This is a dangerous way to think. By this reasoning Steve Ballmer does in business would be valid because he is a billionaire and/or runs a multi billion dollar company, and no one would be able to criticise any of his decisions unless they were multi-billionaires too.

Blackwater is a billion dollar company and every "business decision" they make (including killing people in Iraq) is beyond criticism, because (by this logic) unless you run your own mercenary outfit (a claim not many of us can make), you don't have the right to criticize them .

"This is my thoughtful and honest comment "

honest? maybe. "thoughtful" is for other people to say.

"people don't like my colorful similes?"

What similies? I don't see any similies anywhere. I see one interesting point wrapped in a lot of angst.

Yes, Apple is there to make money from its products and so, Apple looks out for its interests very well. That means the buyers of its products should do their part to look out for theirs.

Having said that, I understand your position perfectly. I came out with a very similar stance as my initial reaction to the whole Google Voice situation, and basically agree with you fundamentally. However, this is a complicated question; both of the extreme positions ("kill the evil Apple now!" vs. "Apple is the vendor, it can do what it wants, and if you don't like it, don't buy it") have certain untenable aspects to most people when carried to their logical conclusion.

Specifically, I think the central ideological premise of competition-related regulation hinges on the fact that the world is too complicated to expect ordinary consumers to intricately understand every nuance of the restrictions, stipulations, caveats, etc. that come with every single product they come into contact with in a variety of areas. Whether you agree with this or not, you have to acknowledge that neither AT&T, nor Windows, nor Apple came to be "monopolies" (in the various ways in which they were/are alleged to be) because every consumer consciously and willfully bought into the consequences of adopting their respective goods/services/platforms/etc.

There are two sides to that argument, of course; the traditional free-market stance is that this is the consumer's own damn problem; if you're going to be lazy and not do your research, you pay the price. The counterpoint is that there is a great deal of social moral consensus around NOT allowing that to happen in other areas of life, which is why a great many consumer protection, disclosure, safety and liability laws exist.

If the roofers were allowed to put large amounts of radioisotopes in your shingles and you just didn't happen to know that this is an issue you should inquire about, you could get badly burned on that in the absence of laws that basically say that they can't knowingly do stuff like that.

Also, I'm not saying Apple should do everything the way the Slashdot, digg or engadget crowd wants them to. However, something as simple as carrier choise, browser choise, mp3 player compatibility and how you spend your "data minutes" seems an easy thing to do for people.

It's easy to love Apple products, but it's becoming hard to support them--if that makes sense.

Great podcast with Joel and Jeff, BTW.

I beg to differ; I believe any company providing a service or a good has an obligation to its customers. Granted that Apple can afford to ride the high horse at the moment because of its refinement and early adoption of multi-touch, but a draconian control over something like the iPhone will not fare well for Apple in the long term. Sooner or later litigators will compare this amount of control on an ever increasing popular device with the Microsoft-IE case and anti-competitive suits are likely to follow.

Competition will catch on in the iPhone's case, and people will look for alternatives when multi-touch based devices with similar UX and more liberal standards become available.

Also, there is a difference between a company acting as though they have a responsibility to the consumer, or choosing to have a responsibility as a voluntary matter of principal, for public relations purposes; and whether a company actually does have a responsibility in fact or not. There is also a difference between whether you think they should have a responsibility or not and whether they actually do. You obviously think they should have a responsibility, but I still think that they don't as an objective matter of fact.

I'm not trying to be belligerent, although it probably seems that way — it's just that exactly what I'm saying is that I think too many people wishfully demand the recognition of rights they don't have from companies like Apple, and similarly impose responsibilities that don't exist onto them.

If you know you "seem belligerent" why don't you change your writing to tone it down? Unless you want to write "belligerently" but then disclaim it with "I'm not trying to be belligerent".? Perhaps someone who writes for public consumption,especially when talking to peers, should control the tone of his writing?

Your writing comes across as that of an immature teenager who can't control his thoughts or emotions.( I am not saying you are immature, just making a subjective comment on the tone of your writing). You make interesting points. Doing so without angsty aggression would help people follow along.

"Apple is a massive company with tons of brilliant people — do you really think they aren't considering every conceivable angle,"

"EVERY" conceivable angle? Let me quote you, "Who exactly are you to be speaking in absolutes "? ;-)

Besides, this is patent nonsense. Companies "full of brilliant people" makes strategic mistakes all the time. Microsoft, IBM , HP, Yahoo even Apple in the old days, before the comeback. Unless Apple is filled with omniscient gods, they are as prone to human fallibility as everyone else.

"a voluntary matter of principal" you meant "principle"?

People are expressing their anger and disappointment, and why shouldn't people have an opinion on Apple censoring the app store?

People express and form their opinions in concert with each other, its basically what defines humanity. I don't see why we should ignore things we find unfair or unreasonable. It might suit an economic model to imagine consumers all independently making utilitarian judgements but it has little or nothing to do with reality.

Morality actually plays an important part in society and we promote it because its the glue that binds us together. We speak out about things in the hope that the ideas of many people will come together collectively evoke positive change. In specific terms people hope that the negative press about Apple will make them change their minds.

What you are advocating is not a fairer market place, its people shutting their mouths so you don't have to hear opinions you don't like. Nothing good can come from that.

This is a standard counterargument you hear whenever anyone criticizes someone for something like anger or disappointment. No one is telling them they aren't entitled to their opinion, and I'd go so far as to say it's universally understood in our society that everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's just that when people have opinions that others feel are wrong, and those people criticize the opinion, it's not enough that their opinion is formed because they're angry and disappointed. The very fact that it's an opinion does not mean it's sacrosanct and unassailable — the validity of the opinion is still assessable based on the facts behind it.

My entire point is in fact that the people who form an opinion based on anger and disappointment or a misplaced sense of entitlement, which I feel the OP did, are exactly the kind of people whose opinions are suspect in my mind.

In your original comment you suggest it would be better off if we just bought products based on our own opinions without considering what the community thinks of some of the issues. I think we form our opinions with the help of the community. Less opinions just means less information about the purchasing decisions we make which isn't a good thing.

Then why is it not OK for Microsoft to try to force you to use a particular web-browser by pre-installing it with Windows and making it difficult to install others?

Apple is far from being a monopoly in the phone space (even in the much smaller smartphone space where RIMM rules) yet and you can easily switch phones and do whatever you want.

IANAL, but this was how post-Bork antitrust law was described to me.

When a small company engages in lock-in/anti-competitive practices, you can't really make the argument that consumers are being hurt, because if that were true, they would just buy the competitor's product. The iPhone, for instance, exists in a smartphone market with multiple players (Blackberry, HTC, Palm, etc), and if consumers decide that Apple has gone too far, they'll simply buy a different phone next time. But if a company had a monopoly (which MSFT had in operating systems during the late 90s), there are no real options for consumers. The company could partake in anti-consumer activities without fear of market retribution. In those cases, the courts usually intervene to ensure consumer protection.

I'm a huge Apple fan, and I'm extremely sorry to see them turning out to act more like douchebags each day.

Nonsense. Apple does nothing to prevent the Palm Pre from syncing with an iTunes library. They only prevent the Palm Pre from using iTunes to do so.

The app store is like a giant department store. If I make a widget I can't walk in to wal-mart and demand that they put it on the shelves. Even if the pornulator3000(tm) would fly off the shelves and make both wal-mart and I a ton of cash they are still under no obligation to stock my product if they think it will hurt their reputation or standing in the community (e.g. turn them into "the store where you go to get that wink-wink nudge-nudge massage device...")

If Apple had a monopoly position they would be the _only_ store in town. That is clearly not the case. They may be the hottest, most-hyped store in town but consumers clearly have other choices.

All of this is censorship. What it isn't is a violation of anyone's legal rights to freedom of expression.

I don't think Microsoft bundling software with Windows is inappropriate, within reason. Where the monopoly and anti-trust concerns for me come in is their agreements with PC manufacturers that penalizes them for providing alternative operating systems.

Yeah, definitely — I don't necessarily think Microsoft did do anything not OK in that respect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphorical_extension

He may not have written the actual code, but he's definitely the driving force behind the company.

Otherwise, yes, your rejoinder is very apt. We say things like, "France rejects US demands for airline passenger information" all the time, knowing full well that France could not collectively do that literally.

Apple has become a company that stands for censorship. I hate to be associated with that.

The fact that the censorship is a conscious decision by Apple makes it even worse.

I don't think "censorship" is quite the correct term for that, but you can see where the idea arises that Apple is not just acting as a retailer that wants to sell certain products and not others in its store, but specifically wants to limit products that have to do with openness of information and freedom of use.

Whether you agree with that assessment or not, that's what drives people to use terms like "censorship" to describe it.

If Amazon chooses to not sell certain software I can go to the manufacturer's site and buy and install it from there.

The app store on the iPhone is the only legitimate source to make an application purchase for the entire platform. Your analogy does not hold.

There are direct parallels with Xbox Live Marketplace, Wii Shop, and the PlayStation Store, as even more directly in the mobile stores operated by every mobile carrier. Are these companies engadging in censorship? Some of them ::gasp:: don't even sell any dictionaries!

The point is that this kind of thing goes on all around you every day and people don't seem to mind until someone starts calling it censorship. And to what end but fury? I don't understand the purpose of moral outrage over something that is merely inconvenient.

I actually have the same critiques of the Playstation, XBox, Wii, and every other closed harware devices that has been deliberately limited in its functionality.

All this was, of course, entirely lawful.

Their stories reminded me a little bit too much of recent events.

You trivialize the actions of an opressive dictatorship when you liken it to inconvenience of using a dictionary that lacks the term "Dirty Sanchez". (This being an example of a term present in Wiktionary but redacted from Ninjawords by Ninjawords.)

This is a distinct case from Wal-Mart not selling, for instance, $100 models of the Enterprise-D or motion-sensitive lightsabers.

(The government does actively censor soldiers' letters home to remove sensitive information.)

In other words, private censorship isn't necessarily wrong. I never argued it was.

People need to learn how to separate descriptive factual concepts like "to censor" from normative moral concepts of right and wrong. We all censor ourselves--for instance, I am censoring myself from flaming you. Likewise, television networks censor their programs, Wal-Mart censors the music they sell, Apple censors the App Store, the military censors letters home from the troops, and the FCC censors the airwaves. Some of these instances of censorship are good, some of these instances are bad, and that's an entirely separate moral argument. It's lazy, imprecise, and duplicitous thinking to couple the concept of "censorship" so tightly with the concept of "wrong" that you can't meaningfully use the word half the time.

This in spite of the fact that the word is almost universally used to refer to censorship by government authority (usually in a perjorative context) and that the context of the thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=750540) lends itself entirely to reading it as an immoral act. Your "entirely separate moral argument" is in fact the one started at the top of the thread. It was in fact the one I was engaged in before being derailed.

No I'm not--I'm maintaining that distinction the whole way down ("one is a violation of civil and human rights, one is not").

Here's the moral argument made at the top of the thread by codyrobbins:

"If Apple wants to censor apps in the App Store, that's their prerogative."

Here's your argument:

"Apple has yet to censor anything."

I agree with codyrobbins, but I disagree with you. What's so complicated with that? You're repeating yourself and failing to even comprehend my posts. In addition, you've attributed opinions to me I haven't even expressed and thrown out tons of red herrings to boot.

Then why do you insist on ignoring the distinction when I use the term? I mean one thing, but you claim I mean the other.

By censor I was referring to censorship a presumably immoral violation of rights such as that done by government, which is how the post I replied to used the term, how the term is most often used, and the only way that makes sense in what you agree started as a moral argument. It is what I have meant the entire time.

For me I want the full experience on my netbook, laptop, desktop, mobile net device and etc... Not some hobbled experience because old business models are being protected(blatant anti-competitive actions)!