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
The Right Thing...
Wouldn't the right thing to give their users what they want and let them decide which is better based on their individual uses? Sure flash is used on porn pages but it is also used on many professional websites that promote their business. What I'm trying to say is that not all flash is the devil! While there are many uses of Flash that can kill battery life (videos, games, etc...), there are also many uses of Flash that could help the interface, like certain pages or whatever.
Thoughts??
Wouldn't the right thing to give their users what they want and let them decide which is better based on their individual uses? Sure flash is used on porn pages but it is also used on many professional websites that promote their business. What I'm trying to say is that not all flash is the devil! While there are many uses of Flash that can kill battery life (videos, games, etc...), there are also many uses of Flash that could help the interface, like certain pages or whatever.
Thoughts??
The flaw was clear, you cannot logically attribute the property of badness by merely stating that it should be excluded, that was the take away point. Meaning, you cannot state that universally something is bad (or attribute that statement to someone) in virtue of it being stated that it should be blocked/restricted/etc.
*This may been a relative/absolute issue, my argument stands if were are dealing in absolutes*
My example was such. Cake is "good" in a universal sense (note, I don't actually accept that we can really find "the good" but for the sake of this argument I will use the term) both evolutionary (at what point in time at least, as a vestigal trait it can be "bad") and in a social context.
You have not established that X must also be bad. This may be a problem of you not defining what type of "bad" you mean. Your edit may be closer to what you mean.
Bad for Y, not "bad" in whatever sense you mean bad. Producing the result that X is bad for Y, where Y could be a person, platform or product. Applying this to my example, cake would be bad for me (my opinion) but not bad in any universal sense.
So, if this is what you mean the argument is meaningless as it is obvious that for the individual claiming that X should be blocked, likely means that they feel X is bad for whatever reason. If you had defined what type of "bad" you were referring to, in this case bad as relative to the individual, the argument would have been fine (albeit pointless).
However, since you claimed that the resulting proposition was "wrong" (that porn is bad), I took it to mean that you were speaking in terms of absolutes. In which case all we ended up with were two opinions.
They DO tell you what type of gas you can put in it. They specify octane levels, and whether additives are appropriate, and whether you can use E85 or not. And if you choose to do otherwise, it's at your own risk.
That's exactly what Apple does. They choose not to sell you certain types of apps. If you don't like it, go jailbreak your device and proceed at your own risk.
You have a choice. You can buy another device, or you can jailbreak. Apple just isn't going to help you run flash, run porn, etc.
Try to see both sides.
Unlike Microsoft's approach though (software-based, open everything, sort of...), Apple proved that a good number of people like proprietary hardware and software solutions, especially if they come in a stylish form factor and with simplistic user interfaces. I hope they don't overcomplicate the iPhone OS, as its strength is its simplicity. You're growing a much larger user base by making things simpler and letting people get things done. Technology shouldn't just be for techies.
Unlike Microsoft's approach though (software-based, open everything, sort of...), Apple proved that a good number of people like proprietary hardware and software solutions, especially if they come in a stylish form factor and with simplistic user interfaces. I hope they don't overcomplicate the iPhone OS, as its strength is its simplicity. You're growing a much larger user base by making things simpler and letting people get things done. Technology shouldn't just be for techies.
I had a similar feeling about my freedom being challenged when I cannot purchase an Asus netbook from the applestore, I mean, applestore is a computer store right? they should sell me any computer I want to buy and not limit to apple products, it just make no sense to me. 
That's when I realize the owner have any store actually have a freedom to choose what to sell and what not to sell.
That's when I realize the owner have any store actually have a freedom to choose what to sell and what not to sell.
How do you know what users want? Given the sales numbers, they look satisfied. Giving them the choice to use Flash would mean hassles for Apple and a worse (to some extent) experience, that Apple would have to deal with.
Also, choice is always good only in theory. If people are uninformed, irresponsible etc, choice can be a pretty bad idea. Why we don't have the choice to drive when the light is red and we see no cars coming? Because you can't count on people to be always careful.
Well, according to me it is. It doesn't matter if you watch videos, play games, or visit webpages - it still drains battery.
Ryan, you got worked by Steve. In an embarrassing way. What you do not grasp is that no one is forcing you to buy Apple products of any kind. If I don't like Product A, I buy Product B and Company A goes out of business. If you have such a fundamental dislike of Apple, do not buy their products. Simple.
Also, you seem unusually obsessed with porn. Might want to have that checked out.
You wasted a rare opportunity to have an intelligent discussion with Steve. Instead, you came off like a foul-mouthed 15-year-old dork who lives at home with his parents. You contributed nothing. You seek only self-promotion. Keep it to yourself next time.
Also, you seem unusually obsessed with porn. Might want to have that checked out.
You wasted a rare opportunity to have an intelligent discussion with Steve. Instead, you came off like a foul-mouthed 15-year-old dork who lives at home with his parents. You contributed nothing. You seek only self-promotion. Keep it to yourself next time.
Load the gun
Though I don't buy Steve's claims at purity (corporate america is corporate america). I do support the anti-porn alignment and their choice of not making it any easier for people to get porn.
I saw a comment that "If kids want to see porn, they're gonna see porn."
If kids want to do drugs, they're gonna do drugs.
Look at it this way: The iPhone/iPad can be moral weapon. If Apple chooses not to sell you the bullets directly, then go find it somewhere else. Good on them for not wanting to be in on that action.
Though I don't buy Steve's claims at purity (corporate america is corporate america). I do support the anti-porn alignment and their choice of not making it any easier for people to get porn.
I saw a comment that "If kids want to see porn, they're gonna see porn."
If kids want to do drugs, they're gonna do drugs.
Look at it this way: The iPhone/iPad can be moral weapon. If Apple chooses not to sell you the bullets directly, then go find it somewhere else. Good on them for not wanting to be in on that action.
...That's when I realize the owner have any store actually have a freedom to choose what to sell and what not to sell.
Exactly! Just like when you or I decide to sell something on ebay. I'll decide what I'm selling thankyouverymuch.
You obviously don't work with children and their parents in your line of work, or you'd know that the children are actually in charge these days, especially the ones who's parents have enough expendable cash to buy them Apple products.
Steve cares deeply about his customer base and his philosophies on technology and its use, or he wouldn't even answer these emails. Think about it. Apple won't have a monopoly on the smart phone, or tablet computer markets. They'll stay successfully niche. Which is where they should stay. We're not talking about the iPod anymore. Competitors catch up fast these days.
If you state "blocking X is good" without any restrictions or stating in which context it is good, it means that blocking X is always good no matter which context we are talking about. That would mean that Y is ever situation, everything and everyone if we are talking about "blocking X is good for Y".
If it is good to block something it means that in that context it is good to exclude that thing. Can we agree on that? Otherwise I would like to know how it would be good to exclude it in the first place.
Tate is asking Jobs what would Dylan think? Why not ask Dylan? Even Dylan has acknowledged you can only protest so long after you become rich and be sincere. Also when Dylan was 20 (1961) he hadn't made it big yet. Dylan didn't give his songs away for free and was a self-promoter. Many of the rock stars with a message from the 60's led decadent lifestyles.
At $250 a share Apple and Jobs are pleasing a lot of people. If you don't like what Dylan and Jobs are selling, don't buy.
At $250 a share Apple and Jobs are pleasing a lot of people. If you don't like what Dylan and Jobs are selling, don't buy.
Oh my god... Moral weapon... Whats next? The dawn of the new purification age. Apple just manufactures products which can be used for good, bad or just pointless recreation. Please leave your personal moral wars out of it.
No. It would be Orwellian if the gov't or another authority said it. Apple is a corporation, they have no governing authority over you. You CHOOSE whether to purchase what they produce and be free from porn or not. If you want porn apps then Apple products AREN'T for you. I'm wondering if people on here would argue that vtech should be required to provide porn games on their children's learning devices for the sake of "freedom of choice"...it's basically the same argument.
And with batteries having a limited number of charge-discharge cycles, who doesn't want their batteries to last longer? Do you want to pay to replace the battery after 18 months? Two years? Three years? Which is best?
As I see it, Adobe has no incentive whatsoever to make flash more efficient. It's like the General Motors of software - still cranking out gas-guzzlers when everyone else wants to go lite. And it can get away with this because it's not a hardware vendor: if Flash trashes your battery prematurely, then it's your problem, not theirs.
Until they feel some pain, nothing will improve.
And that still does not mean that X is "bad" in a universal sense. I can say that blocking rap music is good in any and all contexts, but that does not mean rap music is bad in an absolute sense.
What am I agreeing with? That statement is a tautology.
Is that right
Well apparently you love some part of his thought process as he is the head honcho and apart of everything at Apple. (shakes head while looking in the sky)
Well apparently you love some part of his thought process as he is the head honcho and apart of everything at Apple. (shakes head while looking in the sky)
You have the CHOICE not to buy the device (or the car) in the first place if it isn't going to do what you want... You don't buy something that doesn't meet your needs, that's your prerogative not Apple's. Your argument is irrelevant and misses the point entirely.
Agreed. Isn't it amazing that here we are 3 years (!) after the great "no Flash on iPhone" debate started, and we still don't see truly usable Flash on any mobile device.
(Though of course we hear the never-ending cry "It's coming!" from the Android, Palm, RIM, and Microsoft Phone 7 Series Professional Platinum folks.)
Are we still talking about flash?
That's like going to Best Buy to look at Blu-Ray players and the sales rep asks, "Have you seen our VCRs!?"
anyways...
like many have said, it's a product. If you don't like it you have the "right" to just go find something else. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
Really?
Are we really that outraged and narrow-minded?
Steve Jobs could be the biggest horndog porn-fiend in the Western Hemisphere. But if he deems that "freedom from porn" is in the best interest of his business ecosystem, and thus in the best interest of his shareholders...
...who are we to disagree? It's his business, and probably more so than most executives in most companies, these products are his visions. We as consumers can agree or disagree with his choices by voting with our credit cards.
If I run store that sells cars and tires, and I don't want to sell tires made out of jellybeans, that's my prerogative. Especially when the car I've sold you will take you to all the jellybean stores you could possibly want!
Lastly, I tip my hat to Mr. Jobs for not only engaging with Mr. Tate, but for being of such clear vision and calm mind that he effortlessly and civilly disarmed him at 2AM in the morning. For a purported journalist, Mr. Tate would do well to learn some objectivity, starting with the fact that it was California law enforcement, NOT Apple, that served the search warrant on his colleague, and that Gizmodo knew exactly what they were doing when they scooped the new iPhone. They pushed the legal limits like a child misbehaving and looking for attention. Now they complain that they got more attention than they wanted. And rant to Steve Jobs about it!? Unreal.
Are we really that outraged and narrow-minded?
Steve Jobs could be the biggest horndog porn-fiend in the Western Hemisphere. But if he deems that "freedom from porn" is in the best interest of his business ecosystem, and thus in the best interest of his shareholders...
...who are we to disagree? It's his business, and probably more so than most executives in most companies, these products are his visions. We as consumers can agree or disagree with his choices by voting with our credit cards.
If I run store that sells cars and tires, and I don't want to sell tires made out of jellybeans, that's my prerogative. Especially when the car I've sold you will take you to all the jellybean stores you could possibly want!
Lastly, I tip my hat to Mr. Jobs for not only engaging with Mr. Tate, but for being of such clear vision and calm mind that he effortlessly and civilly disarmed him at 2AM in the morning. For a purported journalist, Mr. Tate would do well to learn some objectivity, starting with the fact that it was California law enforcement, NOT Apple, that served the search warrant on his colleague, and that Gizmodo knew exactly what they were doing when they scooped the new iPhone. They pushed the legal limits like a child misbehaving and looking for attention. Now they complain that they got more attention than they wanted. And rant to Steve Jobs about it!? Unreal.
Couldn't agree more. That's how civil society works. People specialize at certain jobs and other folks pay them for their efforts. If we had to do absolutely everything ourselves and make every decision ourselves then we'd still be living in caves.
Exactly. Thanks to Jobs and the Bible Thumpers we have a situation nobody likes. Kids can STILL access porn via the web browser but adults can't have porn apps. How has this fixed anything for anyone?! It's all just a bunch of nonsense but Apple is still claiming victory anyway. Victory for who, exactly?
P.S. I'm tired of hearing about kids. Parents are responsible for their own offspring, not me and not Apple. Many of the parents I know had no clue they could even control the content allowed on their gifts to their spoiled offspring from within iTunes itself. In the end it's just a bunch of lazy, ignorant parents trying to pass the buck to everyone but themselves.