Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.

HenryDJP

Suspended
Nov 25, 2012
5,084
843
United States
Not on the App Store. But in every Apple Store. Bundled together with a Macintosh computer. Plus there is a Windows version available from Apple's website, but not in the App Store, which costs exactly as much as 500px.

The guy used the word "SELL". Bundling and selling are two different things. Like I said earlier, if you're going to say then then you might as well say Apple sells, Calendar, Clock, App Store, Maps, Weather, Mail, Contacts and the any other default app. Safari is free to Windows users to download and doesn't cost them anything more than their time to download it. I'm in sales for a living and some of you guys are confusing bundling with selling.

I think it's just comical to say the least the reaction people are having over this. I beg to differ that most people here complaining view the nude pics professionally and that's why their mad because big brother is reducing their private fun options. :D
 

The Phazer

macrumors 68030
Oct 31, 2007
2,997
928
London, UK
Like I said earlier, if you're going to say then then you might as well say Apple sells, Calendar, Clock, App Store, Maps, Weather, Mail, Contacts and the any other default app.

And you would be right.

Can I obtain the Calendar app from Apple without paying them any money? No? Then they are selling it.
 

cappadonna

macrumors regular
Jan 15, 2013
100
0
The guy used the word "SELL". Bundling and selling are two different things. Like I said earlier, if you're going to say then then you might as well say Apple sells, Calendar, Clock, App Store, Maps, Weather, Mail, Contacts and the any other default app. Safari is free to Windows users to download and doesn't cost them anything more than their time to download it. I'm in sales for a living and some of you guys are confusing bundling with selling.

I think it's just comical to say the least the reaction people are having over this. I beg to differ that most people here complaining view the nude pics professionally and that's why their mad because big brother is reducing their private fun options. :D

Suddenly everyone is an artistic photographer or enjoys art, right? :p
 

zoetmb

macrumors regular
Oct 8, 2007
158
8
I think this is tough for Apple. On the one hand, the App Store is already filled with enough crap; you don't want it filled with apps that are only there to appeal to perverts.

On the other hand, nudity has always been a part of the art of photography. If someone had the right to Stieglitz's nude studies and put those into an app, would Apple reject it? Because that would be insane.

And there is a very big difference between nudity and pornography, even if many people don't understand the difference. In the U.S., it's always been amazing to me how we're so hung up about sexuality in general, but we have no problem with extreme violence. If you have an app where you "kill" hundreds of opponents, no problem. If you have an app where you can see a nipple, everyone freaks out (welll...some people freak out). That's absurd. When are we going to grow up?

But having said all that, you can see what might happen to the App store if you search "photography" on the Amazon site. There are tons of self-published e-books that are nothing but exploitive photos of naked young women. I could see why Apple doesn't want the App Store to turn into that. I actually find it quite annoying to have to wade through them all when I'm looking for something serious.
 

69650

Suspended
Mar 23, 2006
3,367
1,876
England
Apple is not policing your kids, its policing their iOS and good for them.
If you want your kids to browse nude or erotic pics on iOS apps, go ahead and get a different platform. Safari does not show nude pics if you don't specifically look for them. It's a big difference. That's what safari was made for - to show you things that you look for and NOT things that you don't look for.

Apple has no right to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable and in doing so forcing their morality on to the rest of us. Apple is quite happy to allow games that promote extreme violence or gambling apps that leave people bankrupt. It's puritanical hypocrisy.

There is no difference. It's about the freedom to search for whatever the hell you want to. If it's not illegal it should not be blocked. Any parent can easily put blocks on their kids iPad to stop them searching for this sort of material without affecting the rights for the rest of us adults.
 

BC2009

macrumors 68020
Jul 1, 2009
2,236
1,371
Yeah, every time I go on YouTube, it suggests naked people to me or "how to breast feed" or "most profane video games" even though I don't watch anything related to that except for sometimes things related to video games. I don't want that stuff appearing in my suggestions when others see my screen. And if I watch anything related to a video game, it also gives me tons of Minecraft crap, which is just plain annoying.

When I looked up a how-to video on wiring coaxial cable and terminating with an F-type connector it suggested some video on some girl showing her breasts on her web came with her father (at least that is what the title said). It also suggested a video on sizing a bra properly (not sure how that was relevant either). All the other suggestions were related to wiring and coaxial cable. I find the incorrect suggestions really annoying.

Somebody in a forum told me that YouTube has a "no porn" policy, so I am guessing it is possible that these videos are either "Rick Rolled" pranks or they are teaser porn to advertise some porn website. Either way the images and titles are not something I want on my screen, nor on the screen of my kids iPods. YouTube is a supervised activity in our home.

One last thing.... my young daughters wanted to learn some dance that Hanna Montana / Miley Cyrus did in a movie. The teach-you-to-dance video was fine, but the comments included some perverted men on the internet describing what they would do to Miley Cyrus if they ever found her alone in a dark alley. It was very twisted and demented. YouTube comments are off limits to my kids when we supervise them on YouTube.
 

-jc

macrumors member
Jan 18, 2013
34
0
Look out, tumblr!

And Pinterest. And probably every other social network/sharing site out there in reality. Most of them have a hard time deleting content against their policies, especially if they have a large user base.
 

BvizioN

macrumors 603
Mar 16, 2012
5,701
4,819
Manchester, UK
Any parent can easily put blocks on their kids iPad to stop them searching for this sort of material without affecting the rights for the rest of us adults. If it's not illegal it should not be blocked.

So tell me this: How can you put a stop or filter an app that is not meant do show explicit images but somehow it does? Would it be OK for you if your favorite TV channel shows sex performance during the day when you are watching with your kids? Sex also is not illegal and according to you they can show whatever they want, right?
 

mustang_dvs

macrumors 6502a
Feb 9, 2003
694
13
Durham, NC
Interesting (er, not the revolting content :) ), and that's exactly what I meant by my "would/should be pulled". Is the content distributed to the mobile device the exact same as the web UI? Just wondering if there's some filter in place, or if that kind of content is private/protected only, so in either app or web, that prevents violation of the [Apple] TOS?

Flickr's iOS app provides exactly the same content as the website. For better or worse.

The old version of the app didn't even filter the splash screen slideshow -- which made things interesting when I added someone with a very beautiful G-rated public photostream as a contact and they added me back as 'family,' which let a bunch of very explicit private nudes pop-up on the splash screen. (I don't know about the new version of the app -- it's so awful that I only use flickstackr to manage my flickr accounts.)

I asked this question earlier and the person didn't respond, and knowingly because they couldn't answer it and you may not either. What exactly did you pro photographers do all the years before all this smartphone madness went viral in regards to getting your needed nude materials? I'm certain those resources are still available, or are those resources now just telling you, "Get it off your iPhone". And poor you about the lack of a wifi network, professionals didn't have these luxuries back in the day and their business was successful just the same. :rolleyes:

I was a professional "back in the day."

What we used then was a hard-copy lookbook. Same as what most galleries want, today.

And, if you were lucky-enough to have access to an optical drum scanner, you scanned your negatives and could pull up your archives on the computer, if you were consulting with someone, in your office, who wanted to see something you didn't have in your book (because most people don't like staring, hunched over, at contact sheets).

The point is, the technology is available, now. If I want to show someone location scouting snapshots, or a pose from an otherwise lackluster photo… and we're in the car, or at a restaurant, or standing in the middle of a field, 50 miles from civilization, why shouldn't I have the ability to pull up my archives? Either from my own private server, or dropbox, Flickr, iCloud, 500px, or even (Lord-forbid), Tumblr? I suppose I also should abandon my dSLR, because I was only using film, back in the days before smartphones?

As for my "nude materials," why should the presence or absence of nudity in my photo restrict my ability to access my photo, based solely on the (inconsistent) judgement of the device manufacturer?

I judge my work to be of equal merit -- whether it's an abstract of a decaying bridge, a documentary photograph of a person getting arrested simply for trying to obtain a marriage license, or a figure study of a consenting nude model. Why should anyone else's judgement matter in that regard?

Please elaborate. He stated nude does not equal pornographic, and pornographic pics of 16 year olds are illegal whether nude or not. So what about the nude non-pornographic pics of 16 year olds ?

I'm not trying to debate the merits, but the Federal Courts have upheld that non-sexualized images of nude minors are not illegal and do not constitute child pornography (see Sally Mann, Jock Sturges and David Hamilton, or anyone who's taken naked baby photos).

I think this is tough for Apple. On the one hand, the App Store is already filled with enough crap; you don't want it filled with apps that are only there to appeal to perverts.

On the other hand, nudity has always been a part of the art of photography. If someone had the right to Stieglitz's nude studies and put those into an app, would Apple reject it? Because that would be insane.

Nudity on 500px is a small subset. It's basically flickr without the social networking guise and a much better photo-manipulation library that retains higher image quality when resizing uploads. And, importantly, the ability to vote-down poor quality photos, which will eventually remove them from public view, if the rating is negative enough.

Stieglitz, Weston and Cunningham were all reviled as pornographers, in their day. Their models frequently hid their faces because they would be charged with prostitution and or lewd behavior, were they to be identified.

And there is a very big difference between nudity and pornography, even if many people don't understand the difference. In the U.S., it's always been amazing to me how we're so hung up about sexuality in general, but we have no problem with extreme violence. If you have an app where you "kill" hundreds of opponents, no problem. If you have an app where you can see a nipple, everyone freaks out (welll...some people freak out). That's absurd. When are we going to grow up?

But having said all that, you can see what might happen to the App store if you search "photography" on the Amazon site. There are tons of self-published e-books that are nothing but exploitive photos of naked young women. I could see why Apple doesn't want the App Store to turn into that. I actually find it quite annoying to have to wade through them all when I'm looking for something serious.

A brief history of 'pornography': the word dates to the mid-19th century, when British archaeologists studying the ruins of Pompeii could not adequately explain the depictions of nudity found in public statuary and private homes. Thus, they concluded that such depictions were advertisements for prostitution, thus, pornea (related to prostitution) graphein (to write or depict) were combined. The Brits chiseled the frescoes and statues off their mounts and hid them away from the public eye, in a bout of Victorian sensibility.

The problem with obscenity, as famously stated by Potter Stewart, is that the definition is subjective and the boundary is defined by the individual. There is no broadly applicable standard.
 
Last edited:

HenryDJP

Suspended
Nov 25, 2012
5,084
843
United States
Apple has no right to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable and in doing so forcing their morality on to the rest of us.

They have absolutely every right. You're paying for a license to use their system and the software purchased from their store to run on it is 100% at their discretion and not the customer's. Read the iOS TOC before you say they don't have the right to do.

----------

What did anyone do before the iPhone?

I was waiting for someone to answer my question. Why did you ask me the same question I asked?
 

The Phazer

macrumors 68030
Oct 31, 2007
2,997
928
London, UK
They have absolutely every right. You're licensing their system and the software purchased from their store to run on it is 100% at their discretion and not the customer's. Read the iOS TOC before you say they don't have the right to do.

Luckily for humanity, TOS can't override law or rights.

And Apple are scum for trying in this case.
 

WhyWhyWhyWhy

macrumors newbie
Nov 29, 2012
26
0
I just watched some porn on my iPhone. Man, nothing beats that Retina display - every pubic hair was tack sharp! :p
 

HenryDJP

Suspended
Nov 25, 2012
5,084
843
United States
Luckily for humanity, TOS can't override law or rights.

And Apple are scum for trying in this case.

And what exactly is your point? If customers took Apple to court over this app being pulled then Apple would lose because customers have rights when licensing Apple's software?
I'm just saying Apple has a right to do what they please with their system when all they are doing is just licensing it to the customer. If you were actually purchasing something like a Mac then of course Apple has no rights to tell you what you can and cannot do with it but then again if you want your warranty to remain valid they can.
 

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 65816
Apr 20, 2009
1,193
15,781
Apple should pull the camera app from the iPhone. It's disgusting how it can be used.

The ironic thing is that by now, Apple is probably one of the largest storers of nude photos. Those iCloud backups gotta go somewhere! Straight to Apple's server farm.
 

Lightey

macrumors regular
Jul 10, 2010
185
2
Apple is a dictatorship. **** like this is why I'm ditching my 5 and getting a Galaxy S4 when it comes out.
I'm sick of being told what I can and cannot see. I don't give a damn about the children, it's not Apple's job to parent your kids. Do it yourself. If I want to watch porn on a phone I paid $700 for, I should be able to. Just because Steve Jobs didn't like porn doesn't mean I can't.
 

mustang_dvs

macrumors 6502a
Feb 9, 2003
694
13
Durham, NC
Somebody in a forum told me that YouTube has a "no porn" policy, so I am guessing it is possible that these videos are either "Rick Rolled" pranks or they are teaser porn to advertise some porn website. Either way the images and titles are not something I want on my screen, nor on the screen of my kids iPods. YouTube is a supervised activity in our home.

Read the first bullet point: http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines

Some YouTube users learned to insert a single 'suggestive' frame in the precise middle of their YouTube videos, in order to use that as the thumbnail, but circumvent the automated content review. If you see it, flag it, so it will be reviewed by a human being.

Artistic and instructional videos that involve nudity are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, on YouTube. Again, if you think it's inappropriate, flag it.

The teach-you-to-dance video was fine, but the comments included some perverted men on the internet describing what they would do to Miley Cyrus if they ever found her alone in a dark alley.

Again, flag the comment. And parental supervision is always a good idea -- my children aren't old enough to use the computer, but when they are, it will always be with my wife or I supervising.
 

TeddtBallgame

macrumors newbie
Jan 23, 2013
1
0
500pxpull

As a longtime devotee of Apple products and as someone who is very familiar with the specific circumstances that led Apple to pull the 500px app, it has been disconcerting to observe the way the issue has been framed by most of the media. Most of the media accounts have portrayed Apple's decision as a response to easy access to nudity in the app. As a consequence, many of the comments here and elsewhere have been expressions of outrage and/or disdain at Apple's seemingly engaging in censorship. Many have rightly pointed out that nudity is easily accessed from a multitude of sources.
The fact of the matter is that Apple responded appropriately, swiftly and reasonably when alerted to the presence of child pornography in the 500px app. This is a very different situation from easy access to "artistic" photos of nude adults. The fact of the matter is that an identifiable photographer very recently posted on 500px sexualized full frontal nude photos of females who were clearly children. For the most part, the app displayed the art of very skilled photographers, most of whom presented their photos of exotic animals, breathtaking landscapes and similar subjects. In addition, and truly with no special steps required by the viewer, were the photos of a number of photographers whose images presented adult women in various states of undress. But again, easy access to adult nudity did not appear to be the compelling reason for Apple's action.
In the United States there are very clear laws prohibiting the transmission of child pornography over the Internet. Most reasonable people would conclude that Apple would not want to be associated with the dessimination of child pornography, via an Apple approved app. Without even speaking to the moral aspect to this situation, about which Apple was no doubt mindful, at the very least, a sound business decision was made. Most reasonable people are also likely to conclude that the staff of the 500px app bear the responsibility to effectively monitor their product for the presence of child pornography.
I believe that Apple deserves a lot of credit for taking this action and I applaud them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.