Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Idle

The iPad Will Get Playboy In March 223

Posted by samzenpus from the clean-the-screen dept.
Stoobalou writes "Playboy boss Hugh Hefner has confirmed that — despite Steve Jobs' protestations that Apple is pure and Android is for porn — an app for browsing uncensored back issues of Playboy is to launch later this year on the iPad. The news, which is likely to generate significantly more buzz for Apple's popular tablet as a publishing device than Rupert Murdoch's delayed digital newspaper The Daily, comes courtesy of Hefner's Twitter stream, in which he proclaimed: 'Big news! Playboy — both old & new — will be available on [the] iPad beginning in March.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The iPad Will Get Playboy In March More

The iPad Will Get Playboy In March

Comments Filter:

  • Quick, the Ink Will Dry While He's Sick! (Score:5, Funny)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @01:34PM (#34930196) Journal
    *an emaciated Steve Jobs returns from medical leave*
    Lord Jobs: Why is there porn on my iPad, Captain Cook?!
    Tim Cook: Uh, well, you see, the uh, engineers they ... ack! uck!
    *Jobs holds up his fingers pinched together*
    Lord Jobs: You have failed me for the last time, Captain.

  • I only want to subscribe.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by surfdaddy ( 930829 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @01:36PM (#34930222)
    ...for the articles.

  • Playboy isn't Porn (Score:5, Funny)

    by Old97 ( 1341297 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @01:37PM (#34930240)
    If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 )

      If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity.

      I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is. And with that where you live so I can get an idea of whether your standards are close to your communities standards. As there is no definitive statement as to what constitutes porn that could be applied globally.

      • Re:Playboy isn't Porn (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ephemeriis ( 315124 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @02:05PM (#34930652)

        If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity.

        I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is. And with that where you live so I can get an idea of whether your standards are close to your communities standards. As there is no definitive statement as to what constitutes porn that could be applied globally.

        Granted, I haven't looked at Playboy in years... So it may have changed dramatically. But last time I looked I would not have called it pornography.

        Sure, there's some pictures of naked women in there, and they're sure to titillate your average pubescent male...

        But there's more text to the magazine than images. Substantially more text. And most of it is actually decent stuff. Some interesting articles and interviews and whatnot. I suspect that Playboy could actually survive as a magazine even if it didn't have nude photos. Well, maybe not so much these days with the web and all... Any print publication is suffering these days... But you know what I mean.

        As for the images themselves, they were far too "tasteful" for my tastes. Plenty of breasts... 3/4 shots... Maybe a glimpse of pubic hair here or there... But that's about it. Your average art gallery has images substantially more pornographic than a Playboy magazine.

        If I had to label Playboy, I'd call it "erotica" at best. Certainly not pornography.

        Anyone who really thinks Playboy is pornography just needs to visit Google Images or Google Videos with Safe Search turned off to have their horizons dramatically broadened.

        • Re:Playboy isn't Porn (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ginbot462 ( 626023 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @03:02PM (#34931462) Journal

          A while ago, I might have thought same thing (concerning text in Playboy), but they have moved more towards FHM/Maxim. I would say most magazines are like this now (excluding something like Economist). I picked up a March 1984 Popular Science at antique/curios shop; I forgot how much writing there use to be in magazines, and less dumbed down. In Popular Science's defense, they seem to have stayed at a similar level comparing this 1984 issue to say the 2007 iClone issue.

          See for yourself:
          Mini Mac [google.com]
          iClone [google.com]

        • Anyone who really thinks Playboy is pornography just needs to surf the internet using Windows XP and Internet Explorer 6 and have their horizons dramatically broadened. It's awesome. The porn just pops up allover the place. you don't have to do anything!

          • Anyone who really thinks Playboy is pornography just needs to surf the internet using Windows XP and Internet Explorer 6 and have their horizons dramatically broadened. It's awesome. The porn just pops up allover the place. you don't have to do anything!

            Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]

        • Agreed.

        • Anyone who really thinks Playboy is pornography just needs to visit Google Images or Google Videos with Safe Search turned off to have their horizons dramatically broadened.

          I caught your goatse / speculum porn reference.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Creepy ( 93888 )

          I haven't seen Playboy in years, either, but as I recall, it doesn't even show snatch, so outside of the Americas (and particularly the US and Canada), it is nothing more than what you see at the beach and on TV already.

          Hardcore pornography OTOH, is classified as art in California, but definitely illegal to film in other states (I've read about people getting arrested filming it in my state - they had a permit to make a film, but pron is not allowed), so I'd say the definition varies widely.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is.

        "Whatever Steve Jobs says is porn, is porn."

        Alternatively, "Whatever is on Android is porn."

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Teun ( 17872 )
        I'm not the OP but I agree fully with his classification of Playboy as non-porn.

        I live 50 mins. from Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

      • Re:Playboy isn't Porn (Score:5, Funny)

        by egomaniac ( 105476 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @02:30PM (#34931016) Homepage

        I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is.

        The best definition I've heard of it so far is "stuff you lose interest in looking at after you're done masturbating."

      • If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity.

        I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is. And with that where you live so I can get an idea of whether your standards are close to your communities standards. As there is no definitive statement as to what constitutes porn that could be applied globally.

        I guess we should be thankful that Steven Jobs has not converted to a strict orthodox sect that believes the bodies of adult women should be completely covered in public. I don't need to specify a religion, all the major religions have such sects (the Amish/Salafi/Haredi/etc./etc.).

        Seriously - Playboy is no more pornographic than the old and modern masters that school kids view in museums. Is the governing criterion whether the model has died of old age?

      • Why is nudity automatically porn? Most definitions state that it has to either have no artistic value which is always debatable but Playboy is by far more artistic than pixelated videos of 10 men cumming on a woman and I think many people would consider a fair chunk of their work to have artistic value or that it has to be something sexually graphic which playboy is not.

        If the mere act of being nude is enough then we have plenty of old statues and paintings that should be classed as pornography.
    • "If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity."

      Yeah..wondering when magazines with more..ahem...'gynecological' images will be allowed on the iPad?

      I wonder if Hustler's Barely Legal will get on there next?

    • Re:Playboy isn't Porn (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LordNacho ( 1909280 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @01:45PM (#34930354)

      Good p

    • Yeah I'm looking forward to reading the articles.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Scutter ( 18425 )

        Yeah I'm looking forward to reading the articles.

        I am too. Playboy, back in the day, was about selling the high-class James Bond lifestyle. They had cutting-edge fiction, interviews, technology and film reviews, and articles written by some of the most prolific authors of their generation. Yes, it had nudity, but that was only one part of the magazine. Since the advent of the internet, the magazine lost most of that and just turned into a watered-down skin rag. The old joke is that "I read it for the articles", but you you really could read it just f

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jandrese ( 485 )
          I had a long suspicion that the nudity was partially in there as a way of keeping kids and meddlesome busybodies from reading the magazine. Basically a tree fort in a magazine. A place where the good old boys can be boys without their wives/girlfriends/mothers watching over their shoulder. Reading Playboy was sort of like belonging to an exclusive club delivered to your mailbox (or newsstand) once a month. Even before the internet there were much harder magazines out there with much more explicit sex if

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Scutter ( 18425 )

            I had a long suspicion that the nudity was partially in there as a way of keeping kids and meddlesome busybodies from reading the magazine. Basically a tree fort in a magazine. A place where the good old boys can be boys without their wives/girlfriends/mothers watching over their shoulder. Reading Playboy was sort of like belonging to an exclusive club delivered to your mailbox (or newsstand) once a month.

            That never occurred to me but it makes perfect sense.

    • Jobs knows it when he sees it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PraiseBob ( 1923958 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @01:47PM (#34930384)
      Maybe you should tell that to the iphone app developers that got kicked out of the App store for being "porn" despite only showing girls in bikinis.

      • mod parent up (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        please mod parent up - as that is truly the crux in this story.

        It doesn't matter what GP poster believes is porn, or what you - the reader - believe is porn, or what -I- believe is porn. What matters is Apple's definition of porn (and related terms) that have lead to apps which just displayed pictures of girls in bikini or lingerie or whatever being rejected or pulled.

        The added value of those apps may be questionable (I guess they exist for people who can't open the browser and look for bikini-clad girls t

        • Re:mod parent up (Score:4, Interesting)

          by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @02:45PM (#34931244)

          The added value of those apps may be questionable (I guess they exist for people who can't open the browser and look for bikini-clad girls that way), but they should be held to the same criteria as any Playboy app.

          They are. One particular criteria that mattered here was "are you an established, respected brand?".

          If there will be a policy change it would seem that Playboy would be at an advantage by having a headstart by knowing this change would come ahead of time, most likely due to discussion between them and those responsible at Apple.

          I don't see why this should be a problem. First off, Playboy has an advantage over them by simply being Playboy. Second, it's pretty clear that Apple is working closely with magazines right now to get the subscription model right.

          In either case Apple would apparently be giving Playboy preferential treatment.

          You state this like it's some bad thing. Apple always asks a few respected members of whatever industry they are going into to help them get it right. They did this with music, with video, with iOS apps. And they are doing this now as well. It's very rational.

          Which wouldn't be -entirely- surprising, given Apple's recent re-iteration that they're not fond of apps from publishers that simply link people to the online content where the user then has to pay for the subscription - thus skirting Apple's desire to take a good chunk of advertising income / subscription fees by running this through their infrastructure.

          It's difficult to say how much the 30% revenue plays a role in these sorts of decisions. Apple spends a lot on keeping the stores and the infrastructures running smoothly (watch how fast that 10 billion download counter is spinning, and that doesn't even count upgrades). But more to the point, every time there is a decision like this which benefits Apple financially outside of their core profit models, their decision also tends to add far more value to their core product than it generates in direct revenue. On the topic of magazine subscriptions specifically, just like the rest of the store, the iOS platform benefits immensely by being absolutely simple. If you have to manage your subscriptions individually with each magazine (or each publisher) it's going to be inefficient and people who would otherwise like to subscribe will not due to the hassle involved. On the other hand, if it all goes through the very same login and credit card that you use to buy music, tv, films, apps, books, etc., then it's going to be just as easy as those things, and people will be more likely to make use of it. This also provides a significant value to the consumer over Android, which has almost no unifying feature at all (something which geeks love, but consumers hate).

          So I really doubt that 30% is the primary motivating factor here. Apple sold over 60 million iOS devices since late September. Their core profit center is in hardware. If they can bolster the value of their hardware, that's gotta be their primary goal. If they can make some extra cash along the way, that's great, but I suspect the motivation is to use that cut primarily to cover operating costs and invest in expansion, so that they essentially get their "value multiplier" that is iTunes (many geeks hate, but consumers love) for free. It's absolutely brilliant, and their numbers from yesterday prove this out.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

          Apple's definition of porn basically is "Anything that'll get us into more PR trouble than the sales are worth".

      • I think Apple is less concerned with naked girls now. The main issue back then was that they didn't want the app store overrun with cheap knockoff apps that all had varying degrees of quality of naked girls (From dubious sources). Apple wanted to legitimize the app store as a content delivery model for genuine businesses, not just some guy that knows how to put sexy images into an iphone app.

        Now that magazines/newspapers are on board with the app store (the iPad was crucial to that), I think we'll see Appl

        • Apple wanted to legitimize the app store as a content delivery model for genuine businesses, not just some guy that knows how to put sexy images into an iphone app.

          To the end user: Is there a difference?

    • Re:Playboy isn't Porn (Score:5, Funny)

      by Stregano ( 1285764 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @02:56PM (#34931370)
      Playboy is when I want to whack off and feel classy
    • Porn is in the eye of the beholder. So, I need to behold it before declaring it porn.

  • Hot Damn. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @01:38PM (#34930248)
    It's damned hard to masturbate while trying to trying to balance a netbook. The iPad is the right tool for the job.

    • but at least it wipes clean easily.

      Now comes the question, will it be an interactive application?

      Seriously though, it will be hard keeping others who claim to be in a similar business off the store.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jedidiah ( 1196 )

      This is why these silly "tablets" will never displace desktops or even netbooks.

      This is yet another reason you need your hands free to manipulate other interfaces while computing.

  • I Wish America Hated Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @01:48PM (#34930404)

    I really wish Americans valued the freedom of others to make personal choices, even if those choices are ones they wish others would not make. I really wish there were more people that hated white power literature, but would raise hell when big companies presumed to refuse to let them make an individual choice about buying it or not. I really wish it wasn't good business for Apple, Amazon, Walmart, etc. to censor and limit the content they sell in order to cater to busybodies that don't want other people to have the opportunity to make choices the majority does not like. I wish we were living in the freedom loving, individual rights valuing country a subset of our founding fathers envisioned.

    It's great that people have decided playboy isn't so bad or something, but I don't really care. I wish, instead, people were pressuring Apple to become common carriers of content, dedicated to being neutral and letting users choose for themselves.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cwix ( 1671282 )

      or in other words..

      If you seek prosperity for the iPad and Apple in general, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Jobs, open this gate. Mr. Jobs, Mr. Jobs, tear down this wall(ed garden)

      (If you dont get it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_down_this_wall [wikipedia.org] )

      • or in other words.. If you seek prosperity for the iPad and Apple in general

        Sadly, no. Apple and the other big companies censor content because that makes them the most money, in their estimation. Heck, Walmart censors music they sell in the states, but not in most of the EU. Why do you suppose that is? It's because they're doing what the public wants because that makes them the most money.

        No, my post was lamenting that what makes the most money, what the public demands is some level of censorship, because they don't value individual choice as much as they value making sure their k

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by node 3 ( 115640 )

        If you seek prosperity for the iPad and Apple in general

        Because Apple's "walled garden" has severely hampered Apple's prosperity...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cwix ( 1671282 )

          It was a joke, and anyways the word prosperity was in the original quote.

          I should have known better then to attempt humor with anything apple related.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by node 3 ( 115640 )

            The problem is that the humor is indistinguishable from serious posts. Comparing Apple to evil dictatorships is standard fare in these parts.

    • Ahem. Freedom is also having the right to sell or not sell what you please. I may not agree with Apple or Walmart in regards to what they won't sell, but I do respect their right to choose what they won't sell. You always have other alternatives and always will unless the government bans them. Self censorship is and should always be allowed, without it we may as well have the government force a christian book store to sell playboy or a doughnut shop to sell salads.

      • Ahem. Freedom is also having the right to sell or not sell what you please.

        Absolutely, as I originally stated, I support their freedom to choose, I just wish they were being pressured by society to choose not to censor instead of to censor.

        You always have other alternatives and always will unless the government bans them.

        Maybe not always, but often. That doesn't make their emphasis on removing individual choice any less distasteful.

        Self censorship is and should always be allowed, without it we may as well have the government force a christian book store to sell playboy or a doughnut shop to sell salads.

        Why does everyone focus on this point? I never once mention legally requiring companies to not censor (which I don't support) but that is all anyone brings up. As I said, I find it sad that American's don't value personal choice enoug

  • So I make clean apps that they ban and then they allow this?

    They banned my apps that allow people to share *moderated* clean photos (mostly of peoples faces). WHY? Because children's pictures were in it!

    I also had to appeal to get them to allow my other photo app with clean photos:

    Photo Hash [apple.com]

    So I had to completely redo my website [headthirst.com] and objectives but, hey!

    THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

    • So I make clean apps that they ban and then they allow this?

      You think that your app is somehow on a level playing field with Playboy or any other major corporation? Good luck with that.

      • No, but the point is the banning is completely arbitrary. They *claim* it is based on one thing, but the reality is something else. Just annoyed at the whole thing right now.

        • No, but the point is the banning is completely arbitrary. They *claim* it is based on one thing, but the reality is something else.

          You write apps for the iPhone and you only just noticed this?

      • You think that your app is somehow on a level playing field with Playboy or any other major corporation? Good luck with that.

        This.
        A google times this.

        Apple's behavior should be giving apoplexy to anyone that supports real net neutrality.
        If it were up to IBM or Microsoft, there never would have been any google or hotmail or youtube or geocities or facebook or IMDB or twitter or flicker or slashdot or redtube.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by node 3 ( 115640 )

      So I make clean apps that they ban and then they allow this?

      Is your app a magazine? No.

      WHY? Because children's pictures were in it!

      I agree it's a pretty stupid ban (based on your description), but you can't not see a huge difference here.

  • Likely he hasn't even talked to Apple about it. But now that he's made the announcement, if Apple rejects the app, they look like the bad guys. Hefner may be a creep, but anyone who can get tens of women to service him each night is no idiot.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Yoik ( 955095 )

      Even more likely he has only signed a contract with the developers, and hasn't a clue whether it will get approved.

      The development group's salesman was, no doubt, very enthusiastic and certain of the approval, but they get paid approved or not :-). Gratz, sales guy! Sounds like fun to work on.

  • Next thing you know, they will allow us to use curse language.

  • Reminds me of a joke (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @01:58PM (#34930554)

    Winston Churchill and a socialite at a party:

    Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
    Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose we would have to discuss terms, of course...
    Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
    Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
    Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

  • if I can get the articles-only version.
  • Its the only explanation as to why swim suite catalogs are verboten but Play Boy is OK.

    • I'm sure it's just a web "app." Not available in the app store. With HTML5 offline storage, you can even download content and read on the go.

  • I only look at airbrushed pussy

    - Sir Grandiloquent Highfalutin, Count of Hypocrisy

  • Playboy?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @02:04PM (#34930636)

    You think with a name like iPad they would serve up Playgirl

    /rimshot

  • Why, whoever heard of such a thing? Maybe only the people who ever clicked on the Safari button and googled for "iphone porn."

    For anyone whose formative years occurred before the internet or BBS era, I'm sure it must seem strange to think that the general reaction of young men to playboy would be "yawn, quaint." And then the question is whether the quaintness is in the nature of the content or in actually paying for it.

  • App? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jorisk ( 231393 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @02:20PM (#34930866) Homepage

    While the article talks about an 'app' for the iPad, Hugh never wrote about an app. To be more precise he wrote "Big news! Playboy--both old & new--will be available on iPad beginning in March." http://twitter.com/#hughhefner/status/27551318994325504 [twitter.com]

    In later tweets he refers to 'Playboy on iPad', again without the word 'app'.

    Based on earlier rumors we will either see a new Magazine store for the iPad (with subscriptions and a different policy) or Hugh is just making headlines by announcing a plain old HTML version optimized for iPad.

  • Why is there a need for a new app for view a particular magazine?

    If I subscribe to the paper version of Playboy, I don't need to get a new mailbox.

    Shouldn't there be one app for viewing periodicals, and you just add a magazine or newspaper to a subscription list in that app?

    For folks who use the iPad as an eReader, do you need to install a separate app for each book?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by seebs ( 15766 )

      Depends a lot. I have the B&N nook application (because I have a nook), and that reads B&N nook books. I have Stanza, which reads any old epub, and I have the Apple book application, which I don't think I've even looked at yet.

      There have been attempts to make "publication-reading software", but they tend to charge enough extra that publishers figure they'll make more selling their own app.

      And yes, some books are sold as separate apps, specifically because that lets them get paid per reader without

    • Yes, it seemed a bit strange to me as well when i found out too.

      But what astounded me is that a similar thing applies to websites. One of the apps that people keep holding up as an example of how powerful the ipad is and apple even features in their ads, is an animated periodic table...

      but instead of paying quite a lot of cash for it http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-elements-a-visual-exploration/id364147847?mt=8# [apple.com] you could just visit the website http://periodictable.com/ [periodictable.com]; its almost exactly the same and c

  • Wait, you're telling me I can get porn on my android phone? Sweet! Why didn't anyone tell me about this earlier.

    I'm not sure what Steve was thinking when he said that though. He's probably not really sick. They just asked him to step down because his big mouth sunk iPhone sales.

  • When can I get it on the kindle. I only read the articles so the iPad playboy isn't really for me.
  • I can get Flickr on it now. Flickr has EVERYTHING I would want.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...

Close