There is zero-value to Jobs distributing any app having anything to do with Mr. Kryptonite, Julian Assange. Risks far outweigh rewards.
First off, this is not true. Apple (not Jobs) has a vested interest in distributing apps that people want. They also have a vested interest in operating a store people can trust. Disallowing an app that accesses Wikileaks satisfies the first interest, while not inherently violating the second interest.
The idea that this was done because of the infamy of Julian Assange is spurious. More likely is the fact that the author has tied donations to the sales of the app. This affects the "store people can trust" interest.
It's also possible Apple is worried about legal liability (although I doubt this is the reason). Assange's celebrity is far, far down the list on possible explanations.
As I've said numerous other times in this discussion, following your line of thinking, why is The Guardian's app still in the app store?
And yet no matter how many times you say this, it still doesn't make any sense. Apple ships Safari on the iPhone, which can access not only the Guardian's web site, but Wikileaks itself!
You act like there's no difference between the two. This is wholly irrational.
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.
Where in TFA does it mention the app soliciting donations? From what I read, it looks like the author is donating the money, rather than soliciting for it. As in, once he's paid, it's his money to use however he wants to.
You're splitting hairs. By buying the app, you are donating to Wikileaks. Sure, if the author had just donated without saying anything, that would be one thing, but when he explicitly states that's what he's doing, then it becomes part of the app purchase.
Besides, why did Apple approve it in the first place, if your post is accurate?
I don't even understand what you are asking here. You cannot think of a scenario where an app would be approved, then denied? I can quickly think of three that are reasonable in this case. One would be that Apple didn't realize the app had a donation aspect to it. Another would be that there wasn't a donation aspect to it until after it was approved. Finally, the reviewer may have just simply been unaware that this was grounds to deny the app.
Well, not if the stream uses Flash, which many radio websites do.
I listen to many radio stations that use flash on my iPhone. Very few stations that use flash do not also have other means (usually an app) to also listen to them.
The lack of Flash has become mostly inconsequential on iOS.
and if you do end up getting one, and deciding to leave, you are fairly well locked in.
How so? You are completely free to buy an Android phone even after you buy an iPhone. Sure, your apps won't carry over, but they won't carry over going from Android to iPhone, but no one says that this means Android locks you in.
I guess by that standard, every platform in the world locks you in. Xbox 360, Windows, DSi, Linux...
Hell, even VHS locks you in in this way, which is why DVD never caught on!
I'm not sure the iPad in its current form, even with more memory and printing capability could compare to a PC, and if it got to the point that it could, I'm not sure what would distinguish the two.
This is exactly the problem with this discussion, and it's almost inevitable when raising this topic amongst geeks.
The iPad will never, ever "compare to a PC". What it (or some other device like it) will do is become useful enough on its own that many people will eschew the use of PCs altogether.
You, however, probably can never really go without having a PC. Lots of people will be just like you. For that reason, no iPad, no matter how advanced, could replace your PC, unless the iPad itself basically became a PC (which it won't).
As for love of the devices, I say give it time.
It's inherent to the device type. People will always complain about issues, but the number of issues, the types of issues, and the severity of issues that you can have with something like an iPad are dwarfed by the issues people can, and do, have with PCs.
Sure, you will find any iPad as too limiting, but those things that limit you are so far beyond the needs and desires of most people that they aren't actual limits. People aren't going to trade what is for them hypothetical limits for real problems.
This is very much like cars vs trucks. Trucks are important for a relatively small number of people. Some can't do without them, others just don't like the limitations of cars, but for most people, cars are not only just fine, but preferable. PCs will become more like trucks. The only reason they are so ubiquitous today is that there hasn't been a viable alternative.
But practically, if you take as an axiom that you want to buy a PDA with an app store, you're forced to buy Apple's because Google won't let Android PDAs access the Market.
But no one is required to buy a "PDA with an app store", and is very much a different thing from electricity. Doing without an iPod touch is far less of a burden than doing without electricity.
I do get the gist of what you're trying to say, which is why I replied with "king of" above, but no one's being forced into these things (which is the original claim I'm addressing).
Apple has sold iPod touches for years now. The fact that no one has created a reasonable competitor in that time isn't Apple's fault (I do realize you redirected the blame at Google). Also, there is the Zune.
Anyway, Hobson's choice generally refers to more dire and farcical meanings of choice, like how people could vote in Russia, even though the ticket was just Communists, or how the TSA searches are "voluntary" because you can choose not to fly. Sure, the concept has some merit in describing, albeit not strongly, the situation, but it doesn't translate into saying that people are forced into buying iPod touches.
Actually, you're right. It's Google forcing people to buy Apple products by not licensing the Android Market application in a way friendly to PDA manufacturers.
Kind of, but still I don't see anyone being forced to buy anything.
Unarguably, everything is projected onto your retina inverted
Clearly, but also unarguable is that that doesn't mean you see everything upside-down and left-right reversed, because the retina is not where seeing occurs. The idea that we see everything "upside-down" is silly. We see things properly. The image on the retina is transformed, but that's something else entirely.
By the way, you missed that the whole post was tongue-in-cheek.
No it wasn't. You were trying to make a point (which is why you are defending it now). My main issue here is the common, but silly, notion that we see everything upside-down. Seeing happens in the brain, not on the retina. The orientation of the image on the retina is irrelevant so long as the brain can properly interpret it (like you stated).
I realize your "maybe everyone else is doing it wrong" at the end was a joke, but you still had an intended meaning that "it's all relative, who are you to say how a mouse should be held!" At least, that's what I got from it.
Sure they are. The iPad has already had a notable impact on the sales of PCs.
Yeah? Link?
One, two. There are plenty more. Basically, iPads are negatively impacting netbook sales, which are PCs. Certainly they are the bottom end of that market, but that's where you're going to see the impact first.
I say informal because it's always possible that sales, in theory, should be rising *more*, but that seems a nitpick to me. In any case, if a significant proportion of iPad sales come at the expense of PC sales, it seems hard to explain how this market could have arisen out of nowhere without absolutely devastating the PC market.
You already did explain it: rates of change. First the netbook's rate of change was negative (i.e., they still sold more, but at a lower rate), and now they are actually selling less. Also, I never said most iPads were sold at the expense of a PC sale, just that it is having a notable effect. If I were being nitpicky, I would have included the iPhone and iPod touch, because there are certainly some PC sales that didn't happen due to them (simply down to the fact that some people may not have had the money for both a new PC and a new iPod, and chose an iPod). The iPad's effect, however, is more prominent.
Most people can't get by with just a bike, however most will not only be able to get by with something like an iPad, but will actually prefer it.
Comparing a bike and a car is a disingenuous analogy.
Most people will be able to get by with an iPad? Really? You think that?
Not today. That's why I used the word "will" and not "can now".
In the absence of a relevant study, I suppose I can't refute that point, but every experience I've had suggests otherwise. I don't know a single iPad owner or iPhone owner who does not also own a PC. In fact... of all the people I know, I can't think of one off the top of my head who does not own a PC. Some of these PCs are several years old, granted, but they use them and could not do without them.
As iPads gain storage, and features like printing, the consumer scenarios where a PC does something that an iPad can't start to vanish.
Likewise most people will continue using PCs even if they also buy smartphones and tablets.
Not likely. Most people fucking hate their PC and love their iPhone/iPad.
I'm not sure what makes you think that exactly. A study? Because if it's personal experience, mine conflicts. Most people I know love their computers.
It's a love-hate relationship. Most people hate them, but love the things they can do with them. Once you can replace them with something they hate less, they will jump at it.
And iPhone love isn't universal.
I never said it was.
I get disappointed with mine from time to time, my best friend is canceling his in favor of a Droid, and my girlfriend has been fuming angry over hers many many times. I'd say I feel net positive about the device, but no more so than about any PC I've ever owned.
I also said the PC will be around for some time. That implies there will be people, like you, who prefer PCs (or at the very least, still want to have one). Let's take it as given that a significant portion of Slashdotters will still have PCs long after the "end of the PC era".
Yup, as a stand-alone app, not as an integrated media player.
Absolutely not true. VLC (and other media players) will open AVIs (and other formats) from Safari just fine.
As for scripting languages... what exactly did you have in mind?
Gosh, like the kinds of things Apple keeps denying: Lua, Python, tons of other things.
Which have fuck-all to do with Safari.
You're right about Flash though. I'm amused that you seem to be stating this as though it's a bad thing.
What is a "bad thing" is that Apple tries to tell me what software I can run on my hardware.
That's not what they are doing at all. They aren't supporting Flash because it is crap on handhelds, not because Apple has any desire whatsoever to tell you what you can or cannot run on your hardware.
You realize that everything you've ever seen in your entire life is upside-down, because your eyeball contains only one lens, right?
This is silly. The image on the retina is upside-down, but the retina is not where seeing happens. It would be like saying all the photos you take are upside-down (and left-right flipped) because the image on your camera's CCD is transformed in this way.
By my logic, your colleague may be one of the few people that actually holds the mouse correctly.
This is sufficient evidence to completely disregard your logic. Mice are specifically designed to be used in a certain way, and with the cord running down is not that way.
People are buying more phones, but they aren't buying *fewer* PCs.
Sure they are. The iPad has already had a notable impact on the sales of PCs.
It would be like if there was a massive health kick in this country and everyone started buying bicycles... but they'd almost all still need cars.
Most people can't get by with just a bike, however most will not only be able to get by with something like an iPad, but will actually prefer it.
Comparing a bike and a car is a disingenuous analogy.
Likewise most people will continue using PCs even if they also buy smartphones and tablets.
Not likely. Most people fucking hate their PC and love their iPhone/iPad. The PC's best days as a consumer product are peaking.
That's not to say the PC is going away. That's still a long way off (if ever). But the writing's on the wall and it's on its way to be supplanted. This will happen first with consumers, and this story is about the first milestone on that road.
You can't dethrone something if you aren't replacing it.
Dethroned as the most commonly purchased general purpose computer, and potentially as the most commonly used general purpose computer.
People are buying more smart phones, but they aren't NOT buying PCs.
Some are buying iPads instead of PCs. This will only become more prominent over time.
Smart phones are in addition to, not a replacement of, PCs.
By definition, every time someone uses an iPhone or iPad when their PC is nearby, they are using it as a PC replacement. Also, every time someone leaves a notebook at home because they have a phone or tablet, they are using it as a PC replacement.
How do you define "artistic value" ? As Andres Serrano has shown, one man's bodily fluids is another man's art. Some would argue that the human form is a work of art. Others are ashamed of it. So who is wrong, and who is right ?
It's up to each person to decide for themselves, including Apple (they are not a person, but are run by people). Apple isn't stopping anyone from calling a jar of piss "art", they're just deciding what they'll carry in their store or not.
This is hypocrisy of the highest order from Apple, and they should learn that the hard way
How exactly is this "hypocrisy of the highest order"?
They should have an adult section for all this stuff (including playboy), and let it all in, along with those dangerous dictionaries and books including swearwords.
What "dangerous dictionaries" and "books including swearwords" are you talking about? You do realize that both are perfectly allowed on the App Store and iBookstore, right? All without an adult section (which the Playboy app would not belong in, and neither would this tabloid (I'm assuming it's a relatively mainstream newspaper in Denmark)).
Except when it's Flash or any of a number of codecs or scripting languages Apple disapproves of.
VLC, among others, is available for iOS. As for scripting languages... what exactly did you have in mind? Javascript is ubiquitous on the web and works across all major browsers across all major platforms.
You're right about Flash though. I'm amused that you seem to be stating this as though it's a bad thing.
Hanging around here too long, one would begin to think that Apple forces people to buy iDevices, forces them to buy content from them, and implants some sort of mind-control device that keeps their customers from doing anything not sanctioned from some imaginary bond super villain.
It is applying to phones these days, which is where I believe you're wrong.
Sure, the definition you made up for PC applies to smart phones, but you've failed to give any reason for everyone else to give up the more widely held definition for yours.
You can argue all you like and try to nit pick my words but you're still wrong.
I'm not the one making up definitions. The problem here is that the author of the story, myself, and most everyone else are using a common definition for "PC", while you're using the rezalasese definition.
I'll translate the story into rezelasese for you: The desktop and notebook PC era is beginning to give way to the phone and slate PC era.
By conflating phones and tablets with desktop and notebooks, you've simply taken a bit of linguistic acrobatics and pretended like the story is false. But translated into your definition for PC like I did above, it should be clear that the story is not as wrong as you said it was.
A "personal computer" these days really means "an internet appliance and application platform, owned and usually used by a specific individual".
No it doesn't. Video game consoles, TVs, smart phones, etc., are all "internet appliance and application platforms owned and usually used by a specific individual".
PCs are separate from iPhones, iPads, Android phones, etc. Maybe the term will change, but I doubt it. Consider this, if you have a notebook and a smart phone sitting on a table and ask someone to hand you your PC, which do you think they'll grab? Or in reverse, if someone asked you for the PC, do you really think they meant the phone?
That's part of what makes this story so interesting. The non-PC computing devices are beginning to show signs of eventually surpassing the PC as the "internet appliance and application platform, owned and usually used by a specific individual" of choice. And while I still use my PC (Mac, specifically, but I'm pretty sure that's no surprise) and will for some time, I'm very glad to see the end of the PC era. PCs are like (warning: auto analogy coming) big trucks or tractors. They're very important and will never go away completely, but are poorly suited to the needs of most people.
Slashdot Mirror
There is zero-value to Jobs distributing any app having anything to do with Mr. Kryptonite, Julian Assange. Risks far outweigh rewards.
First off, this is not true. Apple (not Jobs) has a vested interest in distributing apps that people want. They also have a vested interest in operating a store people can trust. Disallowing an app that accesses Wikileaks satisfies the first interest, while not inherently violating the second interest.
The idea that this was done because of the infamy of Julian Assange is spurious. More likely is the fact that the author has tied donations to the sales of the app. This affects the "store people can trust" interest.
It's also possible Apple is worried about legal liability (although I doubt this is the reason). Assange's celebrity is far, far down the list on possible explanations.
As I've said numerous other times in this discussion, following your line of thinking, why is The Guardian's app still in the app store?
And yet no matter how many times you say this, it still doesn't make any sense. Apple ships Safari on the iPhone, which can access not only the Guardian's web site, but Wikileaks itself!
You act like there's no difference between the two. This is wholly irrational.
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.
So?
Where in TFA does it mention the app soliciting donations? From what I read, it looks like the author is donating the money, rather than soliciting for it. As in, once he's paid, it's his money to use however he wants to.
You're splitting hairs. By buying the app, you are donating to Wikileaks. Sure, if the author had just donated without saying anything, that would be one thing, but when he explicitly states that's what he's doing, then it becomes part of the app purchase.
Besides, why did Apple approve it in the first place, if your post is accurate?
I don't even understand what you are asking here. You cannot think of a scenario where an app would be approved, then denied? I can quickly think of three that are reasonable in this case. One would be that Apple didn't realize the app had a donation aspect to it. Another would be that there wasn't a donation aspect to it until after it was approved. Finally, the reviewer may have just simply been unaware that this was grounds to deny the app.
Well, not if the stream uses Flash, which many radio websites do.
I listen to many radio stations that use flash on my iPhone. Very few stations that use flash do not also have other means (usually an app) to also listen to them.
The lack of Flash has become mostly inconsequential on iOS.
and if you do end up getting one, and deciding to leave, you are fairly well locked in.
How so? You are completely free to buy an Android phone even after you buy an iPhone. Sure, your apps won't carry over, but they won't carry over going from Android to iPhone, but no one says that this means Android locks you in.
I guess by that standard, every platform in the world locks you in. Xbox 360, Windows, DSi, Linux...
Hell, even VHS locks you in in this way, which is why DVD never caught on!
intel is giving us the possibility of killing [a PC] without even having to open the computer case
Sounds like Intel is trying to muscle in on Microsoft's turf.
casual idjits dont read slashdot
Exactly. The idiots here put a lot of effort into it.
I'm sure there will be a ton of cynical and jaded comments here
You've cracked the Slashdot code.
I'm not sure the iPad in its current form, even with more memory and printing capability could compare to a PC, and if it got to the point that it could, I'm not sure what would distinguish the two.
This is exactly the problem with this discussion, and it's almost inevitable when raising this topic amongst geeks.
The iPad will never, ever "compare to a PC". What it (or some other device like it) will do is become useful enough on its own that many people will eschew the use of PCs altogether.
You, however, probably can never really go without having a PC. Lots of people will be just like you. For that reason, no iPad, no matter how advanced, could replace your PC, unless the iPad itself basically became a PC (which it won't).
As for love of the devices, I say give it time.
It's inherent to the device type. People will always complain about issues, but the number of issues, the types of issues, and the severity of issues that you can have with something like an iPad are dwarfed by the issues people can, and do, have with PCs.
Sure, you will find any iPad as too limiting, but those things that limit you are so far beyond the needs and desires of most people that they aren't actual limits. People aren't going to trade what is for them hypothetical limits for real problems.
This is very much like cars vs trucks. Trucks are important for a relatively small number of people. Some can't do without them, others just don't like the limitations of cars, but for most people, cars are not only just fine, but preferable. PCs will become more like trucks. The only reason they are so ubiquitous today is that there hasn't been a viable alternative.
But practically, if you take as an axiom that you want to buy a PDA with an app store, you're forced to buy Apple's because Google won't let Android PDAs access the Market.
But no one is required to buy a "PDA with an app store", and is very much a different thing from electricity. Doing without an iPod touch is far less of a burden than doing without electricity.
I do get the gist of what you're trying to say, which is why I replied with "king of" above, but no one's being forced into these things (which is the original claim I'm addressing).
Apple has sold iPod touches for years now. The fact that no one has created a reasonable competitor in that time isn't Apple's fault (I do realize you redirected the blame at Google). Also, there is the Zune.
Anyway, Hobson's choice generally refers to more dire and farcical meanings of choice, like how people could vote in Russia, even though the ticket was just Communists, or how the TSA searches are "voluntary" because you can choose not to fly. Sure, the concept has some merit in describing, albeit not strongly, the situation, but it doesn't translate into saying that people are forced into buying iPod touches.
Actually, you're right. It's Google forcing people to buy Apple products by not licensing the Android Market application in a way friendly to PDA manufacturers.
Kind of, but still I don't see anyone being forced to buy anything.
Unarguably, everything is projected onto your retina inverted
Clearly, but also unarguable is that that doesn't mean you see everything upside-down and left-right reversed, because the retina is not where seeing occurs. The idea that we see everything "upside-down" is silly. We see things properly. The image on the retina is transformed, but that's something else entirely.
By the way, you missed that the whole post was tongue-in-cheek.
No it wasn't. You were trying to make a point (which is why you are defending it now). My main issue here is the common, but silly, notion that we see everything upside-down. Seeing happens in the brain, not on the retina. The orientation of the image on the retina is irrelevant so long as the brain can properly interpret it (like you stated).
I realize your "maybe everyone else is doing it wrong" at the end was a joke, but you still had an intended meaning that "it's all relative, who are you to say how a mouse should be held!" At least, that's what I got from it.
Sure they are. The iPad has already had a notable impact on the sales of PCs.
Yeah? Link?
One, two. There are plenty more. Basically, iPads are negatively impacting netbook sales, which are PCs. Certainly they are the bottom end of that market, but that's where you're going to see the impact first.
I say informal because it's always possible that sales, in theory, should be rising *more*, but that seems a nitpick to me. In any case, if a significant proportion of iPad sales come at the expense of PC sales, it seems hard to explain how this market could have arisen out of nowhere without absolutely devastating the PC market.
You already did explain it: rates of change. First the netbook's rate of change was negative (i.e., they still sold more, but at a lower rate), and now they are actually selling less. Also, I never said most iPads were sold at the expense of a PC sale, just that it is having a notable effect. If I were being nitpicky, I would have included the iPhone and iPod touch, because there are certainly some PC sales that didn't happen due to them (simply down to the fact that some people may not have had the money for both a new PC and a new iPod, and chose an iPod). The iPad's effect, however, is more prominent.
Most people can't get by with just a bike, however most will not only be able to get by with something like an iPad, but will actually prefer it.
Comparing a bike and a car is a disingenuous analogy.
Most people will be able to get by with an iPad? Really? You think that?
Not today. That's why I used the word "will" and not "can now".
In the absence of a relevant study, I suppose I can't refute that point, but every experience I've had suggests otherwise. I don't know a single iPad owner or iPhone owner who does not also own a PC. In fact... of all the people I know, I can't think of one off the top of my head who does not own a PC. Some of these PCs are several years old, granted, but they use them and could not do without them.
As iPads gain storage, and features like printing, the consumer scenarios where a PC does something that an iPad can't start to vanish.
Likewise most people will continue using PCs even if they also buy smartphones and tablets.
Not likely. Most people fucking hate their PC and love their iPhone/iPad.
I'm not sure what makes you think that exactly. A study? Because if it's personal experience, mine conflicts. Most people I know love their computers.
It's a love-hate relationship. Most people hate them, but love the things they can do with them. Once you can replace them with something they hate less, they will jump at it.
And iPhone love isn't universal.
I never said it was.
I get disappointed with mine from time to time, my best friend is canceling his in favor of a Droid, and my girlfriend has been fuming angry over hers many many times. I'd say I feel net positive about the device, but no more so than about any PC I've ever owned.
I also said the PC will be around for some time. That implies there will be people, like you, who prefer PCs (or at the very least, still want to have one). Let's take it as given that a significant portion of Slashdotters will still have PCs long after the "end of the PC era".
VLC, among others, is available for iOS.
Yup, as a stand-alone app, not as an integrated media player.
Absolutely not true. VLC (and other media players) will open AVIs (and other formats) from Safari just fine.
As for scripting languages... what exactly did you have in mind?
Gosh, like the kinds of things Apple keeps denying: Lua, Python, tons of other things.
Which have fuck-all to do with Safari.
You're right about Flash though. I'm amused that you seem to be stating this as though it's a bad thing.
What is a "bad thing" is that Apple tries to tell me what software I can run on my hardware.
That's not what they are doing at all. They aren't supporting Flash because it is crap on handhelds, not because Apple has any desire whatsoever to tell you what you can or cannot run on your hardware.
Apple's store is the only way to get apps on your iProduct that will keep your product fully working.
That's absolutely not true (and I'm not referring to jailbreaking).
Therefore they are abusing their monopoly (their App Store) to the detriment of their customers (buying iProduct).
Having a "monopoly" over your own products is not a monopoly.
They demand both.
You MUST use their App store to get apps.
Apple doesn't demand that people buy apps.
You MUST NOT get boobies from apps on their app store.
That's not what was originally written.
Hanging around here too long, one would begin to think that Apple forces people to buy iDevices,
What's the viable alternative to the $230 iPod touch in the market of portable media and game players with an app store?
How is that Apple forcing people to buy something?
You realize that everything you've ever seen in your entire life is upside-down, because your eyeball contains only one lens, right?
This is silly. The image on the retina is upside-down, but the retina is not where seeing happens. It would be like saying all the photos you take are upside-down (and left-right flipped) because the image on your camera's CCD is transformed in this way.
By my logic, your colleague may be one of the few people that actually holds the mouse correctly.
This is sufficient evidence to completely disregard your logic. Mice are specifically designed to be used in a certain way, and with the cord running down is not that way.
People are buying more phones, but they aren't buying *fewer* PCs.
Sure they are. The iPad has already had a notable impact on the sales of PCs.
It would be like if there was a massive health kick in this country and everyone started buying bicycles... but they'd almost all still need cars.
Most people can't get by with just a bike, however most will not only be able to get by with something like an iPad, but will actually prefer it.
Comparing a bike and a car is a disingenuous analogy.
Likewise most people will continue using PCs even if they also buy smartphones and tablets.
Not likely. Most people fucking hate their PC and love their iPhone/iPad. The PC's best days as a consumer product are peaking.
That's not to say the PC is going away. That's still a long way off (if ever). But the writing's on the wall and it's on its way to be supplanted. This will happen first with consumers, and this story is about the first milestone on that road.
You can't dethrone something if you aren't replacing it.
Dethroned as the most commonly purchased general purpose computer, and potentially as the most commonly used general purpose computer.
People are buying more smart phones, but they aren't NOT buying PCs.
Some are buying iPads instead of PCs. This will only become more prominent over time.
Smart phones are in addition to, not a replacement of, PCs.
By definition, every time someone uses an iPhone or iPad when their PC is nearby, they are using it as a PC replacement. Also, every time someone leaves a notebook at home because they have a phone or tablet, they are using it as a PC replacement.
How do you define "artistic value" ? As Andres Serrano has shown, one man's bodily fluids is another man's art. Some would argue that the human form is a work of art. Others are ashamed of it. So who is wrong, and who is right ?
It's up to each person to decide for themselves, including Apple (they are not a person, but are run by people). Apple isn't stopping anyone from calling a jar of piss "art", they're just deciding what they'll carry in their store or not.
This is hypocrisy of the highest order from Apple, and they should learn that the hard way
How exactly is this "hypocrisy of the highest order"?
They should have an adult section for all this stuff (including playboy), and let it all in, along with those dangerous dictionaries and books including swearwords.
What "dangerous dictionaries" and "books including swearwords" are you talking about? You do realize that both are perfectly allowed on the App Store and iBookstore, right? All without an adult section (which the Playboy app would not belong in, and neither would this tabloid (I'm assuming it's a relatively mainstream newspaper in Denmark)).
Except when it's Flash or any of a number of codecs or scripting languages Apple disapproves of.
VLC, among others, is available for iOS. As for scripting languages... what exactly did you have in mind? Javascript is ubiquitous on the web and works across all major browsers across all major platforms.
You're right about Flash though. I'm amused that you seem to be stating this as though it's a bad thing.
They DEMAND you use theirs.
And then DEMAND you don't get nekkid people.
Actually, they demand neither.
Hanging around here too long, one would begin to think that Apple forces people to buy iDevices, forces them to buy content from them, and implants some sort of mind-control device that keeps their customers from doing anything not sanctioned from some imaginary bond super villain.
It is applying to phones these days, which is where I believe you're wrong.
Sure, the definition you made up for PC applies to smart phones, but you've failed to give any reason for everyone else to give up the more widely held definition for yours.
You can argue all you like and try to nit pick my words but you're still wrong.
I'm not the one making up definitions. The problem here is that the author of the story, myself, and most everyone else are using a common definition for "PC", while you're using the rezalasese definition.
I'll translate the story into rezelasese for you: The desktop and notebook PC era is beginning to give way to the phone and slate PC era.
By conflating phones and tablets with desktop and notebooks, you've simply taken a bit of linguistic acrobatics and pretended like the story is false. But translated into your definition for PC like I did above, it should be clear that the story is not as wrong as you said it was.
A "personal computer" these days really means "an internet appliance and application platform, owned and usually used by a specific individual".
No it doesn't. Video game consoles, TVs, smart phones, etc., are all "internet appliance and application platforms owned and usually used by a specific individual".
PCs are separate from iPhones, iPads, Android phones, etc. Maybe the term will change, but I doubt it. Consider this, if you have a notebook and a smart phone sitting on a table and ask someone to hand you your PC, which do you think they'll grab? Or in reverse, if someone asked you for the PC, do you really think they meant the phone?
That's part of what makes this story so interesting. The non-PC computing devices are beginning to show signs of eventually surpassing the PC as the "internet appliance and application platform, owned and usually used by a specific individual" of choice. And while I still use my PC (Mac, specifically, but I'm pretty sure that's no surprise) and will for some time, I'm very glad to see the end of the PC era. PCs are like (warning: auto analogy coming) big trucks or tractors. They're very important and will never go away completely, but are poorly suited to the needs of most people.