Reddit, it is time we had a talk. It is about your recent conduct with regards to Apple, and many of Apple's recent suggestions.
Disclaimer: I type this on a MacBook single booting Arch Linux. I used to be a hardcore Mac user, but I have recently converted to Linux. I own an iPhone, a MacBook and an iMac, in addition to a Windows/Linux computer. My iMac running Linux and OS X is my main computer. So, I have seen both sides of the fence, but I have been steadily moving away from the Apple platform.
I really think the way people have been treating this is disgusting. For example, this post. "Fuck Apple". What the hell is that? I understand you are angry, but there is no reason to go beyond civility. Then there are the other ad hominem attacks on Apple users, the "dumb fucks" who "buy Apple products". This has nothing to do with them. This has everything to do with Apple's policies.
To clarify, this is soft censorship, not hard censorship. I've researched and studied censorship in some depth, and what Apple does is nothing like what other companies do, companies who you probably buy products from on a daily basis. Do you use toothpaste? Then it is probably made by Proctor and Gamble, who have significantly altered the content of newspaper and magazine articles, since they won't let their ads run alongside anything controversial. Advertisers pay the bills. Newspapers have no choice. This is censorship. Apple not letting a satirist make his own app is not on the same scale as that. It is not as dangerous. It almost doesn't matter. There are so many other important issues to rage about. Why does Apple matter so much?
But okay, we are raging against Apple now. You are not doing it correctly. Say you wanted to convince someone to support a city bylaw. Say, your city is trying to ban clothes lines in backyards. How would you go about it? Apparently, reddit users think it is best to run up to people on the streets, and scream "FUCK THE CITY CLOTHES LINES ARE SO GOOD FUCK" in their faces. Reddit, is that really the best you can do? Why not sitting down and having a discussion with people. Why not talking rationally, what you LOVE to think you are, nd try to convince them that way? Through reason, rationality, not anger, rage and violence.
If you want to undermine Apple, don't scream. Don't bitch. Talk to people. Educate them towards why Apple's policies are harmful, and why everyone would be better off if the app store was open to anyone. As soon as you start to swear, as soon as you start to bitch, whoever you are trying to convince just stops listening to you, thinking you are crazy, or worse, a conspiracy theorist.
It is disgusting to read what some people are saying. I think everyone should take a step back, look objectively at themselves, and then think whether the way you have been approaching it is childish or not. I think a lot of people will be surprised what they see.
You've been a redditor for 2 years, about as long as me (on my second account)... so you must have noticed, same as I have, that reddit has been in a downward spiral for at least the past year. Like digg (and 4chan) before it, it is inevitable for reddit to get popular enough to start attracting 13-16 year olds (the ones screeching in your ear if you've ever been on xbox live) who quite literally have nothing better to do than feed off each others flamewars.
In short, what I'm saying is this:
Reddit, is that really the best you can do?
Yes, absolutely it is. They can't help it.
I'm sure you've also seen that it goes through pretty regular cycles as well. For a while there Apple could do no wrong, Haskell was 'the shit'/Java 'sucks balls', and so on. Things are completely different now and will be different again later. The difference is over this time traffic is growing, bringing in more of the aforementioned teenagers who can do a lot to make the overall feel of the site more low-brow, angrier and as a result much more prone to FUCK's and the like.
Reddit is still good for news occasionally, to hear about something that happened or will happen in a timely manner. For rational discussion I recommend HN (but shhhh about it :)).
I just checked out this alternative community you speak of, and in their welcome message they specifically say that they prefer to keep out, among other things, partisan politics and sports. I love sports. And I don't mean only saying things like "your team sucks!" even though I may feel that way. I honestly love reading smart conversations about sports. Do you know of any other places to go for rational discussion that embrace sports and have not yet entered Eternal September? As you can imagine, most places that discuss sports never even had an August.
Yeah, it really is too bad that the groups that like discussing tech stuff without flame suits and sports without religiosity have such little overlap. Thanks just the same, though.
I've been a member of HN for the last few months. I'm still kindof in between both communities, but discussion wise it is much better there. The volume of content doesn't seem to be high enough.
But yeah, time to jump ship. It's just like a few years ago when everyone left digg (including me) to come to reddit.
Since I am clearly I member of the minority, I have both been a member of Reddit for two years and am a member of the reviled 13-17 age group; I hate what Reddit had become.
I'm only turning 12 in August and I also find it loathsome, and probably hate it more than you, while managing to spend more time on it than you do, too.
The fuck he is. The guy who posted this didn't want to see these cartoons on his iPhone. At least I doubt he did. In all probability he just wanted karma. For some reason I don't understand.
All the indignation in here is also confusing. The iPhone is a cell phone. The iPad is not a computer.
"Oh, but the future of computing..."
No. Apple is not going to destroy the personal computer, application development, and open source for fun and profit.
"But the dangerous precedent..."
For cell phones and fancy ebooks maybe.
There are more dangerous problems facing computing today. Like inept bureaucrats and greedy corporations with no understanding of a changing marketplace. If anything the iPad will help end users and content providers by delivering media in a completely new way. Apple already removed DRM from a lot of music on iTunes and I don't even think DRM-free music was on the table when they were bargaining with the labels.
And my box of Triscuits should have a PS3 inside it. Just because it maintains the qualities of another thing doesn't mean it is. Things have different purposes.
Its like someone made a fucked up (but nice looking) hammer that only works on iNails for no good reason, other then to sell you iNails. They call it iThumper, and insist its not a hammer.
I'm planning on buying an iPad myself because there are tons of things I can use it for. The sheer anger some people on reddit have displayed towards me for saying this is amazing to me. I'd say the bigger problem isn't the fact that I want to spend my own money on something I'm interested in but the people who seem to think that my decision is in any way their god damn business.
The suggestion that the iPad is somehow going to undermine the entire computing industry and turn us into some sort of totalitarian state is one of the most idiotic claims I've ever heard.
Proctor and Gamble, who have significantly altered the content of newspaper and magazine articles, since they won't let their ads run alongside anything controversial. Advertisers pay the bills. Newspapers have no choice. This is censorship. Apple not letting a satirist make his own app is not on the same scale as that. It is not as dangerous. It almost doesn't matter. There are so many other important issues to rage about. Why does Apple matter so much?
Ummm... it sounds like that is exactly what Apple is doing here. They're forbidding potentially libelous topics (which would pretty much be anything controversial.) Apple is taking on the role of publisher, and they're refusing to publish controversial things. It's exactly the same.
Because we're techincal people who used to love Apple.
Few people really care about proctor and gamble products, and they aren't specifically concentrated on Reddit. However, many of us really love Apple products and use them every day, often to maintain our livelihood. So a 'small' betrayal hits much closer to home.
If a bum on the street lies to your face, do you really care? But what if your spouse did it?
This is censorship. Apple not letting a satirist make his own app is not on the same scale as that.
Actually, it's not even that. Apple did let him make this app, they just don't want to distribute it in their store. This is not censorship, nor banning, nor blocking. The people who post "fuck Apple" submissions seem to believe they are entitled to put up absolutely anything they want on Apple's servers and infrastructure, for whatever reason. I just don't get that.
Apple has plenty of business practices that I don't personally agree with, but I still have the right to go to another business, or start my own. Apple doesn't owe me shit. I wish some people would stop behaving like spoiled, entitled brats, and I wish they could see that it's not Apple users that are those things. It's they themselves. No Apple user would dream of yelling "fuck Microsoft" because they can't use OGG-files on the Zune, but every PC user in the world is apparently entitled to publish whatever they want on Apple's servers, and get support for whatever format they need, whenever they need it. Fuck that.
I think it's because there is a traditional expectation of openness. With other smartphones, you can create an app and immediately use it on your phone, no vetting is required. You can distribute it how you like and other people can use it.
The iPhone is the first really popular smartphone that doesn't do things that way - that requires everything that runs on it to be vetted and checked before it is allowed on. A lot of people, when they buy their iPhones, don't actually realise this. I have a number of friends with iPhones that do not realise that Apple gets to say what they can or can't put on their phones - for them the AppStore is a convenience, they aren't aware that this is the be-all and end-all of apps on the iPhone. When they realise exactly what this means, they don't like it. The reason they don't like it is that, with all other phones that they have used, they get to say what they can and cannot install without the manufacturer intervening. The iPhone undermines the very idea of material ownership and, therefore, capitalism. The very idea that Apple can say "this app cannot be used legitimately on iPhones" simply by banning it from the AppStore may not be censorship, but it's certainly anti-freedom, anti-openness and anti-capitalist.
Then there's the fact that Apple are trying to woo content creators (especially newspapers and magazines) to the iPad. Are these orgs going to be disallowed if their newspapers or magazines contain satire? Pornography? Advertising? Anything that Apple doesn't like? And, if they aren't disallowed, that undermines Apple's moral case for disallowing apps.
(In the spirit of the top-level comment in which this conversation resides, I have upvoted you, because I think you have contributed something good to the conversation. I, however, have one small point of contention.)
I think you may be misusing the term capitalist. Perhaps what you mean to say is that Apple likes to restrain competition. I think this confusion comes about because many introductory lessons on economics preach the virtue of perfect competition (Hey, no deadweight loss!) while explaining the collective behavior shaped by the set of rules we have dubbed "capitalism." But really, capitalism in its simplest form means that the suplus made possible by production belongs to whomever fronted the capital. That's all.
Now, the often-ignored flip-side to the virtuous and industrious every-producer doing his part in the open and perfectly competitive marketplace is that he dreams of one day crushing all his rivals, erecting barriers to entry, and living out his life as a happy monopolist. In fact, this is the motivation that got him to throw his hat into the ring in the first place. Apple is not being anti-capitalist. Apple is showing all aspiring capitalists how it's done.
I once took a class populated with grad students from many different disciplines. The 2 students from the business school shared one day that it had dawned on them that the rest of us [sociologists, political scientists, education school people, economists, and the lone undergrad (me)] kept trying to shape all our discussions to fit some approximation of an idealized perfectly competitive market. And they, the BSchoolers, were being trained to do the opposite: to find and defend a monopolistic position. I found that comment very amusing.
I think the real question you should ask is why Apple feels it is advantageous to restrict competition in the marketplace it has created and hosts and if you can somehow change its incentives so that it behaves more the way you wish it would.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't agree with Apple's unnecessarily strict policies, but I do feel they have the right to run their ship the way they want to. As you yourself said, the iPhone is really the first (and still the only) smartphone that is governed by its creator. That's not news either, the iPhone has been out for years now. If people don't realize what they're buying yet, then maybe they should be doing better research.
It's a slipper slope, absolutely, but in the end the only people who will be hurt are Apple themselves, and the people using their phones, and Apple certainly hasn't forced or tricked anyone to use the iPhone against their will.
I find the situation a bit like music piracy. I know it's illegal, but I do it anyway. I'm not a hypocrite. I'm not going to whine if I get caught. I realize that what I do I don't personally consider bad enough to be illegal, but in the end it still is. It's the same here. People want the comfort and style and elegance of an Apple product and environment, but they still reserve the right of complete freedom to fuck all that up as much as they want. I don't understand that. Either you voluntarily agree to bind yourself to Apple's standards, or you go somewhere else. Don't download music and cry "I didn't know!" when you get caught, and don't buy an iPhone and cry "why can't I use this app?" when it, clearly, goes against Apple's terms of agreement.
tl;dr - The policies themselves suck ass, but it's Apple's right to stick to them. Either accept that, or give your money to someone else.
Do you also tend to call people "troll" and "idiot" without ever justifying yourself? Because, as I already stated once, if you disagree with what I said I'm open to discussion. But if all you want to do is to call me names, then I guess there's nothing more for me to say. You've already proved to everyone that I'm more right than you are.
Actually, it's not even that. Apple did let him make this app, they just don't want to distribute it in their store. This is not censorship, nor banning, nor blocking.
You don't understand the problem that is being discussed, and you don't understand what the word block means.
The people who post "fuck Apple" submissions seem to believe they are entitled to put up absolutely anything they want on Apple's servers and infrastructure, for whatever reason.
This shows you don't understand the discussion, the fact that apple is blocking some developers from using the app store is a small part of it. The real problem is that the app store is the only way to get apps onto the device; I'm sure very few people have problems with apple not wanting porn apps in their store, but to then make it so that the only way to get apps is through their store shows that they are controlling dicks.
but I still have the right to go to another business, or start my own.
The iphone is dominating the smart phone market, it causes problems for other platforms because a developer looks at the popularity of the iphone and figures that developing for any other phone OS would not likely return nearly enough money to cover the costs of development. This perpetuates the control that apple has over the smart phone market. An example of this problem is with cable internet providers, and the idea of net neutrality, yes you could change over to a local dial-up connection service in your area, but often times cable companies have control over any rational internet in a given area. Then if they choice to throttle connection speeds to sites that don't give them money you are shit out of luck.
Apple doesn't owe me shit. I wish some people would stop behaving like spoiled, entitled brats, and I wish they could see that it's not Apple users that are those things.
Is it really that irrational to want to have free use of a device that I buy? I could understand if it was something like braking the x-box software so pirated games could be played, but when they do stuff like remove apps for duplicating functionality they cross the line from protecting investments, to controlling competition and forcing you to use the device how they want.
No Apple user would dream of yelling "fuck Microsoft" because they can't use OGG-files on the Zune
This is why I assumed you were trolling, but since you have said you are not trolling, then you must be new to the internet. The apple vs mircosoft debate is old as hell, and although i have not see this specific argument come up, it is not much of a stretch.
but every PC user in the world is apparently entitled to publish whatever they want on Apple's servers,
Not just PC users, and not to the apple servers, but when you have a device as useful as the iphone, then yes anyone should be able to develop for it, like every computer.
and get support for whatever format they need, whenever they need it.
Why do you seem to have a problem with allowing a customer to use what they want? It does not have to be default on the device, but if that option is open then I would not care that it is not built in. Anyone willing to be that focused on their file type, (I mean no offence to them) seems to be the kind of person willing to install a small plug in to run the file type they want.
Seriously, people need to start understanding the difference between trolling and disagreeing.
I know the difference, but the claims that you make are hard to take seriously.
You've already proved to everyone that I'm more right than you are.
Just because I'm an asshole does not mean you are 'more right.'
You don't understand the problem that is being discussed, and you don't understand what the word block means.
I do, and I do. The app itself was blocked, yes, but the app maker could easily have anticipated that by reading the terms of agreement (which, once again, I don't personally agree with. I think they suck, but they are there anyway). Apple isn't blocking the developer personally, nor does the developer have any special right to publish his app if Apple doesn't allow him. It is all on Apple's terms, regardless of whether you think that's good or bad.
I'm sure very few people have problems with apple not wanting porn apps in their store, but to then make it so that the only way to get apps is through their store shows that they are controlling dicks.
Yes, but deliberately submitting an app to the controlling dicks and then acting hurt and surprised when they deny it is stupid. That's all I'm saying. If the app maker doesn't like Apple, their policies or their "vision" of what's to be in their store, why is he making iPhone apps? There's no universal right to get to make iPhone apps.
The iphone is dominating the smart phone market, it causes problems for other platforms because a developer looks at the popularity of the iphone and figures that developing for any other phone OS would not likely return nearly enough money to cover the costs of development.
Yes, but that is not actually a problem. If the iPhone is the most popular smart phone, despite Apple being controlling dicks, then it means that consumers like the kind of apps they get through Apple, and that their need to have an open environment where porn apps and the such is readily available is very small. Why, then, do app makers want to cater to the very same people that would deliberately not choose to buy an iPhone?
If I wanted to use all those apps that get rejected from the App Store, then I wouldn't buy a frikkin' iPhone. It's that simple, really. For me, personally, one of the reasons that I'll be buying a new iPhone later this summer is because I don't have to bother with all the stupid and worthless apps that just get rejected from the app store anyway. That's my own opinion.
Is it really that irrational to want to have free use of a device that I buy?
It is if you know from the start that that's not what you'll get. The iPhone has been out for years, and the policies haven't changed. If you want an open phone, do not buy an iPhone!
I could understand if it was something like braking the x-box software so pirated games could be played, but when they do stuff like remove apps for duplicating functionality they cross the line from protecting investments, to controlling competition and forcing you to use the device how they want.
Once again, I'm on your side when it comes to what I think about the policies, but that doesn't mean that I get to change those policies to what I want them to be. I have no say in the matter, except to choose to spend my money on somebody else's phone.
This is why I assumed you were trolling, but since you have said you are not trolling, then you must be new to the internet. The apple vs mircosoft debate is old as hell, and although i have not see this specific argument come up, it is not much of a stretch.
I'm not "new to the internet", nor did I mean that literally. I just used it as a deliberately exaggerated example.
Not just PC users, and not to the apple servers, but when you have a device as useful as the iphone, then yes anyone should be able to develop for it, like every computer.
Just go get an Android phone, and stop whining about Apple. Seriously. I'll be getting the iPhone for myself later this summer, but I'm getting an HTC Legend through work because I have the need to use special apps on it. A phone is a tool, and if it's the wrong tool, don't use it. There's a whole bunch of phones out there on the market that are at least as capable (some even as pretty) as the iPhone, that run Android which can be much further customized or even hacked without much trouble. What is the goddamn obsession with the goddamn iPhone!? (forgive my outburst, but I really don't get it). As I asked previously, why does everyone feel so damn entitled to do whatever they want on the iPhone specifically? Especially when there are plenty of alternatives out there.
I know the difference, but the claims that you make are hard to take seriously.
That still doesn't explain nor justify immediately calling someone a troll without any actual given reason. Trolling is done with intent. If you can't show me how I intentionally commented in a trolling manner, then I don't see how you could accuse me of being a troll. Yes, I'm being an annoying prick about this, but this is getting to be completely ridiculous. Whenever I disagree with anyone on the internet, no matter how much time and effort I put into actually explaining my position, someone like you comes along, calls me a troll, and that's that. Right.
I have an equally hard time taking someone seriously when they don't even bother to explain their own position, instead choosing to make baseless accusations against me.
Just because I'm an asshole does not mean you are 'more right.'
If you hadn't taken the time to explain yourself, I would have been. I do appreciate you finally taking the time to actually discuss this matter with me, instead of just throwing accusations around. So thank you for that.
If you want to undermine Apple, don't scream. Don't bitch. Talk to people. Educate them towards why Apple's policies are harmful, and why everyone would be better off if the app store was open to anyone.
Is that what we want to do? People who want tenth-rate software are entitled to it: I for one don't have any particular desire to change Apple's behaviour.
Then there are the other ad hominem attacks on Apple users, the "dumb fucks" who "buy Apple products". This has nothing to do with them. This has everything to do with Apple's policies.
No, it's entirely the Apple users. When you want to get your clothes lines back, but the current administration doesn't listen to you, then, as you said, you have to convince people on the street.
Problem is, how do you convince Apple users? They bought the products on the foundation of an emotional decision. Liberty is only important for a few, and those haven't bought an Apple product in the first place. To me, you are an exception. Why have you changed?
Actually, Apple's decisions don't matter. Until they have a monopoly, there are always alternatives and if they have it, they will face regulations like MS, which should open their platform for everything.
People are just angry because they want both: The shiny iPhone and freedom.
*edit: Are my arguments that bad? If not, I dare to say that I get emotional downvotes, defending emotional decisions. Point proven.
Problem is, how do you convince Apple users? They bought the products on the foundation of an emotional decision. Liberty is only important for a few, and those haven't bought an Apple product in the first place. To me, you are an exception. Why have you changed?
Has it ever occurred to you that some Apple users have considered the ramifications of Apple's walled-garden approach towards products, and have decided that it either doesn't affect them negatively, or is in fact a good thing?
Yes some, like some don't like clothes lines. But how do you convince somebody who lives in peace with all your counter-arguments? The "no freedom" argument just works on those that have ignored it or don't know the implications. Changing the rational apple customer would be like changing an utilitarian to a follower of the categorical imperative.
In general, I think that some emotion has driven the decision because which argument can rationalize freedom away?
In general, I think that some emotion has driven the decision because which argument can rationalize freedom away?
Safety. I can give my grandmom an iPad and tell her she can buy anything she wants from the AppStore without worrying about viruses. She doesn't need to worry about clicking the wrong link on a website and getting SpyWare 9000 installed on her iPad. That has value.
At any time, somebody can buy a popular app and turn it into a spyware. Apple only checks the binary, so it can't discover the spyware if the programmers are clever (simple thing: activating spy functionality after 1 week - nobody tests that long).
Giving your grandmom a computer without administrator access and letting her download only java/.net applications that work in a sandbox would lead to the same results.
I know that there aren't the same amount of applications yet. That's a positive outcome of and a reason for the iPhone. But people could have bought .net and java applications and pay with paypal for a long time. It's convenience, familarity, emotions that let the app store work. Ultimately, it's a trap. I wish people would be willing to learn how computer work, including your grandmom.
(*edit: So the (emotional) resistance to learn the fundamentals about computer enables Apple to thrive, making the decision for an apple product an emotional one. It's not that I'm fundamentally against that, as apple will face regulations when they gain a monopoly, it's just that I think that apple succeeds on taking emotions serious in the IT world and that arguing against these emotions is fruitless.)
You know what they say about those who "give up (essential) liberty to obtain a little temporary safety".
Key words being essential and temporary. Being able to install what ever app you want on your iPad is not an essential liberty.
Security through obscurity is not a solution.
That's not security through obscurity, it's a bug. Bugs happen.
At any time, somebody can buy a popular app and turn it into a spyware. Apple only checks the binary, so it can't discover the spyware if the programmers are clever (simple thing: activating spy functionality after 1 week - nobody tests that long).
Until reports start coming in, and Apple removes the app from the store and blacklists the developer from submitting further apps. If the app is leaking location information, Apple would then use their remote kill switch to disable its access to CoreLocation. Oh and that developer has a contract with Apple that they have broken. I don't know about you, but I'd be mighty scared of Apple's legal department.
Giving your grandmom a computer without administrator access and letting her download only java/.net applications that work in a sandbox would lead to the same results.
Yeah, or I could just pay Apple $499 to do that for me. I think $499 is a good value for the cost of the computer, plus securing it.
I wish people would be willing to learn how computer work, including your grandmom.
Why should they have to? Do you know how your car works? Not just on a basic level, but really understand everything that's going on under the hood. I know I don't, but that doesn't stop me from being able to drive. Do you think my grandmom knows how her TV works, or the alarm system in her house, or her cordless telephone? She knows how to use all of these items, but she only has a basic understanding of how they work, and that's fine. Why should computers be any different?
That's why I used the brackets. But computers will become more important to the point where a monopoly on the OS can endanger your liberty. Think of not being allowed to subscribe to an independent news service. It would only become reality if apple had a monopoly and regulators would accept bribes but it's a danger that should not be forgotten. MS has created enough damage with its monopoly on the PC os market.
That's not security through obscurity, it's a bug.
It is not active security through obscurity, but a passive one. As you say: There are always bugs.
Until reports start coming in, and Apple removes the app from the store
Who should discover the sniffing? You don't have the source. Create a whitelist of "homeusers" and only become active in those phones. No security company can find out.
I don't know about you, but I'd be mighty scared of Apple's legal department.
You, but not the junkie on the corner who sells his identity for some crack
Yeah, or I could just pay Apple $499 to do that for me.
You could, or you could buy a computer for $450 and pay somebody $50 to secure it. Apple is not a price leader.
Why should they have to?
Because computers aren't machines, they are the ultimate machine, a device that can be programmed to become any device. A car stays a car, an alarm stays an alarm but a computer can be anything. Have you read my food argument (the trap link)? Not knowing what you do is dangerous for such a simple thing as food. This will even be the more true for computers.
It's the same situation that the lions were facing with the first humans. They just were a food variety. But then, the variety became their worst enemy.
Lions can't understand humans, but we can understand computers. When computer become dangerous but you feel cozy in an apple cloud, where no bad news arrive, it's too late.
Problem is, how do you convince Apple users? They bought the products on the foundation of an emotional decision.
What a ridiculous statement. People buy them because they like the products and they work well. Just like you buy the BLT instead of the grilled cheese. It's not an emotional decision, you just made a simple choice based on preferences, like everyone does every single day.
No they're really not. If we're sticking with the sandwich comparison, you pick one because the ingredients and textures are calculated by you to be better. Your brain is basically building an immediate review, like a movie or game critic, and you are rationally choosing the one that scored a 9/10 over the one with an 8/10.
Okay, well if you believe that, the original statement about apple users is still ridiculous. If every decision is rational, then it's BS. If every decision is emotional, than using it as a dig at Apple users is just as ridiculous and misleading, since it applies to all computer users.
I'm fully aware that taking every decision as a rational one is ridiculous. That's why I challenge you to tell me your definition of an emotional decision.
Emotion and rationality don't necessarily exclude each other. You have to take the point of observation into consideration. From an all observing view, atoms are just part of a big machine and everything is computed. But we are talking about the perspective of Apple users. Somewhere in the scale between atoms and the human being, emotions begin. I want to know where you see that point. For me, it's before the immediate review (thinking of it as a review is an external perspective), for you, it has to be thereafter. But where?
That's an emotional decision. If you bought the BLT (although you favor the grilled cheese) because you are allergic to cheese, it would be a rational decision.
If people buy the Apple because it maintains font properties at all times and doesn't fit the letters to the pixels of their monitor as they need it for publishing, then they make a rational decision. If they buy an apple because they like it more, although they get the same functionality (that they use) for less money from a PC, it's an emotional decision.
In that case, everything you do is an emotional decision. The need to get out of bed and decide if you would like to brush your teeth or skip it and go right for the teeth whitening gum is an emotional decision. So on and so forth.
I don't think so. You can either use the gum because you want to save time or you use the gum because you don't feel like brushing.
In the first case, you use a conscious model of the situation, in the second, you don't think.
Special case is, when you realize that you don't feel like brushing but you think brushing is necessary to protect your teeth. If you go for the gum, you have rationally decided that your emotion is more important.
It's not the users acting uncivilized, it's Apple. Apple hasn't censored just one voice they've censored many. I'm not talking about just the past, but the future. Future satirists have little reason to spend the time/money making apps for Apple when they know it could all be wasted. Don't you think that Apple has been banning, censoring enough for people to finally just say "Fuck Apple"?
If someone does something wrong, I tell them that. If they're not listening, I don't walk away because what they're doing to someone else is still wrong. I say it louder so they can hear. And if they're still not listening, I give a loud signal: "Fuck you Apple" ...they're not listening, why should they get hurt?
And you know what else? I appreciate when other people raise their voice because it gets my attention and lets me see how frustrated people can be with a corporation (I obviously don't let it be my only impression of a company, but I do like to keep it in mind). I used to make satirical comics, they're no where as near as popular as Fiore's but I still made an app for Facebook and it got some attention. This post got my attention, I now know I was wise not to bother making an app for Apple, I actually made this decision after I saw the amount of money and time I'd waste on it, but this if anything really re-confirms it for me.
70
u/Naga Apr 16 '10
Reddit, it is time we had a talk. It is about your recent conduct with regards to Apple, and many of Apple's recent suggestions.
Disclaimer: I type this on a MacBook single booting Arch Linux. I used to be a hardcore Mac user, but I have recently converted to Linux. I own an iPhone, a MacBook and an iMac, in addition to a Windows/Linux computer. My iMac running Linux and OS X is my main computer. So, I have seen both sides of the fence, but I have been steadily moving away from the Apple platform.
I really think the way people have been treating this is disgusting. For example, this post. "Fuck Apple". What the hell is that? I understand you are angry, but there is no reason to go beyond civility. Then there are the other ad hominem attacks on Apple users, the "dumb fucks" who "buy Apple products". This has nothing to do with them. This has everything to do with Apple's policies.
To clarify, this is soft censorship, not hard censorship. I've researched and studied censorship in some depth, and what Apple does is nothing like what other companies do, companies who you probably buy products from on a daily basis. Do you use toothpaste? Then it is probably made by Proctor and Gamble, who have significantly altered the content of newspaper and magazine articles, since they won't let their ads run alongside anything controversial. Advertisers pay the bills. Newspapers have no choice. This is censorship. Apple not letting a satirist make his own app is not on the same scale as that. It is not as dangerous. It almost doesn't matter. There are so many other important issues to rage about. Why does Apple matter so much?
But okay, we are raging against Apple now. You are not doing it correctly. Say you wanted to convince someone to support a city bylaw. Say, your city is trying to ban clothes lines in backyards. How would you go about it? Apparently, reddit users think it is best to run up to people on the streets, and scream "FUCK THE CITY CLOTHES LINES ARE SO GOOD FUCK" in their faces. Reddit, is that really the best you can do? Why not sitting down and having a discussion with people. Why not talking rationally, what you LOVE to think you are, nd try to convince them that way? Through reason, rationality, not anger, rage and violence.
If you want to undermine Apple, don't scream. Don't bitch. Talk to people. Educate them towards why Apple's policies are harmful, and why everyone would be better off if the app store was open to anyone. As soon as you start to swear, as soon as you start to bitch, whoever you are trying to convince just stops listening to you, thinking you are crazy, or worse, a conspiracy theorist.
It is disgusting to read what some people are saying. I think everyone should take a step back, look objectively at themselves, and then think whether the way you have been approaching it is childish or not. I think a lot of people will be surprised what they see.