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

IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

ikamasutra.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 170 posts

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#31

Post by spacemanaki »

rimantas wrote: post #25
kodisha wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, let me try to figure this out: Kama Sutra - not ok. Killing people app[1] - ok. ??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8gAdb2N7Po

I still cannot wrap my head around this. My brain just switches off when I try to think how did we come to this when nudity (and of course sex) is taboo, but killing people is OK. The fact that I don't even see any discussions about this baffles me even more.

There is discussion about it, among both the gaming and film industries. See my sibling comment to yours and the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" which is from 2005 IIRC. They delve into it quite deeply, even looking at why some sex scenes are given the deadly NC-17 (spoiler: the MPAA doesn't like gay sex and sex where the woman is enjoying it) and comparing the kinds of violence in films that are rated differently.

I remember one especially biting criticism from a comedian or filmmaker who basically argued that we have it backwards with the ratings for violent films, and instead should rate certain war movies so that younger people actually CAN see them, and rate other, "fantasy" violence higher so only adults who can discern the difference can see them.

I think the example was "Saving Private Ryan" which is rated R, but in this new scheme would be PG-13, because it depicts war realistically. The James Bond movies, which are PG-13 because they have no gore, should be rated R, because the violence in them is depicted unrealistically: with no consequences, with effortless skill on the part of the killer, and with clear cut "good and evil" roles. I'm sure I'm butchering this argument, but I found it to be an extremely compelling one, if a bit too optimistic that this would ever change.

In games, see the recent article on Jonathan Blow that was posted to HN, called "The Most Dangerous Gamer". There's definitely a related discussion among certain game makers about violence in games.

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#32

Post by zalew »

rmc wrote: post #21
AndrewDucker wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree regarding Google Play. Appstore is a threat because if you want software on your Apple phone then it is the only legal method. But with Android you can install software from any app store you like, or directly. Google provide an app store as a service, but it's only one of many.

Yes the fact that you can add extra apps is better than the 'our way or the highway' approach of the apple app store, but defaults matter . 99% of people think the play store/app store/android market is the only way to do it. You remove it from there, it's gone.

http://martingryner.com/on-alternative-android-app-stores/ "In first week, Number Game got about 360 downloads on Google Play. By that time, Number Game on SlideMe had been downloaded about 700 times…in 3 days. SlideMe is the number 1 source for Number Game downloads adding over 100 on better days. If you also happen to update your application and get to “updated” section, you could pick up as much in few hours. SlideMe has less applications than Google Play, but a huge user base. Also it has a decent review process (it didn’t take 2 eternities like Amazons) and the best developer interface. If I had to choose just one market to publish my apps on in the future it will be SlideMe, not Google Play."

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#34

Post by Drakim »

rmc wrote: post #21
AndrewDucker wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree regarding Google Play. Appstore is a threat because if you want software on your Apple phone then it is the only legal method. But with Android you can install software from any app store you like, or directly. Google provide an app store as a service, but it's only one of many.

Yes the fact that you can add extra apps is better than the 'our way or the highway' approach of the apple app store, but defaults matter . 99% of people think the play store/app store/android market is the only way to do it. You remove it from there, it's gone.

What matters more is the fact that if a family member of mine wants me to make a personalized app for their iPhone, it's not doable unless the great big Apple approves of the app. (or we jailbreak).

That's just ridiculous in so many ways. Even if you want to wall in your hardware to your own appstore, you should always provide SOME way of letting users install their own software, even if it's some hidden obscure option.

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#35

Post by plasma »

antirez wrote: post #5

The problem is that "app approval" does not scale well, for a very simple reason: it is hard. Applying guidelines like the ones Apple uses, requires a very skilled individual that is able to evaluate at the same time a set of rules in a flexible way, and really understand if the app is good for the apple store or not. You can do that if you have a team of 20. Finding 300 people doing this work very well is going to b…

I don't agree that its a super hard job and that's why this problem has occurred.

Surely the review team should hear the iKamasutra's concerns and realise that the app has been in use for years already, and that the sudden reason to reject it is confusing and obtuse.

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#36

Post by Drakim »

michh wrote: post #23
AndrewDucker wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree regarding Google Play. Appstore is a threat because if you want software on your Apple phone then it is the only legal method. But with Android you can install software from any app store you like, or directly. Google provide an app store as a service, but it's only one of many.

Until your carrier decides you don't need the ability to install non-market apps and disables the option. Oh, and the phone in question is not yet rooted. This is a matter of time if it isn't already happening. Google can do the open and free dance all it wants but with the carriers standing between you and Google...

If a carrier is being evil I can switch to another carrier though. And if enough people avoid carriers because they lock you in, they will take notice.

There is nothing like this for iPhone. You can't go to a different company than Apple to buy your iPhone on different terms.

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#37

Post by rkudeshi »

I'm not a fan of these sort of apps but from the pics provided, it seems to be made as tastefully as possible and without excessive "sexual allure" (ie. titillating apps made for 13-year-olds to download without their parents knowing).

(I'd say the 13 million "SALES" are also an indicator of quality but, Angry Birds aside, there's no way a number that high was all paid downloads.)

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#38

Post by zalew »

michh wrote: post #23
AndrewDucker wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree regarding Google Play. Appstore is a threat because if you want software on your Apple phone then it is the only legal method. But with Android you can install software from any app store you like, or directly. Google provide an app store as a service, but it's only one of many.

Until your carrier decides you don't need the ability to install non-market apps and disables the option. Oh, and the phone in question is not yet rooted. This is a matter of time if it isn't already happening. Google can do the open and free dance all it wants but with the carriers standing between you and Google...

I read all those horror stories about US carriers. Here in Poland my gf bought an Android and:

+ alternative markets option was on

+ no google apps at all (umm, maybe youtube was there), no gmail account setup, etc.

- some map/satnav crapware but nothing standing in the way

So... not everywhere in the world carriers are monopolized by GOOG. (and I'm not saying that maybe we dont' have some carriers who put google setup by default, I don't know)

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#39

Post by ErrantX »

plasma wrote: post #35
antirez wrote: post #5

The problem is that "app approval" does not scale well, for a very simple reason: it is hard. Applying guidelines like the ones Apple uses, requires a very skilled individual that is able to evaluate at the same time a set of rules in a flexible way, and really understand if the app is good for the apple store or not. You can do that if you have a team of 20. Finding 300 people doing this work very well is going to b…

I don't agree that its a super hard job and that's why this problem has occurred. Surely the review team should hear the iKamasutra's concerns and realise that the app has been in use for years already, and that the sudden reason to reject it is confusing and obtuse.

What you are saying boils down to "Surely it's obvious that...".

Of course, the problem there is that it's not obvious to a non-trivial number of people. Who apparently in this case work in Apple's review department.

The most obviously idiotic things often look perfectly sensible from "inside", or from a singular perspective.

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#40

Post by michh »

Drakim wrote: post #36
michh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until your carrier decides you don't need the ability to install non-market apps and disables the option. Oh, and the phone in question is not yet rooted. This is a matter of time if it isn't already happening. Google can do the open and free dance all it wants but with the carriers standing between you and Google...

If a carrier is being evil I can switch to another carrier though. And if enough people avoid carriers because they lock you in, they will take notice. There is nothing like this for iPhone. You can't go to a different company than Apple to buy your iPhone on different terms.

I'm rather skeptical of this. Perhaps because I live somewhere where there's only 3 different carriers and they all started capping mobile internet in the same month. And they all dramatically raised prices in the same month. Etc. For now, you're able to buy a vanilla Android phone from a third party, but what happens when carriers start to only allow IMEIs sold through them or their subsidiaries on their networks? Carriers have way too much power right now, partly because Google caved in and allowed them to butcher Android phones.

We need to be vigilant as a lot of consumers don't really care about these kinds of things.

Post reply on HN