I am not adding any qualifications, I am just trying to explain to you my reasoning. You are the one mixing in a lot of moral hambug and a lot of other philosophical stuff which I do not really care about.
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
I am not adding any qualifications, I am just trying to explain to you my reasoning. You are the one mixing in a lot of moral hambug and a lot of other philosophical stuff which I do not really care about.
Steve is a Buddhist? That really makes me laugh. A buddhist that is constantly short tempered, lives in a mansion and drives a Benz with no plates. Steve might think he is a Buddhist much like Jerry Falwell thought he was a Christian.
Tell you what. Restate your complete argument in clear way, we can restart from there if you want to continue.
What qualifies you to decide whether someone else is living up to the ideals of his belief system?
I think it was stated pretty clear.
Saying "Blocking X is good" without restrictions or in a context that does not imply any restrictions is a statement that do not work unless blocking of X is always good.
Actually their are lots of reasons, including many very valid ones.
Not the least of which is to send masbutatory misfits into a rage that they can't have on demand porn Apps and an iPhone or iPad.
Sometimes in life you have to make choices. If you want the best smartphone or best (only real) tablet, then you are not going to get porn apps. You can still access porn on the devices via other means, or get other devices, but the choice is ultimately yours.
The idea that any company is not allowed to implement their own higher moral standard in their business is absurd.
Chick-Fil-A is not open on Sunday. That goes way back and has to do with the owners belief that people should be with their families on Sunday, and perhaps even at Church.
The bottom line is businesses are allowed to decide what they want to sell and how they want to sell it, as long as it is legal. What shapes those decisions be it financially, socially, ethically or morally is up to the companies and those who run them.
Apple doesn't have to provide access to porn apps if they do not want to do it. They clearly do not want to do it. Their devices have been amazingly successful without porn apps, so clearly their decision does not seem to have much impact on their business, and I along with many of their customers don't have a problem with not allowing porn apps on the device.
Yes. Please teach us all about all uniquely closed Apple is.
You are one of the 90% of fools here who think this sort of thing Apple is choosing to do is somehow unique. It is not. As people have mentioned before, why aren't we up in arms then that Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc. aren't selling porn. I want a porn XBOX 360 game! Most people don't seem to realize this simple fact. Don't buy the damn phone then. Go to the land of milk and freedom honey that is Android then! You aren't forced to do a damn thing.
I find it hard to understand how anyone can get this angry with someone who hasn't done them specific personal harm. I would expect that kind of venom directed towards a person who killed your child, not a businessman you've never met.
Why is ANYONE posting here for limits on what you can do with your OS?
Can anyone give me a good argument? I have yet to see one....
Poorly programmed software is NOT one of them. I'd bring up the Crysis argument, but MACHeads don't game much....
Can anyone give me a good argument? I have yet to see one....
Poorly programmed software is NOT one of them. I'd bring up the Crysis argument, but MACHeads don't game much....
The more one can do with an OS, the more malware can do with an OS, the more likely it is that the things I actually use will be busted, and the more cruft I have to navigate to get to the stuff I actually use on the OS.
There is a place for full featured (and hence complicated) OS's, and a place for narrow-featured and hence simple OS's. I pick up my iPad when I want instant on access to a narrow set of workflows. I pick up my MBP when I want tcsh, xcode, handbrake, photoshop, etc. Each has its place.
You can already. There is the Video app for installing all the video porn you could ever watch on your morning bus trip to work. Then there is the Photos app for installing as many hardcore photos as you wish to view in the bathroom once you're at work on your morning break. Then if you want even more porn on your lunch break, there's the Safari app to download as much porn as your credit card can handle being ripped off for.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING stopping you from jam-pack cramming your iPad full to the brim with your favourite porn. Your only limitation is the capacity. Dang, Jobs MUST release an iPad with 1TB capacity for all your porn otherwise he's a brutal dictator and it's censorship!!
Tell us again why you need a specific porn app or else it's the end of all freedoms as we know them? Are you an actual porn app developer trying to push your own vested interests here? Because I can't think of any other reason why anyone would actually claim Jobs "needs" to include porn apps.
I agree with Steve in principle being that no one is forcing you to use the apple platform so either accept it or leave
WIth that said, I would appreciate apple being more open
WIth that said, I would appreciate apple being more open
Anyway, what the heck even is a 'porn app'? Porn is primarily just viewable media, photos and video, so what is a porn app other than just a subscription service? Are you guys talking some sort of interactivity or something incorporating the full 'touch' experience? Ewww, messy screens. That's just gross.
There is not enough data for you to make any clear judgements about the nature of what Steve Jobs said. You have consistently embellished what he said without providing a quote. In addition, there is more data to the contrary of what you are saying.
This argument is not what you originally stated. You were originally concluding "if it is good to block X" then "X must be bad." Now we have changed from "X being bad" to "blocking of X is always good."
I have a provided a number of possible ways the statement can work. But there are a number of false statements and assumptions in your argument:
1. That Steve Jobs stated blocking X is always good
2. Restrictions were implied
a. Jobs recommended other platforms
b. Jobs was speaking only in relation to the App Store, porn is not blocked in a browser which contradicts your claim that Jobs is claiming that blocking porn is always good. Porn is available on my Mac. If Jobs thinks that "blocking porn is ALWAYS good" why then does he not act on that maxim in all cases related to Apple's other products?
3. As has been stated to your before, the context of the conversation fills in many of the details. It is not required that someone, in a conversation such as the one in question, spell out exactly what they mean. From context, and from what I have shown above, it is clear that your claims are false based on the facts around them.
If your mission here is to fill in the story with details that further your argument, you are not being very honest intellectually.
In addition, I see no mention of math which seems to be central to your claim as you later divulged. I gave you the opportunity to spell out exactly what you meant, yet when you reply you will then tell me about how this relates to math and economics.
Quite honestly I am tired of this discussion with you. I don't mean that as a slight, but you have not addressed my point in the least. All you have done is added new information to support your argument, information that should have been there from the start.
I don't have issues w/ malware or viruses and I'm obviously using a windows platform.....
Haven't had any issues /w either under win7 with what you're claiming. If my memory serves me right, I remember the mac owners during college having nightmares w/ missing files, more so than I ever did even under XP which I really don't like.
I also don't know how that argument can justify taking out functionality from a LARGE part of a user's internet experience.
Haven't had any issues /w either under win7 with what you're claiming. If my memory serves me right, I remember the mac owners during college having nightmares w/ missing files, more so than I ever did even under XP which I really don't like.
I also don't know how that argument can justify taking out functionality from a LARGE part of a user's internet experience.
I already have. Apple is heavily focussed on the education market. Purposely excluding 'adult only' applications from the platform is a sound and wise business decision in terms of their corporate strategy, regardless of how many 19 year old guys complain about their freedom to jerk off to a mobile device being infringed.
Geez, I wish I didnt have to write that last bit but that's pretty much the crotch [sic] of it.
I wonder if your head will explode when you find out how incredibly "gross" actual reproduction is.
Actually that is exactly what I stated in the whole argument and that last statement was the same. But maybe you did not get it? I said just that, that if it is true that "it is good to block X" without restrictions, that statement can only hold if it is always the case that x is bad.
Math is all based on logic, so if you want your logic to work it must be able to translate into a mathematical problem.
You have not made a point? You just rambled about some humbug philosophical things. If I wanted to hear that I would of chosen that subject as the major for my "easy extra degree" that you take just for fun.
Anyhow, I am done with this argument, you are purposely twisting what I say to the inverse implications and do not read my replies properly. I am using the same argument over and over again which you is changing the direction of the implications on. So just go reread the old replies by me and you will get your response
.If you can't see any logical reason, that's fine. If you desire a more open OS without as many restrictions, that is TOTALLY FINE. Just realize you're not going to get it from iphone OS, ps3 OS, 360 OS, Wii OS, or Zune OS. You need Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, or something like that.
we should remember it's steves device, and so its HIS choice. not ours as consumers. as he has stated, we make the choice to consume.
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.
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.
Actually, a lot of these are not examples of failure to listen to consumers on the part of the automakers. They were responding to insistent demand.
The Pinto was designed in response to strong demand for an under-$2000 car. It was built to a price. the results were predictable.
The Chevette was the result of strong demand for an affordable car for the developing world. It was supposed to be the same everywhere, for economy of production, cost $1200, and be cheaper to junk than to rebuild after 100,000 miles or whatever. They couldn't get the price where they wanted it, so they gussied it up a little and sold it in the US as the Chevette.
The Aztek was actually produced due to surprisingly strong demand. At the car shows where the prototype was shown, all the Gen-Y hipster doofuses (doofi?) were drooling and swooning all over it, yelling: "Gotta have it! **** Yeah!" It was dead on arrival until this unexpected positive reaction led to its actual production. This was the result of giving people what they said they wanted. The result is history.