
It's His Platform, Not Yours - fogus
http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2010/04/its-his-platform-not-yours.html
======
pwhelan
Sigh... more of this? Quite frankly, it is getting tiresome how people
seemingly willfully misunderstand this. Apple has every right to approve what
goes into their store. It is very questionable if they have the right to tell
you how to create the product initially. It would be like saying the
conceptual sketches, done in private and only for the engineers designing a
product, must be done in red pen -- no pencils or other colors. It has
absolutely zero bearing on the quality or ethics of the created software so a
comparison to other processes is questionable. Apple & Jobs do not owe anyone
anything but that doesn't mean that they can overstep their ethical and legal
boundaries, which they may very well be doing.

In my opinion, not uncommon, they are behaving unethically -- especially since
enforcement will be selective at best. In the eyes of the law... well, we
shall see but I cannot see this going through. If a company were to say that
software developers must originally write their code while wearing baseball
hats? Suits? Only between dusk and dawn? By vegetarians? Each rule seems as
arbitrary as the ones Apple has put forth. I would think that the law wouldn't
allow irrelevant terms to carry meaning.

~~~
mahmud
_In my opinion, not uncommon, they are behaving unethically_

So let me see if I understand this: you are tired of people complaining and
refusing to accept Apple's, by your admission, unethical behaviour?

Apple had no trouble empowering people to create, when it was other people's
monopolies on the line (Remember "Rip, Mix Burn"?) But when people demand the
right to hack, and contribute back to the "platform", Apple shuts the door on
their face and you're irked that people complain?

~~~
pwhelan
Mahmud... what? The article was essentially saying that Apple can do whatever
they want because they built it. The main point of the article was pretty
disparaging to people who are upset by this decision. If I didn't convey that
I was upset by this as well, that is my mistake. I thought that by pointing
out that the author was, again in my opinion, mistaken in his argument I was
in fact on the side of people who 'demand the right to hack, and contribute
back'

Never said I was tired of people here discussing things. I am tired of what
the author was saying which I didn't believe to be well thought out and,
frankly, pseudo-intellectual snobbery despite its strong historical basis.
Having just read the article a second time I thought I was abundantly clear,
but I figured I should clarify.

~~~
mahmud
No worries, it just wasn't clear from your writing what was _your_ position.
It's good to sympathize with both sides of an argument (it's called being a
grown up) but it's confusing to _argue_ for opposite positions :-)

Cheers!

