6 ms·

In my opinion this is another in the recent series of overblown invectives along the lines of, 'I'm a consumer, therefore a company that produces consumer produ

In my opinion this is another in the recent series of overblown invectives along the lines of, 'I'm a consumer, therefore a company that produces consumer products must suck my dick.' I'm so sick of hearing this. I don't buy Apple products because it's the cool thing to do, or because Microsoft is a monopoly, or because I think Steve Jobs is a nice guy. If nobody else liked Apple products, or Microsoft wasn't a monopoly, or I thought Steve Jobs wasn't a nice guy, I'd still buy Apple products. I base my purchase decisions on the products, not based on moral judgments of the people who create them. If Apple wants to censor apps in the App Store, that's their prerogative. If they want to be non-transparent and inconsistent in how they approve apps, more power to them. I would want, expect, and demand the exact same power over the products I create. The products do not belong to the community, and Apple doesn't have any responsibility to the people who buy them. They don't have to be more open or less controlling or promote more consumer choice, or give away their products affordably. If you want the products, buy them and use them; if you don't, then don't. Apple is a smart company run by smart people. Apple's mission is to make products and make money off them. Just because Jason Calacanis thinks they're making bad business decisions doesn't mean they are. My bet is that they know what they're doing. Last time I checked, Apple was a billion-dollar company and Jason Calacanis wrote Mahalo — you do the math. And let me make one more specific point. Jason brings up the Japanese MP3 players that you can find in Akihabara. I've been to Akihabara too, and, frankly, it's filled with tons of incredibly cheap, tacky, and poorly made electronic crap. iPod's probably don't have dual headphone jacks, TV and radio tuners, and audio recorders because they aren't crappy products marketed solely on the number of poorly-implemented features that can be crammed in to them. I could go on and on here about everything that's wrong with what Jason says, but taking the time to write even this much is making me feel less productive today than I should be. EDIT: Wow, what's with the downvoting? This is my thoughtful and honest comment on the topic of the original post. Haha, I guess people don't like my colorful similes?

avner 17y ago
"Apple doesn't have any responsibility to the people who buy them" I beg to differ; I believe any company providing a service or a good has an obligation to its customers. Granted that Apple can afford to ride the high horse at the moment because of its refinement and early adoption of multi-touch, but a draconian control over something like the iPhone will not fare well for Apple in the long term. Sooner or later litigators will compare this amount of control on an ever increasing popular device with the Microsoft-IE case and anti-competitive suits are likely to follow. Competition will catch on in the iPhone's case, and people will look for alternatives when multi-touch based devices with similar UX and more liberal standards become available.
- codyrobbins 17y ago
  Again, I would ask, who exactly are you to be speaking in absolutes like that about what will and will not happen? Apple is a massive company with tons of brilliant people — do you really think they aren't considering every conceivable angle, never mind the obvious ones that you, sitting there in your armchair, can toss out off the top of your head? Do you honestly think that they're just completely oblivious to the trade-offs and the possibility of antitrust litigation is somehow going to blindside them? They're taking calculated risks. Also, there is a difference between a company acting as though they have a responsibility to the consumer, or choosing to have a responsibility as a voluntary matter of principal, for public relations purposes; and whether a company actually does have a responsibility in fact or not. There is also a difference between whether you think they should have a responsibility or not and whether they actually do. You obviously think they should have a responsibility, but I still think that they don't as an objective matter of fact. I'm not trying to be belligerent, although it probably seems that way — it's just that exactly what I'm saying is that I think too many people wishfully demand the recognition of rights they don't have from companies like Apple, and similarly impose responsibilities that don't exist onto them.
  - plinkplonk 17y ago
    "I'm not trying to be belligerent, although it probably seems that way " If you know you "seem belligerent" why don't you change your writing to tone it down? Unless you want to write "belligerently" but then disclaim it with "I'm not trying to be belligerent".? Perhaps someone who writes for public consumption,especially when talking to peers, should control the tone of his writing? Your writing comes across as that of an immature teenager who can't control his thoughts or emotions.( I am not saying you are immature, just making a subjective comment on the tone of your writing). You make interesting points. Doing so without angsty aggression would help people follow along. "Apple is a massive company with tons of brilliant people — do you really think they aren't considering every conceivable angle," "EVERY" conceivable angle? Let me quote you, "Who exactly are you to be speaking in absolutes "? ;-) Besides, this is patent nonsense. Companies "full of brilliant people" makes strategic mistakes all the time. Microsoft, IBM , HP, Yahoo even Apple in the old days, before the comeback. Unless Apple is filled with omniscient gods, they are as prone to human fallibility as everyone else. "a voluntary matter of principal" you meant "principle"?
diz 17y ago
I agree - actually, the most insightful thing on that page is the comment by "Tom".
stanleydrew 17y ago
If Apple wants to censor apps in the App Store, that's their prerogative. Then why is it not OK for Microsoft to try to force you to use a particular web-browser by pre-installing it with Windows and making it difficult to install others?
- aditya 17y ago
  Because Windows is a monopoly in the operating system space and they abused that monopoly, you couldn't just switch operating systems on a PC because there was no good alternative. Apple is far from being a monopoly in the phone space (even in the much smaller smartphone space where RIMM rules) yet and you can easily switch phones and do whatever you want.
  - wvenable 17y ago
    On the otherhand, it's pretty hard to argue that a web browser shouldn't be a standard part of the operating system. When I install XP, I need to fire up something to download Firefox. I don't think Microsoft bundling software with Windows is inappropriate, within reason. Where the monopoly and anti-trust concerns for me come in is their agreements with PC manufacturers that penalizes them for providing alternative operating systems.
  - stanleydrew 17y ago
    You make a good point, and I won't argue over the definition of a monopoly. I will only suggest that it's a little weird to say that censorship and suppression of competitors is a prerogative of a company when it's not a monopoly, but then once that monopoly line is crossed it's not ok anymore. How do you know when that line has been crossed? And if you cross back the other way, are you allowed to restart with anti-competitive practices again?
    - evgen 17y ago
      Governments censor. People and companies make editorial decisions regarding what they will say, do, or distribute. As to "suppression of competitors" I think we all tend to lump this into the category of "being in the business of making money." If I write a letter to my local paper and they do not print it they have not engaged in censorship. The app store is like a giant department store. If I make a widget I can't walk in to wal-mart and demand that they put it on the shelves. Even if the pornulator3000(tm) would fly off the shelves and make both wal-mart and I a ton of cash they are still under no obligation to stock my product if they think it will hurt their reputation or standing in the community (e.g. turn them into "the store where you go to get that wink-wink nudge-nudge massage device...") If Apple had a monopoly position they would be the _only_ store in town. That is clearly not the case. They may be the hottest, most-hyped store in town but consumers clearly have other choices.
plinkplonk 17y ago
" My bet is that they know what they're doing. Last time I checked, Apple was a billion-dollar company and Jason Calacanis wrote Mahalo — you do the math." This is a dangerous way to think. By this reasoning Steve Ballmer does in business would be valid because he is a billionaire and/or runs a multi billion dollar company, and no one would be able to criticise any of his decisions unless they were multi-billionaires too. Blackwater is a billion dollar company and every "business decision" they make (including killing people in Iraq) is beyond criticism, because (by this logic) unless you run your own mercenary outfit (a claim not many of us can make), you don't have the right to criticize them . "This is my thoughtful and honest comment " honest? maybe. "thoughtful" is for other people to say. "people don't like my colorful similes?" What similies? I don't see any similies anywhere. I see one interesting point wrapped in a lot of angst.
greendestiny 17y ago
Apart from the implications of the iPhone as a communication device on publicly licensed frequencies, I haven't heard anyone suggest that Apple be legally forced to change their practices. People are expressing their anger and disappointment, and why shouldn't people have an opinion on Apple censoring the app store? People express and form their opinions in concert with each other, its basically what defines humanity. I don't see why we should ignore things we find unfair or unreasonable. It might suit an economic model to imagine consumers all independently making utilitarian judgements but it has little or nothing to do with reality. Morality actually plays an important part in society and we promote it because its the glue that binds us together. We speak out about things in the hope that the ideas of many people will come together collectively evoke positive change. In specific terms people hope that the negative press about Apple will make them change their minds. What you are advocating is not a fairer market place, its people shutting their mouths so you don't have to hear opinions you don't like. Nothing good can come from that.
- codyrobbins 17y ago
  People are expressing their anger and disappointment, and why shouldn't people have an opinion on Apple censoring the app store? This is a standard counterargument you hear whenever anyone criticizes someone for something like anger or disappointment. No one is telling them they aren't entitled to their opinion, and I'd go so far as to say it's universally understood in our society that everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's just that when people have opinions that others feel are wrong, and those people criticize the opinion, it's not enough that their opinion is formed because they're angry and disappointed. The very fact that it's an opinion does not mean it's sacrosanct and unassailable — the validity of the opinion is still assessable based on the facts behind it. My entire point is in fact that the people who form an opinion based on anger and disappointment or a misplaced sense of entitlement, which I feel the OP did, are exactly the kind of people whose opinions are suspect in my mind.
  - greendestiny 17y ago
    I don't think it comes from an inappropriate sense of entitlement at all. I think it comes from a completely appropriate sense of injustice. In your original comment you suggest it would be better off if we just bought products based on our own opinions without considering what the community thinks of some of the issues. I think we form our opinions with the help of the community. Less opinions just means less information about the purchasing decisions we make which isn't a good thing.
ojbyrne 17y ago
Minor quibble, "Jason Calacanis wrote Mahalo" isn't accurate. I don't quite understand why it's so hard to grasp the difference between executives (go to meetings, power lunches, couldn't actually write code if their life depended on it), and programmers (actually build stuff, when the executives aren't in the way).
- codyrobbins 17y ago
  Sure, good point. When I used 'wrote' I did mean it in the broadest possible sense of his 'authorship' of the business as a whole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphorical_extension http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphorical_extension He may not have written the actual code, but he's definitely the driving force behind the company.
  - abalashov 17y ago
    Sure, but in that case, we would tend to say something like, "created Mahalo" or "the man behind Mahalo," not "wrote" Mahalo. Otherwise, yes, your rejoinder is very apt. We say things like, "France rejects US demands for airline passenger information" all the time, knowing full well that France could not collectively do that literally.
abalashov 17y ago
First, I don't think Jason Calacanis is arguing unequivocally for government intervention, necessarily; he's first and foremost expressing a market preference as a consumer, and is trying to make the case to other consumers to have the same. If the consumers protest Apple's decisions, this situation could, theoretically, be resolved by market pressures alone; in other words, not so much that "the company that produces consumer products must suck my dick" as "the company must bend to the will of what its customers want." In order for that to happen, a larger proportion of consumers have to be better informed about the nature of the restrictions and more assertive about what they ostensibly prefer instead. It's not so much that Apple should be compelled to cater to them legalistically, I think, as that the denominator of everyday technology use tends toward open, interoperable and free. At least, that's the argument Calacanis is making. Whether you agree with it or not, you should give it a fair treatment instead of simply dismissing it as an exhortation toward legal anti-trust action. Yes, Apple is there to make money from its products and so, Apple looks out for its interests very well. That means the buyers of its products should do their part to look out for theirs. Having said that, I understand your position perfectly. I came out with a very similar stance as my initial reaction to the whole Google Voice situation, and basically agree with you fundamentally. However, this is a complicated question; both of the extreme positions ("kill the evil Apple now!" vs. "Apple is the vendor, it can do what it wants, and if you don't like it, don't buy it") have certain untenable aspects to most people when carried to their logical conclusion. Specifically, I think the central ideological premise of competition-related regulation hinges on the fact that the world is too complicated to expect ordinary consumers to intricately understand every nuance of the restrictions, stipulations, caveats, etc. that come with every single product they come into contact with in a variety of areas. Whether you agree with this or not, you have to acknowledge that neither AT&T, nor Windows, nor Apple came to be "monopolies" (in the various ways in which they were/are alleged to be) because every consumer consciously and willfully bought into the consequences of adopting their respective goods/services/platforms/etc. There are two sides to that argument, of course; the traditional free-market stance is that this is the consumer's own damn problem; if you're going to be lazy and not do your research, you pay the price. The counterpoint is that there is a great deal of social moral consensus around NOT allowing that to happen in other areas of life, which is why a great many consumer protection, disclosure, safety and liability laws exist. If the roofers were allowed to put large amounts of radioisotopes in your shingles and you just didn't happen to know that this is an issue you should inquire about, you could get badly burned on that in the absence of laws that basically say that they can't knowingly do stuff like that.
danh 17y ago
> My bet is that they know what they're doing. Apple has become a company that stands for censorship. I hate to be associated with that. The fact that the censorship is a conscious decision by Apple makes it even worse.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Apple has yet to censor anything. They have only rejected certain things from being sold in their store. If you think that is censorship then you must think that virtually every retailer in the world also stands for censorship.
  - danh 17y ago
    Just a short time ago I heard a couple of interviews with people who worked in Spanish radio stations during the Franco dictatorship. They described all the inane rules they had to follow to appease the censors: songs that contained any hint of sex, atheism, "un-spanishness", etc. could not be broadcasted. But none of them knew exactly which the forbidden words were; the censors seemed to make up the rules as they went along. A given song could be allowed by one censor, and forbidden by the next. If the "transgression" was too serious, you lost your job (or more). All this was, of course, entirely lawful. Their stories reminded me a little bit too much of recent events.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      Because Apple is the government and enforces it's decisions with the threat of violent reprisal, right? This is ridiculous. You trivialize the actions of an opressive dictatorship when you liken it to inconvenience of using a dictionary that lacks the term "Dirty Sanchez". (This being an example of a term present in Wiktionary but redacted from Ninjawords by Ninjawords.)
  - abalashov 17y ago
    I think the reason the parent poster rendered that opinion has to do with the calculus - real or imagined - that stands behind Apple's particular choice of things to reject, and the common attributes that unite the sort of thing they tend to reject. Or, at least, the stuff that's made the headlines lately. It seems to have to do with things that allow you to use their devices more "freely" and/or do more and/or access more. I don't think "censorship" is quite the correct term for that, but you can see where the idea arises that Apple is not just acting as a retailer that wants to sell certain products and not others in its store, but specifically wants to limit products that have to do with openness of information and freedom of use. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, that's what drives people to use terms like "censorship" to describe it.
paul9290 17y ago
Everyone has their opinion and that's cool. For me I want the full experience on my netbook, laptop, desktop, mobile net device and etc... Not some hobbled experience because old business models are being protected(blatant anti-competitive actions)!

avner 17y ago

"Apple doesn't have any responsibility to the people who buy them" I beg to differ; I believe any company providing a service or a good has an obligation to its customers. Granted that Apple can afford to ride the high horse at the moment because of its refinement and early adoption of multi-touch, but a draconian control over something like the iPhone will not fare well for Apple in the long term. Sooner or later litigators will compare this amount of control on an ever increasing popular device with the Microsoft-IE case and anti-competitive suits are likely to follow. Competition will catch on in the iPhone's case, and people will look for alternatives when multi-touch based devices with similar UX and more liberal standards become available.

codyrobbins 17y ago
Again, I would ask, who exactly are you to be speaking in absolutes like that about what will and will not happen? Apple is a massive company with tons of brilliant people — do you really think they aren't considering every conceivable angle, never mind the obvious ones that you, sitting there in your armchair, can toss out off the top of your head? Do you honestly think that they're just completely oblivious to the trade-offs and the possibility of antitrust litigation is somehow going to blindside them? They're taking calculated risks. Also, there is a difference between a company acting as though they have a responsibility to the consumer, or choosing to have a responsibility as a voluntary matter of principal, for public relations purposes; and whether a company actually does have a responsibility in fact or not. There is also a difference between whether you think they should have a responsibility or not and whether they actually do. You obviously think they should have a responsibility, but I still think that they don't as an objective matter of fact. I'm not trying to be belligerent, although it probably seems that way — it's just that exactly what I'm saying is that I think too many people wishfully demand the recognition of rights they don't have from companies like Apple, and similarly impose responsibilities that don't exist onto them.
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  "I'm not trying to be belligerent, although it probably seems that way " If you know you "seem belligerent" why don't you change your writing to tone it down? Unless you want to write "belligerently" but then disclaim it with "I'm not trying to be belligerent".? Perhaps someone who writes for public consumption,especially when talking to peers, should control the tone of his writing? Your writing comes across as that of an immature teenager who can't control his thoughts or emotions.( I am not saying you are immature, just making a subjective comment on the tone of your writing). You make interesting points. Doing so without angsty aggression would help people follow along. "Apple is a massive company with tons of brilliant people — do you really think they aren't considering every conceivable angle," "EVERY" conceivable angle? Let me quote you, "Who exactly are you to be speaking in absolutes "? ;-) Besides, this is patent nonsense. Companies "full of brilliant people" makes strategic mistakes all the time. Microsoft, IBM , HP, Yahoo even Apple in the old days, before the comeback. Unless Apple is filled with omniscient gods, they are as prone to human fallibility as everyone else. "a voluntary matter of principal" you meant "principle"?

diz 17y ago

I agree - actually, the most insightful thing on that page is the comment by "Tom".

stanleydrew 17y ago

If Apple wants to censor apps in the App Store, that's their prerogative. Then why is it not OK for Microsoft to try to force you to use a particular web-browser by pre-installing it with Windows and making it difficult to install others?

aditya 17y ago
Because Windows is a monopoly in the operating system space and they abused that monopoly, you couldn't just switch operating systems on a PC because there was no good alternative. Apple is far from being a monopoly in the phone space (even in the much smaller smartphone space where RIMM rules) yet and you can easily switch phones and do whatever you want.
- wvenable 17y ago
  On the otherhand, it's pretty hard to argue that a web browser shouldn't be a standard part of the operating system. When I install XP, I need to fire up something to download Firefox. I don't think Microsoft bundling software with Windows is inappropriate, within reason. Where the monopoly and anti-trust concerns for me come in is their agreements with PC manufacturers that penalizes them for providing alternative operating systems.
- stanleydrew 17y ago
  You make a good point, and I won't argue over the definition of a monopoly. I will only suggest that it's a little weird to say that censorship and suppression of competitors is a prerogative of a company when it's not a monopoly, but then once that monopoly line is crossed it's not ok anymore. How do you know when that line has been crossed? And if you cross back the other way, are you allowed to restart with anti-competitive practices again?
  - evgen 17y ago
    Governments censor. People and companies make editorial decisions regarding what they will say, do, or distribute. As to "suppression of competitors" I think we all tend to lump this into the category of "being in the business of making money." If I write a letter to my local paper and they do not print it they have not engaged in censorship. The app store is like a giant department store. If I make a widget I can't walk in to wal-mart and demand that they put it on the shelves. Even if the pornulator3000(tm) would fly off the shelves and make both wal-mart and I a ton of cash they are still under no obligation to stock my product if they think it will hurt their reputation or standing in the community (e.g. turn them into "the store where you go to get that wink-wink nudge-nudge massage device...") If Apple had a monopoly position they would be the _only_ store in town. That is clearly not the case. They may be the hottest, most-hyped store in town but consumers clearly have other choices.

plinkplonk 17y ago

" My bet is that they know what they're doing. Last time I checked, Apple was a billion-dollar company and Jason Calacanis wrote Mahalo — you do the math." This is a dangerous way to think. By this reasoning Steve Ballmer does in business would be valid because he is a billionaire and/or runs a multi billion dollar company, and no one would be able to criticise any of his decisions unless they were multi-billionaires too. Blackwater is a billion dollar company and every "business decision" they make (including killing people in Iraq) is beyond criticism, because (by this logic) unless you run your own mercenary outfit (a claim not many of us can make), you don't have the right to criticize them . "This is my thoughtful and honest comment " honest? maybe. "thoughtful" is for other people to say. "people don't like my colorful similes?" What similies? I don't see any similies anywhere. I see one interesting point wrapped in a lot of angst.

greendestiny 17y ago

Apart from the implications of the iPhone as a communication device on publicly licensed frequencies, I haven't heard anyone suggest that Apple be legally forced to change their practices. People are expressing their anger and disappointment, and why shouldn't people have an opinion on Apple censoring the app store? People express and form their opinions in concert with each other, its basically what defines humanity. I don't see why we should ignore things we find unfair or unreasonable. It might suit an economic model to imagine consumers all independently making utilitarian judgements but it has little or nothing to do with reality. Morality actually plays an important part in society and we promote it because its the glue that binds us together. We speak out about things in the hope that the ideas of many people will come together collectively evoke positive change. In specific terms people hope that the negative press about Apple will make them change their minds. What you are advocating is not a fairer market place, its people shutting their mouths so you don't have to hear opinions you don't like. Nothing good can come from that.

codyrobbins 17y ago
People are expressing their anger and disappointment, and why shouldn't people have an opinion on Apple censoring the app store? This is a standard counterargument you hear whenever anyone criticizes someone for something like anger or disappointment. No one is telling them they aren't entitled to their opinion, and I'd go so far as to say it's universally understood in our society that everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's just that when people have opinions that others feel are wrong, and those people criticize the opinion, it's not enough that their opinion is formed because they're angry and disappointed. The very fact that it's an opinion does not mean it's sacrosanct and unassailable — the validity of the opinion is still assessable based on the facts behind it. My entire point is in fact that the people who form an opinion based on anger and disappointment or a misplaced sense of entitlement, which I feel the OP did, are exactly the kind of people whose opinions are suspect in my mind.
- greendestiny 17y ago
  I don't think it comes from an inappropriate sense of entitlement at all. I think it comes from a completely appropriate sense of injustice. In your original comment you suggest it would be better off if we just bought products based on our own opinions without considering what the community thinks of some of the issues. I think we form our opinions with the help of the community. Less opinions just means less information about the purchasing decisions we make which isn't a good thing.

ojbyrne 17y ago

Minor quibble, "Jason Calacanis wrote Mahalo" isn't accurate. I don't quite understand why it's so hard to grasp the difference between executives (go to meetings, power lunches, couldn't actually write code if their life depended on it), and programmers (actually build stuff, when the executives aren't in the way).

codyrobbins 17y ago
Sure, good point. When I used 'wrote' I did mean it in the broadest possible sense of his 'authorship' of the business as a whole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphorical_extension http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphorical_extension He may not have written the actual code, but he's definitely the driving force behind the company.
- abalashov 17y ago
  Sure, but in that case, we would tend to say something like, "created Mahalo" or "the man behind Mahalo," not "wrote" Mahalo. Otherwise, yes, your rejoinder is very apt. We say things like, "France rejects US demands for airline passenger information" all the time, knowing full well that France could not collectively do that literally.

abalashov 17y ago

First, I don't think Jason Calacanis is arguing unequivocally for government intervention, necessarily; he's first and foremost expressing a market preference as a consumer, and is trying to make the case to other consumers to have the same. If the consumers protest Apple's decisions, this situation could, theoretically, be resolved by market pressures alone; in other words, not so much that "the company that produces consumer products must suck my dick" as "the company must bend to the will of what its customers want." In order for that to happen, a larger proportion of consumers have to be better informed about the nature of the restrictions and more assertive about what they ostensibly prefer instead. It's not so much that Apple should be compelled to cater to them legalistically, I think, as that the denominator of everyday technology use tends toward open, interoperable and free. At least, that's the argument Calacanis is making. Whether you agree with it or not, you should give it a fair treatment instead of simply dismissing it as an exhortation toward legal anti-trust action. Yes, Apple is there to make money from its products and so, Apple looks out for its interests very well. That means the buyers of its products should do their part to look out for theirs. Having said that, I understand your position perfectly. I came out with a very similar stance as my initial reaction to the whole Google Voice situation, and basically agree with you fundamentally. However, this is a complicated question; both of the extreme positions ("kill the evil Apple now!" vs. "Apple is the vendor, it can do what it wants, and if you don't like it, don't buy it") have certain untenable aspects to most people when carried to their logical conclusion. Specifically, I think the central ideological premise of competition-related regulation hinges on the fact that the world is too complicated to expect ordinary consumers to intricately understand every nuance of the restrictions, stipulations, caveats, etc. that come with every single product they come into contact with in a variety of areas. Whether you agree with this or not, you have to acknowledge that neither AT&T, nor Windows, nor Apple came to be "monopolies" (in the various ways in which they were/are alleged to be) because every consumer consciously and willfully bought into the consequences of adopting their respective goods/services/platforms/etc. There are two sides to that argument, of course; the traditional free-market stance is that this is the consumer's own damn problem; if you're going to be lazy and not do your research, you pay the price. The counterpoint is that there is a great deal of social moral consensus around NOT allowing that to happen in other areas of life, which is why a great many consumer protection, disclosure, safety and liability laws exist. If the roofers were allowed to put large amounts of radioisotopes in your shingles and you just didn't happen to know that this is an issue you should inquire about, you could get badly burned on that in the absence of laws that basically say that they can't knowingly do stuff like that.

danh 17y ago

> My bet is that they know what they're doing. Apple has become a company that stands for censorship. I hate to be associated with that. The fact that the censorship is a conscious decision by Apple makes it even worse.

GHFigs 17y ago
Apple has yet to censor anything. They have only rejected certain things from being sold in their store. If you think that is censorship then you must think that virtually every retailer in the world also stands for censorship.
- danh 17y ago
  Just a short time ago I heard a couple of interviews with people who worked in Spanish radio stations during the Franco dictatorship. They described all the inane rules they had to follow to appease the censors: songs that contained any hint of sex, atheism, "un-spanishness", etc. could not be broadcasted. But none of them knew exactly which the forbidden words were; the censors seemed to make up the rules as they went along. A given song could be allowed by one censor, and forbidden by the next. If the "transgression" was too serious, you lost your job (or more). All this was, of course, entirely lawful. Their stories reminded me a little bit too much of recent events.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    Because Apple is the government and enforces it's decisions with the threat of violent reprisal, right? This is ridiculous. You trivialize the actions of an opressive dictatorship when you liken it to inconvenience of using a dictionary that lacks the term "Dirty Sanchez". (This being an example of a term present in Wiktionary but redacted from Ninjawords by Ninjawords.)
- abalashov 17y ago
  I think the reason the parent poster rendered that opinion has to do with the calculus - real or imagined - that stands behind Apple's particular choice of things to reject, and the common attributes that unite the sort of thing they tend to reject. Or, at least, the stuff that's made the headlines lately. It seems to have to do with things that allow you to use their devices more "freely" and/or do more and/or access more. I don't think "censorship" is quite the correct term for that, but you can see where the idea arises that Apple is not just acting as a retailer that wants to sell certain products and not others in its store, but specifically wants to limit products that have to do with openness of information and freedom of use. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, that's what drives people to use terms like "censorship" to describe it.

paul9290 17y ago

Everyone has their opinion and that's cool. For me I want the full experience on my netbook, laptop, desktop, mobile net device and etc... Not some hobbled experience because old business models are being protected(blatant anti-competitive actions)!