So 'curation' means 'arbitrarily refusing to let someone give something away for free for absolutely no good reason'?

http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/07/apple-dicks/

(Oh. No. Apple had a very good reason: It was called xscreensaver and fuck you. I believe the second reason was the most important one.)

Yes, because giving people choices imposes a small but real cost upon them. It's science.

> Yes, because giving people choices imposes a small but real cost upon them. It's science.

I'm going to charitably guess you're being sarcastic.

Not at all: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/christopher.hsee/vita/Papers...

So you think this is relevant... why?

Hm, but then they let it through:

http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/08/xscreensaver-for-ios-now-ava...

I fail to see the point of your tangential vitriol.

> Hm, but then they let it through:

Am I the only one that sees the idiocy here? That jwz had to fight with them at all is the entire point.

Of course but it's nothing more than bureaucratic red tape. This was simply the call that one junior reviewer made at one point based on a strict interpretation of the rules that had to be appealed. Obviously there will be some false negatives. The quality of the App Store is certainly better than Google Play.

> Of course but it's nothing more than bureaucratic red tape.

And you can't see it as the fault of the red tape itself.

The red tape is not the executive apparatus, but rather the choice of the executive apparatus. And since I'm not an idealogue I can see the pros and cons.