3 ms·

And Steve's response, I imagine would be: if you want to sell your app in my store, it's my business. If you don't like my rules, develop for a different platf

And Steve's response, I imagine would be: if you want to sell your app in my store, it's my business. If you don't like my rules, develop for a different platform. Seriously: if Barnes and Noble decides it only wants to sell fiction by authors whose last names begin with "Q", wouldn't we just consider it a bone-headed move, and not the cause for moral outrage? The iPhone is not the only smartphone on the market, and it's never pretended to be an open platform. I really can't see why folks are getting their knickers in a twist.

cousin_it 17y ago
I really can't see why folks are getting their knickers in a twist. Your use of demeaning language doesn't make your opponents wrong. wouldn't we just consider it a bone-headed move, and not the cause for moral outrage? It's both. Legality != morality. A business practice can be perfectly legal but immoral. Of course you can say anything Apple does is moral because it's within their rights, but there are also other ways of assessing the morality of actions, e.g. weighing their consequences.
- michael_dorfman 17y ago
  OK, then explain the consequences to me. A store-owner decides he wants to put an arbitrary restriction on the types of items he sells in his store. Let's say, perhaps, that a grocery store decides to stock only Organic produce. What's the moral harm?
  - cousin_it 17y ago
    It's proportional to market share. I think we both agree that such a move would be immoral for a monopolist (making developers stupid... stifling progress... blah blah). Assume it causes X amount of moral harm. Then someone with 50% market share would cause X/2 moral harm by the exact same mechanisms. 1% market share, X/100 moral harm. Think of it as voting for Hitler: less evil than being Hitler, but still evil.
    - michael_dorfman 17y ago
      Sorry, but I still don't see it. The owner of a store has a moral obligation to sell all possible goods in that store? If I have a grocery store, I need to sell every possible foodstuff? I'm not allowed to decide that I want to sell only Organic produce?
      - stcredzero 17y ago
        Think of the company store in a little West Virginia mining town in the pre Union days. But the analogy actually supports your position: it's clear that there are other app stores out there.
  - krschultz 17y ago
    That's not a good analogy. Those selling non-organic produce have plenty of other places to take their goods. They are commodities. Anyone who has invested in a language layer technology can't do that. You can't take your Flash -> Objective-C compiler and sell it anywhere else. Apple just forced you to lose all of your investment for no good reason. It's like offering communal grazing areas. A bunch of ranchers decide to move their cattle down to your area because it makes economic sense at the time. Once they arrive, you put up a fence and say fuck you. Now they spent their time and money moving down there, and have nothing to show for it. Sure you didn't have a contract but they have real material losses due to the changes in basically, the TOS on your grazing land. Catlle might die, ranchers might not be able to afford moving them back and go out of business. The same applies with Apple. I would hate to be a startup in this space right now.
    - michael_dorfman 17y ago
      But Apple never offered a "communal grazing area". The iPhone has been a closed platform from day one, and everybody developing for the iPhone already had a metric buttload of restrictions on them. If the ranchers decided to move their cattle to an area in the hopes that they might find communal grazing available, well, they took a risk, and lost. That's business. Sellers of non-organic produce have plenty of other places to take their goods, and developers of applications for mobile devices/smartphones have plenty of other devices they can develop for.
      - jongraehl 17y ago
        You appear to be arguing that we shouldn't complain that Apple's closed platform is obnoxious, or hate Steve Jobs for being an anti-programmer jerk, or encourage people to avoid Apple. Nobody said that some existing legal or moral authority should force Apple to treat us nice.
      - krschultz 17y ago
        You still haven't grasped that you are comparing commodities to non-commodities. If you just invested a bunch of time into a source to source translator for the iPhone, you can't just take that somewhere else. It is entirely useless elsewhere. Of course Apple doesn't HAVE to accommodate these people, but it is an egregious move for both developers and the users. I don't actually see what the gain is for Apple from this other than slighting Adobe.
  - varjag 17y ago
    If it's the only store in the town, there's plenty of harm.
- rokhayakebe 17y ago
  Your use of demeaning language doesn't make your opponents wrong. Did you read the original comment he was responding to?
ComputerGuru 17y ago
See, that's because you're not affected. My last name does happen to start with a Q, and I happen to like Barnes and Noble. So WTF would I let them stop me? Yes, I would be very much PO'd about it, and make a hissy-fit.
- michael_dorfman 17y ago
  You're right, it's an imperfect analogy. Let's say, instead: Barnes and Noble decides they only want to sell non-fiction books. Sure, it's arbitrary, and it's probably bad business, but: it's their store. Now, suppose you are a fiction writer. Still going to throw that hissy fit?
  - bad_user 17y ago
    > Barnes and Noble decides they only want to sell non-fiction books No, a better analogy is if Barnes and Noble decides they only want to sell creationism books.
    - ghshephard 17y ago
      That's an excellent analogy. Those of us who prefer science based books would go elsewhere, while those who loved the comforting and protected "Creationist" environment would find a good home at B&N. Science Based authors aren't owed a living by B&N, and would have to sell their books elsewhere.
      - barrkel 17y ago
        On the other hand, you would have a corporation actively engaged in trying to mislead the public and stifle the truth.
generalk 17y ago
Seriously: if Barnes and Noble decides it only wants to sell fiction by authors whose last names begin with "Q", wouldn't we just consider it a bone-headed move, and not the cause for moral outrage? That depends on if B&N is the only way for you to get books. if you want to sell your app in my store, it's my business. I agree with that, and if that's all it were I couldn't see people being outraged. But there's practically no other way to get apps on an iPhone.
- michael_dorfman 17y ago
  But the iPhone isn't the only smartphone on the market, and Barnes and Noble isn't the only place to buy books. Of course, the story is different in a monopoly situation. But that's clearly not the case here: there are a number of other mobile platforms available to developers.
stcredzero 17y ago
It was never intended to be an open platform, but Apple did open up as far as making an SDK and allowing people to code up apps, compile them, then submit them to the App Store. That's like a totalitarian state opening up its harbors and convincing the world's corporations that it's safe to do business. Now they are making this unilateral change as a tactical move against a rival, seemingly unconcerned about the collateral damage. It's one thing to make a "bone-headed move." It's another to make such a move while hurting other 3rd parties in the process. Even totalitarian states have an interest in keeping up the semblance of the rule of law. Doing so keeps commerce flowing. Going by this analogy, I guess you have a point: we shouldn't be surprised. So, does that make Open Source licensing analogous to the rule of law and constitutional government?
anc2020 17y ago
> If you don't like my rules, develop for a different platform. Okay.
msg 17y ago
We are the authors with last names not Q. We are the ones being rejected and leaving the platform. Look at what is being rejected: our personal ideas of the best ways for us to do work, our molding of the computer to the vision in our head. If they told Van Gogh he had to work exclusively in the medium of gummy, he wouldn't take it quietly. After he cut off his ear and threw it at Steve Jobs, he'd pick up his paints and move to a new country where they let artists be artists and programmers be programmers. Yes, we know this is boneheaded by Apple. And yes, in a just world, fiery judgment would rain down on this business strategy. We are trying to persuade others of our point of view. Legality doesn't enter into it. We want understanding, we want minds, we want defectors.
stavrianos 17y ago
How about if Barnes and Noble decides it only wants to sell fiction by authors whose skin is of a certain shade?

cousin_it 17y ago

I really can't see why folks are getting their knickers in a twist. Your use of demeaning language doesn't make your opponents wrong. wouldn't we just consider it a bone-headed move, and not the cause for moral outrage? It's both. Legality != morality. A business practice can be perfectly legal but immoral. Of course you can say anything Apple does is moral because it's within their rights, but there are also other ways of assessing the morality of actions, e.g. weighing their consequences.

michael_dorfman 17y ago
OK, then explain the consequences to me. A store-owner decides he wants to put an arbitrary restriction on the types of items he sells in his store. Let's say, perhaps, that a grocery store decides to stock only Organic produce. What's the moral harm?
- cousin_it 17y ago
  It's proportional to market share. I think we both agree that such a move would be immoral for a monopolist (making developers stupid... stifling progress... blah blah). Assume it causes X amount of moral harm. Then someone with 50% market share would cause X/2 moral harm by the exact same mechanisms. 1% market share, X/100 moral harm. Think of it as voting for Hitler: less evil than being Hitler, but still evil.
  - michael_dorfman 17y ago
    Sorry, but I still don't see it. The owner of a store has a moral obligation to sell all possible goods in that store? If I have a grocery store, I need to sell every possible foodstuff? I'm not allowed to decide that I want to sell only Organic produce?
    - stcredzero 17y ago
      Think of the company store in a little West Virginia mining town in the pre Union days. But the analogy actually supports your position: it's clear that there are other app stores out there.
- krschultz 17y ago
  That's not a good analogy. Those selling non-organic produce have plenty of other places to take their goods. They are commodities. Anyone who has invested in a language layer technology can't do that. You can't take your Flash -> Objective-C compiler and sell it anywhere else. Apple just forced you to lose all of your investment for no good reason. It's like offering communal grazing areas. A bunch of ranchers decide to move their cattle down to your area because it makes economic sense at the time. Once they arrive, you put up a fence and say fuck you. Now they spent their time and money moving down there, and have nothing to show for it. Sure you didn't have a contract but they have real material losses due to the changes in basically, the TOS on your grazing land. Catlle might die, ranchers might not be able to afford moving them back and go out of business. The same applies with Apple. I would hate to be a startup in this space right now.
  - michael_dorfman 17y ago
    But Apple never offered a "communal grazing area". The iPhone has been a closed platform from day one, and everybody developing for the iPhone already had a metric buttload of restrictions on them. If the ranchers decided to move their cattle to an area in the hopes that they might find communal grazing available, well, they took a risk, and lost. That's business. Sellers of non-organic produce have plenty of other places to take their goods, and developers of applications for mobile devices/smartphones have plenty of other devices they can develop for.
    - jongraehl 17y ago
      You appear to be arguing that we shouldn't complain that Apple's closed platform is obnoxious, or hate Steve Jobs for being an anti-programmer jerk, or encourage people to avoid Apple. Nobody said that some existing legal or moral authority should force Apple to treat us nice.
    - krschultz 17y ago
      You still haven't grasped that you are comparing commodities to non-commodities. If you just invested a bunch of time into a source to source translator for the iPhone, you can't just take that somewhere else. It is entirely useless elsewhere. Of course Apple doesn't HAVE to accommodate these people, but it is an egregious move for both developers and the users. I don't actually see what the gain is for Apple from this other than slighting Adobe.
- varjag 17y ago
  If it's the only store in the town, there's plenty of harm.
rokhayakebe 17y ago
Your use of demeaning language doesn't make your opponents wrong. Did you read the original comment he was responding to?

ComputerGuru 17y ago

See, that's because you're not affected. My last name does happen to start with a Q, and I happen to like Barnes and Noble. So WTF would I let them stop me? Yes, I would be very much PO'd about it, and make a hissy-fit.

michael_dorfman 17y ago
You're right, it's an imperfect analogy. Let's say, instead: Barnes and Noble decides they only want to sell non-fiction books. Sure, it's arbitrary, and it's probably bad business, but: it's their store. Now, suppose you are a fiction writer. Still going to throw that hissy fit?
- bad_user 17y ago
  > Barnes and Noble decides they only want to sell non-fiction books No, a better analogy is if Barnes and Noble decides they only want to sell creationism books.
  - ghshephard 17y ago
    That's an excellent analogy. Those of us who prefer science based books would go elsewhere, while those who loved the comforting and protected "Creationist" environment would find a good home at B&N. Science Based authors aren't owed a living by B&N, and would have to sell their books elsewhere.
    - barrkel 17y ago
      On the other hand, you would have a corporation actively engaged in trying to mislead the public and stifle the truth.

generalk 17y ago

Seriously: if Barnes and Noble decides it only wants to sell fiction by authors whose last names begin with "Q", wouldn't we just consider it a bone-headed move, and not the cause for moral outrage? That depends on if B&N is the only way for you to get books. if you want to sell your app in my store, it's my business. I agree with that, and if that's all it were I couldn't see people being outraged. But there's practically no other way to get apps on an iPhone.

michael_dorfman 17y ago
But the iPhone isn't the only smartphone on the market, and Barnes and Noble isn't the only place to buy books. Of course, the story is different in a monopoly situation. But that's clearly not the case here: there are a number of other mobile platforms available to developers.

stcredzero 17y ago

It was never intended to be an open platform, but Apple did open up as far as making an SDK and allowing people to code up apps, compile them, then submit them to the App Store. That's like a totalitarian state opening up its harbors and convincing the world's corporations that it's safe to do business. Now they are making this unilateral change as a tactical move against a rival, seemingly unconcerned about the collateral damage. It's one thing to make a "bone-headed move." It's another to make such a move while hurting other 3rd parties in the process. Even totalitarian states have an interest in keeping up the semblance of the rule of law. Doing so keeps commerce flowing. Going by this analogy, I guess you have a point: we shouldn't be surprised. So, does that make Open Source licensing analogous to the rule of law and constitutional government?

anc2020 17y ago

> If you don't like my rules, develop for a different platform. Okay.

msg 17y ago

We are the authors with last names not Q. We are the ones being rejected and leaving the platform. Look at what is being rejected: our personal ideas of the best ways for us to do work, our molding of the computer to the vision in our head. If they told Van Gogh he had to work exclusively in the medium of gummy, he wouldn't take it quietly. After he cut off his ear and threw it at Steve Jobs, he'd pick up his paints and move to a new country where they let artists be artists and programmers be programmers. Yes, we know this is boneheaded by Apple. And yes, in a just world, fiery judgment would rain down on this business strategy. We are trying to persuade others of our point of view. Legality doesn't enter into it. We want understanding, we want minds, we want defectors.

stavrianos 17y ago

How about if Barnes and Noble decides it only wants to sell fiction by authors whose skin is of a certain shade?