Thread: Steve Jobs dead at age 56

Like building a closed platform and demanding that we follow their rules?

Microsoft. Windows Phone (AFAIK) + Metro apps.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Like building a closed platform and demanding that we follow their rules?

But that is a great business model. It means you can sell milk bottles and milk, and put a label on the bottle: if you buy milk from someone else and put it in this bottle, it will turn sour (but the trick is, you have to have the expertise to make it true). Pretty soon people won't want to risk buying bottles and milk separately, they will become wary of bottles that don't sour enemy milk (how good can that be?) and then you can become a leader in the industry.

Now you and your shareholders can get rich together and common people everywhere will regail you as a technological visionary.

Yes, it is a great business model and a horrible customer/developer model.
And that, good folks, is exactly what I hold a grudge against Steve Jobs, and why the world is better off without him.

Not that I am particularly interested in porn apps, but who gives them the right to take away choice from people?
And with Apple, they are known to actually block applications from rivals. Is that fair when the store is your only way to get applications on the phone?
Point is, we leave by their rules, and not our own. We are not longer free to choose as we wish. Apple was the first to implement this model, and now others are realizing they can do this, too. We have Steve Jobs to thank for that.

Originally Posted by Elysia

We have Steve Jobs to thank for that.

And encouraging complete disposability by coupling (monoblock) software and hardware so tightly that you do not just need an upgrade to your browser -- you need a brand new operating system and a piece of heavily packaged plastic too.

This is also a good business plan everyone can appreciate. The more material we dig up, form into devices and wrapping paper, then throw away and repeat, the more we are helping our economy prosper.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Not that I am particularly interested in porn apps, but who gives them the right to take away choice from people?

Other people. I'm thinking the real reason is that they don't want someone to sue them for enabling indecent exposure after downloading a porn app and not being able to exercise self control; basically the same line of reasoning that people used to sue McDonald's for making them fat. That's probably not as satisfying for you, I can't come up with a "right" for them to limit their apps, but Americans have conditioned our culture to be socially conservative. Sorry. And since Apple is based here, it happens that Apple makes the rule and then enforces it everywhere. Maybe if Apple were somewhere else, it wouldn't be an issue because the rules would be different but possibly equally dumb. See Fordy's thread about Germans finally being able to buy Doom.

And with Apple, they are known to actually block applications from rivals. Is that fair when the store is your only way to get applications on the phone?

My memory on this is a little hazy. If they violated Apple's IP or something I'm not about to cry. But I don't remember hearing anyone else blocking anything. I'm OK with Apple making all the PR blunders. I'm also OK with Apple being completely wrong on everything, because it let's their competition do it right.

Point is, we leave by their rules, and not our own. We are not longer free to choose as we wish. Apple was the first to implement this model, and now others are realizing they can do this, too. We have Steve Jobs to thank for that.

Well to be more accurate, you're no longer free to choose as much as you like. I'm not really sure a platform is still closed if the only rules are don't do anything that might get you arrested and don't try to write phone viruses. And this really does happen because of other people. So you can thank them for that.

Originally Posted by whiteflags

Other people. I'm thinking the real reason is that they don't want someone to so them for enabling indecent exposure after downloading a porn app and not being able to exercise self control; basically the same line of reasoning that people used to sue McDonald's for making them fat.

Sure, but there is no end of such lawsuits they would be susceptible to anyway ("I crashed my car because texting was so tempting", "I wasted years on convenient content I didn't need", "Vital information was stolen from me because I put it on my device", etc).

The reason Apple does this is because they want to present a wholesome, responsible image, showing they have put some thought into the kinds of services they support and provide. The right kind of thought. The kind of thought you and your family can identify with as customers. It's PR/marketing. Playing "Angry Birds" is the kind of thing everyone can agree about -- a respectable pastime for decent, "moral majority" people with money and spare minutes -- but there is no excuse for indulging in pornography.

Also, the porn industry is a notorious source of malware et. al. (although I would think Apple capable of dealing with that).

I'm also OK with Apple being completely wrong on everything, because it let's their competition do it right.

This implies that giving people pocket money and lining a street with different fast food franchises is a fine way to help them shape civilization "correctly".

I know "voting with dollars" might seem like a form of democracy, but in fact it is not that at all, nb.

Originally Posted by MK27

Sure, but there is no end of such lawsuits they would be susceptible to anyway ("I crashed my car because texting was so tempting", "I wasted years on convenient content I didn't need", "Vital information was stolen from me because I put it on my device", etc).

Well texting can get you a ticket now. But yeah I wasn't really serious about that. I'll concede that point.

The reason Apple does this is because they want to present a wholesome, responsible image, showing they have put some thought into the kinds of services they support and provide. The right kind of thought. The kind of thought you and your family can identify with as customers. It's PR/marketing. Playing "Angry Birds" is the kind of thing everyone can agree about -- a respectable pastime for decent, "moral majority" people with money and spare minutes -- but there is no excuse for indulging in pornography.

I'm glad we agree here. There you have described our socially conservative culture. If we didn't have a moral majority it wouldn't be a problem and porn would be fine on mobile phones.

This implies that giving people pocket money and lining a street with different fast food franchises is a fine way to help them shape civilization "correctly".

I know "voting with dollars" might seem like a form of democracy, but in fact it is not that at all, nb.

So it implies something. But I definitely don't think that "voting with dollars" is democracy. If we really did vote with political dollars, we would be propping up companies who support the candidates we want elected, so that the candidates have enough money to campaign and win. "Voting with dollars" means rejecting a product or brand, nothing more. I'm pretty sure that this effects supply and demand on the demand side. Although, depending on how cynical you are, the first part of the paragraph might sound like everyday American politics.

Originally Posted by Elysia

choice

Were exactly is this choice you are talking about? You surely don't mean taking away Apple right to choose their business model so you can choose it yourself.

And since we are on the subject of choice, didn't you have the choice of not buying products from Apple or develop products for Apple? Exactly when, in your life, did you become so dense, you are willing to remove any shred of decency from your own person just so you push an agenda you didn't even cared to actually make reasonable?

Originally Posted by Mario F.

And since we are on the subject of choice, didn't you have the choice of not buying products from Apple or develop products for Apple?

Just because you do not buy someone's products does not mean what they do is no concern of yours, or that criticizing them is inappropriate. If that were the case, we would have no environmental regulations at all, etc.

Analyzing consumer behavior and the consequences of such is a very valid thing to do -- how are you going to understand Modern Western Civilization otherwise? The snowballing impact of SUVs is a good example of this, not just because they are wasteful, but because of the situation it creates for everyone on or near a roadway. To say company X spearheaded the advertising campaigns that brought us to this (which is what I think Elysia is doing) is often just a statement of fact; the debate is about the significance of the consequences.

Originally Posted by idelovski

How come there are only Like and Share links on this board? Downvote/Hate/Bury link would come quite handy for the two messages by Elysia.

We're civilised people! We don't "Downvote/Hate/Bury" others!...