4 ms·

Every piece of software is "opinionated" to some degree. *nix has its philosophy, OS x has its look and feel, webOS and Android work in fairly different ways et

Every piece of software is "opinionated" to some degree. *nix has its philosophy, OS x has its look and feel, webOS and Android work in fairly different ways etc. Apple, however, is the only one that stretches it's opinion from how software works over to what kind of content its customers can consume. Jobs and Apple seem to think that sine lots of people like their opinion on software, these people must also like their their taste in content. And please, don't give me the Safari comeback argument, we all know there's a world of difference between native apps and web sites. I've already voted with my wallet and development time, but the more people talk about this kind of bullshit from Apple, the more informed choices they'll be able to make.

ynniv 17y ago
You still don't understand branding. When a product is new, people do not differentiate content and channel. When an offensive app is available on the AppStore, the iPhone is offensive. When there is an offensive web page which is viewable in Safari on the iPhone, the web page is offensive. Only after years of establishment does the public differentiate the product from the content. I still hear people say that something is available "in Internet Explorer". It's a long journey to establishment, and during that period, it is Apple's duty to keep their brand legitimate.
- wanderr 17y ago
  To me that seems like making the case that if there is offensive content broadcasted on tv, people will blame the television, not the broadcaster. That makes no sense.
  - jrp 17y ago
    will -> would have when it was new
    - wanderr 17y ago
      Well, did they?
- jrockway 17y ago
  When a product is new, people do not differentiate content and channel. When an offensive app is available on the AppStore, the iPhone is offensive. When there is an offensive web page which is viewable in Safari on the iPhone, the web page is offensive. You're making a big leap here. You're saying that people can't tell the difference between a telephone and a store, but they can tell the difference between an application written in HTML and Javascript and an application written in Objective-C? (Remember, Apple doesn't regulate web content, and web content can be launched via an icon on the home screen.) The reality here, I think, is that Apple just wants some time in the tech press. They hadn't really been doing anything interesting, and people were talking about Windows and Android instead of the iPhone. Now that's changed. Relevant video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMX-btHwYE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMX-btHwYE
  - ynniv 17y ago
    You're saying that people can't tell the difference between a telephone and a store, but they can tell the difference between an application written in HTML and Javascript and an application written in Objective-C? I get that we're all technical people here, but you're looking at this wrong. Imagine this conversation: BOB: I am really angry at this thing my kid was playing with. It portrays a class of people as less than human. TOM: That's horrible, where did she find it? BOB: HorribleWebsite.com TOM: That's tough, have you talked with her about being careful on the net? Now Bob's daughter may have been using an iPhone, or an Android phone, or a computer, it doesn't matter. The Internet is unavoidable, and we have to deal with things that we don't like. Lets try another. BOB: I am really angry at this thing my kid was playing with. It portrays a class of people as less than human. TOM: That's horrible, where did she find it? BOB: She bought it on the AppStore. TOM: Apple lets them sell that sort of thing? I'm going to take my son's away and get him another phone. I don't need that in my life. Now, does either Bob or Tom know the different between an "Objective-C" application and an HTML5 offline bookmark? I can't tell, and it doesn't matter. They do know whether this offensive content can be avoided by abandoning the platform based on whether this is "web" content or not. But sure, show your crying kittens video. Apple doesn't know what they're doing, their success was probably just luck.
- gojomo 17y ago
  This implies a really interesting strategic model. Up to some point, strict control is profit-maximizing, by ensuring that desirable initial impressions of the platform-as-a-whole (or store-as-a-whole) are established. But after some point, with the image established, inclusion is the winning strategy -- or else money is left on the table, or an opening for other competitors emerges. Few adults hold a lower opinion of bookstores, cable-operators, and movie-theaters that include among their range of offerings some things that are diametrically opposed to their personal political/religious/social standards. When does a a platform proprietor know when to shift? Is the shift best done rapidly or gradually? Even if the model is correct, is Apple being too conservative in opening up?
  - ynniv 17y ago
    Given that many older people call the internet by their web browser's name, it may be generational. So, a long time... 15 years? Its difficult because those of us who want to know are so steeped in the details that we have no perspective. I am continually amazed at the amount of advertising Apple buys for the iPod. There are people out there who still need to be convinced that having portable music / audio books / (video) podcasts is a good idea. These people would certainly conflate AppStore content with the iPhone, and it would probably affect their buying decision.
  - starkfist 17y ago
    Few adults hold a lower opinion of bookstores, cable-operators, and movie-theaters that include among their range of offerings some things that a diametrically opposed to their personal political/religious/social standards. Uh... this is wildly untrue. You don't find XXX movies at mainstream theaters or Barely Legal magazine at Barnes and Noble. Likewise you'd be hard pressed to find your typical college-educated liberal at a christian bookstore.
    - gojomo 17y ago
      That there are a few things major chains avoid doesn't invalidate the fact they carry many things opposed to the tastes of most of their customers. You will find books, magazines, and movies with nudity and sex at Barnes and Noble -- far moreso than allowed under current App Store standards. Also, to the point of the original app rejection, you will find plenty of material that mocks all sides of the political spectrum. A countdown to Obama's inauguration with a negative caricature of Bush is mild compared to what you can find in bookstores, cable-channels, and theaters. Those outlets carry such material without their customers getting offended by their mere availability.

ynniv 17y ago

You still don't understand branding. When a product is new, people do not differentiate content and channel. When an offensive app is available on the AppStore, the iPhone is offensive. When there is an offensive web page which is viewable in Safari on the iPhone, the web page is offensive. Only after years of establishment does the public differentiate the product from the content. I still hear people say that something is available "in Internet Explorer". It's a long journey to establishment, and during that period, it is Apple's duty to keep their brand legitimate.

wanderr 17y ago
To me that seems like making the case that if there is offensive content broadcasted on tv, people will blame the television, not the broadcaster. That makes no sense.
- jrp 17y ago
  will -> would have when it was new
  - wanderr 17y ago
    Well, did they?
jrockway 17y ago
When a product is new, people do not differentiate content and channel. When an offensive app is available on the AppStore, the iPhone is offensive. When there is an offensive web page which is viewable in Safari on the iPhone, the web page is offensive. You're making a big leap here. You're saying that people can't tell the difference between a telephone and a store, but they can tell the difference between an application written in HTML and Javascript and an application written in Objective-C? (Remember, Apple doesn't regulate web content, and web content can be launched via an icon on the home screen.) The reality here, I think, is that Apple just wants some time in the tech press. They hadn't really been doing anything interesting, and people were talking about Windows and Android instead of the iPhone. Now that's changed. Relevant video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMX-btHwYE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMX-btHwYE
- ynniv 17y ago
  You're saying that people can't tell the difference between a telephone and a store, but they can tell the difference between an application written in HTML and Javascript and an application written in Objective-C? I get that we're all technical people here, but you're looking at this wrong. Imagine this conversation: BOB: I am really angry at this thing my kid was playing with. It portrays a class of people as less than human. TOM: That's horrible, where did she find it? BOB: HorribleWebsite.com TOM: That's tough, have you talked with her about being careful on the net? Now Bob's daughter may have been using an iPhone, or an Android phone, or a computer, it doesn't matter. The Internet is unavoidable, and we have to deal with things that we don't like. Lets try another. BOB: I am really angry at this thing my kid was playing with. It portrays a class of people as less than human. TOM: That's horrible, where did she find it? BOB: She bought it on the AppStore. TOM: Apple lets them sell that sort of thing? I'm going to take my son's away and get him another phone. I don't need that in my life. Now, does either Bob or Tom know the different between an "Objective-C" application and an HTML5 offline bookmark? I can't tell, and it doesn't matter. They do know whether this offensive content can be avoided by abandoning the platform based on whether this is "web" content or not. But sure, show your crying kittens video. Apple doesn't know what they're doing, their success was probably just luck.
gojomo 17y ago
This implies a really interesting strategic model. Up to some point, strict control is profit-maximizing, by ensuring that desirable initial impressions of the platform-as-a-whole (or store-as-a-whole) are established. But after some point, with the image established, inclusion is the winning strategy -- or else money is left on the table, or an opening for other competitors emerges. Few adults hold a lower opinion of bookstores, cable-operators, and movie-theaters that include among their range of offerings some things that are diametrically opposed to their personal political/religious/social standards. When does a a platform proprietor know when to shift? Is the shift best done rapidly or gradually? Even if the model is correct, is Apple being too conservative in opening up?
- ynniv 17y ago
  Given that many older people call the internet by their web browser's name, it may be generational. So, a long time... 15 years? Its difficult because those of us who want to know are so steeped in the details that we have no perspective. I am continually amazed at the amount of advertising Apple buys for the iPod. There are people out there who still need to be convinced that having portable music / audio books / (video) podcasts is a good idea. These people would certainly conflate AppStore content with the iPhone, and it would probably affect their buying decision.
- starkfist 17y ago
  Few adults hold a lower opinion of bookstores, cable-operators, and movie-theaters that include among their range of offerings some things that a diametrically opposed to their personal political/religious/social standards. Uh... this is wildly untrue. You don't find XXX movies at mainstream theaters or Barely Legal magazine at Barnes and Noble. Likewise you'd be hard pressed to find your typical college-educated liberal at a christian bookstore.
  - gojomo 17y ago
    That there are a few things major chains avoid doesn't invalidate the fact they carry many things opposed to the tastes of most of their customers. You will find books, magazines, and movies with nudity and sex at Barnes and Noble -- far moreso than allowed under current App Store standards. Also, to the point of the original app rejection, you will find plenty of material that mocks all sides of the political spectrum. A countdown to Obama's inauguration with a negative caricature of Bush is mild compared to what you can find in bookstores, cable-channels, and theaters. Those outlets carry such material without their customers getting offended by their mere availability.