SJ and Ryan Tate go at it via email at 2AM!

[Atkins]

It's pretty sad how people defend a faceless company. SnowLeopard, Steve Jobs does not love you, nor does anyone at Apple. You are simply a consumer.

I think people are admiring Jobs, not the faceless company. Nothing sad about that. And you don't need someone's love to admire him.

What have you done that allows you to critique Ryan? He is a journalist. You are in high school.

A journalist? I hardly see a journalist there. What has Ryan done to be without critic?

Ryan made some good points, while you may not agree with them it's not like his statements were out of left field. How about instead of attacking his character and crying about how he may have offended Steve Jobs and Apple, you should discuss his points and why you think he's wrong.

Well he do offended Jobs many times. let's check his "valid" points:

-revolution is about freedom - last I checked revolution is about change

-"so why not? Just because Adobe tried to **** you guys in the late 90s? It's not a question of pure Coca vs Flash cross compile. It's a question of weak content in an approved wrapper vs. something interactive that happens to be cross compiled by Adobe."
Note the "****" and "pure Coca" - offensive language. And what exactly is his point here?

- freedom from porn - use the browser

- why should the content providers waste efforts on porting? - if they care, they will, Apple is not here to make their life easy

- "****** apps" - offensive language, what is his point?

- "Apple will **** us (...) like it's ****ed so many others..." - offensive language and who did Apple **** so much?

- "old revenge power ********" - offensive language and his point is... non-existent.

Instead all of his (Jobs') emails are just plain rude. What a queen.

His emails are rude and you are defending the blogger with the offensive language?

 

[Ochyandkaren]

That's just your view. Not all of us agree.


Who exactly is being exploited? Your eyeballs?


I've looked at this part a few times and I honestly don't think it means what you think it means. In fact I'm not sure it actually means anything at all.


To you pornography reminds you of humanities lowest qualities. To me it's a petty complaint by busy bodies with a questionable moral compass. It's not that I think porn is such a great wonderful thing, but is it really the lowest level of human depravity? Hardly. If you got out of the house more and read up on real news you might find that there are far worse things in the world than legal porn. Go out and fight a truly moralistic battle and I'll back you up, but fighting porn is so low on the list of human ills that I can't take it seriously. Not with all of the actual suffering still going on today.

We are talking about KIDs here.
You still can put porn into your iPhone or iPod!

It is about the kids!
Can anyone prohibit porn to an adult?

C'mon!

 

[mccldwll]

The funny thing is, that in countries with the most porn. The most liberal standards, and the most relaxed attitudes to pornography, the equality of women, their rights, the equality of pay and so on ... is all *more* equal.

And those countries which have a complete and total ban, are the ones with the worst record of domestic violence, female infanticide and so on.

Correlation is not causation etc. But it is an interesting correlation no?

It's not hard to find the statistics to validate this.

C.

There's no question that the American culture is screwed up when it comes to porn/sex, and that legalization, equal rights and unionization in many countries has improved the situation. But that by no means suggests that for many it is not an exploitative industry. And it's difficult if not impossible to separate the exploitative from the non-exploitative, as far as app approval/content accessed through apps goes. So unless someone comes up with a UL or Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval or the like for porn, it's going to be tainted by the fact that for some it's exploitative. And that's a good business reason for aapl not to partner with developers of such apps.

 

[Noodlefarmer]

>>Or I could get my elected representatives to look at legal action to prevent Apple breaking the law. And am doing that.

Phazer>>

Yeah, you do that. How's that European Union thing working out for you lately?

 

[The Phazer]

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.

Broadly I believe it's a combination of first mover advantage, a broken patent system providing Apple with multi-touch systems that they were able to buy up and a build up of financial reserves to buy marketing that were accrued by other anti-competitive behaviour such as Apple's already demonstrated monopoly pricing abuse in the music distribution market which they were already found guilty of and not suitably punished.

I do not expect Apple's monopoly to last, just as Microsoft's didn't, even without action. But it exists at present.

Phazer

 

[Carniphage]

That is true.

But remember for example look at Saudi Arabia, NOT public doesn't mean absent?
Prostitution is rampant in that country, but kissing in public is punished!

Which supports my argument.
As far as I can see, exploitation occurs less frequently in places with a tolerant and open attitudes to sex and relationships.

What Jobs did say (and i think you'll concur) is protecting children from porn (you may say that that is parents job. But it denotes a concern any parent would like others to have toward their child), Not the groin up.

I don't disagree with Job's stance much at all. A company is free to sell what it wants.

I would prefer that he called this "protection" from pornography. Rather than the rather than use the ill-chosen "freedom" word.

I personally would prefer the App store to offer classification rather than censorship. I think there is a possibility we will see that in time.

C.

 

[Atkins]

People around here seem to not care that Apple contracts with companies with such horrible conditions that their employees are constantly trying to kill themselves. Heaven forbid someone who works for Gawker send Steve Jobs some angry emails!
It really puts into perspective how warped the minds are around here.

People do care. But why don't we put in perspective the Apple company amidst the others. They are doing pretty well. And let's not forget that the only two things that Apple can do are:
A. Put pressure - most of the time not enough, it depends on the country where they are
B. Stop working with them - bad choice for everyone

 

[Goldfinger]

Fashion magazine publishers now call the Apple editions of their publications the "Iran Version" due to need to create less risque versions acceptable by Apple's moral standards.

THIS.

This is the big issue. Not the porn, you don't use a "porn app" on your desktop or laptop either. You just use your browser. The iPad and iPod/Phone have a browser, so you can use that to find and watch porn. So why would you even need apps for that. It's irrelevant.

But the censoring of things that are not even close to porn is really scary and even sad.
I don't even understand why they're doing it. Is it the sad "think of the children" rationel ? Your and my kids can easily buy any magazine with lots of tits in it or go on the internet and find some. It's up to the parents to teach them what's allowed and not allowed. End of story. You can't "protect" your children from everything, it's not even good for them! Kids need to learn stuff, both good and bad. Oh and nudity isn't "bad".

Pushing prude american moral on editorial content is a very big no no. I'm a huge Apple fanboy but this is 10 steps too far IMHO.

 

[MacPhilosopher]

I do understand, that it takes such a "boiled patato," not to be able to figure out that porn is NOT the issue here.

How does allowing Adobe's cross-compiler, or banning Flash and Java, safeguard us from "porn," or from "applications which steal your information?" Cutting off access to the internet will be more efficient, no?

You are right, it doesn't. Porn is a different issue than flash, et al. Banning adobe flash protects us from crashes, short battery life, etc. Btw, when did they ban java?

 

[macbookpro13]

God, this thread is so freaking retarded. How many times is some fool going to come up and say that Apple is "wrong" to decide what is or isn't sold in THEIR OWN DAMN STORE?

Simple question: are you people just as offended that Sony, MS, and Nintendo don't allow porn games to be sold on their consoles? Or that they don't allow porn to be sold on their online video stores? Because this is the same damn situation with Apple and the app store.

Does it also offend you that Best Buy, Wal Mart, Target, etc. also CHOOSE not to sell porn? Are you outraged that these companies refuse to be part of the porn business? Because you should be if you don't want to look like blatant hypocrites.

 

[Ochyandkaren]

Which supports my argument.
As far as I can see, exploitation occurs less frequently in places with a tolerant and open attitudes to sex and relationships.



I don't disagree with Job's stance much at all. A company is free to sell what it wants.

I would prefer that he called this "protection" from pornography. Rather than the rather than use the ill-chosen "freedom" word.

I personally would prefer the App store to offer classification rather than censorship. I think there is a possibility we will see that in time.

C.

I agree, pardon my bad English.

 

[MacPhilosopher]

it doesn't, but that debate got old fast. the true gem here is that steve jobs is against porn... not only is he against porn, but he's against porn because he's a concerned parent. LOL, i'm still laughing about that.

seems to me like daddy steve may have missed too many birthday parties because of work and now gets confused between his real kids and his customers.

He isn't stopping anyone from viewing porn. He is just not allowing porn apps to be sold from the iTunes store.

 

[Atkins]

"And you might care about porn when you have kids..."
An assumption made to belittle Ryan.

Or an assumption you make? Sounds very normal to me.

"Gosh, why are you so bitter [...]?"
Steve Jobs, being a professional gentleman (as if that's a title)

He is pretty bitter, when you look at the words and arguments used.

"You are so misinformed. [...] You're believing erroneous blogger reports."
Belittling the enemy. Ryan is likely very informed on what happened with Jason Chen.

He is informed? Didn't transpire in his:
"...Apple's pet police force literally kicking in my coworkers' door...."

"By the way, what have you done that's so great? Do you create anything, or just criticize others [sic] work and belittle their motives?"

Oh, after all that bashing and relentless criticizing Jobs got tired? Wow.

To suggest that people cannot criticize because they haven't created as great of a product as those they critique is criminal. To even suggest someone cannot speak their mind, because it is critical of someone who has made more is morally apprehensible.

When the critics are impolite, bashful and don't make valid points, yes, better to shut up. Ryan himself admits he was flaming.

 

[mccldwll]

Well, classifying it as a side-benefit would still need for porn to be bad, and that it is not. Some people might not like it, some might think it is bad, but that doesn't make it right. Hell, some might even believe "porn is the work of the devil!", but they are just plain stupid.

Porn does not have to be "bad" per se for parents of younger kids to see it's absence as a side benefit. They may love it personally but not want such apps on the family room iPad. It's a business decision aapl has every right to make. And if it's really that bad a decision, it provides a huge opportunity for competitors to provide that content. If anything, it promotes competition and free markets.

 

[CactusHawk]

What?

Recently the App Store started to get flooded with all kinds of apps with topless girls, to the point that several of the top 10 lists had several of those apps in them. A lot of people were getting really annoyed with it. Then Apple deleted all of the apps and people again whined ...

Posts that contain incorrect information like this pi$$ me off. There is and NEVER was any porn in the app store. What was removed from the app store were apps showing women in bikinis and short skirts. They were certainly suggestive in nature but they were far from "topless". I can see a heck of a lot more skin by watching a Victoria Secret commercial.

P.S. - I was really annoyed with it and don't miss the clutter...

 

[Davidkoh]

Porn does not have to be "bad" per se for parents of younger kids to see it's absence as a side benefit. They may love it personally but not want such apps on the family room iPad. It's a business decision aapl has every right to make. And if it's really that bad a decision, it provides a huge opportunity for competitors to provide that content. If anything, it promotes competition and free markets.

Who say we are talking about Apps, SJ implied that a plus with no flash was no porn.

 

[The Phazer]

So is that your argument?

If Microsoft had 90% market share of videogames, it would be compelled by law do do what. Allow porn?

What *is* your argument?

C.

It would be forced to open up it's hardware platform to other distributors and development kits, so people could create software for their consoles without MS's permission.

I'm not asking for Apple to sell anything it doesn't want to sell. But it has to be legal for other people to sell to their devices if they don't want to carry it without technical restrictions.

Phazer

 

[mccldwll]

Or I could get my elected representatives to look at legal action to prevent Apple breaking the law. And am doing that.

Phazer

What's the voting age in the UK????

 

[SovOfFailure]

Too bad Jobs got pulled into an argument like this, but this is what bloggers do whether it is in politics, business, sports, entertainment etc etc. Most blogs are largely editorial filled with flame war bait, unfortunately Jobs got took the bait. Gawker is of course going to be sore at the moment over the entire iphone leak, i don't know why he is so concerned with what they are saying or doing.

 

[MacPhilosopher]

As I said the availability of pornographic material is meaningless in this context. It's the Steve Jobs arguments which he outlines as the reason for the companies stance that remain the subject of interest. As you said the exclusion of porn is not to protect children but to protect their brand image. Therefore we can assume that at least one of Steve Jobs arguments is based on lie. This raises questions regarding moral integrity of Steve Jobs. What other "freedoms" are just there for some totally other purpose (ban on cross platform dev tools, flash etc.) Regarding totalitarianism I think you are referring to totalitarian government when we should in this current context talk about totalitarian management and in some extent the psychodynamics of organisational totalitarianism.

How do you not see protecting children(read making parents comfortable with Apple products and iTunes) as not being about brand image? That's exactly what it is about. He wants everyone(including parents) to see Apple as a safe company. What you put on their products after you buy them is your business. He is not trying to restrict that. Since the iTunes store is an Apple branded consumable, he wants to maintain that image there as well.

 

[The Phazer]

Where can I find that definition?

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/art82/discpaper2005.pdf

Clause 29, with my previous language slightly simplified for forum understanding.

Phazer

 

[Atkins]

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.

What control? What music I can't listen? What videos I can't see? What books I can't read? I have access to everything on my Mac devices.

 

[The Phazer]

Porn does not have to be "bad" per se for parents of younger kids to see it's absence as a side benefit. They may love it personally but not want such apps on the family room iPad. It's a business decision aapl has every right to make. And if it's really that bad a decision, it provides a huge opportunity for competitors to provide that content. If anything, it promotes competition and free markets.

Then Apple could provide better family filters that apply to Safari as well, instead of wasting time trying to block people having proper access to the device on the app store but letting anything through Safari, ableit in a functionally crippled way.

If Apple want their devices to be "family safe" then they've already failed that test massively.

Phazer

 

[mccldwll]

Who say we are talking about Apps, SJ implied that a plus with no flash was no porn.

You're right. But for the same reason that apps are being restricted to essentially PG/PG13, absence of porn is a side benefit to no flash.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Are you bin Laden?
Isn't that Bin Laden argument?

Apple is tiny compared to many USA companies.

Apple is the Most Creative and Innovative USA company.
And that is because of whom?

OH, Bill Gates is all over the place giving money to governments who themselves invest in open source technology but give Microsoft free ride.
Freedom?

You know, I thought you were a mad man, but you figured out I am Bin Laden. My master plan - to bring down western civilization one message board at a time. I am sorry if I have offended the Lord thy God, Steve Jobs. I will offer a sacrifice to him on the next holy day (WWDC?)

What control? What music I can't listen? What videos I can't see? What books I can't read? I have access to everything on my Mac devices.

Not control like that - it's more like control over formats, gates one must enter to acquire content, and sheer market influence - in media and media publishing. Their iBook announcement changed the face of ebook publishing over night - and many publishers and authors do not feel it was for the better.

That amount of power in the hands of one person should be a frightening prospect.

But to answer your question (for iDevices only) - the books, videos, and music you can't listen to are either the ones not deemed "appropriate," or from publishers who will not pay the gate keeper enough of a fee. You are free to listen to, read, or watch anything you want, as long as Apple has allowed it.