was profiting off these apps, why not? Presumably a "ghetto"/back room will be preferable to nothing at all or doing nothing at all for all parties negatively impacted (Apple, developers) and an acceptable compromise to the complainers.
> That Apple is demonstrably willing to go without them would seem to undermine such arguments
I don't know, for a few hours yesterday the new "Explicit" category on iTunes Connect seemed to say that Apple's first reaction was to pull apps, then their second was to do exactly what I suggested in my posts on HN about a separate category later, either because of the backlash and concerns from pulling apps, or because they're trying to figure out how to satisfy everyone ;)
> If they don't want to sell porn-like apps, why should they devote resources--any resources...
Who says Apple doesn't want to sell them? Schiller didn't come out and say that, he said that they pulled them because of complaints. Apple doesn't want complaints. If Apple didn't want to sell them, they would never have approved those apps to begin with. Apple will lose money no matter what if they pull adult content, or they leave it up there and face the wrath of parents and others that won't buy devices as a result. On the other hand, a "ghetto" for adult apps will probably work for everyone involved. It won't be as nice as being on the rest of the store, but not much adult content on the internet in general is out in the open, as opposed to behind some kind of age verification/login wall (see: lots of porn sites, youtube), and I'd honestly be surprised if some adult content distributor was whining about naked women not being next to Plants vs. Zombies and Navigon GPS apps if the alternative is not being on the store at all. Why should Apple devote resources otherwise? Oh, I don't know, they've chosen that position themselves and are failing hard at their inconsistency, and they're already doing it with all the apps on the store now (or else face removal/rejection/inability to even submit your app). Developers also pay for it via a yearly fee. :P
Which is another point. If they're going to pull all sexual content from the store but allow SI and Playboy to stay on there, and they're going to keep on insisting on those 17+ ratings for apps with UGC regardless of in-app content, that makes no sense.
So, I think the "why" is because Apple is still a business. They have working parental controls and ratings that just need refined. They have an app store that needs refined too. If they can successfully pull all that off, complaints about explicit content in the top 25 list and complaints about no explicit content at all will likely minimize into oblivion. And it seems that these alternative ideas are definitely something they're considering right now.
"Read what I wrote again...Hence, for that set of users, the App Store just got better."
Which is different from what you were saying. I said they didn't solve the problem. You said they did. Now you are saying that you really said the App Store just got better, which is completely different.
Yes, the App Store got better for you. However, the problem (as the person you responded to made reference to) still exists. The App Store is still crappy in displaying things you are interested in. They didn't change anything in that regard.
The problem still exists.
Which is different from what you were saying. I said they didn't solve the problem. You said they did. Now you are saying that you really said the App Store just got better, which is completely different.
Yes, the App Store got better for you. However, the problem (as the person you responded to made reference to) still exists. The App Store is still crappy in displaying things you are interested in. They didn't change anything in that regard.
The problem still exists.
I said they didn't solve the problem. You said they did.
I did not say that they solved the problem for all users. I said that "for some set of their customers", they did in my original post and reiterated that in my second post by saying "for that set of users". The set of users I am referring to is "adults who are not interested in softcore pornography".
I apologize if it is unclear that by "some set" of customers and "that set" of users, I was referring to a set other than the whole set of all customers.
My intent was to demonstrate that Apple's actions have not adversely effected all users equally and introduce the idea that considering the parties who have benefited is worthwhile, because realizing that consequences are not a binary good/bad is essential to understanding complex problems. I could have taken this further in my original post. My mistake.
Additionally, I did not mean to suggest that the general problem of displaying information that doesn't interest a user had been solved. Frankly, I can't imagine a complete solution that does not involve technologies which don't exist. The App Store, as I see it, can never perfectly display only information the user is interested in, so I did not think this is what was meant. In that sense I was conflating "solution" with "improvement", much as one might say Hacker News is a "solution" to finding interesting things on the web, even though it is not perfect, does not work equally well for all users, and makes some effort to exclude softcore pornography.
This could have been clearer had I quoted the sentence that followed in your original post, where after saying "They didn't solve the problem.", you say "The App Store's ability to show you apps hasn't improved." If there is any confusion between "solving" the problem and "improving", it began in your post. Nevertheless, I could have been clearer that I meant the problem had been mitigated and not truly "solved", and then only for the set of users I was indicating. I am not a perfect poster.
Yes, the App Store got better for you.
At no point was I referring to myself as an effected user. I have never in my life used the App Store. I do not and never have owned an iPhone or iPod Touch. I do not own any functioning Apple products.
I did not say that they solved the problem for all users. I said that "for some set of their customers", they did in my original post and reiterated that in my second post by saying "for that set of users". The set of users I am referring to is "adults who are not interested in softcore pornography".
I apologize if it is unclear that by "some set" of customers and "that set" of users, I was referring to a set other than the whole set of all customers.
My intent was to demonstrate that Apple's actions have not adversely effected all users equally and introduce the idea that considering the parties who have benefited is worthwhile, because realizing that consequences are not a binary good/bad is essential to understanding complex problems. I could have taken this further in my original post. My mistake.
Additionally, I did not mean to suggest that the general problem of displaying information that doesn't interest a user had been solved. Frankly, I can't imagine a complete solution that does not involve technologies which don't exist. The App Store, as I see it, can never perfectly display only information the user is interested in, so I did not think this is what was meant. In that sense I was conflating "solution" with "improvement", much as one might say Hacker News is a "solution" to finding interesting things on the web, even though it is not perfect, does not work equally well for all users, and makes some effort to exclude softcore pornography.
This could have been clearer had I quoted the sentence that followed in your original post, where after saying "They didn't solve the problem.", you say "The App Store's ability to show you apps hasn't improved." If there is any confusion between "solving" the problem and "improving", it began in your post. Nevertheless, I could have been clearer that I meant the problem had been mitigated and not truly "solved", and then only for the set of users I was indicating. I am not a perfect poster.
Yes, the App Store got better for you.
At no point was I referring to myself as an effected user. I have never in my life used the App Store. I do not and never have owned an iPhone or iPod Touch. I do not own any functioning Apple products.
No, they didn't solve the problem. They removed a consequence of a problem, but the problem still exists: a poor app store.
The problem defined by the parent comment was "the app store is displaying information you aren't interested in". For the set of users that are not interested in "iBoobs", etc. the App Store no longer displays that information. I thought that by quoting it was clear that was the problem I was referring to, and not something as vague as "a poor app store".
You may disagree with the method, but to say this does not solve a problem for a set of users is just ignorant. The problem was doing X, and now it no longer does X. I don't see how anybody can not consider that at least a partial solution to the more general problem.
You may disagree with the method, but to say this does not solve a problem for a set of users is just ignorant. The problem was doing X, and now it no longer does X. I don't see how anybody can not consider that at least a partial solution to the more general problem.
No, the problem had a consequence. They merely removed the consequence of the problem. The problem still exists.
I understand what you are saying. I just think the 'solution' was lazy, shortsighted, and doesn't help Apple consumers in the long run, and doesn't solve the problem.
I understand what you are saying. I just think the 'solution' was lazy, shortsighted, and doesn't help Apple consumers in the long run, and doesn't solve the problem.
There is a bit of contradiction in your argument that these apps were so popular that they hid the apps people really wanted.
To address your usability concerns, Apple could have just fixed search results, perhaps removing these apps from 'top' lists or segregating them into a 'red light district'. Then the store would be 'usable' both for people who want these apps, and people who don't. (Usability does not require prudish censorship.)
To address your usability concerns, Apple could have just fixed search results, perhaps removing these apps from 'top' lists or segregating them into a 'red light district'. Then the store would be 'usable' both for people who want these apps, and people who don't. (Usability does not require prudish censorship.)
People get so confused about freedom of speech in the US (and much of the free world). The belief we hold sacred about government censorship does not apply to private concerns. Apple has the absolute right to censor what occurs on their platform, it's not intrusive on any human rights. In fact given that they could be sued (justly or otherwise) for what goes on, they actually have the responsibility to do so.
You can argue about whether it's intelligent or not for Apple to do this, but it's certainly well within their rights.
You can argue about whether it's intelligent or not for Apple to do this, but it's certainly well within their rights.
The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit app is still live. Apparently, Apple's determinination of obscenity is a function of your corporate clout.
Ugh, you DO know the iPhone has a browser right? You do know what makes up 99% of the web, right? Let the pr0n flow...
To quote a comment in the linked article that is in the same vein that stood out for me: "if I want to be titillated by softcore crap, I know where to go and it ain't the app store."
What makes you think the only adult content possible is porn in the form of images/videos (or maybe even erotic literature) one views in a browser?
The "you can look at porn in your browser" thing is getting really old and stinks of the time when Apple was all "webapps should be good enough (on the iPhone)!" back in 2007. Yeah, that sure worked out well.
The "you can look at porn in your browser" thing is getting really old and stinks of the time when Apple was all "webapps should be good enough (on the iPhone)!" back in 2007. Yeah, that sure worked out well.
Like every decision Apple makes, this has everything to do with business and nothing to do with censorship or misogyny. Apple intends the iPhone/iPod/iPad to be something that everyone on the planet owns. To do that, they think that creating an app store that isn't riddled with pasties and swimsuit apps on every Top 50 list will improve their chances of meeting that goal. It's the same reason they review every app. It reduces the chance that the average user will become frustrated with the apps they are downloading. Their market is NOT just computer-savvy programmers like us, it's the entire planet's population. If you keep that in mind, you'll start to see some logic in the decisions that Apple makes. Those decisions aren't necessarily what you or I want, but they do tend to be what will make the mobile experience the simplest, best, and least offensive for the population at large.
> It reduces the chance that the average user will become frustrated with the apps they are downloading.
What, like non-adult apps are all examples of mindblowingly good developer talent and design?
There are unbelievably awful apps on the store that got past the review process (can you even call that a review process anymore? riddled with issues and reviewers actually not opening apps...) that are crash happy, ugly as sin, useless and more. Where's the problem with adult content that makes that more likely to happen?
> Apple intends the iPhone/iPod/iPad to be something that everyone on the planet owns.
It's called ratings and parental controls. It's called Apple can redesign the app store. It's called requiring an Apple ID with credit card and birth date to see adult-rated apps in their own hidden category.
Apple already sells softcore porn/erotica in the form of many TV shows and movies, and already sells explicit songs. People can still use browsers and other apps to gain access to adult content. If people are happy enough with parental controls/ratings for that, what's the deal with apps? Apple can fix this on their end instead of removing all these apps.
> Like every decision Apple makes, this has everything to do with business
The business behind the top 10/25/50 list in any category is tantamount to a lot of money.
> It's the same reason they review every app.
Too bad Apple suffers from indecisiveness and a lack of consistency. That's the problem here. As I've mentioned many times on HN before, the bigger issue is that Apple was okay enough with these to review and approve them and to come up with ratings and controls for apps, but then on a whim decided to pull them - and wasn't even consistent there. What's next? It's definitely their marketplace and their device, but a growing number of developers will become discontent, and Apple will suffer without them.
What, like non-adult apps are all examples of mindblowingly good developer talent and design?
There are unbelievably awful apps on the store that got past the review process (can you even call that a review process anymore? riddled with issues and reviewers actually not opening apps...) that are crash happy, ugly as sin, useless and more. Where's the problem with adult content that makes that more likely to happen?
> Apple intends the iPhone/iPod/iPad to be something that everyone on the planet owns.
It's called ratings and parental controls. It's called Apple can redesign the app store. It's called requiring an Apple ID with credit card and birth date to see adult-rated apps in their own hidden category.
Apple already sells softcore porn/erotica in the form of many TV shows and movies, and already sells explicit songs. People can still use browsers and other apps to gain access to adult content. If people are happy enough with parental controls/ratings for that, what's the deal with apps? Apple can fix this on their end instead of removing all these apps.
> Like every decision Apple makes, this has everything to do with business
The business behind the top 10/25/50 list in any category is tantamount to a lot of money.
> It's the same reason they review every app.
Too bad Apple suffers from indecisiveness and a lack of consistency. That's the problem here. As I've mentioned many times on HN before, the bigger issue is that Apple was okay enough with these to review and approve them and to come up with ratings and controls for apps, but then on a whim decided to pull them - and wasn't even consistent there. What's next? It's definitely their marketplace and their device, but a growing number of developers will become discontent, and Apple will suffer without them.
This is exactly why I'm trying to steer free of anything tied to the Apple App store (not that I have any particular use for sex-apps, but first they came for ...).
But I have to protest to the headline: This has nothing to do with free speech.
You bought a piece of hardware tied to an editorial process that you don't control. If that bothers you, learn from your mistake and move on. If it doesn't, good for you, but don't complain once it does.
Tying this sort of luxury problem to something as serious as free speech is an affront to those who live in fear for the live and livelihood of themselves and their families because they dare to speak their mind.
But I have to protest to the headline: This has nothing to do with free speech.
You bought a piece of hardware tied to an editorial process that you don't control. If that bothers you, learn from your mistake and move on. If it doesn't, good for you, but don't complain once it does.
Tying this sort of luxury problem to something as serious as free speech is an affront to those who live in fear for the live and livelihood of themselves and their families because they dare to speak their mind.
It's their store for their flagship product. They don't have to explain to you if they want to take out the trash.
That doesn't mean we can't question their practices and their choices.
We can also question the validity and reasoning of the criticism and hopefully arrive at a better level of criticism. It does no good to simply say "I disagree, therefore it is wrong."
In this case, the author has characterized Apple's operation of Apple's own store as "almost Stalinian" and "completely unacceptable in a democratic country" without any argument to support this. Pointing out that it is within Apple's rights is a counter-argument to the argument that was actually made, not merely a dismissal of it as inarguable.
In this case, the author has characterized Apple's operation of Apple's own store as "almost Stalinian" and "completely unacceptable in a democratic country" without any argument to support this. Pointing out that it is within Apple's rights is a counter-argument to the argument that was actually made, not merely a dismissal of it as inarguable.
sigh "They don't have to explain to you if they want to take out the trash." That's the dismissal. The OP was dismissing the argument.
"Pointing out that it is within Apple's rights is a counter-argument to the argument that was actually made, not merely a dismissal of it as inarguable."
This wasn't a point, and has no bearing on the arguments being presented.
"Pointing out that it is within Apple's rights is a counter-argument to the argument that was actually made, not merely a dismissal of it as inarguable."
This wasn't a point, and has no bearing on the arguments being presented.
What arguments are being presented? I quoted the article. You sighed. It's unclear what you think is being argued by claiming nonsense like that Apple is acting like Stalin.
You're just purposely being dense now. If you aren't...
Forgive me if I do not divine any great insight from your use of ellipsis. I honestly do not know what you're talking about, and your approach does not clarify anything. It is obvious that you disagree with me, but it is not obvious in what way and from what line of reasoning.
I quoted part of the article in which the author argues that what Apple has done has no place in a democratic country. I do not understand how that is not easily refuted by the fact that in this democratic country, Apple is well within their rights to do what they have done. I see one of two possibilities: 1) I have misinterpreted the passages I have directly quoted. 2) I have failed to detect the argument(s) you're referring to.
1) is plausible, but unlikely. 2) is plausible, but your response to my question does not give me any reason to believe that is the case.
The conclusion I'm left with is the one I started with: that this article is simply a poor piece of criticism.
I quoted part of the article in which the author argues that what Apple has done has no place in a democratic country. I do not understand how that is not easily refuted by the fact that in this democratic country, Apple is well within their rights to do what they have done. I see one of two possibilities: 1) I have misinterpreted the passages I have directly quoted. 2) I have failed to detect the argument(s) you're referring to.
1) is plausible, but unlikely. 2) is plausible, but your response to my question does not give me any reason to believe that is the case.
The conclusion I'm left with is the one I started with: that this article is simply a poor piece of criticism.
I don't know why they changed the rules, I do have a feeling how it could have happened though. They definitely could have gone about it another way. I believe the problem comes from the fact that downloads can be restricted by age and content, previews cannot. So if you've got a 5 year old who isn't allowed to download adult apps if they go looking for a Wubble app, wobbling bikinis might be one of the results shown. For some conservative parents this can cause a problem.
For most programmers an extra line of SQL could have fixed this so I don't know why apple is using this ass backwards approach.
For most programmers an extra line of SQL could have fixed this so I don't know why apple is using this ass backwards approach.
Apple's actions are not about suppressing free speech, but about making sure the app store keeps a certain standard. As an analogy, no one is stopping you from going for a drink in any kind of pub/shop/restaurant, but some establishments have stricter codes of conduct and you have to behave appropriately if you choose to frequent them. I compare these app store rants to someone ranting that they can't get drunk and noisy in a restaurant because there's nothing wrong in getting drunk. Sure there's nothing wrong, but to do so you go to an appropriate place.
I agree with it having nothing to do with free speech. However, your analogy seems off. I can buy any other brand bottle of alcohol and drink it at home and behave how I want to. Apple expects a strict code of conduct out of me even at home. And in this case they seem to be changing the conduct they allow.
It's definitely within their right, but surely we can complain about it.
It's definitely within their right, but surely we can complain about it.
In the analogy, Apple's store is the restaurant. Once you leave the restaurant (the store), Apple's policies within the restaurant do not apply. Shedding the analogy: They can't and don't do anything to stop you from viewing pornography (or whatever) through channels other than the App Store.
But they do prevent me from installing iBoobies (or whatever they just removed from the store) by other means right? Unless I jailbreak the phone (the bottle), which I assume they don't encourage, they're controlling not just the restaurant, but also how i consume the alcohol...
phone (the bottle)
In my analogy, the bottle would have been an application. The App Store (the restaurant) contains applications (the alcohol), not the phone. The phone would be, I suppose, the "world". After all, if you abandon that phone, the rules of that world do not apply.
The analogy strains at this point anyway: In my jurisdiction, and most others that I've lived, restaurants by law only sell alcohol in open containers, which you can only consume on site. You can't take it home with you. I know it's not the same everywhere, but it's hard to draw a consistent analogy when the thing being analogized to doesn't behave the same way everywhere.
On the other hand, maybe that is apt.
In my analogy, the bottle would have been an application. The App Store (the restaurant) contains applications (the alcohol), not the phone. The phone would be, I suppose, the "world". After all, if you abandon that phone, the rules of that world do not apply.
The analogy strains at this point anyway: In my jurisdiction, and most others that I've lived, restaurants by law only sell alcohol in open containers, which you can only consume on site. You can't take it home with you. I know it's not the same everywhere, but it's hard to draw a consistent analogy when the thing being analogized to doesn't behave the same way everywhere.
On the other hand, maybe that is apt.
Poppycock: when a company decides that it doesn't want to be seen as demeaning to women by profitting off of the sale of pornography (a highly subjective label, but one that they're going to take to safest, most conservative definition of) by taking its percentage of the App Store sale price it's absurd to say that they're being demeaning to women by _not_ taking profits from pornography.
"Thankfully I puchased an Android powered HTC Magic"
Bad choice. Google has the same policy on adult applications in the Android Market. Not sure if they enforce it or not. They certainly do block some applications such as wifi tethering apps. Android is not a good choice if you want a fully open platform.
Bad choice. Google has the same policy on adult applications in the Android Market. Not sure if they enforce it or not. They certainly do block some applications such as wifi tethering apps. Android is not a good choice if you want a fully open platform.
The major difference is that Android allows installing applications from anywhere, so you aren't limited by what Google approves.
How do you reconcile the supposed infantilizing and misogyny with your decision to "just let my wife play with the iPod"?
Indeed... the article is so poorly written it looks more like satire.
Anyway, though it made sense to do something about the proliferation of these apps, just removing all of them was a stupid move, for both developers and users, given that there are obvious and easy technical solutions.
Anyway, though it made sense to do something about the proliferation of these apps, just removing all of them was a stupid move, for both developers and users, given that there are obvious and easy technical solutions.
Unconfirmed reports coming in indicate puppies, 7 -year-olds and the entire state of Alabama were also insulted by Apple's latest moves.