211–220 of 232 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell them she doesn't own any devices that could connect to the internet. I'm sure they'll figure something out. They have to have procedures for this sort of thing.
> They have to have procedures for this sort of thing. "Sorry, try somewhere else" is the procedure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just chopped off the other part of the sentence to change the meaning. > “Qualifications were that they could breathe, they could think,” he said. “They could think” implies critical thinking skills. Then the next sentence says they usually work at the Genius Bar, which is not at all an entry level role.
> “They could think” implies critical thinking skills. No, it does not. What do you think "they could breathe" implies? That they were athletes?
It’s clear that the meaning of the quote is that Apple doesn’t look for strict technical qualifications (“they could breathe”), they instead look for people who show an ability to think critically (“they could think”).
The passage also says that the app reviewers tend to be Genius Bar employees, which is a second level role within an already competitive high tier retailer. I.e., Apple retail rejects a lot of retail employees that go on to work for other retailers that have lower pay and benefits (most of the rest of the retail industry), and then out of those people who get accepted, many are rejected to work in the Genius Bar handling repairs and troubleshooting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They have to have procedures for this sort of thing. "Sorry, try somewhere else" is the procedure.
Exactly. Rather than passing laws to require a non-digital option for these things, we should make sure that devices are locked down and controlled against users (aka hapless idiots).
Do you think I oppose this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So your solution is to ban the sale of any kind of knife. If you give a toddler a butcher's knife to play with and they get hurt, you'll likely get in trouble for child endangerment. Using my car requires it be registered, pass my state's safety standards, and that I possess a valid license and follow a wide variety of rules. Maybe a certain level of protection is, at times, acceptable?
> If you give a toddler a butcher's knife to play with and they get hurt, you'll likely get in trouble for child endangerment. Right but granny is not a child, she is kind of the opposite of a child. You're essentially saying we should child proof the entire world, right. Appeal to the lowest common denominator and DO NOT offer back doors. But that's a plainly ridiculous notion and everyone knows it. This argument on…
The failure modes are often quite similar - cognitive/motor issues and lack of experience with the tools offered.
> Appeal to the lowest common denominator and DO NOT offer back doors.
Back doors accessible by scammers are bad for the same reasons back doors accessible by governments are.
> This really is "no sale of knives" type stuff. That sounds ridiculous, right? Because it is, and we let Apple get away with murder.
Apple's more like a shop that declines to sell knives. There are other shops that will sell you one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “They could think” implies critical thinking skills. No, it does not. What do you think "they could breathe" implies? That they were athletes?
I think you’re purposefully misinterpreting the meaning of the quote to be a contrarian or to hate on Apple. I’m not a big fan of big corporate duopoly Apple, either, but I’m also not a fan of twisting words. It’s clear that the meaning of the quote is that Apple doesn’t look for strict technical qualifications (“they could breathe”), they instead look for people who show an ability to think critically (“they could t…
"Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
By the way, I'm a longtime App Store developer, so my criticism of the App Store is not shallow.
> It’s clear that the meaning of the quote is that Apple doesn’t look for strict technical qualifications (“they could breathe”), they instead look for people who show an ability to think critically (“they could think”).
I don't think that's clear. I would point out that the testimony was under oath, on penalty of perjury, so it would be personally dangerous for Shoemaker to lie. I interpret Shoemaker's remarks as admitting that Apple basically needed warm bodies for the job and didn't have strict qualifications. This aligns with my own experience as an App Store developer, dealing with Apple reviewers, who often seem completely clueless.
With regard to the Genius Bar, the term "genius" has also been more marketing than anything else. Moreover, in the context, I believe that Shoemaker was testifying about the origins of the App Store. In other words, in 2008 when Apple opened the App Store, they recruited reviewers from among current employees at Apple retail stores. Shoemaker said that reviewers "typically" worked at the Genius Bar, not that reviewers invariably or were required to have worked at the Genius Bar. The App Store itself was thrown together very quickly, after the "sweet solution" of web apps fell on dead ears. Steve Jobs hadn't originally wanted third-party apps on the iPhone. It's unclear whether Apple today is still recruiting App Store reviewers from their retail stores, and of course the volume of submitted apps today is vastly greater than the relatively small number back in 2008.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Rather than passing laws to require a non-digital option for these things, we should make sure that devices are locked down and controlled against users (aka hapless idiots).
> Rather than passing laws to require a non-digital option for these things... Do you think I oppose this?
Removing end user control, repairability, and hackability/repurposing (all related) should be the very last resort, not the first!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’re purposefully misinterpreting the meaning of the quote to be a contrarian or to hate on Apple. I’m not a big fan of big corporate duopoly Apple, either, but I’m also not a fan of twisting words. It’s clear that the meaning of the quote is that Apple doesn’t look for strict technical qualifications (“they could breathe”), they instead look for people who show an ability to think critically (“they could t…
> I think you’re purposefully misinterpreting the meaning of the quote to be a contrarian or to hate on Apple. "Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html By the way, I'm a longtime App Store developer, so my criticism of the App Store is not shallow. > It’s clear that the meaning of the quote is that Apple doesn’t look for strict technical qualifications (“they could breathe”), they instead…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’re purposefully misinterpreting the meaning of the quote to be a contrarian or to hate on Apple. I’m not a big fan of big corporate duopoly Apple, either, but I’m also not a fan of twisting words. It’s clear that the meaning of the quote is that Apple doesn’t look for strict technical qualifications (“they could breathe”), they instead look for people who show an ability to think critically (“they could t…
> I think you’re purposefully misinterpreting the meaning of the quote to be a contrarian or to hate on Apple. "Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html By the way, I'm a longtime App Store developer, so my criticism of the App Store is not shallow. > It’s clear that the meaning of the quote is that Apple doesn’t look for strict technical qualifications (“they could breathe”), they instead…
I’m also an iOS developer and while there are a lot of things about the app review process that should be changed, I wouldn’t describe any of my reviewers as clueless. Maybe you’ve submitted more apps than me, though, and maybe you got a bad one. Like you said, app volumes are huge, so that’s probably a statistical inevitability regardless of company hiring and training practices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are two big problems with this (not that Apple’s caprice is the only alternative): 1. The vast majority of people are Grandma, and they do not have a Johnny available to administer their tech. Most people are not technical. 2. The vast majority of Grandmas will follow instructions on a “how do I share cute photo” website even when that website directs them to dig deep into configuration settings and ignore six…
I think the bigger question is whether this is even worth solving. If people really want to give someone root access and do it willingly, maybe we just say this is out of our purview and allow it. And then, slowly, people will learn. They will be hard lessons but evidently baby proofing the entire world is not really working, so we might just abandon ship on that idea.
I hope you're right, but I'm not sure they will. The less locked-down WinXP and early Android era was ... really really bad in terms of nontechnical people getting hacked/scammed. And bad actors are also innovating, so the target of what people have to learn is moving: now we have synthetic AI voice scams, easy-to-create full clones of popular websites that harvest credentials, an explosion of 0days that let people run RATs that hassle elders for their MFA codes, and so on.
Like, I'm 100% with you that baby-proofing the world is an unattainable, patronizing, and negative-externality-laden goal. We shouldn't do that. But we shouldn't go full libertarian "you're on your own; toughen up" either; I think we have a lot of data that indicates that the harms of that approach are both high-magnitude and high-volume.