211–220 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is until all the three (Apple, Google and Microsoft) decides to only allow installs from the maketplace, you know for "security" reasons. The problem is if one company gets away with it, others follow suit.
If Google decides to only allow installs from their market, someone will just fork android and change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every comment you have made on this page has been in reply to someone's criticism of the App store's horrid policy . Every riposte you have given has been that Apple have the right to choose their policy. Yes, Apple may have a right to have a horrid policy. But that doesn't make the policy any less horrid . The horridness of the policy is the whole point . You have therefore missed the point every time, with every an…
I'm not missing the point, I'm contesting it. You're assuming the conclusion that the policy is horrid. No, that's what is under debate. I'm fine with the policy of not approving this app. I'm sorry you came here to here a dittohead fest where everyone echo'd your views and didn't get it.
You did not do that, you said "Build your own Apple then!".
This comment is the closest you ever came to defending the policy, by saying "I'm fine with it". But you're not trying to convince anyone else by providing any information or reasons. Rather, you're asserting that they can't possibly convince you.
And you have resorted to a low by attacking me personally as a "dittohead".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While this is true, security is a massive concern. Just look at how many malicious apps were in the Android store just last year, vs. in the Apple store.
Maybe I'm being harsh, but if someone downloads a clearly sketchy looking app (DOWNLOAD FREE MP3S) I have no sympathy for them when it ends up being malicious. Just like I wouldn't pick up a candy bar off the street and eat it, I wouldn't download a disreputable looking app. Common sense.
Yes you're being harsh. Kids use smartphones. And while some of them are really the clever "digital natives" we were promised, a lot of them also are not.
Similar reasoning goes for my mother (62) who is very good with computers compared to others of her generation, indeed smart enough to not trust "DOWNLOAD FREE MP3s!", but still if she were to be tricked by something that might seem real obvious to us, there will be loads of sympathy. (And also a lot of fist-shaking at the unknown malware pusher that got my mom)
Regardless, I wouldn't recommend them iOS. It's a good learning experience even if you get burned and keeps you in a feeling of control and responsibility and freedom.
Maybe my grandmother. There's some bitter irony in the term "walled garden" there, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not the first time that Apple has rejected an app on purely political grounds. This may be the first time they've removed something and offended liberal/libertarian sensibilities, but a couple clear examples from a while back: http://mashable.com/2011/03/23/apple-removes-gay-cure/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/apple-manhattan-dec...
Or rejecting apps by pulitzer prize winning political cartoonists for "Ridiculing Public Figures" - http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/15/when-youre-good-enough-for-a-...
UPDATE: NYT is reporting Mr. Fiore has been "encouraged"
by Apple to re-submit. So the lesson here? Win a
Pulitzer, get a 2nd chance at the App Store.
Look Apple, I supported some of your bans in the past
-- like your ban on sexy junk apps -- but political
cartooning is *slightly* different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or rejecting apps by pulitzer prize winning political cartoonists for "Ridiculing Public Figures" - http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/15/when-youre-good-enough-for-a-...
Jobs responded to that case at D8 conference. He said it was a mistake ("We had a rule: you can't defame people. We thought it was sane to have such a rule, but the problem is that political cartoons, by definition, defame politicians. So, we made an exception for political cartoons") and they soon changed their guidelines to let the app in, but the developer never bothered to re-submit the app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One man's "predatory and misleading" is another man's gospel truth. Putting the authority to decide who is right and wrong on these matters in the hands of a single, all-powerful arbiter is just begging for abuse.
"Putting the authority to decide who is right and wrong on these matters in the hands of a single, all-powerful arbiter is just begging for abuse." For all of society yes but for one company's store, that's just how the free market works. Walmart like Apple and many other merchants decided they didn't want to sell porn in their store. If you're offended by this decision of theirs you are free to take your business el…
I'm not taking my business elsewhere because they won't put porn in their store, I have already taken my business elsewhere because I KNEW beforehand that it would ultimately lead to censoring arbitrary stuff for all the wrong reasons.
Turns out I was right.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The review guidelines have a surprisingly human tone to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"...parental controls don't work unless the parents set them up (many don't)." This is still the problem. You don't know whether the kid or the parent opened the box and set the phone up the first time.
So set it to "child-safe" mode by default, and require a credit card or other age-verification mechanism to unlock it. I really don't understand what problem Apple is trying to solve.
Allowing the web is PR-defensible: "it's the web". But when it comes to things you explicitly review and choose to allow in your store, you're forced to either stand up for adults' right to that content, or you preemptively censor yourself and your suppliers. (a la Walmart)
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.
I support a walled garden, as long as there is always a door that I can open.