Slashdot Mirror
Apple Reverses Rejection of Ulysses Comic
gyrogeerloose writes "In yet another of what's become an almost predictable cycle of events, Apple today reversed its rejection of the 'Ulysses Seen' web comic, admitting, 'We made a mistake.' The comic is now available in the App Store — just in time for Bloomsday, June 16. The comic's author, Robert Berry, is pleased, and adds that Apple 'never acted as a censor, never told us what we could or could not say. ... We didn't believe these were good guidelines for art, but respected their rights to sell content that met their guidelines at their own store. Apple is not a museum or a library for new content then, so much as they are a grocer.'"
ROFL, so instead of "The Devil made me do it." the new ridiculous defense will be "My iPad made me do it."
did you even reread your post and notice how stupid it is? Nobody's iProduct tells them what to do. People get them because they do what the user wants it to do. If it doesn't do what you want it to do then don't get one.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
So, where are all those other places that people can download iPhone/iPad applications?
Cydia.
But...but...Apple forced people to buy their phones!!!
To an extent, yes.
Sure, if you completely redefine the term to mean something it has never meant or ever even implied.
Then don't buy their phone if you disagree with the terms of use. Did Apple force you or anyone else to buy an iPhone and agree to their terms?
He was claiming that NO ONE could obtain an app unless it was through the official app store. This is patently false.
No, they prevented anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining it via the Apple App Store.
If the publisher made a web-accessible version of the same content, the iPad/Phone owners could access it just fine. And if they made an Android version of the app, then people who don't like Apple's policies could just buy a different device and buy it from a different app store.
Further, they admitted their mistake, so the accurate answer would actually be that they delayed anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining the program from the Apple App Store.
Finally, even if they made it totally impossible for people to view this content on the iPad/iPhone, since when did the right to display content on your mobile device become a first amendment right? I mean, what about all those carrier specific deals where you can "get exclusive clips from American Idol on your Sprint phone"? Are they censoring me because I can't access them on my Blackberry because it's on the AT&T network?
The CB App. What's your 20?
Western governments -- ostensibly -- act only on the advice of their electorate. Laws are in place not because of some arbitrary system, or because someone you don't know was just doing it for the hell of it, but because they were elected to enact controls that we already thought were best.
Murder isn't illegal because the government said so, murder is illegal because we've decided that as a society, that's something that we find reprehensible and should be punished. Then we codify this societal value in something we call a 'law', and it sits on the books, waiting to be applied.
While I can't deny that governments seem to have drifted a bit far from the ideal of 'by the people, of the people, for the people', laws are still in place because we've implicitly agreed to that social contract. (That is, if you're not working to change a law in some fashion, we can assume that you think it's a good idea.)
If Apple had a bad product that nobody wanted and the apps were trash and nobody wanted THOSE, people wouldn't buy them. People buy iPhones and iPads and iApps because they fulfill some sort of criteria. Apple's control is only on the manufacturing end. They may restrict the specifications of an application (e.g., no porn), but that's hardly control over the consumer.
Still, people buy Ipads because it's cool to have them , not necessarily because they need them.
And that is the case for most of Apple's products : they sell because they make their products look cool.
So in that sense Apple does tell them what to do , through peer pressure : if you don't buy an Ipad/other Apple thing , you are not cool .
Slipping shoelaces ?
www.piratebay.com?
I put a question mark because I don't rely know but surely pirates have cracked the iPhone by now, so you can run any app you want?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
People find Apple products easy to use and reliable, so they buy them. The reason slashdotters get upset is that there are much more important issues at work - we bite the bullet and use and test free software even when it's not the best option, because it's important to many of us to own and control our own computers. The common Apple user doesn't care about the big issues, they only like how smooth and shiny the device is, so Apple becomes successful despite being evil. Especially frustrating is that their users are so outspoken, and Apple fanboys are outspoken about ignoring philosophical issues and focusing on it "just working."
Damn straight. A friend of mine asked my advice on satellite service to save money. I told him you can get Dish Network for $20 a month, plus $5 if you want local stations. He said that's good. I then offered to help him with the ordering but he said he was waiting until his next paycheck.
About two weeks later my friend calls me and says, "I ordered DirecTV for $25 a month but it shoots up to $60 in December! You lied to me. You said it would it would only be $25!" I said I did not lie. DISH is $25 a month but you ordered the wrong damn thing. I told you I'd help you, but I'm sorry now you're stuck with DirecTV. I then asked WHEN he ordered this. "After work. I was tired and I ordered on the spur of the moment."
This story is a near-perfect example of a person NOT making an informed decision. He made an impulse buy and screwed himself. Of course I don't think it's the government's job to protect us from making dumb decisions like these. You order DirecTV by mistake, instead of Dish, then you simply have to take responsibility.
.
>>>Would you blame someone for failing to read all the available research on a particular medicine before taking it, instead of just relying on what their doctors tell them
No not at all, but I do blame people for not questioning their doctors. I don't let any doctor give me medicine or a procedure until he explains what it's for. If he can't explain to my satisfaction, then I'll tell him the same thing I tell telemarketers: "No. Not interested." (Of course if I'm unconscious and dying, then the doctor can just do what he/she thinks is best.)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You're welcome to dare Apple to sue you for jailbreaking your phone, so that we all know that the threat is not real.
Until then, it is only rational to assume that the threat is real. At the very least, there is the threat of getting sued, regardless of whether the law is on Apple's side there or not.
So you're saying the Chevy Corvette is trying to control people because it limits the roads it can be driven on. My 4x4 has far more options when it comes to possibilities.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Many people state that they're using pirated Windows in public as well, and it's trivial to find keygens and such on the Net. It doesn't mean that it's not illegal. It just means that the company does not feel that suing is in their financial interest - at least, for the time being.
Also, I'm not sure which claim you're talking about as "false", but the one that Apple believes jailbreaking to be illegal is factual - it's on record. This also does directly imply that they feel entitled to sue over that. If they don't, it's solely because they can't be bothered, not because you're in the right. Consequently, it's not something that can be reasonably relied on.
(all of the above is, quite obviously, US-specific; depending on jurisdiction, your mileage may vary etc)
It's a feature because it can run on it without modifying the underlying operating system. Doy?
System updates do just that, as do third party system extensions. Doy yourself.
Wrong. With a PC, it's a feature that I can install whatever the hell I want on there.
Just like with the iPhone. I am able to install whatever I want. That is a fact.
Cars are designed in a way that enables you to change parts on them.
You've obviously not worked on many modern cars. Many parts are pretty much sealed systems you are not supposed to tamper with.
The iPhone wasn't designed to be jailbroken.
Actually, it was. Like all open hardware devices it was designed to easily load new software on it (for system updates and application loading), which is exactly what Jailbreaking does.
You don't have to modify your PC to run Autocad
And you've obviously never run Autocad. It has an installer you know, and that is modifying the system (in part to provide dongle drivers).
There is a distinct difference
Are you seriously claiming Autocad has no installer?
Wait...so you agree that there is a difference?
Nope, you got the vapors there.
Oh, I get it. Now I'm not a real user because I care about the details of said task?
You are a real user, as is everyone using the device. You are just trying to claim that no users ever modify a system.
Again, Apple didn't make the software that jailbreaks an iPhone.
And Microsoft does not make Autocad.
In addition, technically Apple DID make the software that jailbrake the iPhone because they are the one that introduce bugs that make it possible to jailbreak.
How can you possibly consider utilizing a third-party utility to modify the original operation of a device to be a feature and not a modification?
Because the end result of the modification is a new feature I can use. Of course it is ALSO a modification. That is how new features are enabled.
Once again, Apple didn't design or release the Jailbreak utility, and they actively try to squash it with every update.
Actually, they pretty much never try do do so. They could if they wanted to, but they don't care.
If it were a feature, you wouldn't have to hack the fucking phone. What about this don't you understand?
If it were not a feature, it would not be possible. It seems odd that you cannot understand what happens here in a place we call reality.
If I have to hack a device to enable it to do something, that is not a feature, that is a modification.
It is a modification, the feature is that the modification works. You can jailbreak an iPhone, therefore a feature of the iPhone is that it can be jailbroken or, by extension, run any jailbroken app. My statement represents the reality of the situation. You are trying to twist terminology to make it look like some aspect of that statement is false, but it cannot change the underlying reality of what any user can actually do.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I know you can do a whole hell of a lot with a jailbroken ipod/iphone/ipad, but saying you can just hack your device if you want other sources of apps is not an argument that should used to support your hardware of choice
I'm not sure why any technical user would ever state that I should explicitly deny some part of what a device can do, simply because I have to install additional software to make it do so. The computer market would never have taken off if that were the case...
It would also mean not considering the whole extent of the Android app store when considering one of THOSE devices. Madness.
When recommending a device for someone, I consider and recommend based on what the device can do, not some arbitrary subset.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Jailbreaking an iPhone is not something Apple designed.
It is.
Let me explain what jailbreaking is. All it is, is basically removing a check performed at runtime to check signing of applications.
That's it. The system is designed to run general applications. It is designed to run jailbroken applications, because there is no difference in the application itself from any other application - just that it's not signed, which to the (slightly modified) OS does not matter.
It's not really a modification of the system so much as a configuration change.
Again, it was not something designed by Apple. Being able to install non-signed applications was not originally intended
Many of the system applications are not signed.
Autocad doesn't cause your computer to function in a way that it wasn't originally designed to function
Yes it does, your computer was not originally designed around limiting application access to require a dongle. It's doing far more to modify the OS than Jailbreaking is to an iPhone.
Apple specifically designed the iPhone to use only software that they created or approved.
They designed the system to run arbitrary software. Then they additionally wrote a user-facing gateway component to go on top of that. Bypassing the gateway is not fundamentally changing the system. It is working around a component of a much larger system.
Seriously? OK. So now you are claiming that a bug is a feature. I'm done with you. This conversation is over.
It is a feature when it enables other functionality. It can also be a bug at the same time, which is why Apple fixes them from time to time.
If you are done, it's because your arguments have played out and simply do not hold.
I will let you have the final response, because at this point anyone still reading can understand the simple facts around the matter - you can jailbreak, you can run jailbroken software, and thus jailbreaking is a feature that the iPhone supports. It's not a feature Apple supports but that matters not at all to what a user can do, which is what people care about when they buy a device.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley