3 ms·

I see there's been (at least some) downvoting of this comment, but it's not irrelevant. Pointing out that other companies have the same problem doesn't give App

I see there's been (at least some) downvoting of this comment, but it's not irrelevant. Pointing out that other companies have the same problem doesn't give Apple a "get out of criticism free" card, but it's worth keeping in mind that Apple gets singled out for this kind of criticism in part because they promote their efforts to be better than the norm in this regard, which invites a more critical eye.

bdcravens 6y ago
Every time I post that link it gets downvoted. Yet every time I post it, it's in response to someone implying Apple is uniquely evil. I certainly don't feel they deserve a pass, but it's such a ubiquitous problem that it's almost pointless to use as a talking point. (It's like saying Politician X is inherently bad because they accept corporate money)
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > implying Apple is uniquely evil. It's not that they're uniquely evil, rather that they don't have the moral authority to lecture.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Who are they lecturing on what?
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      App developers on what names are 'inappropriate', if you will.
      - zepto 6y ago
        I see that they made a commercial decision. I don’t see any moralizing or lecturing. Is there somewhere they are saying the name is morally wrong?
        AsyncAwait 6y ago
        > Is there somewhere they are saying the name is morally wrong? Literally that wording? No. But that's the same as a politician doing favors for their biggest donor and then pretending there's no pay to play here since you didn't literally see him taking piles of banknotes in a smoke filled back room. Come on. > they made a commercial decision Yes but why? Because according to them it promotes objectionable items/behavior - that's a moral decision, it is also a commercial one but based on a moral judgment. A commercial decision is not a class on its own. It is taken based on some factors. What were the factors here if not that Apple finds the name/icon morally questionable?

bdcravens 6y ago

Every time I post that link it gets downvoted. Yet every time I post it, it's in response to someone implying Apple is uniquely evil. I certainly don't feel they deserve a pass, but it's such a ubiquitous problem that it's almost pointless to use as a talking point. (It's like saying Politician X is inherently bad because they accept corporate money)

AsyncAwait 6y ago
> implying Apple is uniquely evil. It's not that they're uniquely evil, rather that they don't have the moral authority to lecture.
- zepto 6y ago
  Who are they lecturing on what?
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    App developers on what names are 'inappropriate', if you will.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I see that they made a commercial decision. I don’t see any moralizing or lecturing. Is there somewhere they are saying the name is morally wrong?
      - AsyncAwait 6y ago
        > Is there somewhere they are saying the name is morally wrong? Literally that wording? No. But that's the same as a politician doing favors for their biggest donor and then pretending there's no pay to play here since you didn't literally see him taking piles of banknotes in a smoke filled back room. Come on. > they made a commercial decision Yes but why? Because according to them it promotes objectionable items/behavior - that's a moral decision, it is also a commercial one but based on a moral judgment. A commercial decision is not a class on its own. It is taken based on some factors. What were the factors here if not that Apple finds the name/icon morally questionable?