this is all censorship. Apple forced me to buy the iphone, ipod touch and ipad. Then the corporate thieves forced me to develop software that conforms to its unholy standards.
I just want to write programs that crash, infect customers' devices, steal banking information and collect user data on children.
Yes, I fully expect the haters to criticize Apple yet again for anything they do, including clarifying the App Store policies and relaxing restrictions on tools. The haters will probably say that you can have as many Fart apps as you want on Android, and that Google doesn't give a rats ass about stupid things that end users don't care about, like their privacy, security, user experience. Google wants to impress the 1337 haX0rz by saying their haX0r values (particularly freedom) is more important than anything, right?
Criticize apple, no, but ask for some intellectual consistency from posters, maybe.
It was not too long ago that many on the board lauded Apple's change in the Developer's Agreement banning 3rd party tools, particularly on the grounds that it would result in bad code and degrade the user experience. So, at the time, 3rd party tools = bad. Now however, 3rd party tools = ok, and people are saying this is a great thing that Apple has loosened up and allowed some 3rd party tools.
As to no more fart apps, I think it is a great thing. OTOH, it is an admission that many of the apps are crappy, otherwise Apple would not have been so explicity. The issue is, that many claim that one of the advantages of the iPhone are the 250,000 apps in the app store. However, if a large percentage of them are "fart apps" then that number is misleading in the sense that there are really fewer "good apps"
... It was not too long ago that many on the board lauded Apple's change in the Developer's Agreement banning 3rd party tools, particularly on the grounds that it would result in bad code and degrade the user experience. So, at the time, 3rd party tools = bad. Now however, 3rd party tools = ok, and people are saying this is a great thing that Apple has loosened up and allowed some 3rd party tools. ...
Either you haven't been reading what's been said on these forums, or you don't understand it. third-party tools, specifically meta-platforms (like Flash) are always harmful. That Apple had them shoved down their throat by the FTC doesn't make them any less so.
I hope this means Apple will work closely with developers of existing fart apps to make them offer the best possible experience. Maybe that?s why Phillip Shoemaker was hired, as a new liaison for collaborative fart development? The future is coming!!
Animals have rules too. It's just that they need very few. Animals would never think of doing to each other what we humans do to each other, so they really only need a couple of unspoken () rules.
Criticize apple, no, but ask for some intellectual consistency from posters, maybe.
It was not too long ago that many on the board lauded Apple's change in the Developer's Agreement banning 3rd party tools,
Yes but to be clear, they never actually said you can't use a 3rd party tool. Because the tool was never the issue. It was the code the tool produced. What they banned was any app that wasn't top to bottom the approved code. Tools like Adobe's weren't converting Flash language to Xcode or whatever. They were merely taking the Flash code and adding a coat of translation on top, which is more taxing to the system (which doesn't have a stellar processor or tons of RAM) and creating the potential for bricked apps if Apple changed something in iOS, at least until Adobe redid the translators. If the convertor had actually converted, there would be no issue.
I always find these threads amusing... with two fairly distinct groups emerging every time.
1) I should be free to develop my crap apps and sell my crap apps to get rich anyway I please. Apple is run by a bunch of dictators who want to control your mind take away your freedom (throw in mom, apple pie, bill of rights, the flag, puppies)... and anyway Android is way better.
2) Steve said flash is bad, so flash is bad... Steve said no more fart apps, so no more fart apps... Steve doesn't like porn, so no porn... Steve says Apple is best, so Apple is best... etc.
There is a third group: people who feel the need to express that they believe they are superior to the people in the other two groups.
It's worth noting that many many of the apps that were banned for being "sexy" don't fall under this guideline at all. The key words in this definition are "explicit descriptions" (presumably literary or photographic), which were never in most of the apps that were rejected. There is no way you can realistically define a picture of a woman in her bikini (or even in her underwear) "explicit" in any way.
Apple seems to be hanging on the simple determination of prurience here. If it makes you horny as opposed to happy, then it's porn to them. The part they are ignoring and leaving off is that Webster's only defines material that is "explicit" as pornographic (if it also makes you horny instead of happy).
As dreary as these apps are, "Girls in Bikinis" still doesn't qualify as "porn," by Apple's own guidelines.
You need a course in logic. Porn apps are banned (as defined by Webster's dictionary). Nowhere does it say those are the ONLY apps rejected for being "sexy".
I actually think what developers need to think is, "if this were a piece of software shipping on a DVD (or CD, or cassette if we want to go back through the ages), in a box, would Target carry it?" If the answer to that is no, it probably won't be ending up in the app store.
Apple are clearly running the app store like a brick and mortar store, in terms of they have "buyers" deciding what's going to be in the store. I bet Target have guidlines to not stock games that are in effect pornographic and that was never an issue for them.
It was not too long ago that many on the board lauded Apple's change in the Developer's Agreement banning 3rd party tools, particularly on the grounds that it would result in bad code and degrade the user experience. So, at the time, 3rd party tools = bad. Now however, 3rd party tools = ok, and people are saying this is a great thing that Apple has loosened up and allowed some 3rd party tools.
Did you see the Citadel game demo shown at the iPod Touch unveiling? That's exactly the sort of app that the previous Agreement banned. MANY (probably most) games are developed on top of game-engines like that. Perhaps the Epic guys pointed this out to Apple.
Either you haven't been reading what's been said on these forums, or you don't understand it. third-party tools, specifically meta-platforms (like Flash) are always harmful. That Apple had them shoved down their throat by the FTC doesn't make them any less so.
I wasn't referring to flash more to the fact that many people felt that Unity was blocked
Criticize apple, no, but ask for some intellectual consistency from posters, maybe.
It was not too long ago that many on the board lauded Apple's change in the Developer's Agreement banning 3rd party tools, particularly on the grounds that it would result in bad code and degrade the user experience. So, at the time, 3rd party tools = bad. Now however, 3rd party tools = ok, and people are saying this is a great thing that Apple has loosened up and allowed some 3rd party tools.
As to no more fart apps, I think it is a great thing. OTOH, it is an admission that many of the apps are crappy, otherwise Apple would not have been so explicity. The issue is, that many claim that one of the advantages of the iPhone are the 250,000 apps in the app store. However, if a large percentage of them are "fart apps" then that number is misleading in the sense that there are really fewer "good apps"
You are being rather pedantic about opinions expressed here aren't you? In going back about this topic previously, the usual commenters (including the ones on my ignore list ) have been rather consistent, or in cases where they changed their position - stated why. Just because you have a variety of opinions on a "board" or more appropriately "thread", some of which are in support does not categorically make the thread unmitigated in support of one policy or another. You do the posters here a serious disservice by painting with too broad a brush. That being said I agree substantially with the rest of your post.
Yes but to be clear, they never actually said you can't use a 3rd party tool. Because the tool was never the issue. It was the code the tool produced. What they banned was any app that wasn't top to bottom the approved code. Tools like Adobe's weren't converting Flash language to Xcode or whatever. They were merely taking the Flash code and adding a coat of translation on top, which is more taxing to the system (which doesn't have a stellar processor or tons of RAM) and creating the potential for bricked apps if Apple changed something in iOS, at least until Adobe redid the translators. If the convertor had actually converted, there would be no issue.
Again the issue is not flash, but game engines like Unity.
It's worth noting that many many of the apps that were banned for being "sexy" don't fall under this guideline at all. The key words in this definition are "explicit descriptions" (presumably literary or photographic), which were never in most of the apps that were rejected. There is no way you can realistically define a picture of a woman in her bikini (or even in her underwear) "explicit" in any way.
Apple seems to be hanging on the simple determination of prurience here. If it makes you horny as opposed to happy, then it's porn to them. The part they are ignoring and leaving off is that Webster's only defines material that is "explicit" as pornographic (if it also makes you horny instead of happy).
As dreary as these apps are, "Girls in Bikinis" still doesn't qualify as "porn," by Apple's own guidelines.
Would you like to list those, "Girls in Bikinis" apps that are banned? You do know they were reinstated a couple of days later, right?
This is all censorship. Apple forced me to buy the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. Then the corporate thieves forced me to develop software that conforms to its unholy standards.
I just want to write programs that crash, infect customers' devices, steal banking information and collect user data on children.
Obviously you don't know the meaning of censorship.
Actually it is when the people who think there is a God controlling everything then those who realize they control those people by saying they have a connection to that god that civilizations will occur. ...
I'm not totally sure what you're talking about here unless you are referencing this:
But strictly speaking (no offence to the religious), Religion is more of an "animal" thing than a human thing. It's the irrational belief in spirits and magic that is destroyed by the application of the "higher" human quality of logic and reason. The only way to believe in religion is to throw reason and logic out the window.
Religion may be a great organiser of groups of people, but it is not a "civilising influence" or anything like it. It's the opposite.
Comments
this is all censorship. Apple forced me to buy the iphone, ipod touch and ipad. Then the corporate thieves forced me to develop software that conforms to its unholy standards.
I just want to write programs that crash, infect customers' devices, steal banking information and collect user data on children.
lmao
Yes, I fully expect the haters to criticize Apple yet again for anything they do, including clarifying the App Store policies and relaxing restrictions on tools. The haters will probably say that you can have as many Fart apps as you want on Android, and that Google doesn't give a rats ass about stupid things that end users don't care about, like their privacy, security, user experience. Google wants to impress the 1337 haX0rz by saying their haX0r values (particularly freedom) is more important than anything, right?
Criticize apple, no, but ask for some intellectual consistency from posters, maybe.
It was not too long ago that many on the board lauded Apple's change in the Developer's Agreement banning 3rd party tools, particularly on the grounds that it would result in bad code and degrade the user experience. So, at the time, 3rd party tools = bad. Now however, 3rd party tools = ok, and people are saying this is a great thing that Apple has loosened up and allowed some 3rd party tools.
As to no more fart apps, I think it is a great thing. OTOH, it is an admission that many of the apps are crappy, otherwise Apple would not have been so explicity. The issue is, that many claim that one of the advantages of the iPhone are the 250,000 apps in the app store. However, if a large percentage of them are "fart apps" then that number is misleading in the sense that there are really fewer "good apps"
... It was not too long ago that many on the board lauded Apple's change in the Developer's Agreement banning 3rd party tools, particularly on the grounds that it would result in bad code and degrade the user experience. So, at the time, 3rd party tools = bad. Now however, 3rd party tools = ok, and people are saying this is a great thing that Apple has loosened up and allowed some 3rd party tools. ...
Either you haven't been reading what's been said on these forums, or you don't understand it. third-party tools, specifically meta-platforms (like Flash) are always harmful. That Apple had them shoved down their throat by the FTC doesn't make them any less so.
Animals have rules too. It's just that they need very few. Animals would never think of doing to each other what we humans do to each other, so they really only need a couple of unspoken (
Eat or Be Eaten
That was just part of the anarchy.
Edit: on a serious note, it was a good example why rules are needed.
Well there are people who like anarchy though.. I guess Bin Laden is free to submit a propaganda app in the Android Market...
Now it got me thinking, what if Al Qaeda submits an app for Android? I wonder how Google would handle it? We already know what Steve would say.
Criticize apple, no, but ask for some intellectual consistency from posters, maybe.
It was not too long ago that many on the board lauded Apple's change in the Developer's Agreement banning 3rd party tools,
Yes but to be clear, they never actually said you can't use a 3rd party tool. Because the tool was never the issue. It was the code the tool produced. What they banned was any app that wasn't top to bottom the approved code. Tools like Adobe's weren't converting Flash language to Xcode or whatever. They were merely taking the Flash code and adding a coat of translation on top, which is more taxing to the system (which doesn't have a stellar processor or tons of RAM) and creating the potential for bricked apps if Apple changed something in iOS, at least until Adobe redid the translators. If the convertor had actually converted, there would be no issue.
I always find these threads amusing... with two fairly distinct groups emerging every time.
1) I should be free to develop my crap apps and sell my crap apps to get rich anyway I please. Apple is run by a bunch of dictators who want to control your mind take away your freedom (throw in mom, apple pie, bill of rights, the flag, puppies)... and anyway Android is way better.
2) Steve said flash is bad, so flash is bad... Steve said no more fart apps, so no more fart apps... Steve doesn't like porn, so no porn... Steve says Apple is best, so Apple is best... etc.
There is a third group: people who feel the need to express that they believe they are superior to the people in the other two groups.
I love this bit: Hilarious!
It's worth noting that many many of the apps that were banned for being "sexy" don't fall under this guideline at all. The key words in this definition are "explicit descriptions" (presumably literary or photographic), which were never in most of the apps that were rejected. There is no way you can realistically define a picture of a woman in her bikini (or even in her underwear) "explicit" in any way.
Apple seems to be hanging on the simple determination of prurience here. If it makes you horny as opposed to happy, then it's porn to them. The part they are ignoring and leaving off is that Webster's only defines material that is "explicit" as pornographic (if it also makes you horny instead of happy).
As dreary as these apps are, "Girls in Bikinis" still doesn't qualify as "porn," by Apple's own guidelines.
You need a course in logic. Porn apps are banned (as defined by Webster's dictionary). Nowhere does it say those are the ONLY apps rejected for being "sexy".
Apple are clearly running the app store like a brick and mortar store, in terms of they have "buyers" deciding what's going to be in the store. I bet Target have guidlines to not stock games that are in effect pornographic and that was never an issue for them.
Someone would discover fire, and then eventually civilisation would emerge.
Well, we have fire. Where's the civilization?
It was not too long ago that many on the board lauded Apple's change in the Developer's Agreement banning 3rd party tools, particularly on the grounds that it would result in bad code and degrade the user experience. So, at the time, 3rd party tools = bad. Now however, 3rd party tools = ok, and people are saying this is a great thing that Apple has loosened up and allowed some 3rd party tools.
Did you see the Citadel game demo shown at the iPod Touch unveiling? That's exactly the sort of app that the previous Agreement banned. MANY (probably most) games are developed on top of game-engines like that. Perhaps the Epic guys pointed this out to Apple.
- Jasen.
Either you haven't been reading what's been said on these forums, or you don't understand it. third-party tools, specifically meta-platforms (like Flash) are always harmful. That Apple had them shoved down their throat by the FTC doesn't make them any less so.
I wasn't referring to flash more to the fact that many people felt that Unity was blocked
Criticize apple, no, but ask for some intellectual consistency from posters, maybe.
It was not too long ago that many on the board lauded Apple's change in the Developer's Agreement banning 3rd party tools, particularly on the grounds that it would result in bad code and degrade the user experience. So, at the time, 3rd party tools = bad. Now however, 3rd party tools = ok, and people are saying this is a great thing that Apple has loosened up and allowed some 3rd party tools.
As to no more fart apps, I think it is a great thing. OTOH, it is an admission that many of the apps are crappy, otherwise Apple would not have been so explicity. The issue is, that many claim that one of the advantages of the iPhone are the 250,000 apps in the app store. However, if a large percentage of them are "fart apps" then that number is misleading in the sense that there are really fewer "good apps"
You are being rather pedantic about opinions expressed here aren't you? In going back about this topic previously, the usual commenters (including the ones on my ignore list
Yes but to be clear, they never actually said you can't use a 3rd party tool. Because the tool was never the issue. It was the code the tool produced. What they banned was any app that wasn't top to bottom the approved code. Tools like Adobe's weren't converting Flash language to Xcode or whatever. They were merely taking the Flash code and adding a coat of translation on top, which is more taxing to the system (which doesn't have a stellar processor or tons of RAM) and creating the potential for bricked apps if Apple changed something in iOS, at least until Adobe redid the translators. If the convertor had actually converted, there would be no issue.
Again the issue is not flash, but game engines like Unity.
Without "rules", there could be no civilization.
He/She with Fire enforces control over the herd and thus makes the first rule.
I love this bit: Hilarious!
It's worth noting that many many of the apps that were banned for being "sexy" don't fall under this guideline at all. The key words in this definition are "explicit descriptions" (presumably literary or photographic), which were never in most of the apps that were rejected. There is no way you can realistically define a picture of a woman in her bikini (or even in her underwear) "explicit" in any way.
Apple seems to be hanging on the simple determination of prurience here. If it makes you horny as opposed to happy, then it's porn to them. The part they are ignoring and leaving off is that Webster's only defines material that is "explicit" as pornographic (if it also makes you horny instead of happy).
As dreary as these apps are, "Girls in Bikinis" still doesn't qualify as "porn," by Apple's own guidelines.
Would you like to list those, "Girls in Bikinis" apps that are banned? You do know they were reinstated a couple of days later, right?
This is all censorship. Apple forced me to buy the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. Then the corporate thieves forced me to develop software that conforms to its unholy standards.
I just want to write programs that crash, infect customers' devices, steal banking information and collect user data on children.
Obviously you don't know the meaning of censorship.
Come on, if you're going to let Apple write your headline, at least use their grammar.
Actually it is when the people who think there is a God controlling everything then those who realize they control those people by saying they have a connection to that god that civilizations will occur. ...
I'm not totally sure what you're talking about here unless you are referencing this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
But strictly speaking (no offence to the religious), Religion is more of an "animal" thing than a human thing. It's the irrational belief in spirits and magic that is destroyed by the application of the "higher" human quality of logic and reason. The only way to believe in religion is to throw reason and logic out the window.
Religion may be a great organiser of groups of people, but it is not a "civilising influence" or anything like it. It's the opposite.