Apple's Schiller personally responds to App Store criticism

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 131
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    In that book they remove words from the language to stop people having subversive thoughts.



    Who was the "they" in this statement?
  • Reply 42 of 131
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    I'd take a Porn App over a Fart App any day. Ooops - did I offend anyone?
  • Reply 43 of 131
    roos24roos24 Posts: 170member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    That's a business decision - they don't want to piss off a large group of vocal, connected people to make a few $ off of pron. You saw the huge public freak out when there were topless women - it was all over the front page of CNN. Compare that to this (and even Google voice) and the only people talking about it are the tech community - Apple knows what they are doing and it's best to just not get involved in the "is pron ok" argument. Just avoid it all together, it's a smart business move.



    I second that.
  • Reply 44 of 131
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Censorship is an official act, by definition. A censor is an official empowered to suppress. Apple is not official and consequently it does not posses the power to censor. The use of the word in this context is hyperbolic (i.e., an exaggeration).



    Not that anyone much cares about what words mean anymore. But then, that was the irony I was pointing out here.



    Well that's the noun (your reference) but the transitive verb is what I quoted which I think does apply in this case. I will agree that the noun is referencing an official and doesn't apply in this regard.
  • Reply 45 of 131
    hezekiahbhezekiahb Posts: 448member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Why did Apple hire the bejesus police in the first place? Just put in place a check off that you're over 18 and be done with it. Who cares? There will always be something to offend someone these days regardless.



    Some parents want there to be more than a checkbox to keep their kids from downloading offensive material. To a teen a checkbox is more like a "CLICK HERE NOW!"
  • Reply 46 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post


    I can see both sides of the argument, free speech vs. the slippery slope to complete censorship. The answer, as far as the internet is concerned, is have all Porn sites use a .porn suffix in their URL address like .com, .org, .edu, etc., and then businesses, libraries, parents, etc., can just set their computers/browsers not to accept anything from a .porn URL and people who want porn can set it to accept URL's with a .porn suffix.



    Am I missing something here?



    And we all know that those nasty little viruses on Windows come from those porn sites
  • Reply 47 of 131
    virgil-tb2virgil-tb2 Posts: 1,416member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post


    Honestly, does anyone really give a s**t about this dictionary program? I mean come on.



    What I really wanted to hear him respond to was the Google Voice rejection. That is what EVERYONE is upset about, yet Apple finally responds when it relates to some POS dictionary.



    Now the FCC is investigating, you probably won't hear a peep from either side on that issue, nor should you expect to.
  • Reply 48 of 131
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post


    Some parents want there to be more than a checkbox to keep their kids from downloading offensive material. To a teen a checkbox is more like a "CLICK HERE NOW!"



    Some parents need to teach their kids the meaning of "NO".
  • Reply 49 of 131
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Who was the "they" in this statement?



    The government of Oceania.
  • Reply 50 of 131
    virgil-tb2virgil-tb2 Posts: 1,416member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wobegon View Post


    Well, what would you prefer them to do? Reject porn apps outright (which they do now because those clearly do violate Apple's App Store guidelines) OR approve them and then put black bars on all the naughty parts after the fact? ...



    Not that I like defending teckstud, but he has a point in that it makes no sense to censor as well as put the rating on it.



    In fact, as Schiller says this is not what they are doing in this case, but in the case of other apps they do seem to be doing this. Some are censored, some are rated, and some are banned outright (at least that's how it seems on the face of it).



    This makes no sense. Either you:



    1) censor everything, or

    2) allow people to read and see everything, or

    3) allow everything but under a system of rating controls.



    Mixing all three up makes no sense at all. Especially doing 1 or 2 while also doing 3, which appears to be what Apple is doing right now.
  • Reply 51 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MassMacMini View Post


    And we all know that those nasty little viruses on Windows come from those porn sites



    An eSTD?
  • Reply 52 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    You do realize that that is exactly what Apple did do. If you read Gruber's account and then Shiller's response there is NO conflict between the two accounts. The published letter of rejection from apples states exactly what Shiller stated and there is nothing in Gruber's article to indicate that Apple told them to censor the dictionary, just to wait until 3.0 to allow the 17+ check box.



    I think there is.



    1. The specific words that the developer claims Apple's reviewer sent him included 'regular' slang, not just Phil's so-called urban slang. So Phil is at least shading the truth that Apple only rejected the app because of 'new' swear words. And what the hell is the difference between regular swear word and 'urban slang', from a moral perspective? It's somehow more offensive to a prude?



    2. It is ridiculous for Apple to just tell ONE developer that he should wait an indefinite length of time before he can sell his app, while all his competitors are already present and selling on the app store. The reviewer gave the developer the choice, either don't sell your app for an indefinite period of time OR censor the swear words out of your app (and provided a partial list). Phil can say, well, we were going to release OS 3 only a couple of weeks later, so he should have waited, except Apple wouldn't tell him that, when the app was rejected.
  • Reply 53 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stonefree View Post


    The problem isn't with the original poster's comments, but the fact that you're so easily offended. What's wrong with "Jesus police"? The censorship is clearly aimed at appeasing Christians, since no one else is offended by the so called "vulgar" words.



    So only Christians are interested in protecting the innocence of children and maintaining any level of societal decency?



    Tell me you're kidding and that you're really not too numb to realize what's wrong with "Jesus police".
  • Reply 54 of 131
    virgil-tb2virgil-tb2 Posts: 1,416member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz View Post


    Wow, bad move.



    "it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable,"



    Bad word choice. Once you say reasonable, you admit that you are making the call on what to approve and what not to based on your own definition of reasonable. ...]



    True enough, but that doesn't mean the statement itself is not also true. There are legal definitions that hinge on basic "reasonableness" and they seem to work fine.



    Personally, I am completely against censorship of any kind at all, and being an older person there isn't much I haven't seen or heard already in this world that could shock me, but ...



    Some of the things that were referenced in the dictionary in question were (to my reasonable and very open minded brain), both shocking and upsetting. I still think that they should be allowed and don't personally believe even in rating systems, but yeah, they are still shocking and only a tiny minority of folks anywhere on the planet would not think so IMO.
  • Reply 55 of 131
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    Well that's the noun (your reference) but the transitive verb is what I quoted which I think does apply in this case. I will agree that the noun is referencing an official and doesn't apply in this regard.



    A censor is one who censors. It's an official act done by an official person. Verb or noun, same concept.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    The government of Oceania.



    Exactly. Last I checked, Apple was not the government. I think it's odd to confuse the two. One has the power to censor, the other does not.



    Apple can choose not to carry or transmit or endorse certain ideas, but that does not make them censors. You can choose to do the same thing as an individual, but that does not make you a censor either. They are two very different concepts being slopped together into one for dramatic affect.
  • Reply 56 of 131
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    You're not thinking outside the box. You should prefer to have an app that streams porn from all your favorite free porn sites for free.



    It's always pretty funny when me and my friends are going on a long drive, and out of nowhere you just hear some really hardcore porn coming from my phone.



    Seriously though, wouldn't you like to at least have the choice to do such a thing? Why should anyone have the right to tell you what you can and can't do with something you paid for (as long as it's not illegal)?



    I know a lot of people think porn isn't that big of a deal, and not something iphone owners care about, nor would influence business in any way, but let me ask you this: Had porn chosen HD DVD, would Bluray had done so well?



    You're not being realistic. iTunes has unrated movies, but they never have and likely never will carry adult entertainment. If you don't like that, don't use iTunes and/or don't buy an iPhone. No one's forcing you to, but that goes without saying.



    Secondly, Apple hasn't gone after individuals who jailbreak their phones, so there's that if you need a dedicated porn app.



    Third, to my knowledge, ALL apps rejected for 'objectionable content' thus far (which included Ninjawords) were rejected before iPhone OS 3.0 ushered in a ratings system, which protects Apple and developers from the FCC or frivolous lawsuits. That's a more significant detail than most are giving it credit for.



    All that being said, in situations where apps simply embed a web browser or access web content (as in the case of Ninjawords), Apple should seriously consider taking a page from the ESRB's handbook with a Online Interactions Not Rated by the App Store disclaimer.



    That would be easier for app reviewers, easier for developers, and easier for fearful parents who could disable those built-in browsers along with Safari, simultaneously, all without attributing the often negative connotations associated with a 17+ rating to otherwise non-objectionable apps.
  • Reply 57 of 131
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Hey, using Safari, which comes standard on the touch, I read the links in this article, which contain the "bad" words.

    Why doesn't Apple sell the iPod touch/iPhone with a parental rating of +17 years?
  • Reply 58 of 131
    lochiaslochias Posts: 83member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    Apple said months back that 95% of submitted apps get approved within 1 week. Right now their developers website says 98% of the apps get approved in 14 days. They need to to seriously fix that otherwise by next year it will take month!!



    So it takes a week for 95% and another week for an additional 3%.
  • Reply 59 of 131
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,616member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    Hey, using Safari, which comes standard on the touch, I read the links in this article, which contain the "bad" words.

    Why doesn't Apple sell the iPod touch/iPhone with a parental rating of +17 years?



    You are obviously trying to be clever but failing miserably. The iPhone and iPod touch have built in parental controls which can be used to block access to safari etc.
  • Reply 60 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post


    I can see both sides of the argument, free speech vs. the slippery slope to complete censorship. The answer, as far as the internet is concerned, is have all Porn sites use a .porn suffix in their URL address like .com, .org, .edu, etc., and then businesses, libraries, parents, etc., can just set their Servers/IP's/computers/iPhones/browsers/firewalls/email clients not to accept anything from a .porn URL and people who want porn can set it to accept URL's with a .porn suffix.



    Am I missing something here?



    Well I liked my post so much and because I agree with most of what I said, I have to reply to it....



    We have become such a polarized society (USA) that their is no room for logical answers to the problems that confront us. It really is "this all or nothing" and "winner take all" attitude that so consumes normal discourse and we end up with Rush on one side of an issue and Keith Oberman on the other side and both come across as discordant oafs.



    In this issue I think the Dictionary people are wrong and should have followed Apple's original direction and avoided the brouhaha altogether and we could have been discussing real important issues like whether or not the new Tablet will have a glossy screen!
Sign In or Register to comment.