IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes • Hacker News Board

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#81

Post by india » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 2:06 PM UTC

cageface wrote: post #72

Drakim wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 opti…

This is actually not true. You can create a new "ad-doc" provisioning profile and install it on your friend's/family's phones and they can install the app manually through iTunes or via a service like Testflight.

You have to pay apple 100 USD per annum for this privilege and despite that the app once installed will become unusable within the year.

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#82

Post by glenra » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 2:07 PM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #60

triblib wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But like any big organization, there are likely idiosyncrasies that have bubbled and been allowed to continue just because, "that's the way things are." For example, the whole iphone4 antenna thing was surely seen by many people...but it's likely that someone at top said, "It's passable" and everyone else on the team learned to just accept it. Just because lots of people recognize a big problem doesn't mean that all…

The Apple antenna happened because Johnny Ives and Steve Jobs loved the design look and feel of the metal around the edge of the phone, and told the engineers to make it happen. Unfortunately, this time hey couldn't bend the laws of physics. I suggest looking up "Steve's Folly"...

There was nothing wrong with the Apple antenna. It was a perception issue, not a flaw. People kept buying that phones even after Apple stopped giving away the free cases and people kept giving it a higher customer satisfaction rating than any other phone on the planet at the time...because the benefits of the new design generally outweighed the costs - it was a good design given the constraints faced at the time.

> I suggest looking up "Steve's Folly"

Which turns out to be a rant about Adobe Flash for Mobile, which even Adobe has since given up on.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/11/adobe-reportedly...

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2012/02/adobe-confirms-n...

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#83

Post by blindhippo » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 2:10 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #15

Are we all going nuts nowadays? Really, to remove a product from your store (which also happens to be a monopolistic sales channel) after it was there for years and recieved several updates since without any dialog with the producer of the product is bad style, really bad style. Especially if the producer is willing to change the product to fit your requirements. Some time ago almost everyone agreed that Nokia failed…

Sadly, developers are stuck with Apple being our app approval overlord - and Apple knows it.

There really isn't any competition in the app "market" because Apple is far too big to really allow for it. Any and all of these smart phone platforms need to be legislated to provide opportunity for different store fronts beyond the platform provider.

Apple really is the 21st century Microsoft.

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#84

Post by blindhippo » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 2:14 PM UTC

alastairpat wrote: post #47

Unless the title of the blog post has been changed since submission to HN, why the editorialised title? Edit: I've since learnt that that is actually the title of the post. It still seems kind of sensationalist none-the-less.

Well, their product has been unjustly removed from both Google and Apple stores. I'm surprised the blog post isn't filled with more negativity towards both companies - the "sensationalist" title suits the content and tone perfectly.

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#85

Post by pixelcort » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 2:15 PM UTC

There's a technological solution to situations like these: make a full screen, offline capable, mobile web app.

Discovery and charging for your mobile web app or for content within it may be challenging for the foreseeable future, but hopefully not forever.

Another issue is feature parity with native SDKs, which seems to be very slowly narrowing each year.

Ability to produce performant apps is another area with very slow but greater than zero progression.

For games, sure, go native and take advantage of the store discovery and payment platforms, access to all the APIs, and performance.

For other kinds of apps like these, maybe mobile web apps are a better idea.

Edit: clarification.

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#86

Post by scythe » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 2:18 PM UTC

zalew wrote: post #32

rmc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Sli…

So the only reason it's not a problem is that it doesn't work?

"Your Honor, yes, I shot at him, but I missed!"

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#87

Post by gcheong » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 2:19 PM UTC

There really needs to be a way to sell outside of the apple appstore without needing to jailbreak of your device. If the DOJ can sue Apple and the book publishers over an apparent attempt to destroy competition in the retail market, why wouldn't they be interested in how Apple is destroying developers' ability to freely publish apps and consumers to have choices besides Apple in the marketplace? How do we start a campaign to get them to look into this? Has anyone tried to file a suit of any kind to address this problem to date?

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#88

Post by blahedo » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 2:22 PM UTC

cubicle67 wrote: post #69

netcan wrote: post #54

slightly off topic. Today I realized that my 3g plan is censoring adult content. I also listened to a podcaster talk about renaming his podcast "talkings hit" to get passed the itunes criteria. The paper had some silly fluff article about Facebook and breastfeeding pictures. Youtube is stricter than TV on nudity (and laxer on violence). These were all little corners of the internet up until recently and it seemed all…

Youtube is stricter than TV on nudity except for stuff like this (very NSFW just after the 8 minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjRExyIBNM which somehow is still there [Edit - it's Penn & Teller on Taxes, part 3]

With only 3,000 viewers so far, perhaps it's just nobody's complained yet?

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#89

Post by spacemanaki » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 2:23 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #73

spacemanaki wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 diffe…

The first scene in Saving Private Ryan was realistic. Everything after it was very unrealistic, with experienced German troops running into gunfire in the open like lemmings. I remember one veteran who was angry because it insulted both armies - it made the Germans look incompetant when they weren't, which in turn trivialised the incredible effort it took to defeat them.

Actually, I have to admit that I haven't seen that film and know little about it. I tried to dig up the exact quote from "This Film Is Not yet Rated" but couldn't find it, so I may have misremembered it.

But the underlying point still stands, even if that film is not a great example. Depictions of war should probably be treated be differently than the kind of over-the-top violence in most action movies that I can only describe as fantasy. Yet the ratings board seems not to take that into account, and just counts splatters of blood in a way that's taken out of context.

Re: IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

#90

Post by biafra » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 2:23 PM UTC

Drakim wrote: post #34

rmc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 opti…

It is possible (without jailbreaking) with an enterprise certificate.

But I agree, its ridiculous that you need the manufacturers approval to deploy software _you_ have written on a device _you_ have bought and paid in full.