[r00fus]

Apple's moral compass is pretty much dictated by image, especially amongst the userbase of it's products.

As far as I can surmise, an app would be banned if:

* it would offend a large potential group of customers

* it offends even a moderate but vocal set of existing customers

* it spews and/or supports the spewing of FUD

* it makes the iPhone or Apple look bad

All in all, these are pretty easy to guess guidelines. They're also very geared towards keeping and attracting customers, and thus, the bottom line.

[trythis3]

Alternatively, the company is run by a comparatively moralistic CEO. Apple and Steve Jobs are not as superficial as their many detractors accuse them of being. In fact, they're among the least superficial entities in the business.

[TomOfTTB]

Would this be the same CEO that would fire people if they couldn't justify their job in an elevator ride? Or the Steve Jobs who denied his daughter's existence until it was painfully clear she was his (going so far as to force her mother onto welfare because he refused to support her)? Or are you talking about the Steve Jobs who paid lip service to improving conditions at Foxconn while not forcing them to improve anything (I think there's been 3 suicides so far this year)?

I own Apple products, I love my Apple products, I love Steve Jobs' talent for creating them. But let's hold off on beautifying the man shall we?

[thaumaturgy]

It's kind of a bummer that you included the Foxconn example, considering that there have been several articles pointing out that Foxconn is huge and, statistically speaking, they have a lower suicide rate than the national average. In other words, working at Foxconn makes you less likely to commit suicide!

That example kind of casts doubt on the others, which I hadn't heard of before (but wouldn't be surprised by, either).

[TomOfTTB]

On the other claims are you capable of using Google? If you had the time to post this you should have the time to verify the data for your own piece of mind.

As far as Foxconn the company is huge but 30 suicide attempts in 3 weeks is not normal (http://gizmodo.com/#!5540045/foxconn-suicide-cluster-claims-...). China only has a .02% suicide rate and most are in the rural areas (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-09/11/content_609571...). That's 1 (Edit: I meant 1,000 here) in every 5 million people killing themselves. Foxconn has 950,000 employees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn) and 30 suicide attempts in 3 weeks!

[seabee]

Your facts don't support your assertions.

Population of China (2007): 1,321,851,888 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004391.html)

Suicide rate determined in 2007: "more than 287,000 people end their own lives every year" (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-09/11/content_609571...)

Suicide rate per 100,000 per year: 21.7

Statistically expected suicides at Foxconn per year: 206

Actual suicides in 2010: 14 (http://topics.scmp.com/news/china-news-watch/article/Struggl...) with at least 30 attempts (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/malcolmmoore/100039883/wha...) (the articles contradict themselves in the number of attempts)

You are assuming the suicide cluster is a continuing trend rather than a short-term incident. Statistics does not work that way, things are not neat and orderly and you can't extrapolate like that. Besides, suicide clusters are a known phenomenon (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7205141.stm).

Also bear in mind that other sources place China's suicide rate much lower by a factor of as much as 4 (but Foxconn's suicide rate would still be lower than the average).

Is it something to be concerned about? Of course. But it's not at the dark-forces-at-work stage. All you are witnessing is how sausages (or cheap Chinese-manufactured goods) are made; witnessing it is uncomfortable but how often does it turn someone vegetarian?

[Retric]

That's a reasonable first approximation.

However, I would add that attempts are a poor indicator because there is a wide range of methods with poor success rates. EX: An increasing in attempts can relate to people choosing low success rate methods and failing.

Also younger people are far more likely to commit suicide than the elderly or vary young. However, generally employed people tend to have lower suicide rates. There is also a significant gender bias in suicide attempts and different bias in rates of suicide. Men are more likely to die on their first attempt in large part due to their chosen methods etc.

Also, suicides rates tend to cluster more than expected, both in the short and long term.

[ceejayoz]

> On the other claims are you capable of using Google?

> China only has a .02% suicide rate and most are in the rural areas (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-09/11/content_609571...). That's 1 in every 5 million people killing themselves.

While you're suggesting people use Google, you should acquaint yourself with the calculator function. That's 1,000 in every 5 million people killing themselves. http://www.google.com/search?q=0.02%25+*+5000000

10 suicide attempts a week in a company the size of San Jose, California isn't particularly high.

[TomOfTTB]

Sorry I meant 1,000 there. But my typo doesn't invalidate the point. The total suicide rate includes the elderly, the painfully poor, and so on. Foxconn workers by virtue of having a job at all are in the higher ranks of society. They shouldn't be at a rate that's over 50% of the total suicide rate.

(Also note instead of improving the conditions they put out Suicide nets which is bound to bring their numbers down)

[thaumaturgy]

> On the other claims are you capable of using Google?

Nope. Is that a new startup? YCS11?

[ceejayoz]

> Or are you talking about the Steve Jobs who paid lip service to improving conditions at Foxconn while not forcing them to improve anything (I think there's been 3 suicides so far this year)?

Foxconn had 920,000 employees in 2010, according to Wikipedia. China's suicide rate per 100,000 people is 6.6. If there've been 3 suicides thus far, they're tremendously below average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_ra...

[kloncks]

C'mon.

Young people make mistakes. Young suddenly-rich successful people will often make bad decisions.

Hating on Steve Jobs for something he has done previously when he was young and stupid makes as much sense as hating on Mark Zuckerburg as a 19-year-old calling Facebook users "dumb fucks".

But no. You're right. I'm sure the CEOs who have no vision or rigid beliefs are better. I'm sure that those that will change absolutely anything - selling PCs with not enough memory to handle an Operating System or putting Flash onto products that simply can't support them and crash - to simply sell more products are better.

We're not beautifying the man. We're simply giving him his deserved compliments in an industry where he's still a moral rarity.

[TomOfTTB]

Moral rarity how. What has he done that has been so moral exactly? Other than banning porn (which isn't inherently moral) I can't think of anything.

Second there is a big difference between calling people "dumb f*cks" and forcing your child and her mother into poverty because you refuse to pay (even though you easily could because you're rich).

[Nick_C]

Just for general information, since it's appeared a couple of times, I'll just mention that to make someone out to be a saint is "beatify".

[jrockway]

But he wears a turtleneck and jeans and says stuff like "one more thing."