4 ms·

Why is there a difference (or double standard) in how Apple treats those who can afford to buy an iPhone to those who are forced to build them? From the AppSto

Why is there a difference (or double standard) in how Apple treats those who can afford to buy an iPhone to those who are forced to build them? From the AppStore submission policies: "Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store ". I don't believe "Apple can do two things" is a valid argument. You cannot promote "protecting" one set of people from drugs whilst exploiting another set of people for financial gain. It is twisted logic and we shouldn't stand for it. Recently Apple lobbied against a Bill in Congress to aimed at protecting Uyghur minorities in China: https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/23/anti-forced-labour-bill-apple/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/23/anti-forced-labour-bill-apple...

scrollaway 6y ago
I don't believe Apple claims, anywhere, that they're "protecting" people from drugs.
- fragmede 6y ago
  That is the originally supplied reasoning that Apple gave the developer. > Gustafson says Apple contacted him on December 29th and told him Amphetamine “appears to promote inappropriate use of controlled substances. Specifically, your app name and icon include references to controlled substances, pills.” That sure sounds like Apple is trying to protect people from "inappropriate use of controlled substances", or more colloqually, "protecting people from drugs".
  - zepto 6y ago
    It could just be they think promoting the use of drugs looks bad to mainstream users of their store.
  - scrollaway 6y ago
    If I ask you not to smoke next to me, it's not to protect you from smoking, it's because I don't like or tolerate cigarette smoke. I'm not defending Apple; I'm glad Amphetamine is keeping its name. I'm saying they're not claiming to protect anyone.
coldtea 6y ago
>Why is there a difference (or double standard) in how Apple treats those who can afford to buy an iPhone to those who are forced to build them? Because the second group is at their mercy (or, the suppliers mercy, where chinese, taiwanese, indian, etc) for feeding their families, "free market" BS aside. That's not Apple, that's capitalism in general (or any system where you're not given something like a UBI or ample social wealfare so that you can only work on production lines and such by choice). It's not just capitalism as in capitalist's either. The whole "western world" benefits from such cheap goods, even people working McJobs at home. That said, there's a balance there, because after some point working/middle class jobs also go abroad, and new ones replacing them domestically are either crappier lower-wage than before or not-created. The 10% will always benefit from cheaper goods though - and they will be those with high quality jobs that can't/won't yet be jobs outsourced. Now, pro-market people would say that at least this guys the developing countries some jobs, they wouldn't have otherwise, and low/exploitative wages and conditions of work are better than no jobs at all. (That's debatable: often the developing folk are forced to go work in the cities/factories because of policies devastating their rural communities, not because of some free choice to "ascend" themselves in the rat race). IMHO, the alternative would require either some kind of universal raise of both salaries (to total global equality) and costs of living (to same), or trade and outsourcing restrictions (so to avoid the race to the bottom).

scrollaway 6y ago

I don't believe Apple claims, anywhere, that they're "protecting" people from drugs.

fragmede 6y ago
That is the originally supplied reasoning that Apple gave the developer. > Gustafson says Apple contacted him on December 29th and told him Amphetamine “appears to promote inappropriate use of controlled substances. Specifically, your app name and icon include references to controlled substances, pills.” That sure sounds like Apple is trying to protect people from "inappropriate use of controlled substances", or more colloqually, "protecting people from drugs".
- zepto 6y ago
  It could just be they think promoting the use of drugs looks bad to mainstream users of their store.
- scrollaway 6y ago
  If I ask you not to smoke next to me, it's not to protect you from smoking, it's because I don't like or tolerate cigarette smoke. I'm not defending Apple; I'm glad Amphetamine is keeping its name. I'm saying they're not claiming to protect anyone.

coldtea 6y ago

>Why is there a difference (or double standard) in how Apple treats those who can afford to buy an iPhone to those who are forced to build them? Because the second group is at their mercy (or, the suppliers mercy, where chinese, taiwanese, indian, etc) for feeding their families, "free market" BS aside. That's not Apple, that's capitalism in general (or any system where you're not given something like a UBI or ample social wealfare so that you can only work on production lines and such by choice). It's not just capitalism as in capitalist's either. The whole "western world" benefits from such cheap goods, even people working McJobs at home. That said, there's a balance there, because after some point working/middle class jobs also go abroad, and new ones replacing them domestically are either crappier lower-wage than before or not-created. The 10% will always benefit from cheaper goods though - and they will be those with high quality jobs that can't/won't yet be jobs outsourced. Now, pro-market people would say that at least this guys the developing countries some jobs, they wouldn't have otherwise, and low/exploitative wages and conditions of work are better than no jobs at all. (That's debatable: often the developing folk are forced to go work in the cities/factories because of policies devastating their rural communities, not because of some free choice to "ascend" themselves in the rat race). IMHO, the alternative would require either some kind of universal raise of both salaries (to total global equality) and costs of living (to same), or trade and outsourcing restrictions (so to avoid the race to the bottom).