The iPad Will Get Playboy In March 223
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.'"
Quick, the Ink Will Dry While He's Sick! (Score:5, Funny)
Lord Jobs: Why is there porn on my iPad, Captain Cook?!
Tim Cook: Uh, well, you see, the uh, engineers they
*Jobs holds up his fingers pinched together*
Lord Jobs: You have failed me for the last time, Captain.
Re: (Score:2)
*Jobs holds up his fingers pinched together*
So the Force has a multitouch interface? Cool!
I only want to subscribe.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
...for the articles.
The subscription comes with a waterproof cover for the Ipad. Just in case you find the pictures, well, interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then get the Kindle version, honey.
Re:I only want to subscribe.... (Score:5, Funny)
Why else would an Apple fan want Playboy?
Re:I only want to subscribe.... (Score:5, Funny)
I can see a naked chick whenever I want
So what the hell are you doing here?
Re:I only want to subscribe.... (Score:5, Funny)
I can see a naked chick whenever I want
So what the hell are you doing here?
Looking at all the naked chicks. What? You can't see them? Go to your preferences and click the "Format stories as ASCII naked chicks" checkbox.
Re: (Score:2)
Must be for premium members only, darn.
Re:I only want to subscribe.... (Score:5, Funny)
Must be for premium members only, darn.
Actually, so as not to offend either of Slashdot's female readers, the site has implemented a gender check policy. You just have to verify that you are male by sending an email from the account linked to your Slashdot account with the phrase "I like porn!" in the subject and "Show me the naked chicks!" in the body to daddypants@slashdot.org. Then you will see the "Format Stories as ASCII naked chicks" checkbox on your preferences page.
Re: (Score:2)
De didn't say a *real* naked chick.
Any of us can see a naked chick on a screen whenever we want.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get several older issues for free on playboyarchive.com, if you install Microsoft Silverlight. The full set is available for a few hundred $.
Of course that would mean either paying for porn or installing Silverlight (possibly both).
Playboy isn't Porn (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 Like the Nov 1988 Article on Presidential Race (Score:2)
"Lick Bush Now".
Re:Playboy isn't Porn (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Playboy is of the opinion that nothing resides below the female waste.
That's true, if they flush after they are done, there'll be nothing there.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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)
But there's so much you can see there! Stripped binaries. Hard disks. Even fsck!
Re: (Score:2)
I live 50 mins. from Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Re:Playboy isn't Porn (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
If the mere act of being nude is enough then we have plenty of old statues and paintings that should be classed as pornography.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Why wait, just get an android tablet. AHEM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IraQfhlMwi4 [youtube.com]
And they support flash too!
Re:Playboy isn't Porn (Score:4, Insightful)
Good p
Re:Playboy isn't Porn (Score:5)
Hmm, how do I delete this strange half-typed thing? It honestly didn't look like this when I hit submit...
Re: (Score:3)
At least you had a good pee. For your next post try for a good BM!
Re:Playboy isn't Porn (Score:5, Funny)
Premature posting. That's okay. It happens to all guys now and then.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I'm looking forward to reading the articles.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
mod parent up (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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)
Apple's definition of porn basically is "Anything that'll get us into more PR trouble than the sales are worth".
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
I just wear a monocle.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hot Damn. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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] )
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
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)
The problem is that the humor is indistinguishable from serious posts. Comparing Apple to evil dictatorships is standard fare in these parts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:I Wish America Hated Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I highly support social censorship as opposed to government enforced censorship.
I find the lack of respect for individual choice reflected by such censorship deeply saddening. Individuals should be given the right to make their own choices, even if the majority disagrees. That belief is the foundation of the concept of "freedom" which is often mentioned in political speeches but not valued by society, yourself included apparently.
But this power is all we need to control corporations. We vote every day with the power of our dollar.
This isn't really true, since corporations can legally lobby congress and spend money on media to get their puppets elected. Those politicians then pass laws that restrict our choices. When there is only one or two companies you can buy a needed service from, and both use the same behavior, your voting with your dollar is useless; your strategy wholly impotent. We voted with our dollars against the incompetent expensive mess that is domestic car manufacture, look how well that worked out.
Re: (Score:3)
Where am I saying that individuals can't make choices? If I don't want a corporation to push certain material for whatever reason, be it too violent, immoral, or what not, then I don't support it.
I guess that depends upon what you mean by "don't support it". Does that mean you don't buy it, or that you pressure companies not to sell it so others don't have as easy of a time getting it? By saying you're in favor of "social censorship" to "control corporations" I inferred the latter, and that certainly does remove choices from people by making it harder for them to get things, taking the choice of them buying it at the vendor away from the individual and putting it in the hands of the corporation and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing, because you don't state it explicitly, that (1) you are an American and (2) you think that Apple, Amazon, et al are censoring. Rubbish. Bullshit. Poppycock.
Please, I can do without the nonsensical rambling. The aforementioned corporations are censoring, although they are not violating the freedom of speech enshrined in the constitution no legally infringing upon the rights of others.
If you don't understand the concept that companies are allowed to make choices...
I understand that concept perfectly and I support it. I never made any mention of making it illegal for these companies to censor the content they offer. I just said I was sad that most people supported it to an extent that it is the most profitable way to run a business. Just as I
Re: (Score:2)
Stop pretending that a corporate business decision is the same thing as government censorship
Stop making straw man arguments. You're conflating the two, not I. I use the term "censorship" i it's general meaning, not in it's legalese meaning. I never once mentioned any legal requirements, violations of the constitution, or calls to legal action, just my observations about our countries values with regard to personal choice.
And they ban my clean apps (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
> You write apps for the iPhone
Not sure about that anymore
ding! ding! ding! (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
He's doing this to put pressure on Apple. (Score:2)
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)
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.
Wow, Apple moves boldy into the 1950's (Score:2)
Next thing you know, they will allow us to use curse language.
Reminds me of a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I'll only subscribe... (Score:2)
Wonder how much PB is paying for this. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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'm an iPad and I'm highfalutin (Score:2)
I only look at airbrushed pussy
- Sir Grandiloquent Highfalutin, Count of Hypocrisy
Playboy?? (Score:5, Funny)
You think with a name like iPad they would serve up Playgirl
/rimshot
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize it was a joke, don't you?
omfg!!!! pr0n on the apple products! (Score:2)
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)
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 an app for that? (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
So I can get pr0n on my droid? (Score:2)
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.
Kindle? (Score:2)
So what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You refute your second statement with the first. The vast majority of consumers don't care about ownership rights, they care about the convenience of the device and purchasing software for it.
Re: (Score:2)
The app store has over a quarter million apps in it. For anything someone might want to do on an iPad, there's a wide variety of apps.
But secondarily, you're missing the point. Yes, the laptop can do more, but only by being less convenient: bigger, bulkier, more involved to work with. People pay less for a tablet and do the most common activities on it--surfing, email, play angry birds--more easily than on a laptop. Lots of people are very happy to make that tradeoff--more than enough to sustain a tabl