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 Now Blocking 'Overtly Sexual' Apps from App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i'm banning your comment because i can rearrange the letters to write pornographic text.
Uhhh...one of these days someone will rerun the Super Bowl 1984 ad, and when that happens everyone will know they are referring to Apple users.
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS (JB3.1, unlocked): Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)
I hope you also complained about games like Grand Theft Auto which feature the murder of police? I mean, I know boobies are scary but there aren't there other, far more important things to complain about?
davidjearly said:
I hope you also complained about games like Grand Theft Auto which feature the murder of police? I mean, I know boobies are scary but there aren't there other, far more important things to complain about?
it's not personal... its business.
this is not "censorship" as many here say it is. Apple is an organization that makes decisions based on business. This is the free market that we live in. Why would anyone get offended if the content they want is not offered on a device? You have the choice to buy another device... or just jailbreak. If the government decided to outlaw porn, then censorship could be argued. Apple is not interested in keeping content away from their customer for the sake of morality. They are creating a safe environment where they can attracted more customers. They're not stopping anyone from looking at porn, they just aren't in the business of selling it.
this is not "censorship" as many here say it is. Apple is an organization that makes decisions based on business. This is the free market that we live in. Why would anyone get offended if the content they want is not offered on a device? You have the choice to buy another device... or just jailbreak. If the government decided to outlaw porn, then censorship could be argued. Apple is not interested in keeping content away from their customer for the sake of morality. They are creating a safe environment where they can attracted more customers. They're not stopping anyone from looking at porn, they just aren't in the business of selling it.
Been reading this thread and there are so many people talking about all the "porn" in the AppStore...
Ok, folks... there is NO porn or nudity on the AppStore - nor has it ever been allowed. What's happening is, that Apple is doing a sweep and clearing out a lot of the bikini-girl & pin-up types of apps. A photo of a girl wearing a bikini is not porn. If it is, then we're all engaging in pornography every time we go to the beach!
Personally, I could care less about bikini girl apps... but what does bother me, is how Apple seems to be picking and choosing which of these apps are allowed to stay, and which are being booted off - even though they all basically contain the SAME content. For example, Playboy's app is allowed to stay... Sports Illustrated Swimsuit app is allowed to stay, AND it's currently a "featured app" on the App Store front page!
Complete hypocrisy if ya ask me...
Ok, folks... there is NO porn or nudity on the AppStore - nor has it ever been allowed. What's happening is, that Apple is doing a sweep and clearing out a lot of the bikini-girl & pin-up types of apps. A photo of a girl wearing a bikini is not porn. If it is, then we're all engaging in pornography every time we go to the beach!
Personally, I could care less about bikini girl apps... but what does bother me, is how Apple seems to be picking and choosing which of these apps are allowed to stay, and which are being booted off - even though they all basically contain the SAME content. For example, Playboy's app is allowed to stay... Sports Illustrated Swimsuit app is allowed to stay, AND it's currently a "featured app" on the App Store front page!
Complete hypocrisy if ya ask me...
Just some points regarding all the many people taking principled stands on this one:
--Freedom of speech is a public right, but need not be respected by private businesses. There are plenty of phrases that will get you ejected from these forums for example, and no constitutional argument is going to help you.
--Every store you enter selects the content it chooses to sell. Not every bookstore is the Library of Congress, Best Buy doesn't sell electric bondage gear, Toys Я Us doesn't sell sex toys regardless of their name, and Good Vibrations doesn't sell prom dresses. They choose the image they wish to nurture and build their store experience around it.
--I see a lot of people get all up in arms about attacks on capitalism, and attacks on democratic values, and don't seem to realize self contradiction. Apple has the right to compete in the market however they choose. Arguing that selecting content is censorship and anti-democratic is, in itself, anti-capitalistic.
--Pornography is in the eye of the beholder. Playboy is a very different entity than Wobble iBoobs. While you may think the line needs to be drawn on one or the other side of both of those apps, it doesn't mean Apple sees it that way.
--If you support the idea of greater freedom, then you should be supporting Apple's freedom to choose what they sell. Freedom isn't just about what you as an individual wants, it's about each individual being free to make their own decisions, even those in controlling positions in large corporations. You have the freedom to select another store, and yes, that may mean selecting another communications device or music player. Sorry, this is a package deal.
Dirty Filthy Beggars!
Cut Their Goolies off Is what I say
Ok, maybe I'm not as mature as I thought I was-- I've been laughing at the word "goolies" for at least 10 minutes now.Haha, good point. I appreciate many on the left like to think of their position as the home of various freedoms, but I think though the word you're looking for is 'libertarian' (broadly my position ftw): I'm afraid there's a strong authoritarian streak running through some who'd describe themselves as left-wing, and those on the right too.
The authoritarian/libertarian dimension is actually orthogonal to the usual left/right distinction: see Stalin / Hitler, for example: one on the left one on the right, but both a tad authoritarian.
Fair enough, so why not use age restriction to hide porn in the App Store? Right now even if I'm 99 Years I canot buy porn in the App Store.
If you're a liberal, shouldn't you fight to defend the right to freedom of speech, even though it may "shock, offend or disturb"?
If they sell well, that means they're popular. Loads of App Store fans point to the popularity as a great advantage of the iPhone and Touch, yet the popular apps are deleted because they don't conform to a certain puritan view of the world? That smacks of censorship, and I've spent a bit of time fighting state censorship and mob censorship. Why would I think it's okay to hand that power to a company?
I wouldn't buy them - if I wanted porn I'd just surf to a site, but I will defend the right of anyone else to buy them, and the publishers to produce them.
So if iWobble Boobs did not contain any adult images, but required the user to use whatever image they like, then the only problem with the App is probably that it urges the user to use sexually explicit images? So I guess if they only changed the name to "iWobble" and did't say anything about what the app should be used for, then it wouldn't get censured? I mean all it does is allow you to put some circles on any image, then shake the iPhone and make the circles wobble... Could be used for anything, doesn't have to imply that this is for boobs. Just like Safari isn't just for porn either!
I just think Steve is constantly frustrated that not everyone thinks like him. I mean his ideas are fantastic, but other developers have other approaches, that may no be as Apple-ish, with no cool interface and no extreme simplicity while only having useful features, and that makes Steve really mad each time. He would love to tell everyone how to do their business, and make the whole world like Apple. I wouldn't mind, but he just can't do that, because Apple is just another company, they don't rule the world or anything.
Until then, they have to understand that when they allow other programmers to make content for their devices, it's never going to be exactly what they want. It's the difference between "open-sourcing" and "closed-sourcing". Apple is very, very closed-source, they are control freaks, they want to have control over even the last pixel of the icon in the top left corner. That's a great thing I think, I'm also a bit like that. However, when they open up a bit, and allow random developers to contribute to the Apple experience (App store), they realise how awesome and successful it becomes, but at the same time, they're frustrated that they don't have control over every single pixel.
I just think Steve is constantly frustrated that not everyone thinks like him. I mean his ideas are fantastic, but other developers have other approaches, that may no be as Apple-ish, with no cool interface and no extreme simplicity while only having useful features, and that makes Steve really mad each time. He would love to tell everyone how to do their business, and make the whole world like Apple. I wouldn't mind, but he just can't do that, because Apple is just another company, they don't rule the world or anything.
Until then, they have to understand that when they allow other programmers to make content for their devices, it's never going to be exactly what they want. It's the difference between "open-sourcing" and "closed-sourcing". Apple is very, very closed-source, they are control freaks, they want to have control over even the last pixel of the icon in the top left corner. That's a great thing I think, I'm also a bit like that. However, when they open up a bit, and allow random developers to contribute to the Apple experience (App store), they realise how awesome and successful it becomes, but at the same time, they're frustrated that they don't have control over every single pixel.
I agree with baryon, removing iWobble from app store is crazy. I've got the app and it's fun, that's all. It ships with NO content whatsoever. What apple should be banning is all the apps that have pictures of nude women on them. Or, why don't they create a separate adult section that you have to be 18/21 or over to view and put that type of content in there. I'm an apple fanboy, but the way they manage their app store and their inconsistent app review process is crap.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1-update1; en-gb; Nexus One Build/ERE27) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)
What's next? Will Apple be blocking explicit songs from iTunes next?
Bah, what do I care. My wifes boobies keep me entertained any way.
What's next? Will Apple be blocking explicit songs from iTunes next?
Bah, what do I care. My wifes boobies keep me entertained any way.
None of these apps actually show nudity. People are making it out like they show the most sexually, explicit acts known to man.. Last I checked, models in bikinis are not a big deal.
Wow, thank you for injecting some reason here. This case is nowhere near censorship for the exact reasons you stated, and Apple's actions are perfectly reasonable.
The problem is these sexual apps are appearing on the front page of top downloads lists. Thus, the content is unsolicited for certain users. The rest of the internet does not work this way, and Apple should not be held to another standard. For instance, one can access pornography or evocative imagery through Google or Yahoo, but it is not solicited on their front pages, for obvious reasons.
Several have mentioned content filters. But why would a major company want to be directly affiliated with solicitation of sexual material? As Chrisburton stated, it's bad for business.
The validity of North America's double standard when it comes to violence vs sexuality is irrelevant to Apple's business decisions. If violence was considered taboo, Grand Theft Auto would be excluded, too. But it's not.
To top it all off, tits on your iphone are still only two or three taps away. Stop bemoaning censorship and divert your passion for the subject into something more worthwhile.
Adult Page
How hard would it be for Apple to require some age appropriate spaces on iTunes?
I think the iBoobs and the other "sexual" apps are pretty harmless, but as a high school teacher, I see a lot of kids with iPhones and I'm thinking there should be a way to prevent them from getting to that type of content.
You're always going to have the kid with the "open" parents, but the problem could be solved in a couple of ways.
1. Apple could allow an outside vendor to distribute "adult content". So let it be purchased somewhere else, but still go through iTunes to sync.
2. When the iPhone/iPod is registered, Apple could request more information about the device ex. What is the birthdate of the person using this device? Lock out kids from making the purchases.
Maybe all of this will come in iPhone 4.0
How hard would it be for Apple to require some age appropriate spaces on iTunes?
I think the iBoobs and the other "sexual" apps are pretty harmless, but as a high school teacher, I see a lot of kids with iPhones and I'm thinking there should be a way to prevent them from getting to that type of content.
You're always going to have the kid with the "open" parents, but the problem could be solved in a couple of ways.
1. Apple could allow an outside vendor to distribute "adult content". So let it be purchased somewhere else, but still go through iTunes to sync.
2. When the iPhone/iPod is registered, Apple could request more information about the device ex. What is the birthdate of the person using this device? Lock out kids from making the purchases.
Maybe all of this will come in iPhone 4.0
Quite so. As you were replying to me, I'd just like to note that I wasn't banging on about free speech myself (though I do think its important) as I was pointing out the hypocracy of their "I support free speech but" attitude to someone else.
So why is the playboy app still listed when this is not? Sorry but that isn't about an image, it's about "sorry but there was profit to be had".
Well you're right there, playboy is different. Wobble iBoobs is just a blank canvas. Playboy app has a direct link to the pornography industry.
If the line was to be drawn between them on the basis of "taste" then surely the app with the real actual link to real actual pornography is more offensive than the app that's a blank canvas with the silly name?
Actually, strictly speaking, senior officers in large corporations are obliged to consider the needs of the stockholders rather than their own personal tastes when making decisions that affect the direction of their company.
And we also have the freedom to complain when we don't like the direction a product we love is headed in.
My sentiments exactly. To censor apps for any reason other than endangering the operation of the system (malware, bad code etc.) is completely beyond the pale. The slippery slope argument applies - and we are already some way down the slope.
Today it's "porn" - tomorrow it's ....
What "literature" will pass the Jobs Test for acceptability on the iPad?
Lolita anyone???
Steve has marketed some good hardware - but I did not buy the hardware in order to subscribe to his (or anyone else's) politics or social preferences. Get the code fixed so that there is a little button to exclude "Adult" juvenilia by choice - not by dictat.
I owned an Apple ][; have lived with and loved my Mac since the days of SE and Plus - but if anything were to push me into the arms of alternative hardware it is this policy. My iPhone and MacBook Pro are due for upgrades - and the Tablet looks good - but there's plenty of competition out there Mr Jobs.
Macphilliac
So, games where all you do is kill people is ok, but the human body is off limits? Stupid. Just make a section for that sort of app, label it, and let parents block it if they want. I don't have any of those apps, but still, they should be allowed. I hate this kind of ****.
I'm not playing. People who take it upon themselves to be some kind of 'moral watchdog' (their own definition of morality) for the rest of us tend to be either religious nuts blindly following their religion's dogma (or inventing their own) or through a hang-up with the subject matter that makes them feel uncomfortable if anyone else should enjoy it. If neither apply to you, perhaps you'd like to share, because I for one can't imagine why anyone else born after the Victorian era would feel the need to complain about a saucy iPhone app and try to prevent others from enjoying it.
So it's better to ban this, and allow first person shooting games???
Such an American thing to do. Allow extreme violence and killing - but don't ever show anyone any nipples whatever you do!
Only a govt. can really censor, so yeah
On the level that they can set their own rules on their own playground, yes its perfectly reasonable.
On another level where playboy, various sports illustrated "sexy swimsuit" apps and so-on appear to still be available, actually they start to look less reasonable: The rules now appear to be less about dealing with "won't someone please think of the children" type rules or dealing with the top app lists being choked with smut and more about pandering to big business partners.
Maybe it's meant to be some kind of big gesture of making the ipad and iphone screen safe for people who are offended by smut, but sorry, right now it comes across as the usual app store BS.
How is THAT reasonable? I find this inconsistency and apparent "one rule for big business partners and another rule for indie developers" approach far more offensive than a wholly consistent correctly working app store policy, regardless of what that policy actually was.