Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship
hardware.substack.com
Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship
1–10 of 305 posts
Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship
#2Saying that Apple banned Epic for "fighting back" is definitely twisting the truth a bit. Epic released a behind-the-scenes software update in direct contravention of the App Store rules, which they knew was going to get them banned.
Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship
#3Saying that Apple banned Epic for "fighting back" is definitely twisting the truth a bit. Epic released a behind-the-scenes software update in direct contravention of the App Store rules, which they knew was going to get them banned.
I would consider Epic's action the corporate equivalent of civil disobedience, which is a form of protest. Fighting back seems an apt description for such a protest.
Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship
#4Saying that Apple banned Epic for "fighting back" is definitely twisting the truth a bit. Epic released a behind-the-scenes software update in direct contravention of the App Store rules, which they knew was going to get them banned.
I would consider Epic's action the corporate equivalent of civil disobedience , which is a form of protest. Fighting back seems an apt description for such a protest.
I agree. While it is all still playing out, it does appear Epic made a mark on things sufficient to change the discussion.
Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship
#5Framing your technology choices as a romance might not be the healthiest lens to make decisions through in the first place.
Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship
#6Framing your technology choices as a romance might not be the healthiest lens to make decisions through in the first place.
Sir, this is hackernews.
Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship
#7Saying that Apple banned Epic for "fighting back" is definitely twisting the truth a bit. Epic released a behind-the-scenes software update in direct contravention of the App Store rules, which they knew was going to get them banned.
I would consider Epic's action the corporate equivalent of civil disobedience , which is a form of protest. Fighting back seems an apt description for such a protest.
It’s like civil disobedience but it’s backed by profit motive rather than human rights. That makes it much less of a clear cut moral victory.
During these discussions a lot of people on HN have come forward and expressed their support for Apple’s walled garden. They like that Apple keeps malware out. Should Epic win and the iPhone be fixed wide open, that could change the situation dramatically.
Of course, I think Epic would be happy if they won a special exemption for their own marketplace but with the status quo remaining for everyone else.
Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would consider Epic's action the corporate equivalent of civil disobedience , which is a form of protest. Fighting back seems an apt description for such a protest.
It’s like civil disobedience but it’s backed by profit motive rather than human rights. That makes it much less of a clear cut moral victory. During these discussions a lot of people on HN have come forward and expressed their support for Apple’s walled garden. They like that Apple keeps malware out. Should Epic win and the iPhone be fixed wide open, that could change the situation dramatically. Of course, I think Ep…
Civil disobedience is not by definition limited to specific causes such as human rights. Many actions during union strikes (e.g. not respecting a back-to-work legislation or picketing on company property) would fit the definition too, even if the only reason for the strike is disagreement over remuneration, i.e. profit motive. In fact, the Wikipedia article for civil disobedience has a picture of a union member on strike about to be arrested.
Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship
#9Saying that Apple banned Epic for "fighting back" is definitely twisting the truth a bit. Epic released a behind-the-scenes software update in direct contravention of the App Store rules, which they knew was going to get them banned.
My layman understanding was Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court (to demonstrate damages or whatever). That's not quite the same as (covertly) breaching your contract hoping you get away without getting caught, which is the impression you're giving.
Assuming that's accurate, then I'm not sure what else one would expect them to do—not do something that gets them banned, then have their case thrown out immediately because they can't (say) demonstrate damages? Did they have any other realistic options besides just shutting up and putting up with the situation (which they have been doing this whole time)?
Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship
#10This all comes down to the statement near the end: "I believe Apple should simply refuse to cooperate with oppressive governments"
Which is another way of saying "I believe Apple should either not operate in certain countries, or should try to operate in those countries in defiance of the laws of those countries."
The beef is primarily with the government. Companies are stuck in the middle -- either operate in compliance with local laws (even if they believe those laws are wrong) or don't operate there at all (since the third option of operating in contravention of local laws doesn't usually last long, and has painful consequences).
It would be interesting to know what the people who live in the countries think -- would they prefer not to have Apple products (or any other company's products) unavailable to them?