Really disappointed that Google RDF seems to have led Tim Bray to the extent of lying.
Before Apple there was no mobile Internet. There were only ghetto-ized WAP and .mobi pages for cell phones. Besides Flash, Apple supports (actively in many cases) nearly every internet standard. They are not going about blocking what pages you can view in Mobile Safari.
If you are talking about their App Store, its a different matter. However App Store != Mobile Internet (unless he knows something about its success that even we dont).
Although, I think the real reason he said Mobile Internet is because "Apple Stifles Mobile Internet" makes them sound far more evil than "Apple Restricts Content Sold In Their Stores" or "Apple Vets Applications Before Releasing Them On Their Phones".
It's not just flash Apple doesn't support. There's also no way to play Silverlight content, or WMV content. WMV is used extensively on sites such as IGN and GameTrailers for example.
Mobile Safari also lacks support for any plugins, so no Stumble, Adblock, XMarks, or any of the popular extentions out there.
Some sites are also blocked, it's rare admitedly, but here in the UK the BBC's hugely popular iPlayer site is blocked in Mobile Safari unless the iPhone is using wi-fi.
I believe it's also disingenuous to pretend that Apple's very strict censorship of the app store does not equal internet censorship. The lack of flash/silverlight in Safari means the app store is the only way to achieve things which would otherwise be possible through a browser.
I hope that the success of Android, and presumably Windows Phone (the demos at Mix looked great btw) will force Apple to move to an open, uncensored model. I thought walled gardens went out of fashion with AOL, but sadly it seems not.
I agree that his gripe probably has nothing to do with the censorship and I agree that putting the consumer first is the way to go, but I don't see how you can argue that Apple has done this considering that self-same censorship issue.
Censorship in the manner in which Apple has employed it in this case, is exactly the thing you are arguing they "don't do." It's putting Apple's personal ideology ahead of the needs and desires of the consumers.
Sure some consumers (supposedly) complained about the risque stuff (I don't actually believe that but let's go with accepted wisdom), but if Apple's consumers got a vote, we all know the censorship would be immediately lifted. The censorship isn't about what the consumers of Apple's products and services want, it's a PR move from Apple to defuse a vocal minority.
I'm agreeing with what you are saying about Apple in general, but this censorship issue is a whole new ballgame for them. They are doing something they have never done before and acting very un-Apple-like in the process.
I think you're confused here. Apple is not censoring content for the consumer - you can still get every web page from every pornographic site on the planet on your iPhone. Any developer can still make a web app to do anything, and the iPhone will run it.
All Apple has done is restrict what content Apple itself offers in its store. Developers are complaining because they can't piggyback on Apple's popularity to sell anything they want on iTunes.
"The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet's future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what," Bray wrote. "It's a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it! AAAAAAAIIIIIGGHHHHHH!"
He said while pumping his fist in the air while playing a game on the Nintendo Wii - another walled garden that has restricted content for over 25 years.
Oh how I wish for a world of unrestricted content and malware like the Playstation 3 or the Xbox. Oh - wait - they're closed too - well gosh darn by qwinky-dink - when did THAT happen (um - since forever). Oh but Apple does the same - look the f--k out! Holy CRAP! Run for the hills. Or - don't buy it, and get on with your nerd-life.
Hey competition is good. The malware-world of windows has pushed more people to the Mac than ever before. I wish him the best of luck in creating another user-nightmare experience in mobile communications to push even more people to Apple by the droves.
Good luck and god speed - and don't forget to send copies of those Android SDKs to China so they can hack even more of Google's properties. Can't wait.
I think you vastly underestimate the extent to which Apple's customers want that type of "censorship." Two big apple customers are school districts and parents. Right there you've got a sizable chunk of people who are very much in favor of controlling risque stuff. Add to them all of the prudes, feminists, and religious conservatives, and you're talking about a pretty sizable chunk of people.
Also, I seriously doubt that censoring risque material has anything to do with any "personal ideology" of anyone at Apple. Steve Jobs has repeatedly talked about how great it is to take LSD -- I really don't see him as a big time prude. You may not like this type of "censorship", but it's totally customer-driven.
Your not making much sense here. Also you don't know much about feminism if you think "feminists" equate with the religious right in terms of the appeal of censorship, but I guess that shows what kind of person you are.
The point about this recent censorship is that the app store already has controls for adult content etc. There is no logical/rational reason for then saying on top of that, that such mild things as girls in underwear or bikinis are also completely banned. Add to that, the fact that the ban is not universal anyway and targeted only at developers that don't pay as much money to Apple as those that are allowed to display this stuff and it just makes no sense at all.
Lastly, Steve Jobs, like a lot of people has taken LSD. Your assertion that he "repeatedly talks about how great (it is)" is just bunk.
Here's a tip. It's just a job. You might choose to eat the same breakfast forever but some people like new challenges.
Burning bridges is also a great career move. I challenge you to call all your former employers and tell them they suck and you don't need their stinking references anymore.
I agree. But I suspect that his real gripe here has nothing to do with "censorship" of controversial or sexual content. This sounds like a cover for an open-source type ideology. He's not concerned about consumer freedom, he's concerned about developer freedom. Those aren't exactly the same things.
I think Apple has the right approach, because they are putting consumer experience above ideology (or, perhaps consumer experience is their ideology).
When I read what Bray had to say the first image that popped into my head was of the tank guy at Tienanmen Square. Four tanks in China, with Google logos prominently displayed on them, ready to run a guy down in the street. Google, although protesting now that they have been harmed, has been working with the authoritarian Chinese government to censor things on the web for years (not to mentions what information they collect on all of us.
(I did a Photoshop rendition of it but sorry, I have no website I can share it with you from.)
This Google+Android vs Apple+iPhone battle is fine with me. It will encourage all hackers, malware writers and criminals to focus on Android devices and leave iPhone alone, just as they focus on Windows rather than Mac OS X operating systems. And Google's naive approach to multi-tasking will make their job really easy. Good one Google - the new Microsoft!
. . . Lastly, Steve Jobs, like a lot of people has taken LSD. Your assertion that he "repeatedly talks about how great (it is)" is just bunk.
Although he has said more than once that it was one of the top 2 or 3 most important things he ever did in his life. And he has recently shown interest in a foundation that was looking to continue research on LSD.
The funny part is that to anyone outside of the USA (or at least those of us that don't work at Disney), the idea of putting it as "pornography, obscenity, nudity or sexual activity" is such a joke.
"Pornography" and "obscenity" are the same thing, "nudity" has nothing to do with pornography (or even "sexual activity" half the time), and the term "sexual activity" could cover completely non-pornographic science stuff at the same time as it's basically just another pseudonym for "pornography" again.
It's almost as bad as the way Americans talk about "socialism, communism, and fascism" in the same sentence (Obama is all three for instance), when in fact these are three completely different things, two of them being complete opposites.
Thanks.
BTW the capability totally exists to do porn in a discrete way in an adult app store. This will probably be the final hiding place for Flash in 5 years.
I agree about equating the isms you mentioned. Most people who equate these things have a pretty low-resolution concept of what they mean.
If you want to cause Google some grief, download Firefox and use the TrackMeNot randomized (but observable) search submission plug-in and the Ghostery web bug anti-tracking plug-in.
They are harmless, but adds noise to their system of data collectors, tell all your friends...
Thanks for the heads up. I just installed Ghostery, and whaddyaknow... every time I click through to the next page here on Appleinsider... it blocks Google Adsense and Google Analytics!
But it must be the buyer who decides what he wants to seeand read, not Apple. I will not buy an iPad before it is clear that the press can publish what they want to publish through their apps!
Does it not concern you that the press often publishes lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and pornographic images, all under the banner of 'free speech'? Do you not understand that some companies would not like to have their products associated with this type of cheap, amoral, opportunistic media? Where does the balance between 'individual freedom' and 'social responsibility' lie?
Perhaps it is time to have 2 separate Internets - one for the scum-bags and criminals of this world where they can continue to pursue their criminal activities and moral decay, and another for the rest of us who appreciate the enormous opportunities opened up by this technology.
Before Apple there was no mobile Internet. There were only ghetto-ized WAP and .mobi pages for cell phones. Besides Flash, Apple supports (actively in many cases) nearly every internet standard. They are not going about blocking what pages you can view in Mobile Safari.
Actually you are wrong, there were lots of mobile devices around before the iPhone that could view full webpages quite happily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44
If you are talking about their App Store, its a different matter. However App Store != Mobile Internet (unless he knows something about its success that even we dont).
Also remember, Mobile Internet != WWW, there are a lot of internet services other than WWW.
[QUOTE=hypermark;1591158]Thanks, though, I would say that in fairness to Google, one of the first Verizon phones using Android has Bing as the default search engine, which speaks to the degree of heavy-handedness Google is NOT employing.
QUOTE: Imagine Apple allowing an iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad to ship with doubleTwist as the default media library management app vs. iTunes. Never, right?
No Verizon Android phones have BING on them. You may be thinking of updates recently with Windows or Blackberry, (you can remove these too). Android on Verizon is Android.
Maybe your confusing the motorola black flip with At&t that has YAHOO as the search engine, not open access or third party software allowed. BING may be closer to your next iphone then you can imagine.
Double twist for free bless them, syncs my former blackberry to my Mac & for many users that want to use their preferred computing device to their preferred choice of device. Many, including some apple employees in cupertino i know would love the iphone on not a second rate carrier in the untied states but until then.....
I would love to see Apple, which did inspire me in it's former years to take on some of these practices such as a open access platform,(there is always hacking, remember they didn't like apps at first) working with others devices in using their computers, & selling that phone with a multiple of telecoms.....Kinda why Android's doing well.
Comments
Really disappointed that Google RDF seems to have led Tim Bray to the extent of lying.
Before Apple there was no mobile Internet. There were only ghetto-ized WAP and .mobi pages for cell phones. Besides Flash, Apple supports (actively in many cases) nearly every internet standard. They are not going about blocking what pages you can view in Mobile Safari.
If you are talking about their App Store, its a different matter. However App Store != Mobile Internet (unless he knows something about its success that even we dont).
Although, I think the real reason he said Mobile Internet is because "Apple Stifles Mobile Internet" makes them sound far more evil than "Apple Restricts Content Sold In Their Stores" or "Apple Vets Applications Before Releasing Them On Their Phones".
It's not just flash Apple doesn't support. There's also no way to play Silverlight content, or WMV content. WMV is used extensively on sites such as IGN and GameTrailers for example.
Mobile Safari also lacks support for any plugins, so no Stumble, Adblock, XMarks, or any of the popular extentions out there.
Some sites are also blocked, it's rare admitedly, but here in the UK the BBC's hugely popular iPlayer site is blocked in Mobile Safari unless the iPhone is using wi-fi.
I believe it's also disingenuous to pretend that Apple's very strict censorship of the app store does not equal internet censorship. The lack of flash/silverlight in Safari means the app store is the only way to achieve things which would otherwise be possible through a browser.
I hope that the success of Android, and presumably Windows Phone (the demos at Mix looked great btw) will force Apple to move to an open, uncensored model. I thought walled gardens went out of fashion with AOL, but sadly it seems not.
I agree that his gripe probably has nothing to do with the censorship and I agree that putting the consumer first is the way to go, but I don't see how you can argue that Apple has done this considering that self-same censorship issue.
Censorship in the manner in which Apple has employed it in this case, is exactly the thing you are arguing they "don't do." It's putting Apple's personal ideology ahead of the needs and desires of the consumers.
Sure some consumers (supposedly) complained about the risque stuff (I don't actually believe that but let's go with accepted wisdom), but if Apple's consumers got a vote, we all know the censorship would be immediately lifted. The censorship isn't about what the consumers of Apple's products and services want, it's a PR move from Apple to defuse a vocal minority.
I'm agreeing with what you are saying about Apple in general, but this censorship issue is a whole new ballgame for them. They are doing something they have never done before and acting very un-Apple-like in the process.
I think you're confused here. Apple is not censoring content for the consumer - you can still get every web page from every pornographic site on the planet on your iPhone. Any developer can still make a web app to do anything, and the iPhone will run it.
All Apple has done is restrict what content Apple itself offers in its store. Developers are complaining because they can't piggyback on Apple's popularity to sell anything they want on iTunes.
"The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet's future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what," Bray wrote. "It's a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it! AAAAAAAIIIIIGGHHHHHH!"
He said while pumping his fist in the air while playing a game on the Nintendo Wii - another walled garden that has restricted content for over 25 years.
Oh how I wish for a world of unrestricted content and malware like the Playstation 3 or the Xbox. Oh - wait - they're closed too - well gosh darn by qwinky-dink - when did THAT happen (um - since forever). Oh but Apple does the same - look the f--k out! Holy CRAP! Run for the hills. Or - don't buy it, and get on with your nerd-life.
Hey competition is good. The malware-world of windows has pushed more people to the Mac than ever before. I wish him the best of luck in creating another user-nightmare experience in mobile communications to push even more people to Apple by the droves.
Good luck and god speed - and don't forget to send copies of those Android SDKs to China so they can hack even more of Google's properties. Can't wait.
I think you vastly underestimate the extent to which Apple's customers want that type of "censorship." Two big apple customers are school districts and parents. Right there you've got a sizable chunk of people who are very much in favor of controlling risque stuff. Add to them all of the prudes, feminists, and religious conservatives, and you're talking about a pretty sizable chunk of people.
Also, I seriously doubt that censoring risque material has anything to do with any "personal ideology" of anyone at Apple. Steve Jobs has repeatedly talked about how great it is to take LSD -- I really don't see him as a big time prude. You may not like this type of "censorship", but it's totally customer-driven.
Your not making much sense here. Also you don't know much about feminism if you think "feminists" equate with the religious right in terms of the appeal of censorship, but I guess that shows what kind of person you are.
The point about this recent censorship is that the app store already has controls for adult content etc. There is no logical/rational reason for then saying on top of that, that such mild things as girls in underwear or bikinis are also completely banned. Add to that, the fact that the ban is not universal anyway and targeted only at developers that don't pay as much money to Apple as those that are allowed to display this stuff and it just makes no sense at all.
Lastly, Steve Jobs, like a lot of people has taken LSD. Your assertion that he "repeatedly talks about how great (it is)" is just bunk.
Here's a tip. It's just a job. You might choose to eat the same breakfast forever but some people like new challenges.
Burning bridges is also a great career move. I challenge you to call all your former employers and tell them they suck and you don't need their stinking references anymore.
Tell me how that works out for ya.
Apple is a company, not a government. They are free to do what they wish with their own products.
I don't see them complaining about not being able to stick their penis in Tickle me Elmo.
So who is the winner here?
Microsoft?
In a way, YES.
The prospect of MS's two deadliest competitors declaring open war on each-other is nothing short of a miracle for Redmond.
Even _I_ would be monkey dancing if I were in Ballmer's shoes.
The customer will be a winner... for a while. Like any war, you don't want to be on the side that ultimately loses.
Bray wrote. "It's a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers.
Tim needs a mini-lesson in patent law. All of Google does, for that matter. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
No company, no matter how big, is too big to fail at infringing another's intellectual property rights.
I will not buy an iPad before it is clear that the press can publish what they want to publish through their apps!
But that is like Windows. It is better too have Apple decide.
I don't see them complaining about not being able to stick their penis in Tickle me Elmo.
That should have been my line dammit. MY LINE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqY-QnUp6s
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Well ... GREAT - there goes my cocaine habit! You BASTARD!
I agree. But I suspect that his real gripe here has nothing to do with "censorship" of controversial or sexual content. This sounds like a cover for an open-source type ideology. He's not concerned about consumer freedom, he's concerned about developer freedom. Those aren't exactly the same things.
I think Apple has the right approach, because they are putting consumer experience above ideology (or, perhaps consumer experience is their ideology).
When I read what Bray had to say the first image that popped into my head was of the tank guy at Tienanmen Square. Four tanks in China, with Google logos prominently displayed on them, ready to run a guy down in the street. Google, although protesting now that they have been harmed, has been working with the authoritarian Chinese government to censor things on the web for years (not to mentions what information they collect on all of us.
(I did a Photoshop rendition of it but sorry, I have no website I can share it with you from.)
To this point, notice bullet number 7.
http://www.android.com/market/terms/...nt-policy.html
Just as Disney-fied it appears....
What color is Google's kettle? Heh - first day on the job and I smell a smackdown from the PR group for this tightly wound new-hire.
. . . Lastly, Steve Jobs, like a lot of people has taken LSD. Your assertion that he "repeatedly talks about how great (it is)" is just bunk.
Although he has said more than once that it was one of the top 2 or 3 most important things he ever did in his life. And he has recently shown interest in a foundation that was looking to continue research on LSD.
Remember this article:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...omments/21744/
My point: He may not constantly recommend it for everyone, but he does seem to consider it to have been an important experience in his life.
Yep.
The funny part is that to anyone outside of the USA (or at least those of us that don't work at Disney), the idea of putting it as "pornography, obscenity, nudity or sexual activity" is such a joke.
"Pornography" and "obscenity" are the same thing, "nudity" has nothing to do with pornography (or even "sexual activity" half the time), and the term "sexual activity" could cover completely non-pornographic science stuff at the same time as it's basically just another pseudonym for "pornography" again.
It's almost as bad as the way Americans talk about "socialism, communism, and fascism" in the same sentence (Obama is all three for instance), when in fact these are three completely different things, two of them being complete opposites.
Thanks.
BTW the capability totally exists to do porn in a discrete way in an adult app store. This will probably be the final hiding place for Flash in 5 years.
I agree about equating the isms you mentioned. Most people who equate these things have a pretty low-resolution concept of what they mean.
If you want to cause Google some grief, download Firefox and use the TrackMeNot randomized (but observable) search submission plug-in and the Ghostery web bug anti-tracking plug-in.
They are harmless, but adds noise to their system of data collectors, tell all your friends...
Thanks for the heads up. I just installed Ghostery, and whaddyaknow... every time I click through to the next page here on Appleinsider... it blocks Google Adsense and Google Analytics!
Oh the irony.
But it must be the buyer who decides what he wants to seeand read, not Apple. I will not buy an iPad before it is clear that the press can publish what they want to publish through their apps!
Does it not concern you that the press often publishes lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and pornographic images, all under the banner of 'free speech'? Do you not understand that some companies would not like to have their products associated with this type of cheap, amoral, opportunistic media? Where does the balance between 'individual freedom' and 'social responsibility' lie?
Perhaps it is time to have 2 separate Internets - one for the scum-bags and criminals of this world where they can continue to pursue their criminal activities and moral decay, and another for the rest of us who appreciate the enormous opportunities opened up by this technology.
Before Apple there was no mobile Internet. There were only ghetto-ized WAP and .mobi pages for cell phones. Besides Flash, Apple supports (actively in many cases) nearly every internet standard. They are not going about blocking what pages you can view in Mobile Safari.
Actually you are wrong, there were lots of mobile devices around before the iPhone that could view full webpages quite happily.
If you are talking about their App Store, its a different matter. However App Store != Mobile Internet (unless he knows something about its success that even we dont).
Also remember, Mobile Internet != WWW, there are a lot of internet services other than WWW.
QUOTE: Imagine Apple allowing an iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad to ship with doubleTwist as the default media library management app vs. iTunes. Never, right?
No Verizon Android phones have BING on them. You may be thinking of updates recently with Windows or Blackberry, (you can remove these too). Android on Verizon is Android.
Maybe your confusing the motorola black flip with At&t that has YAHOO as the search engine, not open access or third party software allowed. BING may be closer to your next iphone then you can imagine.
Double twist for free bless them, syncs my former blackberry to my Mac & for many users that want to use their preferred computing device to their preferred choice of device. Many, including some apple employees in cupertino i know would love the iphone on not a second rate carrier in the untied states but until then.....
I would love to see Apple, which did inspire me in it's former years to take on some of these practices such as a open access platform,(there is always hacking, remember they didn't like apps at first) working with others devices in using their computers, & selling that phone with a multiple of telecoms.....Kinda why Android's doing well.