

Steve Jobs to Valleywag Why are You So Bitter? - keltecp11
http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/15/steve-jobs-to-valleywag-why-are-you-so-bitter/

======
boredguy8
Money quote: "By the way, what have you done that's so great? Do you create
anything, or just criticize others work and belittle their motivations?"

~~~
jraines
As was pointed out the last couple times this article was posted, this is an
ad hominem fallacy.

Criticism should be judged on its merit, not based on ones opinion of critics.

Jose Canseco is completely nuts and an asshole to boot (go check his Twitter
feed for a few minutes of fun), but that doesn't mean his claims about the
steroid era in baseball are meritless.

~~~
boredguy8
Well, first, most of the ranting on both sides is specious and fallacious. One
of the lines in all this grandstanding, though, is pretty funny. This isn't
dialectical interrogation of Truth going on here.

Second, it's not fallacious if the point of the discussion is to explore what
makes success. The criticism is, "You're not a revolution." Jobs' point is:
OK, so show me what is.

Lastly, to the extend this is a debate, Jobs beasted him on that question:
Apple created app warehousing that seems to work. Having seen the collapse of
such models in the past, and seeing so many people scramble to get on the
gravy-train, I'd say the shift is pretty revolutionary.

~~~
jraines
Pointing out a logical fallacy that, when used by an accomplished person
against a critic who is not accomplished in the same field, is quite heavy
handed, does not mean I'm engaged in "a dialectical interrogation of Truth".

------
rbanffy
"freedom from porn"?!

I'm speechless.

What's the next freedom we are to enjoy? Freedom from controversial arguments?
Freedom from dissent? Freedom from bad taste?

~~~
slackerIII
It is, for the first time in history, a garden of pure ideology.

~~~
pohl
Not really. I'm pretty sure Disney keeps their theme parks as porn-free as
they can. I bet Target, Walmart, and Toys-R-Us do a pretty good job of keeping
their stores porn-free. The App Store isn't doing anything that brick-and-
mortar businesses haven't been doing for a long time.

~~~
rbanffy
It's squashing our hopes that in this brave new world of the global internet
things could be different than they have been.

~~~
pohl
"Different than they have been"...

...so y'all have hopes of disposing of the status quo of being able to take
your daughter shopping without having to explain to her why those three men in
the picture were filling all holes on that nice lady?

Speaking as someone who has no issue with porn, and who has shamelessly rubbed
a few out to some in my day, I've got to say that being able to point mobile
Safari anywhere I want to, and to sync pictures and movies if I'm so inclined,
is sufficient for me.

Not having porn in the App Store is no more a blow against high hopes for the
internet than is not having porn at overstock.com.

~~~
rbanffy
It's not like that. Unless you actively seek porn, you won't find it, be it in
the web, be it in mobile applications for platforms other than Apple's.

The right analogy is your daughter being unable to find porn when she actively
and deliberately seeks and want it because some authority deemed it immoral
and banned its production.

This is not what I expected from Apple and not what I want for the future.

~~~
pohl
Even if you buy the claim that there is no keyword overlap between porn & non-
porn queries (which I don't) and that porn purveyors don't love to spam
keyword space (which I don't) you still have to consider this:

[http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the_top_100_search_term...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the_top_100_search_terms_queried_by_kids.php)

...and that if a parent busts their child searching for it and finding it, the
puritan parent is as likely to go after the store as they are to deal with
their child.

Allowing porn apps into the store is a messy business proposition. I'm only
surprised it didn't get shot down sooner. Not expecting the same policy from
_any_ brand of their magnitude is naïve.

And, I have to say, desiring to have porn distributed as executable code is a
crazy thing to wish for. I wouldn't even trust it in a sandbox. No industry
abuses APIs more than those guys.

~~~
rbanffy
> the puritan parent is as likely to go after the store as they are to deal
> with their child.

And that is one of the dangerous slopes we can see. It's not the store owner's
responsibility to educate the kid - that's what parents are for. And the
puritan parent has no right to prevent my kids from getting what I allow them
to get.

And it's not only about porn. Apple must clearly draw the line it will not
cross. Today it's porn, emulators and anything that's cross-compiled. A
cartoonist was blocked already (and unblocked after that). Would a network
anonymizer be allowed? For how long?

~~~
pohl
Ok, think of it this way: imagine that you're pitching the idea of allowing
porn apps into the App Store. How do you convince the board of directors that
porn should be associated with the brand? You'll have to do better than
slippery slope alarmism. So what do you say to make your business case?

~~~
rbanffy
The only reason they would be associated with porn now is that they took a
stance against porn in the first place.

Of all apps, only a small fraction of them would end up being porn - present
approval process could still happen. Adult content would also be segregated
into an adult store - with separate authorization processes so if puritan
parents decide to make it difficult for their offspring to get porn, difficult
it would be.

And, most of all, this is not about porn - it's about the notion of a walled
garden as being desirable. It's, like someone mentioned, that garden of pure
ideology.

Jobs, now, is the Big Brother on the screen. It's up to us to wield the
hammers.

~~~
pohl
_The only reason they would be associated with porn now is that they took a
stance against porn in the first place._

That directly contradicts this:

 _Adult content would also be segregated into an adult store_

You can't operate an adult store and avoid it becoming associated with your
brand. Unless it has no customers - in which case: why operate it?

~~~
rbanffy
I see no contradiction. All you would see is applications the account owner
deem appropriate for you. It would be no more associated with porn than it is
with, say, books.

Or farting applications.

~~~
pohl
I guess that's why you're not in charge of brand management.

Among the tech-geek demographic the iPhone is already associated with farting
applications. It's a common way to deride the quality of apps at the store
when someone gets their knickers in a twist about the reasons Jobs gave for
section 3.3.1 - and that's just a current event.

Imagine running an adult store for a decade. People talk. People read. Hiding
an adult store behind an individual's preferences would not prevent word from
getting out.

I guarantee you that if Disney tried to run a triple-X store in the way you
suggest that knowledge of it would get out and it would cause an enormous
shit-storm.

Everything any customer experiences that fires a neuron linked to your name or
your logo or your products is associated with your brand.

~~~
rbanffy
Disney aims their brand towards family and kid-friendly audiences. Apple
doesn't.

There is no pink iPhone with mouse ears. There is no "Hello Kitty" special
edition.

------
ryanwaggoner
Lots of very good discussion on this email exchange here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1350885>

------
EatenByGrues
Maybe I'm missing something here but it seems that lately it has been pretty
popular to post other peoples e-mail conversations (see the whole TechCrunch
vs. Fortune post a while back). I'm starting to think you shouldn't e-mail
anyone who runs a major tech blog unless you want to see it made public.

~~~
CodeMage
Quite right, but expand that to you shouldn't send anything over the Internet
unless either:

a) the privacy of it is guaranteed and that guarantee can be legally enforced

or

b) you don't mind it being made public

~~~
rbanffy
And, most of all, when you are an important public figure, you must be very
careful with what you express to anyone but your closest friends.

------
madair
Steve Jobs seems in denial about the jackboots kicking in doors over his IP
claims.

Some people will just never get it as long as it's not their door.

~~~
raganwald
1\. The police are not jackboots. Please don't Godwin a thread right off the
bat.

2\. If you are speaking of the search of a Gizmodo editors premises, this was
conducted to gather evidence with respect to the alleged purchase of stolen
physical property, not over IP.

As far as "it" is concerned, I'm with Steve. If you traffic in stolen physical
objects, I want the police to investigate thoroughly. If you aren't home when
they arrive with the search warrant, I expect them to behave exactly the same
way with your door as they would with anyone else.

The whole busting in the door thing would be far more effective rhetoric if
the editor in question had been home and the police had burst in with guns
drawn and executed a high-risk takedown. That isn't what happened. They
knocked, there was no-one home, they entered the property to execute their
search warrent.

~~~
sabat
_Please don't Godwin a thread right off the bat._

Hee hee.

 _If you traffic in stolen physical objects, I want the police to investigate
thoroughly._

You're probably right, but the objection I agree with is the _priority_ that
Jobs/Apple got because of who Steve is. They wouldn't bust down the door for
just anyone. If some small startup complained that a prototype was stolen, the
police would not have acted so promptly and decisively.

And that's the problem I have with this. The response should have been
proportional to the crime: it should have been "well, we have a lot of other
complaints right now, and this isn't going to affect much of anything. Sorry."
-- not "SIR YES SIR! We'll bust that door down forthwith, sir!"

~~~
madair
Exactly.

------
joubert
Interesting use of a postscript at the _beginning_ of a reply.

~~~
iamdave
I believe the postscript was more of an addendum to the previous email...

