Apple Cracking Down on "Cookie Cutter" App Store Applications?

[cmaier]

I think you interpreted my post too narrowly. Censorship is good in many situations. I don't let my two year old watch horror movies. Prevention of the publication of illegal images and documents.

What you do with your son is not censorship. And stating that it is good to censor "illegal" images and documents is circular logic. Governments always declare as "illegal" the ideas that they want to censor. They don't censor "legal images and documents."

Censorship is never a good thing. The dissemination of ideas is a good thing, and the marketplace of ideas will weed out the bad ideas. If the marketplace of ideas cannot squash out an idea that you think is bad, then it's because enough people like the idea. Absent national security considerations, the government has no business being in the "you can read this but not that" business (even obscenity laws have essentially faded away after a long string of narrowing supreme court decisions - what's left is usually to protect the people depicted/victimized, not to prevent the spread of the idea).

 

[WilliamLondon]

While this sounds good, it's just another form of control.
Control is a slippery slope

Next step is totalitarianism, by that logic.

Your logic fails to do anything other than attempt to incite people.

Sadly, it works on those hell bent on accepting all baseless claims because they never question anything but believe all sound bites actually mean something.

Reduce a position to 10 words or less and 1/2 the population (or more) will devour it with glee, and never realise they've just gorged themselves at the most magnificent feast where all the dishes served were nothing. Yum, yum!

I for one am thrilled to know that Apple will be pruning that overgrown thicket which too many cats use as their litter box.

 

[DaveSW]

That news is just another reason not to write software for Apple's iGadgets.

For those who haven't read it yet, I think Paul Graham's essay "Apple's mistake" is a must-read on the topic:

http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html


Censorship and no competition are never a good thing, no matter how much you guys love Apple.

Censorship? i'll give you censorship.

Despite Tough Talk, Google Still Censoring in China

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_still_censoring_in_china.php


FOUR years of Google censorship in China. Who's evil now?

 

[distortedloop]

Isn't Mint.com's iPhone app something that does nothing more than duplicate web-content? I'll wager this is one of the more popular apps out there, but it does nothing, I mean really, NOTHING that couldn't be duplicated with a well-written iPhone-friendly web page. Well, okay, maybe it stores some info offline...is that all a less high-profile app developer would have to do to avoid the axe?

I can just imagine the howling if that one gets banned as part of Apple's latest shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach to the App Store.

 

[opticalserenity]

Thank goodness finally apps like the super long in the tooth Bank of America app will get a redesign... I hope.

 

[BaldiMac]

What you do with your son is not censorship.

Why not?

And stating that it is good to censor "illegal" images and documents is circular logic. Governments always declare as "illegal" the ideas that they want to censor. They don't censor "legal images and documents."

Censorship is never a good thing. The dissemination of ideas is a good thing, and the marketplace of ideas will weed out the bad ideas. If the marketplace of ideas cannot squash out an idea that you think is bad, then it's because enough people like the idea. Absent national security considerations, the government has no business being in the "you can read this but not that" business (even obscenity laws have essentially faded away after a long string of narrowing supreme court decisions - what's left is usually to protect the people depicted/victimized, not to prevent the spread of the idea).

So, censorship is good to protect the people depicted/victimized? You also seem to be implying that it is good for national security considerations.

 

[RalfTheDog]

Isn't Mint.com's iPhone app something that does nothing more than duplicate web-content? I'll wager this is one of the more popular apps out there, but it does nothing, I mean really, NOTHING that couldn't be duplicated with a well-written iPhone-friendly web page. Well, okay, maybe it stores some info offline...is that all a less high-profile app developer would have to do to avoid the axe?

I can just imagine the howling if that one gets banned as part of Apple's latest shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach to the App Store.

You can do that server side with PHP/SQL. If you want, you can even drop the SQL.

There is very little you can do with a computer that you can't do with a web page. If you use HTML 5 and Java, the list of stuff you can't do gets even smaller. I hope this turns out to be more about quality and less about the way stuff gets done.

 

[mags631]

Censorship is never a good thing. The dissemination of ideas is a good thing, and the marketplace of ideas will weed out the bad ideas. If the marketplace of ideas cannot squash out an idea that you think is bad, then it's because enough people like the idea. Absent national security considerations, the government has no business being in the "you can read this but not that" business (even obscenity laws have essentially faded away after a long string of narrowing supreme court decisions - what's left is usually to protect the people depicted/victimized, not to prevent the spread of the idea).

What about material that is a result of illicit or illegal behavior, like child pornography? If someone releases that into the public domain, do you think the marketplace of ideas should determine how acceptable it is to the viewing public?

I know that this example is a little unfair, but I take issue with "never" in some contexts. It seems that government censorship should be very rare, but I don't think "never" is reasonable, since it appears some information can lead to great harm.

 

[cmaier]

Why not?



So, censorship is good to protect the people depicted/victimized? You also seem to be implying that it is good for national security considerations.

"why not?" - censorship prevents the publication of ideas. In your case the ideas are published, you just choose not to listen. (You also make that choice for your 2 year old, who is incapable of choosing on his own).

When you illegalize child porn or snuff films (for example) you are not censoring the ideas - you are preventing the underlying act.

As for national security, I happen to believe that if the press gets a hold of something it should be allowed to publish it if it decides that the public's right to know is the greater factor (Pentagon Papers). The government, unsurprisingly disagrees.

 

[mags631]

"why not?" - censorship prevents the publication of ideas. In your case the ideas are published, you just choose not to listen. (You also make that choice for your 2 year old, who is incapable of choosing on his own).

When you illegalize child porn or snuff films (for example) you are not censoring the ideas - you are preventing the underlying act.

So criminalizing the production of information is not censorship, but preventing the publication of it is? It seems like preventing the actual production of information is a harsher form of censorship.

As for national security, I happen to believe that if the press gets a hold of something it should be allowed to publish it if it decides that the public's right to know is the greater factor (Pentagon Papers). The government, unsurprisingly disagrees.

Yes -- like the identity of a child victim...

 

[cmaier]

So criminalizing the production of information is not censorship, but preventing the publication of it is? It seems like preventing the actual production of information is a harsher form of censorship.



Yes -- like the identity of a child victim...

Re your second point - strawman. I was talking about national security, as you know. And I also pointed out that the press needs to balance the public's right to know.

Re your first point - I assume you are not arguing that making murder and child abuse illegal is censorship. Censorship is preventing someone from saying that they like young girls or that someone deserves to die - preventing the communication of ideas, even if reprehensible. There is nothing hypocritical about distinguishing the right to communicate an idea from the right to perform actions embodying those ideas.

This whole discussion is completely off-topic, of course.

 

[RalfTheDog]

Re your second point - strawman. I was talking about national security, as you know. And I also pointed out that the press needs to balance the public's right to know.

Re your first point - I assume you are not arguing that making murder and child abuse illegal is censorship. Censorship is preventing someone from saying that they like young girls or that someone deserves to die - preventing the communication of ideas, even if reprehensible. There is nothing hypocritical about distinguishing the right to communicate an idea from the right to perform actions embodying those ideas.

This whole discussion is completely off-topic, of course.

What if I were to say, If you don't kill this person, you will burn in the deepest darkest pits of Redmond Washington? How about slander? What about intentionally bad advice that leads to people getting killed? What if I told someone to buy a Windows computer?

 

[mags631]

Re your second point - strawman. I was talking about national security, as you know. And I also pointed out that the press needs to balance the public's right to know.

Re your first point - I assume you are not arguing that making murder and child abuse illegal is censorship. Censorship is preventing someone from saying that they like young girls or that someone deserves to die - preventing the communication of ideas, even if reprehensible. There is nothing hypocritical about distinguishing the right to communicate an idea from the right to perform actions embodying those ideas.

This whole discussion is completely off-topic, of course.

True off topic -- sorry, interesting debate.

Second point, correct -- although I think there are arguments which exposes how hard it is to create simple rules for when something is ok or not. Also, I question the press's ability to decide when it's in the public's best interest or not.

First point. You talked about illegalizing the film... with the assumption that makes the underlying act illegal. I took issue with the different between creating the film and publishing it. I think we agree that the underlying act is what should be rendered illegal first and foremost.

I'll stop here -- thanks for the great discussion, though.

 

[cmaier]

What if I were to say, If you don't kill this person, you will burn in the deepest darkest pits of Redmond Washington? How about slander? What about intentionally bad advice that leads to people getting killed? What if I told someone to buy a Windows computer?

In the U.S., none of those things can be censored - you can publish or say all of those things, and, as appropriate, you will be punished after the fact. Censorship refers to "prior restraint" - in other words, prevention of the dissemination of the idea. In each of the cases you mentioned, the idea has been disseminated.

 

[RalfTheDog]

In the U.S., none of those things can be censored - you can publish or say all of those things, and, as appropriate, you will be punished after the fact. Censorship refers to "prior restraint" - in other words, prevention of the dissemination of the idea. In each of the cases you mentioned, the idea has been disseminated.

If you rob a bank, you will be punished after the fact.

 

[BaldiMac]

"why not?" - censorship prevents the publication of ideas.

That is one definition. It is not the only definition.

In your case the ideas are published, you just choose not to listen. (You also make that choice for your 2 year old, who is incapable of choosing on his own).

I am still censoring the ideas, regardless of my son's competence.

When you illegalize child porn or snuff films (for example) you are not censoring the ideas - you are preventing the underlying act.

Now, you are just confusing your own definition.

As for national security, I happen to believe that if the press gets a hold of something it should be allowed to publish it if it decides that the public's right to know is the greater factor (Pentagon Papers). The government, unsurprisingly disagrees.

That's fine. But do you at least acknowledge the possibility of good coming out of the censorship for national security considerations in some cases?

 

[cmaier]

But do you at least acknowledge the possibility of good coming out of the censorship for national security considerations in some cases?

To the extent the censorship lasts for more than a matter of months, no I do not.

 

[godslabrat]

One possible way of making sure that useful apps don't get culled would be to only scrutinize apps that are rated two stars or less.

 

[BaldiMac]

To the extent the censorship lasts for more than a matter of months, no I do not.

So, censorship can be good in cases of national security if it does not last for more than a matter of months?

 

[cmaier]

One possible way of making sure that useful apps don't get culled would be to only scrutinize apps that are rated two stars or less.

It would be nice if the ratings system was augmented. It would help both in determining app store placement, standard of review for particular developers, and in finding content.

Something like changing it to a 1-10 rating, and breaking it down into: functionality, suitability for purpose, stability, developer responsiveness, etc.

 

[AwakenedLands]

I like Apple Computers. My macbook pro is awesome. I don't dig the iPhone's closed system nor do I like the App store's rules and the fact they can change at any time.

I refuse to use the App store because Apple can change the rules whenever they want (use as in develop or buy off it). If they wanted to increase fees, there's nothing you can do about it. If they decide the app you spent 6 months developing doesn't fit, you can't make up the lost time. If your app is insanely awesome and useful and Apple decides to copy your idea and force you out of the market, you really have no recourse. The fact they won't allow a gmail or google voice app is seems petty to me.

Every industry that relies on one company to make the rules will have controversy and complaints along the way, and unneeded stress for those who rely upon it to make an income. Apple is in it for the money, and to protect their best interests... not yours. I had to deal with this with the cellular companies before they eventually phased out their mom-and-pop wireless store programs, and won't be fooled into another industry like it.

And let's face it, there is no competitor for app purchases on an iPhone. There is no other company out there that has a store for iPhone apps because Apple will not allow it (the unlocked iPhone apps do compete, but they are against the rules). It sort of reminds me of the Internet Explorer antitrust case. It's not exactly the same, but eventually I feel it will have legal issues. The US government doesn't like it when one company has such a stranglehold on a large industry, even if they create that industry themselves.

Eventually I hope Apple opens their iPhone up, but until then I'll stick to something more open sourced. I dumped my iPhone and have a Droid now, and I seriously like it more. I could care less that it ONLY has 10k apps compared to 200K. I only use 7, and they are excellent.

 

[RalfTheDog]

It would be nice if the ratings system was augmented. It would help both in determining app store placement, standard of review for particular developers, and in finding content.

Something like changing it to a 1-10 rating, and breaking it down into: functionality, suitability for purpose, stability, developer responsiveness, etc.

Ratings systems are also good for finding out how many alts the writer has and how many homeless people the author can pay to post a review.

"Post a review on one of our products and receive 25 in-game credits."

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

I wonder if all these apps that they are removing will also be removed from the download statistics as well. The ones they like to shout about to convince us that everything is going swimmingly.

 

[BaldiMac]

I wonder if all these apps that they are removing will also be removed from the download statistics as well.

Why would they do that?

The ones they like to shout about to convince us that everything is going swimmingly.

Are you implying that it's all just smoke and mirrors?

 

[RalfTheDog]

I wonder if all these apps that they are removing will also be removed from the download statistics as well. The ones they like to shout about to convince us that everything is going swimmingly.

If they deleted the statistics for the bottom performing 20% that would be what? 16 downloads?