3 ms·

If the app store is displaying information you aren't interested in, then that's Apple's problem. They didn't solve the problem. Actually, for some set of thei

by GHFigs 17y ago

If the app store is displaying information you aren't interested in, then that's Apple's problem. They didn't solve the problem. Actually, for some set of their customers, they did. Not every adult is interested in buying softcore pornography.

jasonlotito 17y ago
No, they didn't solve the problem. They removed a consequence of a problem, but the problem still exists: a poor app store.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  The problem defined by the parent comment was "the app store is displaying information you aren't interested in". For the set of users that are not interested in "iBoobs", etc. the App Store no longer displays that information. I thought that by quoting it was clear that was the problem I was referring to, and not something as vague as "a poor app store". You may disagree with the method, but to say this does not solve a problem for a set of users is just ignorant. The problem was doing X, and now it no longer does X. I don't see how anybody can not consider that at least a partial solution to the more general problem.
  - jasonlotito 17y ago
    No, the problem had a consequence. They merely removed the consequence of the problem. The problem still exists. I understand what you are saying. I just think the 'solution' was lazy, shortsighted, and doesn't help Apple consumers in the long run, and doesn't solve the problem.
silencio 17y ago
I'm not interested at all in most of the Sports apps. I'm also not really interested in most of the Medical apps. Et cetera. Apple's not going to get rid of those, they're not as offensive to people, right? It's not about the audience or who doesn't want to be part of that audience. It's about the idea that some people are just so offended at these apps being so popular they can't bear to let their kids potentially access them (oh, did we totally just gloss over the parental controls and ratings? oh why yes we did!)
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Read what I wrote again. I said adults because presumably all of these applications were already age limited to adults. The thing is, as I said, not all adults want softcore pornography. Hence, for that set of users, the App Store just got better. What Apple is assuming is that the set of their users who categorically do not want softcore pornography is larger than the set that do, and that removing themselves from the business of selling and distributing softcore pornography will be a net gain. The same is probably not true of any other distinct class of applications.
  - silencio 17y ago
    The only way the app would have been age limited for viewing and downloading was if the app was rated accordingly and parental controls were active. Otherwise anyone can see them, logged in or not, on the storefront (of all places!) in one of the top 10 lists or something. Anyone could have downloaded it as well, with only a warning about the application rating at download (you know, the same warning you see on apps with any user-generated content, adult rated or not). It didn't need to be like that. Apple could have had an opt-in verification-required category for adult apps that only shows up at the bottom of the dropdown list of app categories and nowhere else only if you are signed into your verified account. They could have improved ratings and parental controls to satisfy parents and educators. Then the kids going to schools that want to use iPads for education don't have to see these, and the adults that don't want softcore porn in their face won't have to see them either. Instead, Apple just went and removed these apps (well...not even all of them. nice double standard going on with SI and Playboy still on the app store...). That, I think, was a mistake.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      The only way the app would have been age limited for viewing and downloading was if the app was rated accordingly and parental controls were active This would seem to bolster my argument. The only way to not see them as an adult was to declare oneself a child. Whatever you may think of people who are categorically disinterested in these applications, this is not a good way to treat users. I know you're not saying it was fine the way it was, I just think it underscores the importance of a solution that fits in prevailing social mores. There are some things that people expect not to see unless they are specifically looking for them. That would seem to lead into the idea of segregating that stuff into a "back room", but as I explain below, I think that only follows if the retailer wants to sell that content in the first place. Apple could have had... What you and many others seem to avoid is explaining is why you believe that putting these applications in a ghetto would be preferable to simply not selling them at all. That Apple is demonstrably willing to go without them would seem to undermine such arguments. If they don't want to sell porn-like apps, why should they devote resources--any resources--to developing such a ghetto, classifying things which should and should not belong in that ghetto, verifying adult status through some unspecified system, ensuring the accuracy of that verification system, dealing with the complaints of ghetto-ized developers, complaints of developers afraid of being ghetto-ized, complaints of developers who wanted to get into the App Store via the ghetto but where rejected, complaints of adult users shafted by the verification system, complaints by users who don't think there should be a ghetto in the first place, complaints by users who thing the ghetto should include X, Y, and Z, and complaints from people who just like to complain. And this on top of an App Store review process that has borne criticism for inconsistency and delays from the start. Again, why would they bother expending the resources to support something they don't appear to want to do in the first place? It may be that Apple is making a mistake that will hurt them in the long run, but it's not clear to me what they would get out of ghetto-izing that is in line with their aims.

by GHFigs 17y ago

jasonlotito 17y ago

No, they didn't solve the problem. They removed a consequence of a problem, but the problem still exists: a poor app store.

GHFigs 17y ago
The problem defined by the parent comment was "the app store is displaying information you aren't interested in". For the set of users that are not interested in "iBoobs", etc. the App Store no longer displays that information. I thought that by quoting it was clear that was the problem I was referring to, and not something as vague as "a poor app store". You may disagree with the method, but to say this does not solve a problem for a set of users is just ignorant. The problem was doing X, and now it no longer does X. I don't see how anybody can not consider that at least a partial solution to the more general problem.
- jasonlotito 17y ago
  No, the problem had a consequence. They merely removed the consequence of the problem. The problem still exists. I understand what you are saying. I just think the 'solution' was lazy, shortsighted, and doesn't help Apple consumers in the long run, and doesn't solve the problem.

silencio 17y ago

I'm not interested at all in most of the Sports apps. I'm also not really interested in most of the Medical apps. Et cetera. Apple's not going to get rid of those, they're not as offensive to people, right? It's not about the audience or who doesn't want to be part of that audience. It's about the idea that some people are just so offended at these apps being so popular they can't bear to let their kids potentially access them (oh, did we totally just gloss over the parental controls and ratings? oh why yes we did!)

GHFigs 17y ago
Read what I wrote again. I said adults because presumably all of these applications were already age limited to adults. The thing is, as I said, not all adults want softcore pornography. Hence, for that set of users, the App Store just got better. What Apple is assuming is that the set of their users who categorically do not want softcore pornography is larger than the set that do, and that removing themselves from the business of selling and distributing softcore pornography will be a net gain. The same is probably not true of any other distinct class of applications.
- silencio 17y ago
  The only way the app would have been age limited for viewing and downloading was if the app was rated accordingly and parental controls were active. Otherwise anyone can see them, logged in or not, on the storefront (of all places!) in one of the top 10 lists or something. Anyone could have downloaded it as well, with only a warning about the application rating at download (you know, the same warning you see on apps with any user-generated content, adult rated or not). It didn't need to be like that. Apple could have had an opt-in verification-required category for adult apps that only shows up at the bottom of the dropdown list of app categories and nowhere else only if you are signed into your verified account. They could have improved ratings and parental controls to satisfy parents and educators. Then the kids going to schools that want to use iPads for education don't have to see these, and the adults that don't want softcore porn in their face won't have to see them either. Instead, Apple just went and removed these apps (well...not even all of them. nice double standard going on with SI and Playboy still on the app store...). That, I think, was a mistake.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    The only way the app would have been age limited for viewing and downloading was if the app was rated accordingly and parental controls were active This would seem to bolster my argument. The only way to not see them as an adult was to declare oneself a child. Whatever you may think of people who are categorically disinterested in these applications, this is not a good way to treat users. I know you're not saying it was fine the way it was, I just think it underscores the importance of a solution that fits in prevailing social mores. There are some things that people expect not to see unless they are specifically looking for them. That would seem to lead into the idea of segregating that stuff into a "back room", but as I explain below, I think that only follows if the retailer wants to sell that content in the first place. Apple could have had... What you and many others seem to avoid is explaining is why you believe that putting these applications in a ghetto would be preferable to simply not selling them at all. That Apple is demonstrably willing to go without them would seem to undermine such arguments. If they don't want to sell porn-like apps, why should they devote resources--any resources--to developing such a ghetto, classifying things which should and should not belong in that ghetto, verifying adult status through some unspecified system, ensuring the accuracy of that verification system, dealing with the complaints of ghetto-ized developers, complaints of developers afraid of being ghetto-ized, complaints of developers who wanted to get into the App Store via the ghetto but where rejected, complaints of adult users shafted by the verification system, complaints by users who don't think there should be a ghetto in the first place, complaints by users who thing the ghetto should include X, Y, and Z, and complaints from people who just like to complain. And this on top of an App Store review process that has borne criticism for inconsistency and delays from the start. Again, why would they bother expending the resources to support something they don't appear to want to do in the first place? It may be that Apple is making a mistake that will hurt them in the long run, but it's not clear to me what they would get out of ghetto-izing that is in line with their aims.