2 ms·

The hell? laissez-faire You are comparing the nations food supply ... with iphone applications... ...

by apsurd 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago
Not really, he's showing that the government already has 'full disclosure' rules for some industries and suggests that the digital world might benefit from that same principle. You could easily trivialize this by suggesting that the food supply is a critical resource, but if a company gets large enough to employ a bunch of people living in Apples 'eco-system' and Apple decides to pull the plug the results for those people are quite comparable to eating something bad. In both cases there are people that have no way of knowing what is going on 'under water' whose health and well being depends on being informed. To ask for that information is the only right thing to do. Consumers don't have the power to bend a large corporation to their will, but the government can do that.
- apsurd 17y ago
  I understand your point. But very simply, that is not what Capitalism entails. Capitalism is like biology's natural selection. You don't arbitrarily go determining rules of engagement and codes of conduct within the animal kingdom, so as to even things out. Why? Because those things are taken care of naturally. I'm not saying I know what's best for anyone. Rather, it's just not the American/Capitalistic way. And Americans, they like their Capitalism.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    I don't think it has to do with whether or not it is the American/Capitalistic way either... It's about whether it is right to have a platform that is closed without specifying clearly and unambiguously what the rules are for access to that platform. Imagine you're an Iphone developer, you build your application, you get it accepted. Business is good. Then you hire some more people and you improve your application. Business is even better. Sooner or later you have an office full of people, and then one day your application gets rejected. Not only that, you'll have to pay back to the users that bought your application what they paid for it. And all this without so much as an explanation why or a public rulebook where you could see for yourself why you were not in the clear. Capitalism or the American way does not enter in to it. Think about a real-world analogy (and which like all analogies is broken) where the toll-keeper on a road would decide retroactively that the goods that you transported on their road did not meet their criteria, and that you have to reverse your business for the last N months, without any recourse on your part.
    - apsurd 17y ago
      Morally: yes. Good business: yes. Legislated: why? I bring up Capitalism because this is about business. All of your points are rock-solid data points of why NOT to do business with Apple's App store. Yet developers insist. I am going start a company that manufactures pagers. Is this a bad business decision? Maybe ... Is it my choice ... yes... Of course there's a difference. Your point is about retroactively pulling the plug for no disclosed reason. I get that - but again all the more reason that its a bad business decision.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        Ok, I get your point. I think I'm more worried about the 'domino' effects of these arbitrary decisions. Independent software developers ('the guy in the attic') are probably fairly aware of the legal position they place themselves in when they develop for the iphone (though by the recent spate of postings I'm beginning to doubt even that). But if you were employed by a company making the above sample iphone app it would be your ass on the line, not your boss'.

The hell? laissez-faire You are comparing the nations food supply ... with iphone applications... ...

by apsurd 17y ago

The hell? laissez-faire You are comparing the nations food supply ... with iphone applications... ...

Not really, he's showing that the government already has 'full disclosure' rules for some industries and suggests that the digital world might benefit from that same principle. You could easily trivialize this by suggesting that the food supply is a critical resource, but if a company gets large enough to employ a bunch of people living in Apples 'eco-system' and Apple decides to pull the plug the results for those people are quite comparable to eating something bad. In both cases there are people that have no way of knowing what is going on 'under water' whose health and well being depends on being informed. To ask for that information is the only right thing to do. Consumers don't have the power to bend a large corporation to their will, but the government can do that.

apsurd 17y ago
I understand your point. But very simply, that is not what Capitalism entails. Capitalism is like biology's natural selection. You don't arbitrarily go determining rules of engagement and codes of conduct within the animal kingdom, so as to even things out. Why? Because those things are taken care of naturally. I'm not saying I know what's best for anyone. Rather, it's just not the American/Capitalistic way. And Americans, they like their Capitalism.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  I don't think it has to do with whether or not it is the American/Capitalistic way either... It's about whether it is right to have a platform that is closed without specifying clearly and unambiguously what the rules are for access to that platform. Imagine you're an Iphone developer, you build your application, you get it accepted. Business is good. Then you hire some more people and you improve your application. Business is even better. Sooner or later you have an office full of people, and then one day your application gets rejected. Not only that, you'll have to pay back to the users that bought your application what they paid for it. And all this without so much as an explanation why or a public rulebook where you could see for yourself why you were not in the clear. Capitalism or the American way does not enter in to it. Think about a real-world analogy (and which like all analogies is broken) where the toll-keeper on a road would decide retroactively that the goods that you transported on their road did not meet their criteria, and that you have to reverse your business for the last N months, without any recourse on your part.
  - apsurd 17y ago
    Morally: yes. Good business: yes. Legislated: why? I bring up Capitalism because this is about business. All of your points are rock-solid data points of why NOT to do business with Apple's App store. Yet developers insist. I am going start a company that manufactures pagers. Is this a bad business decision? Maybe ... Is it my choice ... yes... Of course there's a difference. Your point is about retroactively pulling the plug for no disclosed reason. I get that - but again all the more reason that its a bad business decision.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      Ok, I get your point. I think I'm more worried about the 'domino' effects of these arbitrary decisions. Independent software developers ('the guy in the attic') are probably fairly aware of the legal position they place themselves in when they develop for the iphone (though by the recent spate of postings I'm beginning to doubt even that). But if you were employed by a company making the above sample iphone app it would be your ass on the line, not your boss'.