good move apple i am sick of seeing them.
Then don't get them, look at them or you can always change the channel.
Know what I mean? but it doesn't matter because Apple got rid of them anyway. Nanny State...
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.
Over 5000 'Overtly Sexual' Apps Pulled from App Store (And Counting)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Then don't get them, look at them or you can always change the channel.
Know what I mean? but it doesn't matter because Apple got rid of them anyway. Nanny State...
why is anyone surprised that apple is controlling the environment which they created and maintain? isn't that level of control one of the reasons why apple currently exists? if anyone wants to sort through millions of junk apps i'm sure there are lots of places to look. why does a company which is all about creating a positive customer experience have to consider freedom of expression in their attempts to improve quality for their consumers?
What about music, movies and TV shows?
I'm scratching my head as I watch this app story continue because it's completely illogical. On what basis does Apple distinguish between music, movies and television shows with plenty of sexual content -- which are still available from the iTunes store -- and the applications they've chosen to censor? It smells an awful lot like the selective book burning some of us thought we left behind last century. Apple, please explain.
I'm scratching my head as I watch this app story continue because it's completely illogical. On what basis does Apple distinguish between music, movies and television shows with plenty of sexual content -- which are still available from the iTunes store -- and the applications they've chosen to censor? It smells an awful lot like the selective book burning some of us thought we left behind last century. Apple, please explain.
It's not the cleaning up that bothers most of the people I've talked to about this matter, it's the sheer hypocrisy of allowing apps from corporations like Playboy to remain on the App Store (not to mention R-rated movies and cable TV shows).
Apple's stated reason for removing sexually oriented apps was supposedly due to a high number of customer complaints they've received, and if that's indeed the case, then make the "cleanup" an across the board move, but don't give preferential treatment to a few. Of course, we all know why major media publishers will get a break on this new rule, right? Can't have Playboy, Maxim, Sports Illustrated, etc. not supporting the iPad, can we?
Sorry, but the way they've handled this stinks to high heaven.
If this is about junk apps cluttering the store, then they should remove the 50000 band fan apps that all share the same shell code. It really pisses me off because I'm always on the hunt for new synths, and I have to wade through all these useless apps first. Part of the problem is that Apple has provided too few categories. "Music" should not be both fan apps and apps that musicians use.
More on topic though, what gives Apple? First you're draconian, then you ease up on the sexual content, now you're going all puritanical again. Is this a Disney influence? I wouldn't have thought Jobs would be so uptight about sexuality. I hope they plan on pulling all violent games as well, otherwise it's more double-standard typical of American "values".
More on topic though, what gives Apple? First you're draconian, then you ease up on the sexual content, now you're going all puritanical again. Is this a Disney influence? I wouldn't have thought Jobs would be so uptight about sexuality. I hope they plan on pulling all violent games as well, otherwise it's more double-standard typical of American "values".
I agree, I don't know why they don't make a specific adult category, and then give people the ability to filter that out. Maybe someone answered this question elsewhere. As a parent, then the responsibility is on me to educate my kids and help them make choices. That is something that I would like and would gladly accept that responsibility.
So what about the R rated movies, books and music "overtly sexual content".
The problem is with Mom and Dad. If you do not want your kids and teens to see or hear "overtly sexual content" then pay attention to what they are getting through the App store. If you want to see "overtly sexual content" touch your web browser or go to the mall. What about all those teens taking
"overtly sexual content" with there camera on the IPhone? Whoops they need to take the camera off the IPhone. What about that movie or TV show that you can get from ITunes with the "overtly sexual content"? Wow they need to take the video function out of the IPhone and Touch. What about the music with "overtly sexual content"? Oh Snap they need to take the speakers and headphone jack out of the IPhone and Touch. Its not Apples job to raise our children. If they are going to start, then I want my child support check each month.
The problem is with Mom and Dad. If you do not want your kids and teens to see or hear "overtly sexual content" then pay attention to what they are getting through the App store. If you want to see "overtly sexual content" touch your web browser or go to the mall. What about all those teens taking
"overtly sexual content" with there camera on the IPhone? Whoops they need to take the camera off the IPhone. What about that movie or TV show that you can get from ITunes with the "overtly sexual content"? Wow they need to take the video function out of the IPhone and Touch. What about the music with "overtly sexual content"? Oh Snap they need to take the speakers and headphone jack out of the IPhone and Touch. Its not Apples job to raise our children. If they are going to start, then I want my child support check each month.
Wow, I apologize. I did not realize that you have a RIGHT to buy a specific iPhone app. Are you really claiming that you have the RIGHT to buy a jiggle app? And therefore, to protect your rights, Apple must be willing to sell you the jiggle app? Is this what you are saying, or am I misunderstanding?
In my opinion, this is not about rights. This is about a company making a business decision. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere. You can still get your jiggle app, just believe in it's value enough to start your own company and make it. Like people have said, sex sells, so if you can make a business out of it, go for it.
I am not trying to tell you, an adult, what to do. Do what you want. If Apple decides that it wants to sell these apps again, then it can, at which point I will petition Apple to offer greater parental controls so that I can help make my kids make good age-based decisions. (Not controlling them, equipping them for life.) If Apple did not offer this, I would consider whether or not they still offer the best product for me.
I personally never petitioned Apple to do this, I am only stating that I support their decision and was trying to provide some insight into why some people might feel the way they do.
My kids don't need iPhones, but they want Touches, and I am trying to equip them with technology skills for life. There are lot's of great apps available to them, which is very cool.
I agree with you in terms of my kids finding stuff online. Actually, where I live, they are more likely to find it in comics at their friends homes, or in the newspapers and magazines sold everywhere. At some point, when my children are older, they will need to make decisions on their own. For now, I am trying to teach them how to make wise decisions. Some may call this controlling, but I believe I am equipping for life.
I also agree with you that Apple, if they were to choose to sell these apps again, giving people better control of the ability choose to not have certain content displayed is an acceptable solution.
Wow, what the App Store really needs is a tutorial in basic civics. People are having an increasingly hard time finding the line between government and business, capitalism and democracy, inalienable rights and stockroom selection...
The problem with this - Apple are changing their minds constantly which causes uncertainty for developers - their approval criteria is a fuzzy line with few hard rules. Todays 'safe apps' could be tomorrows 'endangered' apps.
What type of application is going to be removed next on Apple's whim - all applications with a hint of gambling?
Instead of Apple trying to act as some kind of moral police, maybe they should implement better Parental controls, as suggested many times. Apple definitely need more categories in their app store.
What type of application is going to be removed next on Apple's whim - all applications with a hint of gambling?
Instead of Apple trying to act as some kind of moral police, maybe they should implement better Parental controls, as suggested many times. Apple definitely need more categories in their app store.
I'm thinking Apple made some iPad deals with some schools and is trying to make the app store G-Rated.
It wouldn't be too hard for Apple to implement some sort of configuration for educational iPads to filter out certain content.
How is controlling what people do on a device they paid for any different than censoring music or books from the iTunes Store? How would you like it if Apple decided to delete all the music, TV shows, books, and movies from your iPod that was "offensive?" How would you like it if you were a musician and you submitted your newest album to Apple, but they denied because it was "overtly sexual?"
This isn't about "creating a positive customer experience," this is about the consumers' rights, freedom, control, and censorship. Apple could have at least 1) Hid "offensive" and lowly rated apps, but allowed people to view them by clicking a button or, more preferably, 2) allow people to install apps not from the App Store.
If you are offended by apps that show the human body (Safari, for example), don't use them. Simple.
For a lot of these apps, the developers knew they were operating in a grey area. Anybody with a lick of sense would look at Apple, look at the App Store and wonder how far this would be allowed to go.
And the new rules as I've seen them described in these forums are pretty specific. They're also a bit draconian. On the other hand, I think the reaction so far with this group suggests that if they let any image with a skirt above a knee exist anywhere in any app, people would be screaming "hypocrisy". In that environment there's not much choice but to draw a line and adhere to it fanatically.
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head! I bet the education market for the iPad is the primary motive for this act.
I don't see anything outrageous here: Apple decides what they sell as they seem fit, based on whatever criterion they choose.
For once they chose against the bottom line in favour of some principle.
No law requires them to sell whatever the developer wants.
Nobody's forcing Apple to do anything. Apple opened themselves to that when they published the SDK and allowed developers to work on the platform. At that point, Apple accepted that responsibility. They can't reap the rewards of that decision while eschewing the negative side of it.
I'll concede your point with the library analogy as that does in fact cross over into government and that muddies the discussion.
However your next paragraph confirms my suspicion that you're relying on your own definition of "censorship" (see the bold phrase above.) Censorship is not stopping the creator from producing the material. That is not the definition. Censorship is when an entity blocks distribution of specific material. Apple is, in fact, engaging in censorship by the actual definition that term.
But let's work with your definition of censorship. Since the App Store is the only legitimate distribution channel for iPhone apps, there is no way for the authors of the iPhone apps to distribute their work outside of that construct. Therefore, they are effectively unable to publish their apps. So, even by your own extended definition, Apple is engaging in censorship.
In the wild, I see three categories of independent developers:
1) Those just getting started in the business looking to make a name for themselves.
2) Those so achieved and successful, they don't need a job and have turned down big salary positions to vanguard groundbreaking work.
and ...
3) Those who cannot get a salaried position due to a criminal background or political position that makes them too hot to hire.
This move my Apple is mostly taking care of Type 3 in the list while, I'm wouldn't be surprised, compromising a handful of apps of the other two.
The resubmission of these apps should be amusing. I am sure there is some sort of "red flag" on these developers whom wrote these apps that all future submissions will have more scrutiny of review.
And if you read the developer agreement signed by everyone on the program, they can refuse an app for any reason.
Apple is not a public utility nor public forum, it is a publicly held company, for-profit company governed from the trade regulations, the regulations of the stock market it is traded on, by-laws of its incorporation and votes of its stockholders.
If you want a say on this, public forums are not going to work. Get capital together, by Apple stock and try to get yourself elected to the Apple Board of Directors. Then you can have some weight on the App Store policy. FWIW, I have been told the minutes of the Apple Board of Directors meetings are quite an interesting read!
'Til then, move to another platform that welcomes such apps and promote in that house. I'm sure plenty are doing that already.
I like that explanation. After all, Apple's been happy to take their 30% cut from selling these apps for some time: Where was their sense of propriety then? Let me guess - it got swept away in a rather nice little revenue stream?
But an education deal is a deeper, sparklier stream (think of the hardware sales). So the jiggly apps get dumped.
Business can be brutal.