8 ms·

Apple never promised us it wouldn't be Evil

52 points by mmc 17y ago

novum 17y ago
Apple has always tried to control all aspects of its platform, hardware, and software, so I don't think we should be surprised by its draconian rules governing the app store. That said, I think it's pretty clear by now to most of us that iPhone/iPod Touch users and developers alike would benefit from a more transparent, less restrictive app policy. I'm just not sure that kind of policy is in Apple's DNA.
- 8plot 17y ago
  It surprises me that they are so successful, despite their draconian rules, fanboism thrives.
  - Dilpil 17y ago
    Try publishing apps for another phone platform.
    - 8plot 17y ago
      I intend to, but not in protest. I will still develop for the iphone, and if my apps are rejected, there is always cydia.
    - trezor 17y ago
      Since Apple has the only mobile platform where you can only get applications from one source (them), this is really simple. For instance on my Windows mobile phone, using MSIE mobile (which sucks) I can go to opera.com, download a cab-file, install it and I'm good to go. Google maps? Just go to maps.google.com and it will offer you to download and install a native Google maps client. If I want to, I can develop stuff myself, no signing or service-provider or Microsoft approval needed. What exactly are you implying here?
  - CodeMage 17y ago
    Those draconian rules are affecting the developers, not the end users, at least not directly. One could argue that every time a developer D cannot publish an application A, it affects the end users, but it seems that the impact is not severe enough. As long as the platform itself is popular enough to present a lucrative market, most developers won't abandon it despite Apple's behavior. And as long as the platform has lots of developers releasing new stuff for it, it will (barring a snafu on another front) remain popular.
    - 8plot 17y ago
      I disagree, as an end user I had to return my first iphone in frustration. The potential was obvious, but the draconian rules meant I couldn't do what I needed with the hardware I owned. Now that the jailbreaking community is thriving, I bought another iphone, and I'm more than happy with the progress of efforts like cydia.
  - jsz0 17y ago
    Maybe they are more in touch with what people actually care about? (ie, the actual core functionality of the device and its usability) It's a bit absurd to assume people are fanboys because they choose to buy a phone despite the fact they cannot install a kama-sutra app. The simpler and more obvious explanation is they don't care. Some of the AppStore incidents annoy me but, at the same time, it's nothing that makes me want to stop using the iPhone platform.
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    "It surprises me that they are so successful, despite their draconian rules, fanboism thrives." They are the Disney of computing. Many people like that soup-to-nuts 'We control the experience' experience.
    - bravura 17y ago
      Actually, my friend likens Steve Jobs to an abusive father. His fans love him BECAUSE he punishes them, but then does something really nice to make it up.
      - jemmons 17y ago
        That's the most ridiculous ad hominem attack I've ever heard. "Your friend" should be ashamed. No one goes to pick up a new Mac Book because they feel Steve Jobs has punished them in some way. They do it because the machine has great design, a nice operating system, a failure rate that is less than its competitors, a user experience widely considered to be superior to other offerings, because it's consistently rated best in class by Consumer Reports, because it runs commercial software on a UNIX core, because it "just works"... Not because Steve beats them. If Apple screws up once an a while (granted: it's hard to see this constant inappropriate rejecting of apps followed by a 180 change of heart as anything but a screw up) and continues to be popular with users, it's because users appreciate Apple's overall value in spite of some obvious policy shortcomings.
haseman 17y ago
Evil might be a bit strong of a word for such a simple misunderstanding. The tendency to go for extremes in debate is well known, but it tends to destroy any ability to talk about the problem. In reality, AT&T is probably calling some of the shots on Apple's censorship rules. In any-case, censorship of age-old sexual how-to books strikes me as silly, but certainly not evil.
- umjames 17y ago
  It makes you wonder why they don't mark applications with the explicit tag that they use for the rest of the iTunes Store. Then you could have parental controls that disallow explicit content (apps or otherwise) from being visible to certain users (your kids' iTunes accounts).
  - calambrac 17y ago
    Parental controls are one of the big features of the next version of the iPhone OS.
    - jimbokun 17y ago
      That might be the real underlying motivation here. The reviewers might be under instructions to disallow any app with the ability to download arbitrary content until the version with parental controls is released. Picking some bit of plausibly offensive content at random is just a pretense.
      - calambrac 17y ago
        If that's actually the case, then they should come out and say that, rather than apparently randomly fucking over developers who are depending on this platform to feed their family.
- calambrac 17y ago
  I disagree with you; to me, censorship is evil until proven otherwise, and the burden of proof is very high. But I think that the Kama Sutra is kind of beside the point, here. It's just a data point indicating a larger 'evil' - that Apple as an organization has put a system into place where a developer can be completely screwed with no transparency into why. We're left assuming this particular case is just some over-zealous asshole reviewer, or an unfortunate quirk of some automated review software, or whatever, but we actually have no idea, and that's the real problem. Evil is asking people to invest a bunch of time developing for your platform and giving them no way of knowing if they're actually going to be allowed to sell their product, no real recourse when they're rejected, and no transparency into the process. Evil is making arbitrary and inconsistent decisions that directly affect a person's ability to make a living.
davepeck 17y ago
Not Evil, but certainly brain-dead stupid. I just watched the Eucalyptus Video (http://th.ingsmadeoutofotherthin.gs/eucalyptus/ http://th.ingsmadeoutofotherthin.gs/eucalyptus/) and -- judging from that -- Eucalyptus an absolutely stellar example of software craftsmanship.
- mikedouglas 17y ago
  I'll admit that, originally, I was in favor of the strict review process. I expected it to be used to keep out crap (like farting apps) that delegitimize the platform, while showcasing apps like Things, Tweetie, Flight Control and Eucalyptus. Basically re-create the kind of indie dev culture we see on the Mac. Instead, they've become Victorian-era censors, discouraging real development on the platform, and wracking up dumb controversies. Especially considering Apple's market, hardly the most socially conservative group, it makes almost no sense.
tptacek 17y ago
It may be "evil", "counterproductive", "stupid", or "brain-dead". It may even be alienating to developers, despite the available evidence of their actions. But it does appear to be effective: * There's been no Mac malware released through the App Store process. * The App Store process has shut down at least one tethering application Apple actively didn't want to ship. * The App Store process appears to have kept "backdoor" programming environments (like Flash) out of the ecosystem. Apple is a business. I don't see how anything they've done with the App Store is irrational. There are people running the process, not robots, so obviously they're going to make mistakes. I don't see how that indicts the process that runs the most successful mobile application platform ever deployed.
- calambrac 17y ago
  Who argued that it wasn't effective? And what are you suggesting? That when obvious problems with the process come to light, nobody should speak up because Apple's a successful business? Successful businesses are infallible, or can't respond to feedback?
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    The people saying it is "evil" are complaining about the mistakes that get made -- they are calling it ineffective.
    - calambrac 17y ago
      What? No, they're calling it evil.
      - xenophanes 17y ago
        Why is it evil? The reason they keep giving is a way it's ineffective.
- msluyter 17y ago
  There's been no Mac malware released through the App Store process. Depending on your definition of "malware," the 999$ "Am I Rich" app and the baby shaking app might qualify.
bena 17y ago
Apple can certainly decide what is too obscene to be in its store. Christian bookstores aren't forced to carry Hustler either, because Christian bookstores find Hustler to be obscene even though there is plenty of sex, rape, sodomy and other such in the bible. I have a hard time listening to arguments from people who don't understand the difference between a private corporation and the government and applicability of the Constitution.
- calambrac 17y ago
  Can you please take the time to understand what's going on before letting us all know you have a hard time listening to arguments that nobody's actually making? Eucalyptus doesn't ship the Kama Sutra. It's just an e-book reader, with the ability to search Project Gutenberg. If Apple were being consistent in the application of some policy, they would either allow this application, or they would have to reject a whole slew of other apps, including their Safari browser that ships by default.
  - bena 17y ago
    I understand that. However, Apple is free to apply whatever criteria they want, however they want. Expecting 100% fairness in all cases is mind-numbingly naive. To make the argument that Apple is "evil" because they disallowed something they had a right to by applying standards they decided upon is nothing more than trying to make a private entity do what you want without regard to the freedoms of that entity.
    - calambrac 17y ago
      Expecting 100% fairness in all cases is mind-numbingly naive. So, since unfairness is inevitable, we shouldn't call it out when it appears? That's just retarded. nothing more than trying to make a private entity do what you want without regard to the freedoms of that entity. What are you rambling about? I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head. How does voicing my opinion amount to disregarding their freedom? They're free to be dickheads. They're also free to ignore me, and to not receive my dollars in the future.
Dilpil 17y ago
Do hardcore Christians even support this decision? You might as well ban air.
jcromartie 17y ago
After all of this publicity, I'm sure that they will let the app through.
GHFigs 17y ago
Abiding by their own clearly-stated policy is "evil" now? I can see how they're being inconsistent and a little stupid, but it seems to me that you grossly distort the meaning of the word "evil" when you use it to describe this.

52 points by mmc 17y ago

novum 17y ago

Apple has always tried to control all aspects of its platform, hardware, and software, so I don't think we should be surprised by its draconian rules governing the app store. That said, I think it's pretty clear by now to most of us that iPhone/iPod Touch users and developers alike would benefit from a more transparent, less restrictive app policy. I'm just not sure that kind of policy is in Apple's DNA.

8plot 17y ago
It surprises me that they are so successful, despite their draconian rules, fanboism thrives.
- Dilpil 17y ago
  Try publishing apps for another phone platform.
  - 8plot 17y ago
    I intend to, but not in protest. I will still develop for the iphone, and if my apps are rejected, there is always cydia.
  - trezor 17y ago
    Since Apple has the only mobile platform where you can only get applications from one source (them), this is really simple. For instance on my Windows mobile phone, using MSIE mobile (which sucks) I can go to opera.com, download a cab-file, install it and I'm good to go. Google maps? Just go to maps.google.com and it will offer you to download and install a native Google maps client. If I want to, I can develop stuff myself, no signing or service-provider or Microsoft approval needed. What exactly are you implying here?
- CodeMage 17y ago
  Those draconian rules are affecting the developers, not the end users, at least not directly. One could argue that every time a developer D cannot publish an application A, it affects the end users, but it seems that the impact is not severe enough. As long as the platform itself is popular enough to present a lucrative market, most developers won't abandon it despite Apple's behavior. And as long as the platform has lots of developers releasing new stuff for it, it will (barring a snafu on another front) remain popular.
  - 8plot 17y ago
    I disagree, as an end user I had to return my first iphone in frustration. The potential was obvious, but the draconian rules meant I couldn't do what I needed with the hardware I owned. Now that the jailbreaking community is thriving, I bought another iphone, and I'm more than happy with the progress of efforts like cydia.
- jsz0 17y ago
  Maybe they are more in touch with what people actually care about? (ie, the actual core functionality of the device and its usability) It's a bit absurd to assume people are fanboys because they choose to buy a phone despite the fact they cannot install a kama-sutra app. The simpler and more obvious explanation is they don't care. Some of the AppStore incidents annoy me but, at the same time, it's nothing that makes me want to stop using the iPhone platform.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "It surprises me that they are so successful, despite their draconian rules, fanboism thrives." They are the Disney of computing. Many people like that soup-to-nuts 'We control the experience' experience.
  - bravura 17y ago
    Actually, my friend likens Steve Jobs to an abusive father. His fans love him BECAUSE he punishes them, but then does something really nice to make it up.
    - jemmons 17y ago
      That's the most ridiculous ad hominem attack I've ever heard. "Your friend" should be ashamed. No one goes to pick up a new Mac Book because they feel Steve Jobs has punished them in some way. They do it because the machine has great design, a nice operating system, a failure rate that is less than its competitors, a user experience widely considered to be superior to other offerings, because it's consistently rated best in class by Consumer Reports, because it runs commercial software on a UNIX core, because it "just works"... Not because Steve beats them. If Apple screws up once an a while (granted: it's hard to see this constant inappropriate rejecting of apps followed by a 180 change of heart as anything but a screw up) and continues to be popular with users, it's because users appreciate Apple's overall value in spite of some obvious policy shortcomings.

haseman 17y ago

Evil might be a bit strong of a word for such a simple misunderstanding. The tendency to go for extremes in debate is well known, but it tends to destroy any ability to talk about the problem. In reality, AT&T is probably calling some of the shots on Apple's censorship rules. In any-case, censorship of age-old sexual how-to books strikes me as silly, but certainly not evil.

umjames 17y ago
It makes you wonder why they don't mark applications with the explicit tag that they use for the rest of the iTunes Store. Then you could have parental controls that disallow explicit content (apps or otherwise) from being visible to certain users (your kids' iTunes accounts).
- calambrac 17y ago
  Parental controls are one of the big features of the next version of the iPhone OS.
  - jimbokun 17y ago
    That might be the real underlying motivation here. The reviewers might be under instructions to disallow any app with the ability to download arbitrary content until the version with parental controls is released. Picking some bit of plausibly offensive content at random is just a pretense.
    - calambrac 17y ago
      If that's actually the case, then they should come out and say that, rather than apparently randomly fucking over developers who are depending on this platform to feed their family.
calambrac 17y ago
I disagree with you; to me, censorship is evil until proven otherwise, and the burden of proof is very high. But I think that the Kama Sutra is kind of beside the point, here. It's just a data point indicating a larger 'evil' - that Apple as an organization has put a system into place where a developer can be completely screwed with no transparency into why. We're left assuming this particular case is just some over-zealous asshole reviewer, or an unfortunate quirk of some automated review software, or whatever, but we actually have no idea, and that's the real problem. Evil is asking people to invest a bunch of time developing for your platform and giving them no way of knowing if they're actually going to be allowed to sell their product, no real recourse when they're rejected, and no transparency into the process. Evil is making arbitrary and inconsistent decisions that directly affect a person's ability to make a living.

davepeck 17y ago

Not Evil, but certainly brain-dead stupid. I just watched the Eucalyptus Video (http://th.ingsmadeoutofotherthin.gs/eucalyptus/ http://th.ingsmadeoutofotherthin.gs/eucalyptus/) and -- judging from that -- Eucalyptus an absolutely stellar example of software craftsmanship.

mikedouglas 17y ago
I'll admit that, originally, I was in favor of the strict review process. I expected it to be used to keep out crap (like farting apps) that delegitimize the platform, while showcasing apps like Things, Tweetie, Flight Control and Eucalyptus. Basically re-create the kind of indie dev culture we see on the Mac. Instead, they've become Victorian-era censors, discouraging real development on the platform, and wracking up dumb controversies. Especially considering Apple's market, hardly the most socially conservative group, it makes almost no sense.

tptacek 17y ago

It may be "evil", "counterproductive", "stupid", or "brain-dead". It may even be alienating to developers, despite the available evidence of their actions. But it does appear to be effective: * There's been no Mac malware released through the App Store process. * The App Store process has shut down at least one tethering application Apple actively didn't want to ship. * The App Store process appears to have kept "backdoor" programming environments (like Flash) out of the ecosystem. Apple is a business. I don't see how anything they've done with the App Store is irrational. There are people running the process, not robots, so obviously they're going to make mistakes. I don't see how that indicts the process that runs the most successful mobile application platform ever deployed.

calambrac 17y ago
Who argued that it wasn't effective? And what are you suggesting? That when obvious problems with the process come to light, nobody should speak up because Apple's a successful business? Successful businesses are infallible, or can't respond to feedback?
- xenophanes 17y ago
  The people saying it is "evil" are complaining about the mistakes that get made -- they are calling it ineffective.
  - calambrac 17y ago
    What? No, they're calling it evil.
    - xenophanes 17y ago
      Why is it evil? The reason they keep giving is a way it's ineffective.
msluyter 17y ago
There's been no Mac malware released through the App Store process. Depending on your definition of "malware," the 999$ "Am I Rich" app and the baby shaking app might qualify.

bena 17y ago

Apple can certainly decide what is too obscene to be in its store. Christian bookstores aren't forced to carry Hustler either, because Christian bookstores find Hustler to be obscene even though there is plenty of sex, rape, sodomy and other such in the bible. I have a hard time listening to arguments from people who don't understand the difference between a private corporation and the government and applicability of the Constitution.

calambrac 17y ago
Can you please take the time to understand what's going on before letting us all know you have a hard time listening to arguments that nobody's actually making? Eucalyptus doesn't ship the Kama Sutra. It's just an e-book reader, with the ability to search Project Gutenberg. If Apple were being consistent in the application of some policy, they would either allow this application, or they would have to reject a whole slew of other apps, including their Safari browser that ships by default.
- bena 17y ago
  I understand that. However, Apple is free to apply whatever criteria they want, however they want. Expecting 100% fairness in all cases is mind-numbingly naive. To make the argument that Apple is "evil" because they disallowed something they had a right to by applying standards they decided upon is nothing more than trying to make a private entity do what you want without regard to the freedoms of that entity.
  - calambrac 17y ago
    Expecting 100% fairness in all cases is mind-numbingly naive. So, since unfairness is inevitable, we shouldn't call it out when it appears? That's just retarded. nothing more than trying to make a private entity do what you want without regard to the freedoms of that entity. What are you rambling about? I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head. How does voicing my opinion amount to disregarding their freedom? They're free to be dickheads. They're also free to ignore me, and to not receive my dollars in the future.

Dilpil 17y ago

Do hardcore Christians even support this decision? You might as well ban air.

jcromartie 17y ago

After all of this publicity, I'm sure that they will let the app through.

GHFigs 17y ago

Abiding by their own clearly-stated policy is "evil" now? I can see how they're being inconsistent and a little stupid, but it seems to me that you grossly distort the meaning of the word "evil" when you use it to describe this.