Re: More on the iPhone 4.0 announcement
bj
news:michelle-CF93C5...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> • The iPad is still on track for an international launch in late April.
>
I wonder if this will be before or after the US gets the 3G version.
Are they launching the wi-fi only or the 3G version internatl in April?
bj
Bert Hyman
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> Jobs responded to Ryan Block of gdgt by noting that there is a "porn
> store" for Google's Android mobile operating system, Apple's chief
> competitor in the mobile device and application space. "You can
> download it, your kids can download it," the CEO said. "That's a place
> we don't want to go, so we're not going to."
So neither can you.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
JK Coney
"Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-CF93C5...@news.eternal-september.org...
> response to the first question, Jobs acknowledged that Apple had tried to
> by AdMob, but Google "snatched" it from them, so Apple bought Quattro
> Wireless instead.
>
Glad I opted for the 3GS, but frankly I've been running most of the
announced enhancements already on my jailbroken phone. Folders, switching
between apps, book reader, etc etc.
--
JK Sinrod
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com
Alan Browne
> In article<Xns9D54B54138B...@216.250.188.140>,
>
> If I wanted to have porn apps, I'd get them somewhere other than on my
> iPhone. It's not as if Apple were censoring porn.
But they are. Various apps that have even scantily clad women have been
killed by the Apps store - unless it is big brands like Sports Illustrated:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10457460-37.html
"" Chillifresh said on its Web site that an Apple representative told
the developer that under its new App Store policy, it will not accept
applications that in any way imply sexual content or include the following:
* images of women in bikinis
* images of men in bikinis
* images of skin
* silhouettes indicating that the app includes sexual images
* sexual connotations or innuendo
* sexually arousing content ""
This is another reason why the walled garden is silly. If third parties
could sell directly, then Apple could sell its devices and others could
provide "content" that people want.
Well, unless its from Playboy or Sports Illustrated. Apple likes those
big volume brands.
more:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/22/schiller-app-store-sex/
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
Jack Campin - bogus address
> the developer that under its new App Store policy, it will not accept
> applications that in any way imply sexual content or include the following:
>
> * images of women in bikinis
> * images of men in bikinis
> * images of skin
> * silhouettes indicating that the app includes sexual images
> * sexual connotations or innuendo
> * sexually arousing content ""
There goes the dermatology reference book market.
Berlitz phrasebooks used to have that problem - no words for parts
of the body or activities they regarded as indecent. God help you
if you needed to see a doctor fast in Outer Unintelligibistan when
you got an agonizing pain in your thingummy while doing you-know-what.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Jim Gibson
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <54SdneQcy47L6CPW...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> > > If I wanted to have porn apps, I'd get them somewhere other than on my
> > > iPhone. It's not as if Apple were censoring porn.
> >
> > But they are. Various apps that have even scantily clad women have been
> > killed by the Apps store
>
> You can get it elsewhere, so they are not censoring it. If they were the
> only place you could possibly get it, and they refused to sell it, then
> they would be censoring it.
That is not the definition of "censor":
From the Dictionary application on my Mac:
"cut, delete parts of, make cuts in, blue-pencil; edit, expurgate,
bowdlerize, sanitize; informal clean up."
Apple is certainly doing that to the App store. Therefore, they are
"censoring" apps by not selling those it judges to be offensive, or
responding to complaints from customers. They are censoring the area
over which they have control. Just because they can't eliminate porn
web sites and magazines (because they can't) doesn't mean they are not
censoring.
> At one time 7-Eleven refused to sell Playboy and Penthouse. (They still
> might not sell them; I don't know.) That didn't mean they were censoring
> those magazines.
At one time Netflix offered adult films. After a while they stopped
offering them. Netflix is "censoring" its movie offerings.
> It's a matter of the definition of "censor", and Apple is not censoring.
Yes it is a matter of the definition. What is your definition of
"censor" that does not include what Apple is doing?
--
Jim Gibson
Jeffrey Goldberg
> If I wanted to have porn apps, I'd get them somewhere other than on my
> iPhone.
Exactly. And if you want porn apps on your smart phone you wouldn't
pick an iPhone (unless you planned to jailbreak).
> It's not as if Apple were censoring porn.
But that is exactly what they are doing in censoring apps. Of course
you can get to porn through the web browser, but Apple is saying here
that they don't want their device seen as a porn tool.
I actually suspect that is just a cover for other reasons they want to
control what apps are allowed. It seems like an awful lot of trouble to
go through just to avoid a porn association. It's not as if Android
phones have developed a sleazy reputation.
So I think that porn issue is a red herring. I think that there are a
couple of reasons why Apple has locked down these devices.
o Able to do a security review of submitted apps
o To do a review for memory leaks of submitted apps
o To review certain "user experience" guidelines
o To get a cut of app sales
Considering these, I really think that the porn issue is tiny by comparison.
Cheers,
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid
Larry
A8FEBB.014...@news.albasani.net:
> while doing you-know-what.
wanking?
(Hey, you're IN the UK, right?>...(c;[
--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
Larry
JK Coney
> In article <hplnlo$52b$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "JK Coney" <jkc...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Glad I opted for the 3GS, but frankly I've been running most of the
>> announced enhancements already on my jailbroken phone. Folders,
>> switching between apps, book reader, etc etc.
>
> to
> what you have now.
>
Yes I do agree.
--
JK Sinrod
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com
Steven Fisher
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> But they are. Various apps that have even scantily clad women have been
> killed by the Apps store
If porn on your iPhone matters so much to you, view it over the web via
HTML5 video. Or install it on your iPad via iTunes.
I'm sure you can think of more clever ways, too. You could probably do
it with email or a MobileMe public disk, for instance.
Steve
Todd Allcock
> In article <Xns9D54B54138B...@216.250.188.140>,
> Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>
> If I wanted to have porn apps, I'd get them somewhere other than on my
Porn is just a convenient excuse to not allow apps outside the app store,
and slaughter the 30% app store cash cow. Look at the context in the Q&A-
no one asked about porn- the question was "can we run _unsigned_ apps?"
and the answer was "You know, there's a porn store for Android..."
You may not call it censorship, Michelle, but the implication seemed
pretty clear- "if we don't censor the apps for you, who will?"
Jolly Roger
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
All the apps I want are there, I can write my own if needed, and that's
all that matters to me.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Jolly Roger
Jim Gibson <jimsg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <michelle-18F1DA...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <54SdneQcy47L6CPW...@giganews.com>,
> > Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > > If I wanted to have porn apps, I'd get them somewhere other than on my
> > > > iPhone. It's not as if Apple were censoring porn.
> > >
> > > But they are. Various apps that have even scantily clad women have been
> > > killed by the Apps store
> >
> > You can get it elsewhere, so they are not censoring it. If they were the
> > only place you could possibly get it, and they refused to sell it, then
> > they would be censoring it.
>
> That is not the definition of "censor":
*BIG FUCKING YAWN*
Who cares...
Todd Allcock
> In article <FiAvn.97505$mn6....@newsfe07.iad>,
> Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > store, and slaughter the 30% app store cash cow.
>
running
> and maintaining the servers out of that 30%.
Mobile app stores existed, albeit on a much smaller scale, before there
was an iPhone, and operated on similar gross margin (30-40% of sales.)
They had to pay for their servers and credit card fees, etc., just like
Apple. Stores like Pocket Gear and Handango, who were profitable at these
margins, are still in business today, and IIRC, between them have had
less than 10 million downloads in their entire years of existance. Apple
just bragged about their 8 _b_illionth, didn't they?
Are we to believe that for the first time in hstory, economies of scale
are working against a company? ;)
nospam
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> On a $0.99 app, Apple actually loses money.
nonsense. 30 cents is more than enough for the credit card fees and
whatever bandwidth is needed to download the app. it's not like they're
particularly big.
salgud
> In article <080420101846131376%jimsg...@gmail.com>,
> Jim Gibson <jimsg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes it is a matter of the definition. What is your definition of
>> "censor" that does not include what Apple is doing?
>
> When an entity has complete control over a medium, and prohibits or
> curtails information exchange, that is censoring. Examples include the
> military reading all outgoing mail from a war zone to block items that
> could give away military secrets, prison personnel reading all outgoing and
> incoming mail from prisoners to block what they don't want passed. The
> federal government not allowing porn on broadcast radio or TV would be
> limited censorship, limited because it controls the airwaves. However, a
> network deciding on its own not to broadcast porn is not censorship.
>
> But a store deciding what it wants to sell or not sell is not censorship
> unless that store was the only medium for distributing that product. A
> publisher deciding not to publish porn is not censorship.
Your own definiton of censorship is contradictory. First you say that "when
an entity has complete control over a medium" that it's censorship. But
then you say
>The federal government not allowing porn on broadcast radio or TV would be
> limited censorship, limited because it controls the airwaves
would be "limited" censorship.
Further, no one ever truly has "complete control" over a medium. In every
example you cite, there are alternatives. In prisons, there are
"underground" conduits for cigarettes, drugs, and I'm sure, porn. As far as
the airwaves go, there have always been, and will always be, illegal
transmitters who operate without FCC (in this country) permission. So no
one can ever have "complete control".
Your store owner who doesn't sell porn is practicing your own definition of
"limited" censorship, which, is in fact, the only kind of censorship that
actually exists. No one has complete control over any medium, much less
over an entire society. Anyone attempting to censor anyone is exercising
"limited censorship".
Ergo, the iSteve is practicing "limted" censorship over the domain within
his control to the best of his ability. And that's the only kind of
censorship he can exert, just like anyone else. So the iSteve is censoring
porn, like it or not.
All that being said, I don't really care. I don't need to look at porn on
my iPhone. But I did a little experiment before posting, and tried to get
some porn on my iPhone, assuming it would be no problem just to Google for
some and look at it. Strangely, I failed to do so. The first site I looked
at wouldn't load fully, and I realized it was a flash site. Guessing that
there must me special sites that didn't use Flash, I first Googled for
"non-flash porn", and then for "iPhone porn". Strangely, while I found
both, the sites I tried would load, but wouldn't actually display the
videos. I kept getting pages with endless lines of text characters (all
kinds, not just alpha, but not words) and then it kicked out of Safari
entirely, back to the iPhone page where Safari resides. Strange.
So I don't know if there's some built-in "feature" in Safari for iPhone to
filter for porn or what. Seems unlikely. But I just don't have any more
time to devote to this exercise. I'm glad I don't really want or need to
access porn on my iPhone, because it appears I can't! At least not easily.
Not Me
Like the Supremes, the iPhone knows porn when it 'sees' it.
Todd Allcock
"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnhruplk....@cerebus.local...
> In message <michelle-07C665...@news.eternal-september.org>
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>> In article <FiAvn.97505$mn6....@newsfe07.iad>,
>> Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>>> store, and slaughter the 30% app store cash cow.
>
>> running
>> and maintaining the servers out of that 30%.
>
But they make it up in volume! ;)
I don't believe for a second Apple is losing money on a 99-cent app.
There's a whole online sales infrastructure used by multiple companies
designed around 99-cent sales: the MP3 download business. The margins on
that aren't much different than apps, and in Apple's case, they've leveraged
the pre-existing iTunes infrastructure to also sell apps from the same
store. (I understand they had to make changes, increase capacity, etc., but
they were in a better position, already being in the micropayment business,
than, for example, Google was with the Android Market.
Adrian C
> If I wanted to have porn apps, I'd get them somewhere other than on my
> iPhone. It's not as if Apple were censoring porn.
>
It's OK.
We have let the critics lead the song and dance about the iPhone
platform's lack of 'crucial' things like cut and paste and multitasking.
We now (or are to) have these after (no doubt) the furore caused by not
having these things when the thing was born.
So the next crucial thing should be porn applications, they say. Well
let the bear-breasted bleating commence and next year iPhone OS 5.0
_will_ have porn apps.
It will be spun as something groundbreaking "which has until now proved
elusive on mobile devices" by Jobs, while surrounded on stage by near
naked bunny girls, a collective of madame dominatrix and other erotica.
"Ladies and JellySpoons, I give you the iPorn...."
--
Adrian C
salgud
Hey, where do I get my ticket! Don't want to miss that one!!
Alan Browne
> In article<54SdneQcy47L6CPW...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> If I wanted to have porn apps, I'd get them somewhere other than on my
>>> iPhone. It's not as if Apple were censoring porn.
>>
>> But they are. Various apps that have even scantily clad women have been
>> killed by the Apps store
>
> only place you could possibly get it, and they refused to sell it, then
> they would be censoring it.
>
> might not sell them; I don't know.) That didn't mean they were censoring
> those magazines.
>
>
> it's not censorship.
You're capable of much better replies than that weak soup.
The point is that it is MY iPad, not Apple's.
Alan Browne
What an inane reply. All that you want is all that the world wants.
Jolly Robot is more like it. You're due for a Kool-Aid change.
Alan Browne
> In article<FiAvn.97505$mn6....@newsfe07.iad>,
> Todd Allcock<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> store, and slaughter the 30% app store cash cow.
>
> and maintaining the servers out of that 30%.
So what. A profit center is a profit center no matter what the
overhead. And in the case of the Apps store its quite minimal v. the
cashflow.
Walled gardens keep the sheeple in.
nospam
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>> If I wanted to have porn apps, I'd get them somewhere other than on my
> >>> iPhone. It's not as if Apple were censoring porn.
> >>
> >> But they are. Various apps that have even scantily clad women have been
> >> killed by the Apps store
> >
> > You can get it elsewhere, so they are not censoring it. If they were the
> > only place you could possibly get it, and they refused to sell it, then
> > they would be censoring it.
> >
> > At one time 7-Eleven refused to sell Playboy and Penthouse. (They still
> > might not sell them; I don't know.) That didn't mean they were censoring
> > those magazines.
> >
> > It's a matter of the definition of "censor", and Apple is not censoring.
> >
> > I am not saying that Apple is right not to sell those apps; I'm saying that
> > it's not censorship.
>
> You're capable of much better replies than that weak soup.
>
> The point is that it is MY iPad, not Apple's.
i thought you weren't going to get an ipad because it doesn't have usb
ports and a hard drive. when did you change your mind?
in any event, you can put whatever content that you want onto an ipad,
ipod, iphone or laptop computer. nobody is stopping you. however, if
you want porn, you'll need to find it from someplace other than apple.
Alan Browne
The point is not content. The point is that __apps__ that deliver
"unsavoury" (in Apple's eyes) content will not be permitted.
That is the point.
They are controlling what Apps one can purchase to run on their own
property. That is another consequence of the walled garden.
That they are keeping Google at arms length on the iPhone via the Apps
store (over voice service offerings) just shows the Apple drive to keep
people inside the walled garden.
Apple has become what they claimed to free people from in their seminal
1984 commercial.
It is irony to the point of tears!
You see, while this walled garden was not very objectionable for the
iPhone (it's a phone, after all) it is increasingly objectionable in a
larger device with a larger potential as a computer.
Jolly Roger
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
How silly you are. Your assumption that nobody else is satisfied with
the way the iPhone and apps already works clearly doesn't reflect
reality. The fact is most iPhone users are completely satisfied.
Do you even own an iPhone? If not, you can shut the fuck up now.
Jolly Roger
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 10-04-08 20:48 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article<54SdneQcy47L6CPW...@giganews.com>,
> > Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>> If I wanted to have porn apps, I'd get them somewhere other than on my
> >>> iPhone. It's not as if Apple were censoring porn.
> >>
> >> But they are. Various apps that have even scantily clad women have been
> >> killed by the Apps store
> >
> > You can get it elsewhere, so they are not censoring it. If they were the
> > only place you could possibly get it, and they refused to sell it, then
> > they would be censoring it.
> >
> > At one time 7-Eleven refused to sell Playboy and Penthouse. (They still
> > might not sell them; I don't know.) That didn't mean they were censoring
> > those magazines.
> >
> > It's a matter of the definition of "censor", and Apple is not censoring.
> >
> > I am not saying that Apple is right not to sell those apps; I'm saying that
> > it's not censorship.
>
> You're capable of much better replies than that weak soup.
>
> The point is that it is MY iPad, not Apple's.
You're the only one here bitching and moaning about it. If you think
most of us care, you're mistaken.
If you want to make a difference, I suggest you direct your gripes to
Apple - the only entity in a position to change things.
Alan Browne
> In article<aMydnUWOSr0_ESLW...@giganews.com>,
Does the heading of this NG mean anything to you or has the Kool Aid
burned those neurons out? If the sheep like you are happy with the Apps
store where a more general computing device like the iPad is concerned
then I can only pity your imprisonment.
The iPad is NOT an iPhone by a long shot.
> Do you even own an iPhone? If not, you can shut the fuck up now.
My son does. Marvelous device. He broke it however - still works as a
phone - but is difficult to read. Ah well - I just did his taxes and
he'll be able to get either or both (and pay me his contribution for his
Mac book too).
If you think your use of 4 letter words is effective, that's your problem.
Walter Bushell
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
Actually bigger companies tend to be less efficient and economies of
scale work against them.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Jolly Roger
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 10-04-09 16:50 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> > In article<aMydnUWOSr0_ESLW...@giganews.com>,
> > Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10-04-09 8:35 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>
> >>> All the apps I want are there, I can write my own if needed, and that's
> >>> all that matters to me.
> >>
> >> What an inane reply. All that you want is all that the world wants.
> >>
> >> Jolly Robot is more like it. You're due for a Kool-Aid change.
> >
> > How silly you are. Your assumption that nobody else is satisfied with
> > the way the iPhone and apps already works clearly doesn't reflect
> > reality. The fact is most iPhone users are completely satisfied.
>
> Does the heading of this NG mean anything to you or has the Kool Aid
> burned those neurons out? If the sheep like you are happy with the Apps
> store where a more general computing device like the iPad is concerned
> then I can only pity your imprisonment.
>
> The iPad is NOT an iPhone by a long shot.
*YAWN* You are truly boring.
How silly you are. Your assumption that nobody else is satisfied with
the way the iPhone OS apps already work clearly doesn't reflect
reality. The fact is most iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad users are
completely satisfied. The market proves it.
Is that better for you, you silly, silly man?
> > Do you even own an iPhone? If not, you can shut the fuck up now.
>
> My son does. Marvelous device. He broke it however - still works as a
> phone - but is difficult to read. Ah well - I just did his taxes and
> he'll be able to get either or both (and pay me his contribution for his
> Mac book too).
>
> If you think your use of 4 letter words is effective, that's your problem.
Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass how my four-letter words effect you. I
use them to express myself, and for that use, they are plenty effective
for me.
Want another?
Fuck.
Want more?
Fuckety fuck fucking fuck fucker.
Just lemme know whenever you are in the mood. I'm down any time.
Jolly Roger
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Just lemme know whenever you are in the mood. I'm down any time.
And if you want more variety, just say so. Plenty more where that came
from.
nospam
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> The iPad is NOT an iPhone by a long shot.
no way! say it isn't so.
Wes Groleau
What's important is whether or not what they are doing is bad.
There is nothing evil about the word itself.
If they are doing a bad thing and you call it "feeding the hungry,"
they'll STILL be doing a bad thing.
If they are not doing a bad thing and you call it murder,
it doesn't become a bad thing.
--
Wes Groleau
"What DO they teach in these schools?"
-- Prof. Digory Clarke
Wes Groleau
> We have let the critics lead the song and dance about the iPhone
> platform's lack of 'crucial' things like cut and paste and multitasking.
But it HAS and HAD cut and paste!
Very clumsy, but it was in there.
--
Wes Groleau
"A man with an experience is never
at the mercy of a man with an argument."
-- Ron Allen
Jolly Roger
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-B6E6C...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Want more?
> >
> > Fuckety fuck fucking fuck fucker.
>
> Um, only 40% of those are four-letter words.
Like I fuckin' care. : )
Jolly Roger
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-A89F2...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Want more?
> > > >
> > > > Fuckety fuck fucking fuck fucker.
> > >
> > > Um, only 40% of those are four-letter words.
> >
> > Like I fuckin' care. : )
>
> If you're going to promise four-letter words, you need to deliver more than
> 40%; otherwise, it's false advertising.
In your opinion, maybe. I said I would give him some more four letter
words, and I did. : )
nospam
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> On a $0.99 app, Apple actually loses money.
>
> > nonsense. 30 cents is more than enough for the credit card fees and
> > whatever bandwidth is needed to download the app. it's not like they're
> > particularly big.
>
> Have you ever had a merchant account for credit card processing?
>
> there's a percentage fee, but there is also a transaction fee which is
> usually in the 25-35¢ range.
do you really think that with apple's sheer volume of transactions that
they haven't negotiated something less than that, particularly for 99
cent transactions? if apple was really losing money on a 99c sale,
they'd have made the minimum $1.99 or even $2.99.
plus, if the person buys more than one app (or song) there is only one
transaction fee for the lot rather than one per item.
Todd Allcock
> How silly you are. Your assumption that nobody else is satisfied with
> the way the iPhone and apps already works clearly doesn't reflect
> reality. The fact is most iPhone users are completely satisfied.
Actually you're being silly now- being satisfied with the iPhone doesn't
mean you love everything about, or agree philosophically with all of its
design decisions. My wife loves her iPhone, more than any phone she's
ever owned. She _hates_ the soft keyboard with an unbridled passion, and
hates the (current) lack of multitasking even though she probably does't
know what multitasking is- she just knows on her previous smartphones she
could stream audio and read email at the same time.
Would she go back to her old phone with multitasking and a QWERTY
keyboard? Not on your life. The totality of the experience makes the
iPhone her favorite. But it certainly doesn't mean she loves everything
about it.
Similarly, satisfaction with the iPhone doesn't necessarily mean you love
the walled garden and Apple's censorship- it means you're willing to
tolerate them.
Todd Allcock
Personally, I'd argue the inefficiencies due to large size (increasing
expenses), and the economies of scale (reducing costs) are separate
forces that often act on the same companies.
Jolly Roger
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> At 09 Apr 2010 15:50:56 -0500 Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>
> > How silly you are. Your assumption that nobody else is satisfied with
> > the way the iPhone and apps already works clearly doesn't reflect
> > reality. The fact is most iPhone users are completely satisfied.
>
> Actually you're being silly now-
Am I being silly now?
Show me the overwhelming majority of iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch users who
are upset that Apple controls which applications run on their devices
then. Show me these millions of people who disagree with that policy
please. And if you can't, then you can take your "silly" and shove it.
The fact is the majority of Apple's customers are quite happy with
Apple's policy. And the market proves it.
[snipped non-related stuff that has no impact on the specific discussion
about Apple's control over applications on the platform]
>
> Similarly, satisfaction with the iPhone doesn't necessarily mean you love
> the walled garden and Apple's censorship- it means you're willing to
> tolerate them.
Nope. Wrong.
Like most of Apple's customers, I don't "tolerate" Apple's decision to
control applications that run on the iPhone - I support it fully,
appreciate the benefits of it, and know that history proves Apple
usually does the right thing by customers in the end.
Per Rønne
> In article <FiAvn.97505$mn6....@newsfe07.iad>,
> Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > Porn is just a convenient excuse to not allow apps outside the app
> > store, and slaughter the 30% app store cash cow.
>
> Cash cow? Apple pays sales tax,
Certainly not.
If I pay 100 Danish kroner for an application, 20 of these kroner is
sales tax [VAT]. Apple will then get 30% af 80 Dkr, 24 Dkr, and the
developer the remaining 56.
The VAT is 25% in Denmark. BTW, companies have a VAT refund ...
> credit card fees,
I don't know about these fees.
> and the cost of running maintaining the servers out of that 30%.
--
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe
Per Rønne
> • Features like multitasking are not available on earlier devices
> because the hardware simply couldn't support it. Older hardware will still
> get the upgrade, but it will be lacking features like multitasking, which
> was only announced for the iPhone 3GS (summer), third-gen iPod touch
> (summer), and iPad (this fall).
Nevertheless, multitasking [well: the ability to run 3rd party
applications in the background] can be introduced to older iPhones - if
you jailbreak them. I haven't heard that gave problems.
--
Per Erik Rønne
Per Rønne
> In news:michelle-CF93C5...@news.eternal-september.org
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> > Jobs responded to Ryan Block of gdgt by noting that there is a "porn
> > store" for Google's Android mobile operating system, Apple's chief
> > competitor in the mobile device and application space. "You can
> > download it, your kids can download it," the CEO said. "That's a place
> > we don't want to go, so we're not going to."
>
> So neither can you.
Actually, nothing prevents people to load porn /documents/ to their
iPhones or iPads. And for sure, you can find application programs that
can handle them.
Personally, I see no reason to place such documents on /my/ devices.
Per Rønne
> They are controlling what Apps one can purchase to run on their own
> property.
Well, you cannot purchase MyWi in Apple's AppStore. But you can buy it
elsewhere and install in on your iPhone afterwards - you just have to
jailbreak it first ...
Todd Allcock
> > > Have you ever had a merchant account for credit card processing?
> > >
> > > there's a percentage fee, but there is also a transaction fee which
is
> > > usually in the 25-35¢ range.
> >
> > do you really think that with apple's sheer volume of transactions
that
> > they haven't negotiated something less than that, particularly for 99
> > cent transactions? if apple was really losing money on a 99c sale,
> > they'd have made the minimum $1.99 or even $2.99.
>
> There's a reason that Apple doesn't run your charge immediately when
you
> buy an app. Most people will buy more than one app at a time, and when
> Apple runs your charge (usually within 24-48 hours, most transactions
> (the vast majority) are over $1.
>
> If it's a single purchase for 99¢ the developer gets 70¢ and Apple gets
> 29¢. 8.75¢ of that goes to pay sales tax, leaving 20.25¢. Of that,
> somewhere around 17-18¢ goes to the credit card company (because Apple
> gets much better rates than you or I could).
As I explained in an earlier post, I had a single store with a merchant
account that had no per-transaction fee- just the percentage and a
monthly fee. It was the reason I chose the bank I chose- they offeed a
comparitively sweet deal for processing combined with other services,
like maintaining a minimum balance in the business checking account, etc.
There's no way on Jobs' Green Earth that Apple would use a processor who
charged them $0.17 per transaction. Apple isn't you or I- they're
runnings millions of transactions and millions of dollars and processing
is a very competitive market of banks vying for their business.
Why would you think a company like Apple, who is able to dictate
components pricing to parts manufacturers would somehow fold like a tent
in front of a bank and pay the same sucker fees you or I would?
> That 2.25-3.25¢ 'profit'
> doesn't pay for maintaining the iTMS, paying bandwidth costs, etc.
Sales tax doesn't come out of the purchase price, and credit card fees
are probably $0.02, $0.03 tops. That leaves Apple $0.27 to pay for
everything else.
> So yes, Apple loses money on every purchase of a single 99¢ app.
Not on a bet. Mrs. Jobs didn't raise any foolish children. You think
WalMart or Target are paying a per-transaction fee?
> > plus, if the person buys more than one app (or song) there is only one
> > transaction fee for the lot rather than one per item.
>
> Exactly why Apple allows 99¢ apps at all.
That and the $0.27 gross profit...
Todd Allcock
> In article <b9Vvn.148801$0N3....@newsfe09.iad>,
> Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > At 09 Apr 2010 15:50:56 -0500 Jolly Roger wrote:
> >
> >
> > > How silly you are. Your assumption that nobody else is satisfied
with
> > > the way the iPhone and apps already works clearly doesn't reflect
> > > reality. The fact is most iPhone users are completely satisfied.
> >
> > Actually you're being silly now-
>
> Am I being silly now?
>
> Show me the overwhelming majority of iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch users who
> are upset that Apple controls which applications run on their devices
> then. Show me these millions of people who disagree with that policy
> please. And if you can't, then you can take your "silly" and shove it.
I doubt "millions" care one way or the other. I suspect most blissfully
have no idea apps are rejected, or some apps are removed from the store
after a policy change.
I presume the vast majority don't notice or care, because it doesn't
affect them, and a small minority dislike but accept it (or jailbreak it!)
What I doubt is that any majority wake up every morning like you
apparently do and get on their knees and thank Apple for "protecting"
them from unsavory apps or the horrible inconveniences of duplicated core
functionality! ;)
> The fact is the majority of Apple's customers are quite happy with
> Apple's policy. And the market proves it.
That proves nothing. It could just as easily "prove" they're ignorant
of it, or not concerned enough to do anything about it.
Using your logic, Toyota sales "prove" Toyota owners don't mind unsafe
cars- even that they actually _prefer_ them, since, after all, Toyota
leads in market share here in the US.
> > Similarly, satisfaction with the iPhone doesn't necessarily mean you
love
> > the walled garden and Apple's censorship- it means you're willing to
> > tolerate them.
>
> Nope. Wrong.
>
> Like most of Apple's customers, I don't "tolerate" Apple's decision to
> control applications that run on the iPhone - I support it fully,
> appreciate the benefits of it, and know that history proves Apple
> usually does the right thing by customers in the end.
And all 50 million other iPhone customers think exactly like you do, of
course.
Jolly Roger
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> At 10 Apr 2010 09:41:57 -0500 Jolly Roger wrote:
> > In article <b9Vvn.148801$0N3....@newsfe09.iad>,
> > Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> >
> > > At 09 Apr 2010 15:50:56 -0500 Jolly Roger wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > How silly you are. Your assumption that nobody else is
> > > > satisfied with the way the iPhone and apps already works
> > > > clearly doesn't reflect reality. The fact is most iPhone users
> > > > are completely satisfied.
> > >
> > > Actually you're being silly now-
> >
> > Am I being silly now?
> >
> > Show me the overwhelming majority of iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch users who
> > are upset that Apple controls which applications run on their devices
> > then. Show me these millions of people who disagree with that policy
> > please. And if you can't, then you can take your "silly" and shove it.
>
> I doubt "millions" care one way or the other. I suspect most blissfully
> have no idea apps are rejected, or some apps are removed from the store
> after a policy change.
>
> I presume the vast majority don't notice or care, because it doesn't
> affect them, and a small minority dislike but accept it (or jailbreak it!)
Yes, they are satisfied, because they have all they need.
> What I doubt is that any majority wake up every morning like you
> apparently do and get on their knees and thank Apple for "protecting"
> them from unsavory apps or the horrible inconveniences of duplicated core
> functionality! ;)
You're silly. I don't get on my knees to thank anyone. I simply
appreciate what Apple is trying to do. If you don't, fine - vote with
your wallet. But as you can see, again, most people are satisfied with
Apple's control.
Apple isn't under some obligation to allow any Joe Blow's application to
run on their platform. Apple built this platform from the ground up, and
Apple has full control over what they will allow to run on it. That's
just the way it is. And it's obviously working well for Apple.
> > The fact is the majority of Apple's customers are quite happy with
> > Apple's policy. And the market proves it.
>
> That proves nothing. It could just as easily "prove" they're ignorant
> of it, or not concerned enough to do anything about it.
Nope. If they weren't satisfied, they'd return them and Apple would have
less customers as time goes on.
> Using your logic, Toyota sales "prove" Toyota owners don't mind unsafe
> cars- even that they actually _prefer_ them, since, after all, Toyota
> leads in market share here in the US.
Nope. Wrong again. Most of Toyota's customers are satisfied with their
purchase.
> > > Similarly, satisfaction with the iPhone doesn't necessarily mean
> > > you love the walled garden and Apple's censorship- it means
> > > you're willing to tolerate them.
> >
> > Nope. Wrong.
> >
> > Like most of Apple's customers, I don't "tolerate" Apple's decision to
> > control applications that run on the iPhone - I support it fully,
> > appreciate the benefits of it, and know that history proves Apple
> > usually does the right thing by customers in the end.
>
> And all 50 million other iPhone customers think exactly like you do, of
> course.
Poll after poll shows most of the 50 million are satisfied. That's a
fact - not my opinion.
Per Rønne
> In article <g.kreme-100C71...@news.iad.newshosting.com>,
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontemailme> wrote:
>
> > If it's a single purchase for 99¢ the developer gets 70¢ and Apple gets
> > 29¢. 8.75¢ of that goes to pay sales tax, leaving 20.25¢.
>
> Actually, the sales tax is tacked on to the charge. (I was wrong about
> this in a previous message.) If I buy a 99¢ app from the App Store, I'm
> charged $1.07, and the eight cents goes to the state. If I buy ten 99¢
> apps, I'm charged $10.67 and the 88¢ goes to the state.
This is not the case in all national AppStores. In Denmark [and I think
it is the same in all of the European Union] the sales price listed for
customers has to be the price the customers have to pay, sales tax [VAT]
and other duties have to be included in the price.
The only exception is goods meant for business customers only. They
don't pay VAT for what they purchase - or at least they get a refund.
But on the other hand they have to collect VAT on everything they sell.
Per Rønne
> In article <michelle-01967A...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <g.kreme-100C71...@news.iad.newshosting.com>,
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontemailme> wrote:
> >
> > > If it's a single purchase for 99¢ the developer gets 70¢ and Apple gets
> > > 29¢. 8.75¢ of that goes to pay sales tax, leaving 20.25¢.
> >
> > Actually, the sales tax is tacked on to the charge. (I was wrong about
> > this in a previous message.) If I buy a 99¢ app from the App Store, I'm
> > charged $1.07, and the eight cents goes to the state. If I buy ten 99¢
> > apps, I'm charged $10.67 and the 88¢ goes to the state. So the tax money
> > does not come out of the 30%.
>
> My itunes receipts for $0.99 apps are charged $0.99, there is no added
> sales tax.
I guess you live in another state [if not another country] than Michelle
Steiner ...
Todd Allcock
> In article <fxawn.72$0_7...@newsfe25.iad>,
> Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > I doubt "millions" care one way or the other. I suspect most
blissfully
> > have no idea apps are rejected, or some apps are removed from the
store
> > after a policy change.
> >
> > I presume the vast majority don't notice or care, because it doesn't
> > affect them, and a small minority dislike but accept it (or jailbreak
it!)
>
> Yes, they are satisfied, because they have all they need.
>
> > What I doubt is that any majority wake up every morning like you
> > apparently do and get on their knees and thank Apple for "protecting"
> > them from unsavory apps or the horrible inconveniences of duplicated
core
> > functionality! ;)
>
> You're silly. I don't get on my knees to thank anyone. I simply
> appreciate what Apple is trying to do. If you don't, fine - vote with
> your wallet. But as you can see, again, most people are satisfied with
> Apple's control.
"My phone right or wrong?" Can't someone only appreciate 90% of what
Apple tries to do? Or 80%? As I said, my wife dislikes a very small
number of things about the iPhone (particularly the soft keyboard), but
loves it as a whole. Is she not fit to be a member of the cult that
requires owners to agree with all design decisions?
> Apple isn't under some obligation to allow any Joe Blow's application
to
> run on their platform. Apple built this platform from the ground up,
and
> Apple has full control over what they will allow to run on it. That's
> just the way it is. And it's obviously working well for Apple.
I never said it didn't. Just that not all users appreciate it as much as
you do, and for most of those that don't it's not a deal-breaker.
> > > The fact is the majority of Apple's customers are quite happy with
> > > Apple's policy. And the market proves it.
> >
> > That proves nothing. It could just as easily "prove" they're
ignorant
> > of it, or not concerned enough to do anything about it.
>
> Nope. If they weren't satisfied, they'd return them and Apple would
have
> less customers as time goes on.
Jeez, and you wonder why some of us make Kool-Aid jokes! People enjoy a
product because of the totality of the experience. The iPhone is no
different. Most people will like some, probably most of it a lot, and
some of it less. Do you really think all of the iPhone user base, even
the extremely satisfied ones, wouldn't change a single thing about i they
could?
> > Using your logic, Toyota sales "prove" Toyota owners don't mind unsafe
> > cars- even that they actually _prefer_ them, since, after all, Toyota
> > leads in market share here in the US.
>
> Nope. Wrong again. Most of Toyota's customers are satisfied with their
> purchase.
Exactly my point (I'm one of them.) Using your logic, however, I must be
happy that I wasted an afternoon at my dealer getting recall work done
because I'm "satified." Or that I preferred that my older Camry didn't
have an adjustable intermittent wiper setting, like most other cars,
because I was "satisfied." Toyota's hardwired intermittent speed setting
must have been the correct one for all of us, or everyone would've traded-
in their mid-90s Camry in for Hondas.
> > > > Similarly, satisfaction with the iPhone doesn't necessarily mean
> > > > you love the walled garden and Apple's censorship- it means
> > > > you're willing to tolerate them.
> > >
> > > Nope. Wrong.
> > >
> > > Like most of Apple's customers, I don't "tolerate" Apple's decision
to
> > > control applications that run on the iPhone - I support it fully,
> > > appreciate the benefits of it, and know that history proves Apple
> > > usually does the right thing by customers in the end.
> >
> > And all 50 million other iPhone customers think exactly like you do,
of
> > course.
>
> Poll after poll shows most of the 50 million are satisfied. That's a
> fact - not my opinion.
Understood. Again, "satisfied" <> "agree with/enjoy every facet of the
device and its ecosystem."
Walter Bushell
The companies IIUC pay a VAT on everything they buy and get a refund
when they sell it. What they use they don't get a refund for. This works
because everyone in the chain before them has paid VAT on output minus
input price, and this tends to be self enforcing.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Per Rønne
> In article <1jgrwh0.6rfg8u14k8x43N%p...@RQNNE.invalid>,
> p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:
>
> > Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <g.kreme-100C71...@news.iad.newshosting.com>,
> > > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontemailme> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If it's a single purchase for 99¢ the developer gets 70¢ and Apple gets
> > > > 29¢. 8.75¢ of that goes to pay sales tax, leaving 20.25¢.
> > >
> > > Actually, the sales tax is tacked on to the charge. (I was wrong about
> > > this in a previous message.) If I buy a 99¢ app from the App Store, I'm
> > > charged $1.07, and the eight cents goes to the state. If I buy ten 99¢
> > > apps, I'm charged $10.67 and the 88¢ goes to the state.
> >
> > This is not the case in all national AppStores. In Denmark [and I think
> > it is the same in all of the European Union] the sales price listed for
> > customers has to be the price the customers have to pay, sales tax [VAT]
> > and other duties have to be included in the price.
> >
> > The only exception is goods meant for business customers only. They
> > don't pay VAT for what they purchase - or at least they get a refund.
> > But on the other hand they have to collect VAT on everything they sell.
>
> The companies IIUC pay a VAT on everything they buy and get a refund
> when they sell it. What they use they don't get a refund for. This works
> because everyone in the chain before them has paid VAT on output minus
> input price, and this tends to be self enforcing.
Not so in the EU. The VAT the companies have to pay to the tax from what
they have sold is reduced reduced with the amount of VAT they have paid
when they purchased goods.
"What they use" may be electricity, computers, raw materials etc. All of
these goods are used in the production of goods sold.
It is the increased value that is taxed.
John McWilliams
> At 11 Apr 2010 00:27:21 -0500 Jolly Roger wrote:
>> You're silly. I don't get on my knees to thank anyone. I simply
>> appreciate what Apple is trying to do. If you don't, fine - vote with
>> your wallet. But as you can see, again, most people are satisfied with
>> Apple's control.
>
> "My phone right or wrong?" Can't someone only appreciate 90% of what
> Apple tries to do? Or 80%? As I said, my wife dislikes a very small
> number of things about the iPhone (particularly the soft keyboard), but
> loves it as a whole. Is she not fit to be a member of the cult that
> requires owners to agree with all design decisions?
You're trying to paint those who agree with Apple's methods as cultist,
and those who do not like every single facet of the phone as the only
reasonable folk around. (Then there are those who hate everything Apple,
but that doesn't pertain here. I hope.) In reality, there's a lot of
ground towards the middle that I think most of us occupy.
--
john mcwilliams
Jolly Roger
John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
He's a "everything is black & white" sorta guy, though! ; )
Jolly Roger
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > Apple isn't under some obligation to allow any Joe Blow's
> > application to run on their platform. Apple built this platform
> > from the ground up, and Apple has full control over what they will
> > allow to run on it. That's just the way it is. And it's obviously working well for Apple.
>
> I never said it didn't. Just that not all users appreciate it as much as
> you do, and for most of those that don't it's not a deal-breaker.
Good to hear.
And to those unfortunate souls, I give my best "Meh".
Jolly Roger
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > > > The fact is the majority of Apple's customers are quite happy
> > > > with Apple's policy. And the market proves it.
> > >
> > > That proves nothing. It could just as easily "prove" they're
> > > ignorant of it, or not concerned enough to do anything about it.
> >
> > Nope. If they weren't satisfied, they'd return them and Apple would
> > have less customers as time goes on.
> Jeez, and you wonder why some of us make Kool-Aid jokes! People enjoy a
> product because of the totality of the experience. The iPhone is no
> different. Most people will like some, probably most of it a lot, and
> some of it less. Do you really think all of the iPhone user base, even
> the extremely satisfied ones, wouldn't change a single thing about i they
> could?
You're so funny. I didn't say all iPhone users, and we aren't talking
about every single aspect of the iPhone. Stop trying to make this an
all-inclusive discussion when it's not.
We are talking about Apple's app policy, remember? And with respect to
Apple's app policy, I am abso-fuckin-lutely saying that the majority of
Apple's customers are satisfied with it.
No Kool-Aid here - just facts.
Jolly Roger
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > > Using your logic, Toyota sales "prove" Toyota owners don't mind unsafe
> > > cars- even that they actually _prefer_ them, since, after all, Toyota
> > > leads in market share here in the US.
> >
> > Nope. Wrong again. Most of Toyota's customers are satisfied with their
> > purchase.
>
> Exactly my point (I'm one of them.) Using your logic, however, I must be
> happy that I wasted an afternoon at my dealer getting recall work done
> because I'm "satified." Or that I preferred that my older Camry didn't
> have an adjustable intermittent wiper setting, like most other cars,
> because I was "satisfied." Toyota's hardwired intermittent speed setting
> must have been the correct one for all of us, or everyone would've traded-
> in their mid-90s Camry in for Hondas.
Again, stop trying to make this a conversation about all aspects of the
iPhone - it's not. It's about Apple's app policy. The fact is most
customers are happy with it.
Jolly Roger
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
Again, there you go trying to make this discussion into something it's
not. We are talking about Apple's app policy. Please try to stay on
topic.
Until you run your own poll, you don't know what percentage of those 50
million don't agree/enjoy which particular facets of Apple's app policy.
We know that Apple gets great numbers in customer satisfaction polls, so
the onus is on your to provide data that shows a significant number of
customers aren't happy with Apple's app policy if that's what you truly
believe.
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > Poll after poll shows most of the 50 million are satisfied. That's a
> > > fact - not my opinion.
> >
> > Understood. Again, "satisfied" <> "agree with/enjoy every facet of the
> > device and its ecosystem."
>
> Again, there you go trying to make this discussion into something it's
> not. We are talking about Apple's app policy. Please try to stay on
> topic.
*you* cited multiple polls that rate the *overall* satisfaction, not
specific to the app store. why don't *you* stay on topic?
> Until you run your own poll, you don't know what percentage of those 50
> million don't agree/enjoy which particular facets of Apple's app policy.
when did you run your own poll, and where can we see the results?
> We know that Apple gets great numbers in customer satisfaction polls, so
> the onus is on your to provide data that shows a significant number of
> customers aren't happy with Apple's app policy if that's what you truly
> believe.
as noted above, that's an overall rating, not specific to the apps
store or any other one feature.
ask people if they like the fact that apple can reject apps for no
reason as well as play favourites with certain companies and reject
others for basically the same app and i guarantee you will not get a
'wow that's awesome i love it' type of response. not only are there a
*lot* of people who are quite pissed at that, but even some developers
are fed up with it.
then ask them what they think about the new requirement to only use
apple-approved languages and not a cross-platform framework and you
will get an even lower score. that one is getting a lot of publicity,
none of it good. in fact, it is likely to come back and bite them in
the ass.
Todd Allcock
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontemailme> wrote:
>
> > My itunes receipts for $0.99 apps are charged $0.99, there is no added
> > sales tax.
>
> I guess you live in another state [if not another country] than Michelle
> Steiner ...
He might live in a state without an Apple Store. In most US states,
online purchases aren't taxed unless the company has a physical presence
in the state. So, for example, I don't pay tax when buying a book from
Amazon.com, but do when buying the same book from Barnes and Noble's
online store, since they have retail stores in Colorado.
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > > My itunes receipts for $0.99 apps are charged $0.99, there is no added
> > > sales tax.
> >
> > I guess you live in another state [if not another country] than Michelle
> > Steiner ...
>
> He might live in a state without an Apple Store. In most US states,
> online purchases aren't taxed unless the company has a physical presence
> in the state. So, for example, I don't pay tax when buying a book from
> Amazon.com, but do when buying the same book from Barnes and Noble's
> online store, since they have retail stores in Colorado.
apple charges sales tax in all states that have sales tax, even if they
don't have a store there.
Steven Fisher
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> ask people if they like the fact that apple can reject apps for no
> reason as well as play favourites with certain companies and reject
> others for basically the same app and i guarantee you will not get a
> 'wow that's awesome i love it' type of response. not only are there a
> *lot* of people who are quite pissed at that, but even some developers
> are fed up with it.
<snip>
A near perfect example of Yes Minister polling:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo>
Steve
Todd Allcock
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hpss9t$198$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 11 Apr 2010 00:27:21 -0500 Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> You're silly. I don't get on my knees to thank anyone. I simply
>>> appreciate what Apple is trying to do. If you don't, fine - vote with
>>> your wallet. But as you can see, again, most people are satisfied with
>>> Apple's control.
>>
>> "My phone right or wrong?" Can't someone only appreciate 90% of what
>> Apple tries to do? Or 80%? As I said, my wife dislikes a very small
>> number of things about the iPhone (particularly the soft keyboard), but
>> loves it as a whole. Is she not fit to be a member of the cult that
>> requires owners to agree with all design decisions?
>
> You're trying to paint those who agree with Apple's methods as cultist,
No, I'm trying to paint Jolly Roger as a cultist.
> and those who do not like every single facet of the phone as the only
> reasonable folk around.
Not "the only reasonable" just the majority. Not because it's Apple, or
because it's the iPhone, but because it's a unique device with no variants.
Take the iPod, for example- there are several models availalbe in different
form factors. There's one iPhone. It strains credibility to imagine that
every user- even the "completely satisfied" users prefers the exact size,
shape, form factor, and available colors the iPhone is offered in, much less
any more esoteric stuff like app store policies.
Jolly is assuming that all "satisified customers" are as satisfied in every
way as he apparently is, otherwise they'd "vote with their wallet" and buy
something else.
> (Then there are those who hate everything Apple, but that doesn't pertain
> here. I hope.) In reality, there's a lot of ground towards the middle that
> I think most of us occupy.
That's all I'm saying. If Apple, or anyone else, gets a product 80-90%
right, like they did with the iPhone, it's pretty darn easy to overlook the
10% you dislike. Certainly it won't drive you to a vendor that got that 10%
right and ****ed up the rest! ;)
bj
news:110420101033507358%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>
> apple charges sales tax in all states that have sales tax, even if they
> don't have a store there.
>
They certainly charge me tax, and we don't have an Apple store here --
though I hear there's one coming I just don't know when (there was a lot of
argument about the store-front design in a historical district.)
bj
Todd Allcock
"Jolly Roger" <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:jollyroger-A277F...@news.individual.net...
> In article <xyewn.28443$iL1....@newsfe24.iad>,
> Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> > Poll after poll shows most of the 50 million are satisfied. That's a
>> > fact - not my opinion.
>>
>> Understood. Again, "satisfied" <> "agree with/enjoy every facet of the
>> device and its ecosystem."
>
> Again, there you go trying to make this discussion into something it's
> not. We are talking about Apple's app policy. Please try to stay on
> topic.
What topic- regardless of what gets discussed, you bring it back to "most
are satisfied." Do I need to drege up the Rubicon study from 2007 or 2008
that showed a significant percentage of users (I think it was 15% or so)-
even the "satisified" ones wanted a hardware keyboard or keypad added.
(That, obviously, says nothing about app store policy, but only illustrates
there are some things about the device that even "satisifed" users would
change.)
The point is that Apple's app and store policies are transparent to the
majority of users, so they probably don't know or care about it- certainly
not enough to bellyache about it or switch phones. That ignorance or apathy
certainly can't automatically assumed to be approval, just as
"satisifaction" ratings can be blanket-applied to all aspects of the device.
Both of us are simply spouting opinion- neither can "prove" our case with
existing data.
> Until you run your own poll, you don't know what percentage of those 50
> million don't agree/enjoy which particular facets of Apple's app policy.
Correct. Nor can you.
> We know that Apple gets great numbers in customer satisfaction polls, so
> the onus is on your to provide data that shows a significant number of
> customers aren't happy with Apple's app policy if that's what you truly
> believe.
Why? I've never represented my opinion as anything other than opinion. As
I've stated many times in this thread, I doubt the majory of users (who are
quite "satisfied") know or care. As far as "making this discussion into
something it's not," my original comment, (complete with grammatical errors)
was this:
You (to Alan Browne)
> How silly you are. Your assumption that nobody else is satisfied with
> the way the iPhone and apps already works clearly doesn't reflect
> reality. The fact is most iPhone users are completely satisfied.
Me (to you:)
> Actually you're being silly now- being satisfied with the iPhone doesn't
> mean you love everything about, or agree philosophically with all of its
> design decisions.
That's it- no claim that most users with unsatisfied about anything- just a
simple opinion that "satisfied" <> "completely happy with every single
feature, function, limitation and/or policy." I think you'll have a hard
time, polls or no polls, refuting that! ;)
Bert Hyman
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <110420101025478409%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> ask people if they like the fact that apple can reject apps for no
>> reason
>
> That assumes that there is no reason.
When an app is rejected, is the reason always given? Is there an
expectation or requirement that a reason be given?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > ask people if they like the fact that apple can reject apps for no
> > reason
>
> That assumes that there is no reason.
ok, no credible reason.
is google voice really 'still under review' all this time? who are they
fooling?
<http://isgooglevoiceavailablefortheiphone.com/>
> > as well as play favourites with certain companies and reject
> > others for basically the same app
>
> Are you saying that Google Voice and Skype are basically the same app, or
> do you mean some other pair of apps?
line2 and google voice is what i was thinking of, but skype falls into
that category too. there are also the bikini apps from independent
authors that were rejected while big names like playboy remained.
> > then ask them what they think about the new requirement to only use
> > apple-approved languages and not a cross-platform framework and you
> > will get an even lower score.
>
> Most people won't even know what you're talking about.
some will because it's getting a *lot* of publicity over the last few
days, and if their favourite app disappears, they'll want to know why.
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-A277F...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Poll after poll shows most of the 50 million are satisfied. That's a
> > > > fact - not my opinion.
> > >
> > > Understood. Again, "satisfied" <> "agree with/enjoy every facet of the
> > > device and its ecosystem."
> >
> > Again, there you go trying to make this discussion into something it's
> > not. We are talking about Apple's app policy. Please try to stay on
> > topic.
>
> *you* cited multiple polls that rate the *overall* satisfaction, not
> specific to the app store. why don't *you* stay on topic?
To me it seems perfectly logical that if the people being polled were
dissatisfied with Apple's app policy, it would show in polls about
general satisfaction.
Nice try, troll.
> > Until you run your own poll, you don't know what percentage of those 50
> > million don't agree/enjoy which particular facets of Apple's app policy.
>
> when did you run your own poll, and where can we see the results?
See above. People vote with their wallets, and by all measures, people
are happy to spend money on Apple hardware and apps from the Apple app
store. I don't have to prove people are happy with Apple's app policy.
The proof is there for all to see.
Jolly Roger
Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
Yes, of course a reason is given to the developer of the application.
Jolly Roger
"Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
Agreed.
> > Until you run your own poll, you don't know what percentage of those 50
> > million don't agree/enjoy which particular facets of Apple's app policy.
>
> Correct. Nor can you.
We are in agreement.
> > We know that Apple gets great numbers in customer satisfaction polls, so
> > the onus is on your to provide data that shows a significant number of
> > customers aren't happy with Apple's app policy if that's what you truly
> > believe.
>
> Why? I've never represented my opinion as anything other than opinion. As
> I've stated many times in this thread, I doubt the majory of users (who are
> quite "satisfied") know or care. As far as "making this discussion into
> something it's not," my original comment, (complete with grammatical errors)
> was this:
>
> You (to Alan Browne)
>
> > How silly you are. Your assumption that nobody else is satisfied with
> > the way the iPhone and apps already works clearly doesn't reflect
> > reality. The fact is most iPhone users are completely satisfied.
>
> Me (to you:)
>
> > Actually you're being silly now- being satisfied with the iPhone doesn't
> > mean you love everything about, or agree philosophically with all of its
> > design decisions.
>
> That's it- no claim that most users with unsatisfied about anything- just a
> simple opinion that "satisfied" <> "completely happy with every single
> feature, function, limitation and/or policy." I think you'll have a hard
> time, polls or no polls, refuting that! ;)
No, I think we're just mincing words at this point, which is a waste of
time.
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > > Poll after poll shows most of the 50 million are satisfied. That's a
> > > > > fact - not my opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Understood. Again, "satisfied" <> "agree with/enjoy every facet of the
> > > > device and its ecosystem."
> > >
> > > Again, there you go trying to make this discussion into something it's
> > > not. We are talking about Apple's app policy. Please try to stay on
> > > topic.
> >
> > *you* cited multiple polls that rate the *overall* satisfaction, not
> > specific to the app store. why don't *you* stay on topic?
>
> To me it seems perfectly logical that if the people being polled were
> dissatisfied with Apple's app policy, it would show in polls about
> general satisfaction.
people can be generally satisfied while not liking everything about it.
> Nice try, troll.
why is anyone who does not agree with you a troll?
> > > Until you run your own poll, you don't know what percentage of those 50
> > > million don't agree/enjoy which particular facets of Apple's app policy.
> >
> > when did you run your own poll, and where can we see the results?
>
> See above.
in other words, you didn't.
> People vote with their wallets, and by all measures, people
> are happy to spend money on Apple hardware and apps from the Apple app
> store. I don't have to prove people are happy with Apple's app policy.
> The proof is there for all to see.
that doesn't mean they are satisfied with *every* aspect.
Jolly Roger
"Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hpss9t$198$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > Todd Allcock wrote:
> >> At 11 Apr 2010 00:27:21 -0500 Jolly Roger wrote:
> >
> >>> You're silly. I don't get on my knees to thank anyone. I simply
> >>> appreciate what Apple is trying to do. If you don't, fine - vote with
> >>> your wallet. But as you can see, again, most people are satisfied with
> >>> Apple's control.
> >>
> >> "My phone right or wrong?" Can't someone only appreciate 90% of what
> >> Apple tries to do? Or 80%? As I said, my wife dislikes a very small
> >> number of things about the iPhone (particularly the soft keyboard), but
> >> loves it as a whole. Is she not fit to be a member of the cult that
> >> requires owners to agree with all design decisions?
> >
> > You're trying to paint those who agree with Apple's methods as cultist,
>
> No, I'm trying to paint Jolly Roger as a cultist.
Good luck with that.
> > and those who do not like every single facet of the phone as the only
> > reasonable folk around.
>
> Not "the only reasonable" just the majority. Not because it's Apple, or
> because it's the iPhone, but because it's a unique device with no variants.
> Take the iPod, for example- there are several models availalbe in different
> form factors. There's one iPhone. It strains credibility to imagine that
> every user- even the "completely satisfied" users prefers the exact size,
> shape, form factor, and available colors the iPhone is offered in, much less
> any more esoteric stuff like app store policies.
I'm talking about the app store, and you're talking about everything
else under the sun. You keep trying to make it an all-or-nothing thing.
It's not.
> Jolly is assuming that all "satisified customers" are as satisfied in every
> way as he apparently is, otherwise they'd "vote with their wallet" and buy
> something else.
I'm assuming that when someone is asked if they are generally satisfied
with something, if that someone has an issue with part of it (in this
particular case the app store), they will adjust their satisfaction
rating to account for that. Is that an unreasonable assumption in your
opinion?
> > (Then there are those who hate everything Apple, but that doesn't pertain
> > here. I hope.) In reality, there's a lot of ground towards the middle that
> > I think most of us occupy.
>
> That's all I'm saying. If Apple, or anyone else, gets a product 80-90%
> right, like they did with the iPhone, it's pretty darn easy to overlook the
> 10% you dislike. Certainly it won't drive you to a vendor that got that 10%
> right and ****ed up the rest! ;)
No, but if someone asks you if you are satisfied, you might mention at
least part of that 10%, no? I certainly would.
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > When an app is rejected, is the reason always given? Is there an
> > expectation or requirement that a reason be given?
>
> Yes, of course a reason is given to the developer of the application.
not to google, and many times the reason is specious.
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > > ask people if they like the fact that apple can reject apps for no
> > > > reason
> > >
> > > That assumes that there is no reason.
> >
> > ok, no credible reason.
>
> Then you would need to explain in the question why you believe that the
> reason is not credible.
what possible credible reason is there to accept several google voice
apps from third parties, but when google comes out with their own app,
reject not just google's app, but also pull the *other* apps too, ones
which had already been approved?
> > > > then ask them what they think about the new requirement to only use
> > > > apple-approved languages and not a cross-platform framework and you
> > > > will get an even lower score.
> > >
> > > Most people won't even know what you're talking about.
> >
> > some will because it's getting a *lot* of publicity over the last few
> > days, and if their favourite app disappears, they'll want to know why.
>
> The only publicity it's getting is in techie circles.
for now maybe, but how do you think customers are going to react when
the apps they bought stop working and/or disappear from the store with
the next upgrade (possibly before that)?
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > Yes, of course a reason is given to the developer of the application.
> >
> > not to google, and many times the reason is specious.
>
> But Google Voice has not been formally rejected.
technically it hasn't, but let's get real. it doesn't take 8 months to
approve or reject an app, especially when there were third party google
voice apps that had been approved.
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> And "specious" is often
> in the eye of the beholder.
apple rejected an app because it could access an 'objectionable' ebook
(kama sutra). it wasn't even included. they didn't reject apps that did
include it, as well as ship an app (safari) that could access it and
other more offensive material. i would call that specious.
Steven Fisher
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> technically it hasn't, but let's get real. it doesn't take 8 months to
> approve or reject an app, especially when there were third party google
> voice apps that had been approved.
I wonder. See, people outside of Apple have been assuming Apple didn't
want Google to replace the core telephony experience.
But given what we saw in the 4.0 keynote, is it possible Apple was
actually telling the truth? Apple said they wanted to study the problem,
and the Skype on iPhone OS 4.0 demo looked like an answer to the
problems with Google Voice. Is it possible Apple just didn't want the
core telephony experience replaced *poorly*?
I now fully expect Google Voice to ship some time after OS 4.0 ships.
That's assuming that Google retools it to fit into the new SDK, of
course... they might not.
Steve
nospam
Steven Fisher <sdfi...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > technically it hasn't, but let's get real. it doesn't take 8 months to
> > approve or reject an app, especially when there were third party google
> > voice apps that had been approved.
>
> I wonder. See, people outside of Apple have been assuming Apple didn't
> want Google to replace the core telephony experience.
>
> But given what we saw in the 4.0 keynote, is it possible Apple was
> actually telling the truth? Apple said they wanted to study the problem,
> and the Skype on iPhone OS 4.0 demo looked like an answer to the
> problems with Google Voice. Is it possible Apple just didn't want the
> core telephony experience replaced *poorly*?
google voice doesn't need to run in the background like skype does.
google voice forwards to the cellphone (and other phones), so the app
need not be running at all. making a call with google voice will first
initiate a callback to the cellphone and then connect to the dialed
number. again, the app doesn't need to be running while the call is in
progress since as far as the iphone is concerned, it's an ordinary
incoming call.
> I now fully expect Google Voice to ship some time after OS 4.0 ships.
> That's assuming that Google retools it to fit into the new SDK, of
> course... they might not.
hopefully. the web app is not all that wonderful.
Per Rønne
I have just looked up Kama Sutra in Amazon's Kindle Bookstore. There
were 72 hits - number two with the title "KAMA SUTRA-Illustrated (SEX)".
They all run on the Kindle application on Mac, iPhone and iPad ...
Furthermore, an application like GoodReader for iPhone and iPad can take
any pdf-file and show it as a book ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe