Apple Just Says Yes To iPhone Smoking Game 192
ZosX sends along a puff piece from Wired's Brian X. Chen: "Apple on Monday approved Puff Puff Pass, a $2 game whose objective is to pass a cigarette or pipe around and puff it as many times as you can within a set duration. So much for taking the high road, Apple. The game allows you to choose between smoking a cigarette, a cigar, and a pipe. Then you select the number of people you'd like to light up with (up to five), the amount of time, and a place to smoke (outdoors or indoors). And you're ready to get right on puffing."
Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not that Apple is making moral decisions about which applications to allow in the App Store. The problem is their ever-changing, wildly inconsistent approval guidelines. This application might get approved while other seemingly identical applications might get rejected. That's the real problem: developers simply have no way to know which way the App Store approval process wind is blowing on a given day. I wouldn't have such a bone to pick with Apple if they just picked a position and stuck with it consistently.
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
We all knew it was going to wear out sooner or later.
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
You just gave me really good idea for an app... a magic 8 ball that uses the accelerometer on the iphone, and all of the answers relating directly to whether or not your app will get approved for the app store. Unfortunately, I doubt that this app would get approved for the app store, either. oh well.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Then sue you to kingdom come.
Re:Good (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, you never know... they might use your app to approve your app!
and all other apps thereafter.
wait...are you SURE you haven't already submitted it?
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And I've got DNA.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There is an app for that ...
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fortuneball/id285537465?mt=8 [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
You just gave me really good idea for an app... a magic 8 ball that uses the accelerometer on the iphone, and all of the answers relating directly to whether or not your app will get approved for the app store. Unfortunately, I doubt that this app would get approved for the app store, either. oh well.
"Outlook not so good."
That magic 8 ball is right again!
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
And just to clarify, I believe people should be allowed to run third-party applications on their iPhone without having to go through the App Store (or jailbreaking). I'm just saying that the inconsistency is what really bugs me. If they want to sell a G-rated phone, that's fine with me. Advertise it as such and enforce that policy consistently, but don't blame me when I take my business elsewhere. As a matter of fact, I'm switching to an Android-based phone [verizonwireless.com] on Thursday.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The app was approved but with an Adult rating: Apple rates Puff Puff Pass 17+ for “Frequent/Intense Alcohol, Tobacco, or Drug Use or References.”
And they don't have an "18+: There Might Be a Nipple Somewhere in This App" rating? What makes this sort of adult material different from other sorts of adult material, aside from the developer agreement?
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
And they don't have an "18+: There Might Be a Nipple Somewhere in This App" rating? What makes this sort of adult material different from other sorts of adult material, aside from the developer agreement?
Puritanical moral hang-ups more suited to a Sharia state than a capitalist democracy?
Re: (Score:2)
Puritanical moral hang-ups more suited to a Sharia state than a capitalist democracy?
Good thing Apple is a dictatorship. All hail the Jobs! All hail the power of his turtleneck!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they do. For example the Playboy app is rated: 17+ Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity.
Fundamentally, whether Apple thinks selling it devalues their brand or not. Same as any other brand name store.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
My first thought was that this was some still-wet-behind-the-ears tobacco corporation marketing dweeb's brainstorm, but then I realized that it is just a thinly disguised pothead game that the devs managed to get past Apple's app-approval dweebs by simply not mentioning anything illegal.
Calling it "Toke, Toke, Pass" probably would have sold more, but also make it HIGHLY likely the app would not be approved.
My guess is that most of the players are smoking pot, NOT tobacco. Smoking tobacco in such a fashion usually results in a puking session.
Re: (Score:2)
"Puff, Puff, Pass" is pretty standard joint smoking lingo where I grew up. I'm not sure you could even call this thinly veiled. Is the pipe made out of multi-colored glass?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the difference is that naked people aren't likely to harm you, "Frequent/Intenste Alcohol, Tobacco or Drug Use" will. That's what makes it okay. If you can somehow prove that the type of sex in an app will shorten your livespan, Apple will probably approve of it. It's some kind of the deal they have with private healthcare companies, I think, to justify the high premiums.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Their approval rules aren't 'wildly inconsistent'. They are consistent within context of the app, meaning if the app in question goes down one of the questionable paths like mature content, duplicates core functionality, or questionable content, then it is possible it will be banned.
Almost all apps showing sexy, non-nude pictures? Banned.
Playboy app showing sexy playmates? Approved and featured on iTunes.
No inconsistency there.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it did. And upon re-reading my post, I should have made my intent clearer by ending it instead with "No... no inconsistency there at all".
Re: (Score:2)
You don't cut your car's brake line, and then complain when your breaks don't stop as expected.
you had me wondering what your post was all about, until the very end. I was reading it just wishing you'd explained it in terms of a car analogy...
and there it was.
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of the core of his argument; their judgement on "objectionable content" is what he is calling in to question. He is charging that their definition varies ( which it does ).
But as you say, those are the rules. If you want to play in Apple's sandbox, you play by their rules. If you want to play in a completely free sandbox, where you don't have to worry about app rejection, well, there's a place for that too ( android ).
Re: (Score:2)
Ever notice how people remember posters by their sigs and not their names?
I don't know about you, 3*11^2*1811, but I remember people by the prime factorization of their UIDs.
- 2*7*58733
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Apple just banned wifi-searching and network tools apps from the app store.
They approved a large number of non-nude adult apps before turning around and banning them later.
They ban political parody apps, including one where you could have Obama jumping on a trampoline to collect votes.
They ban apps that "duplicate functionality" of stuff that Apple hasn't announced or released, and that the app creator has no way of knowing exists.
They just banned 3rd party code translation frameworks. This was intended to ban Flash-based applications. It accidentally also bans all unity-based games, as well as many, many others. Apple appears to be giving those a wink and a nudge at the moment, but who knows.
Apple has simply not responded to applications submitted to the app store, keeping them in limbo indefinitely with no comment as to why.
The app store approval process itself is prone to random and embarassing gaffes, including denying a particular Tweetie update because a trending topic that day happened to be a dirty one. They denied a bookreading frontend that hooked up to Project Gutenberg because Project Gutenberg (amongst hundreds of thousands of books) includes the Kama Sutra. They banned a Nine Inch Nails app because it linked to an adult Nine Inch Nails song in iTunes.
And unlike console (or other sane) development, there is no way to contact Apple ahead of time and get concept approval or a list of what might be wrong. You have to go ahead and invest the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in development, then pray that Apple doesn't decide to reject the app or leave it hanging in limbo.
They banned wifi-stumbling apps. They banned an LCD buyer's guide. They banned Leisure Suit Larry. They banned Seikai-Camera, a GPS photography tool. They banned a Pulitzer prize-winning satyrist, then caved to public pressure and approved him but remain continue banning everyone else. They banned 3G video streaming, which wasn't against their rules at all. They banned the South Park app, for having exactly the sort of content that they give valuable promotional space in iTunes to South Park episodes. They banned a British newspaper app for the sort of nudity you find in British newspapers.
The last few games I've worked on have had budgets of 10 - 20 million dollars. Can you imagine how terrible it would be if we developed all of that for the iPhone, only to be told by Apple on the whims of change that zombies are no longer allowed in the app store? Or having the iPhone be a lynchpin of a radical new form of telephony, only to be told that AT&T doesn't like it? This is not consistent enforcement of unpopular rules. This is random enforcement of random and ever-changing rules.
Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, and all of the other platform holders that I've worked with have had their approval rules. But they've also been responsive to developer queries. They work closely with developers before, during, and after development to make sure nobody is wasting their time or money. Their rules are locked months before final approval, so that you're not aiming for a moving target. Apple seems to want that level of financial reward for controlling the gateway, but none of the responsibility that a gateway holder needs to take towards their developers.
They need to either open up completely and trust their users to know what an "Adult" rating is, or they need to take some of that 30% they're absconding with and invest it into much better developer feedback systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Dammit, mod points! Informative and Insightful both.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that Apple also holds patents for the nifty multitouch stuff that makes the iPhone so great, then they don't let their own developers use them [appleinsider.com]!!
Head a splodes.... (Score:3, Funny)
You don't cut your car's brake line, and then complain when your breaks don't stop as expected.
[ my emphasis]
Yo, dawg!
Heard ya like to brake while ya break, so we broke yer breaks so ya could brake while ya break yer brokes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The real problem is: developers and their customers are no longer free to make independent decisions about what is acceptable and unacceptable trade, and the people who are making the moral decisions were neither elected nor accountable for their actions!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point (on here) is that Steve was really proud / pretentious / narcissistic that they do exactly that. He takes a swipe at others for being lowbrow.
(This whole thread is going to be a "shades of grey" argument, anyways.)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
The point (on here) is that Steve was really proud / pretentious / narcissistic that they do exactly that. He takes a swipe at others for being lowbrow.
Mr. Jobs has made an entire career on pretension. There's a reason that Apple evokes so much rabid zealotry from the otherwise computer-agnostic arty types. Just look at the way he boldly announces products' limitations and disabilities as strokes of design genius (and then later, even more astoundingly, announces re-enabling basic functionality as 'groundbreaking new features' - witness the iPhone's recent addition of multi-tasking, and the "you can't fit a netbook in your pocket" campaign with the release of the iPhone and iPod Touch, then the backflip to "bigger is better" with the release of the iPad). In the art world, you can go an awfully long way on "you're just not insightful enough to understand the vision", and these schmucks don't realise that it doesn't carry over into technical areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Sour grapes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hypocrites
Re: (Score:2)
Here! Here! For moral support I just look to our leaders in washington.......
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to understand why Apple does what they do, don't put yourself in the end-user's shoes. Try putting yourself in Apple's shoes. End-users need to be taken care of to limit "accidents" and poor experience. That's a fact of life when geeks deal with end-users.
So your argument is that Apple is just being correctly managed by BOFH?
Re: (Score:2)
So your argument is that Apple is just being correctly managed by BOFH?
I have no argument. Only an observation. Microsoft ActiveX has been ridiculed here for years because it allows the users to easily opt in to install any third party piece of software on Internet Explorer. It's been suggested the feature is removed, limited, white lists are added and so on. A new platform emerges with that model (iPhone), but that's now no longer good either. What's good is allowing the user to opt in and install anything, again, like Android does.
My conclusion is, I see no morals being defe
Re: (Score:2)
The marketplace can better be compared w
Re: (Score:2)
They ARE choosing your morals for you. Smoking is allowed, tits aren't...
This should be fun (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This should be fun (Score:4, Informative)
Ah– kdawson. That explains it.
Re:This should be fun (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're missing the point, along with a lot of others in this thread. This story was not created and posted because a smoking application was approved for the iPhone. I really doubt anybody here cares, much less objects. In fact most probably would prefer the app DOES exist because most people here are all about letting each individual make these choices for themselves.
Rather, this story is here because Apple has appointed themselves gatekeeper of the application universe for iPhone, and because their decisions are seldom intelligible or predictable. An application for a Pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist gets banned (until public disgust forces them to reconsider). An application where you shake a baby to death is approved (though later removed.) Applications for lingerie are banned. If memory serves, even ones that do not have any sort of model shots, just the products themselves, are banned. Meanwhile an app for Playboy is passed. Now, an app about smoking a joint* with your friends has no trouble passing muster. I would not be surprised in the least if it turns out these people wrote the app explicitly to see whether or not Apple's ever-inconsistent "morality" would catch it.
I don't think it was worth a story here (Wired is free to write whatever they want for whatever reason they want), because I find the value in Slashdot to be the discussions and this is not the type of story that will encourage a decent one. There will be fanbois and haters going back and forth with little actual thought put into anything, which is almost reason enough NOT to post it for me.
But anyway. Nobody cares that this app was approved, they care that this app was approved relative to other ones that have been rejected. It's entire purpose is to take shots at Apple for playing gatekeeper, and for doing it in such a wildly inconsistent manner. I'm not sure it's worth posting on that basis alone, but the reason it is on Slashdot, at least, has nothing to do with whether or not it encourages smoking.
* Sorry, a "cigarette." Yeah, right. When's the last time anybody sat around in a circle passing a cigarette around with five of their friends?
Re: (Score:2)
But hey, if hypocrisy comes from Apple, it must be cool. I guess I will complain about this app just to join the trend.
Re: (Score:2)
People will probably object to this as "encouraging smoking"
I don't know. But I do know 3 things;
1 The game will inevitably be crap.
2 People will buy it anyway, cos, you know, it's about dope and your friends will lol.
3 The writers of this game are loving all the free publicity.
Eric Schmidt's Response to Steve Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
"Folks who want cancer can buy an iPhone"
Re: (Score:2)
Well ... (Score:2)
In all seriousness, WTF Apple? Surely this isn't why you strong-armed developers into switching to XCode, is it? To produce this?
Ouch (Score:2)
Makes you shudder to think of the poor kids who will get beat up for demonstrating this unbelievably lame app. Won't anyone think of the children? Apple?
Re: (Score:2)
Hell. I could see just about every friend I have with an iphone showing this off. In case you didn't notice, smoking (cigarettes and especially weed) are extremely popular with generation Y. It seems fairly prevalent in my generation too, but not nearly as much. Of course, when I was in my 20s it seemed like everyone I knew smoked anyways. So maybe its just an age thing, but yeah, I can totally see this as being a hit with the "kids."
non-smokers (Score:5, Funny)
"Non-smokers can purchase an Android." -- Steve Jobs
Re:non-smokers (Score:4, Informative)
iGanja and iCrack are next on the iApprove list.
Re: (Score:2)
What is this world coming to? (Score:5, Insightful)
What were we talking about again? Smoking? Ban it!
Re: (Score:2)
What were we talking about again? Smoking? Ban it!
How did this get modded insightful? Nobody is calling for a ban on this game. In fact, the opposite is true; it's being used to show that games which have been banned should not have been. Way to troll the knee-jerk idiots with modpoints, though.
I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't get it. How would it be the "moral high ground" to prevent developers from selling and consumers from buying this application? Is there a theory this game presents a danger to someone? Is it just that you object to smoking being depicted for some reason? What morals are we talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably, the same morals that they use to justify why they won't let porn (or a myriad of other applications) in the AppStore.
Re: (Score:2)
Because games with smoking in them are like pictures of naked people?
i think we've found the person responsible for approving apps on the appstore.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has been taking the "moral high ground" by banning apps with jiggly women, excessive violence, and political satire. They have said that they want to be a family safe zone, and have hurt many developers to become that.
Also, developers are particularly upset about the inconsistent interpretation of Apple's ever-shifting rules. For a while, slightly dirty apps were OK so long as they were wearing underwear, then they were mass banned. Apps have been banned for "duplicating functionality" of Apple applications that hadn't been released or announced at the time of the rejection. They recently banned 3rd party code interpretation tools, due to their years-long war with flash, which has thrown into doubt the state of thousands of popular applications.
At this point, basically everyone except Steve Jobs would like to see Apple stop babysitting their users and actually utilize the ratings system that they implemented. Short of that, they need a degree of consistency that they are nowhere near achieving.
Re: (Score:2)
I see tons of apps on iTunes that relate to legal drug use. Many smoking, wine beer, etc. The problem is that many people clump everything they don't like together and make it equally bad, or rationalize their sinful nature as natural, while others as bad. So while having a glass of wine is sophisticated, sm
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Tangent: Hardly any retail games in the US contain passing references to rape at all. I challenge you to list even 3. Illicit drug use is somewhat more heavily referenced, but hard to pull off in terms of actual player usage. See Heavy Rain's excellent and horrifying withdrawal sequences.
On topic: The name of the app is "puff puff pass" and features "phat beats." That's no more relating to legal substances than "The Little Black Book" app was about celibacy. This is clear glorification of smoking pot
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tangent: Hardly any retail games in the US contain passing references to rape at all. I challenge you to list even 3.
I can't list three, but I can remember being kind of distressed about my character being raped in Phantasmagoria, or was it the sequel? There was even some FMV showing you pinned up against something and, uh, pinned some more. But that was a long time ago. For a computer, it was nearly an eternity. Hmm, there was a whole infamous game about it back in the day and another one recently, I'm sure you have read about Custer's Last Stand and RapeLay. But anyway, there's only really one US video game with rape in
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Good Memory! There is Phantasmagoria (early 90's) and Custer's Last Stand (early 80's). There is also a rather disturbing underground MMO called SocialoTron [gamespy.com], that makes me fear for humanity.
The messed-up asian Hentai games like RapeLay haven't really seen a US release, certainly not a retail one, so they don't really count. The aforementioned MMO also isn't retail, though it has a US release.
In games in the west, any sex at all is considered controversial. Mass Effect's sex scene was probably the most v
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it violates their "family safe" goal / excuse, doesn't it? The other things referenced are also legal to enjoy (though in virtual sense in the case of excessive violence) yet frowned upon morally by some and definitely not generally considered family safe these days. The point is that Apple are again giving the lie to the excuses they've made when rejecting some other apps.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you'll find plenty of fanbois outside of Apple who will zealously defend the notion that the iPhone/pad is not a computer, that "sharia law" is the only way to give the user the best possible experience, that users will always blame Apple when their phone crashes or the battery doesn't last, that they would be helpless to download crap from dicey alternative app stores that would crash their phone and their babies would die because they couldn't call 911, etc...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The same morals that say that bikinis aren't allowed but Playboy breasts are, that satiric pullitzer price winning cartoons are taboo but fart soundboards are an important part of our comic culture, and a few swear words is totally not allowed but sex position games are just fine.
The point is that Apple is claiming to take the moral high ground, and since the established moral high ground with smoking is that advertising is not ok (see Joe Camel, television advertising, etc.), it would seem the standard mo
I can see it now. (Score:2)
After having read the article (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No the sun is deadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I the only one bothered that in the picture of the app, there's 2 hot girls, 2 "cool" guys and a fat geek with a beard?
Well, shit dude, they had to get their "cigarette" somewhere.
There's a rejected app for that! (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder about Apple sometimes. I know that their actual intent with the app store is:
A) Be the only channel for iPhone apps, so that they get a piece of every sale. (Which is the *real* reason for not allowing Flash, emulators, etc.)
B) Not get sued (thus the restrictions on parody and such).
C) Not piss off too many customers (thus the restrictions on porn and whatnot).
But the execution is terrible, because C conflicts with A as well as with itself (you get people upset both for allowing and forbidding porn). And because they want to maintain point A, they have to take ALL the blame for whatever they reject or allow. Frankly, I'm surprised that people still develop for the platform. I know there was an initial gold rush, but now that that's pretty much over, I would personally do everything I could to make the platform less attractive. Why help them when they'll screw you? Better to boost other platforms that don't give you crap like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You carefully document the costs to buy a mac, but assume that an Android developer would already have some computer. That's not a fair comparison. The cost of the machine should be prorated based on additional uses. Thus, the Mac will still cost more than the already owned machine, but it isn't free.
Re: (Score:2)
You carefully document the costs to buy a mac, but assume that an Android developer would already have some computer.
But isn't it realistic to assume that any person, wanting to program for an Android handset, with the skills to program would have a computer? On the other hand, many people who own iPhones (in fact, chances are, most of them) and many people with skills to program don't own Macs. In fact, if you -really- needed a computer, you could probably boot a library computer from a USB key and develop for Android and pay, what, $7 for the USB stick? Good luck finding a public library that lets their patrons use Ma
Re: (Score:2)
You carefully document the costs to buy a mac, but assume that an Android developer would already have some computer. That's not a fair comparison.
You have a point, but I think it is a fair comparison. Prospective iPhone developers are, well, developers. I don't know of a single developer that doesn't have any computer at all, but I know quite a few that don't have Macs. And, the "additional use" of an already-owned PC won't cost any extra until TPM adoption reaches critical mass.
If you already have a
Re: (Score:2)
If you're actually trying to make a living, a cost of $800 to get going is peanuts. There's lots of jobs with far higher barriers to entry, such as auto mechanic and bus driver. It's only a barrier for people doing hobby development.
Re: (Score:2)
This, ultimately is why the platform will fail. Throw together 10 low quality applications, hope that some pass the censors and then hope that one makes some money. This plan relies on hope, which is a terrible business model. Android will be better off without supporting this kind of thinking.
Now where this business model falls apart is that very few are making money using this model. It re
Steve Jobs played that game once or twice (Score:5, Funny)
I really wonder what apple's policy on employee drug usage is........
Ah well. It will get banned and ported to android in a few months. Did anyone port the shaking baby game? I could think of all sorts of fun, twisted apps for the android. How about
Toss the Foetus
"You are an assistant at cut rate abortion clinic. Your job is to take the foetuses from a bucket and toss them into the dumpster. Score points by not leaving them to bake on the alleyway asphalt. Extra points for a rim shot."
Anyone remember the talk to jesus app for Mac OS 7? I loved that thing I could totally port that to android. Anyone still have a copy? (My old mac drive died years ago)
Let me translate for you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Come one... how many people sit in a circle and pass around a cigarette. You all know this is a pot smoking game. They might have well specified the items as 'joint, fatty and bong'.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, and you can probably buy a [insert a regional colloquialism for a small quantity of cannabis here] for the price of this app, so why pretend?
I thought about this for a while, and what comes back to me is that the only real market for this app is kids. Although to be honest, when I was a kid, I could get drugs. They should rename the app to My First Reefer, or perhaps Pothead Trainer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yea well... that's just, like, your opinion... man.
You think it started as a cigarette? (Score:2, Funny)
For every app accepted there were 100 rejected
You think it's emulating a cigarette you're blowing?
Hint: this is a modification of an existing app, where 'suck' turned into 'blow' and fellatio changed into smoking.
I don't know this for a fact, just an educated guess :)
Makes sense for the developer to modify the app to be acceptable to Apple's more attuned tastes, and their key demographic.
Re: (Score:2)
If its called puff, puff, pass, its not a fellatio game, its a marijuana game.
Let me guess, you had a private school education?
R. Zimmerman for the American Cancer Society (Score:2, Funny)
Apple has to protect children, dont they ? (Score:2)
and now they are condoning a 'puff puff' game, for smoking cigarettes or pipe. all the while protecting the children.
im calling the apple fans to defend this kind of thing reasonably. i wonder whether any of you will succeed. i also wonder how lonw will it take you people to realize that apple has been going down the
This is news because...? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple denies thousands of apps a month, for trivial reasons. I assure you this would not get any attention for getting denied.
It's brilliant! (Score:2)
The High Road (Score:2)
puff puff pass? Sounds like Apple definitely took the high road to me.
Friday afternoon approval (Score:2)
So wait, maybe they'll remove the app later today
The TERRORISTS WIN when you report this stuff! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If there is a person who needs a hit from the 'peace pipe' more then Steve Jobs it's the average Slashdot reader.
YOU don't care. Don't speak for everyone else. (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't care much either, until Apple forced the Stanza app to remove its functionality to load books through the USB cable. Which I liked, instead of using the wireless transfer or internet download workarounds
Wait till the Apple restrictions bites you or your favourite app in the ass.
Oh I see where you're going with this (Score:2)
First they came for the porn but I was not a wanker so I didn't say anything. ....
Then they came for the cancer apps but I wasn't a smoker so I didn't do a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of major retailers in the civilized world make 'moral or ethical choices' on behalf of their customers. Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the main reason I decided to jailbreak my iPhone as soon as I obtained it.
Too bad you voted for more draconian control when you gave Apple money. Next time, give the money to someone who supports Open Source, Free Software, and personal responsibility. Nobody is impressed that you jailbroke your iPhone, that is old news. "I jailbroke my iPhone" is code for "I just don't fucking get it."