

Apple never promised us it wouldn't be Evil - mmc
http://mooseyard.com/Jens/?p=163

======
novum
Apple has always tried to control all aspects of its platform, hardware, and
software, so I don't think we should be surprised by its draconian rules
governing the app store.

That said, I think it's pretty clear by now to most of us that iPhone/iPod
Touch users and developers alike would benefit from a more transparent, less
restrictive app policy. I'm just not sure that kind of policy is in Apple's
DNA.

~~~
8plot
It surprises me that they are so successful, despite their draconian rules,
fanboism thrives.

~~~
Dilpil
Try publishing apps for another phone platform.

~~~
8plot
I intend to, but not in protest. I will still develop for the iphone, and if
my apps are rejected, there is always cydia.

------
tptacek
It may be "evil", "counterproductive", "stupid", or "brain-dead". It may even
be alienating to developers, despite the available evidence of their actions.
But it does appear to be effective:

* There's been no Mac malware released through the App Store process.

* The App Store process has shut down at least one tethering application Apple actively didn't want to ship.

* The App Store process appears to have kept "backdoor" programming environments (like Flash) out of the ecosystem.

Apple is a business. I don't see how anything they've done with the App Store
is irrational. There are people running the process, not robots, so obviously
they're going to make mistakes. I don't see how that indicts the process that
runs the most successful mobile application platform ever deployed.

~~~
calambrac
Who argued that it wasn't effective?

And what are you suggesting? That when obvious problems with the process come
to light, nobody should speak up because Apple's a successful business?
Successful businesses are infallible, or can't respond to feedback?

~~~
xenophanes
The people saying it is "evil" are complaining about the mistakes that get
made -- they are calling it ineffective.

~~~
calambrac
What? No, they're calling it evil.

~~~
xenophanes
Why is it evil? The reason they keep giving is a way it's ineffective.

------
davepeck
Not Evil, but certainly brain-dead stupid. I just watched the Eucalyptus Video
(<http://th.ingsmadeoutofotherthin.gs/eucalyptus/>) and -- judging from that
-- Eucalyptus an absolutely stellar example of software craftsmanship.

~~~
mikedouglas
I'll admit that, originally, I was in favor of the strict review process. I
expected it to be used to keep out crap (like farting apps) that delegitimize
the platform, while showcasing apps like Things, Tweetie, Flight Control and
Eucalyptus. Basically re-create the kind of indie dev culture we see on the
Mac.

Instead, they've become Victorian-era censors, discouraging real development
on the platform, and wracking up dumb controversies. Especially considering
Apple's market, hardly the most socially conservative group, it makes almost
no sense.

------
haseman
Evil might be a bit strong of a word for such a simple misunderstanding. The
tendency to go for extremes in debate is well known, but it tends to destroy
any ability to talk about the problem. In reality, AT&T is probably calling
some of the shots on Apple's censorship rules. In any-case, censorship of age-
old sexual how-to books strikes me as silly, but certainly not evil.

~~~
calambrac
I disagree with you; to me, censorship is evil until proven otherwise, and the
burden of proof is very high.

But I think that the Kama Sutra is kind of beside the point, here. It's just a
data point indicating a larger 'evil' - that Apple as an organization has put
a system into place where a developer can be completely screwed with no
transparency into why. We're left assuming this particular case is just some
over-zealous asshole reviewer, or an unfortunate quirk of some automated
review software, or whatever, but we actually have no idea, and that's the
real problem.

Evil is asking people to invest a bunch of time developing for your platform
and giving them no way of knowing if they're actually going to be allowed to
sell their product, no real recourse when they're rejected, and no
transparency into the process. Evil is making arbitrary and inconsistent
decisions that directly affect a person's ability to make a living.

~~~
haseman
In theory I agree with you. Censorship is not good. What I guess we
disagreeing over is the 'level' of bad. Torture or murder is evil, censorship,
in this case, is just silly and clearly a mistake. (As they've now reversed
their stance)

Even so, Censorship is a tool, it isn't inherently evil just as guns or knives
aren't inherently evil. But they can easily be put to an 'evil' use. Apple's
approval process isn't evil, it's just frustrating. Take it from someone who's
dealt with MUCH worse from AT&T and Verizon.

------
GHFigs
Abiding by their own clearly-stated policy is "evil" now? I can see how
they're being inconsistent and a little stupid, but it seems to me that you
grossly distort the meaning of the word "evil" when you use it to describe
this.

------
jcromartie
After all of this publicity, I'm sure that they will let the app through.

------
Dilpil
Do hardcore Christians even support this decision? You might as well ban air.

------
bena
Apple can certainly decide what is too obscene to be in its store. Christian
bookstores aren't forced to carry Hustler either, because Christian bookstores
find Hustler to be obscene even though there is plenty of sex, rape, sodomy
and other such in the bible.

I have a hard time listening to arguments from people who don't understand the
difference between a private corporation and the government and applicability
of the Constitution.

~~~
calambrac
Can you please take the time to understand what's going on before letting us
all know you have a hard time listening to arguments that nobody's actually
making?

Eucalyptus doesn't ship the Kama Sutra. It's just an e-book reader, with the
ability to search Project Gutenberg. If Apple were being consistent in the
application of some policy, they would either allow this application, or they
would have to reject a whole slew of other apps, including their Safari
browser that ships by default.

~~~
bena
I understand that. However, Apple is free to apply whatever criteria they
want, however they want. Expecting 100% fairness in all cases is mind-
numbingly naive.

To make the argument that Apple is "evil" because they disallowed something
they had a right to by applying standards they decided upon is nothing more
than trying to make a private entity do what you want without regard to the
freedoms of that entity.

~~~
calambrac
_Expecting 100% fairness in all cases is mind-numbingly naive._

So, since unfairness is inevitable, we shouldn't call it out when it appears?
That's just retarded.

 _nothing more than trying to make a private entity do what you want without
regard to the freedoms of that entity._

What are you rambling about? I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head. How does
voicing my opinion amount to disregarding their freedom? They're free to be
dickheads. They're also free to ignore me, and to not receive my dollars in
the future.

