On 01/20/2013 04:10 PM, Robert Sneidar wrote:
They are saying, "can you make more utilitarian and useful to the general market?" Why is that pissing so many people off in the name of freedom? I don't get it. It seems some, not you I think, have a bone to pick with apple, and this seems an easy target.
Whose argument are you dismissing as being probably disingenuous? It might be that this is the bone and here it is being picked, no?
As far as "they are saying, "can you make.."" I wonder why it's so hard for you to understand why that strikes some people as arrogant and unacceptable. Not that I'm saying you have to agree and support this position, but that you say you don't get it.
It's ironic that you chose the word "utilitarian" because that word often describes a simple tool that serves its purpose without frills or adornment. Precisely what might cause an app to be rejected as in this case. As for the "general market" part of your comment, can't we ask, does failing to serve a large group of people mean that something is not acutely useful to some smaller group for which it is intended? I really don't think either part of your statement is true regarding this particular rationale for rejection. It seems to me that Apple is saying "it just doesn't have enough bells and whistles to fit the image of 'kewl' that we want to maintain for our devices". Just that simple.
I don't feel Apple has any interest that justifiably trumps the interest of consumers to determine for themselves what is useful and valuable or the interests of developers who have an idea they believe is useful and worth their time to develop and attach their name to. There are a lot of people who still adhere to the adage that less is more. Certainly at least a few of them use iDevices.
Sincerely, Warren _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
