Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Disables Promo Codes for App Store Applications with Mature (17+) Ratings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
I suggest just chaining them up in the basement LOL
You can beat them if they don't behave
The only place in society where the priorities of parents should supercede the priorities of non-parents is at Baby Gap.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
(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)
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.
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?
And stereotypes and generalizations are not something we should pass on to anybody.
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.
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
no but they do have working parental controls that a parent can use to block an app
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.
I think, but I'm not 100% sure, that you only get the 17+ rating if you embed the Safari browser in your app. You're fine if you just access a server for high-scores or whatever. That makes sense to me.
I know I was making a sweeping generalisation, and to be honest I was being facetious because there is a clear divide in these comments. I still think censorship is right for Apple. I have a 10 year old son, and I don't want him having easy access to porn when he reaches his teenage years. I realise what a stupid statement that is, given the nature of the internet, but I do everything I can to make it a safe (and useful) haven for him all the same.
Apple's approach to the app store is also more than just plain old censorship. Apple have a great image right now, and I think it's important to them that they keep anything that is attached to their name tasteful where they can. They are very obsessive about their image, and tasteless apps could destroy that in a heartbeat.
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.
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.
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? ]
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
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.