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
Impeccable argument, but I can't help but think of the comic...
Very nice! That is a running joke with my fiancee and I! I just can't help myself. Darn philosophy degree!
OK guys seriously... do you really need mobile porn? I'm not against porn in any way, but when I watch it it's in the privacy of my own house on my laptop. Is it really that big a deal that you can't watch porn on the bus or while taking a dump at work?
Thanks Apple for not giving iPhone users the opportunity to wank it beside me on the bus.
Freedom
Like a 12-year-old boy, Ryan Tate, is imposing his moronic morality on the world by saying that it's ok for kids to view porn. Are you kidding me? Jobs shows a great deal more enlightenment on the matter than I ever expected. Ryan, on the other hand, is still stuck on stupid notion that freedom to do stupid things (like allow kids access to porn) is actually freedom. How about freedom FROM things that are harmful? The guy needs to grow up.
Like a 12-year-old boy, Ryan Tate, is imposing his moronic morality on the world by saying that it's ok for kids to view porn. Are you kidding me? Jobs shows a great deal more enlightenment on the matter than I ever expected. Ryan, on the other hand, is still stuck on stupid notion that freedom to do stupid things (like allow kids access to porn) is actually freedom. How about freedom FROM things that are harmful? The guy needs to grow up.
Choosing to sell anything and everything is not the opposite of censorship (or moral policing). Apple is not the moral police here. They are simply choosing which products they wish to sell. Porn is not among them. Nor is it for a long, long list of other retailers.
Want porn? You know where to find it.
If I were this journalist, I would be ashamed to post this exchange. I don't like some of Apple's philosophy, but this man sounds like an idiot. And why on earth would this Ad set him off? Do you think he may have had an eBook or App disapproved?
Apple
Go Steve. You have more then a business behind you, you have a culture that believes in it.
Go Steve. You have more then a business behind you, you have a culture that believes in it.
True, it's the same story across the board. Nearly all national retailers are toeing the line the ever more vocal Bible Thumpers have drawn. Meanwhile the holier than thou moral police don't ever seem to lift a finger to protect the environment or worker rights in China pretty much anything else that doesn't fit their never ending march back to the policies of the 1950's. So much for "Think Different" eh?
I can't believe how much swearing Ryan Tate felt he needed to get his point across to SJ. And how much time he wasted on only one aspect of the walled garden. I sent SJ an email a few weeks ago complaining about the lack of a credible file system on the iPad and I was ignored. Perhaps I should have let a few f-bombs slip...
I like the theory that iPad is aimed at the education market. Clearly the ability to absolutely positively block inappropriate content will get educators' and parents' attention. Our daughter has a school-issued tablet running some awful flavor of XP. The darn thing weighs almost 7 pounds with its add-on battery to achieve barely 8 hours of use. Oh how I wish her school would switch to iPad...
Absolute versus relative? Of course there are absolutes. It may be difficult to get agreement on what they are bickering in a forum, but there are absolutes. There are a number reasons the walled garden gets on my nerves but for now I choose to live with it rather than going the Cydia route or switching to an Android device. Is SJ a lunatic? To some extent yes he is. Right now he is just a lucky lunatic. Let's hope he is humble enough to recognize when the tide changes and react when the next credible threat to iThings emerges. The longer it takes, the more solidified SJ becomes in his belief that he "knows all" and "sees all". And that worries me.
While I am in complete agreement with SJ on a great many issues including flash and adult apps, I'm not in agreement with the way he seems to ignore and dismiss any outside input. I am particularly troubled by the way SJ ended the email exchange. I guess I shouldn't bother emailing him because I'm not the CEO of a tech company.
Let's not forget where arrogant thinking got the US car industry...
Perhaps you are thinking "How can the iPad ever end up in this kind of computing rogue's gallery 30 years from now?" The Chevette sold 2.7 million units and was the top seller at its introduction. It is only in hindsight we can easily recognize flops. Labyrinthine insular bureaucracies failed to read the market and the above car models were the result. If SJ is able to listen, the iPad can avoid following it's older sibling, the Newton in being relegated to this kind of gallery someday.
In reading his exchange with Ryan Tate, it is clear SJ is all about preaching and not about listening. Failure to listen is the first step in the great unraveling of any company and hopefully SJ can find enough humility to listen before Android or webOS or Linux or even glacially slow Microsoft comes along and serves him up a whole bakery full of humble pie.
I like the theory that iPad is aimed at the education market. Clearly the ability to absolutely positively block inappropriate content will get educators' and parents' attention. Our daughter has a school-issued tablet running some awful flavor of XP. The darn thing weighs almost 7 pounds with its add-on battery to achieve barely 8 hours of use. Oh how I wish her school would switch to iPad...
Absolute versus relative? Of course there are absolutes. It may be difficult to get agreement on what they are bickering in a forum, but there are absolutes. There are a number reasons the walled garden gets on my nerves but for now I choose to live with it rather than going the Cydia route or switching to an Android device. Is SJ a lunatic? To some extent yes he is. Right now he is just a lucky lunatic. Let's hope he is humble enough to recognize when the tide changes and react when the next credible threat to iThings emerges. The longer it takes, the more solidified SJ becomes in his belief that he "knows all" and "sees all". And that worries me.
While I am in complete agreement with SJ on a great many issues including flash and adult apps, I'm not in agreement with the way he seems to ignore and dismiss any outside input. I am particularly troubled by the way SJ ended the email exchange. I guess I shouldn't bother emailing him because I'm not the CEO of a tech company.
Let's not forget where arrogant thinking got the US car industry...
Perhaps you are thinking "How can the iPad ever end up in this kind of computing rogue's gallery 30 years from now?" The Chevette sold 2.7 million units and was the top seller at its introduction. It is only in hindsight we can easily recognize flops. Labyrinthine insular bureaucracies failed to read the market and the above car models were the result. If SJ is able to listen, the iPad can avoid following it's older sibling, the Newton in being relegated to this kind of gallery someday.
In reading his exchange with Ryan Tate, it is clear SJ is all about preaching and not about listening. Failure to listen is the first step in the great unraveling of any company and hopefully SJ can find enough humility to listen before Android or webOS or Linux or even glacially slow Microsoft comes along and serves him up a whole bakery full of humble pie.
Yeah, SJ (or whoever replies) implied that blocking porn was a good thing. That is in absolute terms, and that was what I was questioning in the first place. Because to say that blocking something is a good thing it would mean that the thing you are blocking is bad. Why? Blocking a good thing can't be good can it (remember that you always got the same context).
To answer the points:
1. No the decision to block something does not make something bad or not, but if blocking something is always a good thing this will imply that the thing you block is always bad. To take your rape example, if everyone everywhere always thinks blocking rape is good, then that would imply that rape is bad. Because if rape was in fact good when it was good to block it then we would lower the total "goodness" by blocking it. And why would it be good to lower the total "goodness" ?
2. No I never said I was speaking in relatives, I used that as an example to explain. If you add a condition variable it can still speak in absolutes, your condition variable can just be set to so to include everything there is so it becomes an absolute.
3. No, I am not talking about anyones decision. I am talking to the action of blocking, how could blocking something that is good increase the total "goodness"? Call it utility if you want. Why would blocking something that gives extra utility be a good thing?
I don't even know why you brought up absolutes.
But to counter, Apple has listened. The App Store is the prime example of that, if no one had complained I think we would still be living with the stock apps and web apps on the iPhone, Touch, heck it is possible the iPad wouldn't have even been released! Or maybe it would have run OS X!
I think Apple listens to criticism and responds to criticism when necessary. Porn is not where Apple should be giving in.
As an aside, this discussion is mostly focused on the moral and brand image aspects. I think an overlooked aspect if the overhead required to process porn apps. If there is one thing we and Apple know about the porn industry, it does not stop. If Apple opened the gates, porn would flood the App Store. Why? Porn sells. The number (millions?) of porn sites on the net is proof of that.
Some one brought up examples of guns and violent video games earlier, but those are not things that are made everyday (guns websites, etc). While I don't think this is a big factor, if I was running Apple it would definitely be on my mind.
I don't even know why you brought up absolutes.
But to counter, Apple has listened. The App Store is the prime example of that, if no one had complained I think we would still be living with the stock apps and web apps on the iPhone, Touch, heck it is possible the iPad wouldn't have even been released! Or maybe it would have run OS X!
I think Apple listens to criticism and responds to criticism when necessary. Porn is not where Apple should be giving in.
As an aside, this discussion is mostly focused on the moral and brand image aspects. I think an overlooked aspect if the overhead required to process porn apps. If there is one thing we and Apple know about the porn industry, it does not stop. If Apple opened the gates, porn would flood the App Store. Why? Porn sells. The number (millions?) of porn sites on the net is proof of that.
Some one brought up examples of guns and violent video games earlier, but those are not things that are made everyday (guns websites, etc). While I don't think this is a big factor, if I was running Apple it would definitely be on my mind.
How did you determine this to be an absolute? Even if it is, if the individual thinks it is bad that is a relative position. It does not mean porn is bad absolutely. Again, you are mixing the senses in which a proposition can be true.
The decision to "block" rape comes after the determination that it is a moral wrong. Not before. Again, this is where the fallacy I did not point out earlier comes in, that is a converse error.
Let's not get into "total" goodness. That is outside the scope of this discussion, because it is not necessarily true that there is even such a thing as goodness let alone "total" goodness.
This doesn't make any sense. You don't seen to be understanding the difference between relative and absolute. I am not sure how much more clear I can be. You seem to be confusing two things:
Absolute and relative moral propositions with the applicability of a proposition.
An absolute moral proposition is one where the majority (arguably) decide that some action, x, is morally wrong.
A relative moral proposition is where an individual or culture decide that some action, x, is morally wrong.
The applicability of a proposition can be defined as the level of generality a proposition possesses. For example, rape is always bad or rape is bad in some context, y.
Thus, a relative moral proposition can have a narrow scope of applicability or a wide scope and the same for an absolute moral proposition. In this case, you seem to be suggesting that Steve Jobs is saying that porn should be blocked from the App Store. This means that for Steve Jobs, porn is bad and he feels it should be blocked from the App Store. There is no level of wide applicability in his statements. But even if there were, it does not matter as Steve Jobs did not make an absolute moral proposition.
Many things give extra utility that we prohibit. Stealing has utility for me as it increases my wealth, yet stealing is generally frowned upon. This, again, is outside of the topic of discussion. We do not need to get into moral positions in order to settle this matter. There are many reasons to prohibit things that provide utility, this is the very idea behind utilitarianism and you are horribly misrepresenting it.
If, for example, pornography was found to be detrimental to society and that detriment outweighed the pleasure gained from viewing pornography, the outcome based on utilitarian ethics would be to restrict access to pornography.
However, utilitarianism can produce many "false" outcomes, or outcomes that we do not generally agree with. But, this is a discussion of ethical theories, it is a discussion of your false attribution of an absolute moral claim.
I've been a huge fan of Apple since 1983 and I am also very critical of them. I praise the good and question the bad stuff they sometimes do.
Opening up a platform is both good and bad, it can lead to bad apps, crashes, poor quality control, viruses and headaches. By controlling the "store" or way apps are delivered to the iPad-Touch-iPhone it delivers a better experience for the customer. As for flash, Apple and Adobe should work together and get it where Steve would be happy. I would like to see two products released for all the skeptics, one flash and one native. See which one performs and looks better. See which one drains more battery after a few hours of use. Then let the people decide.
I do applaud their protecting the iPad-Touch-iPhone from porn apps. Think of what a porn device the iPad could be. It would be the perfect target for hundeds of porn apps. It's book size (like a Playboy or Hustler magazine), can be turned either way and can provide movie like content. Plus, you can hold it in your left hand while your right hand is.....well you know.
As for the other stuff, what other CEO writes you back? Not many, if any.
This guy came across as a foul mouthed whiner and just didn't seem to get it. I love how Steve pwned him in that last email. What have you done? The answer is nothing. Gawker*.* is really shooting themselves in the foot lately.
Opening up a platform is both good and bad, it can lead to bad apps, crashes, poor quality control, viruses and headaches. By controlling the "store" or way apps are delivered to the iPad-Touch-iPhone it delivers a better experience for the customer. As for flash, Apple and Adobe should work together and get it where Steve would be happy. I would like to see two products released for all the skeptics, one flash and one native. See which one performs and looks better. See which one drains more battery after a few hours of use. Then let the people decide.
I do applaud their protecting the iPad-Touch-iPhone from porn apps. Think of what a porn device the iPad could be. It would be the perfect target for hundeds of porn apps. It's book size (like a Playboy or Hustler magazine), can be turned either way and can provide movie like content. Plus, you can hold it in your left hand while your right hand is.....well you know.
As for the other stuff, what other CEO writes you back? Not many, if any.
This guy came across as a foul mouthed whiner and just didn't seem to get it. I love how Steve pwned him in that last email. What have you done? The answer is nothing. Gawker*.* is really shooting themselves in the foot lately.
You can apply that thinking to ANYTHING. Freedom to smoke cigarettes. Freedom to drink alcohol. Freedom to go sky diving. If you want someone to provide you with the freedom FROM things in life, then please, allow the government, Apple, whoever, to do your thinking and parenting for you. Allow them to give you the freedom from doing whatever you want. Sign over your brain right now.
Both Ryan and Steve want their own morality accessible on that device. Only one of them is in the position to provide it, and only one of them stands to profit immensely from it. Should Steve, a man known to have tried hallucinogenic drugs, provide your sense of morality?
Regardless, both of them sound like children in that debate. But Steve should get off his high horse (pun intended).
Yeah, Apple should totally sell alcohol, cigarettes, and heroin too. Because, you know, Steve is totally just harshing your freedom mellow otherwise.
Yeah, Apple should totally sell alcohol, cigarettes, and heroin too. Because, you know, Steve is totally just harshing your freedom mellow otherwise.
yes, that's exactly what I meant! Apple might be a bit more laid back, then.
By all means, though, continue to worship at his feet. He seems to be scratching you guys right where you itch. More power to you.
I find great offense in this. The only measure of one's credibility is whether they have created a (retail) product? This is the only possible contribution to society?
So every environmentalist is just a whiner? Honnestly, some are in my opinion, but by no means do I agree to a blanket statement. Criticizing something is a right, not a priviledge.
A. What you consider harmful, others don't.
B. This whole argument about keeping the iPhone free from porn is ridiculous when the Safari browser can easily find mobile porn sites. Go ahead, do a simple Google search on your iPhone for "iphone porn sites" and see how easily hardcore porn videos can be watched on it by anyone.
No, it's not the only measure, but it is one legitimate measure. And all else equal, someone who has been successful at something is in a better position to judge that thing than someone who has never even tried.
Talk about your strawman arguments...
I don't even know why you brought up absolutes.
But to counter, Apple has listened. The App Store is the prime example of that, if no one had complained I think we would still be living with the stock apps and web apps on the iPhone, Touch, heck it is possible the iPad wouldn't have even been released! Or maybe it would have run OS X!
I think Apple listens to criticism and responds to criticism when necessary. Porn is not where Apple should be giving in.
As an aside, this discussion is mostly focused on the moral and brand image aspects. I think an overlooked aspect if the overhead required to process porn apps. If there is one thing we and Apple know about the porn industry, it does not stop. If Apple opened the gates, porn would flood the App Store. Why? Porn sells. The number (millions?) of porn sites on the net is proof of that.
Some one brought up examples of guns and violent video games earlier, but those are not things that are made everyday (guns websites, etc). While I don't think this is a big factor, if I was running Apple it would definitely be on my mind.
Absolutes came up earlier in the thread and I didn't want to give the mistaken impression I agree with all that "everything is relative" or "nothing is absolute" way of dealing with morality.
You are correct. Apple has historically listened. Notice that statement is pointedly past tense. OS 4.0 brings something to the table only available by jailbreaking in the past namely categories and wallpaper. I would like to see Apple get back to listening and not merely applying bandages to stop the jailbreaker bleeding.
I agree with SJ for standing up to Ryan, I just don't think that last "What have you done?" put-down reflected well on SJ.
It hasn't been that long since Palm was at this point in their lifecycle. They thought they had a license to print money and teeny weeny little itsy bitsy little niggling upgrades trickled out to PalmOS devices over several long years while the rest of the mobile world was moving at light speed. I just want Apple to avoid falling into that trap now that their market cap is nipping at their nemisis (Microsoft) and they can seem to do no wrong. This is the time that is most dangerous to Apple. Not some years ago when they were making those awful cubes. Now is the time they can stumble and fall hard if they forget to continue their practice of listening to customers.
Good point about the system requirements. Some types of apps are shall we say, a lot more bandwidth hungry than others. As for violent apps, isn't there an existing rating system for that?
In my automotive example, perhaps I should have mentioned all the decades when the car companies had a license to print money that led to the arrogance that begat Pacer, Aztek and Pinto.
What I'm saying here is not that Apple hasn't listened. I'm worried that they are forgetting how to listen now that they think they have found the "magic formula". The magic formula is not a 5 ounce device that gets 24 hours of battery life, has 8 terabytes and has a SXGA display with 2 million apps and sells for $249. The magic formula is picking up the phone or email when a customer is calling and listening to what they have to say without belittling them for calling or emailing in the first place.
BTW, when the hardware costs come into line, OS X on an "iPad Pro" won't be a scary thing at all.
Because he did not specify any restrictions! If I say X>Y it needs to always be true, the same if u say blocking is good, it must hold ALWAYS. He did not say it was an opinion either, he stated is as a fact. He stated that blocking porn is ALWAYS good. That is what I was pointing out.
That have nothing to do with what I am saying. I say that if blocking X is good this will imply that X is bad. I am NOT as you seem to think, saying that if blocking X is good it is ekvivalent with that X is bad. It's a world of difference.
Who are talking about moral, that is just humbug anyhow since the definitions of what is moral and not is always subjective.
Puh-lease. Sensibly agreeing that Apple should not be in the porn business is not worshipping anybody.
Strawman fails.
The teapot calls the kettle black.
Never once did I say Apple should sell porn or even advocate porn (although I would love to see an apple designed Vodka bottle). But hey, I understand you have to defend your god. Stand up for what you (that is, Steve) believes in, right?
So you are arguing what exactly?
Steve and I happen to agree on this issue. Yeah, I just blew your mind.