Apple's Not Fond of Brunettes • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple's Not Fond of Brunettes

#21

Post by SiVal » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 6:40 AM UTC

monochromatic wrote: post #13

cageface wrote: post #10

I'm fed up with this nanny state app store model. As a hacker I feel like I have an obligation to fight this trend. I'm committed to a couple of iOS projects right now but when they wrap I'm going to take a very hard look at getting back on the open web.

> nanny state app store It's not the state.

Not yet.

Re: Apple's Not Fond of Brunettes

#22

Post by willtheperson » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 6:52 AM UTC

Are Apple employee's forbidden to release their own apps?

How easy would it be for some person in the loop to just rip off an app and have their competition kickbanned? There's probably no law against insider-"apping"

Re: Apple's Not Fond of Brunettes

#23

Post by binspace » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 7:42 AM UTC

It helps that the blonde does not show off her ass crack.

Re: Apple's Not Fond of Brunettes

#24

Post by endgame » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 7:55 AM UTC

cageface wrote: post #10

I'm fed up with this nanny state app store model. As a hacker I feel like I have an obligation to fight this trend. I'm committed to a couple of iOS projects right now but when they wrap I'm going to take a very hard look at getting back on the open web.

Damn straight. My macbook sits unused in another state because I made the same decision a year or so ago. I don't miss it, in fact I _prefer_ my GNU/Linux netbook.

Re: Apple's Not Fond of Brunettes

#25

Post by thatjoshguy » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 9:12 AM UTC

willtheperson wrote: post #22

Are Apple employee's forbidden to release their own apps? How easy would it be for some person in the loop to just rip off an app and have their competition kickbanned? There's probably no law against insider-"apping"

> Are Apple employee's forbidden to release their own apps?

Yeah, we're forbidden from it. Conflict of interest.

Re: Apple's Not Fond of Brunettes

#26

Post by scoot » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 9:43 AM UTC

thatjoshguy wrote: post #25

willtheperson wrote: post #22

Are Apple employee's forbidden to release their own apps? How easy would it be for some person in the loop to just rip off an app and have their competition kickbanned? There's probably no law against insider-"apping"

> Are Apple employee's forbidden to release their own apps? Yeah, we're forbidden from it. Conflict of interest.

So it's a conflict of interest for employees to rip-off other people's apps and have them rejected, but not when Apple do it?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/08/apple_copies_rejecte...

Re: Apple's Not Fond of Brunettes

#27

Post by cageface » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 10:10 AM UTC

cageface wrote: post #12

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #6

I don't understand how Apple, with all its money, doesn't have better facilities for dealing with this sort of thing - especially when they care so much about developer retainment.

Until people start making more money in the other app stores Apple can be as abusive as they like. The unpublicized truth is that Apple barely breaks even on the app store as it is.

Don't misread me. I think Apple is way out of line here. But the best way to put pressure on them is to improve the alternatives.

Re: Apple's Not Fond of Brunettes

#28

Post by lucian1900 » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 10:37 AM UTC

lacker wrote: post #19

martian wrote: post #3

"The item you've requested is not currently available in the U.S. store." This article was originally posted on June 6th. It's now June 29th. After 23 days, this issue is still not resolved. I'm not a user of the app or a fan, but I find this incredibly curious and sadly opaque.

this issue is still not resolved Not exactly. Apple's guidelines state that they do not want more "apps such as fart, burp, flashlight and Kama Sutra apps". So, this issue is resolved in the sense that Apple has successfully booted this app out of the App Store. Game over.

Apple still prevent users from choosing what software to run on the devices they own.

Obviously there are some people that want Kama Sutra apps, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Re: Apple's Not Fond of Brunettes

#29

Post by michaelt » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 10:54 AM UTC

pbreit wrote: post #16

Is there a chance this was an accident?

Perhaps they meant to block Kama Sutra App™, Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana, Kama Sutra! - Manual of Sex, Kama Sutra: Manual of Sex, Kamasutra™, Kamasutra 3D, Kamasutra by Vatsyayana, Kamasutra for iPad, Kamasutra fun, Kamasutra Museum 3D, Kamasutra Museum 3D HD, KamaSutra Posiciones, Kamasutra The Game, Kamazootra, Kamazootra Lite, 101 Positions of KamaSutra, Kamasutra (Deutsch), Kamasutra - Sex Positions Guide and Kama Sutra, KamaSwami, or KamaSwami for iPad.

Perhaps it was only through confusion that they blocked iKamasutra.

Re: Apple's Not Fond of Brunettes

#30

Post by rimantas » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 12:11 PM UTC

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #6

I don't understand how Apple, with all its money, doesn't have better facilities for dealing with this sort of thing - especially when they care so much about developer retainment.

How about some context? Namely, the numbers of apps accepeted, downloaded and money paid to developers?