4 ms·
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 the
by 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 agoWho are they lecturing on what?
- AsyncAwait 6y agoApp developers on what names are 'inappropriate', if you will.
- zepto 6y agoI 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?