Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset 492
An anonymous reader writes "Apple is now removing many risque applications from its App Store so as not to 'scare off potential customers.' The removed applications, including SlideHer and Dirty Fingers, allowed people to see scantily clad women. Although they were once approved by Apple, even reaching the 'most downloaded' lists, Apple removed them after getting complaints that they were degrading to women. That said, the Sports Illustrated application is still available for those who want scantily clad women on their iPhone, and developers are up in arms over the perceived inconsistency. It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind of web browser on there. On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible."
Some are speculating that this is a ploy from Apple to drum up interest in the iPad from educators.
Perhaps another Sudoku app... (Score:5, Funny)
Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset
Shoot.
Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt.
.
Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... (Score:4, Insightful)
I cannot for a minute believe that the 'histrionic control freaks' at Apple can not come up with separate Adult and Education sections (Dumb and Dumber?) for the iPad. Or even an iPad only part of the store.
Nope, too damned hard. Might take all of a week.
Any more weird ideas, guys?
why dumb and dumber (Score:2)
Just because someone doesn't follow your logic doesn't make them dumb. There could be a variety of reasons, a few being, A.) adult content isn't worth that much when opportunity cost is taken in to consideration. What's the point in pleasing a few depraved nerds when you can indoctrinate an entire generation from grade school. B.) This could be from a lobbyist stand point. Apple lobbies some senator for support with the educational system and there stipulation is get rid of the porn. At this point in coo
Re:why dumb and dumber (Score:5, Interesting)
Just put your still photos on the phone via iTunes....or rip your pr0n dvd's with Handbrake..and put them on the device via iTunes. YOu don't have to use the app store for ALL your content.
Hell, I've never actually bought anything off iTunes...I have my own audio and video content. I've only used the store for free podcasts...and the free apps for the iPhone. Other than that..who needs the store?
Put what you want on there..nothing is stopping you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... (Score:5, Informative)
iTunes U [apple.com] is the education section of the iTunes store.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... (Score:4, Informative)
Why can't Apple let the market decide. Set up some sort of rating system so people can filter out stuff they don't want to see.
Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... (Score:5, Insightful)
seems to be working fine how it is (Score:5, Insightful)
and it is going to kill the App Store.
You know, people keep saying that, and yet, they hit 1 billion+ downloads so far in nine months (if their numbers are to be trusted). So, in a way, I'm finding it harder and harder to agree that their formula isn't viable. It seems to be doing fine. Is that because ($JOE_END_USER.cares() == false)? Yeah probably. But I'm not worried for their success. It seems unavoidable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find your post a bit odd.
When was the app store about making money for Apple?
It was always about selling iPhones and iPod Touches (and soon iPads).
The 30% that Apple gets really is meant to cover costs. When the App Store launched, a number of real developers (ie people with retail software behind them, not just /. posters) mentioned that they spent anywhere between 20 to 40% on those costs, so were generally happy with Apple taking 30% to handle them.
What's more odd about your post is that you don't thin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And it's been restored since they became a much more open platform, which happened when, exactly?
Apple was almost destroyed by bad management that stopped developing new products worth buying, created confusing groups of model lineups and kept absurdly high pricing for machines with last year's performance.
The first thing Jobs did on their current road to success was kill the clones, rather the opposite of opening up the platform, no?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As an Apple app store consumer I will say that these boobie apps (along with all the "points" apps for all the mafia wars clones) are basically unwanted spam to me. They make the app store less appealing to use since they clutter the place up.
Perhaps if the "devs" were less spammy about their 99c collections of images Apple wouldn't have brought the hammer down.
Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Apple is all about end-user choice?
Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... (Score:5, Funny)
unbelievable, yet very believable (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:unbelievable, yet very believable (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. Sony learned from their VHS vs. Betamax lessons and proved it with the success of Bluray. What was the lesson? Betamax discouraged porn on their format. The result was that VHS won because it didn't and while no one wants to be found guilty of favoring VHS for porn, that was a significant factor in buyers' purchasing decisions.
Sony almost took the same route with Bluray and realized their mistake was being repeated early on and allowed porn.
Apple? If you don't allow adult content for adults to use while your competitors do? Watch out.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple? If you don't allow adult content for adults to use while your competitors do? Watch out.
Because Apple has become about being in a certain mindset. They not only promote it, lately they're doing their best to ENFORCE it. If you use Apple, you're a young, cool, hip, media loving yuppy. Even if you're 50 years old you must still believe in this image to fit with Apple. You sit in coffee shops for hours with your Apple devices wearing black turtlenecks and sipping over-priced latte's. Porn (along with other things that Apple declares so) doesn't fit within this envelope; it's just too "uncool"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oddly, porn is illegal in some jurisdictions. Were I giving an i-something to a 14 year old boy, I think I'd like to have a bit of control over what that boy's watching if he's my child, and my responsibility. Eventually, he might break out of whatever limits are imposed, but that's his initiative, and mine as a parent.
Once he's matured, I'd say he has the right to do what he wants. Most men consumer porn. Most boys should not.
That Apple is having a hard time with dividing who and what's acceptable is the t
Re:Porn is for Boys, not Men. (Score:5, Funny)
I disagree, porn is for boys, not men. No man would escape into fantasy land to gain sexual satisfaction, because that is a boyish thing to do. Of course, not all boys are under 18. Is seems there are very few real men in the world.
Also, it's nice to say that boys should not consume porn, but everyone knows that all boys have access to it. That's why I have such a huge problem with this kind of censorship. It does nothing to solve the real problem. It just gives parents an excuse to believe there may not be a problem, when there clearly is one.
That is utter bullshit, I can only assume that your wife reads what you post here. Good luck with that.
Re:Porn is for Boys, not Men. (Score:5, Insightful)
All men masturbate. Some just lie about it. But playing the moral superiority, 'real men don't fantasize' card is such nineteenth century, Victorian ere crap. All the studies I've read show fantasy and masturbation as normal, healthy aspects of human sexuality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's one point I concur with the controversial post here. I have the feeling that youngsters actually search for porn more actively than adults, since adults have access to it easily (I'm not going to say 'boys' cause girls do it too [you don't believe me?]). Now, I'm not a parent, but I'm kind of sure I wouldn't freak out if my teenager watched porn. As long a
Porn is for... Men and Women! (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, something like a third of web-site porn consumers these days are women, and women are the fastest growing demographic of porn consumers. This is why the market should decide.
If you haven't read this book [amazon.com] yet you should.
(True not all porn is created equal. There is some really interesting porn films out there which have received raving reviews in magazines like "Women's Health" and "Oprah Magazine.")
Re:Porn is for Boys, not Men. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And what part of my disagreement to that declaration didn't you understand?
Apple made a choice. They're the ones responsible for their image and marketing. They're the ones that drew a line-- and we can agree that they should have done this earlier. Their market share is huge, and they're the pioneers in app delivery to smartphones. Did they screw up? Yup. Should they have made these decisions long ago? Yes. Their app store is a work in progress. NO ONE has their success here. They had to bite a bullet and
So why is the Playboy app still available? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple allows Big Content to put up porn apps, just not little publishers, so your explanation doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
Re:unbelievable, yet very believable (Score:5, Funny)
I've always been a PC at heart.
Not like the rest, the others. Everyone around me. I was at odds with my society and knew it early since birth. Unlike them, I did not "Think Different!"--the mantra of the Macs around me, the phrase on all the billboards in the city that served as a reminder to its citizenry. Sameness pervaded the essence of my being and no amount of self-conditioning I did could change that. Eventually, I gave up and isolated myself emotionally from society.
I gaze at the faces going by, the white earphones contrasting their black turtlenecks, connecting their ears to their pockets, their blank faces engrossed in hip Indie rock music and various garage bands. I envied them for their perfection against my flaws and my compulsive nature to expand, to burden my life with troubles instead of remaining, like them, simple and easy to deal with. The grandest of virtues, simplicity... the philosophy by our loyal benefactor Steve Jobs, who descended from the heavens, creating the Earth, the iron, the wind and the rain. Steve Jobs, who defined the parameters of existence, the one who set about the patterns of reality, the constants, the variables. He who made gravity, electromagnetic energy, and shaped atomic structures and brought forth motion. From these things, he crafted the elements, processed them, refined them, and from these things engineered Apple products through the purity of his mind. Each Apple product was individually crafted by his own hands with the programming code used to run each device having being compiled in his brain and uploaded to each device telepathically, breathing life and perfection into each and every unit.
Except, it seems, for me, for I was not among the many. I was a PC. They were Macs. I've always been a cold, stiff person. I got by, disguising myself by keeping my non-Ipod music player safely out of sight, which I use because of my depraved nature demanding more functionality than the simple and easy-to-use Ipods have to offer.. In the safety of my own home, behind locked doors, I ran a Forbidden, a contraband computer from more depraved, earlier days that was not given the love and blessing of being birthed by Steve Jobs. I dual booted, out of the great sin of curiosity-- curiosity, a shameful value of a PC, as curiosity has no place where simplicity matters most--using two of the great unutterable blasphemies-- something called "Windows Vista" and something else called "Linux." Although, as I mentioned before, although my tendency to be a PC and towards conformity has always been inherent to me, I was truly transformed when I found these old things in a hidden cache of computer parts predating The Purging. Perhaps the greatest sin of all, the single evil that, if discovered, would damn me forever, was the fact that my mouse had more than one button.
As I walk among the Macs on the streets, passing the Starbuckses as I went along, I wondered how it all came to this. I glanced at The Holy Marks on the foreheads as the people wandered down the streets, the Bitten Apple tattooed on all our of us at birth, and wondered if, perhaps, there could be something more to life. But again, this was a PC's thought, and not, like everyone elses', a Mac's. We were to hold ourselves to the philosophy of Steve Jobs--so as his products were designed for idiots, so too were we to be idiots. But I was not a Mac--I was not an idiot. I was simply too complicated to be a worthwhile person.
Nature called. I found a nearby public iPoo--squeaky clean and sparkly white, things weren't all bad--and let myself go, expelling the waste that had accumulated inside me. After relieving myself and committing the overly-complicated and thus illegal act of wiping my ass (I did not flush as iPoos, designed to be idiot-proof, did not flush) I left and once again wandered the streets aimlessly, hoping to find some meaning in a world where I simply did not belong, a world where if my true nature was discovered, I would be endlessly persecuted by smug, self-righteous sons of bitches.
Re:unbelievable, yet very believable (Score:5, Informative)
>>>Agreed. Sony learned from their VHS vs. Betamax lessons and proved it with the success of Bluray. What was the lesson? Betamax discouraged porn on their format.
>>>
I wish people would stop posting false stories. Sony allowed Betamax to carry porn, and have (or rather had) a whole library to prove it. Playboy, swimsuits, unmentionable stuff - it was all available on Betamax. You are quoting a false urban legend. In reality the reason Betamax failed is because it only supported 1 hour per tape (in 1975) and people felt 1 hour was not long enough to record an evening football game, or primetime programming, or afternoon soaps.
So instead they chose VHS which supported 4 hours (in 1976). While Sony later increased the max record time to 3 hours in 1980, the damage had already been done, and VHS had already gained dominance.
As for quality between VHS and Betamax, that is yet another urban legend. Just as Sony tried to dupe people into believing the PS2 had Toy Story-level graphics, so too did they try the same with Betamax, but in reality, there's no statistical difference:
- Both are 3 megahertz video bandwidth (250 lines analog horizontal resolution)
- Both have 0.6 megahertz chroma bandwidth
- Both have AM-quality sound recording... and later Hi-Fi recording
great story (Score:5, Interesting)
but you're wrong. when vhs and beta came out, beta supported 250 lines of resolution vs vhs' 240, and the heavy luma/chroma 'bleed' in vhs made the picture look noticeably worse. eventually vhs upped to 250 lines of resolution, and incidently beta actually downgraded to 240 lines of resolution in order to fit 2 hours onto a tape. however, the misconception about betamax picture quality is often attributed to people who've seen superbeta tapes, which weren't introduced until 1985 when the format war was already over. however, at 290 lines of resolution these tapes were/are significantly clearer than vhs. as for porn, yes there was beta porn, but it came much later than vhs porn and was significantly harder to come by, and this was because sony initially tried to block it from the platform completely. so while the common stories told about the format war aren't fully accurate, calling them 'false urban legends' is well, a false internet legend.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"how many sales are they missing because of these China-like rules?"
Probably none at all. Or not enough that it matters.
China like rules? Please if you don't like it don't buy an iPhone. Apple is just using it's freedom of choice. It is their store and they can choose to carry what they want.
Every time I see a story like this about how upset people are I just have to giggle. The developers will stay with the iPhone as long as they are making money. People will buy the iPhone as long as they can get the ap
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For Apple to have "China like rules" they would be throwing people in jail for writing the apps for android that they don't like. Right now they are no different that a tee shirt shop that doesn't want to carry tee shirts pro KKK shirts.
Nope... they already ban political apps.
From http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/apple-denied-health-care-app-for-political-reasons-developer-says/ [wired.com]
Apple rejected a free iPhone application that advocated a single-payer health system, calling the application “politically charged,” according to the app’s developer.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Yes... they already ban political apps, which proves your point.
There, fixed it for you.
-dZ.
define "China like rules" (Score:3, Insightful)
If "China like rules" means banning political things, the P is right.
If it means throwing people into jail, the GP is right.
Let's define things like mud^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hclearly.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now they are no different that a tee shirt shop that doesn't want to carry tee shirts pro KKK shirts.
Did you just compare porn to the ku klux klan? What the hell type of porn do you watch? Alternatively, what the hell happens at a KKK uh... meeting?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with saying you do not like this policy.
You have every right to not like this policy but.
It isn't a violation of your rights.
It isn't censorship.
It isn't immoral.
And don't buy an iPhone then complain about how your rights are being violated.
Those are all just silly.
Censorship is when the government controls what you can and can not publish.
Is a book publisher choosing to not publish a book because it is bad censorship?
Not at all.
That is a choice the company makes. Drop using things li
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
99% of the "developers" making these bikini girl apps are actually chinese or indian app sweatshops churning out sub-standard crap on a quantity over quality basis. I feel sorry for the other 1% but I think this is Apple doing a preemptive strike against these crApp Factories ahead of the iPad launch.
Awwwwww (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at me crying for these devs who supported this fucked up anticonsumer family of products.
And I'm laughing on the inside looking at their wittle tears.
Re:Awwwwww (Score:5, Funny)
.
Do you know what that dot is up there? Thats a tiny animated gif playing the worlds smallest violin.
Even a swimwear merchant app that sold bikinis (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>A merchant app that sold bikinis was dropped too, for showing girls in bikinis.
fap fap fap
Teacher: "What's that noise?"
Students: (silent)
Teacher: "So like I was saying, during the antitrust legislation, President..."
fap fap fap
Teacher: "Okay knock it off!"
Guy-in-back: "Oh sorry. I was just using my iPhone."
THIS is why Apple banned the ap. Hmmm... looking at this site, I'm wondering why it's possible to order the bottom of the bikini w/o the top? What good's a swimsuit with no top? LINK http [simplybeach.com]
Re: (Score:2)
To wear to a topless beach?
To wear with a different bikini top you think looks better?
To wear with a t-shirt?
Re:Even a swimwear merchant app that sold bikinis (Score:4, Funny)
...I'm wondering why it's possible to order the bottom of the bikini w/o the top? What good's a swimsuit with no top?...
It is for the locations that are free enough to allow topless beaches, but puritanical enough to not allow nude beaches.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am an American Patriot. I am a conservative. I am a liberal. These are not contradictions. I love America, our constitution and the values on which this nation was founded. "OMG! Boobies are the devil! Think of the children!" was not one of those values.
Those are not American Conservatives.They may be: Regressives. Destroyers of the constitution. Fascists. Theocrats. Enemies of the people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wisconsin?!?!? How do you have a beach in Wisconsin...? My geography isn't very good, but there isn't an ocean I know of within miles of there is there?
Also...being that far north...it actually gets warm enough up there to have chicks sit out in bikinis? Just curious...I've never been up around that area before.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First, beaches aren't only on oceans. In that part of the US, there's a lot of lakes of various sizes scooped out by glaciers in the last Ice Age. Many of them have beaches.
Second, it can get unpleasantly warm in the summer, because there is no ocean nearby to moderate temperatures. There are a few months of the year when you'd enjoy sitting outside in skimpy clothes (I don't think you want to see me in a bikini, frankly).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm... looking at this site, I'm wondering why it's possible to order the bottom of the bikini w/o the top? What good's a swimsuit with no top?
Shut the fuck up moron!!!!
Even political apps too (Score:2)
There was a app for a countdown clock for second term of Bush in Nov 2008. When it was rejected, the author emailed Apple, and Jobs himself replied: http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/ [juggleware.com]
Mr. Jobs replied : Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. Whatâ(TM)s the point? Steve
They're American. What do you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
America is full of prudes. Compare with a well know Finnish company.
http://store.ovi.com/content/17993 [ovi.com]
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lazier, though, a lot lazier.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, that would seem to suggest that they should just make a little change to how the app store works(i.e. don't display anything you don't have permission to install) instead of playing Taliban morality police with the developers they don't think are big enough to matter(while overlooking playboy and sports illustrated)...
I question the sanity of anybody who downloads single-purpose porn programs on a device that comes preloaded with a general purpose porn program(these are known in polite company, of course, as "web browsers"); but that doesn't make mass-banning without warning, after months of toleration, and with the exception of big publishers, any less of a dick move.
Worse, in a way, is that it isn't a terribly "apple-like" dick move, in the classic sense of what makes Apple interesting. Apple, under Jobs, has always been willing to throw technologies (and indirectly products and companies) under the bus if they think that it will allow them to do something cooler and better and shinier in the future. Dropping 64-bit Carbon, for instance, was classic Jobs. Who cares if Adobe and the MS MacBU will be very sad pandas, Steve has decided that carbon is old and busted and cocoa is the new hotness, everybody will just have to live with it. This, on the other hand, has 100% of the dickishness; but, by making exceptions for major publishers, is far more craven; and, since it is basically being done instead of improving the existing app ratings system, has none of the "in service of greater technical goodness" factor.
It's just dickish and lazy. Apple is supposed to be dickish and driven.
Free boobs. (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone who downloaded "Free Boobs" you can find more scantily clad women in a sears catalog...
app delete.
Besides, that is what your browser is for you lazy app using sods!
Ugh (Score:2, Insightful)
-No competing browsers? They duplicate existing functionality. Certainly wouldn't want that.
-No scantily clad women? They objectify women. But pay no heed to the Sports Illustrated app or the entirety of the internet at your very literal fingertips.
-No Google voice? Also duplicates existing functionality. But be sure to ignore the allowance of Skype.
Yep, Apple's got a good r
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, Apple's got a good reason for everything that it does, and its reason is placing consumers and developers first!
What they didn't tell you is that its a 0 indexed Array, where Apple's Revenue takes up the 0 slot.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm tired of this "degrading toward women" crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's an Apple product; I expect it to be hostile to heterosexual male sexuality.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All that most people know about feminism comes from corporate press statements and talk radio.
Feminism would do well to distance itself from the name.
I find it odd that people would think this degrading to women. The very nature of the app is to exploit male sexuality for profit. They're the ones paying for it. The women are being paid and making their decisions freely. Autonomy applies too to men though and I feel that men should be able to make the decision themselves about whether or not they wan
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is obscene? (Score:2, Interesting)
"...you're never more than one click away from something horrible"
Like ... a naked female body? Spoiling them poor kids?
A gun is million more times obscene then a female breast!
Reality TV is obscene. Billy Graham is obscene. Muscle cars are obscene.
A beautiful woman is not.
Scientifically, you're wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I decided to be scientific about it, and try to beat off to a gun, a reality TV show, Billy Graham, muscle cars and naked pictures of women. I'd say that the women win hands down.
I'm trying to be even more scientific and do a double blind study, but so far everyone I've asked to get blindfolded and masturbate has looked at me funny and even threatened to sue. ;)
Puritanical censorship sucks. (Score:5, Interesting)
Especially on a product that has "Designed ... in California" on its back. Here are some alternative things Apple could do that would keep the app store clean and still go after the edu market:
1) Require app developers to keep screenshots G-rated.
1a) If necessary, ask app developers to keep the app names "clean". This is harder to do and I'm not comfortable about this, but the general guidance is that "Playboy" and "Wobble" is okay, but "AssTits Deluxe" is not. There should be bright-line guidance for what is okay and what is not.
2) Use content ratings to keep things at (roughtly) R or even M level. Users should have to manually change settings to see NC-17-rated content.
3) Only allow folks with credit cards (nominally adults) to see NC-17 rated content.
4) Extend enterprise policies (which the iPhone already supports) to allow admins to block levels of content.
These are from the top of my head. But all of these are better than going all Taliban [geekculture.com] on app developers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not just allow people to download off websites without jailbreaking, like every computer out there instead of jumping through all those hoops? Oh, that 30% cut and control.
Good Move (Score:5, Insightful)
They were hardly real apps. "Big Boobs," "Large Boobs," "Young Boobs," et cetera, et cetera. Recipe: Make an image display app, throw some pictures into it, make another version with different pictures, repeat indefinitely.
They probably really only deleted five or ten real distinct apps.
Silly Apple (Score:2)
Where to draw the line?
There are many applications that have some less-than-fully-dressed women (and men!) in them, what to think of apps like "Funny Pics" or "LOLcats"? Soon we'll only have Burqua clad women in the AppStore?
Sure, make a separate Adult/18+ category or something, I'm fine with that.
I'm not saying this because I don't want to protect children or offend any women. I just think that there is no way to consistently apply any criteria beyond "not showing genitals", without banning a lot more apps
Re: (Score:2)
Also, who is to say it's not the woman in the Pic that made the app? Maybe she's a tiny figured hungry woman who has chosen this method of selling her body to the public? Why Apple feels that they have the right to censor is ridiculous. But this is also one of the reasons I don't have an iPhone.
Developers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I am a big fan of getting rid of a bunch of content because of seemingly arbitrary rules, but from the sounds of it many of this 'apps' are nothing more then a image (or a few images) of a girl/boy/goat in a bikini. It seems like a bit of a stretch to refer to those who create such content as developers.
Re:Developers? (Score:5, Informative)
If Apple adjusts their policy towards habitual application spammers (have you seen the Games section?), it would also solve the problem. But its easier to just target soft porn.
Re:Developers? (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. There are app sweatshops like this guy [mobilecrunch.com] who has already been banned for gaming the system :
"In less than 9 months, Khalid Shaikh and his 26-employee team (most of which are in Pakistan) have published 943 applications [...] That’s roughly 5 apps a day, every day, for 250 days"
And they churn out crap like what Apple is now banning (emphasis mine) :
"They include “Top Sexy Ladies: Audrina Patridge,” which (from what we gather; again, we cannot test these apps because they are not up anymore) is an app that takes 5 pictures of The Hills star from online and puts them on your phone. Yes, it costs $4.99. There are hundreds of others like this, including Top Sexy Men apps and various news update apps"
case in point (Score:5, Funny)
On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible.
Hmmm.. "Read More..." *click*
Aww, crap.
Bullshit without consistancy (Score:2)
I could understand this as a choice, although it is hard to do so when they have a very good rating system in place (which they have).
But what does not make any sense is doing this ban and exempting large companies like Playboy and Sports Illustrated. I mean, you CAN understand it but the action is indefensible.
Especially when you can get porn of any level via the browser, why ban these apps at all?
Isn't that the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
. It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind of web browser on there. On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible."
Well, yeah. That's kind of the point. The things they can't control, they're making no attempt to control. However, they *can* control the contents of the store - and so they do, in order to appeal to their largest customer base. Time will tell if it's the right move; but you can't cry censorship when you agree to purchase a device whose sole gateway to applications is what is officially sanctioned by that device's creator. You sign away the right to control your user experience when you agree that they have control via the appstore. If you don't like it, don't buy the device until they change it; or buy it and jailbreak it (but be aware of the consequences as well).
Apple is fully within their rights to decide they want the appstore to sell ONLY applications designed for people age 8 and under. You know it when you buy the device (and if you don't, isn't that your responsibility too? being educated about your purchases?). App developers agree to it when they obtain the license that allow them to develop for the devices. You always have the choice to go with a different product. (Such as blackberry... no restrictions on what you can install, tens of thousands of compatible j2me apps. They have an appworld that's growing daily, but you're not required to use it to install software. I believe Android fits this bill too? )
A company that is exercising the rights that its customers and developers willingly cede to it is not censorship.
Commence downmodding.
Wow 2 /. stories - Freedom vs. Control (Score:2)
I'm amused by the juxtaposition of the last two slashdot stories.
Google has too much freedom in its Android software development efforts resulting in confusion and developers being upset.
Apple has too much control in its App store policy resulting in confusion and developers being upset.
Ok, the emotions are a little different in each case but you gotta admit, these two stories highlight the main difference (to developers at least) between the Google and Apple way of doing things!
root of the problem (Score:2)
I think the real problem is not that you are forced to follow the rules to be on the apple store. Is that if, as a developer, you want to develop for the iPhone, you HAVE to use the apple store. Apple specifically, and (IANAL) dodgily makes you sign an agreement that says you cannot build your own appstore for iphone, even if it is for your own apps. Now if I had a lot of free time/money to throw at the problem, I'd try to challenge this on the basis of the local consumer laws, and(I'm in Quebec) with th
Seriously? (Score:2)
Burqa? (Score:5, Funny)
I love the quote from the CNN [cnn.com] article:
Please... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies.
They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.
Re:Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies.
They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.
So all the apps that were pulled for collateral damage are nothing important? (See above post for the Bikini seller that had the app pulled - and that wasn't the only one)
Also compare this with Apples statement when questioned over why SI and Playboy didn't have their apps pulled - "Because they were established brands". So Old porn is good, but new porn is not???
Or what about the "iWobble boobs" (or whatever it was called - and yep terrible juvenile name) which didn't supply content - you had to download and add your own content. That is like last year when the eBook reader was not approved because you could download the Karma Sutra
I can understand why some people want to remove some lower common denominator apps from the App store, but the heavy handed manner in which Apple did this does smack of censorship, and they had to be aware of what they were doing
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies. They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.
First they came for the emulators, and I said nothing because I had not written an emulator.
Then they came for the boobies and I said nothing because I was a puritanical closet pervert.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really don't care about porn. As you said it's abundant for those who want it. But a developer building an app, having it approved, then having the rugged pulled from under them. That I care about. I don't care if it's one vendor or even one sick sad 30 year old still living in his mum's basement.
If they want to appeal to educators... (Score:3, Insightful)
The first thing they could do is not file a Creationism app under Education: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/answers-in-genesis/id353046149?mt=8 [apple.com]
Re:This Is Not Censorship At All (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say taking down a best seller App based on its "Risque-ness" is censorship, any way you want to slice it.
Apple can stock and sell whatever products it wants to choose from. Yes. It is still censorship - but we've come to terms that private companies have the right to censorship. Apple is fine with censoring, its their product. And I agree - there's nothing wrong with that. But to say it isn't censorship is like saying the Chinese government isn't censoring web searches, they are just choosing to provide what they think is best, not censorship at all.
Re:This Is Not Censorship At All (Score:4, Insightful)
The GP's Subject line is inaccurate, but the body of his post is correct.
It is censorship, but it's not 'evil' censorship, nor is it a violation of anyone's rights.
Apple is exercising their right to control what's in their storefront. If you don't like it, you have other options for your porn^H^H^Hhone.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the consumers right to determine what they can do with their property? Their rights trump Apple's in every moral sense. Apple is interfering with the transactions of third parties; it is only a twisted copyright law and mathematical locks that allow them to stick their nose where it doesn't belong.
No, this isn't censorship (Score:2, Insightful)
Censorship is when a third party prevents you from reading or viewing or watching content that you want to. In this case, Apple is the arbiter of their own app store for their own devices, and you know when you buy it that they get to choose what you do and do not have access to in the app store. It may be stupid and petty and lazy and a general sign of their incompetence, but that's not the same thing as censorship.
If Apple prevented you from viewing sexy items on the internet in general, then that would b
Re:No, this isn't censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless of course, the App was only for the iPhone, and it was accessible at one point. Now it is not. Thus, Apple is the third party, restricting you from accessing something you once could. Yes?
Point taken (Score:3, Interesting)
Alright, technically it is censorship. The literal definition of censorship is preventing access to information, but in this case, Apple is censoring information on Apple devices from the Apple Store, after you agreed in the EULA that you would allow them to do that. So, you should call it mutually agreed-to censorship, which is the same as walking in to an R rated movie that used to have NC-17 scenes that were cut out of it.
And the analogy still holds true - Apple isn't the only place in the universe that
So let's call it censorship, then. (Score:2)
So let's call it censorship, then.
Doesn't really matter. Once you buy into their single point of sale ecosystem, you're buying into their censorship. They have the right to do as they see fit with their storefront.
Don't like it? There are other options.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right citizen, bend over and take it.
Re: (Score:2)
What they don't stock is really none of your business, and if you don't like, take your products and have someone else carry it.
That's an argument against regulation, not against consumer outrage. I don't like it and because of that I'm expressing my intent to take my products elsewhere, informing everyone else about the problem so they too can make an informed decision.
Re: (Score:2)
This Is Not Censorship At All
by Anonymous Coward [aka Steve Jobs]
Re:This Is Not Censorship At All (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the sort of censorship where a government bureaucrat with a slightly sinister mustache uses the threat of state violence to control your speech is the most extreme and severe form. And, if you simply must, you are free to assert that this is the only "true censorship". You can then go on to assert that anything else isn't "real" censorship, and anything that has some link to a contractual relationship, no matter how tenuous the link or adhesive the contract, is happy and voluntary and not at all censorship. Hurray, hurray!
However, and this part is important: Censorship is evil and dangerous in two distinct respects: The first is that it involves the illegitimate use(or threat of use) of violence for coercive ends. The second is that it distorts a society's flow of information in whatever direction is favored by the powerful and the incumbents. Since both democracies and free markets depend on informed actors, this is a major practical problem(and, of course, vibrant cultures arguably depend on the ability of individuals to express themselves without constraint).
It is true that the various forms of "censorship lite" practiced by the private sector(and some aspects of the public sector, through subtler than armed force means) possess relatively little of the first respect(though, unless you have ample resources, private sector use of lawsuits and contracts of adhesion to secure your silence can be unpleasantly close to coercive force). However, these forms of censorship possess the second respect to an enormous degree, likely greater than that of state censorship in all but the most repressive societies. The majority of controls over access to, and expression of, information faced by the people of any moderately free society are private sector. Many of them are, at least ostensibly, voluntary to some degree. Nevertheless, they have an effect.
Police-state censorship is evil; but dramatic and(in the more or less free world) relatively rare. The creeping death-by-a-thousand-cuts of the private sector, with its arbitration clauses, cryptographic controls, content filters, lawsuit threats, media ownership consolidation and so on and so forth is where the vast majority of information landscape distortion is happening. It is subtle, and most of it can be rationalized as "voluntary" with enough jesuitical hair-splitting about contracts; but that makes it no less dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it laughable that slashdot labels so many stories as evil censorship or somehow violating "your rights online" when it is nothing of the sort.
The fact is, a consumer retailer like Apple can censor whatever products to choose to its customers.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
And exactly what store should they get to carry their iPhone/iPod app? Oh yeah, the Apple app store is the only store where iPhone/iPod users get their apps.
If iPhone/iPod users had an alternative store to buy apps then this would be a non-issue as you put it. However, s
Re:This Is Not Censorship At All (Score:5, Informative)
The fact is, a consumer retailer like Apple can stock and sell whatever products to choose to its customers. What they don't stock is really none of your business, and if you don't like, take your products and have someone else carry it.
This is just another non-issue. The problem with Apple is that they are too successful, they need to keep out the riff raff.
Hm, I'm not so sure about that. Schiller has already intimated that Apple is now operating a cartel with certain app developers when responding to a question [nytimes.com] about why Sports Illustrated's and Playboy's apps are not banned:
“The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format”.
I also suspect that Apple's App Store practices will lead to an antitrust investigation at some point. The iPhone is gaining dominance [tipb.com] in the smartphone market and if its capricious App Store behaviour continues, accusations of monopolistic behaviour are bound to crop up.
Re:This Is Not Censorship At All (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are inconsistent is that an approved app should stay approved until the app itself changes to make a reevaluation of its status necessary.
It's like if your local authority decided to revoke your driver's license while you're driving the car, and then fines you for driving without a license.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apple removed them after getting complaints that they were degrading to women.
How exactly is this degrading to women?
Well, generally speaking, Apple is extremely degrading to women. A lot of people have been talking about how the iPad sounds like a feminine product, but few people seem to remember this quote from Steve Jobs' iPad keynote:
"And remember to keep the iPad away from your bitch when she's on the rag. You don't want her to bleed on it."
The Cupertino campus also briefly instituted "shirts-off Fridays" and, when I visited in 2000, at the end of their tour they handed out nude photos of their female workers.
So I