Yes, they did. Among other things, they removed the reporter's observation, per Mike's item #5. EVERY paragraph, most of which are simple sentences, now contain pure facts, certainly verifiable by Mike's links in his rewritten version.
Re: "Parental Controls" = Censoring..... for a limited audience
crap.
The parental "controls" are for informational purposes, and for those PARENTS that want to be aware of what their kids are exposed to. Not a damn thing wrong with that kind of warning.
All the developer had to do was wait three weeks or so for the WWDC, when just about the entire blogosphere knew iPhone 3.0 would be released.
But this was just too good an opportunity for him to get all this FREE publicity!
You can't buy this kind of publicity for all the tea in China...
Please specify exactly how Apple is "ripping me off" when I buy apps I WANT.
People can go ahead and jailbreak their iPhone, but when their IMs get plastered all over someone else's phone cause THEY jailbroke it, they shouldn't blame Apple!
And when your non-Apple phone gets its first virus cause you opened a malicious email, and your phone's OS just calmly lets it be installed, I'll be laughing behind my keyboard.
No Apple did NOT censor that app. The developer did, even if he claims to have felt some unspecified "pressure" from Apple to do so. That is HIS decision, and his alone.
Again, from my above post, the relevant passage:
"The issue that the App Store reviewers did find with the Ninjawords application is that it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable. A quick search on Wiktionary.org easily turns up a number of offensive "urban slang" terms that you won't find in popular dictionaries such as one that you referenced, the New Oxford American Dictionary included in Mac OS X. Apple rejected the initial submission of Ninjawords for this reason, provided the Ninjawords developer with information about some of the vulgar terms, and suggested to the developer that they resubmit the application for approval once parental controls were implemented on the iPhone."
Note that it was already public knowledge that iPhone 3.0 was only weeks away, most likely to be released at the WWDC. It was the DEVELOPER'S decision to gain that few weeks of additional time.
"The issue that the App Store reviewers did find with the Ninjawords application is that it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable. A quick search on Wiktionary.org easily turns up a number of offensive "urban slang" terms that you won't find in popular dictionaries such as one that you referenced, the New Oxford American Dictionary included in Mac OS X. Apple rejected the initial submission of Ninjawords for this reason, provided the Ninjawords developer with information about some of the vulgar terms, and suggested to the developer that they resubmit the application for approval once parental controls were implemented on the iPhone."
Note:
"...terms that you won't find in popular dictionaries..."
Now I agree in principle that censoring a dictionary is ridiculous, but the decision to do so was the developer's, regardless of whether he felt some unsubstantiated and undetailed "pressure" from Apple to do so. Apple TOLD him exactly what he could do to win approval, and he took a different course. Any such "pressure" was in his own mind.
Apple doesn't use the ratings to actually restrict usage of apps, but as a guide to parents who ARE concerned about what their kids are exposed to.
They were asked by Apple to wait for 3.0 so it could be brought in under parental controls, because the particular terms Apple objected to were unusually objectionable, and WERE NOT CARRIED IN OTHER DICTIONARY APPS.
The developer made HIS OWN CHOICE to censor the app instead of waiting. Apple never told him to, nor said it was required to get it approved. It isn't that Apple censored it, the developer made his own choice that Apple never asked him to make.
Other apps have been brought in under similar restrictions because they linked to similarly objectionable material.
The decision to censor the app was purely the developer's call, based upon their desire to get it into the store before iPhone 3.0 was released with parental controls.
" ...how exactly is me not wearing a seatbelt in any way intruding on someone else's safety?"
Not safety - insurance costs. Just like helmet laws, if you are stupid enough not to actually use safety equipment, I couldn't care less. It's not MY head that'll end up going through your windshield, or creamed into the pavement!!
But, your failure to use that equipment may well result in your death or injury, and THAT will cost your insurance company money, which they will then seek to be reimbursed for through higher premiums! Premiums the rest of us will have to pay, thus paying for YOUR stupidity.
Of course, you won't have to worry - you'll either be dead, permanently immobilized in a nursing home, or they'll simply cancel your policy cause you're too stupid to drive.
But this subject, as I've mentioned before, is not JUST about texting, or using a cell phone.
It is about Driving While Distracted. (DWD)
Virtually every state, to my knowledge, has a law that makes it illegal to perform an activity that is a distraction to keeping your attention on the road.
Is it truly more distracting to text or hold a phone conversation than to change a CD or tape cartridge on the player in the dash? Or to search for a radio station in cars without a built in search function? Just how distracting is it to be driving down the road and drop your cigarette into your lap? Or a hot cup of coffee?
How many folks have you observed arguing with their passenger so badly that they were inattentive to the road? How many of you have done the same thing? How about being a referee to your kids' arguments?
A Washington Post columnist in the 90's, Bob Levy, had a column where he encouraged readers to write or call in their own experiences with seeing distracted drivers. A woman called in a sighting on I-66, where the woman she observed was driving down that crowded freeway at about 55 mph, steering WITH HER KNEES, eating a bowl of cereal - with milk!
Do we really need laws detailing the specific item or activity that is banned? We'd need THOUSANDS of such laws!
No, what we need is a concerted national program of education to ensure drivers know what is distracting, how dangerous it is, and how to keep from doing it.
We have a tendency in this country to pass laws and then think the problem is solved.
I don't see it. One random developer grousing about Apple doesn't say that their system is so broken it will fail. As long as developers see a wide market with millions of users as potential customers, they'll keep developing.
Apple themselves has said they are constantly tweaking the system, and the fact that public pressure can reverse rejections says a lot about that process actually responding.
But Apple's system is closed for a reason, and the main reason it is is security. Notice the recent story coming out where unlocked iPhones are receiving AIM messages from other phones? That is why they want to control the system, so crap like that doesn't happen.
Mark my words, you'll see problems with malware crop up on open systems long before you'll see it on iPhones.
All those other OSes you cite? Those guys don't make hardware, and the hardware folks don't make software.
Apple makes them both, and in spite of predictions like Mike's, are gaining market share, making money hand over fist, because they just make good systems that work, because they are designed to work together.
Apple is in the business to make great equipment, Jobs has said it many times before, even before they go for the money. If they want their systems to be good, remain good and provide a great customer experience, they have to control the whole widget, top to bottom. That is their business model, and it is succeeding to the tune of gaining market share and wildly gaining market profit share.
All the whining about how their systems are "closed" is just that - whining. Until you see their customers abandon that platform in droves, that's all it will be - whining.
I really don't see the problem with Apple's producing a proprietary system. Micro$oft does, and I don't see you folks complaining!
Apple produces a vertical, proprietary system that is designed to work well with its own components. Is it truly a surprise that they don't want other companies' equipment faking themselves as Apple equipment to take advantage of Apple's software features? Would any other company out there be any different?
Apple has lead the fight against Micro$oft to establish open standards for everything from TCP/IP to USB and others as well. If it were up to M$, all standards would be closed M$ protocols.
Just because Apple produces a proprietary system does not mean that they are against open standards. But that does NOT mean that they have to allow any Joe Blow out there to use Apple software for fun and profit!
Like any product, both Apple's proprietary systems and open systems like Linux will live or die according to how well those products meet the needs of the marketplace.
Not every public company goes under due to investor impatience, nor get bought out. Some are successful in their own right.
Microsoft has been "successful" due to the illegal leveraging of their monopoly. Apple is successful due to their paying attention to their core principle of just making great products.
Open systems are fine in their place, and will do much better in third world countries where people, organizations and governments are willing to put a bit more effort in learning how to use it because free beats the heck out of paying the proprietary companies for their software.
In some distant future, the Linux community "may" finally figure out how to build a slick, easy to use UI that the common man won't need to jump through hoops to learn how to use, and "may" figure out how to market it so more than 5% of the population even knows about it.
What you are saying is that such closed systems lose in the end because the open systems give people what they want that the closed systems do not.
As I scan the published descriptions of the rejected apps from the closed Apple store, I really don't see a lot of things that would seem to be stuff people would be clamoring for. It would seem that if you were right, that list would include lots of stuff people would, you know, WANT to have, but would not get due to the closed nature of the app store.
Apple's published reasons for having a "closed" store, whatever that means, are that they screen apps to ensure that they work well, don't misuse system resources, are not serving content that would violate community ethics (porn, in other words), do not violate Apple's terms of service and don't compete directly against Apple's own software. In addition, the MAIN reason is for the screening against vulnerabilities to malware or keeping out malware itself.
Yes, their process often seems capricious and arbitrary, and public opinion at stupid rejections often results in reversals.
But lots of developers have made boatloads of money, and the lesson from this app store is that tons of people will buy silly, ill-conceived apps if they are priced ridiculously low. It's like going to a dollar store and spending a few bucks on stupid little gag gifts or practical joke stuff you know you'll only pull out and show your friends when you're drunk. The cost is negligible, and its a bit of fun in return!
The nice thing is that app developers have made some really useful stuff and priced them really low, just like those gag apps, and have also made boatloads of money as a result.
So as long as Apple's app store is serving its hardware as well as it does, it will thrive, as it serves an ecosystem of closed proprietary systems that are proving wildly popular, and whose market share is growing steadily.
Nobody else's app store will prove popular enough because nobody else's HARDWARE is proving able to threaten Apple's iPhone, and as long as Apple refuses to allow unauthorized software on the iPhone, those other app stores have little or no market.
So, in essence those other app stores do not directly compete with Apple's app store, because they serve different platforms!
So tell me what's in it for me if someone puts up an app store that has open software? I can't put it on my iPhone, so why should I pay any attention to it?
Courts have traditionally controlled the access juries have to the outside world. This is to prevent biased, incorrect or flawed information about the subjects covered at the trial from contaminating the information the jury has received during deliberations.
In the past, juries had to write notes to the judge for information (such as definitions of medical terms, for instance), since many times such information would need to come from an expert to ensure that the definition is correct and is germane to the issues at hand.
The ability of jurors to go directly to the Internet (and all the contaminated and potentially incorrect sources therein) is like opening the jury room door and giving them access to any Joe Blow that wants to walk in. It also prevents the Court from being able to ensure that the information is properly presented and explained to the jury so they can see how it pertains to the issues they are deliberating about.
This is problematic on any number of levels, not the least of which is the ability of the jurors to exchange information with any number of interested parties, both to reveal the deliberations of the jury to the world, and to allow the jury access to parties that would contaminate that deliberative process in their own favor.
Were I in charge of a court, I would not only collect cell phones, disallow laptops and search for hidden electronics prior to jury deliberations, I would employ jamming equipment to prevent anything missed in the search process from gaining access to the outside world.
I am on the other side of the fence. I listen to Country, and few Country artists produce full albums of music that don't contain mostly filler songs.
I'll keep buying singles as I like them until an artist I like produces an album that I feel deserves being bought that way.
It's all about choice. If the price is right, and there's only one or two songs I don't like, I'll buy the album, otherwise, I want the ability to choose just the singles I want.
On the post: Rewriting An AP Story Just To Show We Can
Re:
Nothing unique in that article now at all.
On the post: Apple Now Censoring A Dictionary iPhone App?
Re: "Parental Controls" = Censoring..... for a limited audience
The parental "controls" are for informational purposes, and for those PARENTS that want to be aware of what their kids are exposed to. Not a damn thing wrong with that kind of warning.
All the developer had to do was wait three weeks or so for the WWDC, when just about the entire blogosphere knew iPhone 3.0 would be released.
But this was just too good an opportunity for him to get all this FREE publicity!
You can't buy this kind of publicity for all the tea in China...
On the post: Apple Now Censoring A Dictionary iPhone App?
Re: FUCK, stop buying their shit
On the post: Apple Now Censoring A Dictionary iPhone App?
Re: One more reason not to buy Apple
People can go ahead and jailbreak their iPhone, but when their IMs get plastered all over someone else's phone cause THEY jailbroke it, they shouldn't blame Apple!
And when your non-Apple phone gets its first virus cause you opened a malicious email, and your phone's OS just calmly lets it be installed, I'll be laughing behind my keyboard.
On the post: Apple Now Censoring A Dictionary iPhone App?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so fast
Again, from my above post, the relevant passage:
"The issue that the App Store reviewers did find with the Ninjawords application is that it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable. A quick search on Wiktionary.org easily turns up a number of offensive "urban slang" terms that you won't find in popular dictionaries such as one that you referenced, the New Oxford American Dictionary included in Mac OS X. Apple rejected the initial submission of Ninjawords for this reason, provided the Ninjawords developer with information about some of the vulgar terms, and suggested to the developer that they resubmit the application for approval once parental controls were implemented on the iPhone."
Note that it was already public knowledge that iPhone 3.0 was only weeks away, most likely to be released at the WWDC. It was the DEVELOPER'S decision to gain that few weeks of additional time.
Not to mention all this free publicity!
On the post: Apple Now Censoring A Dictionary iPhone App?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so fast
"The issue that the App Store reviewers did find with the Ninjawords application is that it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable. A quick search on Wiktionary.org easily turns up a number of offensive "urban slang" terms that you won't find in popular dictionaries such as one that you referenced, the New Oxford American Dictionary included in Mac OS X. Apple rejected the initial submission of Ninjawords for this reason, provided the Ninjawords developer with information about some of the vulgar terms, and suggested to the developer that they resubmit the application for approval once parental controls were implemented on the iPhone."
Note:
"...terms that you won't find in popular dictionaries..."
Now I agree in principle that censoring a dictionary is ridiculous, but the decision to do so was the developer's, regardless of whether he felt some unsubstantiated and undetailed "pressure" from Apple to do so. Apple TOLD him exactly what he could do to win approval, and he took a different course. Any such "pressure" was in his own mind.
Apple doesn't use the ratings to actually restrict usage of apps, but as a guide to parents who ARE concerned about what their kids are exposed to.
And that is a legitimate goal of that system.
On the post: Apple Now Censoring A Dictionary iPhone App?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so fast
They were asked by Apple to wait for 3.0 so it could be brought in under parental controls, because the particular terms Apple objected to were unusually objectionable, and WERE NOT CARRIED IN OTHER DICTIONARY APPS.
The developer made HIS OWN CHOICE to censor the app instead of waiting. Apple never told him to, nor said it was required to get it approved. It isn't that Apple censored it, the developer made his own choice that Apple never asked him to make.
Other apps have been brought in under similar restrictions because they linked to similarly objectionable material.
Get a grip.
On the post: Apple Now Censoring A Dictionary iPhone App?
Re: Re: Not so fast
Go to Daring Fireball and READ Phil's letter, then come back here to actually, intelligently discuss the situation.
There's no "sussing" to be done, DF has the scoop, and the developer admitted censoring the app himself!
On the post: Apple Now Censoring A Dictionary iPhone App?
Not so fast
Go to Daring Fireball's site, he got an email from Phil Schiller setting the record straight:
http://daringfireball.net/
The decision to censor the app was purely the developer's call, based upon their desire to get it into the store before iPhone 3.0 was released with parental controls.
On the post: What's Next? Can Senators Ban Stupidity While Driving?
Re:
An ad hominem attack just shows the idiocy of the attacker, not the attacked.
Have a nice day!
On the post: What's Next? Can Senators Ban Stupidity While Driving?
Re: Re: Re:
Not safety - insurance costs. Just like helmet laws, if you are stupid enough not to actually use safety equipment, I couldn't care less. It's not MY head that'll end up going through your windshield, or creamed into the pavement!!
But, your failure to use that equipment may well result in your death or injury, and THAT will cost your insurance company money, which they will then seek to be reimbursed for through higher premiums! Premiums the rest of us will have to pay, thus paying for YOUR stupidity.
Of course, you won't have to worry - you'll either be dead, permanently immobilized in a nursing home, or they'll simply cancel your policy cause you're too stupid to drive.
On the post: What's Next? Can Senators Ban Stupidity While Driving?
distractions
It is about Driving While Distracted. (DWD)
Virtually every state, to my knowledge, has a law that makes it illegal to perform an activity that is a distraction to keeping your attention on the road.
Is it truly more distracting to text or hold a phone conversation than to change a CD or tape cartridge on the player in the dash? Or to search for a radio station in cars without a built in search function? Just how distracting is it to be driving down the road and drop your cigarette into your lap? Or a hot cup of coffee?
How many folks have you observed arguing with their passenger so badly that they were inattentive to the road? How many of you have done the same thing? How about being a referee to your kids' arguments?
A Washington Post columnist in the 90's, Bob Levy, had a column where he encouraged readers to write or call in their own experiences with seeing distracted drivers. A woman called in a sighting on I-66, where the woman she observed was driving down that crowded freeway at about 55 mph, steering WITH HER KNEES, eating a bowl of cereal - with milk!
Do we really need laws detailing the specific item or activity that is banned? We'd need THOUSANDS of such laws!
No, what we need is a concerted national program of education to ensure drivers know what is distracting, how dangerous it is, and how to keep from doing it.
We have a tendency in this country to pass laws and then think the problem is solved.
Not in this case.
On the post: From Closed To Open: iPhone App Developer Skepticism Highlights Platform Trajectory
Re: Re: Long run?
Apple themselves has said they are constantly tweaking the system, and the fact that public pressure can reverse rejections says a lot about that process actually responding.
But Apple's system is closed for a reason, and the main reason it is is security. Notice the recent story coming out where unlocked iPhones are receiving AIM messages from other phones? That is why they want to control the system, so crap like that doesn't happen.
Mark my words, you'll see problems with malware crop up on open systems long before you'll see it on iPhones.
All those other OSes you cite? Those guys don't make hardware, and the hardware folks don't make software.
Apple makes them both, and in spite of predictions like Mike's, are gaining market share, making money hand over fist, because they just make good systems that work, because they are designed to work together.
Apple is in the business to make great equipment, Jobs has said it many times before, even before they go for the money. If they want their systems to be good, remain good and provide a great customer experience, they have to control the whole widget, top to bottom. That is their business model, and it is succeeding to the tune of gaining market share and wildly gaining market profit share.
All the whining about how their systems are "closed" is just that - whining. Until you see their customers abandon that platform in droves, that's all it will be - whining.
On the post: From Closed To Open: iPhone App Developer Skepticism Highlights Platform Trajectory
Re: Re: Re: Re: Long run?
On the post: From Closed To Open: iPhone App Developer Skepticism Highlights Platform Trajectory
Re:
Apple produces a vertical, proprietary system that is designed to work well with its own components. Is it truly a surprise that they don't want other companies' equipment faking themselves as Apple equipment to take advantage of Apple's software features? Would any other company out there be any different?
Apple has lead the fight against Micro$oft to establish open standards for everything from TCP/IP to USB and others as well. If it were up to M$, all standards would be closed M$ protocols.
Just because Apple produces a proprietary system does not mean that they are against open standards. But that does NOT mean that they have to allow any Joe Blow out there to use Apple software for fun and profit!
Like any product, both Apple's proprietary systems and open systems like Linux will live or die according to how well those products meet the needs of the marketplace.
On the post: From Closed To Open: iPhone App Developer Skepticism Highlights Platform Trajectory
Re: Re: Long run?
Not every public company goes under due to investor impatience, nor get bought out. Some are successful in their own right.
Microsoft has been "successful" due to the illegal leveraging of their monopoly. Apple is successful due to their paying attention to their core principle of just making great products.
Open systems are fine in their place, and will do much better in third world countries where people, organizations and governments are willing to put a bit more effort in learning how to use it because free beats the heck out of paying the proprietary companies for their software.
In some distant future, the Linux community "may" finally figure out how to build a slick, easy to use UI that the common man won't need to jump through hoops to learn how to use, and "may" figure out how to market it so more than 5% of the population even knows about it.
Get back to us when they do.
On the post: From Closed To Open: iPhone App Developer Skepticism Highlights Platform Trajectory
doesn't make sense
As I scan the published descriptions of the rejected apps from the closed Apple store, I really don't see a lot of things that would seem to be stuff people would be clamoring for. It would seem that if you were right, that list would include lots of stuff people would, you know, WANT to have, but would not get due to the closed nature of the app store.
Apple's published reasons for having a "closed" store, whatever that means, are that they screen apps to ensure that they work well, don't misuse system resources, are not serving content that would violate community ethics (porn, in other words), do not violate Apple's terms of service and don't compete directly against Apple's own software. In addition, the MAIN reason is for the screening against vulnerabilities to malware or keeping out malware itself.
Yes, their process often seems capricious and arbitrary, and public opinion at stupid rejections often results in reversals.
But lots of developers have made boatloads of money, and the lesson from this app store is that tons of people will buy silly, ill-conceived apps if they are priced ridiculously low. It's like going to a dollar store and spending a few bucks on stupid little gag gifts or practical joke stuff you know you'll only pull out and show your friends when you're drunk. The cost is negligible, and its a bit of fun in return!
The nice thing is that app developers have made some really useful stuff and priced them really low, just like those gag apps, and have also made boatloads of money as a result.
So as long as Apple's app store is serving its hardware as well as it does, it will thrive, as it serves an ecosystem of closed proprietary systems that are proving wildly popular, and whose market share is growing steadily.
Nobody else's app store will prove popular enough because nobody else's HARDWARE is proving able to threaten Apple's iPhone, and as long as Apple refuses to allow unauthorized software on the iPhone, those other app stores have little or no market.
So, in essence those other app stores do not directly compete with Apple's app store, because they serve different platforms!
So tell me what's in it for me if someone puts up an app store that has open software? I can't put it on my iPhone, so why should I pay any attention to it?
You are comparing Apples to Oranges.
On the post: Michigan Supreme Court Issues New Stop Twittering Rule For Juries
control is the issue
In the past, juries had to write notes to the judge for information (such as definitions of medical terms, for instance), since many times such information would need to come from an expert to ensure that the definition is correct and is germane to the issues at hand.
The ability of jurors to go directly to the Internet (and all the contaminated and potentially incorrect sources therein) is like opening the jury room door and giving them access to any Joe Blow that wants to walk in. It also prevents the Court from being able to ensure that the information is properly presented and explained to the jury so they can see how it pertains to the issues they are deliberating about.
This is problematic on any number of levels, not the least of which is the ability of the jurors to exchange information with any number of interested parties, both to reveal the deliberations of the jury to the world, and to allow the jury access to parties that would contaminate that deliberative process in their own favor.
Were I in charge of a court, I would not only collect cell phones, disallow laptops and search for hidden electronics prior to jury deliberations, I would employ jamming equipment to prevent anything missed in the search process from gaining access to the outside world.
On the post: The Death Of The Album Has Been Exaggerated
albums
I'll keep buying singles as I like them until an artist I like produces an album that I feel deserves being bought that way.
It's all about choice. If the price is right, and there's only one or two songs I don't like, I'll buy the album, otherwise, I want the ability to choose just the singles I want.
If I am forced to buy an album, I'll walk away.
On the post: As Jammie Thomas Seeks New Trial, RIAA Claims (Incorrectly) That She Distributed 1,700 Songs To Millions
Re: Right!
CIVIL penalties are sought against individuals accused of non-commercial copyright violations, i.e., not for profit infringement.
Next >>