4 ms·

I'm not surprised that this got through as it is more likely to offend Apple than a user. Apple's control of the App Store is not without good reason. It seeks

by sambeau 15y ago

I'm not surprised that this got through as it is more likely to offend Apple than a user. Apple's control of the App Store is not without good reason. It seeks to protect users (and their children) from malware, pornography and offence (and protect Apple from bad publicity and legal action by selling such things to its users). While an overzealous employee might take it onto themselves to try to protect Apple from criticism in this way: it is not Apple policy to do so. Note also that Apple has always reacted sensibly to any accusations of abuse and/or suicide in it's supplier's factories. Plus, Foxconn's suicide rate is far below both China's and the US's rate for a similar demographic.

w1ntermute 15y ago
> It seeks to protect users (and their children) from malware, pornography and offence (and protect Apple from bad publicity and legal action by selling such things to its users). Do people really still buy this line? If they're trying to protect users and their children from "malware, pornography and offence," shouldn't they be blocking those things in the iPhone web browser as well? And what about on the Mac? All those things should be blocked on there as well.
- jccc 15y ago
  Apple doesn't sell Web sites through Safari. It does sell apps through the App Store. There's quite a bit of difference in responsibility when money changes hands.
  - w1ntermute 15y ago
    > Apple doesn't sell Web sites through Safari. It does sell apps through the App Store. > There's quite a bit of difference in responsibility when money changes hands. So if apps are free, it should be OK, right? Because there's no implied responsibility.
- sambeau 15y ago
  Do people really still buy this line? What line? Why else would they do it? The control that they over the iOS platform has provided the first truly safe computing environment. This is, in my opinion, more important to its long-term success than the innovative user interface. This is the part that other companies have so-far failed to copy. Apple don't seek control for it's own sake—it's a lot of work and very expensive—which is why other companies balk at it.
  - mikecane 15y ago
    >>>What line? Why else would they do it? How does the App Store banning a magazine for Android users fit into your view of how the App Store operates?
  - w1ntermute 15y ago
    > What line? Why else would they do it? To line their own coffers, of course. By banning apps that the majority of people don't mind (see: Google Voice unbanned), they're able to increase their own profits. This is much like the difference between the US and PRC governments. The latter is able to optimize its economy to a much greater degree than the former, thanks to its top-down control. But at what price?
- sambeau 15y ago
  The Mac is different due to: 1) Legacy 2) Professional requirements: huge apps with massive libraries etc However, the Mac App Store does have similar rules and if you stick to only installing software through the App Store you will have a much safer computing environment. Once the next round of sandboxing is added to the Mac it will be very similar to iOS.
  - w1ntermute 15y ago
    > if you stick to only installing software through the App Store you will have a much safer computing environment. I don't think the safety has ever been an issue with Mac apps. And there are plenty of ways to attack an iPhone, including via the App Store - just look at this story. All Apple's policies do are allow it to ban apps that aren't in its best interest and give its users a false sense of security.
CJCorona 15y ago
Well Apple has now removed the app from the store. What's the good reason for that you'd like to share with us?
- marklittlewood 15y ago
  Here is the app description and screenshots. http://thebln.com/2011/09/did-apple-find-a-sick-sense-of-humour-or-did-they-just-lose-control-of-itunes/ http://thebln.com/2011/09/did-apple-find-a-sick-sense-of-hum...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- sambeau 15y ago
  15.2 Apps that depict violence or abuse of children will be rejected 16.1 Apps that present excessively objectionable or crude content will be rejected Seems fairynuff to me.

by sambeau 15y ago

w1ntermute 15y ago

> It seeks to protect users (and their children) from malware, pornography and offence (and protect Apple from bad publicity and legal action by selling such things to its users). Do people really still buy this line? If they're trying to protect users and their children from "malware, pornography and offence," shouldn't they be blocking those things in the iPhone web browser as well? And what about on the Mac? All those things should be blocked on there as well.

jccc 15y ago
Apple doesn't sell Web sites through Safari. It does sell apps through the App Store. There's quite a bit of difference in responsibility when money changes hands.
- w1ntermute 15y ago
  > Apple doesn't sell Web sites through Safari. It does sell apps through the App Store. > There's quite a bit of difference in responsibility when money changes hands. So if apps are free, it should be OK, right? Because there's no implied responsibility.
sambeau 15y ago
Do people really still buy this line? What line? Why else would they do it? The control that they over the iOS platform has provided the first truly safe computing environment. This is, in my opinion, more important to its long-term success than the innovative user interface. This is the part that other companies have so-far failed to copy. Apple don't seek control for it's own sake—it's a lot of work and very expensive—which is why other companies balk at it.
- mikecane 15y ago
  >>>What line? Why else would they do it? How does the App Store banning a magazine for Android users fit into your view of how the App Store operates?
- w1ntermute 15y ago
  > What line? Why else would they do it? To line their own coffers, of course. By banning apps that the majority of people don't mind (see: Google Voice unbanned), they're able to increase their own profits. This is much like the difference between the US and PRC governments. The latter is able to optimize its economy to a much greater degree than the former, thanks to its top-down control. But at what price?
sambeau 15y ago
The Mac is different due to: 1) Legacy 2) Professional requirements: huge apps with massive libraries etc However, the Mac App Store does have similar rules and if you stick to only installing software through the App Store you will have a much safer computing environment. Once the next round of sandboxing is added to the Mac it will be very similar to iOS.
- w1ntermute 15y ago
  > if you stick to only installing software through the App Store you will have a much safer computing environment. I don't think the safety has ever been an issue with Mac apps. And there are plenty of ways to attack an iPhone, including via the App Store - just look at this story. All Apple's policies do are allow it to ban apps that aren't in its best interest and give its users a false sense of security.

CJCorona 15y ago

Well Apple has now removed the app from the store. What's the good reason for that you'd like to share with us?

marklittlewood 15y ago
Here is the app description and screenshots. http://thebln.com/2011/09/did-apple-find-a-sick-sense-of-humour-or-did-they-just-lose-control-of-itunes/ http://thebln.com/2011/09/did-apple-find-a-sick-sense-of-hum...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
sambeau 15y ago
15.2 Apps that depict violence or abuse of children will be rejected 16.1 Apps that present excessively objectionable or crude content will be rejected Seems fairynuff to me.