Apple Says It Doesn't Approve of EU Porn App

[maxoakland]

I didn't realise you could see porn on those sites...

HotTub, the distributor of the app doesn't have age verification for the Porn App. Do you think that is okay?

Yes because it’s a parent’s job to protect their children from this kind of thing. Don’t expect app makers to parent your kids

Your kids should not have their own iOS or Android device. That has been proven to be bad for their brain development. So if you actually care about your kids, they won’t have that and they’ll only use your device when you allow them to. You can easily block anything inappropriate from your device. Problem solved.

 

[turbineseaplane]

A great point about "the kids"

If one is actually worried about them, they shouldn't have one of these hyper addicting and engrossing devices to begin with

 

[I7guy]

Apple choices are one thing but the shocking thing is that you publicly stated that there is nothing wrong with a corporation being the moral police. Hopefully there are not millions more whom share your view.

Hopefully, and I hear you, there aren’t many (as in millions or billions) who believe otherwise as well.

What Apple is doing is justified, and regardless they have been doing it. It just took a while for “the cat to come out of the bag” and into an MR post.

 

[surferfb]

Apple choices are one thing but the shocking thing is that you publicly stated that there is nothing wrong with a corporation being the moral police. Hopefully there are not millions more whom share your view.

I don't think he's saying Apple is the moral police for everyone and everything, just that there is nothing wrong with the owner of a closed ecosystem deciding what apps are offered or aren't offered on their platform. That isn't a dystopia or weird.

Would you force a vegetarian grocery store carry meat?

What if they don't personally sell it, but they have to let someone else bring an extension cord into their store, use the electricity they pay for, and let this other person sell meat in their parking lot? Is that ok? Is the store being "the moral police" because they protest the government forcing the sale of meat in their parking lot because they believe eating meat is unethical? Is there anything wrong with that, when the store across the street sells meat, and meat eaters can shop there? They're not saying "you can't mix our vegetables with meat" - just "we're not going to help you acquire meat to eat."

This is the same thing.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Would you force a vegetarian grocery store carry meat?

If they are forced to allow a food cart outside on the sidewalk (third party app store) than, no, they shouldn't have control over what's offered there

Inside the actual vegetarian store (Apple App Store), I fully agree with you

 

[surferfb]

If they are forced to allow a food cart outside on the sidewalk (third party app store) than, no, they shouldn't have control over what's offered there

Inside the actual vegetarian store (Apple App Store), I fully agree with you

But the third party App Store is located ON APPLE'S PROPERTY. So you're forcing the vegetarian grocery store to facilitate the sale of meat.

 

[AppliedMicro]

And McDonalds has a monopoly on Big Macs to consumers. But that doesn't mean McDonalds has a monopoly on the hamburger market.

Burger joints aren’t mobile operating systems or application stores. Big Mac is only a brand name - but not a product that can only be sold to customers committed to the McDonald’s platform for their food purchases.

You just don’t like the choices Apple made, so support using the government to bully them into doing what you want over

I support government regulating monopolists to give businesses and consumers choice.

And again - sell a subscription on your website

While that may work in the (limited) circumstances of subscriptions, it does not (is not allowed by Apple) for one-time purchases and unlockable functionality/features in apps.

Good thing Apple doesn’t have a monopoly then

Of course they have.
It’s not as if I could sell or buy my iOS apps elsewhere.

 

[surferfb]

Burger joints aren’t mobile operating systems or application stores. Big Mac is only a brand name - but not a product that can only be sold to customers committed to the McDonald’s platform for their food purchases.

And apps aren’t products that can only be sold to customers committed to Apple’s platforms. Sure, iOS apps can only be sold on iOS, much like Big Macs can only be sold in McDonalds restaurants. But you are welcome to sell your apps anywhere, you're just not entitled to use Apple's property to do so.

I support government regulating monopolists to give businesses and consumers choice.

Again, Apple isn’t a monopoly no matter how many times you lie and say it is. If Apple were actually a monopoly, the EU would have gone after it using existing antitrust law, not invent an overreaching new law demanding that, among other insanity, they be required to give away AirDrop and Airplay to their largest competitor, to target companies with 25% market share. (Because, to state the obvious, having a 25% market share is the opposite of a monopoly.)

While that may work in the (limited) circumstances of subscriptions, it does not (is not allowed by Apple) for one-time purchases and unlockable functionality/features in apps.

Then write a web app! Again, I am not entitled to use your apartment to sleep in any time I am in your city, without your permission, just because I don't want to pay for a hotel. If you want to use someone else's property to make your business run, or be more profitable, you don't get to use it for free just because.

Of course they have.
It’s not as if I could sell or buy my iOS apps elsewhere.

Not a monopoly. You can buy and sell apps elsewhere. Hamburger chefs don’t get to sell their burgers in McDonald’s just because McDonalds has more customers than their store. Walmart isn't forced to carry Hustler magazine just because Hustler wants access to Walmart's customers. And Apple shouldn't be forced to enable pornographers to make money on their property either.

 

[Krizoitz]

Of course they have.
It’s not as if I could sell or buy my iOS apps elsewhere.

Congratulations on proving you don’t know what a monopoly is.

That’s like saying Wal*Mart has a monopoly because they won’t let you freely sell your products in their stores. You are free to sell your products elsewhere if you don’t like Wal*Marts terms, and you are free to make apps for another platform if you don’t like Apples terms.

You have exactly ZERO legally right to make an iOS app. Apple could stop distributing the iOS APIs tomorrow and stop allowing 3rd party apps entirely and would be 100% within their legal rights to do so.

As a developer you CHOOSE to make an app for a given platform. That’s your choice. No one is forcing you.

And since iOS isn’t the only option, Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. They don’t even represent the majority of smartphones in Europe. Only people who don’t know what a monopoly is would claim a company with a smaller market share has one.

 

[AppliedMicro]

That’s like saying Wal*Mart has a monopoly because they won’t let you freely sell your products in their stores

We're not talking about groceries or stuff - that can be sold at any store.
We're talking about applications specifically made for iOS.

You are free to sell your products elsewhere if you don’t like Wal*Marts terms, and you are free to make apps for another platform if you don’t like Apples terms.

You have a selection of two relevant mobile operating systems to make it for. So that's a duopoly (or duopsony?) or starters.

And they have complementary user bases:
Consumers have just one smartphone.
They use just one operating system.
Which they "committed" to (for at least months to years, usually) by way of an expensive hardware purchase.
And they shop for just one type of apps.
iPhone users don't go shopping at Google Play for apps - they literally can't use them.

That is why there is a (relevant) market for iOS applications.
And Apple has a monopoly on it.

As a developer you CHOOSE to make an app for a given platform. That’s your choice. No one is forcing you.

Irrelevant.
Having a take-it-or-leave-it "choice" does not negate the existence of a duopoly

As a consumer, you can CHOOSE to have an internet connection at your home or not. That's your choice. No one is forcing you.

And yet, a certain ISP may have a monopoly on that. @surferfb agrees on that (and he doesn't agree very often with me on such topics, to put it mildly).

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Sure, iOS apps can only be sold on iOS, much like Big Macs can only be sold in McDonalds restaurants.

I understand McDonald's makes all the "food" they sell. Does Apple make all the software on the App Store?

 

[surferfb]

I understand McDonald's makes all the "food" they sell. Does Apple make all the software on the App Store?

They actually don't. For example, while I can't speak for every McDonalds on planet earth, all the ones around here serve Coke products. Does Pepsi deserve access to McDonalds' customers? Should Pepsi get to set up a little stand and cash register in McDonalds locations, using McDonalds' electricity and the building McDonalds maintains without paying McDonalds, costing McDonalds sales of the product they get a cut of?

Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

 

[BlackSheepAz]

That is why there is a (relevant) market for iOS applications.
And Apple has a monopoly on it.

Is there any court of law in the whole world that agrees with your opinion that Apple is a monopoly.
😉😂😉

 

[ProbablyDylan]

They actually don't. For example, while I can't speak for every McDonalds on planet earth, all the ones around here serve Coke products. Does Pepsi deserve access to McDonalds' customers? Should Pepsi get to set up a little stand and cash register in McDonalds locations, using McDonalds' electricity and the building McDonalds maintains without paying McDonalds, costing McDonalds sales of the product they get a cut of?

If we're nitpicking, those are drinks, not burgers. Glad you mentioned Coke though! Pretty sure I can buy a coke at Burger King or In-n-out - McDonald's isn't the sole fast-food purveyor of Coke products.

If I wanted a Big Mac with BK Coke, I can do that no problem.

 

[ronno]

Nice that you ignored my question and then went on a rant... Is there Porn on those Apps?
☐ Yes
☐ No

You can try and change the narrative to something else if you want, but that is not what is happening here. The question that is being asked is, does Apple have the right to restrict the app store categories? What's next, you'd defend a terrorist app or is only what you find morally okay?


So why do you think Children should have access to porn?

Why do you think children don’t know how to use web browsers?

 

[Rainbow Apple]

Which is their right, because iOS is their property.

That can only go so far, before it becomes tantamount to your own iPhone no longer being your property.

Apple doesn’t decide what you can and can’t do. You can jailbreak and sideload porn apps to your hearts content. Apple just isn’t obligated to make it easy for you by hosting pornography or changing its business model to let others use its IP without paying them for it.

Let's say, you bought a car from Ford. The car's engine (or something) has a computer which controls it, a computer with code which is Ford's intellectual property. You try to drive your new car to church one Sunday, only to find that engine's computer shuts the car down, because Ford doesn't want their property associated with Christianity. The only way you can get your car to church, is if you can find someone who can jailbreak the computer on your car's engine for you.

Would your attitude be:

It’s [Ford's] IP and they should be allowed to do with it what they want. If you don’t like it, buy a [car] from a manufacturer/platform that doesn’t do so.

Or would you think that Ford had scammed you? World you think that you rightfully should get to drive your own car, which your played for with your own money, to church, whether the car manufacturer approves of Christianity or not?

An extreme and absurd example? Perhaps. But I hope you see my point! I hope that, even if I haven't convinced you, you can see where folks like me are coming from.

 

[surferfb]

That can only go so far, before it becomes tantamount to your own iPhone no longer being your property.

The iPhone is your property, the OS isn’t. This isn’t difficult. You can do whatever you want with the phone, Apple shouldn't be obligated to write software to help you do it.

Let's say, you bought a car from Ford. The car's engine (or something) has a computer which controls it, a computer with code which is Ford's intellectual property. You try to drive your new car to church one Sunday, only to find that engine's computer shuts the car down, because Ford doesn't want their property associated with Christianity. The only way you can get your car to church, is if you can find someone who can jailbreak the computer on your car's engine for you.

Would your attitude be:

Or would you think that Ford had scammed you? World you think that you rightfully should get to drive your own car, which your played for with your own money, to church, whether the car manufacturer approves of Christianity or not?

If Ford hadn’t disclosed that before you bought the car, sure they scammed you. But if you knew ahead of time Ford doesn’t like churches, or didn’t do research to discover Ford didn’t like churches, bought a Ford anyway, and then go "I deserve a Mustang that goes to church, so the I support making the avowed anti-Christian Ford have their cars drive me to church against their will", then that’s on you.

But to make a tortuous hypothetical more tortuous, if you bought the a Ford in part because the car didn’t go to churches (you’re not Christian and don’t want your teenagers investigating religion or whatever) and all of Ford’s competitors car’s do go to churches, and then the government comes in and says Fords now have to let the cars go to Churches - cars that don’t go to churches aren’t allowed anymore, atheist Ford leadership be damned (pun intended), can you understand why those who bought into Ford BECAUSE they don't go to churches might be annoyed?

Apple makes it abundantly clear the only place to buy apps is the App Store. They ran ads on it. Their competitors ran ads about how much better Android is because it’s open. Apple was told for years that being closed was going to doom them to irrelevance. Now it's suddenly their business model is so anticompetitive it needs to be legislated out of existence? Come on. And a lot of us bought into iOS because it was closed and that's being taken away from us by people who think their desires are more important than ours and Apple's when there is a whole host of other phone manufacturers that are open.

An extreme and absurd example? Perhaps. But I hope you see my point! I hope that, even if I haven't convinced you, you can see where folks like me are coming from.

I see where you’re coming from, sure. I just disagree that your desire for a private company to do things they don't want to do should override their desire not to.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The above developer links prove that Apple did not 'approve' the app, all that happened is that the app passed some of the app review checks.

…which was sufficient for Apple to approve it for distribution in third-party stores.
Simple as that. They even called it “approved” themselves (though they may not approve of it).

AltStore is in the wrong because you do not 'approve' part of a review process, you 'pass' part of the review process. Approval or 'approved' is when ALL the checks have passed. Hot Tub failed the app review therefore is was not 'approved'

Mental gymnastics.
If you “own” a term by defining it yourself at length how it suits you, anything an be “proven” or disproven.

 

[falkon-engine]

It's my favorite app
Very versatile

I use it everyday too

 

[JapanApple]

COPY RIGHTS. belong to Avenue Q

favorites of You tube.

But really how much do people watch porn?

 

[AppliedMicro]

That's a bit much, don't you think? Apple isn't deciding what's ok for people, just saying they don't want anything to do with selling/promoting certain things.

You missed the part where Apple forces everybody to “to do with” them and deal through them. They force developers to deal with them - if they want to sell to the big part of the population that Apple controls access to.

Is Walmart a dystopia because they don't sell Hustler? My local market a dystopia because they don't sell booze?

It’s a dystopia when people (locals in the Apple “neighbourhood” or town) are forced to shop at Walmart and unable to shop anywhere else.

And you’re dismissive by telling them to just “move somewhere else if you don’t like it”.

Especially when there aren’t many other places to move to, let alone other supermarket chains to shop at (it’s a duopoly).

 

[AppliedMicro]

You just don’t like the choices Apple made, so support using the government to bully them into doing what you want over the desires of Apple and most of their customers so you don’t have to use Android. (How’s your new phone, by the way)?

Wanna know about my new phone?
I’ll tell you about my new Android phone:

• nice (albeit not too interesting) design
• good price. Less than USD 500 before tax/VAT for a new phone. Much better value than anything Apple has as that price point
• it feels too large. Then again, neither does Apple sell a (reasonably specced) “mini” phone anymore. Which is partly what prompted me to switch to an Android. If I can’t get a new phone that I really love as a form factor, at least it’s somewhat affordable and good value
• finally being freed from the shackles of a “big brother” OS developer feels very… liberating and refreshing
• much richer ecosystem of open-source apps than for iOS (including ones that Apple or Google wouldn’t allow).
• Example: you can get a decent email app that supports encryption without breaking the bank with subscription pricing - and collecting your data login credentials

Worst experience: Google Play Store that scams me by refusing to redeem gift card codes.
Which (kind of) takes us back to topic: Monopolist stores s*ck *ss.

 

[Melab]

I could say the same thing about the EU's trampling of Apple's property rights.

"Let Apple and its users have a closed ecosystem if they want a closed ecosystem, buy an Android device and stop clutching your pearls"

Not this nonsense again. There are no "property rights" implicated in forbidding Apple from lockdown consumer devices.

 

[Melab]

I actually wouldn't be outraged if Apple applied the iOS model to the Mac. But I do understand I'm the minority there, and that retroactively doing so would be changing the terms under which many people bought their Macs, which obviously presents issues. Kind of like how the EU is unilaterally changing the terms under which many people bought their iOS devices.

They have not changed any "terms" under which people bought iOS devices. They created laws to expand user freedom.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I actually wouldn't be outraged if Apple applied the iOS model to the Mac.

It would kill the Mac if they tried to only distribute through the MAS

They know this based upon all the exceptions they had to create for existing Mac software and concepts

At some point people want a computer that lets them do what they want and need, not just an Apple Revenue Generation Appliance