At 21 Aug 2010 12:22:22 +1200 Your Name wrote:
> In article <kdDbo.15801$wJ1.5406@newsfe08.iad>, "Todd Allcock"
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote in message
> > news:i4msuq$jks$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > >
> > > "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
> > > news:kzybo.9497$co1.1494@newsfe11.iad...
> > >>
> > >> Unfortunately Apple made that bed for itself when making the iTS
the sole
> > >> distributor of iOS apps.
> > >
> > > Anyone who doesn't like Apple's decision is perfectly free to buy
another
> > > mobile phone,
> >
> > True. But if the app store prunes anything _you_ might find
objectionable,
> > it might put iOS in the category of American public television-
higher
> > quality that the general population avoids like the plague.
> >
> > > which with the main exception of Android are largely in the
> > > same situation.
> >
> > ??? Blackberry apps can be purchased or downloaded from anywhere, as
can
> > Symbian, WinMobile, PalmOS (but not the failing WebOS) and dumbphone
java
> > apps. The iPhone was the first closed smartphone ecosystem, copied
by
> > WebOS, and unfortunately, by the upcoming Windows phone 7.
>
> Almost all previous phones were so "closed" that you were stcuk with the
> apps they shipped with and couldn't even add any more ... and yet they
> still sold by the bucketload.
Um, which phones were those? I've used phones that had downloadable apps
available for almost a decade, including some really low-end POSes
(Java/J2ME apps run on virtually all dumbphones.) The Palm OS and WinMo
phones had tens of thousands of apps available since before the iPhone
was a twinkle in Steve Jobs' eye.
> The reality is that most people don't want nor use 99% of the apps out
> there anyway.
True- but each of us wants a different 1% than each other.
> > It'd be different if
> > Apple itself made all the apps, like the old closed game console
systems of
> > the 1970s (Atari, Coleco, etc.) But Apple (essentially) "sells" a
developer
> > an SDK and then can say, "sure the app is harmless to the phone or
its user,
> > but we just don't think it's funny/appropriate/moral/whatever." Why
not let
> > the market decide that?
>
> Because then you would end up with an App Store full of dismal drivel.
We had that long before the store hit 200K apps! One person's dismal
drivel is another's entertainment. Just like in the desktop world, the
crApp to app ratio is pretty large.
> Plus of course, no matter what the contracts with developers, etc. said,
> you'd have all the idiots blaming Apple for the shoddy apps.
Really? How many blame Apple for naughty words in rap songs or R-rated
movies? You really seem to underestimate the intellegence of your fellow
Homo Sapiens.
> The "market" decided they wanted tabacco, but that doesn't mean it's
> actually good for them nor sensible to buy.
And fart apps are harmful how, exactly? This analogy isn't as bad as
your serial rapist vs. fart app developer, but it's close!
> > > At least with Apple, anyone in any country (once the App Store
opens
> > > there) can buy apps, and it was the same with many other brands
(Dell
> > > again as an example).
> >
> > Yes, the apps that, if you were in charge of the app store, passed
your
> > personal "good taste" test, apparently.
>
> No, Apple's "good taste" and general public "good taste" tests.
The combined sales of fart apps tells us where the "general public" stands,
(for good or for bad!) I'll wager Apple has 30 good reasons to agree
with them, each one a percentage point.
> > >> What would be the business case for denying fart apps from the
store?
> > >> We all have varying levels of what's in 'bad taste."
> > >
> > > We all have different opinions about everything, but companies have
to go
> > > with the majority - the problem of course is that the majority ARE
> > > immature idiots, especially on the Internet, with Loser Larry being
a
> > > perfect example. :-(
> >
> > There you go- you made the case FOR fart apps!
>
> Nope. That's a case AGAINST fart apps! The dumbing down of the human
race
> is not a good thing.
Until Apple finds another race of creatures to sell devices to, the human
race is their only market.
> > >> I don't find fart apps even slightly humorous, but they have a
friend of
> > >> mine rolling in the proverbial aisles. On the other hand, I
thought
> > >> that bouncing baby app sounded funny, but apparently offended
enough
> > >> people to get it pulled from the store.
> > >
> > > "Bouncing" baby would have been fine - violently shaking the baby
is
> > > nowhere near fine.
> >
> > Why not? Were real babies harmed in the devolpment of the app? Are
real
> > babies harmed in the use of the app?
>
> It wouyldn't be remotely surprising if the answer was "yes" to that.
> There's always some fool that thinks something is a good idea because
they
> saw it somewhere else ... just look at imbecile who jump off roof with a
> towel around their neck pretending to be superman.
Many wasted hours of playing Flight Simulator never encouraged me to
wreste the controls of a jetliner from its flight crew, nor has playing
"Pet Vet" encouraged my kids to take a scalpel to the neighbor's Golden
Retriever.
> And again, Apple would get the blame. :-\
Is Apple getting the blame for sawed kittens or violent shootings?
> > Few object to first person shooter
> > games, where you mow down countess soldiers/aliens/civilians/whatever
with a
> > veriety of weapons, but shaking a virtual, non-existant baby is
> > objectionable? No one pulled Splat Kitty (or whatever the cat
smashing game
> > is- my kids seem to like it) where the cat is diced and bloodied if
you
> > don't divert the saw blades.
> >
> > The point is that there's no place for _my_ morality in the app or, or,
> > frankly yours. If it's legal, Apple should allow its sale. There's
plenty
> > of "objectionable" music in the iTS, and it just gets a warning. The
app
> > store could use the same logic.
>
> Rightly or wrongly, music is more easily visible to Joe Public as being
> created by someone else ... apps aren't.
Then that's an education problem Apple neds to address. A warning in the
app store or in a program spash screen would fix that ifwere actually a
problem, (which I doubt it is,) much like those "you're navigating to
another website/we're not responsible for its content" warnings some
sites display when you click a link that takes you elsewhere.