Re:Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
by dhh on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:36PM
(#1259949)
So you'd like for the web to be put back in the box and replaced with an AOL Walled Garden of wonder? Freedom can indeed be dangerous, but I'd rather be free to hurt myself than smothered to dead by paternalism.
Re:Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
by clawrencewenham on Monday April 12, 2010 @03:02PM
(#1260012)
The existence of a restricted marketplace doesn't mean the greater internet must become just like it, as if through some kind of relative application of logic.
The internet--and the real world in general--can host a million restricted marketplaces, each designed for specific interests--and still be free in general.
Your reductio ad absurdum is suggesting that the presence of a gated community in the Hamptons means that every neighborhood ought to be gated.
Re:Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
by glhaynes on Monday April 12, 2010 @03:22PM
(#1260072)
The post you're replying to specifically said that it "worked for the web". Nobody's trying to take away the open web.
Re:Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
by flogic on Monday April 12, 2010 @04:33PM
(#1260286)
I believe that forcefully weeding out the crap is detrimental. It's hard to define crap. If a buggy app provides functionality users consider critical, is it crap? Wouldn't it be better to let it evolve into not crap?
This is hardly a strong argument, as the main "intermediary of discovery" is Google, and most internet users are all too ready to give up their banking information to websites which have an official looking header on the page. Just because it worked for the web doesn't mean it'll work for Apple's AppStore.