"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.? - Benjamin Franklin
Not meaning to speak for anyone but myself-- the liberty to install arbitrary applications on my mobile computing platform is not, to me, at all essential. Back when I had that ability (first with my Texas Instruments Avigo 10, and later with a long series of Palm OS devices, most of which were also phones) I certainly did install arbitrary applications (some of which were free, some purchased, and a few of which I wrote myself). But, none of them were remotely essential...
Quote:
Can?t the solution be to let us check a box to install unauthorized apps, a la Android?
I believe that in the Apple ecosystem it's called "jailbreak"... and, yes, for those who DO find the liberty to install arbitrary apps on their mobile phone to be "essential", there are several solutions (buy one of the dozens of Android or WiMo phones, jailbreak an iPhone, or use comparable over-rides to ignore the security requirements of a Symbian or RIM phone...)
What a crappy article. Should we have Apple tell us what we can and cannot put on our Macs too, so we never get a virus? This article just reeks of desperate justification for Apple?s policies.
Makes no difference. Every time consumers open their wallets and buy Apple gear, they say YES to Apple's policies.
Apple's policies can be anything. If developers flock to the platform and consumers line up at the cash, then it's all fair.
From what we're seeing, both consumers and developers agree with Apple's vision.
Makes no difference. Every time consumers open their wallets and buy Apple gear, they say YES to Apple's policies.
Apple's policies can be anything. If developers flock to the platform and consumers line up at the cash, then it's all fair.
From what we're seeing, both consumers and developers agree with Apple's vision.
Exactly, and if I may be indulged in a few metaphors. One day historians will look back at the first thirty years of the micro computer and see this as the 'Wild West' days with ever more techy bandits in them there hills. The need for a far safer place to be becoming ever more apparent as those 30 years went by. It's one thing for an individual with techy enthusiasm to want to go it alone and do their own thing and get 'shot' a few times but for the masses, governmental, military, medical, business and industrial usage the need for a town with a strong sheriff is essential.
Apple may get criticized by the brave (foolhardy) individualists (who I assume love messing with virus update issues and having their phones auto dial Russia) but as long as there are alternatives they should go buy them instead of Apple products and stop trolling here!
Seems like a decent portion of the other responses have been ?buy another phone then.? Pretty poor attitude. Sure, it?s just the tech geeks voicing these complaints now, but what happens when the average consumer starts getting mad (Google Voice is probably the best example to date, or perhaps the denial of the political cartoonist)? Are you just going to keep telling everyone to go buy another phone? Seems like a better solution would be to either constructively deal with the problem or give proper justification for why the policies are in place. This AI article did not provide a very good justification..
The problem is that you've been given Apple's rationale - repeatedly - and you keep ignoring it. That's why you're being called a troll.
Apple has one business model, Google has another. If you don't like Apple's business model, buy something else. Expecting Apple to dump their very successful business model because you prefer that they follow Google's is insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SinisterJoe
I don't understand why people are still talking about this. It's a classic curated environment vs. open environment debate. There is no right answer or one-size-fits-all solution. It's good people have the choice. If you argue against Apple's curated platform you're basically trying to take that choice away from people. That is wrong. It would be wrong to argue that Android should be a curated environment for the exact same reason. You have choices -- use them.
QFT. Very well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planet Blue
But Apple isn?t just preventing harmful or malicious apps from being installed. If they just did that, I would say ?great!?. No, they prevent applications like Google Voice, the political cartoonist (I know they reversed it after the outcry), etc. Apps have to meet MUCH stricter criteria than just not being harmful. That is where I (and others with my viewpoint) see a problem.
So you're trying to draw an even sillier line in the sand. You're OK with Apple's business model SOME of the time, but you want to arbitrarily switch to Google's model at other times. It doesn't work.
Furthermore, as you've been told repeatedly, it's not just about blocking harmful apps. It's about the entire ecosystem. Apple wants the greatest, most consistent user interface. Google Voice was blocked because they tried to usurp the entire user experience and break the ecosystem. Most users of Apple products like simplicity and consistency and are willing to pay a premium for it - so Apple is simply defending its target audience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll
With dozens of vulnerabilities and three exploits to date, not even those unprecedented extreme measures have protected iPhone OS.
AFAIK, all of those exploits only applied to jail-broken phones. That simply proves that what Apple is doing works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn
There should be mechanisms in place from the carrier to confirm any unusual phone activity as soon as it starts, like a call back with a approved password phrase. Also easy ways for the user to place restrictions on the carrier end, say at a carrier website, to prevent his/her phone (stolen, borrowed or malware controlled) to make calls outside those restrictions a user places on it.
You really want to rely on AT&T or Verizon to prevent virus infection of your phone? Sorry, I would rather have someone competent involved.
Besides, how is the carrier supposed to know that an application that I've loaded onto my phone from my computer has infected the phone? That just doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz
Another reason Microsoft are adopting the Apple approach for Windows Phone 7. Microsoft will be approving and vetting all apps along with strict controls on the hardware.
Exactly. Note that Windows Phone 7 will also not have Flash and will have somewhat limited multitasking - similar to iPhone OS 3.2. Once again, the market seems to be recognizing that Apple was right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planet Blue
Can?t the solution be to let us check a box to install unauthorized apps, a la Android? Seems like the best of both worlds. Apple stops taking heat, and it would be the users liability if stuff like this happened. At the same time, it would allow for some of the amazing Cydia apps to get a broader audience.
That would be a ridiculous 'solution'. If you really want to install third party apps, you can jailbreak your phone - and then you're on your own.
But for Apple to facilitate it would simply be the worst of both worlds. Apple would have their restricted store and many vendors would go outside the Apple store - either because of greed (so they keep all the money) or because their apps are not good enough for the Apple store. A huge majority of phones would end up with that box checked and most users would experience the inconsistency, poor performance, and other problems related to crappy apps. Apple would end up getting the heat - not to mention having armies of dissatisfied customers.
The solution is that if you don't like a particular product, you buy something else. You don't whine that you like your Chevy, but GM ought to be willing to install a BMW engine in it if you ask for it.
What a crappy article. Should we have Apple tell us what we can and cannot put on our Macs too, so we never get a virus? This article just reeks of desperate justification for Apple?s policies.
Because viruses and malware are just as easily received, repaired, and addressed on a mobile phone, right? No, far from it. This article actually helped to drive home for me how important it is, for general smartphone users, to enjoy a degree of a controlled environment. It ensures their experience.
What a crappy article. Should we have Apple tell us what we can and cannot put on our Macs too, so we never get a virus? This article just reeks of desperate justification for Apple’s policies.
I love Apple as much as the next guy, but damn, I just cannot handle when people claim censorship and gate-keeping are positive things.
"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin
Can’t the solution be to let us check a box to install unauthorized apps, a la Android? Seems like the best of both worlds. Apple stops taking heat, and it would be the users liability if stuff like this happened. At the same time, it would allow for some of the amazing Cydia apps to get a broader audience.
Get a Life dude. Liberty and freedom is based on choice. You have a choice to buy an iPhone based on what you already know about how their product operates. Sorry but I don't really think Benjamin Franklin had cell phones in mind when he made that quote, regardless of how you want to twist it.
iPhone is run based on the fact the 95% percent of people who buy cell phones don't know about this type of stuff, nor do they really care where they get their apps from. They just want a fun and reliable experience. These are the people apple protects and they are clearly doing a good job.
Regardless of where a security issue came from or whose fault it was, majority of people's reaction would be to blame the phone and never buy that brand again.
The other fraction of people out there are generally technically inclined and have the know how to just hack their phone anyways, so they can still get any app.
Would people please stop this bullshit liberty crap. Your Civil rights are about freedom of speech, the right to chose your own path in life and other things that ACTUALLY matter. They aren't for whining about not getting what you want on toys.
I wonder how liberated this guy felt when he got his $1000 phone bill..
Somehow keeping viruses etc off of your cell phone is not a positive thing?! Seriously?!
I think that you are claiming that the ends justify the means. And I think you are saying tHat any means of keeping viruses off you cell phone is a positive thing, no matter what the means were used to get there.
You seem to me to be a happy Apple customer. Steve is counting on you.
I think that you are claiming that the ends justify the means. And I think you are saying tHat any means of keeping viruses off you cell phone is a positive thing, no matter what the means were used to get there.
You seem to me to be a happy Apple customer. Steve is counting on you.
rrriiiightt.. the means of course being creating they're product in a way that protects their costumers from dangers they can't see?
Wow there's a lot of vitriol against planet blue for making a good point. I'd also much prefer Apple limited the App store approval to technical issues and security, and leave the political element out. I don't like being told what I can or can't do with my hardware based on someone else's puritan morals or political slant or business favoritism.
Sure, we could buy another phone, but that's a non-argument. You're not even trying to rationalize the policies anymore, your response amounts to "shut up and go away". As a debate mechanism, that's pretty much admitting defeat because you don't have anything better to say. Some of us like 95% of the iPhone system, and have valid opinions on what's missing in the last 5%. The "go away" argument is not adding any insight, why do you bother?
No, they prevent applications like Google Voice, the political cartoonist (I know they reversed it after the outcry), etc. Apps have to meet MUCH stricter criteria than just not being harmful. That is where I (and others with my viewpoint) see a problem.
I can understand you not being comfortable with that sort of "curation" as Jobs now characterizes the process. I however, welcome it. I don't feel angry or deprived by Apple deciding what wares I get to choose. Just doesn't bother me. I don't lose sleep over apps I can't have. Most of us have bigger problems.
Also, I love the comments which respond to the desire to install non-authorized apps by suggesting jailbreaking the phone. If that was at all supported by Apple, I'd say sure. But I know the moment Apple does something to brick jailbroken phones you'll be the first to say that it was never supported and no one has any room to complain. It's like telling a guy who wants to buy a bb-gun to chase squirrels off his birdfeeder that he isn't allowed, but anyone who is savvy enough to differentiate between a squirrel and a bird at the feeder can instead just build a nuke in his garage to get rid of the squirrels. O_o
Apple doesn't allow non-app store installation because they want the consumer lock-in and the ability to block subversive/competitive technologies. This is not to benefit the consumer, this is to benefit Apple. Sometimes our interests are aligned with Apple, but not always.
Wow there's a lot of vitriol against planet blue for making a good point. I'd also much prefer Apple limited the App store approval to technical issues and security, and leave the political element out. I don't like being told what I can or can't do with my hardware based on someone else's puritan morals or political slant or business favoritism.
But he did not make a good point. In fact, he created the "political" dimension by attempting to equate a company's product and marketing (read: not even remotely political) decisions with liberty. This is an obviously faulty comparison, on every imaginable level. In truth it is completely ridiculous. So no, he did make a good point. This is precisely what so many have taken pains to explain.
But he did not make a good point. In fact, he created the "political" dimension by attempting to equate a company's product and marketing (read: not even remotely political) decisions with liberty.
In case you haven't followed the news, there was a political cartoonist who was blocked because he made fun of public figures (uh, kind of the point... so are no political apps allowed? Or just the ones that disagree with Apple?). Also the Playboy app is allowed, but other smutty apps aren't? Will Apple block apps which promote gay/lesbian activities? I wouldn't be surprised given the track record. There is a HUGE political slant to their curation, and that is precisely where the Ben Franklin quote was aimed, perhaps a little overkill, but on topic.
But of course, his post is assuming you guys are keeping up on the background material to actually know the topic being discussed, which is perhaps why so many comments amount to "go away la la i'm not listening la la la". I hope there aren't a lot of Americans in this thread, because I'll be sorely disappointed with the level of comfort of having a company dictate our morals for such a personal and private item like a phone. I suppose if they block it from dialing 900 numbers that would be OK too, no one wants a surprise like being charged to call a sex-chat line. Maybe they should filter the Safari browser too, the web is a pretty gaping hole in the content they block from app store... how long do you think it will take to get there?
In case you haven't followed the news, there was a political cartoonist who was blocked because he made fun of public figures (uh, kind of the point... so are no political apps allowed? Or just the ones that disagree with Apple?). Also the Playboy app is allowed, but other smutty apps aren't? Will Apple block apps which promote gay/lesbian activities? I wouldn't be surprised given the track record. There is a HUGE political slant to their curation, and that is precisely where the Ben Franklin quote was aimed, perhaps a little overkill, but on topic.
In case you haven't been following the news, he (and a couple of other political cartoonists) were ultimately able to have their apps in the store. And also, in case you haven't been following the news, Apple's policy clearly doesn't target any brand or type of politics, so you are far from being able to prove any "huge" or even extant "political slant" to their policy. The rule is simply a prohibition against defamatory apps. Are they being too careful in their screening? Probably so, and they have admitted as much, by inviting the cartoonist to resubmit.
The Franklin quote is more than just a "little overkill," it is inherently inapplicable. Apple is not the government. They have no power of censorship whatsoever, by definition. I always wonder at the confusion over these most basic concepts.
he (and a couple of other political cartoonists) were ultimately able to have their apps in the store.
Right, after a public outcry and bad publicity for Apple. Perhaps others are not so lucky. We shouldn't have to rely on this, Apple is not the judicial system, they should not be judging what is "defamatory" or a number of other issues. If someone feels they are slandered/libeled by an app, they can sue the author directly, it's not Apple's job to decide these things.
It's quite strange actually, by accepting responsibility for app content, Apple is actually opening themselves to legal involvement in such cases. If Apple took a hands-off (common-carrier) approach I would expect (IANAL) they would reduce their liability. Instead by exercising editorial control, they are more like a publisher which would be liable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
And also, in case you haven't been following the news, Apple's policy clearly doesn't target any brand or type of politics
Says who? You? Quite a few people have complained about inconsistent enforcement. They allow an Opera browser but not Google voice? Playboy but not titillating apps from other publishers? The whole concept of their "decency" patrol is clearly an issue of politicsÂ?who are they to decide morality for their users?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
The Franklin quote is more than just a "little overkill," it is inherently inapplicable. Apple is not the government. They have no power of censorship whatsoever, by definition. I always wonder at the confusion over these most basic concepts.
Why should the Franklin quote be limited to the government? They are blocking applications from their users in the name of preventing "bad things". It's a clear security/liberty tradeoff. They could limit their app police to security and technical issues, but instead they explicitly choose to also filter any content they dislike. Thus to gain iPhone security we must accept lesser liberty.
Also, what makes you think only the government is capable of censorship? What "definition" are you going by? Censorship is simply the suppression of speech, it doesn't matter who does it. Media organizations are quite capable of censorship. I also wonder at the confusion over such a basic concept, and I'm quite scared that my countrymen are so unconcerned when a company actively opposes full expression of your rights. Personally, I don't want porn apps on my phone, but I'll still defend your moral right to have it on your phone, even if that isn't a legal right, perhaps it should be, Ã* la net neutrality. I don't want Comcast blocking traffic to sites they "don't like" either.
Right, after a public outcry and bad publicity for Apple. Perhaps others are not so lucky. We shouldn't have to rely on this, Apple is not the judicial system, they should not be judging what is "defamatory" or a number of other issues. If someone feels they are slandered/libeled by an app, they can sue the author directly, it's not Apple's job to decide these things.
That's right, Apple is not the judicial system. They are not the government at all. Like any other company, they get to decide what they do and do not want to sell, just as you get to decide what you do and do not buy. The inappropriateness of the Franklin quote in this context should be quite obvious to you now.
Comments
"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.? - Benjamin Franklin
Not meaning to speak for anyone but myself-- the liberty to install arbitrary applications on my mobile computing platform is not, to me, at all essential. Back when I had that ability (first with my Texas Instruments Avigo 10, and later with a long series of Palm OS devices, most of which were also phones) I certainly did install arbitrary applications (some of which were free, some purchased, and a few of which I wrote myself). But, none of them were remotely essential...
Can?t the solution be to let us check a box to install unauthorized apps, a la Android?
I believe that in the Apple ecosystem it's called "jailbreak"... and, yes, for those who DO find the liberty to install arbitrary apps on their mobile phone to be "essential", there are several solutions (buy one of the dozens of Android or WiMo phones, jailbreak an iPhone, or use comparable over-rides to ignore the security requirements of a Symbian or RIM phone...)
What a crappy article. Should we have Apple tell us what we can and cannot put on our Macs too, so we never get a virus? This article just reeks of desperate justification for Apple?s policies.
Makes no difference. Every time consumers open their wallets and buy Apple gear, they say YES to Apple's policies.
Apple's policies can be anything. If developers flock to the platform and consumers line up at the cash, then it's all fair.
From what we're seeing, both consumers and developers agree with Apple's vision.
Makes no difference. Every time consumers open their wallets and buy Apple gear, they say YES to Apple's policies.
Apple's policies can be anything. If developers flock to the platform and consumers line up at the cash, then it's all fair.
From what we're seeing, both consumers and developers agree with Apple's vision.
Exactly, and if I may be indulged in a few metaphors. One day historians will look back at the first thirty years of the micro computer and see this as the 'Wild West' days with ever more techy bandits in them there hills. The need for a far safer place to be becoming ever more apparent as those 30 years went by. It's one thing for an individual with techy enthusiasm to want to go it alone and do their own thing and get 'shot' a few times but for the masses, governmental, military, medical, business and industrial usage the need for a town with a strong sheriff is essential.
Apple may get criticized by the brave (foolhardy) individualists (who I assume love messing with virus update issues and having their phones auto dial Russia) but as long as there are alternatives they should go buy them instead of Apple products and stop trolling here!
Seems like a decent portion of the other responses have been ?buy another phone then.? Pretty poor attitude. Sure, it?s just the tech geeks voicing these complaints now, but what happens when the average consumer starts getting mad (Google Voice is probably the best example to date, or perhaps the denial of the political cartoonist)? Are you just going to keep telling everyone to go buy another phone? Seems like a better solution would be to either constructively deal with the problem or give proper justification for why the policies are in place. This AI article did not provide a very good justification..
The problem is that you've been given Apple's rationale - repeatedly - and you keep ignoring it. That's why you're being called a troll.
Apple has one business model, Google has another. If you don't like Apple's business model, buy something else. Expecting Apple to dump their very successful business model because you prefer that they follow Google's is insane.
I don't understand why people are still talking about this. It's a classic curated environment vs. open environment debate. There is no right answer or one-size-fits-all solution. It's good people have the choice. If you argue against Apple's curated platform you're basically trying to take that choice away from people. That is wrong. It would be wrong to argue that Android should be a curated environment for the exact same reason. You have choices -- use them.
QFT. Very well said.
But Apple isn?t just preventing harmful or malicious apps from being installed. If they just did that, I would say ?great!?. No, they prevent applications like Google Voice, the political cartoonist (I know they reversed it after the outcry), etc. Apps have to meet MUCH stricter criteria than just not being harmful. That is where I (and others with my viewpoint) see a problem.
So you're trying to draw an even sillier line in the sand. You're OK with Apple's business model SOME of the time, but you want to arbitrarily switch to Google's model at other times. It doesn't work.
Furthermore, as you've been told repeatedly, it's not just about blocking harmful apps. It's about the entire ecosystem. Apple wants the greatest, most consistent user interface. Google Voice was blocked because they tried to usurp the entire user experience and break the ecosystem. Most users of Apple products like simplicity and consistency and are willing to pay a premium for it - so Apple is simply defending its target audience.
With dozens of vulnerabilities and three exploits to date, not even those unprecedented extreme measures have protected iPhone OS.
AFAIK, all of those exploits only applied to jail-broken phones. That simply proves that what Apple is doing works.
There should be mechanisms in place from the carrier to confirm any unusual phone activity as soon as it starts, like a call back with a approved password phrase. Also easy ways for the user to place restrictions on the carrier end, say at a carrier website, to prevent his/her phone (stolen, borrowed or malware controlled) to make calls outside those restrictions a user places on it.
You really want to rely on AT&T or Verizon to prevent virus infection of your phone? Sorry, I would rather have someone competent involved.
Besides, how is the carrier supposed to know that an application that I've loaded onto my phone from my computer has infected the phone? That just doesn't make sense.
Another reason Microsoft are adopting the Apple approach for Windows Phone 7. Microsoft will be approving and vetting all apps along with strict controls on the hardware.
Exactly. Note that Windows Phone 7 will also not have Flash and will have somewhat limited multitasking - similar to iPhone OS 3.2. Once again, the market seems to be recognizing that Apple was right.
Can?t the solution be to let us check a box to install unauthorized apps, a la Android? Seems like the best of both worlds. Apple stops taking heat, and it would be the users liability if stuff like this happened. At the same time, it would allow for some of the amazing Cydia apps to get a broader audience.
That would be a ridiculous 'solution'. If you really want to install third party apps, you can jailbreak your phone - and then you're on your own.
But for Apple to facilitate it would simply be the worst of both worlds. Apple would have their restricted store and many vendors would go outside the Apple store - either because of greed (so they keep all the money) or because their apps are not good enough for the Apple store. A huge majority of phones would end up with that box checked and most users would experience the inconsistency, poor performance, and other problems related to crappy apps. Apple would end up getting the heat - not to mention having armies of dissatisfied customers.
The solution is that if you don't like a particular product, you buy something else. You don't whine that you like your Chevy, but GM ought to be willing to install a BMW engine in it if you ask for it.
Roll around in the filth that you call your home.
Which can only mean good news for Apple.
Ballmer IS the problem.
this chart says it all ... via gruber
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...ng-is-good.php
What a crappy article. Should we have Apple tell us what we can and cannot put on our Macs too, so we never get a virus? This article just reeks of desperate justification for Apple?s policies.
Because viruses and malware are just as easily received, repaired, and addressed on a mobile phone, right? No, far from it. This article actually helped to drive home for me how important it is, for general smartphone users, to enjoy a degree of a controlled environment. It ensures their experience.
Malware on Windows 7 mobiles but not yet on iPhones...
The fact that you didn't bother to read the article detracts from your comment...
What a crappy article. Should we have Apple tell us what we can and cannot put on our Macs too, so we never get a virus? This article just reeks of desperate justification for Apple’s policies.
I love Apple as much as the next guy, but damn, I just cannot handle when people claim censorship and gate-keeping are positive things.
"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin
Can’t the solution be to let us check a box to install unauthorized apps, a la Android? Seems like the best of both worlds. Apple stops taking heat, and it would be the users liability if stuff like this happened. At the same time, it would allow for some of the amazing Cydia apps to get a broader audience.
Get a Life dude. Liberty and freedom is based on choice. You have a choice to buy an iPhone based on what you already know about how their product operates. Sorry but I don't really think Benjamin Franklin had cell phones in mind when he made that quote, regardless of how you want to twist it.
iPhone is run based on the fact the 95% percent of people who buy cell phones don't know about this type of stuff, nor do they really care where they get their apps from. They just want a fun and reliable experience. These are the people apple protects and they are clearly doing a good job.
Regardless of where a security issue came from or whose fault it was, majority of people's reaction would be to blame the phone and never buy that brand again.
The other fraction of people out there are generally technically inclined and have the know how to just hack their phone anyways, so they can still get any app.
Would people please stop this bullshit liberty crap. Your Civil rights are about freedom of speech, the right to chose your own path in life and other things that ACTUALLY matter. They aren't for whining about not getting what you want on toys.
I wonder how liberated this guy felt when he got his $1000 phone bill..
Somehow keeping viruses etc off of your cell phone is not a positive thing?! Seriously?!
I think that you are claiming that the ends justify the means. And I think you are saying tHat any means of keeping viruses off you cell phone is a positive thing, no matter what the means were used to get there.
You seem to me to be a happy Apple customer. Steve is counting on you.
I think that you are claiming that the ends justify the means. And I think you are saying tHat any means of keeping viruses off you cell phone is a positive thing, no matter what the means were used to get there.
You seem to me to be a happy Apple customer. Steve is counting on you.
rrriiiightt.. the means of course being creating they're product in a way that protects their costumers from dangers they can't see?
Sure, we could buy another phone, but that's a non-argument. You're not even trying to rationalize the policies anymore, your response amounts to "shut up and go away". As a debate mechanism, that's pretty much admitting defeat because you don't have anything better to say. Some of us like 95% of the iPhone system, and have valid opinions on what's missing in the last 5%. The "go away" argument is not adding any insight, why do you bother?
No, they prevent applications like Google Voice, the political cartoonist (I know they reversed it after the outcry), etc. Apps have to meet MUCH stricter criteria than just not being harmful. That is where I (and others with my viewpoint) see a problem.
I can understand you not being comfortable with that sort of "curation" as Jobs now characterizes the process. I however, welcome it. I don't feel angry or deprived by Apple deciding what wares I get to choose. Just doesn't bother me. I don't lose sleep over apps I can't have. Most of us have bigger problems.
Apple doesn't allow non-app store installation because they want the consumer lock-in and the ability to block subversive/competitive technologies. This is not to benefit the consumer, this is to benefit Apple. Sometimes our interests are aligned with Apple, but not always.
Wow there's a lot of vitriol against planet blue for making a good point. I'd also much prefer Apple limited the App store approval to technical issues and security, and leave the political element out. I don't like being told what I can or can't do with my hardware based on someone else's puritan morals or political slant or business favoritism.
But he did not make a good point. In fact, he created the "political" dimension by attempting to equate a company's product and marketing (read: not even remotely political) decisions with liberty. This is an obviously faulty comparison, on every imaginable level. In truth it is completely ridiculous. So no, he did make a good point. This is precisely what so many have taken pains to explain.
But he did not make a good point. In fact, he created the "political" dimension by attempting to equate a company's product and marketing (read: not even remotely political) decisions with liberty.
In case you haven't followed the news, there was a political cartoonist who was blocked because he made fun of public figures (uh, kind of the point... so are no political apps allowed? Or just the ones that disagree with Apple?). Also the Playboy app is allowed, but other smutty apps aren't? Will Apple block apps which promote gay/lesbian activities? I wouldn't be surprised given the track record. There is a HUGE political slant to their curation, and that is precisely where the Ben Franklin quote was aimed, perhaps a little overkill, but on topic.
But of course, his post is assuming you guys are keeping up on the background material to actually know the topic being discussed, which is perhaps why so many comments amount to "go away la la i'm not listening la la la". I hope there aren't a lot of Americans in this thread, because I'll be sorely disappointed with the level of comfort of having a company dictate our morals for such a personal and private item like a phone. I suppose if they block it from dialing 900 numbers that would be OK too, no one wants a surprise like being charged to call a sex-chat line. Maybe they should filter the Safari browser too, the web is a pretty gaping hole in the content they block from app store... how long do you think it will take to get there?
In case you haven't followed the news, there was a political cartoonist who was blocked because he made fun of public figures (uh, kind of the point... so are no political apps allowed? Or just the ones that disagree with Apple?). Also the Playboy app is allowed, but other smutty apps aren't? Will Apple block apps which promote gay/lesbian activities? I wouldn't be surprised given the track record. There is a HUGE political slant to their curation, and that is precisely where the Ben Franklin quote was aimed, perhaps a little overkill, but on topic.
In case you haven't been following the news, he (and a couple of other political cartoonists) were ultimately able to have their apps in the store. And also, in case you haven't been following the news, Apple's policy clearly doesn't target any brand or type of politics, so you are far from being able to prove any "huge" or even extant "political slant" to their policy. The rule is simply a prohibition against defamatory apps. Are they being too careful in their screening? Probably so, and they have admitted as much, by inviting the cartoonist to resubmit.
The Franklin quote is more than just a "little overkill," it is inherently inapplicable. Apple is not the government. They have no power of censorship whatsoever, by definition. I always wonder at the confusion over these most basic concepts.
he (and a couple of other political cartoonists) were ultimately able to have their apps in the store.
Right, after a public outcry and bad publicity for Apple. Perhaps others are not so lucky. We shouldn't have to rely on this, Apple is not the judicial system, they should not be judging what is "defamatory" or a number of other issues. If someone feels they are slandered/libeled by an app, they can sue the author directly, it's not Apple's job to decide these things.
It's quite strange actually, by accepting responsibility for app content, Apple is actually opening themselves to legal involvement in such cases. If Apple took a hands-off (common-carrier) approach I would expect (IANAL) they would reduce their liability. Instead by exercising editorial control, they are more like a publisher which would be liable.
And also, in case you haven't been following the news, Apple's policy clearly doesn't target any brand or type of politics
Says who? You? Quite a few people have complained about inconsistent enforcement. They allow an Opera browser but not Google voice? Playboy but not titillating apps from other publishers? The whole concept of their "decency" patrol is clearly an issue of politicsÂ?who are they to decide morality for their users?
The Franklin quote is more than just a "little overkill," it is inherently inapplicable. Apple is not the government. They have no power of censorship whatsoever, by definition. I always wonder at the confusion over these most basic concepts.
Why should the Franklin quote be limited to the government? They are blocking applications from their users in the name of preventing "bad things". It's a clear security/liberty tradeoff. They could limit their app police to security and technical issues, but instead they explicitly choose to also filter any content they dislike. Thus to gain iPhone security we must accept lesser liberty.
Also, what makes you think only the government is capable of censorship? What "definition" are you going by? Censorship is simply the suppression of speech, it doesn't matter who does it. Media organizations are quite capable of censorship. I also wonder at the confusion over such a basic concept, and I'm quite scared that my countrymen are so unconcerned when a company actively opposes full expression of your rights. Personally, I don't want porn apps on my phone, but I'll still defend your moral right to have it on your phone, even if that isn't a legal right, perhaps it should be, Ã* la net neutrality. I don't want Comcast blocking traffic to sites they "don't like" either.
Right, after a public outcry and bad publicity for Apple. Perhaps others are not so lucky. We shouldn't have to rely on this, Apple is not the judicial system, they should not be judging what is "defamatory" or a number of other issues. If someone feels they are slandered/libeled by an app, they can sue the author directly, it's not Apple's job to decide these things.
That's right, Apple is not the judicial system. They are not the government at all. Like any other company, they get to decide what they do and do not want to sell, just as you get to decide what you do and do not buy. The inappropriateness of the Franklin quote in this context should be quite obvious to you now.
What a crappy article. ...
"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.? - Benjamin Franklin.
Nice quote, but what does it mean in a real non utopian world?
In case you didn't know it liberty is an illusion.
But you have the liberty, by the way, to use another platform.
J.
(Anyway, I like your 'solution'.)