Apple Disables Promo Codes for App Store Applications with Mature (17+) Ratings [Archive]

MacRumors

Jul 17, 2009, 09:45 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/17/apple-disables-promo-codes-for-app-store-applications-with-mature-17-ratings/)

TUAW reports (http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/16/app-store-lessons-no-promo-codes-for-apps-rated-17/) that with the introduction of age-based ratings for App Store applications in iPhone OS 3.0, Apple has taken the step of preventing developers of applications carrying mature (ages 17+) ratings from issuing promo codes for the affected applications. Developers are typically allowed to distribute up to 50 promo codes for any given application release, allowing developers the flexibility to offer media free access to the applications for reviews or offer giveaways for promotional purposes.Typically, when a developer uploads a new version of an application to the App Store, they have the ability to create up to 50 promo codes, which they can then provide to media outlets for reviewing the application, give away to users in a contest, etc. Aside from some reasonable restrictions on their usage (you can't sell them, they expire after 28 days and are one-time use only), promo codes provide quite a bit of flexibility to developers of paid apps who wish to freely distribute their app to select individuals without having to worry about the hassles of exchanging device information and doing special ad-hoc builds.Apple's restriction on promo codes for applications rated 17+ apparently stems from the fact that parental warnings are not currently displayed when redeeming promo codes. The practice is forcing developers of such applications to consider more cumbersome methods of offering free copies of their releases, from distributing ad-hoc builds through the developer channel to offering iTunes gift cards covering the cost of the applications.

As TUAW notes, the category of applications rated 17+ extends far beyond the adult-themed applications (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/06/25/iphone-3-0-parental-controls-now-allows-for-explicit-content-on-app-store/) that have gained attention, even including otherwise-harmless applications that include an embedded Web browser function or provide access to third-party data.And if you're thinking this just applies to the massive number of adult-oriented apps that have recently poured into the App Store, you're wrong. Apple specifies that any application that may contain high levels of offensive language, violence, sexual content, or references to drugs or alcohol receive a rating of 17+. But, according to Apple, apps that feature an embedded web browser or provide access to 3rd party content also automatically require the 17+ rating, regardless of the application's content or intended audience.

Article Link: Apple Disables Promo Codes for App Store Applications with Mature (17+) Ratings (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/17/apple-disables-promo-codes-for-app-store-applications-with-mature-17-ratings/)

tbobmccoy

Jul 17, 2009, 09:48 AM

I'm getting pretty tired of Apple's censoring fervor. People getting the promo codes in the first place are extremely (EXTREMELY) unlikely to be under 17 in the first place. This a bad move. :mad:

pdjudd

Jul 17, 2009, 09:52 AM

Wow. This is totally confusing. I don;t know why Apple would do this. Obviously I think their intention is preventing kids from getting access to adult apps (a noble goal), but what they need to do is find a way to better define what is "mature". That definition can get waay out of hand.

And or course Apple even, without warning provides unlimited access to way worse content than they will ever offer in the store - via Safari. Apple needs to understand that they cannot stop it entirely. I understand that they do not want to endorse this, but there has to be a point where Apple can say "we are only liable to this point. If you go any further, you might access material that may be offensive to you and cannot be controlled or monitored by Apple". They can cover the basics like security problems and the like, but they cannto hold back the internet. They will have to realize that sooner or later.

mattrobs

Jul 17, 2009, 09:53 AM

Worth repeating: any app that touches the Internet must be rated 17+.

I would really like to know who is heading the App Store division so I can punch him in the throat. He's clearly gone mad.

Electrolytic

Jul 17, 2009, 09:55 AM

I don't see what :apple:'s problem is if you are over 17?

justflie

Jul 17, 2009, 09:56 AM

This is simply a CYA (Cover Your *ss) move by Apple. Understandable to a degree, but still annoying.

pdjudd

Jul 17, 2009, 09:57 AM

Worth repeating: any app that touches the Internet must be rated 17+

What about Safari? That's the problem. Apple is providing different standards to its developers compared to their own Apps. Safari can access almost anything.

mattrobs

Jul 17, 2009, 09:59 AM

What about Safari? That's the problem.
Parental controls can also block Safari.

DavidLeblond

Jul 17, 2009, 10:01 AM

Parental controls can also block Safari.

And other apps as well... and the App Store for that matter. So this shouldn't be the reason.

DELLsFan

Jul 17, 2009, 10:02 AM

I don't see what :apple:'s problem is if you are over 17?

One word. China.

pdjudd

Jul 17, 2009, 10:02 AM

Parental controls can also block Safari.

They can also block adult apps. That's not the point. Safari does not act like other mature apps and warns you.

Apple is applying different rules to its definition of what constitutes "mature"

griz

Jul 17, 2009, 10:05 AM

But, according to Apple, apps that feature an embedded web browser or provide access to 3rd party content also automatically require the 17+ rating, regardless of the application's content or intended audience.

This is getting a little too aggressive. Would be comparable to a hardware store that sells doors to require you to be 17+ because after you install the door you might open it and step out in to the scary big world.

Rot'nApple

Jul 17, 2009, 10:09 AM

I'm getting pretty tired of Apple's censoring fervor. People getting the promo codes in the first place are extremely (EXTREMELY) unlikely to be under 17 in the first place. This a bad move. :mad:

And you base this on???

float1975

Jul 17, 2009, 10:11 AM

this is just another app review sad joke

so now it seems any web app that works as browser with a url box has to be rated +17 just like any xxx app !
even though one pushes mature content and the other doesnt...

all apple processing in the last months has been terrible and this is just another example

they provide no info at all to developers,
allow them to set ratings just to keep rejecting updates until we put the rating they require !
it would be better if they set these ratings automatically, but i guess it would sound too censorship-alike so its better to keep this stupid approach that is just wasting resources, media would not like
this way is just some more dev mumbo jumbo...

likewise this new concept of not allowing +17 apps to use promos codes is just ridiculous, as i assume the restriction set on the end device will be respected regardless of the promo code being for +17 or +4 app so it makes no sense at all, as usual with app review related stuff

it is also intriguing why they let in a slew of xxx apps to now take this kind of damaging behavior to all the other non xxx apps that are treated same way, is it was already intriguing that apps that were accepted into app store are not allowed to have working promo codes but is totally ridiculous if it is applied to all the other apps

it was one of the few promo mechanisms available to devs, gone now

Compile 'em all

Jul 17, 2009, 10:16 AM

Again, how are we supposed to give out free copies for review?

I remember the dev of iHomework had to remove the integrated web browser from an update because it would raise his app rating to 17+, which would make it useless for most students.

This is getting ridiculous.

SpinThis!

Jul 17, 2009, 10:16 AM

Apple's restriction on promo codes for applications rated 17+ apparently stems from the fact that parental warnings are not currently displayed when redeeming promo codes.
Before everyone gets all huffy and puffy about censorship, this really sounds like a technical programming faux pas than a flat out censorship decision to me. Appears as Apple didn't cover their bases here when they implemented promo codes into the ratings system—let's give them the benefit of the doubt and a little time to sort this out which I'm sure will happen eventually. If you're a developer file a bug report.

Stella

Jul 17, 2009, 10:17 AM

Holy crap...

Maybe Apple should be renamed to Nanny.

labman

Jul 17, 2009, 10:19 AM

My Daughter is 13 and I am the one that monitors what she see's & listen's too that's my job! :rolleyes: yes it's nice control for those that can't but to take away it away from everybody bad move! hopefully this is temporary!

BaldiMac

Jul 17, 2009, 10:20 AM

pdjudd

Jul 17, 2009, 10:22 AM

Good analysis.
Indeed. It's very easy to become emotional in this case. We really have to be careful and not lash out until it's justified.

TheSlush

Jul 17, 2009, 10:23 AM

Apple's restriction on promo codes for applications rated 17+ apparently stems from the fact that parental warnings are not currently displayed when redeeming promo codes.

Perhaps I'm being a bit thick here, but couldn't Apple simply arrange to have parental warnings be displayed when redeeming promo codes? Problem solved? No? Bueller?

I'm always annoyed when "protecting the little children" is allowed to completely disrupt adult life in totally unnecessary ways.

float1975

Jul 17, 2009, 10:24 AM

they deserve exactly the same amount of benefit of doubt / respecty they provide to their partners, the developers

none at all

if apple had any intention of correcting app review and management processes it would have already done so

SFStateStudent

Jul 17, 2009, 10:26 AM

Definitely NOT a good move on Apple's part....:(:(:(

tbrinkma

Jul 17, 2009, 10:34 AM

Perhaps I'm being a bit thick here, but couldn't Apple simply arrange to have parental warnings be displayed when redeeming promo codes? Problem solved? No? Bueller?

Somehow, I suspect that's exactly what they're working on. It'll require a software update though.

If promo codes don't currently display the warning, then it sounds like two current scenarios are possible.
1) The person with the promo code can get an app even if their parents have set it to *not* allow that rating.
2) The person redeems the promo code, but doesn't have access to the app because their parents have set it to not allow that rating.

Either one of those is a potential problem from a legal stand point, so Apple is likely fixing the system to show the parental warnings regardless of the purchase method, but has temporarily disabled promo codes for 'mature' apps in the mean-time as a CYA measure.

iAlexG

Jul 17, 2009, 10:36 AM

more controversy

accumulator

Jul 17, 2009, 10:37 AM

Apple has to really step back and critically assess its rating system, because right now, it appears to be missing the point - which would be to alert parents to potentially objectionable content.

Example: I recently downloaded an app that provides critical reviews of wines. It was rated 17+ for "frequent reference to alcohol" or some such idiocy.

You might as well rate an anatomy handbook program 17+ because it's got information on human anatomy (I'm shocked!).

While I don't see why a 12 year old would really want a program that contains information on wine, I can't see how it does them ANY harm at all. Hell, if a kid's going to drink, at least let them drink quality products, rather than Boone's Farm or Thunderbird. ;)

twoodcc

Jul 17, 2009, 11:06 AM

i don't really blame them

Tenebrous

Jul 17, 2009, 11:09 AM

First, I doubt that this is some kind of intentional or permanent move on Apple's part. Really guys? You think that they want all net-enabled apps to be rated 17+? You think that they don't know the headaches this would cause? Really? I find that kind of thinking to be dumber than your average Palestinian throwing rocks at people armed with automatic rifles.

Second, it's not CENSORSHIP. Censorship is the government forbidding publication of material. Apple is NOT the government. Apple is a private company and the App Store is a private store run according to their rules and at their pleasure.

Apple would fully be within their rights to say, "All apps must say, 'Turds are blue' in order to be published in the App Store." It's their freakin' store, folks! If you don't like it, guess what? Complaining doesn't fix the problem.

wywern209

Jul 17, 2009, 11:14 AM

This has gone too far. "any app that touches the internet". Wow, fail.why doesn't apple just let the devs do what they want to do? A noble goal by apple but it is becoming a real annoyance to those who are actually old enough to use such apps.

alchemistmuffin

Jul 17, 2009, 11:27 AM

Bodhi395

Jul 17, 2009, 11:41 AM

I think it's overkill on the censorship to have any app that connects to the internet to be 17+.

Look at it this way, you can get to so much adult material through safari anyway that placing all these restrictions on applications is pointless. Anyone under 17 that wants to find adult things will through safari.

But, then I realize someone made the point that you can block safari from being used on the iphone. Ok, but what parent is going to buy their child an expensive iphone when they aren't going to let them use safari on it? It makes the iphone lose one of its main features. A parent that was that strict with their child I'm sure would just buy them a lesser phone that couldn't access the internet.

Further, any child young enough to not be able to handle seeing some adult material shouldn't have an iphone in the first place. Parents should not be buying their 10 year olds iphones! Wait until they are teenagers and then maybe they can get one, and by that point, I think most reasonable people would agree a modern day teenager can handle seeing some 'adult' material.

PBG4 Dude

Jul 17, 2009, 11:43 AM

Every videogame with an online component carries and ESRB disclaimer that the game's rating does not cover online interactions. I don't understand why Apple can't take the same tack with internet-enabled applications?

guzhogi

Jul 17, 2009, 11:44 AM

And I'm sure a lot of those people saying Apple should loosen up their restrictions will then complain "Look how much smut there is on the app store"

goldenbear2008

Jul 17, 2009, 11:55 AM

This isn't about restrictions to app content. If apple deems the app to be acceptable enough to get into the app store, it shouldn't be saddled with extra punitive restrictions that other acceptable apps don't get.

Cult of Mac wrote a really interesting Q&A yesterday with a developer who spoke candidly about this issue with his "fixed" sex dice app:

http://cultofmac.com/q-a-how-sex-game-apps-get-approved-by-apple

cubedweller

Jul 17, 2009, 12:01 PM

sadly, this decision is pretty much final, and yes, promo codes are disabled for good for all 17+ apps.

Why? Simple! (if you can understand legal system, that is), liability issue.

Apple does not want to be sued by an angry parent for their kids getting 17+ apps via promo codes. Every time you use a promo codes, parental controls are somehow bypassed, and unfortunately, there is no fix to this bug, what so ever.

This is the only option left by Apple, who put this option as a last resort.

That's a very strong statement. May I ask how you know that "there is no fix to this bug, what so ever"? Anything can be changed; and any bug can be fixed. This is nonsense.

QCassidy352

Jul 17, 2009, 12:23 PM

This is simply a CYA (Cover Your *ss) move by Apple. Understandable to a degree, but still annoying.

it's more than understandable to a degree. Did you see the press apple got when that one app with topless photos showed up? It does seem they went a little far with what apps this covers, but I'm not in the least surprised that apple is concerned about how the app store appears.

As far as the cracks about "censorship" go, gimme a break. You can say whatever you want and put it on the internet too. You have no god-given or constitutional right to distribute whatever you like on apple's proprietary platform.

djdole

Jul 17, 2009, 12:25 PM

Soooo the developers and customers are paying the price (yet again) for Apple's flawed implementation.
Instead of these patchwork kludge (or censoring) solutions, maybe Apple should just fix the implementation. :mad:

nagromme

Jul 17, 2009, 12:49 PM

Good thing I never use the ratings system. It's a feature(?) missing some very important aspects!

The promo code thing sounds easily fixable in 3.1, though.

Meanwhile, I'm never quick enough to snap up a promo code at TouchArcade anyway :o

...
As far as the cracks about "censorship" go, gimme a break. You can say whatever you want and put it on the internet too. You have no god-given or constitutional right to distribute whatever you like on apple's proprietary platform.

Nor is it smart for Apple to lump "everything on the Internet" into "mature."

But they had to: they HAVE to censor because they promised (optional) censorship as a feature: Parental Controls. Delivering on that feature requires them to block mature content.

Of course, they need to do it in a better way--and I expect they will in future. (Like a switch in Parental Controls to allow/disallow 3rd-party apps to get on the network. Paranoid parents can block Safari but still allow other apps online--if they CHOOSE to trust the apps they've bought. Even MORE paranoid parents can go further and block all 3rd-party apps from network access, with one tap. And a warning can tell them that the app ratings system may be violated if they don't go that extra optional step. Meanwhile the rest of us won't have to face the side-effects. Want to get extra sophisticated? Add a full allow/deny list. Simple enough.)

guzhogi

Jul 17, 2009, 01:14 PM

This reminds me of some internet filters out there: like if a high school kid has to do a research paper about breast cancer or someone's trying to find recipes for chicken breasts, the site's blocked, but if you use some weird, obscure reference for someone's naughty parts, it goes straight through. Especially like the difference between www.whitehouse.com & www.whitehouse.gov (the .com one is a porn site while the .gov one is the office website of the WHite House).

Rhalliwell1

Jul 17, 2009, 01:17 PM

Isn't this going to deter developers from using the upper age ranges? bizzare if you ask me! :)

Aldaris

Jul 17, 2009, 01:33 PM

Sorry, but all off these parental controls can be turned on and off, regardless of a age limit. I think it's a good "cover your butt move". And those of you "over 17" don't sweat it. Really what app demographic is limited to 13-17 year olds that needs that access?

Granted if it were to block an app like Auroa Feint, then I think they need to review, how each app individually uses an external server...

Any way I think your all over reacting on apple being "big brother"

vrillusions

Jul 17, 2009, 01:36 PM

Before everyone gets all huffy and puffy about censorship, this really sounds like a technical programming faux pas than a flat out censorship decision to me. Appears as Apple didn't cover their bases here when they implemented promo codes into the ratings system—let's give them the benefit of the doubt and a little time to sort this out which I'm sure will happen eventually. If you're a developer file a bug report.

yeah that's the part that makes me upset. There's a bug in the store that when redeeming promo codes the parental restrictions don't apply. So instead of fixing the bug they just don't let you use promo codes on 17+ apps.

charlituna

Jul 17, 2009, 02:02 PM

And or course Apple even, without warning provides unlimited access to way worse content than they will ever offer in the store - via Safari.

I am the tech support for my family, including 2 kids under 12. Their parents don't want them accidentally exposed to 'that stuff'. Which can happen even with Mommy in the room grading papers at her desk. So at her request, I put the kids on a managed account on the family computer where I restrict them to only particular pre approved websites.

Problem solved.

from what I understand, the parental controls on an iphone aren't perfect at this point. and I wouldn't be shocked if they are wiped out should a somewhat savvy child restore the phone to the factory settings.

I do understand some of the fuss. after all. if i was a reviewer and got a code and left on my desk where the kids could pick it up and use it . . . So they need to find some way to do their best to ensure against this or they will have rabid hordes of 'must protect the country's children from bad things' folks after them. you know the same ones that want to have all movies over a PG rating declared obscene, want all books that talk about magic, vamps etc burned cause they promote satanism, want sex ed to be a year of "sex before marriage is bad, do NOT ever ever have sex before you are married or you will burn in hell. you will burn in hell if you look at pictures of naked people, you will burn in hell blind if you touch yourself or anyone else in a sexual way before you are married"

My Daughter is 13 and I am the one that monitors what she see's & listen's too that's my job! :rolleyes: yes it's nice control for those that can't but to take away it away from everybody bad move! hopefully this is temporary!

Under they aren't saying your kids can't get those apps or that they are banning the apps. If you want to not use the controls, that is your call. they are there for those that want them.

all this is about is that developers get a certain number of freebies to hand out to drum up reviews and thus hopefully legit buys. like record labels giving singles to radio stations to play. those freebies are what they have cut for the 'adult' rated apps. because for right now, they are bypassing all parental controls. now if they can fix that problem, they will likely give them out again.

Doctor Q

Jul 17, 2009, 02:15 PM

I think Apple implements restrictions like this only when it thinks it has to. Obviously, promo codes spur sales, and sales are Apple's goal. This was probably more about complaints they've gotten and maybe some "company image" issues than about wanting to control us. I hope they will find a less blunt approach to this problem, however.

adrian.oconnor

Jul 17, 2009, 02:16 PM

I think the posts in this discussion so far can be split in to two categories: those written by angry teenagers, who think Apple are stupid, and those over 20 who think "so what?".

I personally thinks this makes sense, but if I was younger I suspect I'd be a bit miffed. As a parent my perspective is completely changed.

LethalWolfe

Jul 17, 2009, 02:21 PM

Second, it's not CENSORSHIP. Censorship is the government forbidding publication of material. Apple is NOT the government. Apple is a private company and the App Store is a private store run according to their rules and at their pleasure.
It is censorship but not of the type that would violate someone's civil rights because a corporation is different than the government.

Lethal

Stella

Jul 17, 2009, 02:24 PM

sadly, this decision is pretty much final, and yes, promo codes are disabled for good for all 17+ apps.

Why? Simple! (if you can understand legal system, that is), liability issue.

Apple does not want to be sued by an angry parent for their kids getting 17+ apps via promo codes. Every time you use a promo codes, parental controls are somehow bypassed, and unfortunately, there is no fix to this bug, what so ever.

This is the only option left by Apple, who put this option as a last resort.

I don't buy this one little bit: Apple don't apply such rules to OSX apps. Neither does any smartphone platform worry about this. Apple are being anal.

If they were worried about this, they'd also be applying censorship to Safari on both devices - touch and iPhone.

Its the parents responsibility to track what their kids use on their iPhone / Touch.

dejo

Jul 17, 2009, 02:25 PM

I've been affected by this because we can't give out any promo codes for the latest version of CraigsHarvest. We rated it 17+ in order to allow our users access to personals.

The Phazer

Jul 17, 2009, 02:34 PM

Apple's maturity level when it comes to sex is on par with an eight year old.

And marking anything with a browser at 17+ is just utterly stupid.

Phazer

TonyHoyle

Jul 17, 2009, 02:39 PM

I think the posts in this discussion so far can be split in to two categories: those written by angry teenagers, who think Apple are stupid, and those over 20 who think "so what?".

That's a huge and incorrect generalisation. I'm 39, since you ask.

Personally I find apple's policies on this asinine. By forcing everything that accesses the internet to be rated 17+ they're making the age ratings totally pointless - if someone writes a simple kiddies game that happens to have some internet interaction, like high scores, it must now be rated 17+.. this either kills the market for the game stone dead or forces parents to disable parental controls to allow their children to play the game.

What will more likely happen is that developers won't bother rather than market only to the small segment of adults who like playing kids games.

Since both Safari and Mail access the internet regularly, they should also be market 17+ and subject to the same restrictions. The whole damned *phone* should be because someone might phone and say something unapproved by the censorship brigade.

Disabling promo codes is just silly. I means that any app that uses communication - one of the features of the phone FFS - can't be promoted/sent to reviewers/friends for testing/etc. so it'll be released without those features. Everyone gets a worse experience because of a few... and apple are right in the middle of it caving in every time anyone gets a bit offended.

JonB3Z

Jul 17, 2009, 02:42 PM

Indeed. It's very easy to become emotional in this case. We really have to be careful and not lash out until it's justified.

You do realize this is the Internet, right? :)

BaldiMac

Jul 17, 2009, 02:47 PM

I don't buy this one little bit: Apple don't apply such rules to OSX apps. Neither does any smartphone platform worry about this. Apple are being anal.

If they were worried about this, they'd also be applying censorship to Safari on both devices - touch and iPhone.

Its the parents responsibility to track what their kids use on their iPhone / Touch.

And, as a parent, if you disabled access to Safari and 17+ apps on your child's iPod, wouldn't you be peeved if your kid could still download 17+ apps using promo codes and access the web using a random third-party app?

Of course, this could all be avoided if parental controls were more robust. But they are not, so this decision is justifiable until Apple can improve them.

manhattanboy

Jul 17, 2009, 03:11 PM

Of course, this could all be avoided if parental controls were more robust.

I suggest just chaining them up in the basement LOL:p
You can beat them if they don't behave :p

TheSlush

Jul 17, 2009, 03:50 PM

As a parent my perspective is completely changed.

The only place in society where the priorities of parents should supercede the priorities of non-parents is at Baby Gap.

Dale_Nx26

Jul 17, 2009, 05:39 PM

Anybody siding with Apple on this one is a totally bias ass-kissing dumbfart..

joost538

Jul 17, 2009, 06:25 PM

I personally thinks this makes sense, but if I was younger I suspect I'd be a bit miffed. As a parent my perspective is completely changed.

I am a parent too but I still think this is a pretty retarded move by Apple. They are taking their role a censor waaaaay too far. Like so many have said, apps with built-in web browser are 17+ but Safari is not? Have you been around sixteen-year olds lately? A puny Think Of The Children Scheme by Apple is no way going to stop them from getting adult content. Teenagers laugh at this stuff.

The one and only reason Apple is doing this is CYA and that's all caused by sue-happy moronic parents who blame others for their own faillure. Or who are just too lazy and dumb to see what's going on with their children. Yes, lazy. If you really, really believe that (insert consumer products vendor) is going to raise your children for you in an acceptable way, you are in for a surprise.

So all this is accomplishing is putting up restrictions for regular, adult users. Unfortunately because of Apple's closed ecosystem there is jack squat we can do about it.

deconstruct60

Jul 17, 2009, 10:10 PM

That's a huge and incorrect generalisation. I'm 39, since you ask.

Personally I find apple's policies on this asinine. By forcing everything that accesses the internet to be rated 17+ they're making the age ratings totally pointless -

That is not what the article says. It says that if you embed a web browser inside your app then you get 17+. it is not if you open a TCP/IP socket you are 17+. The core Webkit browser has no parental control abilities at all. So if you are a parent you has disabled Safari then all someone has to do is sell a "backdoor" web browser with a "G" label on it that doesn't look like a browser in initial use.

It is not "mature" that is at issue here as perhaps it is opening backdoors.

The game industry has played this "game" already were games gets released as sub 17 and then "enhancement packs" put naked women and what into the game (or special code 15 unlocks the mature content). Having the ability to put content into game by going off to some webpage is all to easy.

Disabling promo codes is just silly.

Again you're thrown internet into webbrowser into the same bucket.
Likewise Apple threw out all adult content until they had a mechanism to deal with it. Is it really surprising that on release 1.0 of that ability that they didn't quite get it right and there are backdoors around the system?

When some aspect of your software system is broken you turn it off and ship the rest that isn't broken. Happens all the time.

and apple are right in the middle of it caving in every time anyone gets a bit offended.

It isn't about people getting offended it is about implementing a feature (parental controls ) correctly. If have parental control that can be easily bypassed why have it all ?

P.S. also wouldn't be very surprising if some folks where using promo codes on apps to funnel stuff to under aged kids. The whole thing that reviewers are over 17 .... LOL. The old cartoon "On the Internet nobody knows if you are a dog" . You can add over 17 to that too. ;)

deconstruct60

Jul 17, 2009, 10:21 PM

I am a parent too but I still think this is a pretty retarded move by Apple. They are taking their role a censor waaaaay too far. Like so many have said, apps with built-in web browser are 17+ but Safari is not?

That is a moot point if parental controls allow the parent to turn Safari off.
In other words, for the Apple supplied apps that provide access to web content they provide a way to turn it off. These other apps don't have that "off" setting other than the 17+ mechanism.

If Apple did something that made the "Safari off" setting killed not just Safari but any embedded use of Webkit then perhaps they wouldn't need to resort to this. However, I suspect that is substantially harder to do than it sounds. For now because lack precision of control just throw them all into the same bucket.

deconstruct60

Jul 17, 2009, 10:31 PM

The only place in society where the priorities of parents should supercede the priorities of non-parents is at Baby Gap.

What alternative universe is that? Families are benevolent dictatorships.
If the underaged children are the dictators that family tends to be dysfunctional.
With few exceptions where they work well it is the opposite way around.

Stella

Jul 17, 2009, 10:34 PM

And, as a parent, if you disabled access to Safari and 17+ apps on your child's iPod, wouldn't you be peeved if your kid could still download 17+ apps using promo codes and access the web using a random third-party app?

Of course, this could all be avoided if parental controls were more robust. But they are not, so this decision is justifiable until Apple can improve them.

Its not Apple's responsibility, its yours to ensure they don't look at non-suitable content.

Additionally, you shouldn't give them access to iPhone or Touch at all because you can't stop them going to such questionable websites on mobile Safari... if this is your thinking.

Like someone said before, Apple should censor themselves too.... or make the two devices ages of 17+ only.

BaldiMac

Jul 17, 2009, 10:38 PM

Its not Apple's responsibility, its yours to ensure they don't look at content.

Apple provided a tool to help me do that.

BaldiMac

Jul 17, 2009, 10:41 PM

Additionally, you shouldn't give them access to iPhone or Touch at all because you can't stop them going to such questionable websites on mobile Safari... if this is your thinking.

Like someone said before, Apple should censor themselves too.... or make the two devices ages of 17+ only.

Once again. Apple does allow you to disable mobile Safari. They allow parents to decide whether or not a web browser is run on the device.

TheSlush

Jul 18, 2009, 01:09 AM

What alternative universe is that? Families are benevolent dictatorships.
If the underaged children are the dictators that family tends to be dysfunctional.
With few exceptions where they work well it is the opposite way around.

No no, let me rephrase:

The only place in society where the priorities of parents should supercede the priorities of non-parent adults is at Baby Gap.

iphones4evry1

Jul 18, 2009, 03:56 AM

TwitterFon has a built in browser. Everytime I click on a tweet from CNN that has a link to a CNN webpage, the embedded TwitterFon browser displays the webpage. I guess CNN is now 17+ ...errr, I mean Twitter is 17+. Makes sense, considering that anyone can post a TwitPic photo or a link to any website.
(I just hope Apple treats every App equally. I guess this applies to the SMS App also - anyone could send me a link to a 17+ website. And the Safari App also. No more media reviews. Wait, those are free, so it wouldn't matter)

emulator

Jul 18, 2009, 04:04 AM

And, as a parent, if you disabled access to Safari and 17+ apps on your child's iPod, wouldn't you be peeved if your kid could still download 17+ apps using promo codes and access the web using a random third-party app?
if your kid wants to watch porn, he/she'll do. if wants to play GTA, will do no matter how you try to control with parental guide. it'a alwyas about how the parents educate their offspring, but american parents like their job and responsibilities (as a parent) to be taken care by someone else.

BaldiMac

Jul 18, 2009, 09:06 AM

if your kid wants to watch porn, he/she'll do. if wants to play GTA, will do no matter how you try to control with parental guide. it'a alwyas about how the parents educate their offspring,

That's a great theory. A ten year old does not necessarily want to watch porn, but it's surprising easy to accidentally come across it when you are not trying on the internet. What's wrong with wanting to give your kid an iPod touch to play games on, listen to music, watch videos, check email, but not access the web?

but american parents like their job and responsibilities (as a parent) to be taken care by someone else.

And stereotypes and generalizations are not something we should pass on to anybody.

charlituna

Jul 18, 2009, 03:45 PM

But they had to: they HAVE to censor because they promised (optional) censorship as a feature: Parental Controls. Delivering on that feature requires them to block mature content.

[QUOTE=Stella;8109744]Its not Apple's responsibility, its yours to ensure they don't look at non-suitable content.

yes it is your responsibility. but here is the catch. Apple has made Parental Controls on the computer and the iphone/touch as a tool to help you if you choose to use them.

They are advertising that Parental Controls will do X, Y and Z. open access to the web would potentially violated that advertised feature. Apple has been hit with several lawsuits already over claiming things about the iphone that aren't totally true. doesn't matter to those filing the suits that the issue is really ATT and the phone actually does what is claimed. they can't use said feature and they blame Apple.

So until the whole promo code thing is fixed, they don't have much of a choice. unless they want to risk being sued again.

Isn't this going to deter developers from using the upper age ranges? bizzare if you ask me! :)

no, it will just force them to be a tad more creative for a little while. they might have to pay to gift copies to select review sites, create a "lite" version for free or whatever

I don't buy this one little bit: Apple don't apply such rules to OSX apps.

no but they do have working parental controls that a parent can use to block an app

I've been affected by this because we can't give out any promo codes for the latest version of CraigsHarvest. We rated it 17+ in order to allow our users access to personals.

the promo codes are given you to with every version yes. so in a month or so when they have the problem fixed, you tweak things enough to justify a new version and get a new batch of codes.

adrian.oconnor

Jul 18, 2009, 04:17 PM

adrian.oconnor

Jul 18, 2009, 04:35 PM

The only place in society where the priorities of parents should supercede the priorities of non-parents is at Baby Gap.

Apple get a lot of money from Education and from parent's buying Apple products for their children. They have every right to prioritise however they wish.

I am a parent too but I still think this is a pretty retarded move by Apple. They are taking their role a censor waaaaay too far. Like so many have said, apps with built-in web browser are 17+ but Safari is not? Have you been around sixteen-year olds lately? A puny Think Of The Children Scheme by Apple is no way going to stop them from getting adult content. Teenagers laugh at this stuff.

The one and only reason Apple is doing this is CYA and that's all caused by sue-happy moronic parents who blame others for their own faillure. Or who are just too lazy and dumb to see what's going on with their children. Yes, lazy. If you really, really believe that (insert consumer products vendor) is going to raise your children for you in an acceptable way, you are in for a surprise.

So all this is accomplishing is putting up restrictions for regular, adult users. Unfortunately because of Apple's closed ecosystem there is jack squat we can do about it.

That's a sensible point of view, but I don't think those are the only reasons apple are doing this. If I gave my son an iPod touch, I'd use parental controls to restrict him to our wireless network that has basic filters in place. Knowing that Apple are happy to close potential back doors to adult content would make me happier. I know if he wants to find adult content he will, but I want it to be made as difficult as possible so that it doesn't become a normal thing for him to do. He's still a bit young, so in the meantime I'll do my best to educate him and give him a well balanced view that will hopefully be better than any parental restrictions.

N.B. I haven't been around 16 year olds lately. When I was that age, knowing someone that had managed to get hold of an adult magazine and sneaking a peek was a big thing. I hate to think what the internet is doing to their puberty-fueled world view.

LethalWolfe

Jul 18, 2009, 05:14 PM

N.B. I haven't been around 16 year olds lately. When I was that age, knowing someone that had managed to get hold of an adult magazine and sneaking a peek was a big thing. I hate to think what the internet is doing to their puberty-fueled world view.
Who needs the internet when you've got sexting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexting).;)

Lethal

iMaggot

Jul 18, 2009, 07:26 PM

Wow, i don't even know what to say any more.

deconstruct60

Jul 18, 2009, 09:06 PM

the promo codes are given you to with every version yes. so in a month or so when they have the problem fixed, you tweak things enough to justify a new version and get a new batch of codes.

No. Developers can generate as they need them.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/12/app-store-lessons-creating-and-redeeming-promo-codes.ars

The codes expire so there is little reason to generate them before a reviewer says "Yes I will review your app in the next week or so". Otherwise could generate them and at some point they just expire (e.g, reviewer goes on vacation and when finally gets around to it weeks later the code is toast.) Additionally, they get a HUGE number of these so should have some left unless spammed everyone possible with a code already.

So it is even a simpler process once Apple cleans this up (no need for new artificial release.). Till then send the reviewers (in US) an iTunes card with enough credit to cover the cost( app price + taxes ) . If going to pay off folks to review your stuff might well jump in with both feet. LOL. (Here is a free app for you... go say good things about me. )

[ If someone points to the 30% Apple takes out if have to reemburse... it is the cost of advertising. The primary reason giving the app to the reviewer to to get "free" advertising. If you app costs $10 it isn't worth $3 to get advertising that is presumably worth more than that????? If the advertising the reviewer gives you is less that $3 ... have you really lost much in not getting a review from them? ]

charlituna

Jul 19, 2009, 09:14 AM

That's a huge and incorrect generalisation. I'm 39, since you ask.

Personally I find apple's policies on this asinine. By forcing everything that accesses the internet to be rated 17+ they're making the age ratings totally pointless

Actually they aren't. the point of the ratings is to go with Parental Controls. Open access to the Internet, restricted mail etc (to avoid nasty pedophiles and cyber bullies) etc is the stuff that parents are looking to control.

You are an adult, so you don't put the controls on your phone. no big. You are a parent that doesn't want to restrict, you don't.

and I think if you look you will find that closed server systems for things like high scores and even multiplay aren't affected as broadly

charlituna

Jul 19, 2009, 09:16 AM

So it is even a simpler process once Apple cleans this up

can you not still gift an app to someone. if so, no need for the gift card.

deconstruct60

Jul 19, 2009, 01:06 PM

can you not still gift an app to someone. if so, no need for the gift card.

That works too. Paying for the apps costs money and only can be done after the app is in open distribution on iTunes. However, I think the one factor folks are groaning about though is that it costs money. On the apps store most folks are looking at some free advertising angle to hit the magical payday. And on the reviewer side some of them have ethical constraints where accepting valuable gifts is fine but taking money ( even as reimbursement) is shady somehow.

If someone wants a reviewer to look a the app before it is iTunes distribution , that doesn't work. The promotion codes had a quirky function in that they worked before shows up at the store listing but after Apple approval. I'd bet small amount that part of the rating checking process is done against the store listing. Since it skips the "release date" attribute on the App wouldn't be surprising if it skipped all attributes except for the app id. Since not openly listed, there is a loophole which means the codes download anything no matter what.

The other factor overlooked so far is that if was giving apps to reviewer during the beta process didn't use promo codes anyway. Those would be given to the reviewers in a "Ad Hoc" distribution method. That is closer to the initial suggestion of a special build. Only not a special build of the app for everyone, just the reviewers (and testers, limited distribution folks). However, that requires two way communication with the reviewers (need to get their phone/touch ID. They may not want to transfer that.). That is just as "free" (as in free beer) method. More work to get the app distributed, but possible.

anng12

Jul 25, 2009, 02:03 PM

charlituna

Jul 26, 2009, 10:00 AM

HEY!

THAT LAST PARAGRAPH OFFENDED ME..:mad::mad:
who said that 10-12 yr olds CAN'T HAVE iPhones?

People today are so over protective about this "adult" crap

well that's the beauty of the system set up. Bodhi has the opinion that a 12 year old has no business with an iphone so he/she is not going to buy his/her 12 year old an iphone. seems to also be of the opinion that an older teen is not going to be scarred for life by "accidentally" seeing some naked boobs. so the 16 year old gets the iphone without parental controls turned on.

contrast this to my sister who got her 8 year old and 10 year old ipod touches (because she agrees that they don't need their own phone. on the rare occasion he go to the park with friends the 10 year old takes mom or dad's phone in case of an emergency). she totally put parental controls on. has them on the computer as well. flat told me that I'm not to let them on my computer by themselves unless controls are on. which is fine by me, they are her kids. if she wants, as she says, for controls to be on until they are adults, she wins.

anng12

Jul 27, 2009, 03:49 PM

well that's the beauty of the system set up. Bodhi has the opinion that a 12 year old has no business with an iphone so he/she is not going to buy his/her 12 year old an iphone. seems to also be of the opinion that an older teen is not going to be scarred for life by "accidentally" seeing some naked boobs. so the 16 year old gets the iphone without parental controls turned on.

contrast this to my sister who got her 8 year old and 10 year old ipod touches (because she agrees that they don't need their own phone. on the rare occasion he go to the park with friends the 10 year old takes mom or dad's phone in case of an emergency). she totally put parental controls on. has them on the computer as well. flat told me that I'm not to let them on my computer by themselves unless controls are on. which is fine by me, they are her kids. if she wants, as she says, for controls to be on until they are adults, she wins.

I think you guys are just weird

i hate parental control