Your Name

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:5Kobo.31535$1F6.2833@newsfe01.iad...
> At 20 Aug 2010 09:09:50 +1200 Your Name wrote:
> >
> > And if this fool thinks those are good apps, then that's exactly what's
> > going to start flooding in as "approved". :-(
>
> And if his job is to maximize Apple's profits, he should be approving
> anything legal that will sell well, regardless of how childish _you_
> think it is. Fart apps sell. That's a reflection on the childishness of
> the buyer far more than it is the seller.

Actually it's a reflection on both. Only idiot companies pander to the
lowest denominator ... and Apple has never been like that. Apple has always
thought of itself as the Rolls Royce of computer companies - producing
quality products for those who want them, while letting the Hyundai and Kia
companies produce garbage for the masses.

Your Name

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:6Kobo.31536$1F6.4538@newsfe01.iad...
> At 20 Aug 2010 09:09:07 +1200 Your Name wrote:
> >
> > "Jason S" <jasonsavlov@me.com> wrote in message
> > news:2010081909120243044-jasonsavlov@mecom...
> > > On 2010-08-18 22:01:11 -0400, Your Name said:
> > >
> > > > In article <jollyroger-EEFA33.16450818082010@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly
> > > > Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> In article <i4hjuf$i2g$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> > > >> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Is it going to be all downhill (or down the toilet) from here for
> the
> > App
> > > >>> Store?? This is like letting kids run the candy store, or Larry
> run
> > the
> > > >>> asylum. :-(
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What kind of management imbecile thought that employing this
> immature
> > fool
> > > >>> was actually a good idea?!?! :-(
> > > >>
> > > >> You know absolutely nothing about his qualifications.
> > > >
> > > > His qualifications are largely irrelevant - he shot himself in the
> foot
> > > > producing immature garbage.
> > >
> > > Wrong. If he's capable of doing the job, I really don't think it
> should
> > > matter if he made a fart app.
> >
> > Yep, and a convicted rapist should be employed as the women's Olympic
> > Team massuese simply because he's achieve top grades in his massage
class.
> :-\
>
> Good analogy- comparing a criminal who physically hurts people, to a
> businessman who sold a legal, if silly, product.

The point remains - employers should (and usually do) look at more than
what's printed on a CV.




> > People doing the employing should be looking at everything about that
> > person, not just qualifications - maybe if the idiots in management
> > actually did that, then:
> > a. the planet would not be going down the tubes,
> > b. the human race wouldn't be getting dumber by the second,
> > c. there would be far fewer idiots in management positions.
>
> I seem to recall that fart app generated several hundred thousands of
> dollars in revenue, and the "fool" in question was a successful marketer
> prior to creating his iPhone app company.

Despite what far too many people like to believe, money isn't the be-all and
end-all of everything, and certainly isn't a measure of quality, sense or
usefullness.



> It's like the Snake Oil peddlers a century ago, or today's Three Card
> Monty dealers: the peddlers were the smart ones, his customers are the
> fools.

And since such activity is illegal in many places, the peddler is not only a
fool and a greedy scum, but a criminal as well.

Jason S

On 2010-08-20 01:51:30 -0400, Todd Allcock said:

> At 20 Aug 2010 09:09:07 +1200 Your Name wrote:
>>
>> "Jason S" <jasonsavlov@me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010081909120243044-jasonsavlov@mecom...
>>> On 2010-08-18 22:01:11 -0400, Your Name said:
>>>
>>>> In article <jollyroger-EEFA33.16450818082010@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly
>>>> Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <i4hjuf$i2g$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
>>>>> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it going to be all downhill (or down the toilet) from here for
> the
>> App
>>>>>> Store?? This is like letting kids run the candy store, or Larry
> run
>> the
>>>>>> asylum. :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What kind of management imbecile thought that employing this
> immature
>> fool
>>>>>> was actually a good idea?!?! :-(
>>>>>
>>>>> You know absolutely nothing about his qualifications.
>>>>
>>>> His qualifications are largely irrelevant - he shot himself in the
> foot
>>>> producing immature garbage.
>>>
>>> Wrong. If he's capable of doing the job, I really don't think it
> should
>>> matter if he made a fart app.
>>
>> Yep, and a convicted rapist should be employed as the women's Olympic
> Team
>> massuese simply because he's achieve top grades in his massage class.
> :-\
>
>
> Good analogy- comparing a criminal who physically hurts people, to a
> businessman who sold a legal, if silly, product. (IIRC, he isn't a
> developer, but commissioned a dev to write the app for his company. I
> may be wrong, though, and might be confusing him with another fart app
> vendor- "The Daily Show" once did a pretty funny segment about the "war"
> between the two competing fart apps, with each seller interviewed
> explaining the features of his fart app and why it was superior to the
> other.)
>
>
>> People doing the employing should be looking at everything about that
>> person, not just qualifications - maybe if the idiots in management
> actually
>> did that, then:
>> a. the planet would not be going down the tubes,
>> b. the human race wouldn't be getting dumber by the second,
>> c. there would be far fewer idiots in management positions.
>
>
> I seem to recall that fart app generated several hundred thousands of
> dollars in revenue, and the "fool" in question was a successful marketer
> prior to creating his iPhone app company.
>
>
> It's like the Snake Oil peddlers a century ago, or today's Three Card
> Monty dealers: the peddlers were the smart ones, his customers are the
> fools.

After I looked into this a little more, I take back what I said. This
guy sucks. Definitely should not be in charge of the app store.


--
Jason

Wes Groleau

On 08-20-2010 01:40, Todd Allcock wrote:
> And if his job is to maximize Apple's profits, he should be approving
> anything legal that will sell well, regardless of how childish_you_
> think it is. Fart apps sell. That's a reflection on the childishness of
> the buyer far more than it is the seller.

That's if his job is to make sky-high profits for a short time
with no thought for the future.

For long-term goals, Apple has to think about their image, even
if we (the users) or we (the trolls) don't like the decisions made
on that basis.

--
Wes Groleau

Daily Hoax: http://www.snopes2.com/cgi-bin/random/random.asp

Todd Allcock

At 20 Aug 2010 08:57:10 -0400 Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 08-20-2010 01:40, Todd Allcock wrote:
> > And if his job is to maximize Apple's profits, he should be approving
> > anything legal that will sell well, regardless of how childish_you_
> > think it is. Fart apps sell. That's a reflection on the
childishness of
> > the buyer far more than it is the seller.
>
> That's if his job is to make sky-high profits for a short time
> with no thought for the future.
>
> For long-term goals, Apple has to think about their image, even
> if we (the users) or we (the trolls) don't like the decisions made
> on that basis.


Unfortunately Apple made that bed for itself when making the iTS the sole
distributor of iOS apps. What would be the business case for denying
fart apps from the store? We all have varying levels of what's in 'bad
taste." 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.

Your Name

"Jason S" <jasonsavlov@me.com> wrote in message
news:2010082007022044725-jasonsavlov@mecom...
> On 2010-08-20 01:51:30 -0400, Todd Allcock said:
>
> > At 20 Aug 2010 09:09:07 +1200 Your Name wrote:
> >>
> >> "Jason S" <jasonsavlov@me.com> wrote in message
> >> news:2010081909120243044-jasonsavlov@mecom...
> >>> On 2010-08-18 22:01:11 -0400, Your Name said:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <jollyroger-EEFA33.16450818082010@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly
> >>>> Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <i4hjuf$i2g$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> >>>>> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Is it going to be all downhill (or down the toilet) from here for
> > the
> >> App
> >>>>>> Store?? This is like letting kids run the candy store, or Larry
> > run
> >> the
> >>>>>> asylum. :-(
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What kind of management imbecile thought that employing this
> > immature
> >> fool
> >>>>>> was actually a good idea?!?! :-(
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You know absolutely nothing about his qualifications.
> >>>>
> >>>> His qualifications are largely irrelevant - he shot himself in the
> > foot
> >>>> producing immature garbage.
> >>>
> >>> Wrong. If he's capable of doing the job, I really don't think it
> > should
> >>> matter if he made a fart app.
> >>
> >> Yep, and a convicted rapist should be employed as the women's Olympic
> > Team
> >> massuese simply because he's achieve top grades in his massage class.
> > :-\
> >
> >
> > Good analogy- comparing a criminal who physically hurts people, to a
> > businessman who sold a legal, if silly, product. (IIRC, he isn't a
> > developer, but commissioned a dev to write the app for his company. I
> > may be wrong, though, and might be confusing him with another fart app
> > vendor- "The Daily Show" once did a pretty funny segment about the "war"
> > between the two competing fart apps, with each seller interviewed
> > explaining the features of his fart app and why it was superior to the
> > other.)
> >
> >
> >> People doing the employing should be looking at everything about that
> >> person, not just qualifications - maybe if the idiots in management
> > actually
> >> did that, then:
> >> a. the planet would not be going down the tubes,
> >> b. the human race wouldn't be getting dumber by the second,
> >> c. there would be far fewer idiots in management positions.
> >
> >
> > I seem to recall that fart app generated several hundred thousands of
> > dollars in revenue, and the "fool" in question was a successful marketer
> > prior to creating his iPhone app company.
> >
> >
> > It's like the Snake Oil peddlers a century ago, or today's Three Card
> > Monty dealers: the peddlers were the smart ones, his customers are the
> > fools.
>
> After I looked into this a little more, I take back what I said. This
> guy sucks. Definitely should not be in charge of the app store.

Thankfully, since the bad ol' days after Steve Jobs was ousted, Apple has a
tendency to quickly get rid of bad employment mistakes.

Your Name

"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, which with the main exception of Android are largely in the
same situation.

Plis it's no different to many other situations. Until recently Dell
computers (for example) could only be order by mail from the Dell company.
Many big high street chains have "exclusive" products which you can only buy
from their stores - in fact it's far more annying when Hasbro makes deals
with Disneyland to sell "exclusive" versions of Star Wars figures (for
example) that means most of us cannot buy them or have to pay out excessive
amounts to online webstores.

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).



> 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. :-(



> 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.

Todd Allcock

"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.


> Plis it's no different to many other situations. Until recently Dell
> computers (for example) could only be order by mail from the Dell company.
> Many big high street chains have "exclusive" products which you can only
> buy
> from their stores - in fact it's far more annying when Hasbro makes deals
> with Disneyland to sell "exclusive" versions of Star Wars figures (for
> example) that means most of us cannot buy them or have to pay out
> excessive
> amounts to online webstores.

True, but there's no "third-party" development there. 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?

> 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.

>> 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!


>> 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? 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.

Your Name

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.

The reality is that most people don't want nor use 99% of the apps out
there anyway.



> > Plis it's no different to many other situations. Until recently Dell
> > computers (for example) could only be order by mail from the Dell company.
> > Many big high street chains have "exclusive" products which you can only
> > buy from their stores - in fact it's far more annying when Hasbro makes
> > deals with Disneyland to sell "exclusive" versions of Star Wars figures
> > (for example) that means most of us cannot buy them or have to pay out
> > excessive amounts to online webstores.
>
> True, but there's no "third-party" development there. 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.
Plus of course, no matter what the contracts with developers, etc. said,
you'd have all the idiots blaming Apple for the shoddy apps.

The "market" decided they wanted tabacco, but that doesn't mean it's
actually good for them nor sensible to buy.



> > 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.



> >> 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.



> >> 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. And again, Apple would
get the blame. :-\



> 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.

Todd Allcock

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.