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

[macbookpro13]

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?

Then what the hell is it that you want? You seem like you're just trying to pick a fight over anything. Like a fanatic.

 

[calderone]

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.

Please provide the specific quotes from which you draw these conclusions. I see no such statement that "blocking porn is ALWAYS good." In fact, there is very little said by Steve on the issue of porn. But this seems to be a game of proof by exclusion.

X>Y does is not required to be always true. Pop it into a truth table and see what comes out the other end. You have even disproved this claim yourself, there are various contexts in which X is indeed better than Y, where in others it is not.

This is indeed evident what Steve Jobs stated, notice that Jobs did not say porn should not be available on any platform, to the contrary he recommended that users seek other platforms if they are unhappy with the Apple platform.

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.

This was never my contention. I have already disproved your argument that blocking something even implies that it is bad, but ignoring that, the issue has been what kind of "bad" is implied. If, absolute, the argument fails from the start as it is a fallacy. Absolute moral propositions are not formed in such a manner. If relative, your argument is meaningless.

Who are talking about moral, that is just humbug anyhow since the definitions of what is moral and not is always subjective.

Always subjective? Have you argued for that position. There are many moral philosophers who would disagree with you (I would disagree in a sense as well).

You are bringing in issues of "total" goodness and using utilitarian arguments to support your claims. I, personally, do not accept utilitarianism for a number of reasons. Which is why should leave such topics out of the discussion.

 

[Lone Deranger]

Stop bickering you lot. Or at the very least try constructing your arguments without purposely trying to belittle each other. It's such a disgrace.

 

[calderone]

Stop bickering you lot. Or at the very least try constructing your arguments without purposely trying to belittle each other. It's such a disgrace.

Who belittled someone?

 

[Davidkoh]

Please provide the specific quotes from which you draw these conclusions. I see no such statement that "blocking porn is ALWAYS good." In fact, there is very little said by Steve on the issue of porn. But this seems to be a game of proof by exclusion.

X>Y does is not required to be always true. Pop it into a truth table and see what comes out the other end. You have even disproved this claim yourself, there are various contexts in which X is indeed better than Y, where in others it is not.

This is indeed evident what Steve Jobs stated, notice that Jobs did not say porn should not be available on any platform, to the contrary he recommended that users seek other platforms if they are unhappy with the Apple platform.

No, saying X > Y will mean that the relation should hold always. Unless you add restrictions to it. I am looking at a derivations of math theorems that would fall apart would if you were to apply your reasoning on them. This is why you need to add restrictions X > Y when X,Y belongs to Z or things like that. In the same way you would need to restrict the claim "it is good to block porn" if you want it to only be true under certain conditions.

You are bringing in issues of "total" goodness and using utilitarian arguments to support your claims. I, personally, do not accept utilitarianism for a number of reasons. Which is why should leave such topics out of the discussion.

I never talked about utilitarianism, I was talking about basic national economics.

EDIT: Granted they borrowed the word "utility" from utilitarianism, so that was my bad.

Stop bickering you lot. Or at the very least try constructing your arguments without purposely trying to belittle each other. It's such a disgrace.

I can only speak for myself, but I do not feel belittled or attacked.

 

[MacPhilosopher]

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?

Again, jobs isn't telling you what kind of gas to put in your car. He is just telling you that he won't sell you that kind of gas. Get it somewhere else. Also, don't try to defend your position by saying you should be able to buy porn apps from iTunes. You have more access to porn through browsers than you ever will through lame little apps. Plus, all of those that want to create those apps can just do web based versions in HTML.

 

[Synthetickiller]

I'm not reading 43 pages of "OMG, this journalist sucks, SJ is God" rhetoric.

Freedom from media, in this case, porn, is not freedom, it IS censorship.

Hypocrisy....

Steve later comments "Its not about freedom, its about Apple trying to do the right thing for its users."

Wait......... It IS about freedom.... wait, he corrected himself, it's obviously not.

More hypocrisy. For many users, that is NOT the right thing.

I wonder if Steve is even thinking about what he writes.... If you are going to be a good liar, you need to keep your story straight and he's not. What lie am I talking about....... This BS "morality" Complex that Apple has.

Porn is not blocked, just porn apps, right? There's tons of watchable porn on EVERY Apple Device that shows video. IF you're going to block a certain type of content, at least don't do it half-assed, block the porno websites too.

Doesn't Playboy have an App (albeit, no nudity)? Isn't that exposing people to porn and in some way creating a gateway to it?

Thanks for TRYING to save me form myself Steve........ Wow, it's starting to sound more an more like religious rhetoric.

Nudity is bad... but violence is okay, at least that's what the large number of violent games available in the app store tells me.

Thanks kids, the word of the day truly is Hypocrisy.

I have a brain and I"m happy to use it and not be censored.

 

[roxnadz]

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...

Heyyyy! Don't be hating on the Chevette! That was my first car!

(To stay on topic, I think Tate had some decent points, he just had the delivery acumen of a poached egg. Steve did nail him with the "why are you who-ridin'" rejoinder at the end, though.)

 

[oldwatery]

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.

How are you offended about a statement made about someone else?
As for producers...you are the one who inserted the word retail thus changing the entire meaning of the quote. And who said anything about environmentalists?
Steve was getting down on this guy because that is all he does. Criticize. That is plain unproductive. I did not read into his quote that he is down on journalists or environmentalists. Just people who make a living out of belittling and being anti everything.

 

[calderone]

No, saying X > Y will mean that the relation should hold always. Unless you add restrictions to it. I am looking at a derivations of math theorems that would fall apart would if you were to apply your reasoning on them. This is why you need to add restrictions X > Y when X,Y belongs to Z or things like that. In the same way you would need to restrict the claim "it is good to block porn" if you want it to only be true under certain conditions.

I can say whatever I want to say, it does not mean it must always hold true. Right now, I like cake more than pie, but that may not be true tomorrow nor at any other time in the future. Yet, you are still confusing the applicability of propositions with the propositions themselves.

This is not math, we are talking about moral propositions. Numbers are fixed and are an a priori truth. This is vastly different from the realm of moral propositions. There is nothing wrong with my reasoning, nor does my reasoning apply to math for the reasons I have stated already.

In math, there is no condition in which X > Y can be true only when you desire it so, unless you put in values that make the statement false.

For example, I cannot say that today 2 > 3 and tomorrow 3 > 2. Or that 50 > 1 in Tokyo, but 1 > 50 in New York.

However, it is possible that porn is acceptable in Europe, where it is not in Iran. That is because moral propositions are not a priori truths like numbers are.

I never talked about utilitarianism, I was talking about basic national economics.

Yes, you did talk about utilitarianism, whether you meant to or not. You used a basic utilitarian argument, while utilitarianism has similar idea to "national economics," they are very much different. And utilitarianism is not accepted by many moral philosophers. We cannot discuss this matter if I disagree with your initial premises, and I am not about to get into a debate on ethical systems.

 

[MacPhilosopher]

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.

Oh, how wonderful to hear another voice of reason on macrumors. To many jailhouse lawyers and bathroom philosophers on here. Then again, look at my user name. Who am I to talk;-)

 

[koa]

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.



_

.

In your opinion, how long does one need to be "lucky" before you would acknowledge one was actually skillful instead?

 

[i.mac]

?...

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.

Are you arguing pro-Steve or con-Steve ? Let's see...

Pro-Steve: you have freedom from porn. If you want it, search for it yourself.

Con-Steve: Steve give me porn aps because I want the freedom to be lazy and not search for porn myself.


Either way, you'll get your porn, except one argument makes sense when you have kids accessing the app store by themselves. Guess which argument would that be?

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Either way, you'll get your porn, except one argument makes sense when you have kids accessing the app store by themselves. Guess which argument would that be?

They aren't mutually exclusive. The App Store doesn't have to host porn. Steve just needs to allow users the right to install what they want. Sideloading apps and allowing Adobe to develop a flash plugin are a start. Computers are an open platform and should be treated as such. Innovation will begin to stagnate if we treat them like household utilities that just need to get their specific job done.

 

[mccldwll]

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.
.

Excuse me? Where EXACTLY did he state that "blocking porn is ALWAYS good." Citation please. I missed that.

 

[i.mac]

They aren't mutually exclusive. The App Store doesn't have to host porn. Steve just needs to allow users the right to install what they want. Sideloading apps and allowing Adobe to develop a flash plugin are a start. Computers are an open platform and should be treated as such. Innovation will begin to stagnate if we treat them like household utilities that just need to get their specific job done.

Hum....

1. Jailbreak ipad/iphone will get every thing you advocate for

2. Get another smart phone/pad will give you all the freedom you search for

It seems to me that you and every one have the freedom sought after.


What a lot of folks here do not know is how life is when you have no real freedom (I do). This argument regarding freedom from porn (or not) is child like argument only freaking relevant in the us. Most of the world does not care a bit. Man this is so tiresome...

This is getting tiresome. Will not waste my time any more in this thread.

 

[mccldwll]

They aren't mutually exclusive. The App Store doesn't have to host porn. Steve just needs to allow users the right to install what they want. Sideloading apps and allowing Adobe to develop a flash plugin are a start. Computers are an open platform and should be treated as such. Innovation will begin to stagnate if we treat them like household utilities that just need to get their specific job done.

You seem to have left out "IMHO".

 

[Davidkoh]

I can say whatever I want to say, it does not mean it must always hold true. Right now, I like cake more than pie, but that may not be true tomorrow nor at any other time in the future. Yet, you are still confusing the applicability of propositions with the propositions themselves.

This is not math, we are talking about moral propositions. Numbers are fixed and are an a priori truth. This is vastly different from the realm of moral propositions. There is nothing wrong with my reasoning, nor does my reasoning apply to math for the reasons I have stated already.

In math, there is no condition in which X > Y can be true only when you desire it so, unless you put in values that make the statement false.

For example, I cannot say that today 2 > 3 and tomorrow 3 > 2. Or that 50 > 1 in Tokyo, but 1 > 50 in New York.

If you say "Right now, I like cake more then pie" then you added a restriction, it only holds right now. But if you say "I like cake more then pie" you are stating it will hold later too.

You might be talking about moral propositions, I am not. I am talking about how you need to add restrictions to your statements. And there the way used in math and mathematical statistics is common. Since this is the way used when actually testing your hypothesis from datasets it is a pretty common way to state it.

Of course you can have that X > Y holds now but not later in math, X and Y might be stochastic variables for example, or dummy variables. This is why you in many cases need to restrict it.

However, it is possible that porn is acceptable in Europe, where it is not in Iran. That is because more propositions are not a priori truths like numbers are.

Why mix in "acceptable" ? Who cares about that. I am not talking about humbug like that. I am talking about facts. Will watching porn cause any damage to a human being? Not from any research I have read, I don't care what people think about it.

Yes, you did talk about utilitarianism, whether you meant to or not. You used a basic utilitarian argument, while utilitarianism has similar idea to "national economics," they are very much different. And utilitarianism is not accepted by many moral philosophers. We cannot discuss this matter if I disagree with your initial premises, and I am not about to get into a debate on ethical systems.

Actually no, I was applying national economics. You measure things in utility and you always concentrate on "more is better".



I think it all boils down to us being a different breed of people tbh, we think different things are important.

 

[thibaulthalpern]

You know, I actually kind of agree with Steve.

The iPhone/iPad have two platforms: native and the web.

Apple controls the native stuff. It's in the AppStore and everything there is (depending on your parental controls) relatively clean. That's it's job. It's there to distribute functional apps, not to serve up every piece of content for the platform.

Apple doesn't control the web, and the web technologies have really been advancing. Google goes to the web when they can't get things approved in the AppStore; so should the porn industry. People accept that the web is unregulated.

I don't want the AppStore overrun with porn. Yes, it's popular, but I don't want it to get in the way of functional apps and make it a burden to use.

Saladinos, I think you make one of the most level-headed and brilliant points. I haven't seen your point suggested by other users or writers. Your point is totally valid. A lot of critics say something like since the web is full of porn, the app store too should be allowed to be fully open implying that the app store should allow porn too. You make a good distinction where the difference between app store and web is noted in who is responsible for what. Because the app store is run by Apple, it beehoves them to have certain standards to determine what is acceptable in their app store or not. They are not running "the web". Because of this, the simple fact that porn is available via Safari Mobile does not mean then the app store should be permissible to porn.

I like your point and I hope the critics can come to their senses.

 

[mccldwll]

I have a brain and I"m happy to use it and not be censored.

Then use it.

 

[thibaulthalpern]

Why is SJ up at 2 AM and responding to emails? At least it's not a work night. Maybe he's partying and high on LSD.

Another possibility is that he's not in California? He could be several time zones away say on the East Coast (+3hrs from California) or in London (+8 from California).

I'm pointing this out to say that sometimes, the most boring of explanation can be more likely than crazy ideas like "he might be on LSD" ;-)

 

[calderone]

*snip*

This has gone far beyond the original discussion. I honestly don't know what you are talking about anymore. You keep adding new qualifications with every reply convoluting the discussion even more.

If one was supposed to extrapolate this information from your original argument you missed the mark.

Nice talking with you.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

Not sure if it has been said already but if Steve wanted us to have 'freedom' from porn he wouldn't block flash. He would not allow any web browser into the ecosystem.

Steve definitely gets the better of this exchange but his arguments are at times maniacal if not more articulate. I think Steve might be losing it a little bit. Thankfully Oppenheimer seems to be ready to replace him.

He seems like a capable man and I think Apple may be able to continue to do well with new leadership. I am not saying Steve should quit but he won't be around much longer given his diagnosis anyway.

Steve's question at the end was classic. It must have been at that point that the blogger either realised what a moron he is or passed out in his inebriated state or both.

 

[thibaulthalpern]

Steve is facing his own mortality due to his illness. I can empathize with what that does to you. The mans ego and sense of self-importance is widely known and, one could argue, not entirely baseless.

More than likely, Steve see's Apple as his shot at immortality. He is a Buddhist and anyone can figure out what he's doing.

Clarify for me what notions do you have about Buddhist. You have some assumptions about Buddhists when you make that statement but it isn't forthrightly put out here.

 

[MikeJett86]

So I have a couple issues with this thread ....They are as follows:

1) Bloggers are not journalists. Stop acting like they are. Being a journalist takes more than a wordpress account and emails to steve jobs. Also, I don't believe Gawker can be considered a reputable media outlet. Anyone remember the sh*t Gizmodo pulled at CES a couple years ago with the TV Remote watch? Now, LifeHacker, they're pretty cool, but they don't pretend to be anything more than what they are.

2) Apple only makes products for rich people. This is not true. Find me a system that is equally equipped off the shelf as the 27" Quad (i5) iMac. There's not one out there for a lower price. and yes, we as apple users, pay a premium for Apple hardware. Why? Incredible customer support, stunning industrial design and an operating system that works well without the constant upkeep associated with Windows systems. Also, As of Sept 9, 2009 they had sold 220 MILLION iPods. I didn't realize there were that many rich people out there.

3) HTML5 and CSS3 is coming. Fast. Without Apple (and Mozilla) throwing their support behind these new technologies we would be years away from these standards to take root, but now, my educated guess is that the time to full adoption has been cut in half. We are entering into a golden age of the open internet. Where plug ins are not required to experience truly amazing content.

4) Closed Environments. Can you really blame Apple for wanting to keep their sandbox clean? there is a quote out there form SJ to the effect of "Software companies that are serious about software, make their own hardware" That's what they do. They build the playground, and they make the rules. So play nice kids! Stop bitching and get to work making cool stuff.

Now ... these are just my thoughts, I am by no means an expert in anything really ... so take it as you will.