4 ms·
Sigh... more of this? Quite frankly, it is getting tiresome how people seemingly willfully misunderstand this. Apple has every right to approve what goes into t
by pwhelan 17y ago
Sigh... more of this? Quite frankly, it is getting tiresome how people seemingly willfully misunderstand this. Apple has every right to approve what goes into their store. It is very questionable if they have the right to tell you how to create the product initially. It would be like saying the conceptual sketches, done in private and only for the engineers designing a product, must be done in red pen -- no pencils or other colors. It has absolutely zero bearing on the quality or ethics of the created software so a comparison to other processes is questionable. Apple & Jobs do not owe anyone anything but that doesn't mean that they can overstep their ethical and legal boundaries, which they may very well be doing.
In my opinion, not uncommon, they are behaving unethically -- especially since enforcement will be selective at best. In the eyes of the law... well, we shall see but I cannot see this going through. If a company were to say that software developers must originally write their code while wearing baseball hats? Suits? Only between dusk and dawn? By vegetarians? Each rule seems as arbitrary as the ones Apple has put forth. I would think that the law wouldn't allow irrelevant terms to carry meaning.
- mahmud 17y agoIn my opinion, not uncommon, they are behaving unethically So let me see if I understand this: you are tired of people complaining and refusing to accept Apple's, by your admission, unethical behaviour? Apple had no trouble empowering people to create, when it was other people's monopolies on the line (Remember "Rip, Mix Burn"?) But when people demand the right to hack, and contribute back to the "platform", Apple shuts the door on their face and you're irked that people complain?
- pwhelan 17y agoMahmud... what? The article was essentially saying that Apple can do whatever they want because they built it. The main point of the article was pretty disparaging to people who are upset by this decision. If I didn't convey that I was upset by this as well, that is my mistake. I thought that by pointing out that the author was, again in my opinion, mistaken in his argument I was in fact on the side of people who 'demand the right to hack, and contribute back' Never said I was tired of people here discussing things. I am tired of what the author was saying which I didn't believe to be well thought out and, frankly, pseudo-intellectual snobbery despite its strong historical basis. Having just read the article a second time I thought I was abundantly clear, but I figured I should clarify.
- mahmud 17y agoNo worries, it just wasn't clear from your writing what was your position. It's good to sympathize with both sides of an argument (it's called being a grown up) but it's confusing to argue for opposite positions :-) Cheers!