That does sound all neat and tidy, but you're missing two main things:
How would you enforce it?
What is "porn"?
The point I'm trying to make here is that Apple is being idiotic by putting themselves in the position of making that judgment. They can't determine what is offensive, any more than you or I could, because "offensive" is basically a word without meaning.
Americans, for example, tend to think girls in bikinis or lingerie plastered all over magazines and TV is OK; to fundamentalist Muslims that would be outrageous. (This is but one example of the problem Apple is trying to solve.)
Not trying to self-promote, but I wrote a blog post back in May explaining how I think Apple ought to address these issues. Linking because it's too long to paste here.
If you don't want to click, the point of it is: Apple is putting itself in a position to accept legal liability by being the arbiter of what constitutes 'acceptability'. Apple should have built a system that let the users determine acceptability. That way, the responsibility for the rating system is foisted onto the community instead.
+1! That's what I mean and I agree with you completely, but some people here just don't see the point which I'm trying to get across.
That does sound all neat and tidy, but you're missing two main things:
How would you enforce it?
What is "porn"?
The point I'm trying to make here is that Apple is being idiotic by putting themselves in the position of making that judgment. They can't determine what is offensive, any more than you or I could, because "offensive" is basically a word without meaning.
Americans, for example, tend to think girls in bikinis or lingerie plastered all over magazines and TV is OK; to fundamentalist Muslims that would be outrageous. (This is but one example of the problem Apple is trying to solve.)
Not trying to self-promote, but I wrote a blog post back in May explaining how I think Apple ought to address these issues. Linking because it's too long to paste here.
If you don't want to click, the point of it is: Apple is putting itself in a position to accept legal liability by being the arbiter of what constitutes 'acceptability'. Apple should have built a system that let the users determine acceptability. That way, the responsibility for the rating system is foisted onto the community instead.
So if you don't like what your senator is doing do you go around and b!tch to your neighbors for voting him/her in or do you b!tch about your senator?
Apple couldn't possible simply allow the community to regulate itself because they are a very high profile company and they know the what would happen should apps be available that people find questionable - it ends up all over the front of CNN and people start making the iPhone out to be a horrible device. Apple is unique in this because of their high profile - RIM for example (at least to the best of my knowledge) never gets plastered all over the press because there's an app with topless photos. Apple knows d@mn well what they are doing and they know how to make the most money off of it while at the same time keeping control of their device.
Making your device work with everything is what has made Windows such a heap of crap - when you can't control anything your product becomes susceptible to so much crap it becomes a heap of crap itself.
So if you don't like what your senator is doing do you go around and b!tch to your neighbors for voting him/her in or do you b!tch about your senator?
Apple couldn't possible simply allow the community to regulate itself because they are a very high profile company and they know the what would happen should apps be available that people find questionable - it ends up all over the front of CNN and people start making the iPhone out to be a horrible device. Apple is unique in this because of their high profile - RIM for example (at least to the best of my knowledge) never gets plastered all over the press because there's an app with topless photos. Apple knows d@mn well what they are doing and they know how to make the most money off of it while at the same time keeping control of their device.
Making your device work with everything is what has made Windows such a heap of crap - when you can't control anything your product becomes susceptible to so much crap it becomes a heap of crap itself.
+1. That is when necessary control has to be stepped up.
Making your device work with everything is what has made Windows such a heap of crap - when you can't control anything your product becomes susceptible to so much crap it becomes a heap of crap itself.
First of all, the comparison with the Windows (and I assume the Mac) market doesn't make any sense at all.
There are porn apps on the Mac, there are dictionary apps on the Mac with naughty words, there have been apps that did stuff people don't like (like mocking and making fun of Jesus, for example). Apple doesn't choose what apps are made for the Mac. Apple has no control over what apps are written for the Mac whatsoever.
On the iPhone, Apple has chosen to take the role of "moral police". It's not something they have to do (as the Mac clearly demonstrates), it's something they decided to do, because they wanted to skim money off every app sale.
That's why it made the news that there were breasts on the iPhone. If, from the beginning, there were no restrictions on development for the phone, no one would have cared about breasts on the iPhone. Apple would never have taken any heat for it.
But, since Apple has taken the position that they are going to be the only distribution mechanism, and that they will protect us all from seeing breasts on the iPhone, it becomes newsworthy if they fail in that mission (which they have, and will again). And not only does it amplify that news story, they also have to get flak from people like me and John Gruber and a million other people over the inconsistency of the policy, and questions from free speech advocates who, apparently unlike you, aren't quite so eager to have corporate overlords telling us what is and isn't morally acceptable.
Everything's going great for them, so far, but when they get the multibillion dollar class-action lawsuit for unfair business practices (since they clearly penalize smaller developers for infractions that they don't penalize larger developers for), then perhaps it won't seem so great.
I would like Apple to build great gadgets, not serve as de facto mobile content censor.
I want to reiterate: it's a truly great platform. I have an iPhone, and I like it very much. I just don't want Apple telling me what I can and can't do with it. I bought the damn thing; it ought to be mine.
First of all, the comparison with the Windows (and I assume the Mac) market doesn't make any sense at all.
There are porn apps on the Mac, there are dictionary apps on the Mac with naughty words, there have been apps that did stuff people don't like (like mocking and making fun of Jesus, for example). Apple doesn't choose what apps are made for the Mac. Apple has no control over what apps are written for the Mac whatsoever.
On the iPhone, Apple has chosen to take the role of "moral police". It's not something they have to do (as the Mac clearly demonstrates), it's something they decided to do, because they wanted to skim money off every app sale.
That's why it made the news that there were breasts on the iPhone. If, from the beginning, there were no restrictions on development for the phone, no one would have cared about breasts on the iPhone. Apple would never have taken any heat for it.
But, since Apple has taken the position that they are going to be the only distribution mechanism, and that they will protect us all from seeing breasts on the iPhone, it becomes newsworthy if they fail in that mission (which they have, and will again). And not only does it amplify that news story, they also have to get flak from people like me and John Gruber and a million other people over the inconsistency of the policy, and questions from free speech advocates who, apparently unlike you, aren't quite so eager to have corporate overlords telling us what is and isn't morally acceptable.
Everything's going great for them, so far, but when they get the multibillion dollar class-action lawsuit for unfair business practices (since they clearly penalize smaller developers for infractions that they don't penalize larger developers for), then perhaps it won't seem so great.
I would like Apple to build great gadgets, not serve as de facto mobile content censor.
I want to reiterate: it's a truly great platform. I have an iPhone, and I like it very much. I just don't want Apple telling me what I can and can't do with it. I bought the damn thing; it ought to be mine.
Apple wants to make 1) more money and 2) the iPhone the defacto smart phone for the non-business consumer (they might be after business but it's going to take a while on that one).
Comparing it to windows and Mac is fine comparison but I guess I didn't make the corollary clear - iPhone App Store is to RIM as Mac Hardware is to Windows hardware.
You're seriously going to claim that "a million other people" give Apple crap about the app store policies? Really? I really hope you're just exaggerating for effect because that's not even remotely close to a realistic number. Also, don't start pulling in this free speech crap - Apple isn't the gov't and as such they and they alone get to make the call about what to do with their device, it has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. People who throw around arguments like that are simply hoping to play off sensationalist fears of others. The gov't has no place in the app store at all and this has nothing to do with free speech - the gov't (and the gov't alone) has that ability - not a private company like Apple.
Furthermore, if you're suggesting that the US gov't should dictate to Apple what they should allow in their app store you are then taking away all the rights of the company. We, here in America, have this lovely right called the freedom of association - no one is forcing you to buy anything or hang out with anyone - if you don't like a product offered by a private company or their practices you are under no legal obligation to buy their product (hence the protections from monopolies).
The bottom line is this - it's is Apple's product, they made it, they sell it. If they don't want to open it up they don't have to and to suggest anything else is undemocratic at best and communistic at worst...
Also, as an aside, Apple chose to take the role of "moral police" because it is in their best financial interest, if you seriously believe that them operating it like RIM does w/ the blackberry would make more sense financially you are absolutely crazy - Apple controls it because they want to control the experience you have on the phone because the better the experience the more likely you are to suggest friends get one and so and so forth and then Apple continues to rake in the dough as well as the 30% from the app store sales - it's all business after all and personally I'd rather my money go Apple (who has proven to me they deserve it) than many other places.
Also, don't start pulling in this free speech crap - Apple isn't the gov't and as such they and they alone get to make the call about what to do with their device, it has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. People who throw around arguments like that are simply hoping to play off sensationalist fears of others. The gov't has no place in the app store at all and this has nothing to do with free speech - the gov't (and the gov't alone) has that ability - not a private company like Apple.
Furthermore, if you're suggesting that the US gov't should dictate to Apple what they should allow in their app store you are then taking away all the rights of the company. We, here in America, have this lovely right called the freedom of association - no one is forcing you to buy anything or hang out with anyone - if you don't like a product offered by a private company or their practices you are under no legal obligation to buy their product (hence the protections from monopolies).
The bottom line is this - it's is Apple's product, they made it, they sell it. If they don't want to open it up they don't have to and to suggest anything else is undemocratic at best and communistic at worst...
Can you point out where I said or even insinuated that the government should legislate what Apple does with its system? Nobody mentioned the government until you, as far as I can tell...
What I said is that (a) I disagree with Apple acting as "moral police" (I never said they don't have a right to); and (b) they are opening themselves up to legal challenge on the basis that they're not applying their own rules consistently.
I think the reasons for the first have been beaten into the ground, but maybe the second deserves further explanation:
I meant that they are opening themselves up to lawsuits (in civil, not criminal courts, if that's not clear) for unfair business practices. Let me explain. Apple has said that there is only one way to distribute apps on their platform. Fine. In order to use that distribution mechanism, you have to go through a decency filter. Fine.
In the case of this dictionary business, Apple has approved apps from big companies, and denied apps from smaller companies, both of which sets of apps have the same content. I know Phil Schiller went on the rant about "urban slang", but Apple's developer people told the developers that the app was held back because of f*ck, c*nt, et al.
These words appear in the apps of other developers, and all of Apple's apps are exempt from this limitation (Safari and YouTube being the most obvious examples).
Apple has laid out a clear and presumably legally enforceable contract that you must agree to when you become an Apple developer. And, they appear to not be abiding by it, or only choosing to enforce it in certain circumstances. It's only a matter of time, particularly if the market gets bigger, that the developers who have been shut out of the party are going to get ornery and direct their frustration back at the mothership in some coordinated fashion.
And on the flip side, perhaps Apple will be able to easily deflect that backlash, and they have absolutely nothing to worry about; time will tell.
As an aside, just because some company has a right to act a certain way doesn't mean we have to like the way they are acting.
Companies have to limit or specialize in the type of material they sell to meet a certain demographic. You don't see hardcore porn being sold in Barns and Noble. You don't see Chaucer being sold in porn shops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Since when is censorship a good business decision? I guess WalMArt knows what there doing to by censoring lyrics too? We all know how fanstastic a company WalMart is. At lease let us put non- sactioned Apple apps on our phones if Apple doesn't want to sell them. Like widgets on our computers.
Abridging or adjusting someone's content in any way at all (or creating the conditions whereby people have little recourse other than to self-abridge or adjust their content) is censorship, quite clearly.
This is a radical interpretation of freedom of speech. It is one our founding fathers would not have embraced, it is one our laws do not embrace, and it is one the supreme court of the United States has consistently held to be incorrect. Our legal system enforces the idea that restricting language is not equivalent to restricting speech. This is why there are certain words you cannot say on television or the radio, it is why there are certain things you cannot say about your neighbor, your child, your child's teacher, the president, etc. and it is why you can't walk up to a person on the street or in the grocery store and launch into a stream of cursing invective. All of these things are prohibited, not based on what you wish to communicate, but upon the specific method you choose.
To make it totally clear, I could walk up to someone in the supermarket and say "I really do not like you or what you stand for" and I would be well within my rights. However, if I instead chose to walk up to that same person, and make the same statement laced with every pejorative curse-word I had heard in the last 40 plus years, I may very well get arrested. Within our society and within our legal framework there is a well-established distinction between specific kinds of discourse and the concept of free speech. If you are unable or unwilling to see the difference between these two things, that is completely irrelevant; it is the way that it is, regardless of whether or not you like it.
I know only the government can censor. I was not calling Apple a censor, just drawing a contrast between them 25 years ago when they saw themselves as throwing a hammer against the 1984 regime, to today, refusing to publish certain words themselves. Words!
Well again, a deeply flawed analogy. The 1984 ad was a commercial statement, not a political one -- which seems obvious to me, since Apple is a company, not a government. The mission/purpose/powers of the two are so completely different, that I can't understand the attachment to the concept that companies peddle ideas instead of products.
The trouble with your soapbox perspective is that you have a notion that words do not evolve in their meaning.
As far as I know, if quite a number of people decide to use a word the way they want to, its broader or new definition becomes acceptable. It is not censored by the "Dictionary police"
Go ahead, try to compound the irony. It will be difficult, though -- it's already thick enough to cut with a knife.
The meaning of the word hasn't "evolved," it's been arbitrarily changed for the convenience of those who prefer their arguments to have emotional or political impact. If you don't believe me, just have a look at this thread. If we'd stuck to the actual meaning of the word, then none of this random political and social commentary would have been necessary -- or more to the point, possible. That's the real point. That's why language gets hijacked so often.
Can you point out where I said or even insinuated that the government should legislate what Apple does with its system? Nobody mentioned the government until you, as far as I can tell...
What I said is that (a) I disagree with Apple acting as "moral police" (I never said they don't have a right to); and (b) they are opening themselves up to legal challenge on the basis that they're not applying their own rules consistently.
I think the reasons for the first have been beaten into the ground, but maybe the second deserves further explanation:
I meant that they are opening themselves up to lawsuits (in civil, not criminal courts, if that's not clear) for unfair business practices. Let me explain. Apple has said that there is only one way to distribute apps on their platform. Fine. In order to use that distribution mechanism, you have to go through a decency filter. Fine.
In the case of this dictionary business, Apple has approved apps from big companies, and denied apps from smaller companies, both of which sets of apps have the same content. I know Phil Schiller went on the rant about "urban slang", but Apple's developer people told the developers that the app was held back because of f*ck, c*nt, et al.
These words appear in the apps of other developers, and all of Apple's apps are exempt from this limitation (Safari and YouTube being the most obvious examples).
Apple has laid out a clear and presumably legally enforceable contract that you must agree to when you become an Apple developer. And, they appear to not be abiding by it, or only choosing to enforce it in certain circumstances. It's only a matter of time, particularly if the market gets bigger, that the developers who have been shut out of the party are going to get ornery and direct their frustration back at the mothership in some coordinated fashion.
And on the flip side, perhaps Apple will be able to easily deflect that backlash, and they have absolutely nothing to worry about; time will tell.
As an aside, just because some company has a right to act a certain way doesn't mean we have to like the way they are acting.
The gov't is the one and only entity that has any legal responsibility to uphold the free speech you're referring to - I wasn't off on some tangent - you brought up free speech and I pointed out that the one and only entity that can not restrict said speech is the gov't.
As far as legal challenges to Apple - they are quite clever in that (as if any of us wound be surprised at their CYA ability). They never explicitly say what is offensive and as such you can't go around saying look, you violated you own terms because their terms never explicitly said squat. Now you may argue that another application made it through with similar content but then you're going to have to argue that your content is exactly the same as their content and Apple's lawyers, doing what they are paid for, will point out the dozens of ways your app is different.
Don't you think if Apple was legally in wrong on this one they'd have already been taken to court? I mean, apps have been around for almost a year now (right? my recollection of launch date for 2.0 is a little fuzzy) and there have been countless rejections and yet we still haven't sniffed any lawsuit about it.
Again, Apple knows what they are doing.
As far as not liking it - fair enough, that's every persons right to have an opinion and I respect that. Just don't throw in phrases like "free speech" as it is quite ambiguous in terms of how you choose to apply it to a private company.
As far as not liking it - fair enough, that's every persons right to have an opinion and I respect that. Just don't throw in phrases like "free speech" as it is quite ambiguous in terms of how you choose to apply it to a private company.
It's not just ambiguous, it's inappropriate. Companies don't have the power to restrict freedom of speech or expression. Only the government does.
I'm not really sure what you are getting at. My guess is that it involves some kind of overly-broad generality about residents in OC. And, since I did not specify which of the multiple 'orange' counties we have in the United States, I must conclude you feel your opinion extends to everyone in all of them.
Yep. Pretty much like your self important sense of decency would.
Parents want tools that will help them be better parents; tools like age-ratings. By demanding such tools, parents are not being selfish or trying to enforce their standards upon you, but they are asking for ways to help them maintain those standards.
I'm all for controls that allow parents to restrict certain content for their kids. But there are some who want to censor and limit the content for everyone because they are too lazy to do it themselves. Self-censorship is just fine as long as it doesn't impede those who aren't offended by curse words and sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618
My belief is that people frequently use the term 'censorship' to refer to limits on their behavior or expression that contradict their desires and wants, divorced from any consideration for others. Based on that use of the word, however, any kind of limit is censorship. This, however, is not what censorship is. Lets talk about language, for example: censorship is telling you that you cannot speak about a certain topic. Censorship is not telling you that you can't speak about that topic using certain language. Speech and language are not equivalent, and placing limits on the language used is not the same thing as restricting speech. Lets also talk about prOn, since everyone keeps bringing it up. Telling you that 'you may not view or distribute prOn in a public place' is not the same as saying 'you can't view prOn'.
How exactly do you separate speech from language? Language is necessary to speak. Censorship of speech is censorship of language and visa-versa. You're splitting hairs here and making no sense.
By the way, the correct spelling is PORN, not PRON. It's short for Pornography and is not a "bad" word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618
It is really laughable the way you guys come at this, because what you are really saying is that by restricting you from doing whatever you want, whenever you want, you are being censored. But I doubt very seriously you would really argue such a point to its logical conclusion, because you yourselves realize that there should be limits. You would not, for example, walk into a kindergarten and distribute prOn to all of the toddlers. Why? Because you know that it is completely inappropriate to do so. Strangely enough, though, you have no problem arguing that Apple ought to allow someone to do exactly the same thing through an iPhone without any kinds of control at all.
Again, I never said there should be no controls, you are the one making that assumption. And why must all of your arguments for censorship always involve porn and kids? That is why I said earlier that it is a parent's duty to shield their kids from content they deem unsuitable for them, NOT Apple or any other company that wants to sell content for adults. Most adults aren't offended by naughty words (which kids hear all the time at school) or sexual images, but these days it only takes a small group of loud people who want to force their morals on everyone and ban this or censor that, usually in the name of "protecting children." That's what I object to. I'm a grown man, I think I can determine for myself whether I want to look at or hear certain things.
I am far more disturbed by the amount of violence on TV and in movies. I don't understand the glorification of violence in our world, while sex and nudity are taboo and even illegal. However, I don't go around saying that all violent content should be removed and censored. I simply avoid TV shows and movies that glorify it. Why can't you and others do the same for you and your children?
Why does everyone think that a phone company is going to let its customers talk all they want for free and not support the main source of income: voice minutes?!?!?!?
I mean really, data is relatively cheap on the phone compared to calling minutes right now because it is subsidized by the voice minute revenue. If everyone keeps pushing for VOIP they might get it, but you can guarantee that the phone company will get their revenue (and you should hope it does or there won't by service for you to do anything).
I am sure that someone on here can explain this in better tech/cost terms to show how transmitting voice is a more developed and lower cost since the network involved is already built (i.e. we're only paying for use at the moment). When voice switches to VOIP, we will be stuck with the bill to build a network that can support the massive increase data requirements without the lags and gaps that data already suffers now.
And why does anyone think that ATT which is already struggling with the cost of upgrading their network for 3G (& soon 4G) has to support iphone VOIP on your home network; again it cuts into their prime revenue source. They want you to use your minutes because then next month you'll by them again and again and if your particularly chatting that is good money. I want you to use your minutes because then ATT can keep improving their network so i can do things that only work as data like email, web, etc.
Don't worry.
VOIP will come as surely as the rain, and it will really rain,
but remember the rain makes everything look nice and clean until you step in the mud.
I don't think Apple wants to keep 10 million crappy fart apps. Apple wants quality applications. Most of the stuff in App store is useless.
It might be that the users need to have a better way of testing, rating and communicating those opinions on apps to each other in a more open fashion so the cream, not the crap would rise to the top faster.
Comments
That does sound all neat and tidy, but you're missing two main things:
- How would you enforce it?
- What is "porn"?
The point I'm trying to make here is that Apple is being idiotic by putting themselves in the position of making that judgment. They can't determine what is offensive, any more than you or I could, because "offensive" is basically a word without meaning.Americans, for example, tend to think girls in bikinis or lingerie plastered all over magazines and TV is OK; to fundamentalist Muslims that would be outrageous. (This is but one example of the problem Apple is trying to solve.)
Not trying to self-promote, but I wrote a blog post back in May explaining how I think Apple ought to address these issues. Linking because it's too long to paste here.
If you don't want to click, the point of it is: Apple is putting itself in a position to accept legal liability by being the arbiter of what constitutes 'acceptability'. Apple should have built a system that let the users determine acceptability. That way, the responsibility for the rating system is foisted onto the community instead.
+1! That's what I mean and I agree with you completely, but some people here just don't see the point which I'm trying to get across.
That does sound all neat and tidy, but you're missing two main things:
- How would you enforce it?
- What is "porn"?
The point I'm trying to make here is that Apple is being idiotic by putting themselves in the position of making that judgment. They can't determine what is offensive, any more than you or I could, because "offensive" is basically a word without meaning.Americans, for example, tend to think girls in bikinis or lingerie plastered all over magazines and TV is OK; to fundamentalist Muslims that would be outrageous. (This is but one example of the problem Apple is trying to solve.)
Not trying to self-promote, but I wrote a blog post back in May explaining how I think Apple ought to address these issues. Linking because it's too long to paste here.
If you don't want to click, the point of it is: Apple is putting itself in a position to accept legal liability by being the arbiter of what constitutes 'acceptability'. Apple should have built a system that let the users determine acceptability. That way, the responsibility for the rating system is foisted onto the community instead.
So if you don't like what your senator is doing do you go around and b!tch to your neighbors for voting him/her in or do you b!tch about your senator?
Apple couldn't possible simply allow the community to regulate itself because they are a very high profile company and they know the what would happen should apps be available that people find questionable - it ends up all over the front of CNN and people start making the iPhone out to be a horrible device. Apple is unique in this because of their high profile - RIM for example (at least to the best of my knowledge) never gets plastered all over the press because there's an app with topless photos. Apple knows d@mn well what they are doing and they know how to make the most money off of it while at the same time keeping control of their device.
Making your device work with everything is what has made Windows such a heap of crap - when you can't control anything your product becomes susceptible to so much crap it becomes a heap of crap itself.
So if you don't like what your senator is doing do you go around and b!tch to your neighbors for voting him/her in or do you b!tch about your senator?
Apple couldn't possible simply allow the community to regulate itself because they are a very high profile company and they know the what would happen should apps be available that people find questionable - it ends up all over the front of CNN and people start making the iPhone out to be a horrible device. Apple is unique in this because of their high profile - RIM for example (at least to the best of my knowledge) never gets plastered all over the press because there's an app with topless photos. Apple knows d@mn well what they are doing and they know how to make the most money off of it while at the same time keeping control of their device.
Making your device work with everything is what has made Windows such a heap of crap - when you can't control anything your product becomes susceptible to so much crap it becomes a heap of crap itself.
+1. That is when necessary control has to be stepped up.
Making your device work with everything is what has made Windows such a heap of crap - when you can't control anything your product becomes susceptible to so much crap it becomes a heap of crap itself.
First of all, the comparison with the Windows (and I assume the Mac) market doesn't make any sense at all.
There are porn apps on the Mac, there are dictionary apps on the Mac with naughty words, there have been apps that did stuff people don't like (like mocking and making fun of Jesus, for example). Apple doesn't choose what apps are made for the Mac. Apple has no control over what apps are written for the Mac whatsoever.
On the iPhone, Apple has chosen to take the role of "moral police". It's not something they have to do (as the Mac clearly demonstrates), it's something they decided to do, because they wanted to skim money off every app sale.
That's why it made the news that there were breasts on the iPhone. If, from the beginning, there were no restrictions on development for the phone, no one would have cared about breasts on the iPhone. Apple would never have taken any heat for it.
But, since Apple has taken the position that they are going to be the only distribution mechanism, and that they will protect us all from seeing breasts on the iPhone, it becomes newsworthy if they fail in that mission (which they have, and will again). And not only does it amplify that news story, they also have to get flak from people like me and John Gruber and a million other people over the inconsistency of the policy, and questions from free speech advocates who, apparently unlike you, aren't quite so eager to have corporate overlords telling us what is and isn't morally acceptable.
Everything's going great for them, so far, but when they get the multibillion dollar class-action lawsuit for unfair business practices (since they clearly penalize smaller developers for infractions that they don't penalize larger developers for), then perhaps it won't seem so great.
I would like Apple to build great gadgets, not serve as de facto mobile content censor.
I want to reiterate: it's a truly great platform. I have an iPhone, and I like it very much. I just don't want Apple telling me what I can and can't do with it. I bought the damn thing; it ought to be mine.
First of all, the comparison with the Windows (and I assume the Mac) market doesn't make any sense at all.
There are porn apps on the Mac, there are dictionary apps on the Mac with naughty words, there have been apps that did stuff people don't like (like mocking and making fun of Jesus, for example). Apple doesn't choose what apps are made for the Mac. Apple has no control over what apps are written for the Mac whatsoever.
On the iPhone, Apple has chosen to take the role of "moral police". It's not something they have to do (as the Mac clearly demonstrates), it's something they decided to do, because they wanted to skim money off every app sale.
That's why it made the news that there were breasts on the iPhone. If, from the beginning, there were no restrictions on development for the phone, no one would have cared about breasts on the iPhone. Apple would never have taken any heat for it.
But, since Apple has taken the position that they are going to be the only distribution mechanism, and that they will protect us all from seeing breasts on the iPhone, it becomes newsworthy if they fail in that mission (which they have, and will again). And not only does it amplify that news story, they also have to get flak from people like me and John Gruber and a million other people over the inconsistency of the policy, and questions from free speech advocates who, apparently unlike you, aren't quite so eager to have corporate overlords telling us what is and isn't morally acceptable.
Everything's going great for them, so far, but when they get the multibillion dollar class-action lawsuit for unfair business practices (since they clearly penalize smaller developers for infractions that they don't penalize larger developers for), then perhaps it won't seem so great.
I would like Apple to build great gadgets, not serve as de facto mobile content censor.
I want to reiterate: it's a truly great platform. I have an iPhone, and I like it very much. I just don't want Apple telling me what I can and can't do with it. I bought the damn thing; it ought to be mine.
Apple wants to make 1) more money and 2) the iPhone the defacto smart phone for the non-business consumer (they might be after business but it's going to take a while on that one).
Comparing it to windows and Mac is fine comparison but I guess I didn't make the corollary clear - iPhone App Store is to RIM as Mac Hardware is to Windows hardware.
You're seriously going to claim that "a million other people" give Apple crap about the app store policies? Really? I really hope you're just exaggerating for effect because that's not even remotely close to a realistic number. Also, don't start pulling in this free speech crap - Apple isn't the gov't and as such they and they alone get to make the call about what to do with their device, it has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. People who throw around arguments like that are simply hoping to play off sensationalist fears of others. The gov't has no place in the app store at all and this has nothing to do with free speech - the gov't (and the gov't alone) has that ability - not a private company like Apple.
Furthermore, if you're suggesting that the US gov't should dictate to Apple what they should allow in their app store you are then taking away all the rights of the company. We, here in America, have this lovely right called the freedom of association - no one is forcing you to buy anything or hang out with anyone - if you don't like a product offered by a private company or their practices you are under no legal obligation to buy their product (hence the protections from monopolies).
The bottom line is this - it's is Apple's product, they made it, they sell it. If they don't want to open it up they don't have to and to suggest anything else is undemocratic at best and communistic at worst...
Also, as an aside, Apple chose to take the role of "moral police" because it is in their best financial interest, if you seriously believe that them operating it like RIM does w/ the blackberry would make more sense financially you are absolutely crazy - Apple controls it because they want to control the experience you have on the phone because the better the experience the more likely you are to suggest friends get one and so and so forth and then Apple continues to rake in the dough as well as the 30% from the app store sales - it's all business after all and personally I'd rather my money go Apple (who has proven to me they deserve it) than many other places.
Also, don't start pulling in this free speech crap - Apple isn't the gov't and as such they and they alone get to make the call about what to do with their device, it has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. People who throw around arguments like that are simply hoping to play off sensationalist fears of others. The gov't has no place in the app store at all and this has nothing to do with free speech - the gov't (and the gov't alone) has that ability - not a private company like Apple.
Furthermore, if you're suggesting that the US gov't should dictate to Apple what they should allow in their app store you are then taking away all the rights of the company. We, here in America, have this lovely right called the freedom of association - no one is forcing you to buy anything or hang out with anyone - if you don't like a product offered by a private company or their practices you are under no legal obligation to buy their product (hence the protections from monopolies).
The bottom line is this - it's is Apple's product, they made it, they sell it. If they don't want to open it up they don't have to and to suggest anything else is undemocratic at best and communistic at worst...
Can you point out where I said or even insinuated that the government should legislate what Apple does with its system? Nobody mentioned the government until you, as far as I can tell...
What I said is that (a) I disagree with Apple acting as "moral police" (I never said they don't have a right to); and (b) they are opening themselves up to legal challenge on the basis that they're not applying their own rules consistently.
I think the reasons for the first have been beaten into the ground, but maybe the second deserves further explanation:
I meant that they are opening themselves up to lawsuits (in civil, not criminal courts, if that's not clear) for unfair business practices. Let me explain. Apple has said that there is only one way to distribute apps on their platform. Fine. In order to use that distribution mechanism, you have to go through a decency filter. Fine.
In the case of this dictionary business, Apple has approved apps from big companies, and denied apps from smaller companies, both of which sets of apps have the same content. I know Phil Schiller went on the rant about "urban slang", but Apple's developer people told the developers that the app was held back because of f*ck, c*nt, et al.
These words appear in the apps of other developers, and all of Apple's apps are exempt from this limitation (Safari and YouTube being the most obvious examples).
Apple has laid out a clear and presumably legally enforceable contract that you must agree to when you become an Apple developer. And, they appear to not be abiding by it, or only choosing to enforce it in certain circumstances. It's only a matter of time, particularly if the market gets bigger, that the developers who have been shut out of the party are going to get ornery and direct their frustration back at the mothership in some coordinated fashion.
And on the flip side, perhaps Apple will be able to easily deflect that backlash, and they have absolutely nothing to worry about; time will tell.
As an aside, just because some company has a right to act a certain way doesn't mean we have to like the way they are acting.
Al Gore and his three 30" Cinema Displays.
Since when is censorship a good business decision? I guess WalMArt knows what there doing to by censoring lyrics too? We all know how fanstastic a company WalMart is. At lease let us put non- sactioned Apple apps on our phones if Apple doesn't want to sell them. Like widgets on our computers.
Abridging or adjusting someone's content in any way at all (or creating the conditions whereby people have little recourse other than to self-abridge or adjust their content) is censorship, quite clearly.
This is a radical interpretation of freedom of speech. It is one our founding fathers would not have embraced, it is one our laws do not embrace, and it is one the supreme court of the United States has consistently held to be incorrect. Our legal system enforces the idea that restricting language is not equivalent to restricting speech. This is why there are certain words you cannot say on television or the radio, it is why there are certain things you cannot say about your neighbor, your child, your child's teacher, the president, etc. and it is why you can't walk up to a person on the street or in the grocery store and launch into a stream of cursing invective. All of these things are prohibited, not based on what you wish to communicate, but upon the specific method you choose.
To make it totally clear, I could walk up to someone in the supermarket and say "I really do not like you or what you stand for" and I would be well within my rights. However, if I instead chose to walk up to that same person, and make the same statement laced with every pejorative curse-word I had heard in the last 40 plus years, I may very well get arrested. Within our society and within our legal framework there is a well-established distinction between specific kinds of discourse and the concept of free speech. If you are unable or unwilling to see the difference between these two things, that is completely irrelevant; it is the way that it is, regardless of whether or not you like it.
+1! I'm currently developing a mobile Appleinsider.
Sweet! Do you have a preview of it? Looking forward to it! I hope it'll be similar to m.digg.com
I know only the government can censor. I was not calling Apple a censor, just drawing a contrast between them 25 years ago when they saw themselves as throwing a hammer against the 1984 regime, to today, refusing to publish certain words themselves. Words!
Well again, a deeply flawed analogy. The 1984 ad was a commercial statement, not a political one -- which seems obvious to me, since Apple is a company, not a government. The mission/purpose/powers of the two are so completely different, that I can't understand the attachment to the concept that companies peddle ideas instead of products.
"Censorship is an official act..."
The trouble with your soapbox perspective is that you have a notion that words do not evolve in their meaning.
As far as I know, if quite a number of people decide to use a word the way they want to, its broader or new definition becomes acceptable. It is not censored by the "Dictionary police"
Go ahead, try to compound the irony. It will be difficult, though -- it's already thick enough to cut with a knife.
The meaning of the word hasn't "evolved," it's been arbitrarily changed for the convenience of those who prefer their arguments to have emotional or political impact. If you don't believe me, just have a look at this thread. If we'd stuck to the actual meaning of the word, then none of this random political and social commentary would have been necessary -- or more to the point, possible. That's the real point. That's why language gets hijacked so often.
Can you point out where I said or even insinuated that the government should legislate what Apple does with its system? Nobody mentioned the government until you, as far as I can tell...
What I said is that (a) I disagree with Apple acting as "moral police" (I never said they don't have a right to); and (b) they are opening themselves up to legal challenge on the basis that they're not applying their own rules consistently.
I think the reasons for the first have been beaten into the ground, but maybe the second deserves further explanation:
I meant that they are opening themselves up to lawsuits (in civil, not criminal courts, if that's not clear) for unfair business practices. Let me explain. Apple has said that there is only one way to distribute apps on their platform. Fine. In order to use that distribution mechanism, you have to go through a decency filter. Fine.
In the case of this dictionary business, Apple has approved apps from big companies, and denied apps from smaller companies, both of which sets of apps have the same content. I know Phil Schiller went on the rant about "urban slang", but Apple's developer people told the developers that the app was held back because of f*ck, c*nt, et al.
These words appear in the apps of other developers, and all of Apple's apps are exempt from this limitation (Safari and YouTube being the most obvious examples).
Apple has laid out a clear and presumably legally enforceable contract that you must agree to when you become an Apple developer. And, they appear to not be abiding by it, or only choosing to enforce it in certain circumstances. It's only a matter of time, particularly if the market gets bigger, that the developers who have been shut out of the party are going to get ornery and direct their frustration back at the mothership in some coordinated fashion.
And on the flip side, perhaps Apple will be able to easily deflect that backlash, and they have absolutely nothing to worry about; time will tell.
As an aside, just because some company has a right to act a certain way doesn't mean we have to like the way they are acting.
The gov't is the one and only entity that has any legal responsibility to uphold the free speech you're referring to - I wasn't off on some tangent - you brought up free speech and I pointed out that the one and only entity that can not restrict said speech is the gov't.
As far as legal challenges to Apple - they are quite clever in that (as if any of us wound be surprised at their CYA ability). They never explicitly say what is offensive and as such you can't go around saying look, you violated you own terms because their terms never explicitly said squat. Now you may argue that another application made it through with similar content but then you're going to have to argue that your content is exactly the same as their content and Apple's lawyers, doing what they are paid for, will point out the dozens of ways your app is different.
Don't you think if Apple was legally in wrong on this one they'd have already been taken to court? I mean, apps have been around for almost a year now (right? my recollection of launch date for 2.0 is a little fuzzy) and there have been countless rejections and yet we still haven't sniffed any lawsuit about it.
Again, Apple knows what they are doing.
As far as not liking it - fair enough, that's every persons right to have an opinion and I respect that. Just don't throw in phrases like "free speech" as it is quite ambiguous in terms of how you choose to apply it to a private company.
As far as not liking it - fair enough, that's every persons right to have an opinion and I respect that. Just don't throw in phrases like "free speech" as it is quite ambiguous in terms of how you choose to apply it to a private company.
It's not just ambiguous, it's inappropriate. Companies don't have the power to restrict freedom of speech or expression. Only the government does.
I'm not really sure what you are getting at. My guess is that it involves some kind of overly-broad generality about residents in OC. And, since I did not specify which of the multiple 'orange' counties we have in the United States, I must conclude you feel your opinion extends to everyone in all of them.
Yep. Pretty much like your self important sense of decency would.
Parents want tools that will help them be better parents; tools like age-ratings. By demanding such tools, parents are not being selfish or trying to enforce their standards upon you, but they are asking for ways to help them maintain those standards.
I'm all for controls that allow parents to restrict certain content for their kids. But there are some who want to censor and limit the content for everyone because they are too lazy to do it themselves. Self-censorship is just fine as long as it doesn't impede those who aren't offended by curse words and sex.
My belief is that people frequently use the term 'censorship' to refer to limits on their behavior or expression that contradict their desires and wants, divorced from any consideration for others. Based on that use of the word, however, any kind of limit is censorship. This, however, is not what censorship is. Lets talk about language, for example: censorship is telling you that you cannot speak about a certain topic. Censorship is not telling you that you can't speak about that topic using certain language. Speech and language are not equivalent, and placing limits on the language used is not the same thing as restricting speech. Lets also talk about prOn, since everyone keeps bringing it up. Telling you that 'you may not view or distribute prOn in a public place' is not the same as saying 'you can't view prOn'.
How exactly do you separate speech from language? Language is necessary to speak. Censorship of speech is censorship of language and visa-versa. You're splitting hairs here and making no sense.
By the way, the correct spelling is PORN, not PRON. It's short for Pornography and is not a "bad" word.
It is really laughable the way you guys come at this, because what you are really saying is that by restricting you from doing whatever you want, whenever you want, you are being censored. But I doubt very seriously you would really argue such a point to its logical conclusion, because you yourselves realize that there should be limits. You would not, for example, walk into a kindergarten and distribute prOn to all of the toddlers. Why? Because you know that it is completely inappropriate to do so. Strangely enough, though, you have no problem arguing that Apple ought to allow someone to do exactly the same thing through an iPhone without any kinds of control at all.
Again, I never said there should be no controls, you are the one making that assumption. And why must all of your arguments for censorship always involve porn and kids? That is why I said earlier that it is a parent's duty to shield their kids from content they deem unsuitable for them, NOT Apple or any other company that wants to sell content for adults. Most adults aren't offended by naughty words (which kids hear all the time at school) or sexual images, but these days it only takes a small group of loud people who want to force their morals on everyone and ban this or censor that, usually in the name of "protecting children." That's what I object to. I'm a grown man, I think I can determine for myself whether I want to look at or hear certain things.
I am far more disturbed by the amount of violence on TV and in movies. I don't understand the glorification of violence in our world, while sex and nudity are taboo and even illegal. However, I don't go around saying that all violent content should be removed and censored. I simply avoid TV shows and movies that glorify it. Why can't you and others do the same for you and your children?
I mean really, data is relatively cheap on the phone compared to calling minutes right now because it is subsidized by the voice minute revenue. If everyone keeps pushing for VOIP they might get it, but you can guarantee that the phone company will get their revenue (and you should hope it does or there won't by service for you to do anything).
I am sure that someone on here can explain this in better tech/cost terms to show how transmitting voice is a more developed and lower cost since the network involved is already built (i.e. we're only paying for use at the moment). When voice switches to VOIP, we will be stuck with the bill to build a network that can support the massive increase data requirements without the lags and gaps that data already suffers now.
And why does anyone think that ATT which is already struggling with the cost of upgrading their network for 3G (& soon 4G) has to support iphone VOIP on your home network; again it cuts into their prime revenue source. They want you to use your minutes because then next month you'll by them again and again and if your particularly chatting that is good money. I want you to use your minutes because then ATT can keep improving their network so i can do things that only work as data like email, web, etc.
Don't worry.
VOIP will come as surely as the rain, and it will really rain,
but remember the rain makes everything look nice and clean until you step in the mud.
+1! I'm currently developing a mobile Appleinsider.
If you shake it, does it tell you where Apple is based?
I don't think Apple wants to keep 10 million crappy fart apps. Apple wants quality applications. Most of the stuff in App store is useless.
It might be that the users need to have a better way of testing, rating and communicating those opinions on apps to each other in a more open fashion so the cream, not the crap would rise to the top faster.