And if we ever needed a textbook example of the evils of the kind of censorship Jobs wants...
Phazer
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
SJ and Ryan Tate go at it via email at 2AM!
- Thread starter derekamoss
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And if we ever needed a textbook example of the evils of the kind of censorship Jobs wants...
Phazer
A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
Microsoft began integrating its browser into its operating system. All of their competitors went bananas; loudest amongst them, Apple. They rightfully accused Microsoft of leveraging its success in one area (operating systems) to give it an unfair advantage in another area (web browsers).
Fast forward to the future and Apple has gained a respectable market share. Its design are beautiful and I bet it has a very healthy chunk of the tablet market with the iPad. Can it not be reasonably argued that Apple is now leveraging its success in one area (hardware) to give it an unfair advantage in another area (iTunes / AppStore)? Apple has made it next to impossible to use the iPad without using iTunes.
Some will retort, "You don't have to buy it if you don't like it" which really begs the question of whether Apple is placing their interests ahead of its customers'. There are plenty of people who are willing to sign their rights away for a slice of pizza but that doesn't make it ethical. If Apple was seriously interested in fairness, it would respect the doctrine of first sale and let buyers trade and re-sell e-books. It would let individuals and carriers decide whether the iPad could be tethered to the iPhone instead of requiring another monthly bill for mobile data use. It would stop charging $30-$50 for adapters to connect to proprietary or new connectors.
Apple doesn't care about fairness. Apple is rightfully focused on making money for its shareholders. It makes decisions based on that and that alone. I don't hate Apple. It makes stuff. Sometimes it makes very nice stuff. But I don't put Apple stickers on my car. I don't feel like a better person because I use a Macbook Pro. I'm not a Mac. I'm a person.
Ryan Tate's emails weren't particularly well worded, but I think I get what he meant. He was angry because he wanted Apple to care. I'm sure Steve Jobs thinks he does. But there's an old saying that I will paraphrase: "It's hard to see something when your wealth depends on you not seeing it."
Microsoft began integrating its browser into its operating system. All of their competitors went bananas; loudest amongst them, Apple. They rightfully accused Microsoft of leveraging its success in one area (operating systems) to give it an unfair advantage in another area (web browsers).
Fast forward to the future and Apple has gained a respectable market share. Its design are beautiful and I bet it has a very healthy chunk of the tablet market with the iPad. Can it not be reasonably argued that Apple is now leveraging its success in one area (hardware) to give it an unfair advantage in another area (iTunes / AppStore)? Apple has made it next to impossible to use the iPad without using iTunes.
Some will retort, "You don't have to buy it if you don't like it" which really begs the question of whether Apple is placing their interests ahead of its customers'. There are plenty of people who are willing to sign their rights away for a slice of pizza but that doesn't make it ethical. If Apple was seriously interested in fairness, it would respect the doctrine of first sale and let buyers trade and re-sell e-books. It would let individuals and carriers decide whether the iPad could be tethered to the iPhone instead of requiring another monthly bill for mobile data use. It would stop charging $30-$50 for adapters to connect to proprietary or new connectors.
Apple doesn't care about fairness. Apple is rightfully focused on making money for its shareholders. It makes decisions based on that and that alone. I don't hate Apple. It makes stuff. Sometimes it makes very nice stuff. But I don't put Apple stickers on my car. I don't feel like a better person because I use a Macbook Pro. I'm not a Mac. I'm a person.
Ryan Tate's emails weren't particularly well worded, but I think I get what he meant. He was angry because he wanted Apple to care. I'm sure Steve Jobs thinks he does. But there's an old saying that I will paraphrase: "It's hard to see something when your wealth depends on you not seeing it."
Well, the problem with your whole analogy is that he seemed to hint at having no flash is a good way to get rid of porn. Which I guess it is, maybe not pictures, but I doubt porn sites can play their video files in safari when youtube can't
. I agree that blocking all porn from AppStore is their own choice, and that might be good. But arguing that no flash is good because that will block some sexual content is just crazy. Why would porn even be bad?Yes they have a 'monopoly' over the distribution of apps to Blackberry's, Symbian, WM and the iPhone...oh wait only the iPhone, which has less then 20% of the smartphone market. If Apple want to restrict then it's their call - it's not Apple's fault that the rest of the mobile app stores stink - get real.
ipad vs laptop
I have done a bit of research...the least expensive laptop is $999,about $300 more than the most expensive ipad..spend a bit more $ and get something that WILL run flash.I however am eying the upcoming ADAM as my prospective tablet.
http://technabob.com/blog/2010/02/15/notion-ink-adam-price-specs-release-date/
Now ,That's a tablet !
I have done a bit of research...the least expensive laptop is $999,about $300 more than the most expensive ipad..spend a bit more $ and get something that WILL run flash.I however am eying the upcoming ADAM as my prospective tablet.
http://technabob.com/blog/2010/02/15/notion-ink-adam-price-specs-release-date/
Now ,That's a tablet !
Why all the hate on porn? (rant alert
Why?
Really, I just don't get it. What is so wrong with porn? I understand if you don't like it (just about) but what's wrong with it? I go to see blockbuster movies with the most pornographic violence and with mothers and kids watching and nobody cares. As soon as there's a bit of nudity everyone freaks out and gets uncomfortable. OK, I don't think sexual porn should be shown where it is easily accessible by children but I don't think it's going to corrupt them if they see something like that. They are either too young to understand what they are looking at or old enough to be curious. I think most people have experienced porn on some level before the legal age and it hasn't brought down society! I think kids are much more likely to form opinions and ideas from how adults react than to the actual material. I also think that violence is a much more likely to have a negative influence on a young mind as it is scary whereas sex is not. I'm not saying there should be no restrictions, cause I do, but I think that people's reaction is way too disproportionate against sexual content and virtually oblivious to violent content.
Getting back to the more specific topic of Steve Jobs no supporting porn. How's he doing that? OK, it's not his fault that you can view the hardest porn on the iPhone or iPad but he still allows 'bikini babes' and 'Playboy' apps. Yeah, they are the mildest form of porn but if they are their to provoke a sexual response (even a mild one) the message is still the same. Even when they did their clean up they still left the 'acceptable' porn like 'Playboy' apps and 'Hunky Guy washing a car' apps.
If the Victorians saw the kind of imagery that we have in out TV ads. they would probably faint. Likewise, in years to come we will probably have full nudity in ads. and people will look back on our prudish behaviour. I doubt if society will fall then either. You can always point to cases where some individual gets addicted to porn of whatever and becomes a monster but that is the cost of freedom. Queen Victoria said there would never be another death by an automobile but there are still thousands. Should we stop driving to save lives?
I think we have to take a step back and look at these things and see what is really immoral and what is just against our current morality.
Rant over...
Why?
Really, I just don't get it. What is so wrong with porn? I understand if you don't like it (just about) but what's wrong with it? I go to see blockbuster movies with the most pornographic violence and with mothers and kids watching and nobody cares. As soon as there's a bit of nudity everyone freaks out and gets uncomfortable. OK, I don't think sexual porn should be shown where it is easily accessible by children but I don't think it's going to corrupt them if they see something like that. They are either too young to understand what they are looking at or old enough to be curious. I think most people have experienced porn on some level before the legal age and it hasn't brought down society! I think kids are much more likely to form opinions and ideas from how adults react than to the actual material. I also think that violence is a much more likely to have a negative influence on a young mind as it is scary whereas sex is not. I'm not saying there should be no restrictions, cause I do, but I think that people's reaction is way too disproportionate against sexual content and virtually oblivious to violent content.
Getting back to the more specific topic of Steve Jobs no supporting porn. How's he doing that? OK, it's not his fault that you can view the hardest porn on the iPhone or iPad but he still allows 'bikini babes' and 'Playboy' apps. Yeah, they are the mildest form of porn but if they are their to provoke a sexual response (even a mild one) the message is still the same. Even when they did their clean up they still left the 'acceptable' porn like 'Playboy' apps and 'Hunky Guy washing a car' apps.
If the Victorians saw the kind of imagery that we have in out TV ads. they would probably faint. Likewise, in years to come we will probably have full nudity in ads. and people will look back on our prudish behaviour. I doubt if society will fall then either. You can always point to cases where some individual gets addicted to porn of whatever and becomes a monster but that is the cost of freedom. Queen Victoria said there would never be another death by an automobile but there are still thousands. Should we stop driving to save lives?
I think we have to take a step back and look at these things and see what is really immoral and what is just against our current morality.
Rant over...
Seriously?!
You just equated two men/women holding hands and kissing in public with showing hardcore pornography to young children?! I'm sensing you live a very sheltered life and spend alot of time worrying about how other people live. Being Gay/Lesbian is normal, and showing affection to each other is not a big deal. If being gay was only something you picked up from seeing others do it then why do straight people have gay children? Why do gay parents have mostly straight children (at the same rate as straight parents)?!
You just equated two men/women holding hands and kissing in public with showing hardcore pornography to young children?! I'm sensing you live a very sheltered life and spend alot of time worrying about how other people live. Being Gay/Lesbian is normal, and showing affection to each other is not a big deal. If being gay was only something you picked up from seeing others do it then why do straight people have gay children? Why do gay parents have mostly straight children (at the same rate as straight parents)?!
FTWSorry mate but you are using term monopoly in wrong context. US antitrust law prohibits monopoly and business practices relating anti competitive activities.
If consumer has no other option but to use a said product you have a monopoly in a context of antitrust law (law is only what matters when talking about monopoly). Lets say the only food available to certain region are McDonalds burgers then you have monopoly in your hands. Or as it was AT&T local telephone monopoly in 1980s. In these cases its seen as monopoly and said monopoly can lead to break-up such corporation.
Sigh.
Apple have an effective monopoly. I included a link to the legal definition of an effecitive monopoly. However much you might not want words to mean the things they actually do, that doesn't change anything.
One would note Apple have *already* been found guilty of monopoly abuse in Europe - they were found guilty of monopoly pricing abuse with the iTunes music store to the UK, back when iTunes music DRM meant that those songs would only play on iPods. The fact there were competing devices and other stores were irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant here. The only issue is market share.
Phazer
No. That can not "reasonably" be argued, though some apparently continue to try. Msft with roughly 90% market share had monopoly power. Aapl with a relatively small market share does not.
Well, the problem with your whole analogy is that he seemed to hint at having no flash is a good way to get rid of porn. Which I guess it is, maybe not pictures, but I doubt porn sites can play their video files in safari when youtube can't
SJ did write about abandoning Flash and he gave 7 reasons for it. All of them are about poor user experience and poor performance even on desktop computers and he was right about every single point. Most important being poor performance and proprietary technology.
Many porn apps written in Flash for Android and other platforms (including web apps) would need only to be recompiled for an iPad / iPhone, or left alone on the web to draw more poor victims in. Thus SJ was correct. App store and a myriad of websites would be bombarded with thousands of porn apps already available, but now ready for the iPhone / iPad, both as standalone apps or sneaking in through the browser plugin, ruining our user experience on a mobile device. And most importantly -- severely compromising security, because Flash is a Swiss cheese analogy of online security.
By making sure Flash apps won't come on the iPhone / iPad, Apple also reassures people that developers who write for iPhone / iPad also contribute to lessening the pressure of porn in our lives. It broadens our choice beyond porn and bad online security. Abandoning Flash altogether certainly helps that, at least for a while, until porn industry catches up with newer technologies. At least online security will be less compromised with open technologies for it will not depend on its weakest link -- Flash -- and its security flaws which exist only because it's a proprietary technology that doesn't catch up with time.
If you'd actually bothered to read those long winded paragraphs, you'd basically see I said exactly that. I don't think anyone should be able to force Apple to sell porn, just that their claim of not doing it to protect children is farcical fear mongering. Also note that only half of those long drawn out paragraphs were even concerned about porn, the second half focused on much more important issues.
Perhaps you should do a few Google searches and reading yourself. Economists across the board will tell you any day of the week that monopolies are never characterized only by market share.
Amazing to me that Apple haters like to speak out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand they pound on Apple for exploiting their "monopoly" to oppress the poor consumers who are being herded into the Apple store by default, and forced to reach into their back pockets to buy these freedom sapping, evil, mind-controlling devices.
On the other hand they rejoice that some very pointed statistics show that the Android has suddenly "eclipsed the iPhone in market share." Actually not even close to being accurate.
Which one do you want? Take your choice, but you can't have both.
Do yourself a favor. Don't buy Apple products. Go buy the alternatives that exist and will do your bidding. Or, if there are no alternatives, take Steve Job's advice to Mr. Tate: Go create, and stop bitching. Surely, if the market for your vision exists you will both become rich, and do humanity a great service, instead of coming off as a whiny wanker.
it is amazing to see people compare a company to a government. Fascist? Are you born in Apple's world?
Leading singularly? It's a company for crying out loud. Do you expect democracy in there somewhere? The employees voting?
No s**t? Same like you, huh?
So instead of shutting Flash and promoting HTML5, he should make a software that competes with Flash?
Or maybe you meant accept Flash and let it compete on Apple's mobile devices against HTML5? But then this will be in the hands of Adobe, which will generate a conflict of interest. Hmmmm....
Herd Mentality is Fascism!
What impels you to by apple products?
It is called vision.
I believe Jobs sees Apples products as ART, they carry a purpose.
Not To Abide To Shallowness/Herd Mentality.
Better is To Have Balls.
It is easier to sell people "proved" concepts instead of taking risk.
NO, he sells what he likes, he sells to Apple customers what he would like to buy from them.
What?
Herd mentality is Fascism.
Apple traced ITS own road, and it is paving it how Apple sees fit.
Why apple stands apart?
That is proper competition.
Fascism is hegemony, and apple exhales everything but hegemony!
What impels you to by apple products?
It is called vision.
I believe Jobs sees Apples products as ART, they carry a purpose.
Not To Abide To Shallowness/Herd Mentality.
Better is To Have Balls.
It is easier to sell people "proved" concepts instead of taking risk.
NO, he sells what he likes, he sells to Apple customers what he would like to buy from them.
He wages war on opposing technology to his values, shutting them out instead of competing side by side.
What?
Herd mentality is Fascism.
Apple traced ITS own road, and it is paving it how Apple sees fit.
Why apple stands apart?
That is proper competition.
Fascism is hegemony, and apple exhales everything but hegemony!
Given that your definition of an "effecitive" monopoly....is based purely on market share.
And taking into account the ..relatively small market share the iPhone has. Why do you think Apple has arrived at this monopoly position?
Is it the fault of Apple, the consumer or the incompetence of the competition?
C.
Well, the argument "no flash is good because there is no porn" is still stupid. And that is the argument he was using. He dug himself a deeper pit when he started doing the whole "you would understand if you had children" thing.
Watching sexual content is not bad, you do not turn into some sexually derranged person for doing so.
Aapl iPod/iTunes had @75% market share. Get back to us if iPhone/iPad market share ever gets anywhere near that high. Number of apps is irrelevant. Number of devices on which to install the apps is. BTW, you claimed that the porn industry is not exploitative. Provide a serious research citation for such an absurd claim.
If you want to get technical it is not him who have the burden of proof, it is you that need to provide research that backs up the claim that the whole porn industry is is exploitative.
Jobs made Apple what it is. He is the strategy. I would like to see the "others' work" without him to supervise it and sell it.
Agreed with the first sentence. Controlling the world? care to explain this nonsense?
Yes, worship him. One of America's most important companies? To whom? The chinese workers that make everything?
Apple is exerting a frightening amount of control of many different media - music, internet video, digital books, etc. It should be something people are concerned about, but the Steve worship continues.