Oxfam America banner

Occam’s Razor Is Rusty

It’s no stunning revelation to regular readers that I think that there is an appalling lack of critical thinking skills amongst the so-called “experts” who make up the tech press. With very few exceptions the default process for the tech media seems to be to run stories without the slightest hint of investigation, verification, or even independent thought. Case in point, a story that began making the rounds last week about Apple exerting it’s DRACONIAN CONTROL to remove all WiFi “sniffer” applications. A typically craptacular example of the “reporting” surrounding the issue can be found in this article at the Cult of Mac blog. To quote:

Apple sent a note to the developer of WiFi-Where on Wednesday saying their app has been removed because it uses “a private framework to access wifi information.”

What this private framework is, neither Apple nor the developer explain.

The problem is the second sentence. Apple, of course isn’t explaining what the “private framework” is, because Apple hasn’t offered any fucking comment on this situation. Nor should they. Apple rejects hundreds of applications a week. They owe explanations to the developers, but not to random bloggers and journalists. More importantly though, Apple did explain why they shit-canned the apps. They “use private frameworks.” Now, remember that all of this communication is being relayed though the developers themselves, but it should be blindingly obvious to anyone styling themselves “experts” in iPhone related matters that “private framework” means the same thing as non-public APIs. Regardless of the idiocy being promulgated by fools like Erica Sadun, using non-public APIs in iPhone applications is specifically forbidden by the iPhone Developer Agreement. Nothing that Apple is doing here is in the least bit “suspicious.”

If this sort of fuzzy thinking was relegated to just the usual link-bait bloggers it would be one thing. The problem is that this meme has been co-opted by other reporters and pundits who should damn well know better. I’m not talking about legitimate debates over whether Apple’s control of the App Store is overly restrictive. I’m talking about otherwise intelligent people who are willfully ignoring the difference between Apple enforcing (albeit belatedly) one of the few hard-and-fast rules that the App Store has and them arbitrarily banning tittie apps. It’s honestly infuriating.

During one of the early Angry Mac Bastards podcasts, my man Peter Cohen screamed the following phrase. “OCCAM’S FUCKING RAZOR QUINCY, HAVE YOU HEARD OF IT?” I desperately need to extract that clip and start spamming it to the people perpetuating the conspiracy theory model of Apple’s business practices. Seriously you lack-wits, the simplest explanation really is usually the right one. Sadly that means that I have to go with the theory that the majority of the tech media are just criminally incompetent, rather than my preferred theory that they are part of a Reptilliod advanced mission to drive the rest of us insane, but so be it.



  • The real issue is these fuckwits and their statement "apple never said what private framework" it's using.

    Really? REARRY? You fucking morons know EXACTLY which private framework it's using because you FUCKING HUNTED IT DOWN AND IMPLEMENTED IT.

    Jesus fucking wolly mammoth people are dumb.
  • Here's the problem with Occam's Razor: some people believe that sinister intent IS the simplest answer. It's how some people see bad government, not as incompetence or some flaw in a system, but an intended result of someone or some group's machinations.

    Of course, such results only from using the quest for a simple answer. Occam's Razor needs to be preceded by facts and logic. In these cases something resembling "facts and logic" only get applied after the conclusion has been made, to try and prop up the predetermined answer in arguments.
  • I had the same Occam's Razor conversation with someone who swore to me that Apple was blocking Flash because they didn't want people playing free games on the internet and wanted them to instead, pay for games in the App Store. First of all, Apple doesn't give a shit about games and never have. Secondly, there are ALREADY free games in the App Store, so why would Apple care about people playing free games on the internet? Third, Flash was banned from the iPhone a year and half before there was ever an App Store.

    When I countered with these arguments, the person in question exploded with all these conspiracies about Steve Jobs and the App Store. I stopped him with this simple observation: Steve Jobs is the same guy who killed the Floppy on the iMac, who wouldn't support WMAs in iTunes, who wouldn't even give us an ethernet port or more than one USB port for the MacBook Air.

    Knowing all that, is it more reasonable to assume that Steve Jobs just doesn't like Flash because he thinks it's outdated and buggy and resource intensive (as he admitted in private conversations) or is it more reasonable to assume he doesn't like Flash because he has a sinister plot to make money in the App Store (which is stupid because Apple makes their money from the hardware not the content)?

    Anyway, when I presented the argument that way, I shut the guy up.
  • Sigivald
    First of all, Apple doesn't give a shit about games and never have.

    Well, I don't think you can say that now, since they're pushing the Touch as a gaming device.

    They don't care about games-qua-games. They sure as hell care about games "getting us sales".
  • jamesbailey
    >Anyway, when I presented the argument that way, I shut the guy up.

    Really? That doesn't sound too likely. :)
  • The problem is that it partly is Apple's mistake, this kind of non-news exists in the first place, but it's a mistake that should be understandable to an intelligent person. Let me explain:

    Apple is now starting to systematically enforce the rules they have set for apps, which pisses people off, because the apps were approved in the first place, I get this.
    But Apple was and is in the process of learning how to maintain a so far unseen method of software distribution, all while having to adhere to their brand's high standards.
    No other company had the brains to do something like this before, there was no empirical data to guide Apple, no company to buy-up who had experience with this kind of product.
    It is understandable — to me at least — that Apple made mistakes and will continue to make some.

    As far as I can tell, the rules haven't even become that much more strict in the two and a half years since the introduction of the app store; only use public APIs, offensive/illegal stuff is prohibited, don't duplicate core functions, etc.
    It doesn't surprise me, that some programmers are trying to test how far they can go, using private frameworks (in the case above I'd guess it was something like a passive scanning mode) and trying to bend some of the rules in their favour.
    But those people should be equally unsurprised if Apple tells them to GTFO.

    I'm in favour of Apple scouring the AppStore. No more riff-raff, no more fucking fart apps, no more amateurishly put-together apps showing nudity, no more idiotic ebook apps that try to make people buy public domain books… — I could go on.
  • See, the thing is, while I pretty much agree with everything you wrote, it just doesn't matter. There is literally no move that Apple can make that won't bring out the morally bankrupt tools who know that they can make a quick adsense buck from trashing it.

    Not to mention that we're stuck with 25 years of 'spergeridden nerds who just can't grasp the fact that a publicly traded corporation can't be defined by the categories on a D&D character sheet and who eat those posts up.
  • I realise that and it makes me a sad sad panda.
    Your first point translates into people being the greedy fucktards they are.
    Your second point shows that we all will get old and dull-witted, seeing as (probably) formerly forward thinking people can't recognise technological evolution/innovation anymore.
  • Sounds like a good ytmnd.com site idea. Needs a picture of Peter screaming, too.
blog comments powered by Disqus