No Playboy App For iPad, After All 140
tsamsoniw writes "The rumors that a Playboy app would appear in the Apple App Store were greatly exaggerated. Playboy plans to offer an online service through which subscribers can access past and current issues of the nudie mag — and per Playboy, it will be accessible via Safari and support iPad features (whatever that means). But if Playboy does come out with a native app for iPad, all the nudity will be censored. That should be just fine for the legions of people who indeed read the magazine for the articles. This really shouldn't be a surprise, though: If Apple insists on 'protecting' users of its high-priced gear from pixelated naughty bits in a graphic-novel version of classic literature, it certainly won't let users access the full monty. It's a shame, though: If Apple's customers want access to that sort of content, Apple should allow them to get at it via a native app instead of suffering a potentially buggier, less secure browser-based experience."
wrong device (Score:1)
They should rather release it for the nintendo 3d thing
Re: (Score:1)
You think Nintendo will allow nudity on their devices?
Re: (Score:2)
You think Nintendo will allow nudity on their devices?
Every company but Apple just loves nudity.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, clearly you haven't seen some of the games they sell in Japan for the DS...
No Comment (Score:2)
When asked for comment, outgoing CEO Steve Jobs replied, "I would cut off the more disreputable parts of the body, and use the space for playing fields."
iPad Features (Score:5, Funny)
and support iPad features (whatever that means)
It means:
- It will be locked down.
- Touch interaction with 'models' will be disabled.
- Page turning will be forced on a 20 second timer to ensure users don't get too 'excited'.
- All images of screwing will be replaced with 'pentalobular interaction'.
- Steve Jobs will read the articles via a quaint brittish accent TTS engine.
- All images will come with an accompanying 'I'm Offended!' reporting link.
- All nipple shots will be replaced with miniature Natalie Portman faces.
Re:iPad Features (Score:5, Funny)
With or without hot grits?
Natalie Portman (Score:2, Interesting)
Naked and Petrified!
you can already get porn on iCrap (Score:3)
Skyfire browser for flash and to avoid being directed to the pay mobile site instead of the free desktop one
a few apps are private browsers to hide your history from your wife
some websites support idevices directly
#1 is the best and is a deal at $1.99 or $2.99
Proofreading needed (Score:4, Funny)
"But if Playboy does come out with a native app for iPad, but all the nudity will be censored." -- sentence failure!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Buggy Browsers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd trust a general-purpose web browser to be more secure and less buggy than some made-up "app" any day.
But then you probably have actually used an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
+1.
I'm rather annoyed at how many app developers are creating poorly-written, advertisement-filled versions of their web pages taking no advantage of being native at all. *glares at newspapers*
I'd much prefer a platform-neutral, mobile version of the web page that will at least work for other OSes such as Android, WebOS, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. We access our banks through web browsers these days, so the suggestion that the web isn't safe and reliable enough for a girlie mag is rather ridiculous.
The real reason that publications would prefer to have a native app than a web app is left unsaid: It would give them access to the App Store shopping cart. Easy one click purchasing for the millions of people that have accounts.
Web app? (Score:2)
Seems to me that what they're describing is a web app, which someone can save to the home screen just like any other iPad app. Unless the app needs to do something particularly special with hardware, sound, 3D animation, the camera, etc. (which I can't imagine this sort of app doing), the only significant distinction between that and a native (store) app is the payment model.... (And the language it's written in, of course, but a user doesn't see that part.)
Much ado about nothing, methinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Silverlight would be just as much of a nonstarter on iOS in a native app, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Just had a look at the online Playboy Archive. It's a little clumsy to navigate - no doubt deliberately so people buy the full archive. And yes I was using both hands .... :=)
A strange flashback moment seeing stuff from a 1970s edition I used to have. Gauze lens shots. Thick pubic hair. Some top notch interviews (getting the order of importance right here).
But to really see how times have changed: Feb 01, 1973 has an inset thumbnail of a model when she was 3yo, naked from behind. Completely innocent
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed (Score:2, Insightful)
its just good marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
it makes parents feel comfortable buying their kids iPads and iPhones
now you don't have to like this marketing ploy, and you don't have to like the rationale behind the parent's thinking. but you have to admit it works, it brings in the $, and that's all that matters
Re: (Score:2)
it brings in the $, and that's all that matters
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is about 3/4 of what's wrong with our society.
-- 77IM
Re: (Score:2)
It's basically summarized in Apple's approval guidelines - kids use iPhones and iPod Touches these days, and parents don't always set the parental controls correctly, which make them just as useless as the V-chip and other parental control techn
Re:its just good marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
i didn't say it was good TECHNOLOGY, i said it was good MARKETING. there's a difference between perception and reality, and that difference can result in people buying your product over another one, even though, technologically, the reasons for why you justify your choice simply don't exist. "i bought the iPad because its safer for my kids." yeah, bullshit. but EFFECTIVE bullshit
Potentially buggier, less secure? (Score:2)
native app instead of suffering a potentially buggier, less secure browser-based experience.
Care to explain what it even means? I mean, sure, any app X is potentially buggier than some other app Y (possibly except when Y is ATI Linux proprietary driver). But why would web apps be specifically buggier than native, and how is it any less secure? If anything, it seems to be more secure to me - native app means running native code on your device, while web app means running sandboxed JavaScript.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're writing straight to the built-in APIs, it's a lot harder to write an app in JavaScript than in Objective-C. Specifically, it's a lot easier to make mistakes when you're hand-coding all the DOM manipulation yourself instead of relying on widget toolkits that do the heavy lifting for you.
Of course, that argument goes away as soon as you use a decent JavaScript toolkit.
As for less secure... well, there's no keychain in the browser, for one, which probably isn't a big deal for something like this, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's Playboy, not Hustler... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's Playboy, not Hustler... (Score:4, Funny)
This is bizarre. Playboy is R-rated, not NC-17, and Apple already distributes music that carries the [EXPLICIT] tag. Hell, they sell and rent Fast Times at Ridgemont High [imdb.com], and there's nothing you can see in Playboy that's not in that movie, and nothing they say in Playboy that's not in American Pie [imdb.com].
Dunno about that. Apparently this month's edition has 43 year old Pamela Anderson showing off her poetry.
Do Not Want.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
It used to be necessary for the US Government to hire people who were known as "Kremlinologists," people who had spent years studying the history and culture of the Soviet Union and observing the politics and processes within the Politburo. Their role was to assist in formulating policy related to an utterly alien and intimidating foreign power, impermeable and mysterious to the rest of the world, yet strong enough to destroy civilization on a whim. Shrub's secretary of state, Condi Rice, was an example o
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you haven't bought a copy of Playboy recently. They decided they needed to 'keep up' with the Internet a while ago.
Re: (Score:2)
And thousands of geeks... (Score:2)
Just to be clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that saying certain words is also unacceptable....
Re: (Score:2)
Another thought: "curse words" are bad, but actually placing a curse on someone is fine. People wish drastic and graphic misfortune on others, but so long as they do it with the established acceptable phrasing, then no one bats an eyelash. I think someone lost the key point somewhere.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
woah woah.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Leap? It's complete BS. Native apps are fine for things that require high-performance graphics (like games) or that need lower level integration with a device's sensors (like a camera app, a paint program, GPS stuff). For displaying text (sorry, "articles") and images, a browser-based experience is very much what I'd prefer, be it playboy or slashdot.
And "less secure"? Good lord what a reservoir of hogwash. I'll tell you what's less secure: Unnecessarily adding an additional piece of software on your machi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2nd Tablet (Score:1)
I guess the "early adopters" will need an iPad (Betamax) and another tablet (VHS) :-)
iPad features... (Score:4, Funny)
booo timothy (Score:2)
booo timothy
Do I care? (Score:2)
I can find any porn (from straight missionary to stuff that makes you wonder if you've zapped into a parallel universe) for free at any time.
Who cares what Apple is allowing on the App store?
Do I really need porn in a 10 inch window, or is that *way* too loaded of a question? :-) We have reached the promised age of 3D, 1080p-orn on 70" screens in surround sound.
I'm serious about that parallel Earth thing. I saw porn last week where the number of people and number of genitalia just didn't add up right. :-(
What part of open don't you get? (Score:2)
The HTML5 API is the open iOS API. That is where all the nudity is. It's unmediated. It's perfect for Playboy. The iPad features are touch events and WebKit enhancements.
The Cocoa API on iOS is managed so that it is an alternative to anything-goes HTML5. Yes, you can shop at App Store with freedom from porn, because you can't get away from it on the Web. Yin and yang. Balance. Choice. I know it is unfamiliar totalitarian nerd like the original poster, but luckily there is at least one company giving users w
Apps instead of browser is evil (Score:1)
This is so terribly wrong headed.
Give me an Omni Magazine app (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't suggest putting those punchout turntable drug trips on the record player, though.
Re:You mean even Hef (Score:5, Insightful)
And remember, you paid extra for the blocking of any nudity in apps! Well, other than the web browser of course. But aside from all the porn in the world, you're getting the porn blocking you paid for!
Re:You mean even Hef (Score:5, Funny)
Apple does not "block" porn, they just refuse publishing porn themselves. Sure, there is that tiny deal about them not supporting any other distribution methods, but thats a different matter. Truth be told: I would not install a pornographic application on my iPad or iPhone if you put a gun on a kitten's head (if it was my head I'd install and delete it once the gun wielder was arrested.)
The web provides all the porn I could need, and it displays magnificently in the iPad, touch screens are easier to clean than the mouse or the keyboard too!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's "porn"? What makes Playboy pornographic but not Eyes Wide Shut?
Until Apple answers this question, no publisher of anything beyond nursery rhymes can safely do business with them.
Re: (Score:2)
What's "porn"? What makes Playboy pornographic but not Eyes Wide Shut?
Is that the international version or the US censored version of the movie?
Re:You mean even Hef (Score:5, Insightful)
"Safe" meaning your company can afford to spend months or even years developing a title for publication, with confidence that it will not be arbitrarily rejected by Apple for reasons which are inconsistent with policies under which other applications and media have previously been approved.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that it's not "safe" to develop for iOS is absurd.
Re: (Score:1)
The idea that it's not "safe" to develop for iOS is absurd.
Except that you're wrong, it isn't safe long term. Apple is the final arbiter of what gets published. If by some whim or caprice they decide your apps don't meet whatever moral code they decide to follow they can and will pull it. That puts a small development business at risk, which is the definition of not being safe to do business with them.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many apps have been outright banned? And of those, how many weren't clearly treading if not outright crossing the line?
You are acting like Apple just randomly and whimsically bans apps with no rhyme or reason.
The claim that it's not safe to to business on Apple's App Store is proved false millions of times per day. The actual risk, which is infinitesimal, and the risk that exists in your mind, are severly out of sync.
Re: (Score:2)
I was so looking forward to the multitouch centerfold.
Now? I guess it's just back to having sex, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Lion's den you say... http://www.lionsdenadult.com/ [lionsdenadult.com]
You had to see that coming, right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
touch screens are easier to clean than the mouse or the keyboard too!!
Too much information.
Apple remains in control through non-free software (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple maintains the ability to "kill" (Apple's term) software users install on their own Apple hardware. Apple maintains the control they need to decide on a case-by-case basis who gets to run what program. Apple retains the power to make it hard for any user(s) to watch porn through an application. How Apple uses this power may change over time, denying some users access to an app but allowing others. Apple can apply this power with absolutely no legal ability for the user to gainsay Apple's power, predict who is denied what, or understand for what reason someone was denied complete control of their computer.
We would not stand for this control in any other medium. It should not be up to anyone but the owner of the device to exert control over what they wish to read or run.
Re: (Score:2)
And with the case screw thing, Apple="New Hitler"?
Re:Apple remains in control through non-free softw (Score:4, Insightful)
Completely off topic since this was just about the concept of blocking porn (if they were, they have the power to filter it through Safari.)
But you intrigue me, I had never heard of apple deleting apps from users devices, nor have I heard of them alloing some users to run software that others are not allowed to run.
Can you list links and examples of remote app deletion and apps that are not allowed to be used by certain consumers?
We would not stand for this control in any other medium. It should not be up to anyone but the owner of the device to exert control over what they wish to read or run.
Agree, but why people do this mess over the iPhone but not over video game consoles? They are even more closed and have been around longer. There do are a few groups working on their jailbreak but you don't hear the huge accusations against THOSE manufacturers. What makes Apple any more evil than Nintendo, Sega (in their day), Sony and Microsoft in the gaming department?
Re:Apple remains in control through non-free softw (Score:5, Insightful)
Agree, but why people do this mess over the iPhone but not over video game consoles? They are even more closed and have been around longer. There do are a few groups working on their jailbreak but you don't hear the huge accusations against THOSE manufacturers. What makes Apple any more evil than Nintendo, Sega (in their day), Sony and Microsoft in the gaming department?
For a number of reasons. The primary one is that Nintendo, Sega, Sony and Microsoft didn't and don't try to portray their devices as all inclusive. No one buys a 360 to surf the net, Microsoft doesn't push the Xbox as an alternative to a computer or claim that their device is perfect for tasks other than gaming. No one buys a Wii to type up documents and Nintendo doesn't market it that way, they market it as a game console. But Apple and their fanboys seem to think that an iPad is essentially a replacement for a laptop for most tasks and not a crippled machine at twice the price of a laptop. They seem to think that it does everything one could ever want with no room for improvement and rather than expanding their line, addressing user concerns and removing the walled garden, Apple (and their fanboys) instead prefer to claim that users really have no problems with them and that what they are doing is some task that they shouldn't do in the first place. A game console is marketed to do one thing, play games, just like the Kindle is marketed to do one thing, to read books. The iPad is marketed to do anything you want to do on a laptop and fails at that goal and is naturally taking backlash because of it.
And "a few groups" working on jailbreaks? The Wii has a thriving homebrew scene with many, many applications and creative programs. And while Nintendo does release a yearly update to block homebrew, it is generally worked around within a few days and you can go back to playing with no loss in functionality. Not only that, but there is full documentation to use Wii hardware with standard PC bluetooth hardware. The 360 has a small homebrew scene but it is limited mostly by Microsoft's banning of people with modified 360 consoles on Xbox live and is, quite honestly, used mostly for warez than legitimate homebrew when compared to things like the DS, PSP and Wii homebrew scenes. Most people don't criticize MS for their stance for a number of reasons, first off the Xbox live marketplace is pretty open and the other fact is that it is their services you are accessing and it is their right to choose to allow you on there or not. The PS3 though is a different story, there has been a number of developments, a number of patches and a number of features Sony has removed from the PS3 simply to thwart homebrew and Sony has been fairly and justly criticized for their actions, but again, Sony never marketed the PS3 as anything more than a blu-ray player, game system and media centre, however, they did market it as being able to run alternate OSes and when Sony removed that feature, many users I believe in the EU were able to get their money back because of Sony's fraudulent advertising.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Your whole argument is that the iPad is marketed as being a multipurpose device (and it is, in fact, an excellent multipurpose device), and games consoles aren't? Apparently you haven't seen the end of all PS3 ads that say "It only does everything." What's most humorous is that your defense of the consoles demonstrate the point that the situation on consoles are far worse than the situation on iOS.
The iPad is marketed to do anything you want to do on a laptop and fails at that goal and is naturally taking backlash because of it.
Only amongst an extremely insignificant subset of geeks. Apple sold 15 million iPads last year. You wanna know
Re: (Score:1)
Playstation: "It only does everything"
Xbox360: "The Xbox is beyond being a gaming console. It is the central hub for any entertainment in your living room" (Marketing blurb regarding Hulu and other services).
Re: (Score:3)
Most people don't criticize MS for their stance for a number of reasons, first off the Xbox live marketplace is pretty open and the other fact is that it is their services you are accessing and it is their right to choose to allow you on there or not.
This one line destroys the entire argument and declares it all a double standard.
Note: I am OK with some one bringing forward a good argument, but that argument must not make excuses for others that do the same. The App Store is not that closed, nor is the XBox Live store that open. Try to make a pornographic game and get it into the XBox live market. Try to make a movie streaming app and put it there, and don't say "the machine is for games" because many households use it quite often only for movie strea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, I'm disappointed at not seeing that list of remote app kills and apps that apple only allow certain users to install and refuse to others.
Re: (Score:1)
The primary reason is one of intended use. Smart phones are are billed as a do anything be your central media device. It sucks to then find out that they deny some things based on *content*. One can usually understand why a smart phone isn't going to play DVD's, not so much that you can't get a playboy magazine because the person who runs the smartphones company thinks you shouldn't be watching that. Further it is apps that a good number want to do and find they can't so it is something they notice. When th
Re:Apple remains in control through non-free softw (Score:4, Informative)
But you intrigue me, I had never heard of apple deleting apps from users devices, nor have I heard of them alloing some users to run software that others are not allowed to run.
Can you list links and examples of remote app deletion and apps that are not allowed to be used by certain consumers?
While I do admit I haven't heard of any times Apple has remotely deleted Apps (yet), they have admitted [pcmag.com] that they built in a back door in iOS that will allow them to do just that.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
While I do admit I haven't heard of any times Apple has remotely deleted Apps (yet),
For one very good reason: they haven't. Google, on the other hand, actually has used their kill switch on Android.
they have admitted [pcmag.com] that they built in a back door in iOS that will allow them to do just that.
You know why they admitted it? Because it's not some scary evil thing. In fact, it's there for a very good reason. If an app gets through the App Store that turns out to be malware, Apple can kill it.
Re:Apple remains in control through non-free softw (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to burst your bubble, but the Android Market have the same authority. They can remote kill an app just as easily, no?
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/06/exercising-our-remote-application.html [blogspot.com]
Re:Apple remains in control through non-free softw (Score:5, Informative)
Not only that, but it can remotely delete apps you've purchased off your device, too. Apple's rejected apps, removed apps, etc., but they've never used that power to delete or stop apps from running that you've already bought. Even if you bought an app that was later deleted, iTunes doesn't stop you from reinstalling that app on any iDevice you own. Hell, even iDOS is back in the App Store (with the warning to "not update" for those who purchased it before).
But it's OK when Google does it, and not when Apple says they can do it but hasn't (yet). Just like it's evil when Amazon does it.
Heck, we don't even know if iOS can even do remote deletions. The only capability that comes close is CoreLocation's ability to disable apps, but that only works for apps that use CoreLocation to begin with. Then again, maybe all it does is the app's ability to get anything other than fake GPS data...
Re: (Score:1)
The topic here concerns Playboy, pornography, and Apple. How is it you /.ers shut down a conversation: call something off-topic?
For being a discussion board where ostensibly technical-minded people talk in detail about technical things, some of you sure exhibit horrible logic getting lost in red herrings and side issues. For example, you're actually trying to respond to non-freedom from Apple by pointing out that Google's non-freedom also exists. Well guess what: yes, non-freedom from one proprietor does
Re: (Score:1)
Apple maintains the ability to "kill" (Apple's term) software users install on their own Apple hardware.
As does Google (and Mozilla, for that matter). In fact, Google and Mozilla actually *have* both employed their kill switches. Apple has never done this. Their curated store has made it unnecessary, in spite of having significantly more apps to deal with.
Apple maintains the control they need to decide on a case-by-case basis who gets to run what program. Apple retains the power to make it hard for any user(s) to watch porn through an application. How Apple uses this power may change over time, denying some users access to an app but allowing others.
And what makes you think any of those "mays" are even remotely likely? What possible reason would Apple have to do any of those things?
The truth is, there is no such reason. You're simply making absurd claims because it's the only way to make the "kill switc
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, people who defend Apple must, by definition, not be listened to? How does that make any sense?
The view of Apple around here is delusional. I'm just bringing reality into the picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple does not "block" porn, they just refuse publishing porn themselves.
s/porn/nudity/g
Re: (Score:1)
They know their target audience has no interest in seeing naked women.
Re:You mean even Hef (Score:5, Insightful)
They know their target audience has no interest in seeing naked women.
They know their target audience gets easy access to the real thing. :P
Re:You mean even Hef (Score:4, Funny)
They know their target audience has no interest in seeing naked women.
They know their target audience gets easy access to the real thing. :P
so.... their target market is women who own mirrors?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're proving my point rather than disproving it...
Re: (Score:3)
Apple does not "block" porn, they just refuse publishing porn themselves. Sure, there is that tiny deal about them not supporting any other distribution methods, but thats a different matter. Truth be told: I would not install a pornographic application on my iPad or iPhone if you put a gun on a kitten's head (if it was my head I'd install and delete it once the gun wielder was arrested.)
The web provides all the porn I could need, and it displays magnificently in the iPad, touch screens are easier to clean than the mouse or the keyboard too!!
No it's not a different matter and not a tiny deal. By not allowing any other official/supported means of installing applications then decided for themselves what content is and is not appropriate they are indeed for all intents and purposes blocking said content.
Re: (Score:1)
Since you can jailbreak easily, your argument is only valid in a fantasy land where your conditions are actually true.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, for the 5% of users who even know what jailbreaking is, let alone are willing to do it. There is no convincing Apple apologists though. I hope the Koolaid is tasty!
Don't get me wrong; I love my Mac, but I will never own an iOS device so long as they are so restrictive. Sure I can jailbreak, but why bother? There are plenty of perfectly good options for devices that perform the same functions so I vote with my wallet.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Since the iPad doesn't have flash it breaks the formatting of many sites and requires an "app" to get them to work halfway decently.
It's funny that you mostly only ever hear people bitch about lack of flash from those that hate Apple, and not actual Apple customers. You know why? Because the Internet has moved on to H.264, and serves videos up using HTML5 for iOS devices, and Flash for everyone else.
In fact, it gets even better. On Android, Flash is available, but largely unusable. So whereas iOS users get a perfectly smooth H.264 video, Flash users on Android are served the same H.264 video via Flash, which stutters, drains the battery