Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Apple To Developers: Fuck You

1212224262729

Posts

  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    A business is only as powerful as the amount of business it has.

    gearn on
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit I'm a good person yes it's trueRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    A business is only as powerful as the amount of business it has.

    As measured by what metric?

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Elldren wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    A business is only as powerful as the amount of business it has.

    As measured by what metric?

    Seriousness.

    gearn on
  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Elldren wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    A business is only as powerful as the amount of business it has.

    As measured by what metric?

    Money of course. What else?

    Perpetual on
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit I'm a good person yes it's trueRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    A business is only as powerful as the amount of business it has.

    As measured by what metric?

    Money of course. What else?

    That's a pretty good metric.

    edit: I'd argue there are other, less tangible sources of power such as who the customer base is, precisely, and what sort of power they have, ad what sort of customer relationship exists but that would be getting way off topic.

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Listen, the point is that a business using blacklists is essentially limiting the amount of business it's getting. It's basically turning away customers and clients, which means they are getting less money, and basically they are hurting themselves. Are they hurting the consumer who can't buy their product? Maybe they are hurting their feelings, but only pussies give a shit about that, and it's not what laws are based on. The consumer is absolutely not hurt by their inability to buy an iPad. They will live. You might have a better argument saying that grocery stores shouldn't be able to blacklist people forever from buying food. But an iPad? Get the fuck outta here.

    I don't see how this is some gross abuse of power that threatens to shake the free market to it's very core.

    gearn on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Listen, the point is that a business using blacklists is essentially limiting the amount of business it's getting. It's basically turning away customers and clients, which means they are getting less money, and basically they are hurting themselves. Are they hurting the consumer who can't buy their product? Maybe they are hurting their feelings, but only pussies give a shit about that, and it's not what laws are based on. The consumer is absolutely not hurt by their inability to buy an iPad. They will live. You might have a better argument saying that grocery stores shouldn't be able to blacklist people forever from buying food. But an iPad? Get the fuck outta here.

    I don't see how this is some gross abuse of power that threatens to shake the free market to it's very core.

    Yes, they ARE hurting the consumer.

    In the case of an iPad, it's a negligable ammount, but let's say that instead of an iPad, we're talking about some other product that the user needed for business reasons (perhaps a cellphone, or printer toner)

    the consumer being blacklisted puts him at a disadvantage compared to other consumers, in those cases.

    emotions cloud logic for some people when it comes to looking at economics. Forget for a moment that we are talking about a luxury good, because it does not matter, economicaly. Blacklisting a customer, ceteris paribus, is inefficient for the reasons you've already stated, and it also inequitable because it refused that consumer resources available to other consumers.

    Now, if all else is NOT equal, and there is a valid reason for creating that inequity (generally in the name of efficiency), then that is fine. That is not the case here, though. The case here is that demand is so high that the effect of the inefficiency will be negligible, so Apple can get away with creating inequities, which harm ONLY the consumers, and not Apple at all. There is nothing illegal about this, and there is no need for regulation, however it is entirely apt for consumer advocates to rally against the creation of needless inequities.

    Evander on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    the consumer being blacklisted puts him at a disadvantage compared to other consumers, in those cases.

    And? Do you not realize the business world is full of businesses trying to gain competitive advantages over other businesses? You're saying that having advantages over others is inherently wrong?

    In this case, being able to do business with Apple can be seen as a competitive advantage over those who can't. This isn't any different from companies being able to score exclusive contracts from other companies for certain materials or products.

    Why the double standard? If Apple feels a consumer is disrespecting them and being a douche, why should they be FORCED to sell something to them? Yet if Apple is a douche and disrespects customers, the consumers aren't FORCED to continue buying from Apple. What the hell?

    Your position makes no sense. Why don't you just come out and say what you really mean, that you hate Apple and you just want there to be unnecessary laws that makes life as hard for them as possible, because Apple shouldn't have a monopoly on Apple products.

    gearn on
  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    taeric wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

    I don't give my opinion, this is just how it is.

    The real world is full of waitlists, blacklists, and whitelists.



    Bullshit. You give your opinion in your glib response. To try and dodge this by some rhetoric backpedaling is juvenile at best.

    As was pointed out. I need only bold your sentance up there to show how fucking wrong you were. So, given that you are factually incorrect. Do you want to readdress anything?

    taeric on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Read the past few pages.

    gearn on
  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Read the past few pages.

    Yeah, I was just catching up. I'm fully on Drez's side on this one. You were using some juvenile backpedaling to try and pretend that racism should be allowed by businesses. Period.

    I have no problems saying that a company can publicly post some rules that they hold their consumers to. If there are any issues with those rules, then they can at least be addressed. To have any sort of "secret" rules that can not be disclosed is bullshit. Which is what we have here.

    In general, though, I'm against any restrictions placed on the marketplace by the businesses. If the market itself must place restrictions to allow greater access, I'm fine with it.

    taeric on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    taeric wrote: »
    In general, though, I'm against any restrictions placed on the marketplace by the businesses. If the market itself must place restrictions to allow greater access, I'm fine with it.

    That's because you yourself are a juvenile who doesn't know shit about markets.

    gearn on
  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    taeric wrote: »
    In general, though, I'm against any restrictions placed on the marketplace by the businesses. If the market itself must place restrictions to allow greater access, I'm fine with it.

    That's because you yourself are a juvenile who doesn't know shit about markets.

    Markets or business? :) I'll grant that I have little care for businesses.

    taeric on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Then stop giving businesses your money.

    gearn on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Wait... how do markets place restrictions without the component businesses placing restrictions?

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Wait... how do markets place restrictions without the component businesses placing restrictions?

    Big government.

    gearn on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Wait... how do markets place restrictions without the component businesses placing restrictions?

    Big government.

    Or collective self-regulation.

    japan on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited April 2010
    Is the argument really that Apple is evil because they cut off a guy who was buying up iPads and reselling them at a markup on eBay?

    Really? This is what is meant by "blacklists" and putting the unauthorized reseller "at a disadvantage compared to other consumers"?

    I mean, limiting the amount sold happened with every reseller of game consoles when they launched.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    japan wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Wait... how do markets place restrictions without the component businesses placing restrictions?

    Big government.

    Or collective self-regulation.

    Big government is the government placing restrictions, not the markets.

    Collective self-regulation... so it's okay if everyone bans particular kinds of customers, but not if individual firms do so?

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Collective self-regulation... so it's okay if everyone bans particular kinds of customers, but not if individual firms do so?

    I wasn't referring to anything specific, but there are examples of market participants collectively deciding on an approach to a particular issue, although admittedly this is usually because if they don't then regulatory bodies will, and will likely be less sympathetic to the concerns of businesses.

    japan on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I dunno, I'm in favor of a piecemeal approach. Businesses should be able to ban whomever they please for whatever reason, and sometimes the government needs to step in to fix situations that lead to or are responsible for abuses.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • TincheTinche No dog food for Victor tonight. Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Man, if I walked into an Apple store and wanted to buy 3 iPads, and they said they would only sell me two for the foreseeable future, I'd get extremely furious. The thought of a retailer denying me business for some unknown reason just irritates me extremely on a very low psychological level. I'm actually more surprised by the intensity of the reaction of me playing out the situation in my head than by Apple being jerks.

    I mean, if it was the first day of sales and they wanted to limit the number sold per customer so everyone who waited could get one, that's fine. I have no problem with something like that, I'd even be surprised if that was not the case. I'm imagining a slow day, they have a full storeroom of the goddamn things, and they refuse to sell me stuff for some arbitrary reason. It just rubs me in a very wrong way. Now I'm interested enough to consult the pre-wife about it (she's a psychologist).

    Tinche on
    We're marooned on a small island, in an endless sea,
    Confined to a tiny spit of sand, unable to escape,
    But tonight, it's heavy stuff.
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Tinche wrote: »
    Man, if I walked into an Apple store and wanted to buy 3 iPads, and they said they would only sell me two for the foreseeable future, I'd get extremely furious. The thought of a retailer denying me business for some unknown reason just irritates me extremely on a very low psychological level. I'm actually more surprised by the intensity of the reaction of me playing out the situation in my head than by Apple being jerks.

    Lets say this happens.

    What the fuck are you going to do about it?

    Not buy any iPads?

    Nice job, incredible hulk.



    A lot of people in this thread have a massive fucking sense of entitlement apparently.

    gearn on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Tinche wrote: »
    Man, if I walked into an Apple store and wanted to buy 3 iPads, and they said they would only sell me two for the foreseeable future, I'd get extremely furious. The thought of a retailer denying me business for some unknown reason just irritates me extremely on a very low psychological level. I'm actually more surprised by the intensity of the reaction of me playing out the situation in my head than by Apple being jerks.

    Lets say this happens.

    What the fuck are you going to do about it?

    Not buy any iPads?

    Nice job, incredible hulk.

    Yeah I still don't understand what you think you're contributing to this thread. You seem to think that the way things are justifies the way things are. You also apparently believe that the way people act in a given futile situation should dictate how they think. I absolutely loathe Gamestop's business practices, but I still shop there sometimes. That doesn't preclude me from railing against them.

    Life is a lot more complicated than you seem to think it is. Human beings can roll with the punches while discussing the way we think things SHOULD work.

    gearn wrote: »
    A lot of people in this thread have a massive fucking sense of entitlement apparently.

    Bzzt.

    I personally think inflated senses of entitlement are one of modern society's biggest problems. However, consumers are entitled to certain rights. It's not "massive fucking entitlement" to dare question what consumers may be entitled to.

    Do you continue to assert that sellers should be able to dictate any and all terms without any sort of government intervention whatsoever? That at a crossroads between consumer rights and seller rights, the seller should always have right of way?

    Because that's not how the market works, and it's not how the market should ever work.

    There's nothing wrong, and there is no "massive fucking entitlement" attitude in discussing how best to reconcile that conflict. Stop being a silly goose.

    Drez on
  • TincheTinche No dog food for Victor tonight. Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Tinche wrote: »
    Man, if I walked into an Apple store and wanted to buy 3 iPads, and they said they would only sell me two for the foreseeable future, I'd get extremely furious. The thought of a retailer denying me business for some unknown reason just irritates me extremely on a very low psychological level. I'm actually more surprised by the intensity of the reaction of me playing out the situation in my head than by Apple being jerks.

    Lets say this happens.

    What the fuck are you going to do about it?

    Not buy any iPads?

    Nice job, incredible hulk.



    A lot of people in this thread have a massive fucking sense of entitlement apparently.

    First of all, you seem to have a lot of pent-up rage. What's up with all the hostility? It's making it unpleasant to carry a discussion with you.

    Second of all, I don't know what I'd do in the above situation except getting really confused and irritated. I might not buy any iPads at all, I might buy two and get a friend to buy me the third, I might do something else; this part isn't really that interesting.

    What I find peculiar here is the fact that Apple sells stuff for money, I have money I wish to give them, and they refuse to accept. Let's assume there are no supply issues or any other special situations, like a first day of sales etc. What do they care if I get 5 pieces of X, or 5 people get one piece of X? Even if I am reselling (which they basically have no way of knowing), it's not illegal (or is it? I'm not from the States) and they get their asking money anyway.

    Also, how is it entitlement if I expect Apple to actually sell me their product, which they heavily advertise?

    I wish to stress that in this example, there are no supply issues. If they said something like "we're running low on iPads, could you come back in a week or a month for your Xth iPad" I'd have absolutely no problem with it. That's not the case here apparently. Fuck it, even the Soup Nazi let you come back in a year :p

    Tinche on
    We're marooned on a small island, in an endless sea,
    Confined to a tiny spit of sand, unable to escape,
    But tonight, it's heavy stuff.
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Yeah I still don't understand what you think you're contributing to this thread.

    I'm saying the system isn't as broke as you make it out to be, so any ideas suggesting how to fix it are inherently stupid.
    You seem to think that the way things are justifies the way things are.

    No, the way things are right now works just fine and has for several years.
    You also apparently believe that the way people act in a given futile situation should dictate how they think.

    Not really.
    I absolutely loathe Gamestop's business practices, but I still shop there sometimes.

    Why? There are so many better options.
    That doesn't preclude me from railing against them.

    No, but it might make you a fucking hypocrite.
    Life is a lot more complicated than you seem to think it is.

    What's complicated to some isn't complicated to others.
    Human beings can roll with the punches while discussing the way we think things SHOULD work.

    Sure, and other human beings are free to point out why the way you think things SHOULD be is stupid.

    Bzzt.

    I personally think inflated senses of entitlement are one of modern society's biggest problems.

    So do I.
    However, consumers are entitled to certain rights.

    But you do NOT have a civil right to buy an iPad. Or a TV. Or a car, or any of that shit.
    It's not "massive fucking entitlement" to dare question what consumers may be entitled to.

    No, but when you are suggesting the only requirement for buying anything should simply be to have enough money to pay for it you are getting real close.
    Do you continue to assert that sellers should be able to dictate any and all terms without any sort of government intervention whatsoever?

    I assert that the way things are now is the way they should be.
    That at a crossroads between consumer rights and seller rights, the seller should always have right of way?

    If the consumer agrees and proceeds with the transaction, then yes.
    Because that's not how the market works, and it's not how the market should ever work.

    What college degree do you currently hold and from where?
    There's nothing wrong, and there is no "massive fucking entitlement" attitude in discussing how best to reconcile that conflict. Stop being a silly goose.

    A dude is basically saying he should have the unalienable right to buy as many iPads as he wants. Who the fuck is he to say a private party should be forced to sell him whatever he wants and when he wants it?

    gearn on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Tinche wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Tinche wrote: »
    Man, if I walked into an Apple store and wanted to buy 3 iPads, and they said they would only sell me two for the foreseeable future, I'd get extremely furious. The thought of a retailer denying me business for some unknown reason just irritates me extremely on a very low psychological level. I'm actually more surprised by the intensity of the reaction of me playing out the situation in my head than by Apple being jerks.

    Lets say this happens.

    What the fuck are you going to do about it?

    Not buy any iPads?

    Nice job, incredible hulk.



    A lot of people in this thread have a massive fucking sense of entitlement apparently.

    First of all, you seem to have a lot of pent-up rage. What's up with all the hostility? It's making it unpleasant to carry a discussion with you.

    That's what he wants: He wants to scare people that disagree with him away from the topic so he can speak from his soap box unopposed.

    Tinche wrote: »
    Second of all, I don't know what I'd do in the above situation except getting really confused and irritated. I might not buy any iPads at all, I might buy two and get a friend to buy me the third, I might do something else; this part isn't really that interesting.

    What I find peculiar here is the fact that Apple sells stuff for money, I have money I wish to give them, and they refuse to accept. Let's assume there are no supply issues or any other special situations, like a first day of sales etc. What do they care if I get 5 pieces of X, or 5 people get one piece of X? Even if I am reselling (which they basically have no way of knowing), it's not illegal (or is it? I'm not from the States) and they get their asking money anyway.

    Also, how is it entitlement if I expect Apple to actually sell me their product, which they heavily advertise?

    I wish to stress that in this example, there are no supply issues. If they said something like "we're running low on iPads, could you come back in a week or a month for your Xth iPad" I'd have absolutely no problem with it. That's not the case here apparently. Fuck it, even the Soup Nazi let you come back in a year :p

    While I do think that a lifetime blacklist is unreasonable, I will say that Apple does have a stake in ensuring the iPad gets spread among its consumer base over just selling the things. To Apple, selling three iPads to three different people is preferable to selling three iPads to a single person. There's more to business than just profit.

    I'm not making any judgments here on that point, just pointing out that that selling one customer three pieces of new technology is not equivalent to selling three customers one piece of new technology each. The more people that have the technology, the faster it will spread.

    Drez on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Yeah I still don't understand what you think you're contributing to this thread.

    I'm saying the system isn't as broke as you make it out to be, so any ideas suggesting how to fix it are inherently stupid.

    I didn't read past this point. I'm going to respond to this and then ignore you completely.

    Take a look at the subforum you are in. It is called "debate and discourse." If you are opposed to the concept of debating and discussion, then you should go find a new subforum.

    If you believe that all ideas suggesting change are "inherently stupid" then you have absolutely no value in this debate and discussion. Your shtick is nothing but lecture. You are not participating, you are talking AT the thread. And we really don't need that.

    I'm sorry you wasted your time with what I'm sure amounts to a scintillating deconstruction of my previous post, but I must thank you for blatantly stating this in your very first line so I and others can finally ignore you for the silly goose you finally admit you are.

    Drez on
  • TincheTinche No dog food for Victor tonight. Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    EDIT: Durr I quoted myself instead of Drez.
    Drez wrote: »
    Tinche wrote: »
    Second of all, I don't know what I'd do in the above situation except getting really confused and irritated. I might not buy any iPads at all, I might buy two and get a friend to buy me the third, I might do something else; this part isn't really that interesting.

    What I find peculiar here is the fact that Apple sells stuff for money, I have money I wish to give them, and they refuse to accept. Let's assume there are no supply issues or any other special situations, like a first day of sales etc. What do they care if I get 5 pieces of X, or 5 people get one piece of X? Even if I am reselling (which they basically have no way of knowing), it's not illegal (or is it? I'm not from the States) and they get their asking money anyway.

    Also, how is it entitlement if I expect Apple to actually sell me their product, which they heavily advertise?

    I wish to stress that in this example, there are no supply issues. If they said something like "we're running low on iPads, could you come back in a week or a month for your Xth iPad" I'd have absolutely no problem with it. That's not the case here apparently. Fuck it, even the Soup Nazi let you come back in a year :p

    While I do think that a lifetime blacklist is unreasonable, I will say that Apple does have a stake in ensuring the iPad gets spread among its consumer base over just selling the things. To Apple, selling three iPads to three different people is preferable to selling three iPads to a single person. There's more to business than just profit.

    I'm not making any judgments here on that point, just pointing out that that selling one customer three pieces of new technology is not equivalent to selling three customers one piece of new technology each. The more people that have the technology, the faster it will spread.

    That makes sense, I guess if they get the iPad into a larger number of hands, they'll get proportionally more word of mouth advertising, and they'll also sell proportionally more apps, since if I had X iPads, they'd likely all be synced to one iTunes account. Also they might get proprotionally more revenue from iPad related services? The question here is, why not do both? One iPad per month per customer, problem solved. They can sell me three, and sell one to three other people too, given time, can't they?

    Tinche on
    We're marooned on a small island, in an endless sea,
    Confined to a tiny spit of sand, unable to escape,
    But tonight, it's heavy stuff.
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Yeah I still don't understand what you think you're contributing to this thread.

    I'm saying the system isn't as broke as you make it out to be, so any ideas suggesting how to fix it are inherently stupid.

    I didn't read past this point. I'm going to respond to this and then ignore you completely.

    Take a look at the subforum you are in. It is called "debate and discourse." If you are opposed to the concept of debating and discussion, then you should go find a new subforum.

    If you believe that all ideas suggesting change are "inherently stupid" then you have absolutely no value in this debate and discussion. Your shtick is nothing but lecture. You are not participating, you are talking AT the thread. And we really don't need that.

    I'm sorry you wasted your time with what I'm sure amounts to a scintillating deconstruction of my previous post, but I must thank you for blatantly stating this in your very first line so I and others can finally ignore you for the silly goose you finally admit you are.


    This thread should just be locked and a full standalone thread discussing this very issue should be created.

    Because this thread has basically turned into Apple haters finding excuses to show how big and bad and evil Apple is for controlling their retail sales of their own product which they made with an ironfist.

    gearn on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Yeah I still don't understand what you think you're contributing to this thread.

    I'm saying the system isn't as broke as you make it out to be, so any ideas suggesting how to fix it are inherently stupid.

    I didn't read past this point. I'm going to respond to this and then ignore you completely.

    Take a look at the subforum you are in. It is called "debate and discourse." If you are opposed to the concept of debating and discussion, then you should go find a new subforum.

    If you believe that all ideas suggesting change are "inherently stupid" then you have absolutely no value in this debate and discussion. Your shtick is nothing but lecture. You are not participating, you are talking AT the thread. And we really don't need that.

    I'm sorry you wasted your time with what I'm sure amounts to a scintillating deconstruction of my previous post, but I must thank you for blatantly stating this in your very first line so I and others can finally ignore you for the silly goose you finally admit you are.

    This thread should just be locked and a full standalone thread discussing this very issue should be created.

    Because this thread has basically turned into Apple haters finding excuses to show how big and bad and evil Apple is for controlling their retail sales of their own product which they made with an ironfist.

    First of all, the thread is titled "Apple To Developers: Fuck You." The tone of the thread was set right from the get-go, so if you wandered in here expecting something else, maybe you should adjust your own expectations next time.

    Second, the actual meat of the thread isn't actually what you describe, despite the thread title. Most of us are actually trying to comprehend each others' positions, but you keep derailing that with nonsense. You are sitting at one extreme and you have stated that anyone opposed to that extreme is inherently wrong and that discussion on the topic is inherently stupid.

    The attitude you are projecting is one of anti-debate and anti-discussion. You care about neither. So why should anyone believe that a new thread is going to solve the problem?

    Drez on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Tinche wrote: »
    EDIT: Durr I quoted myself instead of Drez.
    Drez wrote: »
    Tinche wrote: »
    Second of all, I don't know what I'd do in the above situation except getting really confused and irritated. I might not buy any iPads at all, I might buy two and get a friend to buy me the third, I might do something else; this part isn't really that interesting.

    What I find peculiar here is the fact that Apple sells stuff for money, I have money I wish to give them, and they refuse to accept. Let's assume there are no supply issues or any other special situations, like a first day of sales etc. What do they care if I get 5 pieces of X, or 5 people get one piece of X? Even if I am reselling (which they basically have no way of knowing), it's not illegal (or is it? I'm not from the States) and they get their asking money anyway.

    Also, how is it entitlement if I expect Apple to actually sell me their product, which they heavily advertise?

    I wish to stress that in this example, there are no supply issues. If they said something like "we're running low on iPads, could you come back in a week or a month for your Xth iPad" I'd have absolutely no problem with it. That's not the case here apparently. Fuck it, even the Soup Nazi let you come back in a year :p

    While I do think that a lifetime blacklist is unreasonable, I will say that Apple does have a stake in ensuring the iPad gets spread among its consumer base over just selling the things. To Apple, selling three iPads to three different people is preferable to selling three iPads to a single person. There's more to business than just profit.

    I'm not making any judgments here on that point, just pointing out that that selling one customer three pieces of new technology is not equivalent to selling three customers one piece of new technology each. The more people that have the technology, the faster it will spread.

    That makes sense, I guess if they get the iPad into a larger number of hands, they'll get proportionally more word of mouth advertising, and they'll also sell proportionally more apps, since if I had X iPads, they'd likely all be synced to one iTunes account. Also they might get proprotionally more revenue from iPad related services? The question here is, why not do both? One iPad per month per customer, problem solved. They can sell me three, and sell one to three other people too, given time, can't they?

    Conversely, it doesn't make sense in light of someone buying a lot of iPads, but only in small numbers at a time. I mean such a person is not buying out the local stock of a store are they? They're not - in any real capacity - blocking the purchases of others.

    I'm with Tinche - were I to encounter such a situation I would be pretty damn furious as well.

    electricitylikesme on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    There is now a new thread for all of this. http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?p=14616008#post14616008

    "All of this" being this line of discussion about blacklist tactics.

    gearn on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but Steve Jobs has an official response for why Flash is not allowed on the Apple's mobile platforms.

    http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
    Thoughts on Flash

    Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.

    I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

    First, there’s “Open”.

    Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

    Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

    Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

    Second, there’s the “full web”.

    Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.

    Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

    Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

    Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

    In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

    Fourth, there’s battery life.

    To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

    Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

    When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

    Fifth, there’s Touch.

    Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

    Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

    Sixth, the most important reason.

    Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

    We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

    This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

    Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

    Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

    Conclusions.

    Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

    The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

    New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

    Steve Jobs
    April, 2010

    I'm fully with Jobs on this one, on every single point he makes. Some of those reasons have already been discussed by other people, but it's nice to hear the explanations directly from him regardless, especially since they mention some crucial details (such as the wonderful and conclusive rebuttal to the claim that 75% of video on the web is not available to iphone/ipad users) that had been left out of the conversation between critics and fans.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    That's nice Steve, but most people aren't using all those new standards yet and I want all the websites to open up on my iPhone, dammit.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    That's nice Steve, but most people aren't using all those new standards yet and I want all the websites to open up on my iPhone, dammit.
    Disclaimer: I understand what you're saying, and I don't want this post to come off as "tough shit."

    When that happens, you should email the company or the site's webmaster and let them know that you can't see the content on their site, and that you'd appreciate it if they would move away from proprietary plugins, and switch to open standards so that everyone can see their site and it's information.

    I know that doesn't help you see the content RIGHTNOW, but if people actually start expressing that they want to be able to view shit without having to have the buggiest plugin of all time then perhaps we'll see sites move away from Flash.

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    That's nice Steve, but most people aren't using all those new standards yet and I want all the websites to open up on my iPhone, dammit.
    Disclaimer: I understand what you're saying, and I don't want this post to come off as "tough shit."

    When that happens, you should email the company or the site's webmaster and let them know that you can't see the content on their site, and that you'd appreciate it if they would move away from proprietary plugins, and switch to open standards so that everyone can see their site and it's information.

    I know that doesn't help you see the content RIGHTNOW, but if people actually start expressing that they want to be able to view shit without having to have the buggiest plugin of all time then perhaps we'll see sites move away from Flash.

    ...or Apple could stop expecting the world to revolve around them and allow Flash, like the increasing numbers of its smartphone competitors.

    Besides, people don't want to have to jump through hoops to try to get individual websites to switch over to new video/animation formats that haven't even been finalized yet, they just want their damn page to load right now.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    That's nice Steve, but most people aren't using all those new standards yet and I want all the websites to open up on my iPhone, dammit.
    Disclaimer: I understand what you're saying, and I don't want this post to come off as "tough shit."

    When that happens, you should email the company or the site's webmaster and let them know that you can't see the content on their site, and that you'd appreciate it if they would move away from proprietary plugins, and switch to open standards so that everyone can see their site and it's information.

    I know that doesn't help you see the content RIGHTNOW, but if people actually start expressing that they want to be able to view shit without having to have the buggiest plugin of all time then perhaps we'll see sites move away from Flash.

    ...or Apple could stop expecting the world to revolve around them and allow Flash, like the increasing numbers of its smartphone competitors.

    Besides, people don't want to have to jump through hoops to try to get individual websites to switch over to new video/animation formats that haven't even been finalized yet, they just want their damn page to load right now.

    Apple and Sony have a very similar behavioral pattern. Essentially, they behave as though whatever they do, the industry will follow. This is okay to do while you're at the top, but if there is one rule of economics that will never be dis-proven, it is that all bubbles burst.

    Apple has been doing well for the past decade, give or take, but eventually they are going to take a stance (maybe it will be flash, maybe it won't) where the industry just doesn't follow, and they're going to end up looking like Sony does, every time Sony insists on doing something batshit.

    Evander on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    That's nice Steve, but most people aren't using all those new standards yet and I want all the websites to open up on my iPhone, dammit.
    Disclaimer: I understand what you're saying, and I don't want this post to come off as "tough shit."

    When that happens, you should email the company or the site's webmaster and let them know that you can't see the content on their site, and that you'd appreciate it if they would move away from proprietary plugins, and switch to open standards so that everyone can see their site and it's information.

    I know that doesn't help you see the content RIGHTNOW, but if people actually start expressing that they want to be able to view shit without having to have the buggiest plugin of all time then perhaps we'll see sites move away from Flash.

    ...or Apple could stop expecting the world to revolve around them and allow Flash, like the increasing numbers of its smartphone competitors.

    Like they explained, this isn't about just Apple. It's also about the user experience, and the future of the Web. From this move, everyone benefits. They may not benefit right now, but in some situations it is better to think long-term.
    Besides, people don't want to have to jump through hoops to try to get individual websites to switch over to new video/animation formats that haven't even been finalized yet, they just want their damn page to load right now.

    Are you suggesting that you are expecting the world to revolve around you, after you incorrectly criticized Apple for expecting the world to revolve around them?

    Because that's so :lol: .

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    That's nice Steve, but most people aren't using all those new standards yet and I want all the websites to open up on my iPhone, dammit.
    Disclaimer: I understand what you're saying, and I don't want this post to come off as "tough shit."

    When that happens, you should email the company or the site's webmaster and let them know that you can't see the content on their site, and that you'd appreciate it if they would move away from proprietary plugins, and switch to open standards so that everyone can see their site and it's information.

    I know that doesn't help you see the content RIGHTNOW, but if people actually start expressing that they want to be able to view shit without having to have the buggiest plugin of all time then perhaps we'll see sites move away from Flash.

    ...or Apple could stop expecting the world to revolve around them and allow Flash, like the increasing numbers of its smartphone competitors.

    Like they explained, this isn't about just Apple. It's also about the user experience, and the future of the Web. From this move, everyone benefits. They may not benefit right now, but in some situations it is better to think long-term.
    Besides, people don't want to have to jump through hoops to try to get individual websites to switch over to new video/animation formats that haven't even been finalized yet, they just want their damn page to load right now.

    Are you suggesting that you are expecting the world to revolve around you, after you incorrectly criticized Apple for expecting the world to revolve around them?

    Because that's so :lol: .

    No, I'm expecting the world to revolve around the millions of customers that want their websites to work NOW, rather than at some undetermined point four or five years in the future.

    And what Steve said is so utterly, utterly expecting the world to revolve around them. That's pretty much the entire point of ItunesisEvil and your posts: Web sites must change to accommodate Apple.

    Like I said, people don't give a shit about technical gubbins, they want their stuff to work now.

    Besides, now that multitasking is coming and the camera is much beefier, lack of Flash is now the iPhone's sole glaring weakness. And just like every smartphone maker put on a better camera in the past, you can bet the other guys will hype the fuck out of the fact that their phones open more sites than the iPhone.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
Sign In or Register to comment.