If some of your are so dense to see that the potential negative PR issue Apple faces of having the #1 game on the appstore being a weed-growing app, then I don't know what to say. This goes beyong your personal views on marijuana, which have absolutely nothing to do with this. Try to look at the big picture. I've smoked weed and have no issues with anyone doing so, but I'm not so childish as to not see why it would be a no-brainer for Apple to pull it.
As for the developers, I have no sympathy, and they sound like childish douchebags and whiners. When you develop such an app for the appstore, you MUST know there will always be a risk. It's as if they were daring Apple to keep it up, and are absolutely gleeful it was taken down due to all the attention their bitching is generating. When it gets pulled, don't go whining on the fucking internet then sing the praises of Android, a platform where developers are finding zero success and consumers are too cheap to spend a dime.
Developers are free to develop a game where you grow and sell drugs for the appstore- yet if they have a shred of insight they would realize such a game does not have a guarantee of a permanent shelf-life.
The developers' main complaint is not that Apple took down the app, but rather the arbitrariness of the decision. Why did Apple remove their app but leave standing the dozens of other weed apps out there? Whatever rule Apple is citing for their decision has not been applied consistently, and there is nothing more damaging to the rule of law than a law that is inconsistently enforced.
The App Store has plenty of apps depicting "illegal" activity, including "Grand Theft Auto." One might assume Apple got a complaint, which led to the takedown. Frankly, the rules seem a bit uneven and are randomly applied, but it is Apple's store and they ultimately make the decisions to sell whatever they want.
I'd say there's a difference between the likes of GTA and an app where the sole purpose of the app is to grow weed. There's also a stripper in it you give money to. There are strippers in GTA too but GTA is more of an open world where you have more freedom to choose what to do.
Apple has removed other apps like the following that is still on Google Play:
No illegal activity there, it's just distasteful. There have been apps that allow you to rate women and even self-uploaded pics where young teen girls were uploading pics of themselves nude. It's clear that Apple and Google have to remove some apps from their store and so the difficulty is where to draw the line.
The App Store is like Apple's own retail store where they sell 3rd party products. If someone asked them to stock sex toys that connected to iOS devices, they aren't likely to agree to that. There's nothing illegal in it but they don't want it associated with their brand.
Apple is always the target of criticism here and Google always gets a free pass when they ban apps from their store simply because Google is more lenient. Google took down the following app:
Yes, the feds are still against it, but eventually they will have to cave, because more and more states are going to jump on the legalization bandwagon.
History has shown that prohibition has the opposite effect.
I rather hope that federal laws always stand against things that ought to be illegal, like recreational drug abuse, even if "everyone's doing it". If a bad idea gains popularity (even overwhelmingly so), that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea; it just means more people are making poor decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy
There are no federal laws against simulated illegal activity that I am aware of. Again out of all of the illegal activity both real and simulated, the pot smokers draw the criticism.
I was referring specifically to the actual activity. And I'm opposed to pot for recreational use as well as other forms of drug abuse; the article happened to be about a pot-based game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange
What nonsense! I've seen what can happen when people stop taking their meds, and it can be disastrous! Thank god I 'm in Colorado right now!
What specifically in my comments didn't make sense to you?
I'm not opposed to legal cannabis-based medicine. I purposefully included the word 'recreational' to draw that exact distinction. I'm convinced there are appropriate medical uses for lots of substances that are, sadly, widely abused by people with no justifying medical condition. I'm aware of what can happen when people stop abusing drugs, too. Withdrawal isn't kind to people. I've heard a former addict describe how eventually you keep using not for the high, but to keep from feeling so sick.
Yeah, I was aware of the issues with that one. Pretty special exception and while the pictures are simulated, your possession is not. Pictures of pot plants is not a problem. I'm also sure there is some really vulgar movies to compare the game too. Sounds like the game should be NC-17 or something, but not censored. They are burning their virtual books as we speak.
Funny thing that this article has caused so much self-reflection. I think that's a good thing. People are concerned about this because of the larger thing that it might be saying.
I thought more about my own comment and trying to understand why I might be uncomfortable. Apps seem so personal but if we compare them to books, movies, other *public* forms of expression then I think we need to use similar standards. I think it comes down to how you view an app. Is it a personal dialog/conversation between developer and individual who downloads it? Go ahead then. The individual can make the call. Download? Keep it? Remove? If you're horrified then were you misled into viewing it? I'd say that's not the case here.
I would argue that an app being available in the app store means that it's not a personal conversation. It's a public form of expression. So we should scrutinize. Is it vulgur, objectionable, questionable? (I'm staying away from questioning whether it's legal which I don't think is relevant in this case.) If so, we need some additional scrutiny.
I'm most shocked by the MILF. If you've played it or read about it! then you know what I'm talking about. I wonder if that's what's getting the worst of the complaints as well. Well, besides the less bothersome, to me anyway, fact that it's a weed-dealing game. If you switched it to lemonade the game is just as playable and dumb and idiotically simple. I'm not harshing on the original lemonade game on the web which is really great. Just making a point that complaints about selling weed are just silly and missing the point.
And I don't have any problems with you, if you choose not to partake. That's your choice of course. I do have problems with those who believe that they should decide what others should do and not do.
Same.
I'm not surprised by this move by Apple. They are maintaining the image and experience of the platform, and if something is too far outside, I see no issue with them ejecting it.
Browser-based games are the likely eventual solution to this for developers though.
Yes, the feds are still against it, but eventually they will have to cave, because more and more states are going to jump on the legalization bandwagon.
History has shown that prohibition has the opposite effect.
I rather hope that federal laws always stand against things that ought to be illegal, like recreational drug abuse, even if "everyone's doing it". If a bad idea gains popularity (even overwhelmingly so), that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea; it just means more people are making poor decisions.
There are no federal laws against simulated illegal activity that I am aware of. Again out of all of the illegal activity both real and simulated, the pot smokers draw the criticism.
I was referring specifically to the actual activity. And I'm opposed to pot for recreational use as well as other forms of drug abuse; the article happened to be about a pot-based game.
What nonsense! I've seen what can happen when people stop taking their meds, and it can be disastrous! Thank god I 'm in Colorado right now!
What specifically in my comments didn't make sense to you?
I'm not opposed to legal cannabis-based medicine. I purposefully included the word 'recreational' to draw that exact distinction. I'm convinced there are appropriate medical uses for lots of substances that are, sadly, widely abused by people with no justifying medical condition. I'm aware of what can happen when people stop abusing drugs, too. Withdrawal isn't kind to people. I've heard a former addict describe how eventually you keep using not for the high, but to keep from feeling so sick.
Calling it recreational drug "abuse" just highlights your bias and shows your lack of understanding.
Would never play that, but Apple has let (and advertised) freaking Rockstar's games where you kill, maim, and sell drugs. Oh, and steal tanks, a clearly legal activity. Double standards for bigger companies suck.
Also, I hope the game is still playable anywhere weed is legal, right? Else it is utter censorship and likely illegal from Apple. Curious how this will pan out, but hoping Apple relents.
Why is it so important? Imagine a dystopian Mississippi, in 1823. Apple removes app for simulating black people acting as equals to white people. Seems shocking to me. Censorship is bad and dangerous.
Never liked that conservative side of Apple, noticed it when working there too (not with weed). Although there were times back in the day. I remember when it was not uncommon for people to smoke weed at the Cupertino campus, last time that I remember being in 1993- someone smoking in the bathroom in Mariani One caused a minor stir, something that Rock and Roll team members will surely remember. Ah, the good ole days. After Jobs returned there was no smoking of any kind on campus.
At least you are likening smoking Pot to other irresponsible acts.
I'm all for the legalization, but you can see where people see a slippery slope about the "adults should be able to decide for themselves" argument. That argument is an empty one because there are hundreds of things you support the government ban on and you don't even know it. Heroin? Lead in paint? Asbestos? Why not keep the lead in paint and let the consumer decide if they should use it or not. That's your similar argument. The way this country is setup- we vote for the politicians to represent us and then they vote on the issues that we want as our representatives. If that's legalizing weed, then thats how they should vote. If its banning asbestos- then thats how they should vote. Unless I overlooked our constitutional right of "you have the right to get high". Yes- it's flawed, we don't need to get into that sidebar. But it's less flawed than "adults should be able to decide for themselves". That's called anarchy.
It's not anarchy... The difference is that bullshit laws like marijuana prohibition make criminal, activities that were not directly affecting anyone else but the user --- so called victimless crimes (along with prostitution and others... Drug use being only one example)
Anarchy would be no law and order (or government) whatsoever. What I am advocating is "freedom". Freedom to do what you please as long as you are only affecting yourself.
Lead paint, asbestos, etc are illegal because it affects everyone that comes into contact with it, not just the individual who purchased it.
Calling it recreational drug "abuse" just highlights your bias and shows your lack of understanding.
Bias is a partiality that prevents someone from objectively considering an issue. My understanding of the nature and effects of substance abuse is based on objectively observing what medical and social researchers say about the topic, and by noting the effects on people I am (or were) acquainted with, and from common sense.
Bias is a partiality that prevents someone from objectively considering an issue. My understanding of the nature and effects of substance abuse is based on objectively observing what medical and social researchers say about the topic, and by noting the effects on people I am (or were) acquainted with, and from common sense.
You are missing the point. I think everyone would agree that "substance abuse" exists and is what the majority of addicts are doing. However, to claim that all recreational users are "abusing" a particular substance is ludicrous. The entire term "substance abuse" is a politically loaded one, created by the drug war with the misguided notion that all drug use is "immoral".
Attitudes like yours are part of the problem today. All of the black and white, absolutist anti-drug propaganda kids are taught leads them astray when they realize that drug use --- like all things in life --- is full of subtlety and complexity (true addiction, recreational users, medical marijuana, opiates for legitimate pain, students and professional using stimulants to get ahead, hallucinogens used in religious ceremonies, etc )
Calling it recreational drug "abuse" just highlights your bias and shows your lack of understanding.
Bias is a partiality that prevents someone from objectively considering an issue. My understanding of the nature and effects of substance abuse is based on objectively observing what medical and social researchers say about the topic, and by noting the effects on people I am (or were) acquainted with, and from common sense.
If you don't see a difference between drug use and drug abuse, you have a significant bias.
Nothing against weed smokers- go for it. But I'd rather not smoke weed unless I get a painful disease of some sort.
And I don't have any problems with you, if you choose not to partake. That's your choice of course. I do have problems with those who believe that they should decide what others should do and not do.
You're happy for other people to murder each other. Got it.
Seems to me that Manitoba should take a leaf out of Nicki Minaj's 'Stupid Hoe.' Just as Minaj vented her spleen at her gardening equipment, so should Manitoba at their App Store rejection of their weeding game in the form of a song: 'Stupid Weed.'
Comments
I agree poor judgement for Apple.
If some of your are so dense to see that the potential negative PR issue Apple faces of having the #1 game on the appstore being a weed-growing app, then I don't know what to say. This goes beyong your personal views on marijuana, which have absolutely nothing to do with this. Try to look at the big picture. I've smoked weed and have no issues with anyone doing so, but I'm not so childish as to not see why it would be a no-brainer for Apple to pull it.
As for the developers, I have no sympathy, and they sound like childish douchebags and whiners. When you develop such an app for the appstore, you MUST know there will always be a risk. It's as if they were daring Apple to keep it up, and are absolutely gleeful it was taken down due to all the attention their bitching is generating. When it gets pulled, don't go whining on the fucking internet then sing the praises of Android, a platform where developers are finding zero success and consumers are too cheap to spend a dime.
Developers are free to develop a game where you grow and sell drugs for the appstore- yet if they have a shred of insight they would realize such a game does not have a guarantee of a permanent shelf-life.
The developers' main complaint is not that Apple took down the app, but rather the arbitrariness of the decision. Why did Apple remove their app but leave standing the dozens of other weed apps out there? Whatever rule Apple is citing for their decision has not been applied consistently, and there is nothing more damaging to the rule of law than a law that is inconsistently enforced.
Actually, if I recall correctly Wozniak is personally very strict about not using drugs.
I'd say there's a difference between the likes of GTA and an app where the sole purpose of the app is to grow weed. There's also a stripper in it you give money to. There are strippers in GTA too but GTA is more of an open world where you have more freedom to choose what to do.
Apple has removed other apps like the following that is still on Google Play:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=poo.full
No illegal activity there, it's just distasteful. There have been apps that allow you to rate women and even self-uploaded pics where young teen girls were uploading pics of themselves nude. It's clear that Apple and Google have to remove some apps from their store and so the difficulty is where to draw the line.
The App Store is like Apple's own retail store where they sell 3rd party products. If someone asked them to stock sex toys that connected to iOS devices, they aren't likely to agree to that. There's nothing illegal in it but they don't want it associated with their brand.
Apple is always the target of criticism here and Google always gets a free pass when they ban apps from their store simply because Google is more lenient. Google took down the following app:
http://www.cnet.com/news/google-pulls-is-my-son-gay-android-app/
It's not illegal for parents to look for signs that their kids are gay but it would obviously be offensive to many people.
I would ask are the app stores worse off for not having these kind of apps in them? I'd say no so it's not really a big deal.
Yes, the feds are still against it, but eventually they will have to cave, because more and more states are going to jump on the legalization bandwagon.
History has shown that prohibition has the opposite effect.
I rather hope that federal laws always stand against things that ought to be illegal, like recreational drug abuse, even if "everyone's doing it". If a bad idea gains popularity (even overwhelmingly so), that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea; it just means more people are making poor decisions.
There are no federal laws against simulated illegal activity that I am aware of. Again out of all of the illegal activity both real and simulated, the pot smokers draw the criticism.
I was referring specifically to the actual activity. And I'm opposed to pot for recreational use as well as other forms of drug abuse; the article happened to be about a pot-based game.
What nonsense! I've seen what can happen when people stop taking their meds, and it can be disastrous! Thank god I 'm in Colorado right now!
What specifically in my comments didn't make sense to you?
I'm not opposed to legal cannabis-based medicine. I purposefully included the word 'recreational' to draw that exact distinction. I'm convinced there are appropriate medical uses for lots of substances that are, sadly, widely abused by people with no justifying medical condition. I'm aware of what can happen when people stop abusing drugs, too. Withdrawal isn't kind to people. I've heard a former addict describe how eventually you keep using not for the high, but to keep from feeling so sick.
Yeah, I was aware of the issues with that one. Pretty special exception and while the pictures are simulated, your possession is not. Pictures of pot plants is not a problem. I'm also sure there is some really vulgar movies to compare the game too. Sounds like the game should be NC-17 or something, but not censored. They are burning their virtual books as we speak.
Funny thing that this article has caused so much self-reflection. I think that's a good thing. People are concerned about this because of the larger thing that it might be saying.
I thought more about my own comment and trying to understand why I might be uncomfortable. Apps seem so personal but if we compare them to books, movies, other *public* forms of expression then I think we need to use similar standards. I think it comes down to how you view an app. Is it a personal dialog/conversation between developer and individual who downloads it? Go ahead then. The individual can make the call. Download? Keep it? Remove? If you're horrified then were you misled into viewing it? I'd say that's not the case here.
I would argue that an app being available in the app store means that it's not a personal conversation. It's a public form of expression. So we should scrutinize. Is it vulgur, objectionable, questionable? (I'm staying away from questioning whether it's legal which I don't think is relevant in this case.) If so, we need some additional scrutiny.
I'm most shocked by the MILF. If you've played it or read about it! then you know what I'm talking about. I wonder if that's what's getting the worst of the complaints as well. Well, besides the less bothersome, to me anyway, fact that it's a weed-dealing game. If you switched it to lemonade the game is just as playable and dumb and idiotically simple. I'm not harshing on the original lemonade game on the web which is really great. Just making a point that complaints about selling weed are just silly and missing the point.
And I don't have any problems with you, if you choose not to partake. That's your choice of course. I do have problems with those who believe that they should decide what others should do and not do.
Same.
I'm not surprised by this move by Apple. They are maintaining the image and experience of the platform, and if something is too far outside, I see no issue with them ejecting it.
Browser-based games are the likely eventual solution to this for developers though.
Calling it recreational drug "abuse" just highlights your bias and shows your lack of understanding.
Would never play that, but Apple has let (and advertised) freaking Rockstar's games where you kill, maim, and sell drugs. Oh, and steal tanks, a clearly legal activity. Double standards for bigger companies suck.
Also, I hope the game is still playable anywhere weed is legal, right? Else it is utter censorship and likely illegal from Apple. Curious how this will pan out, but hoping Apple relents.
Why is it so important? Imagine a dystopian Mississippi, in 1823. Apple removes app for simulating black people acting as equals to white people. Seems shocking to me. Censorship is bad and dangerous.
So it seems, unlike what some think, Steve Jobs WOULD never have…
Good for Jobs.
It's not anarchy... The difference is that bullshit laws like marijuana prohibition make criminal, activities that were not directly affecting anyone else but the user --- so called victimless crimes (along with prostitution and others... Drug use being only one example)
Anarchy would be no law and order (or government) whatsoever. What I am advocating is "freedom". Freedom to do what you please as long as you are only affecting yourself.
Lead paint, asbestos, etc are illegal because it affects everyone that comes into contact with it, not just the individual who purchased it.
Bias is a partiality that prevents someone from objectively considering an issue. My understanding of the nature and effects of substance abuse is based on objectively observing what medical and social researchers say about the topic, and by noting the effects on people I am (or were) acquainted with, and from common sense.
You are missing the point. I think everyone would agree that "substance abuse" exists and is what the majority of addicts are doing. However, to claim that all recreational users are "abusing" a particular substance is ludicrous. The entire term "substance abuse" is a politically loaded one, created by the drug war with the misguided notion that all drug use is "immoral".
Attitudes like yours are part of the problem today. All of the black and white, absolutist anti-drug propaganda kids are taught leads them astray when they realize that drug use --- like all things in life --- is full of subtlety and complexity (true addiction, recreational users, medical marijuana, opiates for legitimate pain, students and professional using stimulants to get ahead, hallucinogens used in religious ceremonies, etc )
If you don't see a difference between drug use and drug abuse, you have a significant bias.
You're happy for other people to murder each other. Got it.
Edit: or maybe 'Troublesome Trowel.'