MG Siegler

I find the whole thing really rather curious. I too am baffled as to why Apple has allowed this functionality from day one. I am also surprised that there has not been considerably more malicious usages of this data.

Apple clearly does not enforce the the guidelines 17.1 strictly - but some developers are rejected for this. I can imagine it being possible (and I have no idea) that Apple turns a blind eye to developers that break this rule on the assumption they are doing it as a reputable company and doing it for "clear" value to the end user. (e.g.: not just acquiring all your contacts despite being a fart app.)

> 17.1: Apps cannot transmit data about a user without obtaining the user's prior permission and providing the user with access to information about how and where the data will be used.

Apple traditionally will happily leave functionality users or developers deem critical out of iOS until it is done right - push notifications, geo-location, background applications. It seems to make so much sense that "contacts" are part of something that Apple would want to do right - after all - it can create significant value for the user. (as discussed here: http://parislemon.com/post/11647475506/your-true-social-network)

But that doesn't explain why allow it in the first place in its current state? Its a really odd thing to simply offer developers on a whim (all their SDK blurb says is "Your application can create new Address Book contacts and get existing contact info.")…

I'm glad some people have perspective on this issue. I remember MG Siegler's ridiculous article about why he hated Android[1] and just how furiously angry he was that they didn't deliver on some overly ambitious promise to take out the phone carriers.

Yet when he (reluctantly) took the time to write about the recent Foxconn issues[2], he tried to deflect blame from Apple because they're simply an easy target considering they're "now arguably the most successful company on the planet." No furious anger, no outrage, just a simple "uh well shit happens, its unfortunate."

What kind of hypocrisy must exist inside someone's head to be capable of writing both of those articles? What's worse is that nearly every article MG's written this past week or so has been about just how amazingly-super-awesome it is that Apple made so much money. Apparently it's all great to be the most "successful company on the planet", but heaven forbid anyone dare look at how those profits are earned in a critical light.

But but but Mom, Samsung is doing it too!! No one is going to change their manufacturing practices as long as a company like Apple is reaping in some of the largest profits in recorded history using Foxconn style labor as a foundation.

[1]: http://parislemon.com/post/15604811641/why-i-hate-android

[2]: http://parislemon.com/post/16561630035/this-is-why-we-cant-have-nice-things

As anyone who's used it knows, CB radio is very much unlike anything you can do with a smartphone[1][2], so I argue it should go in the second list at the end of the article, where the author talks about things that can't be replaced by a smartphone.

[1] notice how CB radios can still be bought at major retailers such as this one, one of the largest in my country https://www.supercheapauto.com.au/4wd-recovery/uhf-cb-vhf-radios

(the same can't be said of cassette recorders or answering machines or VHS camcorders)

[2] there were many attempts to make smartphone apps where you can communicate with people that are physically around you. These never picked up steam and the two examples I remember are now defunct (I can't remember the names, I will update this post if I find them)

EDIT: the apps in question were called Highlight app and Glancee app.

Highlight:

https://parislemon.com/post/18994363772/meeting-people-is-easy-remembering-them-is-hard

https://techcrunch.com/2012/03/08/highlight2x/

Glancee still has a website, but it no longer exists as a standalone app as they were acquired by Facebook many years ago:

https://glancee.com/

Palo Alto/Menlo Park, CA - Lead Designer - Full Time

Everyme is looking for a lead designer. We're building the true social network, backed by the address book. We do an incredible amount of intensive computations, but everyone we have showed the product to is surprised by how we've managed to keep the UI beautiful, simple and focused. We like to think we're a dream home for a designer, as every one of our 5 engineers all implement PSDs to the pixel. We're looking for someone who has designed iOS/Mac apps before, and has a keen eye for pixel perfection.

You'll be challenged on a daily basis to make our complex algorithms look simple to the end user. MG Siegler wrote a great post on us, which has a little more info about Everyme[1]. We're launching in 10 days, and have raised $1.5m from CrunchFund and others (Andreessen Horowitz, Greylock, SV Angel). To apply, please email oliver at everyme dot com with some of your previous work.

1. http://parislemon.com/post/11647475506/your-true-social-network

"right now, the mobile carriers don’t matter nearly as much in the tablet space as they do in the smartphone space." http://parislemon.com/post/18390218572/winning-duh

Furthermore, the Android customers might think of their smartphone as just a phone and not care much about the "smart" part, whereas they want a standarized tablet which runs the same software as their friends' tablets. If you buy an iPad, you'll know that all of your software runs on the next iPad you buy. You don't do that with all the Android tablets, you don't even know if you can buy one with the same screen size next year.

If I'm a company or school and I have to buy tablets and software and education of employees/teachers, I want to know that the tablets I buy in 2-3-4 years time will run the same software that I invest in today. So the iPad could get the same 'monopoly' as MS Windows had in the 90'ies.

My opinion on MG Siegler cemented after the last fight he had with Dan Lyons. I don't even really like Dan Lyons that much (though I was pretty amused by Fake Steve Jobs). But this post: http://realdanlyons.com/blog/2011/09/28/kindle-fire-and-the-tricky-business-of-chasing-scoops/ seemed fair, reasonable, not hostile, and even careful in giving credit where it was due. And it had a great point: that we'll know when we know, and that the value of this type of "scoop" is close to zero.

Siegler's response was a fairly vicious, direct ad hominem with no greater point. http://parislemon.com/post/10774472888/fake-steve-jobs-funny-real-dan-lyons-sloppy-lazy

Judge for yourself. I did, and I've decided not to read his writing anymore.