Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

MemeStreams Discussion

search


This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: The Personal Computer Is Dead - Technology Review. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.

The Personal Computer Is Dead - Technology Review
by Decius at 8:41 am EST, Dec 1, 2011

Jonathan Zittrain has an interesting rant here about the way that app stores and sandboxing constrain the creativity of application developers. I think where this essay fails is that it does not give proper weight to the security benefits associated with some of the things that it rails against.

Prior smartphone platforms with open application development and distribution models, like SymbianOS, have significant amounts of malware infestation. Thus far, iPhones and Android devices have avoided this plague in spite of much wider distribution. That is a significant victory.

There has been some Android malware this year, but most of it has been distributed in third party app stores and does not affect the vast majority of end users. I think that we'll see more malware for these devices in the future, but thus far the security model has proven to be effective and that is important.

However, the fact that you are controlling applications for security reasons does not mean that you need to control applications for content reasons.

When Exodus International—"[m]obilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality"—released an app that, among other things, inveighed against homosexuality, opponents not only rated it poorly (one-star reviews were running two-to-one against five-star reviews) but also petitioned Apple to remove the app. Apple did.

Apparently Apple has a rule against offending people:

An Apple spokesperson told the Huffington Post that Apple had removed the Exodus International app because it "[violated] our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people."

That is s a pretty hypocritical position for a company that encourages people to "think different." Now, I can see removing this app because telling people that Jesus will cure them from being gay is thought to be harmful and predatory, but thats not the rationale here, and rationales matter. This rationale apparently applies to examples of clearly political speech.

An iPhone application denouncing gay marriage is apparently history after thousands of people signed an online petition urging Apple to remove it from its App Store.

The application, called Manhattan Declaration, was a "call of Christian Conscience" that advocated "the sanctity of life, the dignity of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and religious liberty," according to its website....

In a statement, Apple said, "We removed the Manhattan Declaration app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people."

... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]


 
RE: The Personal Computer Is Dead - Technology Review
by noteworthy at 9:09 pm EST, Dec 1, 2011

Apple isn't a common carrier so it would seem to be free to chart the path it believes to be in the best interests of its shareholders. Content curation has been part of their approach from the early days of the app store. This could turn out to be an interesting point of distinction compared to Amazon's store. As a bookseller Amazon has inherited a different set of norms about neutrality with regard to content. As app stores evolve into a replacement for TV this topic may come to a head ...

Presumably Google and Facebook, being ad-driven businesses, are making certain value judgments about the acceptability of targeted advertisements. As the technology for targeted advertising advances, it will be possible to use these channels to direct fully personalized political messages to individual voters in an efficient, automated manner. It might be costly to win the ad auction when you're ready to buy a new car, but comparatively cheap to ping you daily with exactly the "right" political messages to achieve the buyer's objectives. Should these expentidures be subject to regulation? What is the future of personalized advertising as political speech? Consider this in the context of the Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford Memo. Assume that the advertising platform enables them to deliver a perfectly crafted message to every (opposition) voter, at minimal cost compared to broadcast campaigns. How well can an ad-hoc, neutral/impartial voter information guide compete with that? I suspect it depends on the voter's motivation to learn the truth. The odds aren't in Truth's favor ...


 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics