Poll: Do You Have A Problem With This Statement

The final question is a bit confusing! (at least it is to me...)

much better already! Interesting question by the way.

Full disclosure of terms is a must I think, and a very rigorous process should be in place to handle these situations.

I firmly believe that even though the app store is clearly apples creation with great power comes great responsibility.

And when companies do not live up to their responsibilities (I think Apple has proven beyond reasonable doubt that they act in an arbitrary way) then they ought to be forced to do so.

People build their businesses on top of the Iphone app store ecosystem and they should have a reasonable expectation that their investment is not subject to some arbitrary action of Apple.

If Apple does not want that kind of oversight they have a simple solution available to them: Open up the app store for everybody and drop the review process other than to look for stuff that I would loosely class as 'malware'.

If your application is merely stupid, trivial or has been done a million times already that should not disqualify you. Even 'disgusting' stuff should be possible, who is apple to define what is disgusting and what is not.

As long as applications stay within the law there should be room for them in the App store, the only thing Apple could do to protect its brand in this respect is to categorize the applications or to cut the app store loose from the mother ship.

They're in a tight spot on this one, damned if they do and damned if they don't. The 'apple knows best' strategy is backfiring big time.

Couldn't you just ask "would you agree"? Mabye it's confusing because you are making statement like if you were going to ask "would you agree", but then ask a question expecting opposite answer (if you were going to agree, you have to say "no, I don't have a problem"). And I think there is no real difference between saying I agree and I don't have a problem with that.

Not really, he's showing that the government already has 'full disclosure' rules for some industries and suggests that the digital world might benefit from that same principle.

You could easily trivialize this by suggesting that the food supply is a critical resource, but if a company gets large enough to employ a bunch of people living in Apples 'eco-system' and Apple decides to pull the plug the results for those people are quite comparable to eating something bad. In both cases there are people that have no way of knowing what is going on 'under water' whose health and well being depends on being informed.

To ask for that information is the only right thing to do.

Consumers don't have the power to bend a large corporation to their will, but the government can do that.

I understand your point. But very simply, that is not what Capitalism entails. Capitalism is like biology's natural selection. You don't arbitrarily go determining rules of engagement and codes of conduct within the animal kingdom, so as to even things out. Why? Because those things are taken care of naturally.

I'm not saying I know what's best for anyone. Rather, it's just not the American/Capitalistic way. And Americans, they like their Capitalism.