Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 229 posts

Re: Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

#11

Post by msorvig »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #8
eevilspock wrote: post #7

I think iOS is better than Android. I support the idea of a walled garden in principle (as long as it isn't a monopoly, and in this case it isn't. People can choose Android or others). But the free flow of honest information is fundamental to democracy. This is stupid and gutless editorial censorship on Apple's part (unless there's some detail about this story that I'm missing). I hope someone higher up sees this, re…

You support a walled garden, but not if it blocks information? I'm sorry, but that's completely contradictory. The point of the wall is that it blocks things Apple don't approve of.

The ideal walled garden would be one that blocks spammy apps and malware - but not information. I think it's reasonable to support walled gardens in principle but be critical of some aspects of the Apple implementation.

Re: Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

#12

Post by fein »

msorvig wrote: post #11
AndrewDucker wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You support a walled garden, but not if it blocks information? I'm sorry, but that's completely contradictory. The point of the wall is that it blocks things Apple don't approve of.

The ideal walled garden would be one that blocks spammy apps and malware - but not information. I think it's reasonable to support walled gardens in principle but be critical of some aspects of the Apple implementation.

I really despise the usage of a "Slippery Slope" claim, but I think that this really embodies the idea.

We have enough problems as is with anti-malware software throwing false positives, so who is to say that Apple can do any better? Likewise, "spammy apps" and "malware" are terms subject to definitions given by the curator. If we use past history as any indicator, then it seems Apple has already proven that the company has it's own definitions for these terms.

Re: Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

#13

Post by DrJokepu »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #3

I can understand Apple wanting to keep its market place "clean", but at the very least, iDevice owners should be able to opt-in to seeing apps like this. Why can't it just be flagged "adult" or something, and you can then opt-in on your device to seeing apps flagged as such? Why does Apple think it is suitable to make these decisions on your behalf, iDevice users? Are you happy with this? Personally, I'll be sticking…

I believe the following parts of the iOS App Store Review Guidelines answer your question:

* We have lots of kids downloading lots of apps, and parental controls don't work unless the parents set them up (many don't). So know that we're keeping an eye out for the kids.

* We will reject Apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, "I'll know it when I see it". And we think that you will also know it when you cross it.

* This is a living document, and new apps presenting new questions may result in new rules at any time. Perhaps your app will trigger this.

* Lastly, we love this stuff too, and honor what you do. We're really trying our best to create the best platform in the world for you to express your talents and make a living too. If it sounds like we're control freaks, well, maybe it's because we're so committed to our users and making sure they have a quality experience with our products. Just like almost all of you are too.

Re: Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

#14

Post by gaunab »

myared wrote: post #6

The irony is that this news aggregator is being denied, yet someone could make a game called "Drone Wars" where you operate a drone on missions and Apple would have no problem with it.

Very true words, and this irony is what should really be the matter here. It's "objectionable content" to receive reports on death penalties issued by the US government, carried out by unmanned planes at some part of the world no one in the US really cares about? Well, yeah. Thanks, Apple, for keeping your sweet and "entertaining" app store clean of this ugly and objectionable thing called reality.

Re: Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

#15

Post by eevilspock »

fein wrote: post #12
msorvig wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ideal walled garden would be one that blocks spammy apps and malware - but not information. I think it's reasonable to support walled gardens in principle but be critical of some aspects of the Apple implementation.

I really despise the usage of a "Slippery Slope" claim, but I think that this really embodies the idea. We have enough problems as is with anti-malware software throwing false positives, so who is to say that Apple can do any better? Likewise, "spammy apps" and "malware" are terms subject to definitions given by the curator. If we use past history as any indicator, then it seems Apple has already proven that the comp…

"I really despise the usage of a "Slippery Slope" claim, but I think that this really embodies the idea."

Huh? This does not parse.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

This is one example everyone should know: http://www.quora.com/How-can-supporters-of-gay-marriage-refu...

Re: Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

#16

Post by eevilspock »

loceng wrote: post #9
eevilspock wrote: post #7

I think iOS is better than Android. I support the idea of a walled garden in principle (as long as it isn't a monopoly, and in this case it isn't. People can choose Android or others). But the free flow of honest information is fundamental to democracy. This is stupid and gutless editorial censorship on Apple's part (unless there's some detail about this story that I'm missing). I hope someone higher up sees this, re…

If you're in the U.S. or many other countries you aren't in an actual democracy anyway. 1 vote != 1 vote.

I voted up your comment, but can you give me an example of a country that is a democracy by your definition? What is your definition?

[Jeez louis... why did this comment get downvoted? Shees!]

Re: Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

#18

Post by roc »

DrJokepu wrote: post #13
mike-cardwell wrote: post #3

I can understand Apple wanting to keep its market place "clean", but at the very least, iDevice owners should be able to opt-in to seeing apps like this. Why can't it just be flagged "adult" or something, and you can then opt-in on your device to seeing apps flagged as such? Why does Apple think it is suitable to make these decisions on your behalf, iDevice users? Are you happy with this? Personally, I'll be sticking…

I believe the following parts of the iOS App Store Review Guidelines answer your question: * We have lots of kids downloading lots of apps, and parental controls don't work unless the parents set them up (many don't). So know that we're keeping an eye out for the kids. * We will reject Apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, "I…

If they have a parental control feature, recognize that it's not usually turned on, so set app store policy assuming parental control isn't on, but that style of protection is desirable ... why don't they just default parental control to "on"? Or at least make it a device-setup-time prompt?

Of the "iOS' walled garden is anticonsumer" concerns - the one that's in regular demonstration is Apple's refusal to allow adults to indicate that they really are grown up enough to be exposed to content regarding politics, religion, war and, yeah, even sex.

Re: Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

#19

Post by fein »

eevilspock wrote: post #15
fein wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really despise the usage of a "Slippery Slope" claim, but I think that this really embodies the idea. We have enough problems as is with anti-malware software throwing false positives, so who is to say that Apple can do any better? Likewise, "spammy apps" and "malware" are terms subject to definitions given by the curator. If we use past history as any indicator, then it seems Apple has already proven that the comp…

"I really despise the usage of a "Slippery Slope" claim, but I think that this really embodies the idea." Huh? This does not parse. Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html This is one example everyone should know: http://www.quora.com/How-can-supporters-of-gay-marriage-refu...

The logical fallacy here is the assumption that the guidelines imposed by apple won't lead to straight up draconian rules, which they almost already have. There is a reason why utopias do not exist.

Re: Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

#20

Post by MrMember »

msorvig wrote: post #11
AndrewDucker wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You support a walled garden, but not if it blocks information? I'm sorry, but that's completely contradictory. The point of the wall is that it blocks things Apple don't approve of.

The ideal walled garden would be one that blocks spammy apps and malware - but not information. I think it's reasonable to support walled gardens in principle but be critical of some aspects of the Apple implementation.

Sure, in theory a well curated walled garden is the perfect solution. In practice, though, there will always be disagreements between what should and shouldn't be outside those walls. And this is just my opinion, but a walled garden run by a giant corporation will always be seriously flawed.
Post reply on HN