4 ms·

Despite the fact that I agree with him, I scoff at Apple for raising flags about this. Apple is well known for discriminating against applications due to the t

Despite the fact that I agree with him, I scoff at Apple for raising flags about this. Apple is well known for discriminating against applications due to the type of information shared, for example apps have been rejected for bearing news about U.S. drone strikes[1]. In fact, I would argue Apple is causing more damage than a state here or there allowing discrimination, due to their >1Bn install base. [1] http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/apple-rejects-app-tracking-drone-strikes/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/apple-rejects-app-t...

SEJeff 12y ago
I normally wouldn't mention this, but have a distinct feeling you weren't aware that Tim Cook is public about being gay. As a straight man, I actually applaud the CEO of one of the most valuable companies in the world speaking up against bigoted laws like this. If he doesn't, who will? Imagine what would happen if Apple started moving a lot of their business / jobs / stores out of Indiana. It wouldn't wreck IN, but it would make a measurable and noticeable impact.
Anechoic 12y ago
for example apps have been rejected for bearing news about U.S. drone strikes[1]. FWIW, the app was eventually approved, although under a different name: http://www.fastcoexist.com/3026320/your-iphone-can-now-alert-you-when-a-drone-attacks http://www.fastcoexist.com/3026320/your-iphone-can-now-alert... In fact, I would argue Apple is causing more damage than a state here or there allowing discrimination, due to their >1Bn install base. If Apple prevented users from accessing this info at all I might buy this, but considering this info (in this specific case) is still available via the web (the Guardian site works fine on an iPhone), I can't agree with this. Unless you have evidence of some info/activity that is only available via an app and not accessible on the web?
atonse 12y ago
Sorry this breaks down really quickly. Even though there is plenty of inconsistency in the App Store's decision, they are not saying "this app can only be installed by straight people." - They are just choosing not to run an app in their store. A better analogy would be for a bakery to say "we will only sell vegetarian products since we believe in cute animals." - you're not discriminating against your customers. You're just choosing what to sell.

SEJeff 12y ago

I normally wouldn't mention this, but have a distinct feeling you weren't aware that Tim Cook is public about being gay. As a straight man, I actually applaud the CEO of one of the most valuable companies in the world speaking up against bigoted laws like this. If he doesn't, who will? Imagine what would happen if Apple started moving a lot of their business / jobs / stores out of Indiana. It wouldn't wreck IN, but it would make a measurable and noticeable impact.

Anechoic 12y ago

for example apps have been rejected for bearing news about U.S. drone strikes[1]. FWIW, the app was eventually approved, although under a different name: http://www.fastcoexist.com/3026320/your-iphone-can-now-alert-you-when-a-drone-attacks http://www.fastcoexist.com/3026320/your-iphone-can-now-alert... In fact, I would argue Apple is causing more damage than a state here or there allowing discrimination, due to their >1Bn install base. If Apple prevented users from accessing this info at all I might buy this, but considering this info (in this specific case) is still available via the web (the Guardian site works fine on an iPhone), I can't agree with this. Unless you have evidence of some info/activity that is only available via an app and not accessible on the web?

atonse 12y ago

Sorry this breaks down really quickly. Even though there is plenty of inconsistency in the App Store's decision, they are not saying "this app can only be installed by straight people." - They are just choosing not to run an app in their store. A better analogy would be for a bakery to say "we will only sell vegetarian products since we believe in cute animals." - you're not discriminating against your customers. You're just choosing what to sell.