Jobs, the head honcho for Apple, recently made an announcement that he wants the IPad and IPhone to be “porn-free.” Initially, this seems to be a great thing. Furthermore, Mr. Jobs certainly has the right to control his products and determine how they will be built. No one has to buy an Apple product if he does not want to.
I personally have never been a fan of the Apple line of products. I did own an IPod classic (which in all fairness I used extensively, and loved), but I turned down an opportunity to receive an IPhone as a bonus from work. I have always used Windows Mobile products until very recently. Over the last few months as Windows Mobile (in my humble opinion) became hopelessly outdated, I have transitioned to Android devices.
Two things that we need to establish right away. First, I am not running down the quality or performance of Apple products. I am not one of those people who is such a mindless fanboy of one platform that he denigrates all others. Apple makes fine products that are beautiful, well-made, and generally a pleasure to use. Secondly, I certainly am not an advocate of the pornography industry. I have counseled plenty of guys who have been completely ensnared by this horrific enterprise. I have seen the figures for the percentage of America’s income and time which is consumed by pornography. I am not a proponent of pornography (is everyone clear on this?)
However (bet you didn’t see that coming), I am not personally a fan of Mr. Jobs’ decision. The main reason I turned down the IPhone is that I am not a fan of another person deciding for me what I want or do not want. I assure you that I do not look at pornography on my phone, nor do I desire to. There does, however, need to be some thought invested into the possible fallout of this decision.
Mr. Jobs has a history of making technological decisions for his consumers—“no one wants to cut and paste on a mobile device,” “no one really wants to send pictures from a phone,””Adobe’s Flash is not a good idea on a mobile device…”—that you may or may not agree with. As far as I can recall, though, this is the first moral decision that Mr. Jobs has made for his products.
The reason that I am apprehensive about this decision is that Mr. Jobs may decide that differing religions are divisive and spawn violence. What if any app that incorporates the Quran is blocked? What if all Islamic sites are disallowed? Many Christians would stand and cheer (like they are on the pornography decision), but could the Bible be next?
I will state one more time that Apple makes great products, and Mr. Jobs certainly has the right to make philosophical decisions for his product lines. But, if you are tied to his decisions for two years at a time (the average phone contract length), you are forced to hope that you like all his decisions—current and future...
Discussion about
I am a pastor and a gadget nerd. I have been thinking about one of Steve Jobs' most recent comments. Mr.
I have exactly the same concerns.
Initially some dictionary apps were banned from the iPhone because they had rude words in them. These have since been unbanned, but they should not have been subject to a subjective approval process in the first place (this reminds me of a pro-censorship politician whose website was blocked by a filter due to his surname being identical to a certain male body part). You are no doubt aware that the Bible contains plenty of material that could offend people and subject it to Steve Jobs's wrath. The same goes for the potential for banning religious applications on the grounds of controversy or misguided political correctness as you imply.
The main problem with censorship is that it is black and white. You either have censorship or you don't. There is no such thing as 'partial censorship' or 'good censorship'. And to anticipate a typical defence of censorship: banning illegal things is not censorship. Illegal apps should be banned (e.g. an app portraying child sex abuse). And censorship is a 'slippery slope' and inevitably subjective.
I agree that Apple has every right (legally at least) to do what they want with their own products, but I hate the implications their actions have for technology as a concept. The purpose of technology is to open up possibilities, from the personal and trivial to the profound and world-changing. The purpose of censorship, no matter how mild or well-meaning, is to limit possibilities by restricting free speech and personal choice. For some people the possibilities of technology may include accessing pornography; for others it may be to get free phone calls to contact their loved ones or to access information. It should not be up to a hardware manufacturer to decide what is suitable for its customers to use their hardware for.
Steve Jobs claims that he bans pornography on the iPhone and iPad app stores to protect children (he's said this in a recently publicised email). As with many things Steve Jobs claims this is a red herring. It is the parents' job to keep their children from adult material, and there are quite easy ways to restrict children from adult material while allowing adults to decide for themselves what content they want to consume. For example, Windows computers have parental controls that prevent children from accessing certain content types, such as games rated as adults only. It would be a technically trivial task to implement adult-only apps on the iPhone. Apple's similar claims about Flash and multi-tasking reducing device performance are simply smokescreens designed to justify Apple's irrational grudge against Adobe, to protect against the money Apple would lose to free web-based Flash apps, and to feed Steve Jobs's need for his customers to do things as he tells them they want to.
Then there is the problem that app developers face: they can spend time and money developing an app only to not have it approved. This situation doesn't occur on any other platform that I'm aware of. Not only can Apple ban the app, they usually don't say why. For example, Apple has recently retroactively banned an app for behaving in certain ways (specifically for creating 'desktop-like' interfaces). The app has been for sale for quite some time, but now the developer has lost that income stream simply because Apple decided they don't like the look of it. This has terrible implications for developers, especially when you consider how popular the iPhone platform is and how crazy the world is for apps at the moment. And Apple have made rules in their developer agreement that prohibit developers from using certain development tools that would make it easier to re-use their code for other platforms like Android. Of course Apple use a smokescreen and claim that the reason is for maintaining consistency and quality when the reason is clearly to keep developers focused on the iPhone and to put up barriers to creating apps for competing platforms.
This may all sound melodramatic, but censorship always starts out with good intentions.
Initially some dictionary apps were banned from the iPhone because they had rude words in them. These have since been unbanned, but they should not have been subject to a subjective approval process in the first place (this reminds me of a pro-censorship politician whose website was blocked by a filter due to his surname being identical to a certain male body part). You are no doubt aware that the Bible contains plenty of material that could offend people and subject it to Steve Jobs's wrath. The same goes for the potential for banning religious applications on the grounds of controversy or misguided political correctness as you imply.
The main problem with censorship is that it is black and white. You either have censorship or you don't. There is no such thing as 'partial censorship' or 'good censorship'. And to anticipate a typical defence of censorship: banning illegal things is not censorship. Illegal apps should be banned (e.g. an app portraying child sex abuse). And censorship is a 'slippery slope' and inevitably subjective.
I agree that Apple has every right (legally at least) to do what they want with their own products, but I hate the implications their actions have for technology as a concept. The purpose of technology is to open up possibilities, from the personal and trivial to the profound and world-changing. The purpose of censorship, no matter how mild or well-meaning, is to limit possibilities by restricting free speech and personal choice. For some people the possibilities of technology may include accessing pornography; for others it may be to get free phone calls to contact their loved ones or to access information. It should not be up to a hardware manufacturer to decide what is suitable for its customers to use their hardware for.
Steve Jobs claims that he bans pornography on the iPhone and iPad app stores to protect children (he's said this in a recently publicised email). As with many things Steve Jobs claims this is a red herring. It is the parents' job to keep their children from adult material, and there are quite easy ways to restrict children from adult material while allowing adults to decide for themselves what content they want to consume. For example, Windows computers have parental controls that prevent children from accessing certain content types, such as games rated as adults only. It would be a technically trivial task to implement adult-only apps on the iPhone. Apple's similar claims about Flash and multi-tasking reducing device performance are simply smokescreens designed to justify Apple's irrational grudge against Adobe, to protect against the money Apple would lose to free web-based Flash apps, and to feed Steve Jobs's need for his customers to do things as he tells them they want to.
Then there is the problem that app developers face: they can spend time and money developing an app only to not have it approved. This situation doesn't occur on any other platform that I'm aware of. Not only can Apple ban the app, they usually don't say why. For example, Apple has recently retroactively banned an app for behaving in certain ways (specifically for creating 'desktop-like' interfaces). The app has been for sale for quite some time, but now the developer has lost that income stream simply because Apple decided they don't like the look of it. This has terrible implications for developers, especially when you consider how popular the iPhone platform is and how crazy the world is for apps at the moment. And Apple have made rules in their developer agreement that prohibit developers from using certain development tools that would make it easier to re-use their code for other platforms like Android. Of course Apple use a smokescreen and claim that the reason is for maintaining consistency and quality when the reason is clearly to keep developers focused on the iPhone and to put up barriers to creating apps for competing platforms.
This may all sound melodramatic, but censorship always starts out with good intentions.
I totally agree with you....
Steve-O needs to stick to the gadgets and leave his personal philosophies/morality at the door (of the Apple headquarters!!)
Amen to that!!
Steve-O needs to stick to the gadgets and leave his personal philosophies/morality at the door (of the Apple headquarters!!)
Amen to that!!
I think you make a valid point. That said, I do understand Apple's desire to have a curated App Store - you could perhaps compare it to a brick and mortar store in real life, and in which case I wouldn't want anyone to come in and sell products in my store that I didn't want or care for.
However, I think the problem lies with the fact that the only way around this is to Jailbreak and potentially, void the warranty of your iPhone. If Apple wants to instill it's values on their store, they should, at least, consider an easier way for consumers to download and curate their own "store".
Even if it's a feature that consumers have to "opt-in" to after digging through a series of menus and terms of use notices, it is a feature that should be included. This would be somewhere in-between what Apple has currently and what a platform like Android offers.
That said, Steve did raise several good points at the ongoing All Thing's D conference, and one of which was that Apple has to monitor apps that "steal" data - opening the floodgates would (potentially) expose the device to malware and spyware.
Does this mean that "some" curation is, in fact, good for users? Personally, this kind of curation is acceptable to me, but alas, we're back to square one.
This isn't an easy question to answer.
However, I think the problem lies with the fact that the only way around this is to Jailbreak and potentially, void the warranty of your iPhone. If Apple wants to instill it's values on their store, they should, at least, consider an easier way for consumers to download and curate their own "store".
Even if it's a feature that consumers have to "opt-in" to after digging through a series of menus and terms of use notices, it is a feature that should be included. This would be somewhere in-between what Apple has currently and what a platform like Android offers.
That said, Steve did raise several good points at the ongoing All Thing's D conference, and one of which was that Apple has to monitor apps that "steal" data - opening the floodgates would (potentially) expose the device to malware and spyware.
Does this mean that "some" curation is, in fact, good for users? Personally, this kind of curation is acceptable to me, but alas, we're back to square one.
This isn't an easy question to answer.
Yes, I agree. Windows Mobile and Android both have on-device marketplaces and the ability for advanced users install devices from elsewhere.
Apple want a curated platform as a whole: this is the reason why they are not going to allow other app stores. It would be useless to control the app store while allowing any application to be downloaded within another store, wouldn't it?
It is understandable that many do not agree and prefer an open platform, but they have the choice: Android.
Apple wants to give consumer first rate products and they consider that it is necessary to tightly control the platform to achieve this goal. They may be right, or wrong, but it is their decision in both cases. Google or Microsoft think differently: their decision.
But the FACT is that the iPhoneOS platform is a huge success.
My guess is that the iPhone would not be as successful should the platform be open. As a consumer, I prefer a curated platform because I think that it is indeed necessary to ensure a good user experience as a whole, even if it has some drawbacks.
It is understandable that many do not agree and prefer an open platform, but they have the choice: Android.
Apple wants to give consumer first rate products and they consider that it is necessary to tightly control the platform to achieve this goal. They may be right, or wrong, but it is their decision in both cases. Google or Microsoft think differently: their decision.
But the FACT is that the iPhoneOS platform is a huge success.
My guess is that the iPhone would not be as successful should the platform be open. As a consumer, I prefer a curated platform because I think that it is indeed necessary to ensure a good user experience as a whole, even if it has some drawbacks.
Steve Jobs enforce morality only in AppStore, not on the iPhoneOS platform: you can access any web site from the iPhone/iPad.
"What if any app that incorporates the Quran is blocked? What if all Islamic sites are disallowed? "
Quran app are not blocked and there is NO filtering in Safari.
"What if..." is not a good argument, unless you are only trying to share your own fantasies.
"What if any app that incorporates the Quran is blocked? What if all Islamic sites are disallowed? "
Quran app are not blocked and there is NO filtering in Safari.
"What if..." is not a good argument, unless you are only trying to share your own fantasies.
The argument that Safari allows any website to be viewed is moot as it discounts the fact that apps provide functionality not provided by the web, and the app store DOES provide a certain level of safety for the consumer that websites may not.
And it's not just morality that Steve Jobs is enforcing in the iPhone app store. He's also enforcing politics - such as the (albeit temporary) removal of 'controversial' cartoons and the banning of apps that allow users to make free/cheap phone calls by bypassing their cell phone carrier. And of course let's not forget Steve's hatred for Adobe Flash, which powers a lot of content on the web. But of course if the iPhone had flash people would be able to get free games from Flash-based websites and therefore Apple would make less money from their app monopoly.
And it's not just morality that Steve Jobs is enforcing in the iPhone app store. He's also enforcing politics - such as the (albeit temporary) removal of 'controversial' cartoons and the banning of apps that allow users to make free/cheap phone calls by bypassing their cell phone carrier. And of course let's not forget Steve's hatred for Adobe Flash, which powers a lot of content on the web. But of course if the iPhone had flash people would be able to get free games from Flash-based websites and therefore Apple would make less money from their app monopoly.
The App Store is a curated platform that Apple itself curates. If they don't want to curate porn, they don't have to.
so in this instance, the apple app store is totalitarian China and Android is America accepting all takers....
go onnnnnnn......
go onnnnnnn......
"so in this instance, the apple app store is totalitarian China and Android is America accepting all takers...."
Hah, I think your analogy for Apple is pretty right on. But to be fair, Android is more like Afghanistan than America -- a nearly lawless society where anything goes with a few pockets of organized government, law, and order. :-P
Hah, I think your analogy for Apple is pretty right on. But to be fair, Android is more like Afghanistan than America -- a nearly lawless society where anything goes with a few pockets of organized government, law, and order. :-P
Well there is actually some moderation on Android. Google will remove anything that violates their terms (including stuff that isn't illegal but is offensive or obscene).
The difference is that Google doesn't review apps unless there are complaints and you still have the option of getting apps from sources other than the Android market.
The difference is that Google doesn't review apps unless there are complaints and you still have the option of getting apps from sources other than the Android market.
lol - nice Dave! I'll stick take Afghanistan over China in this regard! :P
You should try to actually listen to Jobs arguments against Flash instead of just putting your own words into Jobs's mouth. But I know you are not interested at knowing the truth.
Do you really think that free small Flash based games developed for a keyboard/mouse interface are a threat to free games developed specifically for the iPhone and available in the AppStore? And BTW, Apple make no money on free app either.
Banning of the cartoon app was a mistake: Steve Jobs agree with that. They made a mistake because the AppStore rules forbid defamatory content (which is good, isn't it?) and this app has been wrongly considered as such by a reviewer. They made a mistake, and then they corrected it. What else could you expect?
And how can you blame Apple from forbidding VOIP applications over 3G? This is a decision coming from carriers. Even if VOIP over 3G apps are allowed on Android (are they?), carriers could block users from using it.
And BTW, Skype has just been released with VOIP now over 3G and Apple didn't forbid it. Why if it is an Apple decision?
Do you really think that free small Flash based games developed for a keyboard/mouse interface are a threat to free games developed specifically for the iPhone and available in the AppStore? And BTW, Apple make no money on free app either.
Banning of the cartoon app was a mistake: Steve Jobs agree with that. They made a mistake because the AppStore rules forbid defamatory content (which is good, isn't it?) and this app has been wrongly considered as such by a reviewer. They made a mistake, and then they corrected it. What else could you expect?
And how can you blame Apple from forbidding VOIP applications over 3G? This is a decision coming from carriers. Even if VOIP over 3G apps are allowed on Android (are they?), carriers could block users from using it.
And BTW, Skype has just been released with VOIP now over 3G and Apple didn't forbid it. Why if it is an Apple decision?
I did address Jobs's claims that Flash affects performance (in a different response, below). Flash can be optional or turned off when not needed, and the fact that it affects performance isn't even established. It apparently runs quite well on Android devices (in fact it reportedly runs better than HTML5, which is what Jobs thinks is far superior to Flash).
Why is the usability of Flash 'developed for keyboard/mouse' at all relevant here? Flash content can easily be created to use touch, and Adobe can easily create new versions of Flash better suited for mobile devices. And of course a huge amount of Flash content is not interactive at all (such as animations and videos). The keyboard/mouse excuse is a smokescreen.
Apple makes a lot of money on apps. Apple plans to soon make lots of money on free apps to via their new advertising scheme. It's irrelevant to the topic of censorship.
Why is banning defamatory content good? It's censorship. It's a restriction of free speech. I disagree with you 100% on this. Arbitrary subjective censorship is the same as any other censorship. I think it's naive to assume that Apple would have corrected their mistake had it not been a successful, award-winning cartoonist that was banned. You're right that Apple did the right thing here, but I am concerned at what might be the result for an unknown cartoonist in the same situation without the clout to be heard, and I'm not 100% convinced that Apple reversed their decision out of actually believing they were wrong, though I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. The whole incident sharply highlights a major issue with censorship - false positives and the potential for these to go under the radar. An app shouldn't need to be approved by a reviewer to check if it is suitable for an adult to use.
Apple blocks VOIP apps (Google Voice, for example) by banning them from the app store. They do this because they have financial arrangements with the carriers. Of course you can use VOIP on an Android phone over 3G and WiFi because the hardware is capable of it and the software doesn't arbitrarily block it. Apple's products are deliberately restricted from functions they are technically capable of because Apple and its partners want to make more money. Legally I doubt there is anything wrong with that, but as a fan of technology it disgusts me.
RE: Apple now allowing Skype. It's no doubt Apple bowing to pressure, which is a good thing. But the mere fact that Apple has to approve it ridiculous. There are, of course, still plenty of apps still banned, including VOIP, pornography, Flash, apps that Apple bans without giving a reason, etc.
Why is the usability of Flash 'developed for keyboard/mouse' at all relevant here? Flash content can easily be created to use touch, and Adobe can easily create new versions of Flash better suited for mobile devices. And of course a huge amount of Flash content is not interactive at all (such as animations and videos). The keyboard/mouse excuse is a smokescreen.
Apple makes a lot of money on apps. Apple plans to soon make lots of money on free apps to via their new advertising scheme. It's irrelevant to the topic of censorship.
Why is banning defamatory content good? It's censorship. It's a restriction of free speech. I disagree with you 100% on this. Arbitrary subjective censorship is the same as any other censorship. I think it's naive to assume that Apple would have corrected their mistake had it not been a successful, award-winning cartoonist that was banned. You're right that Apple did the right thing here, but I am concerned at what might be the result for an unknown cartoonist in the same situation without the clout to be heard, and I'm not 100% convinced that Apple reversed their decision out of actually believing they were wrong, though I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. The whole incident sharply highlights a major issue with censorship - false positives and the potential for these to go under the radar. An app shouldn't need to be approved by a reviewer to check if it is suitable for an adult to use.
Apple blocks VOIP apps (Google Voice, for example) by banning them from the app store. They do this because they have financial arrangements with the carriers. Of course you can use VOIP on an Android phone over 3G and WiFi because the hardware is capable of it and the software doesn't arbitrarily block it. Apple's products are deliberately restricted from functions they are technically capable of because Apple and its partners want to make more money. Legally I doubt there is anything wrong with that, but as a fan of technology it disgusts me.
RE: Apple now allowing Skype. It's no doubt Apple bowing to pressure, which is a good thing. But the mere fact that Apple has to approve it ridiculous. There are, of course, still plenty of apps still banned, including VOIP, pornography, Flash, apps that Apple bans without giving a reason, etc.
You only wrote "let's not forget Steve's hatred for Adobe Flash" and then "if the iPhone had flash people would be able to get free games from Flash-based websites and therefore Apple would make less money from their app monopoly"
Both points are just plain wrong and dumb. Now you give Job's reasons to forbid Flash, which is what you should have done first. And you can indeed think these are bad reasons.
The iPhone OS has been released in 2007 and only NOW, three and half years later, Adobe may have a usable version of Flash 10.1 for mobiles (but it requires a powerful mobile - most current Android smartphones are not compatible). And considering the demos, I'm not impressed that much. Do you think Apple should have waited until now to release the first iPhone? Or release it with a unusable Flash? Flash is an old software: it is just a shame that there is no version efficient enough to run on mobile devices. HTML5 is brand new and already on par with Flash. It is just Adobe's fault here, sorry.
"Why is the usability of Flash 'developed for keyboard/mouse' at all relevant here?"
YOU were talking about free Flash games as a reason for Jobs to forbid Flash. Today, most Flash content rely on the mouseover event or keyboard input: both are not suitable for a touch UI.
"Adobe can easily create new versions of Flash better suited for mobile devices. "
Adobe can easily create it? Then why don't they do it 3 years ago? Flash 10.1 is the FIRST version optimized for mobiles devices ant it is still in beta.
"And of course a huge amount of Flash content is not interactive at all (such as animations and videos)."
Yes. But video can easily use HTML5 and i bet 95% of non-interactive Flash content are ads which most people block anyways.
"The keyboard/mouse excuse is a smokescreen."
It is ONE valid reason. Performances is another one. Flash is proprietary which is another one. And you should be able to find a few other I guess.
"Apple makes a lot of money on apps. Apple plans to soon make lots of money on free apps to via their new advertising scheme."
No, Apple do not make a lot of money on apps or via iAds. 70% is given back to developers and if you remove the operational costs for Apple, the AppStore is barely profitable. You can have a look at Apple's financial reports to get more info on this point.
"Why is banning defamatory content good? It's censorship. It's a restriction of free speech. I disagree with you 100% on this."
Well, I'm not a US citizen and "free speech" is not a religion for me. In many countries, you cannot say whatever you want in public: this is just the law here in Switzerland for example.
I agree that there is a gray zone here, but I understand that Apple cannot allow ANY content on the AppStore. And whenever there is a gray zone you will see wrong decisions.
"Apple blocks VOIP apps (Google Voice, for example) by banning them from the app store. They do this because they have financial arrangements with the carriers."
No: Apple do it because they have no choice, or at least they had no choice in 2007. Apple NEEDS carriers and carriers do not want to allow something that would threaten their own business. It seems that carriers understand that they have no choice NOW because wi-fi is so common that it would be dangerous for them not to allow VOIP over 3G. DRM in music/movies is not Apple's decision. Ban of VOIP is not Apple's decision. Apple is powerful today, but they still have to make some compromises with their partners.
"Of course you can use VOIP on an Android phone over 3G and WiFi because the hardware is capable of it and the software doesn't arbitrarily block it."
Carriers can cancel the subscription of anyone using VOIP over their network if they want.
www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Android+VOIP: "Using VOIP over the cellular network may violate your cellular provider's terms of service — check your contract first."
"Apple's products are deliberately restricted from functions they are technically capable of..."
Yes
"…because Apple and its partners want to make more money. "
No.
This is what many do not understand, even if Steve Jobs explain it often. This is not the reason why Apple's product do not offer every features. But it is a good thing that most competitors do not understand that, because it is probably the main reason of Apple's success. Only Microsotf seems to understand now: Windows Phone 7 (or whatever its name) is also tightly controlled.
"Legally I doubt there is anything wrong with that, but as a fan of technology it disgusts me."
Too bad you do not understand. The iPhone and now the iPad have a huge positive impact on mobile technology since 2007 (do you agree on that?). They have a huge impact because of their success. They have such success because of the UI and the ecosystem. And people like so much the UI, the user experience and the ecosystem BECAUSE IT IS TIGHTLY CONTROLLED.
Both points are just plain wrong and dumb. Now you give Job's reasons to forbid Flash, which is what you should have done first. And you can indeed think these are bad reasons.
The iPhone OS has been released in 2007 and only NOW, three and half years later, Adobe may have a usable version of Flash 10.1 for mobiles (but it requires a powerful mobile - most current Android smartphones are not compatible). And considering the demos, I'm not impressed that much. Do you think Apple should have waited until now to release the first iPhone? Or release it with a unusable Flash? Flash is an old software: it is just a shame that there is no version efficient enough to run on mobile devices. HTML5 is brand new and already on par with Flash. It is just Adobe's fault here, sorry.
"Why is the usability of Flash 'developed for keyboard/mouse' at all relevant here?"
YOU were talking about free Flash games as a reason for Jobs to forbid Flash. Today, most Flash content rely on the mouseover event or keyboard input: both are not suitable for a touch UI.
"Adobe can easily create new versions of Flash better suited for mobile devices. "
Adobe can easily create it? Then why don't they do it 3 years ago? Flash 10.1 is the FIRST version optimized for mobiles devices ant it is still in beta.
"And of course a huge amount of Flash content is not interactive at all (such as animations and videos)."
Yes. But video can easily use HTML5 and i bet 95% of non-interactive Flash content are ads which most people block anyways.
"The keyboard/mouse excuse is a smokescreen."
It is ONE valid reason. Performances is another one. Flash is proprietary which is another one. And you should be able to find a few other I guess.
"Apple makes a lot of money on apps. Apple plans to soon make lots of money on free apps to via their new advertising scheme."
No, Apple do not make a lot of money on apps or via iAds. 70% is given back to developers and if you remove the operational costs for Apple, the AppStore is barely profitable. You can have a look at Apple's financial reports to get more info on this point.
"Why is banning defamatory content good? It's censorship. It's a restriction of free speech. I disagree with you 100% on this."
Well, I'm not a US citizen and "free speech" is not a religion for me. In many countries, you cannot say whatever you want in public: this is just the law here in Switzerland for example.
I agree that there is a gray zone here, but I understand that Apple cannot allow ANY content on the AppStore. And whenever there is a gray zone you will see wrong decisions.
"Apple blocks VOIP apps (Google Voice, for example) by banning them from the app store. They do this because they have financial arrangements with the carriers."
No: Apple do it because they have no choice, or at least they had no choice in 2007. Apple NEEDS carriers and carriers do not want to allow something that would threaten their own business. It seems that carriers understand that they have no choice NOW because wi-fi is so common that it would be dangerous for them not to allow VOIP over 3G. DRM in music/movies is not Apple's decision. Ban of VOIP is not Apple's decision. Apple is powerful today, but they still have to make some compromises with their partners.
"Of course you can use VOIP on an Android phone over 3G and WiFi because the hardware is capable of it and the software doesn't arbitrarily block it."
Carriers can cancel the subscription of anyone using VOIP over their network if they want.
www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Android+VOIP: "Using VOIP over the cellular network may violate your cellular provider's terms of service — check your contract first."
"Apple's products are deliberately restricted from functions they are technically capable of..."
Yes
"…because Apple and its partners want to make more money. "
No.
This is what many do not understand, even if Steve Jobs explain it often. This is not the reason why Apple's product do not offer every features. But it is a good thing that most competitors do not understand that, because it is probably the main reason of Apple's success. Only Microsotf seems to understand now: Windows Phone 7 (or whatever its name) is also tightly controlled.
"Legally I doubt there is anything wrong with that, but as a fan of technology it disgusts me."
Too bad you do not understand. The iPhone and now the iPad have a huge positive impact on mobile technology since 2007 (do you agree on that?). They have a huge impact because of their success. They have such success because of the UI and the ecosystem. And people like so much the UI, the user experience and the ecosystem BECAUSE IT IS TIGHTLY CONTROLLED.
You're totally missing or sidestepping my points here. My point re: Flash has nothing to do with the quality of Flash or Flash content. The point is that the owner of the hardware should ideally be the person who decides if they want to run a certain application or not. Also, whether or not Flash has been 'ready' to run on mobile devices is irrelevant to the fact that Steve Jobs has made it clear since day one that he won't allow Flash on iPhones. Flash has been usable on mobile devices for some time, just not necessarily running particularly well.
HTML5 is not currently a standard. Flash is ubiquitous. As I stated, on Android phones Flash has been demonstrated to run better than HTML5.
Why does it matter whether Flash applications are suitable for a touch UI and what does that even mean? The user can decide what is usable for their own needs. I'd much rather have the choice to use a product that is not very good but potentially useful. Imagine is Steve started banning music from iTunes that he doesn't think is recorded very well.
So no, neither reason is valid for banning Flash. They are valid reasons for Steve Jobs not liking Flash, and valid reasons for a user not wanting Flash on their device. NOT valid reasons for making that decision on the user's behalf.
Apple make plenty of money from apps and will make plenty of money from iAd. They also make money off these indirectly. Most people I see buying iPhones do so because of specific apps they've heard about. Unfortunately Apple's demographic and target market are generally ignorant of he censorship issues. But money is probably not as important to Steve Jobs as making decisions on behalf of his customers.
You're right about the grey zones around free speech. In my country I believe the law draws the line at inciting violence or crime. But Apple's banning of controversial things is still wrong. They shouldn't ban anything unless there are valid complaints from the public, and then only after a thorough review in which the developer can justify their creation and prove that it's legal and acceptable.
Apple works with carriers to prevent VOIP type applications. Other device manufacturers do not (not any that I'm aware of). The carriers make their own rules, but joining forces with hardware manufacturers to limit the choices of their customers is nonsense. The issue here is basically net neutrality, and both Apple and certain carriers are involved in providing data with restrictions on what you use the zeros and ones for. I may be mistaken, but I heard that Google Voice was banned because it duplicated features built into the iPhone (i.e. voice calls). Sure, Steve...
Microsoft have not yet confirmed that WP7 is going to be tightly controlled like the iPhone, though so far it looks that way. If Microsoft control their new phones like Apple then I will have the same criticisms for them. Though it's hard to deny the signs, I have a hard time believing that Microsoft would make such a left turn considering how open Windows is.
The iPhone has had a big impact on technology. Because of the iPhone smartphones have become mainstream and now other manufacturers have started making great devices. The success of the iPhone would not have been any less impactful if people were allowed to look at naked women on one.
As for the iPad the jury is still out. Almost 6 months after it was announced there is still no sign of any useful apps for it. I'm still asking people who have them what they use it for and I never really get a straight answer. The attraction seems to be simply that it's fun to use a large touch screen for apps that really belong either in the pocket or on a PC. But yes, the iPad will no doubt spur manufacturers to release better, open tablets in the coming years.
Your argument seems to be that UI is more important than what a device is capable of. It's a very Apple point of view. If you look at Apple's marketing you'll notice that the emphasis is always on the UI rather than specifications or what the device is actually capable of (or price) because that's what Apple is selling - a shiny object that doesn't offer value for money or the full benefits of the technology held inside its case.
It's true that censorship and arbitrary restrictions leads to a better user experience in the case of Apple's products. But the point is just totally missing the philosophical and political points of censorship. Burning books would make it easier to navigate the less cluttered shelves of a library. Silencing all but one political party makes voting a simpler task.
Like I said before, technology is for making things possible. Censorship is for preventing people doing things you don't agree with. A hardware manufacturer has no place deciding what is acceptable use of their hardware.
Many of Steve Jobs's goals could be achieved without outright banning of apps. All he needs to do is allow users the option of essentially jailbreaking their iPhones in a way that doesn't require amateur hacks and the voiding of warranty. That way the majority of users who prefer the moderated iPhone get just that and the users who want to have choice can use the hardware in the way they see fit.
For example my Android phone has a setting that is off by default that allows installing software from outside of the Android Marketplace. This would work well on the iPhone, but of course Apple don't make any money from apps sold outside the App Store, and there is still the issue of Steve Jobs protecting us from pornography, etc.
HTML5 is not currently a standard. Flash is ubiquitous. As I stated, on Android phones Flash has been demonstrated to run better than HTML5.
Why does it matter whether Flash applications are suitable for a touch UI and what does that even mean? The user can decide what is usable for their own needs. I'd much rather have the choice to use a product that is not very good but potentially useful. Imagine is Steve started banning music from iTunes that he doesn't think is recorded very well.
So no, neither reason is valid for banning Flash. They are valid reasons for Steve Jobs not liking Flash, and valid reasons for a user not wanting Flash on their device. NOT valid reasons for making that decision on the user's behalf.
Apple make plenty of money from apps and will make plenty of money from iAd. They also make money off these indirectly. Most people I see buying iPhones do so because of specific apps they've heard about. Unfortunately Apple's demographic and target market are generally ignorant of he censorship issues. But money is probably not as important to Steve Jobs as making decisions on behalf of his customers.
You're right about the grey zones around free speech. In my country I believe the law draws the line at inciting violence or crime. But Apple's banning of controversial things is still wrong. They shouldn't ban anything unless there are valid complaints from the public, and then only after a thorough review in which the developer can justify their creation and prove that it's legal and acceptable.
Apple works with carriers to prevent VOIP type applications. Other device manufacturers do not (not any that I'm aware of). The carriers make their own rules, but joining forces with hardware manufacturers to limit the choices of their customers is nonsense. The issue here is basically net neutrality, and both Apple and certain carriers are involved in providing data with restrictions on what you use the zeros and ones for. I may be mistaken, but I heard that Google Voice was banned because it duplicated features built into the iPhone (i.e. voice calls). Sure, Steve...
Microsoft have not yet confirmed that WP7 is going to be tightly controlled like the iPhone, though so far it looks that way. If Microsoft control their new phones like Apple then I will have the same criticisms for them. Though it's hard to deny the signs, I have a hard time believing that Microsoft would make such a left turn considering how open Windows is.
The iPhone has had a big impact on technology. Because of the iPhone smartphones have become mainstream and now other manufacturers have started making great devices. The success of the iPhone would not have been any less impactful if people were allowed to look at naked women on one.
As for the iPad the jury is still out. Almost 6 months after it was announced there is still no sign of any useful apps for it. I'm still asking people who have them what they use it for and I never really get a straight answer. The attraction seems to be simply that it's fun to use a large touch screen for apps that really belong either in the pocket or on a PC. But yes, the iPad will no doubt spur manufacturers to release better, open tablets in the coming years.
Your argument seems to be that UI is more important than what a device is capable of. It's a very Apple point of view. If you look at Apple's marketing you'll notice that the emphasis is always on the UI rather than specifications or what the device is actually capable of (or price) because that's what Apple is selling - a shiny object that doesn't offer value for money or the full benefits of the technology held inside its case.
It's true that censorship and arbitrary restrictions leads to a better user experience in the case of Apple's products. But the point is just totally missing the philosophical and political points of censorship. Burning books would make it easier to navigate the less cluttered shelves of a library. Silencing all but one political party makes voting a simpler task.
Like I said before, technology is for making things possible. Censorship is for preventing people doing things you don't agree with. A hardware manufacturer has no place deciding what is acceptable use of their hardware.
Many of Steve Jobs's goals could be achieved without outright banning of apps. All he needs to do is allow users the option of essentially jailbreaking their iPhones in a way that doesn't require amateur hacks and the voiding of warranty. That way the majority of users who prefer the moderated iPhone get just that and the users who want to have choice can use the hardware in the way they see fit.
For example my Android phone has a setting that is off by default that allows installing software from outside of the Android Marketplace. This would work well on the iPhone, but of course Apple don't make any money from apps sold outside the App Store, and there is still the issue of Steve Jobs protecting us from pornography, etc.
