<p>Well, that didn’t take long:</p>
<p><a href=“Why Good2Go, an App for Sexual Consent, Is a Horrible Idea”>Why Good2Go, an App for Sexual Consent, Is a Horrible Idea;
<p>Article discusses the intent behind the app and why it ultimately won’t work. There is also a CNN article linked in above about a mom who tells her sons to text partners before and after a sexual encounter to have “proof” it was consensual.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>Me thinks they will get a letter from WA DOT! :)</p>
<p>;)
Speaking of bad ideas Bunsen, did you hear that the Garfield principal took the rapist in the NatureBridge field trip case out to breakfast with his mom, to ask what happened?
This info apparently came out at last weeks PTA meeting.</p>
<p>Wow. Did not hear that one, EK.</p>
<p>This is the prime example of techies who think that they are holier than thou, and that every legal concept can be reduced to an app! </p>
<p>I’m not confident that this would be legally binding. I personally like to have consent forms on hand, and a notary.</p>
<p>Just to be safe, you should bring your attorney with you. </p>
<p>There you go - job opportunities for lawyers. :))</p>
<p>This assumes that a drunk undergraduate will remember to take out his phone, give the app to the girl, etc… Not very credible.</p>
<p>App is now gone from all App Stores.</p>
<p>I cannot confirm this yet, but makes sense - I heard feminist groups did not like the app because it gets guys off the hook, i.e., a tipsy or drunk girl could press anything, the guy could activate of her, and there is no “I change my mind” button after things get going. </p>
<p>Nothing short of cameras in the bedroom is going to solve this consent issue anyway, as males and females are always going to have different takes on events, even events on which they agree.</p>
<p><a href=“Consensual Sex App 'Good2Go' Pulled From Apple Store - CBS San Francisco”>http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/10/07/consensual-sex-app-good2go-pulled-from-apple-store/</a></p>
<p>I think the main goal was to generate 15 min of fame for the app creator. There are so many app companies out there that it is difficult to get noticed without being outrageous! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It was Apple who pulled it, not the creator. And then the creator took it off of Google. The app worked and was free, so it was not a cost or technical issue to the creator. </p>
<p>As I stated, the rumor is certain groups came down on Apple about it. But, something is not right given the fact the app was free, so something major forced Apple to pull it. The creator’s goal seems irrelevant to me; there is bigger backstory, as to what happened. </p>
<p>If something ever went wrong, Apple’s disclaimers might relieve them of legal responsibility, the the potential for bad publicity is huge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct, that is why it is not a legal issue, but something else. </p>
<p>“It was Apple who pulled it, not the creator. And then the creator took it off of Google. The app worked and was free, so it was not a cost or technical issue to the creator.”</p>
<p>By “main goal of 15 min of fame” I meant the creation of the app, not the pulling of the app. :)</p>
<p>^^ I understood that. My point was the app would still be there if not for some overriding issue. The creator I do think was going for beyond 15 min of fame. If hundreds of thousands started using it, it would be valuable aka saleable. So, I kind of disagree it was just a 15 min stunt. </p>
<p>“Me thinks they will get a letter from WA DOT!”</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. Maybe they should charge a govt fee on it.</p>
<p>Oh, I stand by my conclusion. If you created a controversial product with the major distribution channels that are controlled by a third party, and you (presumably) underestimated how quickly it can be yanked by said party because of the product’s legality or controversial nature, you were either incompetent businessman (did not do your marketing etc. homework) or you were simply seeking attention and did not really intend to profit off the product. Given the lady’s background, I doubt it is the former. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In mobile technology, there are no channels that are not third party controlled, so that is not a decision that the creator had any choice about. </p>
<p>We differ in that what you see as reaching for 15 min of fame, I see as a person taking a risk to produce a product to address a major publicly-debated issue. But, even then it was an uphill battle because 90% of all products ever created fail before or once hitting the market. These products just need to be discontinued for one reason or another, even if all the necessary correct steps were done.</p>
<p>The creator also did not underestimate the possibility of the app being pulled, as that is part of the agreement every app developer signs with Apple and Google. In fact, even after creation, the app might not have been approved by Apple, and no one would have ever known about it. He even took the risk in creating knowing it might never be seen. Apple was obviously fine with the app, as it approved and let it get downloaded.</p>
<p>The creator saw the uproar about consent, saw the law passed in California, and created an app to address the issue. On the face of it, the app does address the issue, but that is quite different than satisfying an outside political group(s). </p>
<p>The creator learned basically that even the best designed products, which solve an issue, may not be so clear when politically interpreted. Political are much more muddled. Apple is extremely sensitive to political pressure, unlike some other companies, and so it reacted, which is its right to do. </p>
<p>However, because a risk does not pay off is quite different than assuming the creator is looking for 15 min of fame like a Kardashian’ type and saying one did not do his research. He could have done all of that and the product could have still failed - as stated earlier, it could have failed before coming to market by not being approved by Apple. </p>
<p>Just ask New Coke, McDLT, Chevy Volt, McWings, Dominos’ former sauce, and the list goes on for thousands of products. Billions in every bit of research possible and crossing every T and doting every i and they still failed in spectacular fashion. The several hundred of millions of dollars in focus groups and market research were 100% wrong. It is just part of the territory. We lose most and win extremely few. The bardes loses are when the market changes on you seemingly overnight. However, when we win, we clean up big, and it makes all the failures worth it. </p>