Thank goodness FaceTime will never be used in this manner.
About the only difference is that you generally will know whom you are connecting with via Facetime.
I don't have any problems with Apple trying to keep the store clean but they have to realize that dual use software will need some sort of parental controls. Apparently they haven't realized it yet but teenagers will be leveraging Facetime in this respect real soon. I know I would if I had the tech all those years ago. Frankly it is safer than having the girls father discover you out behind the barn with his daughter!!!
Good point. It seems far more likely that Steve Jobs just woke up, took a second look at this "Thoughts on Flash", and thought, "Wow, what was I thinking? Was I high?".
Yeah, that must be it. Couldn't have anything at all to do with the FTC....
Personally, I think the change had very little to do with Flash. Some of it was normal evolution, some of it is competition from Android, and some of it was the potential (unrealized) of WP7.
Good point. It seems far more likely that Steve Jobs just woke up, took a second look at this "Thoughts on Flash", and thought, "Wow, what was I thinking? Was I high?".
Yeah, that must be it. Couldn't have anything at all to do with the FTC....
Put your effort where your mouth is: submit in an app with Flash in it and let me know how it works out. Or, check it out with developers you might know whether something like that will be possible.
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.
It's also worth noting that the Supreme Court has had difficulty grappling with this issue. Should we suppose Apple could do better than they? Perhaps the best we can hope for is this book definition, then operate under Justice Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" rubric.
PS - Having read back I find someone else pointed out that this exact sentiment is actually in the Apple document. But since no one else picked up on it I guess my reiteration is okay. My bad for not doing my homework and reading the entire thread before spouting off.
Well, I don't know much about the way Unity works/integrates with iOS SDKs (and don't much play games anyway), but, I still think the principle that meta-platforms are harmful holds. What if, for example, they don't support the gyroscope in their tools? Then there's this 6-axis controller on the iPhone, but it goes largely unused, to the detriment of the user experience. Perhaps it will be argued that there's no other way for game developers to be able to develop games, that it's a necessary evil, but it's still an evil.
Middleware is essential for game development as the economics for every developer creating their own engines do not work. It is also a huge waste of effort; why duplicate something that already exists? If you look on the PC and games consoles, the majority of games use some form of middleware.
Middleware is not an evil. It may have some disadvantages but it certainly isn't evil.
Apple is just trying to maintain HARMONY, MORALS & ETHICS. While it seems like APPLE is sort of a control freak, just think that your kids or nephews are safe with the content approved by Apple. And while I can appreciate the 'freedom of choice' as provided to us by the constitution it does not pertain to APPS being approved by Apple. Keep in mind that there are many young children using IPHONES & IPODS and APPLE has to take all that into consideration.
I fully expected you and other simpletons who routinely counter opinions that you don't like by labeling other people as "haters", to respond in this idiotic manner.
The most significant change that we are seeing here is that Apple has relaxed the restrictions on what development tools are allowed. It is to Apple's credit that someone within the company was eventually able to make Steve Jobs realize that his position on this was not technically justifiable, and that any restrictions that need be placed on run-time behavior, need be enforced at run-time, not by way of restricting the tools used to develop applications. At the same time, it is manifest that Apple's prior position on this was wrong, and that people who openly stated so were correct, and that people who responded to those criticisms by labeling those people as "haters" were ill-informed persons of a disingenuous persuasion.
LOL. Wait, this is golden: You frame Apple's flip-flopping on policy in terms of your personal definition of "right" and "wrong" and then claim that Apple's flip-flopping therefore "proves" that the people who used those labels were right in the first place? How do you know that Apple's reasons for the change is that they woke up one day and realized their position was "not technically justifiable"? That's your interpretation. Your interpretation is always going to "prove" you right, so how is your interpretation "proof" of anything? Most companies have completely economic motivations, or they could simply be trying to please developers. I don't know what their true motivation was, but news flash: neither do you. Flip-flopping doesn't prove Apple was "wrong" (which is a hugely judgmental thing to say in the first place), all it proves is that you think Apple was wrong.
As for the term hater, the term is purely expository, not pejorative. "Responding to criticism" (your euphemism) doesn't make you a hater. A hater is anyone who criticizes a subject no matter what they do or say. If someone who hates Apple for their strict policies applauds this move towards openness, they are by definition not a hater. If someone hates Apple no matter what they do, then they are a hater. Get your facts straight if you're going to call me a "simpleton" or "ill-informed"
'We don't need anymore Fart apps' . Apple should know that fart should be lowercase. I know some unemloyed English teachers that could review documents for grammer before they release them to the public.
Perhaps they meant apps named "Fart". Terms like "flatulence" would remain perfectly acceptable in an application title.
Good point. It seems far more likely that Steve Jobs just woke up, took a second look at this "Thoughts on Flash", and thought, "Wow, what was I thinking? Was I high?".
Yeah, that must be it. Couldn't have anything at all to do with the FTC....
Put your effort where your mouth is: submit in an app with Flash in it and let me know how it works out. Or, check it out with developers you might know whether something like that will be possible.
Otherwise, shut.
1. That's a non sequitur.
2. Are you willing to place a bet that no Flash apps will be accepted in the App Store? If so, count me in.
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.
Apple should know that fart should be lowercase. I know some unemloyed English teachers that could review documents for grammer before they release them to the public.
In the first instance, the copier is just that, and doesn't add any value to the ecosystem, but just syphons revenue off some honest, hard working developer. So, why should they approve his app? In the second instance, you're actually being an honest, hard working developer yourself, and creating something with a unique approach to a problem, and I don't think you're the one they are looking out for.
Isn't that what copyrights and patents are supposed to protect? Why should Apple be the judge on whether one developer reverse engineered something from another iPhone app or a similar Android app? If both apps are quality products, I say let's leave it up to the developer to defend his own IP.
Isn't that what copyrights and patents are supposed to protect? Why should Apple be the judge on whether one developer reverse engineered something from another iPhone app or a similar Android app? ...
Why shouldn't they?
(And, no, copyrights and patents won't be of any use.)
Actually, it's more like you know these are the rules of the homeowners association, you buy the house anyway, then, you whine endlessly about the rules of the homeowners association and how unfair they are.
Comments
Thank goodness FaceTime will never be used in this manner.
About the only difference is that you generally will know whom you are connecting with via Facetime.
I don't have any problems with Apple trying to keep the store clean but they have to realize that dual use software will need some sort of parental controls. Apparently they haven't realized it yet but teenagers will be leveraging Facetime in this respect real soon. I know I would if I had the tech all those years ago. Frankly it is safer than having the girls father discover you out behind the barn with his daughter!!!
Dave
Good point. It seems far more likely that Steve Jobs just woke up, took a second look at this "Thoughts on Flash", and thought, "Wow, what was I thinking? Was I high?".
Yeah, that must be it. Couldn't have anything at all to do with the FTC....
Personally, I think the change had very little to do with Flash. Some of it was normal evolution, some of it is competition from Android, and some of it was the potential (unrealized) of WP7.
Good point. It seems far more likely that Steve Jobs just woke up, took a second look at this "Thoughts on Flash", and thought, "Wow, what was I thinking? Was I high?".
Yeah, that must be it. Couldn't have anything at all to do with the FTC....
Put your effort where your mouth is: submit in an app with Flash in it and let me know how it works out. Or, check it out with developers you might know whether something like that will be possible.
Otherwise, shut.
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.
It's also worth noting that the Supreme Court has had difficulty grappling with this issue. Should we suppose Apple could do better than they? Perhaps the best we can hope for is this book definition, then operate under Justice Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" rubric.
PS - Having read back I find someone else pointed out that this exact sentiment is actually in the Apple document. But since no one else picked up on it I guess my reiteration is okay. My bad for not doing my homework and reading the entire thread before spouting off.
Well, I don't know much about the way Unity works/integrates with iOS SDKs (and don't much play games anyway), but, I still think the principle that meta-platforms are harmful holds. What if, for example, they don't support the gyroscope in their tools? Then there's this 6-axis controller on the iPhone, but it goes largely unused, to the detriment of the user experience. Perhaps it will be argued that there's no other way for game developers to be able to develop games, that it's a necessary evil, but it's still an evil.
Middleware is essential for game development as the economics for every developer creating their own engines do not work. It is also a huge waste of effort; why duplicate something that already exists? If you look on the PC and games consoles, the majority of games use some form of middleware.
Middleware is not an evil. It may have some disadvantages but it certainly isn't evil.
"Apps that are simply web clippings, content aggregators, or a collection of links, may be rejected"
I'd really like to see AI build an actual app, not something that opens countless windows in Safari.
I fully expected you and other simpletons who routinely counter opinions that you don't like by labeling other people as "haters", to respond in this idiotic manner.
The most significant change that we are seeing here is that Apple has relaxed the restrictions on what development tools are allowed. It is to Apple's credit that someone within the company was eventually able to make Steve Jobs realize that his position on this was not technically justifiable, and that any restrictions that need be placed on run-time behavior, need be enforced at run-time, not by way of restricting the tools used to develop applications. At the same time, it is manifest that Apple's prior position on this was wrong, and that people who openly stated so were correct, and that people who responded to those criticisms by labeling those people as "haters" were ill-informed persons of a disingenuous persuasion.
LOL. Wait, this is golden: You frame Apple's flip-flopping on policy in terms of your personal definition of "right" and "wrong" and then claim that Apple's flip-flopping therefore "proves" that the people who used those labels were right in the first place? How do you know that Apple's reasons for the change is that they woke up one day and realized their position was "not technically justifiable"? That's your interpretation. Your interpretation is always going to "prove" you right, so how is your interpretation "proof" of anything? Most companies have completely economic motivations, or they could simply be trying to please developers. I don't know what their true motivation was, but news flash: neither do you. Flip-flopping doesn't prove Apple was "wrong" (which is a hugely judgmental thing to say in the first place), all it proves is that you think Apple was wrong.
As for the term hater, the term is purely expository, not pejorative. "Responding to criticism" (your euphemism) doesn't make you a hater. A hater is anyone who criticizes a subject no matter what they do or say. If someone who hates Apple for their strict policies applauds this move towards openness, they are by definition not a hater. If someone hates Apple no matter what they do, then they are a hater. Get your facts straight if you're going to call me a "simpleton" or "ill-informed"
No, the guidelines say, "We don't need any more Fart apps."
Come on, if you're going to let Apple write your headline, at least use their grammar.
AI headline should be fixed. "anymore" != "any more" Looks very much out of place.
'We don't need anymore Fart apps' . Apple should know that fart should be lowercase. I know some unemloyed English teachers that could review documents for grammer before they release them to the public.
Perhaps they meant apps named "Fart". Terms like "flatulence" would remain perfectly acceptable in an application title.
Originally Posted by RationalTroll
Good point. It seems far more likely that Steve Jobs just woke up, took a second look at this "Thoughts on Flash", and thought, "Wow, what was I thinking? Was I high?".
Yeah, that must be it. Couldn't have anything at all to do with the FTC....
Put your effort where your mouth is: submit in an app with Flash in it and let me know how it works out. Or, check it out with developers you might know whether something like that will be possible.
Otherwise, shut.
1. That's a non sequitur.
2. Are you willing to place a bet that no Flash apps will be accepted in the App Store? If so, count me in.
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.
you made my point, and you missed the sarcasm
Isn't the "AppleInsider" app at risk assuming this rule:
"Apps that are simply web clippings, content aggregators, or a collection of links, may be rejected"
Looks like the AI app is exactly the type of thing Apple is targeting.
Why lard up your homescreen with "Apps" that do nothing except present an interface to proprietary web pages?
These types of "do-nothing" apps all need to be purged immediately.
Looks like the AI app is exactly the type of thing Apple is targeting.
The AppleInsider web app?
Looks like the AI app is exactly the type of thing Apple is targeting.
Point me to this mythical Appleinsider app.
Apple should know that fart should be lowercase. I know some unemloyed English teachers that could review documents for grammer before they release them to the public.
You're not one of them, by any chance
In the first instance, the copier is just that, and doesn't add any value to the ecosystem, but just syphons revenue off some honest, hard working developer. So, why should they approve his app? In the second instance, you're actually being an honest, hard working developer yourself, and creating something with a unique approach to a problem, and I don't think you're the one they are looking out for.
Isn't that what copyrights and patents are supposed to protect? Why should Apple be the judge on whether one developer reverse engineered something from another iPhone app or a similar Android app? If both apps are quality products, I say let's leave it up to the developer to defend his own IP.
Isn't that what copyrights and patents are supposed to protect? Why should Apple be the judge on whether one developer reverse engineered something from another iPhone app or a similar Android app? ...
Why shouldn't they?
(And, no, copyrights and patents won't be of any use.)
Why shouldn't they?
(And, no, copyrights and patents won't be of any use.)
Because it won't stand up in court.
(And, yes, because they will stand up in court)
Actually, it's more like you know these are the rules of the homeowners association, you buy the house anyway, then, you whine endlessly about the rules of the homeowners association and how unfair they are.
Exactly!