Apple never promised us it wouldn't be Evil | Hacker News Reader

Apple never promised us it wouldn't be Evil

mooseyard.com

52 pointsmmc36 comments

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.

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

Those draconian rules are affecting the developers, not the end users, at least not directly. One could argue that every time a developer D cannot publish an application A, it affects the end users, but it seems that the impact is not severe enough. As long as the platform itself is popular enough to present a lucrative market, most developers won't abandon it despite Apple's behavior. And as long as the platform has lots of developers releasing new stuff for it, it will (barring a snafu on another front) remain popular.

I disagree, as an end user I had to return my first iphone in frustration. The potential was obvious, but the draconian rules meant I couldn't do what I needed with the hardware I owned.

Now that the jailbreaking community is thriving, I bought another iphone, and I'm more than happy with the progress of efforts like cydia.

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

They are the Disney of computing.

Many people like that soup-to-nuts 'We control the experience' experience.

Actually, my friend likens Steve Jobs to an abusive father.

His fans love him BECAUSE he punishes them, but then does something really nice to make it up.

That's the most ridiculous ad hominem attack I've ever heard. "Your friend" should be ashamed.

No one goes to pick up a new Mac Book because they feel Steve Jobs has punished them in some way. They do it because the machine has great design, a nice operating system, a failure rate that is less than its competitors, a user experience widely considered to be superior to other offerings, because it's consistently rated best in class by Consumer Reports, because it runs commercial software on a UNIX core, because it "just works"... Not because Steve beats them.

If Apple screws up once an a while (granted: it's hard to see this constant inappropriate rejecting of apps followed by a 180 change of heart as anything but a screw up) and continues to be popular with users, it's because users appreciate Apple's overall value in spite of some obvious policy shortcomings.

Maybe they are more in touch with what people actually care about? (ie, the actual core functionality of the device and its usability) It's a bit absurd to assume people are fanboys because they choose to buy a phone despite the fact they cannot install a kama-sutra app. The simpler and more obvious explanation is they don't care. Some of the AppStore incidents annoy me but, at the same time, it's nothing that makes me want to stop using the iPhone platform.

Try publishing apps for another phone platform.

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

Since Apple has the only mobile platform where you can only get applications from one source (them), this is really simple.

For instance on my Windows mobile phone, using MSIE mobile (which sucks) I can go to opera.com, download a cab-file, install it and I'm good to go. Google maps? Just go to maps.google.com and it will offer you to download and install a native Google maps client.

If I want to, I can develop stuff myself, no signing or service-provider or Microsoft approval needed. What exactly are you implying here?

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.

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?

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

What? No, they're calling it evil.

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

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

Depending on your definition of "malware," the 999$ "Am I Rich" app and the baby shaking app might qualify.

Am I Rich was a sort of in-store malware. It targeted the buying process. Once you bought it, there was no harm done. The harm came in the ridiculous pricetag and lack of checks and balances on expensive shopping.

Offensive apps are not malware. Again: there is no damage to software when you run the baby shaking app, so while tasteless, it's not harmful.

"I don't see how that indicts the process that runs the most successful mobile application platform ever deployed."

So far. The Apple II was a pretty good business, too.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There is no evidence of censorship as apple's policy. The evidence points to some faulty cogs in the machine and some lack of having a clear policy.

It makes you wonder why they don't mark applications with the explicit tag that they use for the rest of the iTunes Store. Then you could have parental controls that disallow explicit content (apps or otherwise) from being visible to certain users (your kids' iTunes accounts).

Parental controls are one of the big features of the next version of the iPhone OS.

That might be the real underlying motivation here. The reviewers might be under instructions to disallow any app with the ability to download arbitrary content until the version with parental controls is released. Picking some bit of plausibly offensive content at random is just a pretense.

If that's actually the case, then they should come out and say that, rather than apparently randomly fucking over developers who are depending on this platform to feed their family.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com