In fact, he's yet another example of a smart marketer/businessman who's laughing all the way to the bank. Joel Comm doesn't care what people think about him. Let’s stop pretendng that our societal ailments begin and end with some stupid product.Chapter 50. Farting Sounds Make Us Laugh, But Is Anyone Buying? No, … if we want to stop the circulation of sick “shaking baby” apps, we need to dig deeper and ask what else we are allowing that would make a person think such an app would have a market. Obviously want as is made evident by what we like to to watch. Do you think bleeping a few apps is going to change what we
#Iphone ifart security tv
Watch TV (besides constant reruns)? And, know that what you see is almost completely based on violence, disloyalty, sex, greed, and blind ambition. The availablity of sick products on the market cure and obviously sick society? I mean, lets face it folks, television serves as a rather accurate guage of our countries mental health.
#Iphone ifart security free
Do we really want to oppress the free hand of the market by herding the values of the majority into a law? 2. This theatre suggests that there are actually a couple of questions that require inquiry: 1. The author’s single interest in baby shaking seems hypocritical given the theatre of its To arms, but how many apps are out there showing murder, betrayal, lust, sex … I have no doubt, even rape. The “baby shaking” app seemed to bring the author The author’s proposals to somehow censor which apps Apple distributes is wrong, without much more thought to the impications of such action. But if forced to choose, I’ll bet those developers would rather haveĪpple simply find a way to approve more applications than to explain a more restrictive set of policies. Many developers would still prefer that Apple be more open about what rules the company uses to determine whether to approve an application. (I think many Bits readers would debate whether the baby shaking game should be sold, even with the toughest restrictions.) No doubt there will still be some standards around what sort of applications Apple will accept, even with the 17+ rating. (The iPhone and iTouch already offer a way for parents to block the devices’ Web browser and YouTube viewer.) I assume the new system will allow Apple to accept more applications that it now rejects, on the theory that parents will be able to limit children from getting applications that can give them access to raunchy or violent The company also has rejected a news reading application, reportedly because it links to the topless The music and videos have a parental control system already. Apple refused to allow applications that play music from Nine Inch Nails or videos from “South Park,”Įven though it sold the same content in the iTunes store. Rating apps by age would give parents some useful guidance.Ī parental rating system would also solve some of the anomalies in the App Store.
My 6-year-old loves playing Hangman and tic-tac-toe on my iPhone, and I know parents of even younger children who find the interface engaging andĮasy to use. Such a system flows naturally from how use of the iPhone has evolved. When Apple announced the coming 3.0 release of its iPhone software, it referred to parental controls for apps. All iPhone applications will be rated in one of four age categories:Ĥ+, 9+, 12+, or 17+. Now comes new details about the parental control system coming to the App Store. Often it will change course, nonchalantlyĬlaiming it had always meant do whatever its new plan turns out to be.Īpple’s App Store - arguably the most important technical development in recent years - resulted, at least in part, from the pressure created by people who were trying to unlock iPhones so they One of the keys to Apple’s success is that while it doesn’t really engage in a public discussion about the flaws of its products, it does pay close attention. Details added about what Apple previously said about parental controls.
0 kommentar(er)
