Why would Apple need to risk reputation by supply questionable material via the App store? The app in question provided direct access to a site that has now entered into legal limbo. Apple is a private company, meaning they have every right to publish whatever content they like. I suppose from the parent post that Mastercard, PayPal, etc are now 'slowly turning into the government'. They probably made the same decision. It's not worth dealing with the bad public opinion of a cheap app.
Then why is The Guardian's app still in the app store, genius? It too provides easily accessible access to the leaked cables, and is even one of the news agencies that has the complete file containing all of the cables.
As to the information being 'publicly available', so is internet porn, child pornography, instructions to make bomb's, etc. None of which are allowed in the App Store. It's a straw man argument.
And all of those things are illegal. I don't see the US government taking The New York Times to court, and they've been one of the news orgs publishing these things, so...
Users can always browse to Wikileaks to it if they want to see that information, and Apple will do nothing to prevent that, just as they don't prevent you from browsing porn or whatnot. They simply refuse to peddle it.
Once again, why is The Guardian's app still in the store then?
Let's break this down into the absolute simplest terms:
Say your Mom says you can go play outside with your friend Jimmy. She says you can go anywhere you want, do anything you want, and for as long as you want. The only rule is that you can't be mean to anyone.
Would you consider your Mom to be controlling you?
Source? Do you have any proof of that claim? Nutjobs on the radio or a handful of government officials who, on their own, couldn't make a difference don't count.
Explain how telling corporations to not discriminate data is the same thing as government having a direct say in what can and can't be transmitted at what speed.
There might be some officials out there SAYING those things, but none of them would seriously consider trying to make it happen...it would be political suicide, and they know it.
Just because someone somewhere in the government says something doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen. Checks and balances are limited to different branches of the government, my friend; the public plays a role as well.
I took a keyboard typing class in 10th grade to help fulfill my "tech" credits (all of the "tech" classes were a waste of time at my school, minus the introductory programming classes.) My grandmother had taught me how to type on a fully mechanical type writer, so I was able to obliterate even the teacher in typing speed on a keyboard.
I did that with my technophobic grandmother, actually...I even set the Firefox shortcut to use the Internet Explorer icon. When it loaded up and looked different she asked why it looked like that. I told her I had updated her to the lastest version, and they had upgraded the visual style because people liked it more.
"Look, yes, I have banged hundreds of broads, internationally...but know this, I wrap my rascal TWO times, cause I like it to be joyless and without sensation, as a way of punishing supermodels." -Shake
I had a co-worker ask me for some computer advice yesterday, since she was "tired of all the viruses [she] seems to keep getting." I gave her two options:
1. Stop clicking on every blinking banner, spam email, and "RESPOND NOWZ0RZ!!1!111!" message she gets on facebook. Install a quality anti-virus and software firewall, as well as set up a hardware firewall, and remove all privileges from the account she logs onto her computer with.
OR
2. Unplug the computer from the wall, go to CVS, and buy a legal pad and some pens.
I then proceeded to tell her that only one would provide 100% protection.
Somewhat...but why do "growth" and "adaptability" go hand in hand? If I run a nimble company, and manage to keep up with market trends while simultaneously staying the same size or growing a little, why is it considered bad if I don't grow a lot? So long as I'm not shrinking, my business is still technically posting a profit; I'm still making money. I'm not making as much money as someone thinks I should, but I still am.
Market expectations seem unrealistic, if companies are going to maintain good service/good products at a decent price. Or maybe I'm just nuckin' futs:p
True, but I'm referring more to large businesses. If a company makes $100 million in profit one year, and $150 million in profit the next year, but they were expected to make $175 million in profit, the market completely disregards the fact that they grew and their stock dives.
Why? Because they didn't hit some arbitrary expectation of growth? Because they were greedy, but not greedy enough? That's what I was referring to.
Admittedly not the way business is going these days, and this article is highlighting another nail in that coffin.
The very nature of capitalism requires steadily growing greed and want for larger profits. The only way a company can continue selling decent-quality products at realistic prices is if it has no desire to expand.
For some reason, "not expanding" is the same thing as "a business slowly dying", a concept which always eluded me. I mean, come on...if you're posting a profit, who cares if you're growing by 5% or 10% or whatever; you're still making a profit.
Note that we don't shop at Wal-Mart or Target for clothing, I was just pointing out the quality of clothing is pretty much the same. It's similar to the "expensive wine label" effect.
Slashdot Mirror
I admitted my stupidity :p Look at the post right above yours.
Now that we have that out of the way, how about you respond to what I said?
Proof? TFA mentions the author stating that HE gave $1 from each sale to Wikileaks...no where does it say the app was soliciting donations.
Well...internet porn isn't illegal -_-;; doy.
Why would Apple need to risk reputation by supply questionable material via the App store? The app in question provided direct access to a site that has now entered into legal limbo. Apple is a private company, meaning they have every right to publish whatever content they like. I suppose from the parent post that Mastercard, PayPal, etc are now 'slowly turning into the government'. They probably made the same decision. It's not worth dealing with the bad public opinion of a cheap app.
Then why is The Guardian's app still in the app store, genius? It too provides easily accessible access to the leaked cables, and is even one of the news agencies that has the complete file containing all of the cables.
As to the information being 'publicly available', so is internet porn, child pornography, instructions to make bomb's, etc. None of which are allowed in the App Store. It's a straw man argument.
And all of those things are illegal. I don't see the US government taking The New York Times to court, and they've been one of the news orgs publishing these things, so...
Users can always browse to Wikileaks to it if they want to see that information, and Apple will do nothing to prevent that, just as they don't prevent you from browsing porn or whatnot. They simply refuse to peddle it.
Once again, why is The Guardian's app still in the store then?
Sooo...does that mean they would remove The Guardian's app from the store? Cause uh...they've got it pretty well organized too.
Government? No. Apple is not up to it's ears in debt to foreign powers.
You must have missed the part in my OP where I said "as far as their attitude and exertion of control is concerned." :p
Go Apple! Fuck yeah! /sarcasm
Anyone else feel like Apple is slowly turning into a government, as far as their attitude and exertion of control is concerned?
I couldn't help but notice you didn't answer the question.
Let's break this down into the absolute simplest terms:
Say your Mom says you can go play outside with your friend Jimmy. She says you can go anywhere you want, do anything you want, and for as long as you want. The only rule is that you can't be mean to anyone.
Would you consider your Mom to be controlling you?
Source? Do you have any proof of that claim? Nutjobs on the radio or a handful of government officials who, on their own, couldn't make a difference don't count.
Explain how telling corporations to not discriminate data is the same thing as government having a direct say in what can and can't be transmitted at what speed.
Checks and balances aren't limited to different branches of the government
Fixed -_-;;
There might be some officials out there SAYING those things, but none of them would seriously consider trying to make it happen...it would be political suicide, and they know it.
Just because someone somewhere in the government says something doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen. Checks and balances are limited to different branches of the government, my friend; the public plays a role as well.
Stop spreading FUD. Net Neutrality is about preventing corporate control, not granting government control.
Easiest A I ever earned.
Fixed...obviously, I struggled a bit more with English :)
I took a keyboard typing class in 10th grade to help fulfill my "tech" credits (all of the "tech" classes were a waste of time at my school, minus the introductory programming classes.) My grandmother had taught me how to type on a fully mechanical type writer, so I was able to obliterate even the teacher in typing speed on a keyboard.
Easiest A I ever learned.
I'd like to thank everyone who's responded to my OP...I've got a much better understanding now of why this craziness goes on.
I still think it's stupid :p But seriously though, thanks for educating me rather than just flaming me. I really do appreciate it.
I did that with my technophobic grandmother, actually...I even set the Firefox shortcut to use the Internet Explorer icon. When it loaded up and looked different she asked why it looked like that. I told her I had updated her to the lastest version, and they had upgraded the visual style because people liked it more.
She agreed :)
"Look, yes, I have banged hundreds of broads, internationally...but know this, I wrap my rascal TWO times, cause I like it to be joyless and without sensation, as a way of punishing supermodels." -Shake
I had a co-worker ask me for some computer advice yesterday, since she was "tired of all the viruses [she] seems to keep getting." I gave her two options:
1. Stop clicking on every blinking banner, spam email, and "RESPOND NOWZ0RZ!!1!111!" message she gets on facebook. Install a quality anti-virus and software firewall, as well as set up a hardware firewall, and remove all privileges from the account she logs onto her computer with.
OR
2. Unplug the computer from the wall, go to CVS, and buy a legal pad and some pens.
I then proceeded to tell her that only one would provide 100% protection.
Do you understand now?
Somewhat...but why do "growth" and "adaptability" go hand in hand? If I run a nimble company, and manage to keep up with market trends while simultaneously staying the same size or growing a little, why is it considered bad if I don't grow a lot? So long as I'm not shrinking, my business is still technically posting a profit; I'm still making money. I'm not making as much money as someone thinks I should, but I still am.
Market expectations seem unrealistic, if companies are going to maintain good service/good products at a decent price. Or maybe I'm just nuckin' futs :p
That's the problem...it's a race to the top, only to turn around and become a race to the bottom once your growth is essentially maxed out.
True, but I'm referring more to large businesses. If a company makes $100 million in profit one year, and $150 million in profit the next year, but they were expected to make $175 million in profit, the market completely disregards the fact that they grew and their stock dives.
Why? Because they didn't hit some arbitrary expectation of growth? Because they were greedy, but not greedy enough? That's what I was referring to.
Admittedly not the way business is going these days, and this article is highlighting another nail in that coffin.
The very nature of capitalism requires steadily growing greed and want for larger profits. The only way a company can continue selling decent-quality products at realistic prices is if it has no desire to expand.
For some reason, "not expanding" is the same thing as "a business slowly dying", a concept which always eluded me. I mean, come on...if you're posting a profit, who cares if you're growing by 5% or 10% or whatever; you're still making a profit.
Note that we don't shop at Wal-Mart or Target for clothing, I was just pointing out the quality of clothing is pretty much the same. It's similar to the "expensive wine label" effect.