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

[parapup]

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.

Yep. Conditional is the word. I will be fair, generous, helpful when it doesn't hurt me economically or doesn't require me to contradict my beliefs.

So he could risk not selling his products to many Flash users or p0rn surfers because there are other advantages there through which he could more than make up for the lost sales. But he could not do the same for the Chinese workers what he did to the masses when he saved them from "evil Flash and evil p0rn". Like I mean he doesn't have money or anything to start making the Chinese factories better. Where could he make up for that loss?

You know if SJ had said it was a business decision - I will do whats good for me and my company - there would have been no discussion. Instead he claims Freedom and bunch of other BS and his followers imply that it's all for the humanity - that's what is hurting people here.

 

[Atkins]

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?

You are mixing things the way it suits you. The argument against Flash was the battery. Not the porn.
And I think "Freedom from porn" is pretty obviously for the kids.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

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.

I swear Steve Jobs sounds like Eminem's mom in 8 mile:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uvBr5ubtWo#t=1m03s


"What have you done with your life that's so great?"

 

[Atkins]

So he could risk not selling his products to many Flash users or p0rn surfers because there are other advantages there through which he could more than make up for the lost sales. But he could not do the same for the Chinese workers what he did to the masses when he saved them from "evil Flash and evil p0rn". Like I mean he doesn't have money or anything to start making the Chinese factories better. Where could he make up for that loss?
You know if SJ had said it was a business decision - I will do whats good for me and my company - there would have been no discussion. Instead he claims Freedom and bunch of other BS and his followers imply that it's all for the humanity - that's what is hurting people here.

Not selling to Flash users and Porn surfers wouldn't ruin the company - in fact you can see porn on any Apple device and there is the whole App store to cover for at lest a part of the Flash experience, not to mention the many websites switching to HTML5. Stopping production would be a suicide. Making the factories better? I am not sure he isn't. He made an audit - that in fact is not too bad, especially put in perspective.
He claims Freedom? Well, it's Ryan who brought it into the discussion with stupid claims that revolution=freedom. I guess it just followed from there.

 

[mccldwll]

But he could not do the same for the Chinese workers what he did to the masses when he saved them from "evil Flash and evil p0rn". Like I mean he doesn't have money or anything to start making the Chinese factories better. Where could he make up for that loss?

So you still haven't researched it, huh? You don't know what you're talking about, but don't let that slow you down.

 

[Atkins]

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.

You just took things out of context. If it was a fair critic Jobs was responding to, I would agree. But answering bashing, mixed with offensive language, and relentless half-a**ed arguments, it just begged for this.

 

[cmaier]

Not saying that they shouldn't block porn on the iPad. I am just saying that the argument SJ was using (the one about that it was good that iPad had no flash because that meant no porn) is a stupid one. That would first imply that porn is bad, and also imply that blocking it is good.

He did more than imply that porn is bad. And that's his right. He has freedoms too, and until his freedoms interfere with yours, there's no moral reason to interfere with them. And since you are free to choose to buy a non-Apple smartphone (like 85% of people do), his freedoms are not interfering with yours.

 

[darkplanets]

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

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

Phazer

I don't have time to read that whole credo, albeit interesting.

However, it is widely known that Europe's anti trust/monopoly laws are far more stringent than the corresponding US laws... case in point all of the recent anticompetitive cases (ie Intel, Microsoft browsers, etc). While this is the case, it is important to remember that Apple is a US company, not a European company. In other words, the only effect you'll have on apple is within the European market area, not on the international level. This will either result in an increased openness (not likely, since it is THEIR platform), separate app stores (also not likely), and/or increased cost from these forced changes, and the fines. More than likely no one will care, since calling Apple a monopoly is already a pathetic case to start with.

Another thing; you do realize that the UK isn't fully integrated into the EU, right? And that a portion of your country is opposed to being in the EU? For some reason, and its probably just me, I get the vibe from you that you think the UK is at the helm of the EU or something, and that they care about all of the economic snivelings of the UK. Your "politician" probably can't do a damn thing, whether he'd like to or not.

Additionally, to quote your source, there's two reasons why Apple won't get hosed:

33. The importance of market shares may be qualified by an analysis of the degree of product differentiation in the market. Products are differentiated when they differ in the eyes of consumers for instance due to brand image, product features, product quality, level of service or the location of the seller. The level of advertising in a market may be an indicator of the firms’ efforts to differentiate their products. When products are differentiated the competitive constraint that they impose on each other is likely to differ even where they form part of the same relevant market. Substitutability is a question of degree. In assessing the competitive constraint imposed by rivals, it must therefore be taken into account what is the degree of substitutability of their products with those offered by the allegedly dominant undertaking. It may be that a rival with 10% market share imposes a greater competitive constraint on an undertaking with 50% market share than another rival supplying 20% of the market. This may for instance be the case where the undertaking with the lower market share and the allegedly dominant undertaking both sell premium branded products whereas the rival with the larger market share sells a bargain brand.

Can someone say android, Archos, windows mobile, HP's upcoming tablet, etc?
And in relation to the store, Cydia and android store?
And in relation to iPhone, Nokia, RIM, HTC, etc?

AND

31. It is very likely that very high markets shares, which have been held for some time, indicate a dominant position.32 This would be the case where an undertaking holds 50 % or more of the market, provided that rivals hold a much smaller share of the market.33 In the case of lower market shares, dominance is more likely to be found in the market share range of 40 % to 50 % than below 40 %, although also undertakings with market shares below 40 % could be considered to be in a dominant position.34 However, undertakings with market shares of no more than 25 %35 are not likely to enjoy a (single) dominant position on the market concerned.36

Note that the iPhone doesn't hold the dominant smart phone position, and that the App store is a conditional service of the iPhone. The iPad is new, and as such, doesn't apply to the first line, since you can't even begin to argue its been held "for some time," however elastic you may interpret that.

 

[derek4484]

What a tool

Steve Jobs has to be the biggest tool in the business. What a jerk. He has the most closed platform around and yet he criticizes and lectures everybody else about "openess". I absolutely hate him. He's pure evil.

But I love the iphone! And am beginning to really warm up to my mac mini (which I had to buy to run the iphone SDK, because Jobs refuses to make a linux or Windows version).

 

[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.

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

So you decided not to think about it. Since you seem to be familiar with logic, you should have no problem understanding this.

First, I want to make clear that while logic can be used, it does not mean the logic is correct. Hence the ability to follow logic and the claim that the logic is invalid are distinct ideas and should be treated as such. So your insult seems to demonstrate your lack of understanding of logic as opposed to your goal which was to belittle my skills as a logician.

Now, onto your argument. I will use standard form here.

Your argument reconstructed in logical form *note, premise 1 is a conditional, but not in standard form
1. The claim that blocking some thing, x, as being a good action, carries the added meaning that, x, is bad

2. Blocking porn is good, according to SJ

: Porn is bad

This is a logical argument. The first premise establishes the conditional by which x can be bad. The second provides the conditional and of course the conclusion is obvious. Standard Modus Ponens. So what is wrong with the argument?

Well, as if often the case, the first premise is where the problem is. Let us utilize counterexamples to make the point.

Counter-example
1. The claim that blocking some thing, x, as being a good action, carries the added meaning that, x, is bad.

2. Blocking (refraining from) cake is good

: Cake is bad

Of course, we know cake is not bad and I don't think cake is bad, yet the result of your argument makes it so. Any number of item can be filled into the second premise and the argument will produce conclusions that we would not normally accept.

The point is, an action, item or anything is not rendered "bad" upon suggesting that its access be restricted.

Now, what of things like rape, murder, etc. Those would produce acceptable conclusions! We have already assigned those actions the property of "badness." Meaning, it was done before it was passed through this argument, so of course the conclusion will be acceptable. If we had universally determined that cake is bad, then my counter-example wouldn't really be a counter-example.

There is another error you made. You claimed that "porn is bad" is a false proposition with no argument given for that claim. Given the lack of argument, I take this to mean you think your proposition, "porn is not bad" is true. And the basis for this, would presumably, be your opinion. That is an invalid argument. Unless either provide an argument for your propositions, one cannot state that either proposition is true.

Now, I will not make any claim on the goodness or badness of porn, but nor did Steve, as I have shown by dismantling the first premise of your argument.

 

[LagunaSol]

Steve Jobs has to be the biggest tool in the business.

O RLY?

I absolutely hate him. He's pure evil.

 

[Nuvi]

I kind of agree with Ryan in some ways.
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?"

Jobs has air of arrogance which is somewhat frustrating. Journalist are not an extensions of Apple's marketing arm. Journalists job is to act as public watch dog, evaluating and if required criticising the motivations of those in power. That said, Ryan didn't act in professional manner but neither did Mr. Jobs.

 

[parapup]

So you still haven't researched it, huh? You don't know what you're talking about, but don't let that slow you down.

So you are saying Jobs worked with the problem of exploitation of Chinese workers and instead of shutting down the factories after repeated problems he continues to work "with" them as opposed to "against" them? That's the "Research" you keep referring to?

Gee wonder why he did not do that with a frikkin piece of Technology like ... Flash! Wonder why he is stopping distributing p0rn from the App store without actually doing anything to stop the "exploitation of women" his followers imply. I mean I haven't heard of SJ's philanthropy as much as I have of Bill Gates.

Or the other way around - why did he not shut down the factories with repeated violations just like he did shut down p0rn and Flash?

Look - all I am trying to say is Flash and p0rn blocking is not being done for humanitarian reasons. If Jobs would admit to what he is CEO of a Corporation whose only interest is to make more money using whatever beliefs they have - we could put this discussion to rest. But no - he resorts to "Children", humanity, "right things to do" etc. and we have to call BS on that.

 

[Davidkoh]

He did more than imply that porn is bad. And that's his right. He has freedoms too, and until his freedoms interfere with yours, there's no moral reason to interfere with them. And since you are free to choose to buy a non-Apple smartphone (like 85% of people do), his freedoms are not interfering with yours.

Well, I am sorry, I've yet to see any scientific research claiming porn is bad for humans (except when it becomes an addiction, but that can be said about everything). Therefor he can believe what he wants about porn, that does not make it correct.

You are mixing things the way it suits you. The argument against Flash was the battery. Not the porn.
And I think "Freedom from porn" is pretty obviously for the kids.

Yea that might be right, but he did not specify anything, nor did he imply where the porn business entered it all. He just used freedom from porn as an argument for something good.

 

[derekamoss]

I'm starting to think Steve brought up porn for the sole reason this thread has so many post, to distract from much more important arguments.

Back during the iPhone OS 4.0 Q&A when he was asked about why one couldn't install unsigned applications from outside the appstore (IE. Apps not subject to the app store approval process, which would be available through the internet and not the app store), Steve Jobs brought up that a porn store exist for the Android and he didn't want the iPhone to enter that territory. Now, anyone with braincells could see this was a simple dodge. If Steve's hypothetical scenario of a porn store being created came true, I would have to first visit a porn site on my computer, download a porn app, load it into iTunes, connect my iPhone/iPod and sync the app over. Does any of this really seem like a feat someone could accidentally accomplish without their knowledge? No? What about surfing the internet on my iPhone and accidentally clicking a banner ad bringing me to a porn site? Yes? Then how then in the hell is the inability to install apps outside of the app store protecting me from porn??????

So anyway, it seems to me yet again that Steve Jobs has used that big scary word to sideline the real questions. His defending of his children comes off sorta like this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

As for his new argument against a now apple approved adult section on the app store to protect the children? Its logistically irrelevant since it would be entirely possible to quarantine such a section from ever coming close to a child's eyes with a password protected section only available on accounts with a credit card attached to it that are age verified. That's of course assuming the parents actually are involved in their Child's life and wouldn't give them free access to use their credit cards as they please.

Note that I only said the children would be safe making his arguments irrelevant, not that there actually should be an adult section on the iTunes store. If he just said his objection to protect their image in the public or just straight up moral objectification, i'd be more than satisfied. Of course, the question on why they recently banned all sexual material on the appstore but gave a free pass to "well-established" brands such as playboy would question if they really do have problems with the stuff, but that is another issue.

Okay, so I think I've covered the purposefully chosen controversial issue of porn on the iPhone as much as I care to. I hope I've been able to appeal to some sense of reasoning and that we can all move on to the bigger overall problems of a company being held hostage to the will of a single CEO. One who non-chalantly imposes limitations on his devices and rather than letting the user-decide for themselves, decides for them. One who puts out the myth that all cross-platform developed apps would be crap and nixes them before conception instead of comparing them on a per app basis. If protecting the user-experience is truly what he wants, then wouldn't it make sense to review each app based upon it's performance period, not what code it was generated from?

Heck I think I should actually venture out a little further since here Apple is holding EVERYONE hostage. The magazine industry, all that work you've done in interactive mags on adobe air, you have to redo from the ground up in obj-c. The internet, all those videos you have in flash, you have to convert to HTML5. Did I mention that is HTML5 as I have chosen it to mean, since you know, it actually isn't finished yet? Publishers, you know those books your selling for way cheaper on Amazon than us because you gave them a deal and they take no profits from them? Well, I don't like it sooo, could you bitch to Amazon that they are selling them too cheap? Thanks. Oh yeah, Adobe, well your not so much a hostage since I fully intend to KILL YOU ALL KINDS OF DEAD.

So big Steve's defence of his companies attitude as of late? If you don't like it buy/develop for something else. They say you vote with your wallet, so monetize your right. I don't know what he expects us to do if they ever reach a full on monopoly status, or those who already rely upon Apple products in their everyday lives, but it's good to know he cares almost nothing about what we think.

Personally, I fine with the CEO of a company telling consumers what they can and cant use with their products. You might own the product, but they own the intellectual rights of that product. My Xbox doesn't have a porn store on it. Why aren't people raging on Microsoft to have Porn Store?
And for those who say that an Xbox is not the same as an iPad/iPod touch/iPhone... It is! It's a digital hub just like apple's products.

I'm not trying to turn this into a MS/Apple Debate but Xbox was the first thing that came to mind.

Steve Jobs is the CEO of apple and apple can put whatever they want on their products. Don't like it, Don't buy it. To many people nowadays are thinking what is my device going to be able to do in the future rather than what my device does the day I bought it. Adding new features on products is a bonus. It is not the norm. The Product you bought didn't have a porn store/flash player to begin with the day you knowingly bought it. You should be happy they are adding features, not unhappy they are not adding the features you like, because they do not have to add anything at all!

 

[cmaier]

Well, I am sorry, I've yet to see any scientific research claiming porn is bad for humans (except when it becomes an addiction, but that can be said about everything). Therefor he can believe what he wants about porn, that does not make it correct.

I didn't say it was correct. I am saying he outright stated porn is bad - no inference needed.

I also maintain it's his right to believe that, and his right to ban porn apps from his platform, and him doing so does not hurt you or anyone else in any way.

 

[MacPhilosopher]

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.

Agreed. Apple doesn't have a monopoly because it sells 100% of Apple products on the market. That's like saying ford has a monopoly because they control the ford car market. There are plenty of technology options out there. There is also something known as patents and copyright. You do not have monopoly because you are the only company that sells your patented product. Everyone on here that throws about words like monopoly and socialist(don't ask me how that one became relevant) really need to learn context and application of those terms. Oh, yeah, dictator is another misused word on the blogs. Let me join with several other people on this thread by saying Apple has every right to market and distribute it's products in whatever mannner they choose. If you don't like it, buy another product from another company.

 

[mccldwll]

Well, I am sorry, I've yet to see any scientific research claiming porn is bad for humans (except when it becomes an addiction, but that can be said about everything). Therefor he can believe what he wants about porn, that does not make it correct.



Yea that might be right, but he did not specify anything, nor did he imply where the porn business entered it all. He just used freedom from porn as an argument for something good.

Again. Learn to read in context. The context was kids accessing porn. And the chance that it was actually Jobs responding to that twit are pretty slim.

 

[dgree03]

I see it as I own the device, there for I should be able to do with it as I please.

Can you imagine buying a car and the car dealer telling you what kind of gas you can put in it and from what stations to do it from!? But I own the car, how can you tell me what I can or cannot do with it..

What it come down to is choice... SJ should give users the choice... simple... where does apple ownership end and customers ownership begin?

 

[Atkins]

Yea that might be right, but he did not specify anything, nor did he imply where the porn business entered it all. He just used freedom from porn as an argument for something good.

It was specified by Ryan I think. Is the iPad a revolution and revolution is about freedom. Basically the argument is about the iPad and its usage. From there you get freedom for the battery life and freedom from porn. And again I think Jobs used freedom in a sarcastic way, given the stupid way Ryan introduced it.

 

[GFLPraxis]

I see it as I own the device, there for I should be able to do with it as I please.

Can you imagine buying a car and the car dealer telling you what kind of gas you can put in it and from what stations to do it from!? But I own the car, how can you tell me what I can or cannot do with it..

What it come down to is choice... SJ should give users the choice... simple... where does apple ownership end and customers ownership begin?

Steve hasn't taken away any choice. Do what you want with the iPad on the internet. He simply refuses to put porn in his store. That's fair enough.

As I said before; no one complains if a video store refuses to stock porn.

Nothing on the iPad BLOCKS you from accessing any content. Steve can freely decide not to put something in his store and he's not taking anything away from you.

 

[Davidkoh]

Counter-example
1. The claim that blocking some thing, x, as being a good action, carries the added meaning that, x, is bad.

2. Blocking (refraining from) cake is good

: Therefore, cake is bad

Of course, we know cake is not bad and I don't think cake is bad, yet the result of your argument makes it so. Any number of item can be filled into the second premise and the argument will produce conclusions that we would not normally accept.

Yeah, that is 100% correct, if you think "blocking cake" is good, then that makes cake bad. If blocking something is good, it is because doing that thing must be bad. How else would blocking it be good? That was my whole point, that it is not logical to block something that isn't bad.

To find a flaw in the argument, you would need to find a case where blocking something is good, but the actual thing you block is also good. Is there such?

Saying "blocking X is good" means that it was good that we excluded X, and that X was excluded must mean that it is bad (in the context we are saying it was good it was excluded from).

EDIT: It is about which context we are talking about. If he were to say "blocking X from Y is good", it would be because X is bad for Y. But he did not specify anything.

 

[Silverado]

It's truly a sad age we live in. People are so brainwashed that they rather have other people make decisions for them instead of thinking for themselves. If you want to go the no porn route, then don't look at porn and monitor your children. Don't let companies say what you can and cannot do with a product you purchased.

I think you have it backwards. As a busy person, I pay Apple to do what I WANT it to do. I choose to pay to have a controlled environment free of malicious, junk, or porn apps. If a time comes that I don't like the decisions they are making on my behalf (with my money), I will stop paying them and pay someone else.

 

[derekamoss]

I see it as I own the device, there for I should be able to do with it as I please.

Can you imagine buying a car and the car dealer telling you what kind of gas you can put in it and from what stations to do it from!? But I own the car, how can you tell me what I can or cannot do with it..

What it come down to is choice... SJ should give users the choice... simple... where does apple ownership end and customers ownership begin?

Ask the car dealer if you can use something other than gas to make the car run and they will tell you what they can and can not do. Type of gas= 3g iPad or wifi iPad. You have a choice. Asking for something other than gas= no porn/flash on their products. So go ahead ask the dealer the question and see what they have to say..

 

[DJ Dilbert]

Lol

I do like how SJ turns around on his own words. He says it is all about freedom in the first email and then later he says it's not about freedom at all but Apple doing the right thing for it's users...