Comments on: Apple Never Promised Us It Wouldn’t Be Evil http://jens.mooseyard.com/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/ Little boxes made of words, by Jens Alfke Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:32:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Phil Caruso http://jens.mooseyard.com/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/comment-page-2/#comment-3037 Phil Caruso Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:59:53 +0000 http://mooseyard.com/Jens/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/#comment-3037 And... you're really only hearing about the tip of the iceburg... because Apple also prohibits the mention of rejected apps... so, in fact, the most legitimate of developers who find themselves in this awful position never get heard from. And… you’re really only hearing about the tip of the iceburg… because Apple also prohibits the mention of rejected apps… so, in fact, the most legitimate of developers who find themselves in this awful position never get heard from.

]]> By: Phil Caruso http://jens.mooseyard.com/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/comment-page-2/#comment-3036 Phil Caruso Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:56:58 +0000 http://mooseyard.com/Jens/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/#comment-3036 Sorry Matt... you're wrong. Apple is really being oblique and random when it comes to this issue. And, the especially bad thing about this behavior is that developers end up wasting a whole lot of their time. Sorry Matt… you’re wrong.

Apple is really being oblique and random when it comes to this issue. And, the especially bad thing about this behavior is that developers end up wasting a whole lot of their time.

]]> By: Matt Carrell http://jens.mooseyard.com/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-3035 Matt Carrell Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:52:05 +0000 http://mooseyard.com/Jens/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/#comment-3035 In all reality, I think all this discussion is a moot point. The very limited number of unfair rejections that have become public pales in comparison to the vast number of apps which were appropriately accepted. Keep it in perspective how few problems really exist in comparison to how many developers did not experience problems and this "issue" really isn't as big as you're blowing it up to be. This is a lot like a newspaper front page headline saying "OMFG there were 1500 traffic fatalities nationwide last year - up 5% from previous year" when the cold and indifferent truth underlying the article that isn't mentioned is that there were 10% more new drivers on the road from the previous year, so in terms of the ratio of fatal accidents to total number of drivers, the fatalities per driver ratio actually FELL. This is a typical ploy used in politics and media to hype up something out of not much or in fact nothing. When the truth is that 50,000 apps have been approved, a few hundred crappy apps that deserved rejection were and maybe 10 apps were unfairly rejected and got high profile whine-bag express treatment in the blogosphere, I would have to say looking at this a little less microscopically, this "issue" is mostly just a bunch of whining here people. So there is one bad reviewer in Bangalor Valley. Apple will end up firing them with enough complaints and embarassments. OK PEOPLE, NOTHING TO SEE HERE.. MOVE ALONG... In all reality, I think all this discussion is a moot point. The very limited number of unfair rejections that have become public pales in comparison to the vast number of apps which were appropriately accepted. Keep it in perspective how few problems really exist in comparison to how many developers did not experience problems and this “issue” really isn’t as big as you’re blowing it up to be. This is a lot like a newspaper front page headline saying “OMFG there were 1500 traffic fatalities nationwide last year - up 5% from previous year” when the cold and indifferent truth underlying the article that isn’t mentioned is that there were 10% more new drivers on the road from the previous year, so in terms of the ratio of fatal accidents to total number of drivers, the fatalities per driver ratio actually FELL. This is a typical ploy used in politics and media to hype up something out of not much or in fact nothing.

When the truth is that 50,000 apps have been approved, a few hundred crappy apps that deserved rejection were and maybe 10 apps were unfairly rejected and got high profile whine-bag express treatment in the blogosphere, I would have to say looking at this a little less microscopically, this “issue” is mostly just a bunch of whining here people. So there is one bad reviewer in Bangalor Valley. Apple will end up firing them with enough complaints and embarassments. OK PEOPLE, NOTHING TO SEE HERE.. MOVE ALONG…

]]> By: Jens Alfke http://jens.mooseyard.com/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-3034 Jens Alfke Sun, 24 May 2009 16:55:53 +0000 http://mooseyard.com/Jens/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/#comment-3034 @Drunken Economist — I think we're in agreement, basically. As I said, I don't think Apple has a policy to ban naughty language. What it does have is a policy that's overly vague (what does "offensive" mean exactly?), coupled with an approval process that's completely opaque, wide open to abuse by individual reviewers, and without any formal means of redress. In these circumstances, the blame for the individual bad actions flows upstairs to the level at which these policies are created and enforced. (I've been trying to avoid comparisons with Abu Ghraib, because the difference in magnitude is so ludicrously huge. But it does show the same basic moral principle I'm describing.) @Drunken Economist — I think we’re in agreement, basically. As I said, I don’t think Apple has a policy to ban naughty language. What it does have is a policy that’s overly vague (what does “offensive” mean exactly?), coupled with an approval process that’s completely opaque, wide open to abuse by individual reviewers, and without any formal means of redress. In these circumstances, the blame for the individual bad actions flows upstairs to the level at which these policies are created and enforced.

(I’ve been trying to avoid comparisons with Abu Ghraib, because the difference in magnitude is so ludicrously huge. But it does show the same basic moral principle I’m describing.)

]]> By: Jens Alfke http://jens.mooseyard.com/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-3033 Jens Alfke Sun, 24 May 2009 16:46:25 +0000 http://mooseyard.com/Jens/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/#comment-3033 @ howsthisforanidea — I wouldn't be yelling about it if I didn't at heart love Apple and the iPhone platform. The problem with more open alternatives is that, to put it bluntly, they suck. I own an Android phone, and after an hour of playing with it I put it back in the box, where it remains. It's pretty good compared to other cellphones, but it still sucks compared to iPhone and I have no desire to use or develop for it. I don't want to give up and go to some mediocre platform. I want Apple to come to its senses and fix its processes, and widespread shaming and condemnation is one way to go about that. @ howsthisforanidea — I wouldn’t be yelling about it if I didn’t at heart love Apple and the iPhone platform. The problem with more open alternatives is that, to put it bluntly, they suck. I own an Android phone, and after an hour of playing with it I put it back in the box, where it remains. It’s pretty good compared to other cellphones, but it still sucks compared to iPhone and I have no desire to use or develop for it.

I don’t want to give up and go to some mediocre platform. I want Apple to come to its senses and fix its processes, and widespread shaming and condemnation is one way to go about that.

]]> By: Thomas W http://jens.mooseyard.com/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-3032 Thomas W Sun, 24 May 2009 10:36:41 +0000 http://mooseyard.com/Jens/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/#comment-3032 It looks like Apple finally reversed their decision, but it just underlines the fact that the process is broken. http://www.macworld.com/article/140764/2009/05/eucalyptus.html It looks like Apple finally reversed their decision, but it just underlines the fact that the process is broken. http://www.macworld.com/article/140764/2009/05/eucalyptus.html

]]> By: Neil Anderson http://jens.mooseyard.com/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-3031 Neil Anderson Sat, 23 May 2009 18:35:29 +0000 http://mooseyard.com/Jens/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/#comment-3031 Looking forward to the 3.0 upgrade. Looking forward to the 3.0 upgrade.

]]> By: Mr. Reeee http://jens.mooseyard.com/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-3030 Mr. Reeee Sat, 23 May 2009 14:22:42 +0000 http://mooseyard.com/Jens/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/#comment-3030 Dan is correct: "I suggest a distinction: Apple is being stupid. An App Store reviewer is being evil." If you look at it, out of 35,000+ apps released in the App Store, only a few have been rejected. AND it seems that the pace has accelerated and the profile of these rejections risen lately. I bet there is some church lady app review who is red pencilling apps which offend his/her delicate sensibilities. Here's MY theory: On the other hand, Apple is the MASTER of manipulating the press. It's very interesting that suddenly every rejection has boiled over into a little tornado of "headlines". Apple is due to release the iPhone/iPod touch OS 3.0 update very soon. Apple wants to sell $10 upgrades to 16 million+ iPod touch owners. So, instead of making ads for new features in an OS upgrade... high snooze-factor and Apple NEVER advertises features. Parental Controls? Who wants to watch an ad about THAT? Why not get the press to create an emotional firestorm by rejecting a few apps and drumming up some emotional outrage? Crank up the fear factor. Apple is hitting all the bases with their "selections", too! Baby Shaker, Trent "Washed Up" Reznor, Kama Sutra... evil from the 60's reemerges... There are BAD apps and DIRTY words and SEX that poor little children could download from the App Store. OMFG! And there you go, millions of iPhone and iPod touch owners are suddenly aware of a new OS 3.0 upgrade and that you NEED these new features to protect innocent eyes and ears! $16,000,000.00+ ain't chump change, either! Dan is correct:
“I suggest a distinction: Apple is being stupid. An App Store reviewer is being evil.”

If you look at it, out of 35,000+ apps released in the App Store, only a few have been rejected. AND it seems that the pace has accelerated and the profile of these rejections risen lately.

I bet there is some church lady app review who is red pencilling apps which offend his/her delicate sensibilities.

Here’s MY theory:
On the other hand, Apple is the MASTER of manipulating the press. It’s very interesting that suddenly every rejection has boiled over into a little tornado of “headlines”.

Apple is due to release the iPhone/iPod touch OS 3.0 update very soon.
Apple wants to sell $10 upgrades to 16 million+ iPod touch owners.

So, instead of making ads for new features in an OS upgrade… high snooze-factor and Apple NEVER advertises features. Parental Controls? Who wants to watch an ad about THAT?

Why not get the press to create an emotional firestorm by rejecting a few apps and drumming up some emotional outrage? Crank up the fear factor.

Apple is hitting all the bases with their “selections”, too!
Baby Shaker, Trent “Washed Up” Reznor, Kama Sutra… evil from the 60’s reemerges…

There are BAD apps and DIRTY words and SEX that poor little children could download from the App Store. OMFG!

And there you go, millions of iPhone and iPod touch owners are suddenly aware of a new OS 3.0 upgrade and that you NEED these new features to protect innocent eyes and ears!

$16,000,000.00+ ain’t chump change, either!

]]> By: Pierre Lebeaupin http://jens.mooseyard.com/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-3029 Pierre Lebeaupin Sat, 23 May 2009 12:01:52 +0000 http://mooseyard.com/Jens/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/#comment-3029 Hmm… if it hadn't been done to death already (and I had any talent for that), I'd make a new spoof of the 1984 ad: "Today, we celebrate the glorious anniversary of the iPhone application purification commitee… secure from the malware…" etc. Hmm… if it hadn’t been done to death already (and I had any talent for that), I’d make a new spoof of the 1984 ad: “Today, we celebrate the glorious anniversary of the iPhone application purification commitee… secure from the malware…” etc.

]]> By: Drunken Economist http://jens.mooseyard.com/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-3028 Drunken Economist Sat, 23 May 2009 07:46:05 +0000 http://mooseyard.com/Jens/2009/05/apple-never-promised-us-it-wouldnt-be-evil/#comment-3028 With all due respect- - You're putting too much thought into this. Apple outsourced the review process to some place that is very cheap and Victorian. Care to guess where? - The Kama Sutra thing is the sticking point for the reviewer. Somebody pissed in his curry... - Because these reviewers factor into the profit model, Apple isn't going to change the process unless they are shamed enough that the stock price dips 5% or more. So to review: It literally is the Kama Sutra and one offended reviewer. Outsourcing, no matter how well hidden by the main vendor, sucks; and only shame powerful enough to influence the stock price, the only thing the MBAs care about anyway will effect 'change'.. I really think the author should release on Cydia, just to shame Apple. I also think this story should be pushed to CNBC, because of course the douches who are sitting in for SJobs watch that. Nothing could be finer than Jim Cramer calling you a douchbag on national TV. With all due respect-

- You’re putting too much thought into this. Apple outsourced the review process to some place that is very cheap and Victorian. Care to guess where?

- The Kama Sutra thing is the sticking point for the reviewer. Somebody pissed in his curry…

- Because these reviewers factor into the profit model, Apple isn’t going to change the process unless they are shamed enough that the stock price dips 5% or more.

So to review: It literally is the Kama Sutra and one offended reviewer. Outsourcing, no matter how well hidden by the main vendor, sucks; and only shame powerful enough to influence the stock price, the only thing the MBAs care about anyway will effect ‘change’..

I really think the author should release on Cydia, just to shame Apple. I also think this story should be pushed to CNBC, because of course the douches who are sitting in for SJobs watch that.

Nothing could be finer than Jim Cramer calling you a douchbag on national TV.

]]>