This seems like a classic case of an app that shouldn't be an app. If you really want to push out notices to people every time there's a drone strike, why not send out emails? Or tweets? Or notifications over any of the myriad instant messaging platforms that already have iOS clients? Not only does it bypass apple's silly app store restrictions, it offers a much better experience for a much wider variety of users.
The only reason I see that makes the app store the best place for this is that app store users like to throw money at silly things they don't need, and the primary reason this is true is because apple has fostered an environment that makes it true. If apple feels that the presence of a drone strike app will make people less inclined to spend money in their store, that is exactly the sort of decision that this app developer is trying to capitalize on. It just went the wronG way for him this time.
No, that's my point. Through careful censorship, Apple has crafted a marketplace that offends nobody. App developers find this environment valuable, that's why they are so eager to sell their content in the app store.
If you, as a customer or a developer, don't agree with apple's well documented policy here, there are alternatives you can choose. Consumers and developers have overwhelmingly said they either don't care or like the censorship though.
"...Apple has crafted a marketplace that offends nobody."
Apple could keep this curated marketplace and at the same time allow sideloading of applications, like many Android phones do. By taking that simple step, concerns about censorship would be ameliorated.
> Through careful censorship, Apple has crafted a marketplace that offends nobody.
Impossible. Through careful thinking and reading up on philosophies of human rights and ethics, many people (myself included) have carefully cultivated values that take a deep offence to very public things deliberately crafted to offend nobody.
I mean, really, how long until the only way to offend someone with an iPhone is to chuck it in their face? ("Be glad that wasn't an unmanned drone you just got hit by!")
Or just write "for the prettiest one" on it, leave it at a wedding party and joyously partake of a hotdog (no bun).
But they don't own the iOS App Store. People want to move goalposts and say we're arguing about what you can do with your phone but we're really arguing about a store policy.
And if these people wanted to buy a phone that had lots of app stores available I think we're all in agreement that they fucked up if they bought the iphone.
Actually you just moved the goalposts from "do as they please with their own device" to "do as they please in some non-public space that they do not own".
Because we're really explicitly NOT arguing about a store policy. If it was just a store policy there would not be this argument.
For instance, say Virgin does not want to sell some CD with deeply offensive lyrics. They probably make those decisions every day. Nobody complains.
However, it would stop being just a store policy, if a large part of the public would only have a CD Player that can exclusively play CDs that Virgin approves of. Get the difference? And that part of the argument doesn't even involve general purpose computing.
When the store is the only way for ordinary users to load software, the store policy and what you can realistically do with your phone is the same thing.
Comments
This seems like a classic case of an app that shouldn't be an app. If you really want to push out notices to people every time there's a drone strike, why not send out emails? Or tweets? Or notifications over any of the myriad instant messaging platforms that already have iOS clients? Not only does it bypass apple's silly app store restrictions, it offers a much better experience for a much wider variety of users.
The only reason I see that makes the app store the best place for this is that app store users like to throw money at silly things they don't need, and the primary reason this is true is because apple has fostered an environment that makes it true. If apple feels that the presence of a drone strike app will make people less inclined to spend money in their store, that is exactly the sort of decision that this app developer is trying to capitalize on. It just went the wronG way for him this time.
Shouldn't the consumer decide what apps they want to buy instead of Apple?
No, that's my point. Through careful censorship, Apple has crafted a marketplace that offends nobody. App developers find this environment valuable, that's why they are so eager to sell their content in the app store.
If you, as a customer or a developer, don't agree with apple's well documented policy here, there are alternatives you can choose. Consumers and developers have overwhelmingly said they either don't care or like the censorship though.
"...Apple has crafted a marketplace that offends nobody."
Apple could keep this curated marketplace and at the same time allow sideloading of applications, like many Android phones do. By taking that simple step, concerns about censorship would be ameliorated.
> Through careful censorship, Apple has crafted a marketplace that offends nobody.
Impossible. Through careful thinking and reading up on philosophies of human rights and ethics, many people (myself included) have carefully cultivated values that take a deep offence to very public things deliberately crafted to offend nobody.
I mean, really, how long until the only way to offend someone with an iPhone is to chuck it in their face? ("Be glad that wasn't an unmanned drone you just got hit by!")
Or just write "for the prettiest one" on it, leave it at a wedding party and joyously partake of a hotdog (no bun).
> Apple has crafted a marketplace that offends nobody.
There sure is a lot outrage over their policies for a marketplace that "offends nobody".
That question has apparently been settled firmly in favor of "Apple."
The way stores work is the owner of the store decides what goods to sell in their store.
Some people believe they should be allowed to do as they please with their device. Apple disagrees.
Some people believe they should be allowed to do as they please in Walmart. Walmart disagrees.
iOS app approval isn't some new policy Apple is springing on people out of the blue.
Let's not pretend that the people who want free as in Stallman apps signed up with Apple and are now shocked at this new development.
Let's also not pretend that Apple security will show up at your house if you jailbreak your phone.
Let's also not pretend that Apple is the only company that has a policy against certain types of apps in their store.
> Some people believe they should be allowed to do as they please in Walmart.
These people don't own their local Walmart. They do on the other hand own their smartphones.
But they don't own the iOS App Store. People want to move goalposts and say we're arguing about what you can do with your phone but we're really arguing about a store policy.
And if these people wanted to buy a phone that had lots of app stores available I think we're all in agreement that they fucked up if they bought the iphone.
Actually you just moved the goalposts from "do as they please with their own device" to "do as they please in some non-public space that they do not own".
Because we're really explicitly NOT arguing about a store policy. If it was just a store policy there would not be this argument.
For instance, say Virgin does not want to sell some CD with deeply offensive lyrics. They probably make those decisions every day. Nobody complains.
However, it would stop being just a store policy, if a large part of the public would only have a CD Player that can exclusively play CDs that Virgin approves of. Get the difference? And that part of the argument doesn't even involve general purpose computing.
When the store is the only way for ordinary users to load software, the store policy and what you can realistically do with your phone is the same thing.
Either buy Apple (and accept their model of the market) or don't. Seems fair to me.
Last Apple product I bought was a gen2 iPod.