5 ms·

People that keep writing articles like this should not buy Apple. Apple is going to do what they're going to do. Either accept it or buy Android. Those are your

People that keep writing articles like this should not buy Apple. Apple is going to do what they're going to do. Either accept it or buy Android. Those are your options. But let's be serious, Apple risks "consumer trust"? Not in any way that is likely to be measurable.

MartinCron 14y ago
Either accept it or buy Android. Or Windows Phone, looking like a stronger alternative all the time.
- jsight 14y ago
  Does Windows Phone solve these issues? Ie, is there review process actually better than Apple's? Or do they have similar support to (the overwhelming majority of) Android phones for loading alternative app stores? I haven't really seen much evidence one way or the other at this point.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  I intentionally left it out, despite Windows 8 and the new Nokia looking gorgeous. It's the same problem. If MS says "No", then you're done. It's not your phone, you don't get to side-load the app. Same problem as with Apple.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    It's the same fundamental problem, but side-loading isn't the only way to address it. People leaving the platform can apply market pressure on Apple to do the right thing.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      It's not a very compelling message though: I'm leaving you Apple, because you censor apps, to another platform that also censors apps! (Granted, in all fairness, the Android Market removes apps as well, but side loading is kind of the eventuality here).
      - MartinCron 14y ago
        Fair point, but I see it more as a question of degree. It's not preposterous to say "I'm leaving you because you do too much of something I don't want (pollute, overcharge, play bad hold music, whatever) for someone else that does a little less of that same thing that I don't want (pollute, overcharge, play bad hold music, whatever)" If the market pressure is strong enough (I don't think it is, this is all hypothetical) then it could be something that Apple and Microsoft and Android and others actively compete on.
gavinlynch 14y ago
>> "Still, it's a new kind of gatekeeper, and it holds the keys to a platform used by millions of people around the world. While not as horrifyingly Orwellian as it could be, the fact that the biggest company in U.S. history makes decisions about which content is too "objectionable" for its customers is unsettling." I am forever bewildered by consumers that have this sense of entitlement around a company and "demand" this action or that action. It's their company. They can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, that's great. Dissenting opinions are a foundation of this great country. But Apple also deserves the right to not care what you think, and not care if you go somewhere else. The majority of consumers have no problem with it. If Apple wanted to wall of the entire platform, they could do that. But instead they have created the biggest app market for mobile devices (from what I understand, please correct me if this is not 100% accurate, but the point remains it's huge). Does it suck that a few apps are rejected for seemingly dubious reasons? Sure, I guess it does for those developers. But I've been hearing dire warnings about mass exoduses and public outcries since the inception of the app store. Hasn't really happened besides a few edge cases that we see on Hacker News every other month or so. To be honest, I feel that this particular app's story is only popular because it has to do with the politics of the drone program. >> "Some consumers are already beginning to grow uncomfortable with Facebook's privacy policies, Google's targeted advertising, and other cases in which, whether justified or not, technology starts to feel a little creepy. Twitter takes protecting privacy and free speech very seriously, and even if most users don't notice or care yet, that stance will serve the company well as social media continues to part and parcel of our daily lives." Got it. FB and Google evil. Twitter good. Except that's not really true either. Twitter has worked with several law enforcement offices, particularly when identifying Occupy Wall Street protestors that were accused of crimes. So I just don't find this article very credible on the facts, or the opinions persuasive at all.
- onetimeuse001 14y ago
  It's their company. They can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, that's great. Dissenting opinions are a foundation of this great country. But Apple also deserves the right to not care what you think, and not care if you go somewhere else. The majority of consumers have no problem with it. Too bad Bill Gates isn't looking for a lawyer or advocate now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
sp332 14y ago
Apple is going to do what they're going to do. Either accept it or buy Android. That's not the only option. We don't allow property owners to randomly abuse other people as long as they're on their property. We don't tell those people, "well if you don't like it, just go somewhere else." We have laws that apply no matter who the owner is, to prevent abuse.
- ryannielsen 14y ago
  Abuse? I think you may be stretching there… A closer analogy is we do allow private property owners to decide what signs and other publicly visible items may be present on their property. Property owners are allowed to dictate who's allowed on premises. We also allow private organizations to decide who may join their organization. Stores are allowed to decide what products they retail. Private media are allowed to decide what they broadcast. The App Store, for better or worse, is not a public good. I may not necessarily approve of some of Apple's decisions, but they have the right to make those decisions. And no one's being abused. If you don't like it, leave. You're not being forced to support Apple in any way.
  - sp332 14y ago
    Physical abuse isn't the only kind... ok let's use a real legal concept: After an item has been sold, the former owner has no say in how the item is used by its new owner. But Apple locks iPhones to only install software from their app store, and then censors the app store. This effectively limits what users can do with their devices even though Apple no longer owns them. Apple can't put legal restrictions on users (although they did try to claim that jailbreaking was illegal), and I don't see any defense for their technological restrictions.
    - slantyyz 14y ago
      Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony do the same with their consoles, but I don't really see a whole lot of complaining about that. Why is the curated walled garden so egregious with a smartphone? I'm not sure I recall Apple ever bragging about being an "open" marketplace past the "If you don't like our app store, build a web app" statements they've made in the past. And as for "After an item has been sold, the former owner has no say in how the item is used by its new owner.", that depends. For commodities, sure, but there such things as sales contracts that can restrict what is done with an item that has been sold.
cookingrobot 14y ago
There's another option, which is to keep writing articles like these. By convincing many more people that the "curated walled garden" Apple has built is shiny, clean, and lifeless, they'll have even more of an impact. Maybe Apple will respond to this pressure and fix the problem. Quality control is great - but a sterile Disney channel experience is not what a lot of people want.

MartinCron 14y ago

Either accept it or buy Android. Or Windows Phone, looking like a stronger alternative all the time.

jsight 14y ago
Does Windows Phone solve these issues? Ie, is there review process actually better than Apple's? Or do they have similar support to (the overwhelming majority of) Android phones for loading alternative app stores? I haven't really seen much evidence one way or the other at this point.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
I intentionally left it out, despite Windows 8 and the new Nokia looking gorgeous. It's the same problem. If MS says "No", then you're done. It's not your phone, you don't get to side-load the app. Same problem as with Apple.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  It's the same fundamental problem, but side-loading isn't the only way to address it. People leaving the platform can apply market pressure on Apple to do the right thing.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    It's not a very compelling message though: I'm leaving you Apple, because you censor apps, to another platform that also censors apps! (Granted, in all fairness, the Android Market removes apps as well, but side loading is kind of the eventuality here).
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      Fair point, but I see it more as a question of degree. It's not preposterous to say "I'm leaving you because you do too much of something I don't want (pollute, overcharge, play bad hold music, whatever) for someone else that does a little less of that same thing that I don't want (pollute, overcharge, play bad hold music, whatever)" If the market pressure is strong enough (I don't think it is, this is all hypothetical) then it could be something that Apple and Microsoft and Android and others actively compete on.

gavinlynch 14y ago

>> "Still, it's a new kind of gatekeeper, and it holds the keys to a platform used by millions of people around the world. While not as horrifyingly Orwellian as it could be, the fact that the biggest company in U.S. history makes decisions about which content is too "objectionable" for its customers is unsettling." I am forever bewildered by consumers that have this sense of entitlement around a company and "demand" this action or that action. It's their company. They can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, that's great. Dissenting opinions are a foundation of this great country. But Apple also deserves the right to not care what you think, and not care if you go somewhere else. The majority of consumers have no problem with it. If Apple wanted to wall of the entire platform, they could do that. But instead they have created the biggest app market for mobile devices (from what I understand, please correct me if this is not 100% accurate, but the point remains it's huge). Does it suck that a few apps are rejected for seemingly dubious reasons? Sure, I guess it does for those developers. But I've been hearing dire warnings about mass exoduses and public outcries since the inception of the app store. Hasn't really happened besides a few edge cases that we see on Hacker News every other month or so. To be honest, I feel that this particular app's story is only popular because it has to do with the politics of the drone program. >> "Some consumers are already beginning to grow uncomfortable with Facebook's privacy policies, Google's targeted advertising, and other cases in which, whether justified or not, technology starts to feel a little creepy. Twitter takes protecting privacy and free speech very seriously, and even if most users don't notice or care yet, that stance will serve the company well as social media continues to part and parcel of our daily lives." Got it. FB and Google evil. Twitter good. Except that's not really true either. Twitter has worked with several law enforcement offices, particularly when identifying Occupy Wall Street protestors that were accused of crimes. So I just don't find this article very credible on the facts, or the opinions persuasive at all.

onetimeuse001 14y ago
It's their company. They can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, that's great. Dissenting opinions are a foundation of this great country. But Apple also deserves the right to not care what you think, and not care if you go somewhere else. The majority of consumers have no problem with it. Too bad Bill Gates isn't looking for a lawyer or advocate now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

sp332 14y ago

Apple is going to do what they're going to do. Either accept it or buy Android. That's not the only option. We don't allow property owners to randomly abuse other people as long as they're on their property. We don't tell those people, "well if you don't like it, just go somewhere else." We have laws that apply no matter who the owner is, to prevent abuse.

ryannielsen 14y ago
Abuse? I think you may be stretching there… A closer analogy is we do allow private property owners to decide what signs and other publicly visible items may be present on their property. Property owners are allowed to dictate who's allowed on premises. We also allow private organizations to decide who may join their organization. Stores are allowed to decide what products they retail. Private media are allowed to decide what they broadcast. The App Store, for better or worse, is not a public good. I may not necessarily approve of some of Apple's decisions, but they have the right to make those decisions. And no one's being abused. If you don't like it, leave. You're not being forced to support Apple in any way.
- sp332 14y ago
  Physical abuse isn't the only kind... ok let's use a real legal concept: After an item has been sold, the former owner has no say in how the item is used by its new owner. But Apple locks iPhones to only install software from their app store, and then censors the app store. This effectively limits what users can do with their devices even though Apple no longer owns them. Apple can't put legal restrictions on users (although they did try to claim that jailbreaking was illegal), and I don't see any defense for their technological restrictions.
  - slantyyz 14y ago
    Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony do the same with their consoles, but I don't really see a whole lot of complaining about that. Why is the curated walled garden so egregious with a smartphone? I'm not sure I recall Apple ever bragging about being an "open" marketplace past the "If you don't like our app store, build a web app" statements they've made in the past. And as for "After an item has been sold, the former owner has no say in how the item is used by its new owner.", that depends. For commodities, sure, but there such things as sales contracts that can restrict what is done with an item that has been sold.

cookingrobot 14y ago

There's another option, which is to keep writing articles like these. By convincing many more people that the "curated walled garden" Apple has built is shiny, clean, and lifeless, they'll have even more of an impact. Maybe Apple will respond to this pressure and fix the problem. Quality control is great - but a sterile Disney channel experience is not what a lot of people want.