Herr Jobler and Apple
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
When did censoring the material that people are allowed to read go from being totally unacceptable behaviour to good corporate practice?
They aren't censoring it, they are saying they don't want to sell it. Censorship is when you are prevented from reading it. This is completely different.
Since Apple has a true monopoly on the selling, it's a distinction without a difference.
-
Since Apple has a true monopoly on the selling, it's a distinction without a difference.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Since Apple has a true monopoly on the selling
Well, yes, apart from the other places you can buy the magazine.
From The Register:
Android Magasinet launched in Denmark on 11 November as a bi-monthly paper title
My Danish is pretty weak, so I can't read the original article, but I would imaging it's also available via the Android App Store?
-
Lloyd Atkinson wrote:
One of the many reasons I would never buy anything like an IPhone or IPad, because Apple are such pigs.
Completely agreed!
Lloyd Atkinson wrote:
I would also never buy anything with Android on it, because despite Android being Linux based a lot of devices with Android on are so restrictive, which I would find really irritating.
Root the damn thing! :)
It was ever thus, the Neophiles will always rush out and get 'The Latest Thing' at a high price and with all the inherent faults - Dalek Dave.
I have an IPod Nano, but that's a lot different to the other Apple stuff (eg, it's actually good).
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
Root the damn thing!
I could, but it still wouldn't feel the same as for example, installing Android on it entirely from scratch with no manafacturers crapware on it.
See if you can crack this: fb29a481781fe9b3fb8de57cda45fbef
The unofficial awesome history of Code Project's Bob! "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Since Apple has a true monopoly on the selling
Well, yes, apart from the other places you can buy the magazine.
From The Register:
Android Magasinet launched in Denmark on 11 November as a bi-monthly paper title
My Danish is pretty weak, so I can't read the original article, but I would imaging it's also available via the Android App Store?
Electron Shepherd wrote:
but I would imaging it's also available via the Android App Store?
You do not have to get stuff in the Android Market to get it on an Android device.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
Sorry, but I kind of agree with their stance. They don't want to advertise a rival product on their product.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
Sorry, but I kind of agree with their stance.
As much as I like Apple, censorship like this is wrong - period.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
Are you somehow suffering from the delusion that the remit of bakers and butchers is to DELIVER INFORMATION?
No, I'm not. Are you somehow suffering from the delusion that a company cannot decide what it does and doesn't sell? Apple have made a commercial decision not to sell something. That's their right. It's a commercial decision. It is not censorship.
-
I have to say, if you don't see this as at the very least questionable I find you and I do not have much to talk about. //L
I fail to see the problem. A company decides it doesn't want to sell something. That's their decision to make. So, here's a question for you: Do you think that Apple should be required to sell every single App that is submitted for inclusion in their App Store, or do you think that they should be able to accept some and reject others?
-
I fail to see the problem. A company decides it doesn't want to sell something. That's their decision to make. So, here's a question for you: Do you think that Apple should be required to sell every single App that is submitted for inclusion in their App Store, or do you think that they should be able to accept some and reject others?
Electron Shepherd wrote:
So, here's a question for you: Do you think that Apple should be required to sell every single App that is submitted for inclusion in their App Store, or do you think that they should be able to accept some and reject others?
Apples and Oranges. Pun intended. That argument does not fly. You know it doesn't. I know it doesn't. My grandmother knows it doesn't. And this discussion is at this point officially beneath me. //L
-
Electron Shepherd wrote:
So, here's a question for you: Do you think that Apple should be required to sell every single App that is submitted for inclusion in their App Store, or do you think that they should be able to accept some and reject others?
Apples and Oranges. Pun intended. That argument does not fly. You know it doesn't. I know it doesn't. My grandmother knows it doesn't. And this discussion is at this point officially beneath me. //L
Media2r wrote:
That argument does not fly.
It was a question, not an argument. A question that you didn't answer....
Media2r wrote:
this discussion is at this point officially beneath me.
A measured and considered response, which has no hint of arrogance in it whatsoever.
-
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
They don't want to advertise a rival product on their product.
It's not *their* product, after I buy it, it's MY product, and I decide what I subscribe to in it. If you buy a Samsung TV, would it be left to Samsung to decide if or not to display a Panasonic TV advert in it? I've paid for the TV, so I'll watch whatever I want to in it. [Add] Just noticed someone else said the same thing! [/Add] Surprisingly, they'll get away with all this crap, because apple fans are complete imbeciles.
It was ever thus, the Neophiles will always rush out and get 'The Latest Thing' at a high price and with all the inherent faults - Dalek Dave.
-
I fail to see the problem. A company decides it doesn't want to sell something. That's their decision to make. So, here's a question for you: Do you think that Apple should be required to sell every single App that is submitted for inclusion in their App Store, or do you think that they should be able to accept some and reject others?
Well, I think that Apple should have a clear list of reasons why they can reject an app (I don't know if they have, but I suppose they do...) If the app that I'm making pass all the tests, I can't see why they will reject it (other apart from censorship). I remember that Some time ago, they rejected an email reader, and the reason they gave was that the iPod had an email reader from the beggining and another option could confuse the user... the problem was that the email reader was a lot better that the apple version. If they reject your app, they should explain WHY they are doing it at least... because, as other are saying, it could be easily censorship. If the app could damage the S.O., or is ofensive for some people, or other REAL reason, then of course it should be blocked. I don't know if you need to pay for some kind of membership to develope to the apple marketplace, but if you do then you have more reasons to complain about that censorship. My 2 cents...
-
Media2r wrote:
That argument does not fly.
It was a question, not an argument. A question that you didn't answer....
Media2r wrote:
this discussion is at this point officially beneath me.
A measured and considered response, which has no hint of arrogance in it whatsoever.
Electron Shepherd wrote:
It was a question, not an argument. A question that you didn't answer....
I'm sorry, but the question was too daft to warrant an answer.
Electron Shepherd wrote:
A measured and considered response, which has no hint of arrogance in it whatsoever.
It was measured, it was concidered. I stand by the arrogance. //L
-
Electron Shepherd wrote:
It was a question, not an argument. A question that you didn't answer....
I'm sorry, but the question was too daft to warrant an answer.
Electron Shepherd wrote:
A measured and considered response, which has no hint of arrogance in it whatsoever.
It was measured, it was concidered. I stand by the arrogance. //L
Media2r wrote:
I'm sorry, but the question was too daft to warrant an answer.
I merely asked for your opinion on the subject. As a reminder, the question was "Do you think that Apple should be required to sell every single App that is submitted for inclusion in their App Store, or do you think that they should be able to accept some and reject others?" I suspect the problem is that you can't answer either "Yes" or "No" to that question without invalidating some of your previous statements, which is, of course, precisely why I asked it, and why, I believe, that you have refused to answer it.
Media2r wrote:
I stand by the arrogance.
Duly noted.
-
Media2r wrote:
I'm sorry, but the question was too daft to warrant an answer.
I merely asked for your opinion on the subject. As a reminder, the question was "Do you think that Apple should be required to sell every single App that is submitted for inclusion in their App Store, or do you think that they should be able to accept some and reject others?" I suspect the problem is that you can't answer either "Yes" or "No" to that question without invalidating some of your previous statements, which is, of course, precisely why I asked it, and why, I believe, that you have refused to answer it.
Media2r wrote:
I stand by the arrogance.
Duly noted.
Electron Shepherd wrote:
I merely asked for your opinion on the subject. As a reminder, the question was "Do you think that Apple should be required to sell every single App that is submitted for inclusion in their App Store, or do you think that they should be able to accept some and reject others?" I suspect the problem is that you can't answer either "Yes" or "No" to that question without invalidating some of your previous statements, which is, of course, precisely why I asked it, and why, I believe, that you have refused to answer it.
Given that I have one simple viewpoint on this that I have not and cannot be swayed from, it is unlikely that anyone can loure me into contradiction. Whereas I could give a response to your "question", I MAINTAIN THAT IT IS TOO DAFT TO ANSWER. You and the rest of the drinkers of Steve Jobs' Koolaid are simply too blind to have a discussion with. Substitute "blind" with disability of choice. //L
-
Electron Shepherd wrote:
I merely asked for your opinion on the subject. As a reminder, the question was "Do you think that Apple should be required to sell every single App that is submitted for inclusion in their App Store, or do you think that they should be able to accept some and reject others?" I suspect the problem is that you can't answer either "Yes" or "No" to that question without invalidating some of your previous statements, which is, of course, precisely why I asked it, and why, I believe, that you have refused to answer it.
Given that I have one simple viewpoint on this that I have not and cannot be swayed from, it is unlikely that anyone can loure me into contradiction. Whereas I could give a response to your "question", I MAINTAIN THAT IT IS TOO DAFT TO ANSWER. You and the rest of the drinkers of Steve Jobs' Koolaid are simply too blind to have a discussion with. Substitute "blind" with disability of choice. //L
Media2r wrote:
I MAINTAIN THAT IT IS TOO DAFT TO ANSWER
No. You simply won't answer it because: If you say yes, you open yourself up to saying that all sorts of objectionable content should be allowed. Not a good position to be in. If you say no, you contradict your previous statements. Not a good position to be in. That's why you're not answering it. I't s a simple question. It's just one that you refuse to answer because whatever you answer, it makes you look bad. Mind you, saying that you won't answer a question "because it's too daft" simply confirms my opinion of the matter. So go on. Prove me wrong. A simple yes or no from you is all that is required...
-
Media2r wrote:
I MAINTAIN THAT IT IS TOO DAFT TO ANSWER
No. You simply won't answer it because: If you say yes, you open yourself up to saying that all sorts of objectionable content should be allowed. Not a good position to be in. If you say no, you contradict your previous statements. Not a good position to be in. That's why you're not answering it. I't s a simple question. It's just one that you refuse to answer because whatever you answer, it makes you look bad. Mind you, saying that you won't answer a question "because it's too daft" simply confirms my opinion of the matter. So go on. Prove me wrong. A simple yes or no from you is all that is required...
There's a hat your size in the corner of the classroom. The reason I haven't given you an answer is because your question is of the type "What is your favourite colour, blue or yellow?" or "how heavy is a fish?". There is no clear answer as the only two options you brovide are black and white. I can reveal that I do not believe that Apple should be required to allow all apps that seek approval. I don't think they should be allowed to indiscriminately block apps either. I think they should have a strong REASON for blocking apps, such as "It breaks functionality X" or "We do not allow content that breaks International law". I do not believe Apple should be allowed to block apps simply because they are uncomfortable with competition or because they want you guys to remain in oblivion as for the functionality of competing products. How's that for an answer? Now get back to gargling Jobs' Koolaid. //L
-
There's a hat your size in the corner of the classroom. The reason I haven't given you an answer is because your question is of the type "What is your favourite colour, blue or yellow?" or "how heavy is a fish?". There is no clear answer as the only two options you brovide are black and white. I can reveal that I do not believe that Apple should be required to allow all apps that seek approval. I don't think they should be allowed to indiscriminately block apps either. I think they should have a strong REASON for blocking apps, such as "It breaks functionality X" or "We do not allow content that breaks International law". I do not believe Apple should be allowed to block apps simply because they are uncomfortable with competition or because they want you guys to remain in oblivion as for the functionality of competing products. How's that for an answer? Now get back to gargling Jobs' Koolaid. //L
Media2r wrote:
I do not believe that Apple should be required to allow all apps that seek approval
So the answer to my original question is "No". That's fine. At least I understand your position. There was a clear answer after all. And I agree with you - it's Apple's choice as to what they do and no not make available via a service they provide.
Media2r wrote:
I don't think they should be allowed to indiscriminately block apps either.
Allowed? Presumably you have some idea how this would be enforced? Who would decide what Apple were allowed to do? Are you suggesting some sort of legal framework, requiring a US corporation to make available certain applications, but allowing them to reject others?
Media2r wrote:
Now get back to gargling Jobs' Koolaid
Me? I'm a Microsoft and Windows guy through and through. I wouldn't buy an iPad/iPhone, or develop software for one, precisely because of the capricious nature of those who determine the content of the App store. I don't like the way that Apple run their app approval process at all, but I do strongly believe that it's up to them how they do it. Quotes from Voltaire spring to mind...
-
Media2r wrote:
I do not believe that Apple should be required to allow all apps that seek approval
So the answer to my original question is "No". That's fine. At least I understand your position. There was a clear answer after all. And I agree with you - it's Apple's choice as to what they do and no not make available via a service they provide.
Media2r wrote:
I don't think they should be allowed to indiscriminately block apps either.
Allowed? Presumably you have some idea how this would be enforced? Who would decide what Apple were allowed to do? Are you suggesting some sort of legal framework, requiring a US corporation to make available certain applications, but allowing them to reject others?
Media2r wrote:
Now get back to gargling Jobs' Koolaid
Me? I'm a Microsoft and Windows guy through and through. I wouldn't buy an iPad/iPhone, or develop software for one, precisely because of the capricious nature of those who determine the content of the App store. I don't like the way that Apple run their app approval process at all, but I do strongly believe that it's up to them how they do it. Quotes from Voltaire spring to mind...
Electron Shepherd wrote:
Media2r wrote: I don't think they should be allowed to indiscriminately block apps either. Allowed? Presumably you have some idea how this would be enforced? Who would decide what Apple were allowed to do? Are you suggesting some sort of legal framework, requiring a US corporation to make available certain applications, but allowing them to reject others?
I suggest that being that the iPhone is the defacto standard when it comes to devices of its type (I do not have one, nor do I want one) there would be grounds for antitrust cases similar to the numerous ones Microsoft has been "victim" of.
Electron Shepherd wrote:
Me? I'm a Microsoft and Windows guy through and through.
And still you see no tangents to Microsoft being forced to make IE an optional install, and facilitating for the download of third party browsers by means of including "advertisement" for them in Windows? Apple gets away with murder where no-one else would. I loathe that company more than words can begin to express, to such an extent that I am easily suckered into arguments of low substance and less intelligence as soon as I spot what I conceive to be Apple-fanboyism... Alas, that is my cross to bear. It's a work in progress. As for the quotes from Voltaire bit, that's probably the one point we're in agreement on here. //L