4 ms·

Its ok for you that they decide, what apps you can or cant have in a device you bought with your own money? First they use morality.. and kick out some tech, j

Its ok for you that they decide, what apps you can or cant have in a device you bought with your own money? First they use morality.. and kick out some tech, just because they dont like them.. than they use all sorts of games to tell who are in and who are out.. but hey! the phone is in your pocket.. you should decide, not them Its a company or its your priest? They are deciding your life for you... wake up. Really, i dont want to have anything to do with apple, im a free spirit and i know better whats good for me, they just need to get out of our way.. but the state are also corrupted by the big companies.. they do nothing to stop that..because you know, politics and power is a expensive game to play.. and here comes the Big Brother.. and people just love them..

jxf 13y ago
I didn't say I was okay with any of it -- in fact, I said the opposite ("[this] sucks"). However, it's also perfectly legal, as far as I can tell. I guess I don't really get what consumer pressure is going to do, realistically speaking. The number of Bitcoin users (the users most likely to participate in this) is very small relative to the number of Apple users. If you're interested, I'd be willing to make a $100 bet to the charity of the winner's choice that Apple will not reinstate Coinpunk anytime in the next three months.
- Shinkei 13y ago
  You've made the point that they are making--Apple doesn't care about their customer's demands. They won't reinstate it, not because of some possible wishy-washy legal issue, but because they just don't care enough that some of their users want it.
  - zimpenfish 13y ago
    When you get to Apple scale, worrying about sets of customers with cardinality less than about 5M is a pointless waste of time.
    - Shinkei 13y ago
      Fair enough, but this issue comes up consistently in many different areas and it has resulted in the the current app store stereotype of fickle, unfair and even schizophrenic.
      - zimpenfish 13y ago
        Yeah, I agree with that but I think that's an opinion that only really holds amongst technical types. I suspect the vast majority of Apple's hundreds of millions of customers don't even know this kind of thing is happening. Or really care.
- nodata 13y ago
  > it's also perfectly legal, as far as I can tell. Are you a lawyer?
  - jrockway 13y ago
    Lawyers don't decide what is and isn't legal. Legislators and courts do.
    - nodata 13y ago
      (So is JXF a legislator or court?) A lawyer specialises in the law.
- oscargrouch 13y ago
  > However, it's also perfectly legal, as far as I can tell There were civil rights before corporations even existed, so conciencious legislators, would see this as a matter of property.. If apple opens a centralized app store, (its in their right to do so) and create whatever criteria they want to allow or ban apps in their store, its also in their right to do so.. But there two things conscious legislators should propose: * They must create a explicit written rule for what they ban and what they allow and stick with it .. this will also serve for apps that were banned without a proper reason to go to the court and make Apple put it back there (because it was not explicit in their rule, so they could not have kick them out) * They must allow other app stores to offer apps, with their own rules.. they cannot force people that have already paid for their product to have only one store or source of applications they can go to.. cause this is, you know.. forced monopoly If these two rules were granted as civil rights.. they couldnt hurt your freedom so bad.. but you now.. democracies are rotten all over the world.. they are not working anymore as they suppose to.. they are ill and weak.. monopolies are forming all over without no one to stand for our civil rights :/
ubernostrum 13y ago
Its ok for you that they decide, what apps you can or cant have in a device you bought with your own money? Libertarian response: yes, it's perfectly OK, so long as Apple did not use force or fraud to get me to buy their device and agree to their terms of service. Next question?
- Shinkei 13y ago
  This is not the Libertarian response. Google and Apple are now stewards of a captive audience--namely smartphone users. They possess a partial monopoly that should be unrestricted to competing products using their platform. IE vs. other broswers, etc. Sure they are free to censor pornography or offensive content, but if they launch a porn service and restrict others from offering a competing app in their marketplace, that could definitely be anti-competitive. Sure, users could flee to the competing device... but what happens if Google decides to do the same?
- greyman 13y ago
  Ok, but it is not very ethical. I bought their device with a good faith, that I will be able to perform most mobile computational needs with it - the device was advertised as such. Now, my need includes also to manage my crypto-currencies wealth, and Apple doesn't allow me to do that, without even properly explaining why. Now, I can potentially lose money due to this policy. So, I agree it is legally ok, but not morally ok.
- oscargrouch 13y ago
  After you buy it, you can smash the device on a wall if you want? wouldnt you? Now, what if Apple has expressely forbid you to do so.. would you think its fair? What im trying to elucidate here, is the issue with ownership and property.. if you want to piss in your device you should be allowed to do it.. its yours.. But control what you can use, play or watch inside of your device is ok for you? i dont understand your logic.. Ok, so you are a conscious guy that dont buy the thing because you dont like the policy in it.. but then you need a new TV from JoeTV.. oh wait.. in their terms of service they dont allow your kids to watch TV after 8 PM.. Point being: If one can do it (and are not regulated), everyone else can.. a conscious minority not buying their products wont be even missed.. This is selfish and wont stop the big guys from abusing their power to abuse us
dsuth 13y ago
I don't think anyone is forcing you to use an iPhone? They are well within their rights to decide what is and isn't acceptable on their devices. And you're well within your rights to buy something else. Or buy nothing (crazy concept, I know).

jxf 13y ago

I didn't say I was okay with any of it -- in fact, I said the opposite ("[this] sucks"). However, it's also perfectly legal, as far as I can tell. I guess I don't really get what consumer pressure is going to do, realistically speaking. The number of Bitcoin users (the users most likely to participate in this) is very small relative to the number of Apple users. If you're interested, I'd be willing to make a $100 bet to the charity of the winner's choice that Apple will not reinstate Coinpunk anytime in the next three months.

Shinkei 13y ago
You've made the point that they are making--Apple doesn't care about their customer's demands. They won't reinstate it, not because of some possible wishy-washy legal issue, but because they just don't care enough that some of their users want it.
- zimpenfish 13y ago
  When you get to Apple scale, worrying about sets of customers with cardinality less than about 5M is a pointless waste of time.
  - Shinkei 13y ago
    Fair enough, but this issue comes up consistently in many different areas and it has resulted in the the current app store stereotype of fickle, unfair and even schizophrenic.
    - zimpenfish 13y ago
      Yeah, I agree with that but I think that's an opinion that only really holds amongst technical types. I suspect the vast majority of Apple's hundreds of millions of customers don't even know this kind of thing is happening. Or really care.
nodata 13y ago
> it's also perfectly legal, as far as I can tell. Are you a lawyer?
- jrockway 13y ago
  Lawyers don't decide what is and isn't legal. Legislators and courts do.
  - nodata 13y ago
    (So is JXF a legislator or court?) A lawyer specialises in the law.
oscargrouch 13y ago
> However, it's also perfectly legal, as far as I can tell There were civil rights before corporations even existed, so conciencious legislators, would see this as a matter of property.. If apple opens a centralized app store, (its in their right to do so) and create whatever criteria they want to allow or ban apps in their store, its also in their right to do so.. But there two things conscious legislators should propose: * They must create a explicit written rule for what they ban and what they allow and stick with it .. this will also serve for apps that were banned without a proper reason to go to the court and make Apple put it back there (because it was not explicit in their rule, so they could not have kick them out) * They must allow other app stores to offer apps, with their own rules.. they cannot force people that have already paid for their product to have only one store or source of applications they can go to.. cause this is, you know.. forced monopoly If these two rules were granted as civil rights.. they couldnt hurt your freedom so bad.. but you now.. democracies are rotten all over the world.. they are not working anymore as they suppose to.. they are ill and weak.. monopolies are forming all over without no one to stand for our civil rights :/

ubernostrum 13y ago

Its ok for you that they decide, what apps you can or cant have in a device you bought with your own money? Libertarian response: yes, it's perfectly OK, so long as Apple did not use force or fraud to get me to buy their device and agree to their terms of service. Next question?

Shinkei 13y ago
This is not the Libertarian response. Google and Apple are now stewards of a captive audience--namely smartphone users. They possess a partial monopoly that should be unrestricted to competing products using their platform. IE vs. other broswers, etc. Sure they are free to censor pornography or offensive content, but if they launch a porn service and restrict others from offering a competing app in their marketplace, that could definitely be anti-competitive. Sure, users could flee to the competing device... but what happens if Google decides to do the same?
greyman 13y ago
Ok, but it is not very ethical. I bought their device with a good faith, that I will be able to perform most mobile computational needs with it - the device was advertised as such. Now, my need includes also to manage my crypto-currencies wealth, and Apple doesn't allow me to do that, without even properly explaining why. Now, I can potentially lose money due to this policy. So, I agree it is legally ok, but not morally ok.
oscargrouch 13y ago
After you buy it, you can smash the device on a wall if you want? wouldnt you? Now, what if Apple has expressely forbid you to do so.. would you think its fair? What im trying to elucidate here, is the issue with ownership and property.. if you want to piss in your device you should be allowed to do it.. its yours.. But control what you can use, play or watch inside of your device is ok for you? i dont understand your logic.. Ok, so you are a conscious guy that dont buy the thing because you dont like the policy in it.. but then you need a new TV from JoeTV.. oh wait.. in their terms of service they dont allow your kids to watch TV after 8 PM.. Point being: If one can do it (and are not regulated), everyone else can.. a conscious minority not buying their products wont be even missed.. This is selfish and wont stop the big guys from abusing their power to abuse us

dsuth 13y ago

I don't think anyone is forcing you to use an iPhone? They are well within their rights to decide what is and isn't acceptable on their devices. And you're well within your rights to buy something else. Or buy nothing (crazy concept, I know).