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

[urbanlung]

Freedom from porn gets my Mrs Thumb up, and her 4 daughters.

If you want porn on your iPad or iPod or whatever there are plenty of ways to do it without needing an app. I mean do you actually have a porn app on your computer? Apple do not want to be in the position of endorsing porn by distributing apps that provide it and nor would they want to be in the position of having once opened the door to it trying then vet every variation or fetish that then tried to get through it. Apple would be mad to venture down that route. If the market exists (which obviously it does) it will find a way, of exploiting whatever outlet it has. As has been said already web apps could fill that need, if you really need an app to get porn. And in case your wondering, I am no great fan of porn but I do occasionally enjoy it.

 

[Rafterman]

^^^Ha! "Pure Coca"

Jobs got him good with that "what have you done that's so great" line.

Great line? I thought that was pretty immature. But who dare criticize the Dear Leader.

 

[mccldwll]

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

You mean "Parental Controls"?

 

[Davidkoh]

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.

But for for that to be true blocking porn needs to be a good thing, which it cannot be without porn being bad. And porn is not bad, blocking porn for young children might be good, but that is not what SJ claimed. He claimed blocking porn is good, in essence claiming porn is bad, which is false. Just because he is SJ doesn't mean he can use any stupid argument and it is made valid.

 

[fervor]

Ryan Tate sounds like a 12 year old in his emails to a world-famous CEO.

Totally agree. Hard to believe that he'd even get a response from the first messsage, let alone anything after he started dropping F-bombs left and right.

I'd be embarrassed if I were Ryan Tate that I sent that stuff.

It doesn't take a fan-boy to see that Jobs won that exchange.

This, of course, assumes it actually happened - although it'd be weird to make up such a lopsided exchange against yourself (unless you're even more dim than it appears).

 

[parapup]

I'm going to go out on a limb here on one of the issues for the sake of argument, so please be gentle.

The problem with the porn industry is not sexuality or even morality. The problem is exploitation. One could say that the exploitative nature and practices of the porn industry ranks it together with child labor, child prostitution, and human trafficking industries. So if most of us unquestionably protest against these (specially when suppliers of companies like Apple are concerned), why are they not willing to do the same against the porn indsutry?

If this is the motivation for SJ's prohibition of porn apps, then I agree with him.

So you are ignoring the exploitation of the Chinese workers that make all of the Apple products? Shouldn't SJ prohibit distribution of all Apple products until Chinese workers are treated humanely? Did you hear SJ protest about the Chinese workers that got shafted by using some chemical for cleaning the iDevice screens?

 

[RawBert]

Great line? I thought that was pretty immature. But who dare criticize the Dear Leader.

Rafterman, what have you done that's so great?

Take it easy, I never said SJ is perfect. But Tate sure as hell aint done anything that's so great. *rolls neck and snaps fingaz*

 

[calderone]

But for for that to be true blocking porn needs to be a good thing, which it cannot be without porn being bad. And porn is not bad, blocking porn for young children might be good, but that is not what SJ claimed. He claimed blocking porn is good, in essence claiming porn is bad, which is false. Just because he is SJ doesn't mean he can use any stupid argument and it is made valid.

Talk about a stupid argument...

I will let you figure out why, if you need help feel free to ask.

 

[Carniphage]

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.

But that would nullify the basis on which the console makes any money! And it's not like it makes very much in the first place.

In the console market, the control of content is an essential part of the business model.

Sony can and does refuse software on the Playstation, not because it is technically poor, or because it fails some moral test - but because they will say "we have one of those already".

C.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Just because he is SJ doesn't mean he can use any stupid argument and it is made valid.

According to Steve himself, and therefore many of his faithful congregation, that is exactly what it means. If you are not as successful as he is, you cannot speak against him.

The proof? He is the CEO of Apple, and we are mere mortals.

 

[mccldwll]

But for for that to be true blocking porn needs to be a good thing, which it cannot be without porn being bad. And porn is not bad, blocking porn for young children might be good, but that is not what SJ claimed. He claimed blocking porn is good, in essence claiming porn is bad, which is false. Just because he is SJ doesn't mean he can use any stupid argument and it is made valid.

Learn to read in context, which was access for kids.

 

[MacPhilosopher]

Using the blockage of porn as a argument to not include flash is stupid. Also, even blocking porn is stupid, and it is just a way to get some points with other stupid people.

People do not have to watch porn, but there is no reason to block it off a device.

It's not blocked from the device. It's only blocked from the iTunes store. You can still get plenty of porn through your browser.

 

[mccldwll]

According to Steve himself, and therefore many of his faithful congregation, that is exactly what it means. If you are not as successful as he is, you cannot speak against him.

The proof? He is the CEO of Apple, and we are mere mortals.

Plonk.

 

[Atkins]

I am amazed. There are actually people defending this blogger and calling him a journalist. There are some ideas behind the journalism thingy, you know. Like truthfulness, objectivity, accuracy, etc.
And these guys are claiming protection?! Lol.
Some even say he makes valid points. Can someone please show them to me?

About Apple being for rich people - what a nonsense. Because it is expensive? Maybe it depends on the priorities you have.

About censorship, lack of freedom and other ****. It's a company, not a government. The choice is there for you - buy or don't. The whole industry works like that.

 

[mccldwll]

So you are ignoring the exploitation of the Chinese workers that make all of the Apple products? Shouldn't SJ prohibit distribution of all Apple products until Chinese workers are treated humanely? Did you hear SJ protest about the Chinese workers that got shafted by using some chemical for cleaning the iDevice screens?

That was over a year ago, for cleaning all screens, addressed by aapl and others, and being pushed by the rumor monger FUD bloggers. Some people will believe anything.

 

[Atkins]

So you are ignoring the exploitation of the Chinese workers that make all of the Apple products? Shouldn't SJ prohibit distribution of all Apple products until Chinese workers are treated humanely? Did you hear SJ protest about the Chinese workers that got shafted by using some chemical for cleaning the iDevice screens?

What exactly can he do about that?
- stop distribution? - ridiculous, Apple will just die, while the other companies continue to do the same; not to mention those workers will be in a worse situation - not having an income
- put pressure? - the only pressure he can put is and audit - and guess what - he did it.

 

[parapup]

That was over a year ago, for cleaning all screens, addressed by aapl and others, and being pushed by the rumor monger FUD bloggers. Some people will believe anything.

Yep. Some will even believe in what you just wrote

 

[mccldwll]

Great line? I thought that was pretty immature. But who dare criticize the Dear Leader.

And what have you done that's so great?

 

[Nuvi]

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.

Yes, as I said its about brand image and not protecting children from pornographic content. As you might be aware internet has pretty wide selection of pornographic material. Therefore if its Steve Jobs intention to protect innocent children from porn the obvious choice would be to develop solid web filtering and parental control solutions. Blocking some bikini pic apps from Apple App store is not protecting anybody from pornographic material. Therefore his motivation is only to keep Apple brand away from any source or brand which image might not be beneficial to Apple. If he truly thinks the App store bikini pics are major source of pornographic material then he is either very clueless or he has very naive view of the world, which I doubt and therefore my conclusion is that his actions are purely motivated by Apple brand image and not the well fare of children. I will change my opinion when Apple creates solid web filtering and parental control solutions for future iPhone OS (since they are not present in iPhone OS 4).

 

[Davidkoh]

Talk about a stupid argument...

I will let you figure out why, if you need help feel free to ask.

I see you have trouble following simple logic, please ask and I will explain the step that confuse you.

Learn to read in context, which was access for kids.

Was it? I quote "Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn.". What does that have with access for kids to do? The whole discussion was not about kids, he only mentioned kids later to say "you will care more about porn when you have kids".

Even if his whole argument was blocking porn from kids, is that an argument to remove flash? Or would a parental filter do the same thing? Which is better in a "keeping kids from porn" perspective?

 

[CubusX]

Websites

So Apple does not allow Porn Apps in the store. So many more porn sites added a mobile site thats lets you stream over Edge, Wi-FI, & 3G.

Who cares???

While I know this is not the point of the article my reply to SJ's smart mouth comment would have been.

"At least I didn't hinder the operations (tethering, etc) of the most poplar mobile device by signing a contract with the worst mobile carrier (AT&T) in the United States thus hindering any additional possible growth for my company by limiting competition (other carriers) and making your products look inferior due to AT&T's network failures."

"The worst part is rewarding AT&T by giving them rights to the iPad aftre all these network issues were brought to light."

 

[mccldwll]

Yep. Some will even believe in what you just wrote

Next time try some research before you respond. You won't look so I'll informed.

 

[Atkins]

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.

Yes, he has an influence. How scary it is remains to be seen - if it worked until now I would say it is mostly because it goes in the direction of many people's interests. The publishing industry issue is avery arguable one and frankly, this way we can be better off too.
Gate-keeper fee is an issue, but it is an issue everywhere, so we can't just blame it on Apple.
About the "appropriate content", I don't really see what I am missing - porn is there

 

[Harmless Abuse]

I kind of agree with Ryan in some ways.

But I kind of agree with Jobs.

Really, Ryan is right, it's not fun to see this many restrictions. It should be our choice to download what we want provided it's within legal limits. Just because some people will find a way to exploit some people, it really would just push people to practice more safe downloading habits. That should be enforced anyways. I can use Windows for years without ever getting a virus, or other forms of malware. Why? I don't go to shady sites, or pirate things.

But Jobs is right in saying no one is forcing people to go to the iPad or use any Apple product. They're a master at marketing, it is what sucked us into this site in the first place.

That also being said, marketers are starting to feel more pressure to join the App store. Business is business. If you're not making an iPad app, then you're missing out. My local newspaper is making an iPad app., they're really trying to reach out and continue the business that is slowly fading away.

But I will forever loathe Jobs saying, "By the way, what have you done that's so great? Do you create anything, or just criticize others work and belittle their motivations?"

Those phrases are the most annoying I've ever heard. He's not a god, and he cannot credit all that the company has done on him alone.

Not to mention just because someone isn't the CEO of something, it doesn't mean they're a lesser person, or an individual who cannot criticize a product they're trying to market to the people. People should be the most important critics, they're the ones giving Mr. Jobs over there his very large paycheck, and they're the ones Apple is to market to.

I really wish Apple would consider customer feedback a bit more. They really don't pay attention to anyone, and do what they please. Their products are very nice, but customer feedback would make it so much better.

 

[andromedaan]

Ryan Tate is a total idiot, can't even believe it.. The way he talks to Steve Jobs is uncalled for. Not because Steve Jobs is the CEO of Apple, but just because every person should respect people that are much older than themselfs.. It's basic manners which Ryan Tate is lacking.

And flash stinks, I've set YouTube to HTML5 a long time ago, do the same here:
www.youtube.com/html5
It uses 50% less CPU.. so less heat and much more battery while youtubing..