Google, on the other hand, gives their stuff away for free. Shiny and clean isn't Google's "raison d'etre." So if it doesn't work perfectly (Buzz), people complain for a week or two then drop it.
Ever hear of the phrase "nothing is for free"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Sure some consumers (supposedly) complained about the risque stuff (I don't actually believe that but let's go with accepted wisdom), but if Apple's consumers got a vote, we all know the censorship would be immediately lifted. The censorship isn't about what the consumers of Apple's products and services want, it's a PR move from Apple to defuse a vocal minority.
I suggested last time that you take a look at the comments on the app store regarding the vibrator apps. The parents weren't too happy about their teen girls masturbating with their IPT's. Take a look, the comments are comical and disprove you point. Lot's of customers complain about things they believe their kids shouldn't have access to and your opinion is not the "one ring to rule them all" as much as it appears you would like it to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
It's almost as bad as the way Americans talk about "socialism, communism, and fascism" in the same sentence (Obama is all three for instance), when in fact these are three completely different things, two of them being complete opposites.
Ohhh great and wise Gazoobee, lead us to salvation for we cannot think for ourselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Your not making much sense here.
Neither do you. Again your opinion isn't the be all end all of morality and justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel
But it must be the buyer who decides what he wants to seeand read, not Apple. I will not buy an iPad before it is clear that the press can publish what they want to publish through their apps!
I'm sure publishers will be able to release the vast majority of their content. You're arguing on a slippery slope. Apple is NOT censoring anything unlike any other retailer. Why is it any different for Walmart not to sell porn? I'm sure the content of the newspapers will remain unchanged because if it didn't and Apple took a black marker to the content they sell that would make it censorship. Which they have not done with music, sooooo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
I think you're confused here. Apple is not censoring content for the consumer - you can still get every web page from every pornographic site on the planet on your iPhone. Any developer can still make a web app to do anything, and the iPhone will run it.
All Apple has done is restrict what content Apple itself offers in its store. Developers are complaining because they can't piggyback on Apple's popularity to sell anything they want on iTunes.
WORD!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo
LOL People like Tim Bray needs to get over themselves.
Apple is a company, not a government. They are free to do what they wish with their own products.
I don't see them complaining about not being able to stick their penis in Tickle me Elmo.
Someone that "angry" and agitated needs to put their penis a tickle me elmo. Honestly I can't believe they got him to say what he did. really made himself look like an ass. "sex lies and videotape. LOL yeah that's how I look at the world controversial and out of control. Let's see how that vision works out for us. Won't take long to find out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
None of my previous employers will give references. At best they will state the period I worked for them. So your challenge is, well, pointless.
I've gotten allot of recommendations from former employers. Maybe you're just used to always working for other people and being part of a corporate structure that enables and tolerates bad attitudes. I'm "freelance" and if I burned every bridge I left behind my company would be screwed.
My thoughts.... Apple is trying to protect it's image form being tarnished and their devices from turning into so much useless MSFT garbage because the reality is that a significant percentage of the internet content is porn, spam, scams and malware.(I think I just came up with a great name for a porn).
Seriously aren't we all Apple users because we don't want that crap? Good luck Google. Like others have said, they are the new MSFT.
Freedom to create chaos? or being closed in order to prevent disorder and anarchy? If you ask which I would prefer, I would choose the 2nd choice one million times over the 1st choice.
If you have a family would you allow anybody to enter into your house and made free of everything that you possess? Would you allow a rapist free access into your home to rape your wife or daughter? Would you allow a trigger-happy ruffian into your garden to shoot your dog or cat? If you think so then you must be nuts and a liability to society.
Similarly, applying the same principles to the integrity of a country, no country on earth even for the so-called "land of the free", the USA can have total freedom without limitations. If the USA were to have the Google-inspired "freedom" then there would be no government, no Congress, no courts, no police, no army and no laws. Everybody would have the freedom to do whatever he wants and naturally the strong, powerful and the rich would have a free ride on everything. Google wants to have this freedom so that it can butcher every competitor, steal their IPs and copy their products and take over their market share. Then it pretends to offer free trinkets to seduce the unsophisticated followers while spying and amass every information on everyone. This tactic was employed by the fascist German Nazis state and Communist Russia to fool the masses and to finally enslave them. And do you know who were the advocates and avid admirers of this evil scheme: the intellectuals (the geeks of Google?) of the Western democracies.
So which platform is more compatible to a civilized state: the Google or the Apple platform? To me, the Google platform is a sinister outfit which would eventually lead to anarchy and a whole bag of hurts.
My vote for his replacement is Johnathan Schwartz. Apple needs to get into the enterprise. They had the chance to buy Sun, but missed the opportunity, Sun would have been worth it just for Solaris and IP. Hopefully if Schwartz moves in he can guide them into the enterprise and lure Sun Engineers to Apple.
The marketing can be handled by Apple's vast talent pool and other exec's along with new ideas.
Jonathan Schwartz wasn't well received at NeXT and even less so at Sun, by ex-NeXT engineers and business managers who now work at Apple.
Although he has said more than once that it was one of the top 2 or 3 most important things he ever did in his life. And he has recently shown interest in a foundation that was looking to continue research on LSD.
My point: He may not constantly recommend it for everyone, but he does seem to consider it to have been an important experience in his life.
An old friend of mine I taught Calculus and Physics to, now a Neuroscience Ph.D., did work at Washington University on LSD and now in robotics/prosthetics with neuro-mapping he has spoken for years on the necessity of LSD research.
It is one of the most important things one can experience in life. It's even more engaging when you have friends in academia at the time discussing ideas on it.
Personally, the tact of "our sh-t doesn't smell, but yours stinks" is a dangerous one for Google, if for no other reason than the fact that Google really isn't that much more open than Apple.
After all, Google isn't providing open source to core Google services like Maps, Gmail, YouTube and the like. And of course, crown jewels, like Google's search index are closed, not to mention that they have NEVER provided visibility to the spread they make between advertisers and publishers with AdWords/AdSense. What's so open about that?
It reminds me of the adage, "Be open with what you want to commoditize, but closed where your proprietary advantage lies."
By that definition, Google is more “open-ish" than open, something that I blogged about here:
Open "ish": The meaning of open, according to Google
I am not an Apple fanboy. I have criticism regarding some of the things Apple does - especially in the desktop space. However, I am 100% with Apple with regards to the iPhone. The fact of the matter is that no company has done more to advance mobile internet and innovative interfacing than Apple.
I think Google should shut their face and take notes.
Tim Bray seems to be confused about the difference between Apps and the Internet. Apple doesn't filter the internet (with the exception of the putrid Flash, which is no real loss), which is what he seems to be implying. You can use iPhone or the Touch to browse the Internet without ever even viewing the App Store and it's "filtered" content. If you don't like the contents of the App store, don't go there.
He just sounds bitter and twisted - perhaps working for Microsoft would suit him better?
Edit: Thanks for the Scroogle link, Spliff Monkey.
Apple is a company, not a government. They are free to do what they wish with their own products.
Despite the obscene power that some companies have these days and the horrors they can get away with (Bhopal, Exxon Valdez anyone?) they haven't yet managed to loosen all restrictions on their behaviour.\
it may not be trivial to determine which company "out-evils" the other, but it certainly is easy to determine which one is more of hypocrite. hint: last time i check apple did not have slogan "do not evil"
Apple's AppStore is NOT the mobile internet and is NOT intended to be. That is what Mobile Safari on the iPhone is for. If he (i.e. Google) wants to write mobile internet apps for the iPhone... write them for Mobile Safari. I do not understand why this is so difficult to understand.
Couldn't agree more. Apps are not the internet. You want porn, racism and other controversial material you can still do that in mobile safari. Hosting offensive apps on the app store is a potential liability and could have a negative effect on the company, so they are removed.
As far as some wifi searching apps go, I am not sure why those needed to go, my bet is on ATT being not happy. Anyway we'll see if this will change anything, cause iPhone OS and hardware are still much better then any android (maybe except nexus one) in my opinion.
I agree. But I suspect that his real gripe here has nothing to do with "censorship" of controversial or sexual content. This sounds like a cover for an open-source type ideology. He's not concerned about consumer freedom, he's concerned about developer freedom. Those aren't exactly the same things.
I think Apple has the right approach, because they are putting consumer experience above ideology (or, perhaps consumer experience is their ideology).
I think both sides have valuable things to think about
1- google is a bit of liar when they say they "don't be evil" they kill competitors.
2- apple ought to censor less and allow outside developers ways to sell iphone app's which are not "approved" if apple were more open, less people would complain. they censor programs not merely for nudity and things like that. but apple also censors for competition. ie to have less.
if apple were to be more of an agnostic OS / hardware company again, we would get perhaps netflix on itouch/ipod/iphone via wifi. or wifi phone services and more.
sorry, but googles if your not like us your evil approach is getting old.
but apple needs to open up the ability for developers to sell and install app's, programs and more to apple devices like iphone, ipad and apple tv. let people develop and install without hacking.
why? innovation is key and apple is threatening innovation on their platforms and systems. all in this "disneyfied" web experience. war on flash, war on competition and more.
Google ain't a cherub here. but Apple can definitely improve as well. and hell... don't get me started on Apple stonewalling Blu-Ray
"The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet's future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what," Bray wrote. "It's a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger. I hate it."
LOL...don't worry Tim, you can still surf porn using Safari on the iPhone. BTW, when's the last time anybody walked into a software store (like CompUSA) and bought sexually explicit software from them? Why do people think the app store is any different?
So, Tim Bray is now a Droid (and Google Search was his idea!). New Google employees tend to go off on these sort of rants until they have their implants fine tuned. Nothing to worry about.
Comments
Google, on the other hand, gives their stuff away for free. Shiny and clean isn't Google's "raison d'etre." So if it doesn't work perfectly (Buzz), people complain for a week or two then drop it.
Ever hear of the phrase "nothing is for free"?
Sure some consumers (supposedly) complained about the risque stuff (I don't actually believe that but let's go with accepted wisdom), but if Apple's consumers got a vote, we all know the censorship would be immediately lifted. The censorship isn't about what the consumers of Apple's products and services want, it's a PR move from Apple to defuse a vocal minority.
I suggested last time that you take a look at the comments on the app store regarding the vibrator apps. The parents weren't too happy about their teen girls masturbating with their IPT's. Take a look, the comments are comical and disprove you point. Lot's of customers complain about things they believe their kids shouldn't have access to and your opinion is not the "one ring to rule them all" as much as it appears you would like it to be.
It's almost as bad as the way Americans talk about "socialism, communism, and fascism" in the same sentence (Obama is all three for instance), when in fact these are three completely different things, two of them being complete opposites.
Ohhh great and wise Gazoobee, lead us to salvation for we cannot think for ourselves.
Your not making much sense here.
Neither do you. Again your opinion isn't the be all end all of morality and justice.
But it must be the buyer who decides what he wants to seeand read, not Apple. I will not buy an iPad before it is clear that the press can publish what they want to publish through their apps!
I'm sure publishers will be able to release the vast majority of their content. You're arguing on a slippery slope. Apple is NOT censoring anything unlike any other retailer. Why is it any different for Walmart not to sell porn? I'm sure the content of the newspapers will remain unchanged because if it didn't and Apple took a black marker to the content they sell that would make it censorship. Which they have not done with music, sooooo?
I think you're confused here. Apple is not censoring content for the consumer - you can still get every web page from every pornographic site on the planet on your iPhone. Any developer can still make a web app to do anything, and the iPhone will run it.
All Apple has done is restrict what content Apple itself offers in its store. Developers are complaining because they can't piggyback on Apple's popularity to sell anything they want on iTunes.
WORD!
LOL People like Tim Bray needs to get over themselves.
Apple is a company, not a government. They are free to do what they wish with their own products.
I don't see them complaining about not being able to stick their penis in Tickle me Elmo.
Someone that "angry" and agitated needs to put their penis a tickle me elmo.
None of my previous employers will give references. At best they will state the period I worked for them. So your challenge is, well, pointless.
I've gotten allot of recommendations from former employers. Maybe you're just used to always working for other people and being part of a corporate structure that enables and tolerates bad attitudes. I'm "freelance" and if I burned every bridge I left behind my company would be screwed.
My thoughts.... Apple is trying to protect it's image form being tarnished and their devices from turning into so much useless MSFT garbage because the reality is that a significant percentage of the internet content is porn, spam, scams and malware.(I think I just came up with a great name for a porn).
Seriously aren't we all Apple users because we don't want that crap? Good luck Google. Like others have said, they are the new MSFT.
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
If you have a family would you allow anybody to enter into your house and made free of everything that you possess? Would you allow a rapist free access into your home to rape your wife or daughter? Would you allow a trigger-happy ruffian into your garden to shoot your dog or cat? If you think so then you must be nuts and a liability to society.
Similarly, applying the same principles to the integrity of a country, no country on earth even for the so-called "land of the free", the USA can have total freedom without limitations. If the USA were to have the Google-inspired "freedom" then there would be no government, no Congress, no courts, no police, no army and no laws. Everybody would have the freedom to do whatever he wants and naturally the strong, powerful and the rich would have a free ride on everything. Google wants to have this freedom so that it can butcher every competitor, steal their IPs and copy their products and take over their market share. Then it pretends to offer free trinkets to seduce the unsophisticated followers while spying and amass every information on everyone. This tactic was employed by the fascist German Nazis state and Communist Russia to fool the masses and to finally enslave them. And do you know who were the advocates and avid admirers of this evil scheme: the intellectuals (the geeks of Google?) of the Western democracies.
So which platform is more compatible to a civilized state: the Google or the Apple platform? To me, the Google platform is a sinister outfit which would eventually lead to anarchy and a whole bag of hurts.
My vote for his replacement is Johnathan Schwartz. Apple needs to get into the enterprise. They had the chance to buy Sun, but missed the opportunity, Sun would have been worth it just for Solaris and IP. Hopefully if Schwartz moves in he can guide them into the enterprise and lure Sun Engineers to Apple.
The marketing can be handled by Apple's vast talent pool and other exec's along with new ideas.
Jonathan Schwartz wasn't well received at NeXT and even less so at Sun, by ex-NeXT engineers and business managers who now work at Apple.
Although he has said more than once that it was one of the top 2 or 3 most important things he ever did in his life. And he has recently shown interest in a foundation that was looking to continue research on LSD.
Remember this article:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...omments/21744/
My point: He may not constantly recommend it for everyone, but he does seem to consider it to have been an important experience in his life.
An old friend of mine I taught Calculus and Physics to, now a Neuroscience Ph.D., did work at Washington University on LSD and now in robotics/prosthetics with neuro-mapping he has spoken for years on the necessity of LSD research.
It is one of the most important things one can experience in life. It's even more engaging when you have friends in academia at the time discussing ideas on it.
Personally, the tact of "our sh-t doesn't smell, but yours stinks" is a dangerous one for Google, if for no other reason than the fact that Google really isn't that much more open than Apple.
After all, Google isn't providing open source to core Google services like Maps, Gmail, YouTube and the like. And of course, crown jewels, like Google's search index are closed, not to mention that they have NEVER provided visibility to the spread they make between advertisers and publishers with AdWords/AdSense. What's so open about that?
It reminds me of the adage, "Be open with what you want to commoditize, but closed where your proprietary advantage lies."
By that definition, Google is more “open-ish" than open, something that I blogged about here:
Open "ish": The meaning of open, according to Google
http://bit.ly/5ocoV3
Check it out if interested.
Mark
Excellent article.
I think Google should shut their face and take notes.
He just sounds bitter and twisted - perhaps working for Microsoft would suit him better?
Edit: Thanks for the Scroogle link, Spliff Monkey.
Apple is a company, not a government. They are free to do what they wish with their own products.
Despite the obscene power that some companies have these days and the horrors they can get away with (Bhopal, Exxon Valdez anyone?) they haven't yet managed to loosen all restrictions on their behaviour.
Not sure which company out-evils the other?
it may not be trivial to determine which company "out-evils" the other, but it certainly is easy to determine which one is more of hypocrite. hint: last time i check apple did not have slogan "do not evil"
Apple's AppStore is NOT the mobile internet and is NOT intended to be. That is what Mobile Safari on the iPhone is for. If he (i.e. Google) wants to write mobile internet apps for the iPhone... write them for Mobile Safari. I do not understand why this is so difficult to understand.
Couldn't agree more. Apps are not the internet. You want porn, racism and other controversial material you can still do that in mobile safari. Hosting offensive apps on the app store is a potential liability and could have a negative effect on the company, so they are removed.
As far as some wifi searching apps go, I am not sure why those needed to go, my bet is on ATT being not happy. Anyway we'll see if this will change anything, cause iPhone OS and hardware are still much better then any android (maybe except nexus one) in my opinion.
I agree. But I suspect that his real gripe here has nothing to do with "censorship" of controversial or sexual content. This sounds like a cover for an open-source type ideology. He's not concerned about consumer freedom, he's concerned about developer freedom. Those aren't exactly the same things.
I think Apple has the right approach, because they are putting consumer experience above ideology (or, perhaps consumer experience is their ideology).
I think both sides have valuable things to think about
1- google is a bit of liar when they say they "don't be evil" they kill competitors.
2- apple ought to censor less and allow outside developers ways to sell iphone app's which are not "approved" if apple were more open, less people would complain. they censor programs not merely for nudity and things like that. but apple also censors for competition. ie to have less.
if apple were to be more of an agnostic OS / hardware company again, we would get perhaps netflix on itouch/ipod/iphone via wifi. or wifi phone services and more.
sorry, but googles if your not like us your evil approach is getting old.
but apple needs to open up the ability for developers to sell and install app's, programs and more to apple devices like iphone, ipad and apple tv. let people develop and install without hacking.
why? innovation is key and apple is threatening innovation on their platforms and systems. all in this "disneyfied" web experience. war on flash, war on competition and more.
Google ain't a cherub here. but Apple can definitely improve as well. and hell... don't get me started on Apple stonewalling Blu-Ray
"The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet's future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what," Bray wrote. "It's a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger. I hate it."
LOL...don't worry Tim, you can still surf porn using Safari on the iPhone. BTW, when's the last time anybody walked into a software store (like CompUSA) and bought sexually explicit software from them? Why do people think the app store is any different?
To me, the Google platform is a sinister outfit which would eventually lead to anarchy and a whole bag of hurts.
I hope Apple kills Google. They are the most evil!
He just sounds bitter and twisted - perhaps working for Microsoft would suit him better?
No, Google is the most evil. He belongs there.
but Apple can definitely improve as well. and hell... don't get me started on Apple stonewalling Blu-Ray
BluRay is a bag of hurt. I'm GLAD that Steve won't let me have it - I'm better off that way.
BluRay is a bag of hurt. I'm GLAD that Steve won't let me have it - I'm better off that way.
It's a bag of HD wonder actually. DVD belongs in a museum, and downloads (eg. iTunes) are way, way below acceptable quality at the present time.
So blu-ray then, the only way to watch movies if you give a damn about picture and sound quality.
So blu-ray then, the only way to watch movies if you give a damn about picture and sound quality.
Nobody cares about quality anymore. iTunes is MUCH more convenient! The quality is fine except for the geek's.