6 ms·

Apple's stance on acceptance/rejection of these apps is getting more disgusting by the week. There are many ways to discuss this rationally, and many have been

by gdee 18y ago

Apple's stance on acceptance/rejection of these apps is getting more disgusting by the week. There are many ways to discuss this rationally, and many have been used already, here and elswere. But the first, straight from the gut, reaction is just that: disgusting. I know it is their platform, store and will and right... it's still disgusting.

axod 18y ago
Why is it disgusting? Why is it surprising? People seem to be forgetting Apple is a business. Not a charity. I think Apples biggest mistake was to launch the app store in the first place. I'm not interested in pretending my phone is a light saber, or using it as a flashlight. For me, it sort of "dumbs down" the phone. There are some apps that look well written, like super monkey balls etc, but most of them are just idiotic. Wastes of time, and money. Apple is there to make money, and give users what they want. Not developers. If there's an app in the store that does something similar to an app Apple does, but a bit better, guess which one I want as a user? The Apple one. I want to know Apple will support it, be behind it, make sure it works for everyone etc. The other app could be a 1 man band who isn't that bothered. I don't think Apple should have opened the app store, they should have just exposed all the hardware to javascript, as they did with the multitouch, orientation changes etc. The only thing the app store has going for it is a willingness from users to pay money for novelty apps, but I think that will soon wear off. In this particular case I can't see why anyone would want the app anyway. What does it offer above the standard mail app? Do Apple really need the extra hassle of providing support - "My mail doesn't work Apple!!! Oh um by the way I'm using some weird app I installed"
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  Apple is there to make money, and give users what they want. Not developers. When people own computers, they want applications available -- the more the better. Remember the "10,000 programs" television ad for the Apple II? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22apple+ii%22+%2210%2C000+programs%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22apple+ii%22+%2210%2C000+pr... The decision to buy a computer is mainly based on the size of the application-base. The early-adopters are anticipating rapid application-base growth. To grow the application base, one needs developers. As Steve Balmer said: http://www.google.com/search?q=steve+balmer+developers http://www.google.com/search?q=steve+balmer+developers
  - axod 18y ago
    The iPhone has one of the best browsers available, with a pretty fast javascript engine. You can run whatever you like. I disagree about people wanting native installable apps. I don't think they particularly do any more. I'd be really surprised if anyone bought the iPhone because of a certain app in the app store.
    - DabAsteroid 18y ago
      I'd be really surprised if anyone bought the iPhone because of a certain app in the app store. So would I, which is why I said that people want the availability of a wide variety of applications, not any particular application.
    - JeffJenkins 18y ago
      A significant portion of my purchase decision was that OmniFocus was releasing a portable version of their program. The trouble with browser-based iPhone apps -- around here, anyway -- is that you can't use them on the subway. The GMail client on my old blackberry was like that and it was totally worthless during most of the time I was mobile. I do think that web apps with the HTML 5 database ( http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#sql http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#sql ) and clever caching would cover most use-cases. It does still leave email-outbox style functionality out of apps, but a simple message-passing service in the API would solve that.
    - nonrecursive 18y ago
      I also bought the iphone because OmniFocus was going to be available for it
    - radley 18y ago
      It's not the JS engine speed - it's the connection/download speed that matters, especially for iPhone v1. Apps were essential even before the app store opened. Jailbreaking, yo, remember?
      - axod 18y ago
        The answer to that thought would be to demand better carriers, more wifi, etc if they are not present in your country.
- netcan 18y ago
  Would you find it disgusting if they started buying up failed companies for the patents & suing left, right & centre?
  - axod 18y ago
    How is that relevant?
    - raganwald 18y ago
      It has to do with the characteristic of the activity being "disgusting" as opposed to being "not in shareholder's interests," "not in customers' interests," or even "not in society's interests." Both corporate behaviours have incited this kind of deeply emotional response. So it's interesting to ask someone if they have the same emotional response to each corporate behaviour. It would be very interesting to me if someone says they find patent trolling to be businesses making money according to the rules of the game as they are written but that same person thinks of Apple's behaviour as "disgusting." I am not suggesting anybody here has that response, just that I see that the question is interesting.
      - netcan 18y ago
        Exactly. If neither of these behaviours are 'disgusting,' what is? IE if you don't find these disgusting, then you probably think that no business behaviour qualifies for this title. In that case, that comment is out of place. Why say 'why is this disgusting?' What you mean is 'There's no such thing as disgusting in business.
        raganwald 18y ago
        There's no such thing as disgusting in business No, there isn't. Business is amroal for the simple reason that corporations are not people. However, there is such a thing as disgusting when people make business decisions. The fact that someone owns a business or works for a business does not relive them of personal moral responsibility. A business is perfectly correct to decide that offshoring shoe manufacturing to copuntries with child labour is the right choice. A business is perfectly correct to decide that offshoring chemical manufacturing to countries with lax safety standards is the right choice. The people working for those businesses, on the other hand, are not off the hook. They cannot invoke the Nuremburg defence, for can they assert that since the business is devoid of responsibility, and they work for the business, their decisions while on the job are devoid of responsibility. Thus, speaking to another post here, I have no ethical problem with a firm that exists to commit patent extortion. However, I find the actions of its founders and employees disgusting.
- notauser 18y ago
  I modded you back up because people who write civil comments sharing another opinion don't deserve to be modded down just for being wrong.
- RobGR 18y ago
  A business -- or a charity, military platoon, gang, masonic lodge, baseball team, or any other name we have for a group of people -- is not a robot. It is still a group of people. Take some activity we might consider disgusting -- like chopping down a productive fruit tree, or shooting a milk-producing cow, shitting all over the people who give you 30 percent of their sales and help make an economic engine that feeds you, etc -- it is not disgusting if a robot does it. If a tree-harvesting robot cut down productive fruit trees instead of the pine lumber, we'd say, "Hey, broken robot there -- fix it." But if a group of PEOPLE did that, we'd call them stupid and disgusting, and be fearful of what they were doing to the economy. If they formed an LLC and did it, they would be stupid and disgusting. If they formed a cult and selected a guru and did it, they would be stupid and disgusting. "Apple" is just a name for a bunch of stupid and disgusting people. They could dissolve the corporation, and they would still be a few tens of thousands weirdos, with a creepy turtle neck wearing "design guru", and probably be trying to sell you overpriced crap that you could not modify, based on a subtle implication of elitism if you joined by buying. I think the only reasonable phone to consider at this point is the OpenMoko. Unlike Android, it's here now. People are doing stuff like http://www.neopwn.com/ http://www.neopwn.com/ with it. Unfortunately, as near as I can tell, there are simply no cellular providers that meet basic standards of reasonable behaviour, such that I would sign up with them. They all seem to be run by people like axod, and probably think it's OK to have sex with children as long you form an S corp hire yourself to rape them, to insulate your soul from it like a kind of ethical condom.
jcromartie 18y ago
Honestly, I just wish they were more consistent. I don't care that they reject apps they don't like on their own service for their own device. I do care that they let some through that are really unpolished. If I made a really stellar app and put lots of time and effort into it, I would hate for it to drown in a sea of inferior half-assed apps. The App Store is for business. If I want to do something more exploratory or academic I do it in an open system.

by gdee 18y ago

axod 18y ago

Why is it disgusting? Why is it surprising? People seem to be forgetting Apple is a business. Not a charity. I think Apples biggest mistake was to launch the app store in the first place. I'm not interested in pretending my phone is a light saber, or using it as a flashlight. For me, it sort of "dumbs down" the phone. There are some apps that look well written, like super monkey balls etc, but most of them are just idiotic. Wastes of time, and money. Apple is there to make money, and give users what they want. Not developers. If there's an app in the store that does something similar to an app Apple does, but a bit better, guess which one I want as a user? The Apple one. I want to know Apple will support it, be behind it, make sure it works for everyone etc. The other app could be a 1 man band who isn't that bothered. I don't think Apple should have opened the app store, they should have just exposed all the hardware to javascript, as they did with the multitouch, orientation changes etc. The only thing the app store has going for it is a willingness from users to pay money for novelty apps, but I think that will soon wear off. In this particular case I can't see why anyone would want the app anyway. What does it offer above the standard mail app? Do Apple really need the extra hassle of providing support - "My mail doesn't work Apple!!! Oh um by the way I'm using some weird app I installed"

DabAsteroid 18y ago
Apple is there to make money, and give users what they want. Not developers. When people own computers, they want applications available -- the more the better. Remember the "10,000 programs" television ad for the Apple II? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22apple+ii%22+%2210%2C000+programs%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22apple+ii%22+%2210%2C000+pr... The decision to buy a computer is mainly based on the size of the application-base. The early-adopters are anticipating rapid application-base growth. To grow the application base, one needs developers. As Steve Balmer said: http://www.google.com/search?q=steve+balmer+developers http://www.google.com/search?q=steve+balmer+developers
- axod 18y ago
  The iPhone has one of the best browsers available, with a pretty fast javascript engine. You can run whatever you like. I disagree about people wanting native installable apps. I don't think they particularly do any more. I'd be really surprised if anyone bought the iPhone because of a certain app in the app store.
  - DabAsteroid 18y ago
    I'd be really surprised if anyone bought the iPhone because of a certain app in the app store. So would I, which is why I said that people want the availability of a wide variety of applications, not any particular application.
  - JeffJenkins 18y ago
    A significant portion of my purchase decision was that OmniFocus was releasing a portable version of their program. The trouble with browser-based iPhone apps -- around here, anyway -- is that you can't use them on the subway. The GMail client on my old blackberry was like that and it was totally worthless during most of the time I was mobile. I do think that web apps with the HTML 5 database ( http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#sql http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#sql ) and clever caching would cover most use-cases. It does still leave email-outbox style functionality out of apps, but a simple message-passing service in the API would solve that.
  - nonrecursive 18y ago
    I also bought the iphone because OmniFocus was going to be available for it
  - radley 18y ago
    It's not the JS engine speed - it's the connection/download speed that matters, especially for iPhone v1. Apps were essential even before the app store opened. Jailbreaking, yo, remember?
    - axod 18y ago
      The answer to that thought would be to demand better carriers, more wifi, etc if they are not present in your country.
netcan 18y ago
Would you find it disgusting if they started buying up failed companies for the patents & suing left, right & centre?
- axod 18y ago
  How is that relevant?
  - raganwald 18y ago
    It has to do with the characteristic of the activity being "disgusting" as opposed to being "not in shareholder's interests," "not in customers' interests," or even "not in society's interests." Both corporate behaviours have incited this kind of deeply emotional response. So it's interesting to ask someone if they have the same emotional response to each corporate behaviour. It would be very interesting to me if someone says they find patent trolling to be businesses making money according to the rules of the game as they are written but that same person thinks of Apple's behaviour as "disgusting." I am not suggesting anybody here has that response, just that I see that the question is interesting.
    - netcan 18y ago
      Exactly. If neither of these behaviours are 'disgusting,' what is? IE if you don't find these disgusting, then you probably think that no business behaviour qualifies for this title. In that case, that comment is out of place. Why say 'why is this disgusting?' What you mean is 'There's no such thing as disgusting in business.
      - raganwald 18y ago
        There's no such thing as disgusting in business No, there isn't. Business is amroal for the simple reason that corporations are not people. However, there is such a thing as disgusting when people make business decisions. The fact that someone owns a business or works for a business does not relive them of personal moral responsibility. A business is perfectly correct to decide that offshoring shoe manufacturing to copuntries with child labour is the right choice. A business is perfectly correct to decide that offshoring chemical manufacturing to countries with lax safety standards is the right choice. The people working for those businesses, on the other hand, are not off the hook. They cannot invoke the Nuremburg defence, for can they assert that since the business is devoid of responsibility, and they work for the business, their decisions while on the job are devoid of responsibility. Thus, speaking to another post here, I have no ethical problem with a firm that exists to commit patent extortion. However, I find the actions of its founders and employees disgusting.
notauser 18y ago
I modded you back up because people who write civil comments sharing another opinion don't deserve to be modded down just for being wrong.
RobGR 18y ago
A business -- or a charity, military platoon, gang, masonic lodge, baseball team, or any other name we have for a group of people -- is not a robot. It is still a group of people. Take some activity we might consider disgusting -- like chopping down a productive fruit tree, or shooting a milk-producing cow, shitting all over the people who give you 30 percent of their sales and help make an economic engine that feeds you, etc -- it is not disgusting if a robot does it. If a tree-harvesting robot cut down productive fruit trees instead of the pine lumber, we'd say, "Hey, broken robot there -- fix it." But if a group of PEOPLE did that, we'd call them stupid and disgusting, and be fearful of what they were doing to the economy. If they formed an LLC and did it, they would be stupid and disgusting. If they formed a cult and selected a guru and did it, they would be stupid and disgusting. "Apple" is just a name for a bunch of stupid and disgusting people. They could dissolve the corporation, and they would still be a few tens of thousands weirdos, with a creepy turtle neck wearing "design guru", and probably be trying to sell you overpriced crap that you could not modify, based on a subtle implication of elitism if you joined by buying. I think the only reasonable phone to consider at this point is the OpenMoko. Unlike Android, it's here now. People are doing stuff like http://www.neopwn.com/ http://www.neopwn.com/ with it. Unfortunately, as near as I can tell, there are simply no cellular providers that meet basic standards of reasonable behaviour, such that I would sign up with them. They all seem to be run by people like axod, and probably think it's OK to have sex with children as long you form an S corp hire yourself to rape them, to insulate your soul from it like a kind of ethical condom.

jcromartie 18y ago

Honestly, I just wish they were more consistent. I don't care that they reject apps they don't like on their own service for their own device. I do care that they let some through that are really unpolished. If I made a really stellar app and put lots of time and effort into it, I would hate for it to drown in a sea of inferior half-assed apps. The App Store is for business. If I want to do something more exploratory or academic I do it in an open system.