'We don't need anymore Fart apps' . Apple should know that fart should be lowercase. I know some unemloyed English teachers that could review documents for grammer before they release them to the public.
indeed! I appreciate that I have a choice to participate in a curated ecosystem with minimum standards if I like, or I can go to an alternate ecosystem like Android if I want the wild wild west where anything goes.
While long overdue, this is a very positive move on Apple's part to clarify their position - and unsurprisingly the message, loud and clear, is "delight the customer/end user".
It's not about the developers, the network operators, the geeks or any one group - but all potential end users.
What a breath of fresh air. The myopic detractors will no doubt sprout out of the woodwork, decrying this as restrictive, taking away rights, etc. - and that's a bunch of crap. Apple isn't forcing anyone to play in their sandbox, nor are they restricting others from creating their own sandboxes. Heck, they don't even actively try to shut down jail breakers that are co-opting their sandbox for their own use (they could make it very hard to practically impossible if they *really* wanted to).
If you don't like Apples policy, go play in someone else's sandbox or go build your own. Bravo to Apple for sticking with their principles.
Fire? Meh. Civilization will not begin to emerge until man invents the fishing pole. Then beer and loud ugly clothes will follow. Then my friend you have the start of a grand society.
Imagine a world without rules, laws, policies, etc. What would happen?
In a world without rules, laws, policies, etc - I would come over to your house and take all your stuff and there would be nothing you could do to stop me.
Well, maybe I wouldn't do that, but someone would.
Any world populated by more than one person - must have rules and laws and policies - that we all abide by - or else you have war and violence etc - and the real world already has enough of that despite all our laws and rules - why would you want the online world to be anarchy and chaos?
Notice that I said - that we all abide by - because clearly if we all played nice together there would be far less need for all the laws and rules we have - but since we don't - someone has to enforce the law. Excepting extreme cases of a police state that is abusing its citizenry by virtue of its position of authority - you shouldn't blame the police for enforcing the laws - for they did not create the laws. Or perhaps that is the trouble people have with Apple's policies - they decided unilaterally and without (previously) any transparency so it was impossible to determine just how fair or just they were being.
I wasn't referring to flash more to the fact that many people felt that Unity was blocked
Well, I don't know much about the way Unity works/integrates with iOS SDKs (and don't much play games anyway), but, I still think the principle that meta-platforms are harmful holds. What if, for example, they don't support the gyroscope in their tools? Then there's this 6-axis controller on the iPhone, but it goes largely unused, to the detriment of the user experience. Perhaps it will be argued that there's no other way for game developers to be able to develop games, that it's a necessary evil, but it's still an evil.
I'd appreciate sticking to consumer market. Apple is only vendor or platform provider. Whatever fits laws and avoid criminal intentions should be approved.
Yes, Apple may change this and put more restrictions. Yes some of us live in China with its life restrictions. Yes some of us (including me) were born and lived in communist countries like in Eastern Europe and we know what is freedom and what is controlled (call it censorship or whatever you prefer calling it - in the USA you can call it "corporate censorship").
I give a big thumbs up to Apple for at least TRYING to maintain some semblance of sanity in their online store.
I guess the biggest problem is that all those small-time developers that want to develop another Fart app will just have invest some time and effort into creating something a little better. But then again, that would require...time and effort. And really, who wants to take the time and effort to make something better than a Farting app.
You know how sanity was kept in Eeastyern Europe in '70? Just in similar way. Nobody was going to shoot you (depite common believes from ignorants who lived outside of that mess), but you did not have many choices for behavior or products. I was there. I lived that. The only difference is that here it is done by corporations so you can turn to another corporation for options. But I wonder why you need some corporation to keep YOUR sanity of choice? Any hint?
Yes, I fully expect the haters to criticize Apple yet again for anything they do, including clarifying the App Store policies and relaxing restrictions on tools. The haters will probably say that you can have as many Fart apps as you want on Android, and that Google doesn't give a rats ass about stupid things that end users don't care about, like their privacy, security, user experience. Google wants to impress the 1337 haX0rz by saying their haX0r values (particularly freedom) is more important than anything, right?
I fully expected you and other simpletons who routinely counter opinions that you don't like by labeling other people as "haters", to respond in this idiotic manner.
The most significant change that we are seeing here is that Apple has relaxed the restrictions on what development tools are allowed. It is to Apple's credit that someone within the company was eventually able to make Steve Jobs realize that his position on this was not technically justifiable, and that any restrictions that need be placed on run-time behavior, need be enforced at run-time, not by way of restricting the tools used to develop applications. At the same time, it is manifest that Apple's prior position on this was wrong, and that people who openly stated so were correct, and that people who responded to those criticisms by labeling those people as "haters" were ill-informed persons of a disingenuous persuasion.
Simply because app development has been free and open doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Apple produces a product and has the right to close that products app development as tight as they want.
I disagree with this about as strongly as I disagree with anything. If you qualify and talk instead about apps that Apple distributes through its app store, then I will agree completely. But the problem is that no one, not even Steve Jobs, should have the final say over what software the legal owner of the device runs on the device that he or she has bought and paid for. Only the legal owner of the device has that right. Apple should feel encumbered to place whatever restrictions they want on apps downloaded through their app store. They should also feel free to place restrictions on the run-time behavior of any app, regardless of how it got into the phone, as long as those runtime restrictions are enforced only at runtime and are enforced uniformly, with indifference to how the app got into the phone. Apple does not have the right to try and prevent people from downloading apps through other means besides the app store, and does not have the right to say what tools may be used to develop apps downloaded outside of the app store, and does not have the right to treat apps, that were download outside the app store, specially at run time.
Justice "Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it.""..."Justice Stewart later recanted this view in Miller v. California, in which he accepted that his prior view was simply untenable."
Most of this is very good, and in particular Apple should be praised for having relaxed the constraint on tools used to write apps.
But all of this should only apply to apps downloaded through the app store, and there should be no attempt on Apple's part to make it difficult for people to download apps outside of the app store.
The underlying needs with respect to restriction on bandwidth are presumably based on legitimate concerns. But the way to go about that is not by trying to restrict apps that are not downloaded through the app store. The way to go about that is by regulating the run-time behavior of all apps, consistently no matter what means was used to install the app.
The thing that so many people have yet to come to realize about all of this, is that the reason given for requiring apps to be downloaded only through the app store, is a false reason. Whatever the legitimate technical concerns are with regards to the runtime behavior of an app, it should be addressed through runtime management of apps. It is simply preposterous for anyone to suggest that concerns of this sort out to be addressed by way of requiring all apps to be downloaded through the app store. This is all just a big lie, and this should be apparent to anyone with any experience with operating system design. This is a lie that Apple is telling because they need an excuse for requiring that all apps get downloaded through the app store, which they do for the obvious reason that they take a cut on every app that gets downloaded.
I just have a problem with lies of this sort, and this is simply a lie. The bandwidth considerations do not belong in these guidelines, at all. These are runtime behavioral concerns, and as such, they should be addressed through runtime management of the behavior of all applications. It is just that simple, and it befuddles me that so many people are unable to see this and that the entire Apple user base has not protested this nonsense with a loud, unified voice from the start of it. Apple will try and get away with whatever the public and the governments of the public will let Apple get away with. The present situation proves this beyond any doubt. The fact that they to prevent apps from being installed through any means other than the app store proves this. The fact that they continue to lump bandwidth/performance considerations into these guidelines proves this.
But Apple does own iOS and they are with in their rights to not allow non app store apps to run. What your asking makes as much sense as forcing Walmart to carry Target products or having a Target mini store in their store. iOS is the shopping mall and at the moment Apple only allows their stores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaiser_soze
I disagree with this about as strongly as I disagree with anything. If you qualify and talk instead about apps that Apple distributes through its app store, then I will agree completely. But the problem is that no one, not even Steve Jobs, should have the final say over what software the legal owner of the device runs on the device that he or she has bought and paid for. Only the legal owner of the device has that right. Apple should feel encumbered to place whatever restrictions they want on apps downloaded through their app store. They should also feel free to place restrictions on the run-time behavior of any app, regardless of how it got into the phone, as long as those runtime restrictions are enforced only at runtime and are enforced uniformly, with indifference to how the app got into the phone. Apple does not have the right to try and prevent people from downloading apps through other means besides the app store, and does not have the right to say what tools may be used to develop apps downloaded outside of the app store, and does not have the right to treat apps, that were download outside the app store, specially at run time.
Criticize apple, no, but ask for some intellectual consistency from posters, maybe.
It was not too long ago that many on the board lauded Apple's change in the Developer's Agreement banning 3rd party tools, particularly on the grounds that it would result in bad code and degrade the user experience. So, at the time, 3rd party tools = bad. Now however, 3rd party tools = ok, and people are saying this is a great thing that Apple has loosened up and allowed some 3rd party tools.
As to no more fart apps, I think it is a great thing. OTOH, it is an admission that many of the apps are crappy, otherwise Apple would not have been so explicity. The issue is, that many claim that one of the advantages of the iPhone are the 250,000 apps in the app store. However, if a large percentage of them are "fart apps" then that number is misleading in the sense that there are really fewer "good apps"
I'll guess I'll have to do my stock response to this kind of post:
Which people said what? There are all kinds of folks posting here, with all kinds of opinions. Unless you can cite some examples of specific posters who at one point were eagerly defending Apple's restrictions and are now saying it's great that they're relaxing those rules, complaining about consistency is entirely meaningless.
But Apple does own iOS and they are with in their rights to not allow non app store apps to run. What your asking makes as much sense as forcing Walmart to carry Target products or having a Target mini store in their store. iOS is the shopping mall and at the moment Apple only allows their stores.
A better metaphor would be the following:
- You get to choose what city you want to live in (i.e. OS)
- You get to choose what house to live in (i.e. Phone)
- The city has stores where you can buy merchandise (i.e. App Store, Market Place, etc...)
- A store chooses what merchandise they can sell (whether it be free market, or closed market)
Here's the restraints Apple has placed on it's city and phone
- You can only visit one store
- You must buy only things in that one store
- Trying to drive to another store means we're not going to help you in case of an emergency
Some people love the city and what it offers, others like other cities with different offerings.
Animals have rules too. It's just that they need very few. Animals would never think of doing to each other what we humans do to each other, so they really only need a couple of unspoken () rules.
I don't think we should be looking to animals to inspire what we do socially.
Comments
+1
Thanks Apple!
indeed! I appreciate that I have a choice to participate in a curated ecosystem with minimum standards if I like, or I can go to an alternate ecosystem like Android if I want the wild wild west where anything goes.
While long overdue, this is a very positive move on Apple's part to clarify their position - and unsurprisingly the message, loud and clear, is "delight the customer/end user".
It's not about the developers, the network operators, the geeks or any one group - but all potential end users.
What a breath of fresh air. The myopic detractors will no doubt sprout out of the woodwork, decrying this as restrictive, taking away rights, etc. - and that's a bunch of crap. Apple isn't forcing anyone to play in their sandbox, nor are they restricting others from creating their own sandboxes. Heck, they don't even actively try to shut down jail breakers that are co-opting their sandbox for their own use (they could make it very hard to practically impossible if they *really* wanted to).
If you don't like Apples policy, go play in someone else's sandbox or go build your own. Bravo to Apple for sticking with their principles.
Well, we have fire. Where's the civilization?
Fire? Meh. Civilization will not begin to emerge until man invents the fishing pole. Then beer and loud ugly clothes will follow. Then my friend you have the start of a grand society.
Imagine a world without rules, laws, policies, etc. What would happen?
In a world without rules, laws, policies, etc - I would come over to your house and take all your stuff and there would be nothing you could do to stop me.
Well, maybe I wouldn't do that, but someone would.
Any world populated by more than one person - must have rules and laws and policies - that we all abide by - or else you have war and violence etc - and the real world already has enough of that despite all our laws and rules - why would you want the online world to be anarchy and chaos?
Notice that I said - that we all abide by - because clearly if we all played nice together there would be far less need for all the laws and rules we have - but since we don't - someone has to enforce the law. Excepting extreme cases of a police state that is abusing its citizenry by virtue of its position of authority - you shouldn't blame the police for enforcing the laws - for they did not create the laws. Or perhaps that is the trouble people have with Apple's policies - they decided unilaterally and without (previously) any transparency so it was impossible to determine just how fair or just they were being.
http://www.cultofmac.com/field-test-...-ios-4-1/58457
Animals would never think of doing to each other what we humans do to each other...
Oh, you mean the way male chimpanzees sometimes kill the young that aren't their own.
I wasn't referring to flash more to the fact that many people felt that Unity was blocked
Well, I don't know much about the way Unity works/integrates with iOS SDKs (and don't much play games anyway), but, I still think the principle that meta-platforms are harmful holds. What if, for example, they don't support the gyroscope in their tools? Then there's this 6-axis controller on the iPhone, but it goes largely unused, to the detriment of the user experience. Perhaps it will be argued that there's no other way for game developers to be able to develop games, that it's a necessary evil, but it's still an evil.
I'd appreciate sticking to consumer market. Apple is only vendor or platform provider. Whatever fits laws and avoid criminal intentions should be approved.
Yes, Apple may change this and put more restrictions. Yes some of us live in China with its life restrictions. Yes some of us (including me) were born and lived in communist countries like in Eastern Europe and we know what is freedom and what is controlled (call it censorship or whatever you prefer calling it - in the USA you can call it "corporate censorship").
"Let consumers decide..."
"Apple is censoring..."
"The Droid market is more open..."
etc, etc, etc.
I give a big thumbs up to Apple for at least TRYING to maintain some semblance of sanity in their online store.
I guess the biggest problem is that all those small-time developers that want to develop another Fart app will just have invest some time and effort into creating something a little better. But then again, that would require...time and effort. And really, who wants to take the time and effort to make something better than a Farting app.
You know how sanity was kept in Eeastyern Europe in '70? Just in similar way. Nobody was going to shoot you (depite common believes from ignorants who lived outside of that mess), but you did not have many choices for behavior or products. I was there. I lived that. The only difference is that here it is done by corporations so you can turn to another corporation for options. But I wonder why you need some corporation to keep YOUR sanity of choice? Any hint?
There is a third group: people who feel the need to express that they believe they are superior to the people in the other two groups.
Amused by, not superior too... And you continue to make me chuckle.
any more = additional, e.g. we don't need any more fart apps
anymore = from now on, e.g. we don't need fart apps anymore
Yes, I fully expect the haters to criticize Apple yet again for anything they do, including clarifying the App Store policies and relaxing restrictions on tools. The haters will probably say that you can have as many Fart apps as you want on Android, and that Google doesn't give a rats ass about stupid things that end users don't care about, like their privacy, security, user experience. Google wants to impress the 1337 haX0rz by saying their haX0r values (particularly freedom) is more important than anything, right?
I fully expected you and other simpletons who routinely counter opinions that you don't like by labeling other people as "haters", to respond in this idiotic manner.
The most significant change that we are seeing here is that Apple has relaxed the restrictions on what development tools are allowed. It is to Apple's credit that someone within the company was eventually able to make Steve Jobs realize that his position on this was not technically justifiable, and that any restrictions that need be placed on run-time behavior, need be enforced at run-time, not by way of restricting the tools used to develop applications. At the same time, it is manifest that Apple's prior position on this was wrong, and that people who openly stated so were correct, and that people who responded to those criticisms by labeling those people as "haters" were ill-informed persons of a disingenuous persuasion.
Simply because app development has been free and open doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Apple produces a product and has the right to close that products app development as tight as they want.
I disagree with this about as strongly as I disagree with anything. If you qualify and talk instead about apps that Apple distributes through its app store, then I will agree completely. But the problem is that no one, not even Steve Jobs, should have the final say over what software the legal owner of the device runs on the device that he or she has bought and paid for. Only the legal owner of the device has that right. Apple should feel encumbered to place whatever restrictions they want on apps downloaded through their app store. They should also feel free to place restrictions on the run-time behavior of any app, regardless of how it got into the phone, as long as those runtime restrictions are enforced only at runtime and are enforced uniformly, with indifference to how the app got into the phone. Apple does not have the right to try and prevent people from downloading apps through other means besides the app store, and does not have the right to say what tools may be used to develop apps downloaded outside of the app store, and does not have the right to treat apps, that were download outside the app store, specially at run time.
Justice "Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it.""..."Justice Stewart later recanted this view in Miller v. California, in which he accepted that his prior view was simply untenable."
But all of this should only apply to apps downloaded through the app store, and there should be no attempt on Apple's part to make it difficult for people to download apps outside of the app store.
The underlying needs with respect to restriction on bandwidth are presumably based on legitimate concerns. But the way to go about that is not by trying to restrict apps that are not downloaded through the app store. The way to go about that is by regulating the run-time behavior of all apps, consistently no matter what means was used to install the app.
The thing that so many people have yet to come to realize about all of this, is that the reason given for requiring apps to be downloaded only through the app store, is a false reason. Whatever the legitimate technical concerns are with regards to the runtime behavior of an app, it should be addressed through runtime management of apps. It is simply preposterous for anyone to suggest that concerns of this sort out to be addressed by way of requiring all apps to be downloaded through the app store. This is all just a big lie, and this should be apparent to anyone with any experience with operating system design. This is a lie that Apple is telling because they need an excuse for requiring that all apps get downloaded through the app store, which they do for the obvious reason that they take a cut on every app that gets downloaded.
I just have a problem with lies of this sort, and this is simply a lie. The bandwidth considerations do not belong in these guidelines, at all. These are runtime behavioral concerns, and as such, they should be addressed through runtime management of the behavior of all applications. It is just that simple, and it befuddles me that so many people are unable to see this and that the entire Apple user base has not protested this nonsense with a loud, unified voice from the start of it. Apple will try and get away with whatever the public and the governments of the public will let Apple get away with. The present situation proves this beyond any doubt. The fact that they to prevent apps from being installed through any means other than the app store proves this. The fact that they continue to lump bandwidth/performance considerations into these guidelines proves this.
I disagree with this about as strongly as I disagree with anything. If you qualify and talk instead about apps that Apple distributes through its app store, then I will agree completely. But the problem is that no one, not even Steve Jobs, should have the final say over what software the legal owner of the device runs on the device that he or she has bought and paid for. Only the legal owner of the device has that right. Apple should feel encumbered to place whatever restrictions they want on apps downloaded through their app store. They should also feel free to place restrictions on the run-time behavior of any app, regardless of how it got into the phone, as long as those runtime restrictions are enforced only at runtime and are enforced uniformly, with indifference to how the app got into the phone. Apple does not have the right to try and prevent people from downloading apps through other means besides the app store, and does not have the right to say what tools may be used to develop apps downloaded outside of the app store, and does not have the right to treat apps, that were download outside the app store, specially at run time.
Criticize apple, no, but ask for some intellectual consistency from posters, maybe.
It was not too long ago that many on the board lauded Apple's change in the Developer's Agreement banning 3rd party tools, particularly on the grounds that it would result in bad code and degrade the user experience. So, at the time, 3rd party tools = bad. Now however, 3rd party tools = ok, and people are saying this is a great thing that Apple has loosened up and allowed some 3rd party tools.
As to no more fart apps, I think it is a great thing. OTOH, it is an admission that many of the apps are crappy, otherwise Apple would not have been so explicity. The issue is, that many claim that one of the advantages of the iPhone are the 250,000 apps in the app store. However, if a large percentage of them are "fart apps" then that number is misleading in the sense that there are really fewer "good apps"
I'll guess I'll have to do my stock response to this kind of post:
Which people said what? There are all kinds of folks posting here, with all kinds of opinions. Unless you can cite some examples of specific posters who at one point were eagerly defending Apple's restrictions and are now saying it's great that they're relaxing those rules, complaining about consistency is entirely meaningless.
But Apple does own iOS and they are with in their rights to not allow non app store apps to run. What your asking makes as much sense as forcing Walmart to carry Target products or having a Target mini store in their store. iOS is the shopping mall and at the moment Apple only allows their stores.
A better metaphor would be the following:
- You get to choose what city you want to live in (i.e. OS)
- You get to choose what house to live in (i.e. Phone)
- The city has stores where you can buy merchandise (i.e. App Store, Market Place, etc...)
- A store chooses what merchandise they can sell (whether it be free market, or closed market)
Here's the restraints Apple has placed on it's city and phone
- You can only visit one store
- You must buy only things in that one store
- Trying to drive to another store means we're not going to help you in case of an emergency
Some people love the city and what it offers, others like other cities with different offerings.
Animals have rules too. It's just that they need very few. Animals would never think of doing to each other what we humans do to each other, so they really only need a couple of unspoken (
I don't think we should be looking to animals to inspire what we do socially.
The only exception: Doggystyle.