Herr Jobler and Apple
-
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