Phil Schiller Acknowledges New App Store Sexual Content Ban and Exceptions

[Arran]

... if Apple reject, then your stuffed. All that investment wasted. There is no alternative ( I'll ignore jail breaking, because its unofficial).

And the customers have invested too since they're locked in by ETFs payable to AT&T. It's like signing up for a 21-day "all-you-can-eat-and-drink" cruise round the mediterranean. But on day 2, the captain takes meat and booze off the menu and you're eating salad for the next 19 days.

Folks blithely stating that iPhone customers 'simply' go elsewhere is a bit like the captain suggesting you swim for it. In mid-Atlantic.

 

[Rot'nApple]

Phil Schiller explained the reasoning behind the decision, citing an increasing number of apps with objectionable content:When asked about the needs of the developers who were affected by the policy shift, Schiller said that while they cared about developers, in the end "have to put then needs of the kids and parents first".

Schiller does explain that well established brands are given a pass such as Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit app or Playboy's app. "The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format"

I call LOSER on this one... Apple you are a LOSER!

What a bunch of morons! "objectionable content", "needs of kids and parents first", "well-accepted format", "established brands like Playboy OR SI Swimsuit get a pass" sounds like a bunch of Liberals trying to explain the blatant holes in their idiotic reasoning. Hey Phil, go take 100 Playboys to church with you and hand them out, saying it's "a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format" and see where that gets you... Phil your reasoning is a moronic 'Gibbsism'!

Hey Apple, I object to you taking down the well established UK's swimwear reseller "Simply Beach" app off iTunes as overtly sexual, but yet you can view the same "objectionable content" on their website http://www.simplybeach.com. You know where you can intimately use your iPad to view the web!

Hey Apple, I object to "objectionable positions" such as Apple the company getting involved with "social reengineering" by using corporate funds being donated to defeat CA Prop 8 and change the definition of marriage.

Hey Apple, I object to a lying, cheating, sex-addict, who I am sure got paid for the use of his name... (another term for "prostitution", anyone?)... and probably gets a royalty for each one sold of a game app of a pervert and his putter is still on iTunes! Time to pull "Tiger Woods PGA Tour by EA Sports" game app from iTunes! For the sake of the children Apple! For the sake of the children!!

Apple you have some of the most brilliant minds working for you but at times you can be so freaking IDIOTIC!!!

You seem to leave a lot of holes in what is and what isn't "objectionable"!

Like I said when I started my post... I call LOSER on this one... sorry Apple.

 

[Arran]

This is not about "just looking". Some of the developers were spamming the store with apps that have nothing but two or 3 photos of bikinis. And by spamming I mean rendering the newly released apps list in EVERY category useless. These guys were submitting these apps to even categories like social networking and references. They essentially took over a big part of the app store. Hotix studios were releasing 12 apps a day. Not a month or a week. A day.

Then Apple should've gone after the spammers with a vengeance. I would have cheered from the sidelines.

 

[mccldwll]

I think the appropriate response to that would be "bollocks" .

Anyway, stuff you Apple with your bare-faced hypocrisy. My iphone is going onto ebay. A Nexus One will make for a superior user experience.

Sure. Enjoying your Zune? Reading all your posts, nothing but knocking every aapl product. Go get a real job.

 

[hayesk]

The problem in this thread (and every other thread on this subject) is that the two sides, aren't on opposite sides - they're arguing two completely different points.

Point one - it's Apple's store and they can sell what they want. Nobody disagrees with that. Some people just want Apple to sell more.

Point two - there are parental controls for this thing if your parenting skills aren't enough to match your puritanical morals. Nobody disagrees with that either.

The real point here is that as much as we want them to be, not all parents are good parents, and not all parents can view things in proper context. Apple has to address what is reality, not what should be reality. The fact is, Apple has to choose between the customer base that wants to buy bikini apps, and the uptight parents who think their children will be scarred for life if they see a breast. Right now, the uptight parents buy more iPods and iPhones than those who want to buy bikini apps.

I'd rather see Apple sacrifice a few sales and take a stand and say "here's how to enable parental controls, if you don't like it" but it's not my decision.

 

[Island Dog]

What a joke this is becoming. Only use the Apple apps they think is good for you.

So sayeth the Apple!

 

[Avatar74]

Apple made a business decision. Anyone who wants to argue this is censorship can certainly go and start their own multibillion dollar hardware company out of their own garage so that they can some day, thirty years later, feature umpteen zillion porn apps on their gadgets.

Of course by that time, if you do make it that long, you'll have come to the realization that free reign on porn apps in a country as conservative as America for a line of products that have traditionally been family oriented is probably not in your business' best interests.

The only alternative I see out of this is doing what LiveJournal did with its adult content: Create a completely separate section for all of it, with age-verified access.

That might work but again, it depends on how Apple wants to position themselves. LiveJournal's other social networking functions have largely been replaced by Facebook. Same with Second Life... while their adult corner is thriving, the rest of their virtual world is a desert.

So, pick one... do you really want Apple to become the Second Life of hardware?

Playboy and Sports Illustrated get a pass because they have plenty of other content, and because they're established brands with relatively predictable standards. While Playboy has gone a little lax to compete with online porn media, they still haven't completely abandoned their more PG-13 standards and they police themselves rather well in that regard with a full editorial staff. But a thousand apps from one fly-by-night porn developer is opening a door to trouble if they don't lock it down before some app slips by that generates thousands of complaints... and they're much harder to go after. SI and Playboy as very large, visible brands which have a LOT more to risk if they go and do something rash and they can easily be held accountable since they're not exactly operating from some broom closet in the Caymans.

It's a business decision. It's not censorship. Also, Apple is footing the bill for the hosting, distribution, and much of the promotion of apps that would otherwise never see the light of day. Yeah, it's their game. If you want to get around that, it's not like you can't develop a web app for use on Safari mobile... but there's the rub. You've got total creative freedom, without Apple's hosting and marketing behind you.

"It's a free country," goes both ways.

 

[ericinboston]

...and not having aapl's apps being intended for purposes with which aapl doesn't want to be associated.

We all know that. Did you even read my post?

As far as cutting deals with schools for massive adoption?...Let's stay on topic here about the banning of sexual content and save what the iFad will be used for on one of the other 931 threads on MR.

The next time you quote an entire post, how about addressing the ENTIRE post?!

 

[guerro]

Schiller does explain that well established brands are given a pass such as Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit app or Playboy's app:

"The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format"

That is code for "These companies are magazines and they may want their content on our iPad in the future so we don't want to piss them off."

 

[cmaier]

Sad that the company that made the 1984 commercial is engaging in such Doublespeak to justify it's blatant inconsistency.

Phil, just say it - you don't care about kids and moms, you care about $$. And for whatever reason, allowing SI to sell explicit software makes you money.

And for those of you who think what Phil said makes sense, it's obvious our school systems no longer teach formal logic an argument, because it was gibberish with null semantic content.

 

[bretm]

WONDERFUL Point and the best perspective I've seen on the app store.

Apple's Store. Apple's choice of what to allow in the store. Just like Walmart or any other store.

If you don't like it, don't buy an iPhone.

True to a good extent. But perhaps some of us have forgotten Microsofts battle with the Feds about making IE the default browser and integrated into the operating system. Nearly making it impossible for browsers like Netscape to compete at all. It was hard to uninstall IE, and nearly impossible to make other browsers the default. MS isn't a monopoly, and people had other choices like Apple or Linux. But the Feds saw it as an issue nonetheless and they had to open it up.

The only difference I can see here is that Apple has never ever opened it up to any developer. Apple has controlled everything from day one as a point of fact. Like a car or a TV or a microwave. Sure 3rd parties can make parts for those things, but the manufacturer isnt required in any way to facilitate. Whereas MS was one part of an open system trying to squash competition.

If you look at it that way, then there is a precedent set legally. If apple opens up the os or the hardware, it's no longer a closed end apple product device with their right to control it all. They have the gov on them just like MS when they have enough market share.

 

[w00master]

Some of the Apple Kool-aid drinkers seriously amaze me. Ok, extreme fanboys, let me spell it out to you folks:

WE ARE NOT ARGUING THAT APPLE DOES NOT HAVE THE "RIGHT" TO PULL APPS.

Of course they have this "right," it's their store. They can do what they want.

WE AGREE ON THIS.

The problem is on whether or not this is actually RIGHT. The fact that they allow SI and Playboy through and pull the others is HYPOCRITICAL. There's just no arguing this point. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

It's a form of corporate censorship and FAVORATISM. That's the PROBLEM.

So AGAIN, YES APPLE HAS THE RIGHT TO PULL THESE APPS BECAUSE THEY OWN THE STORE.

However, imho (and others) that doesn't make it OK or RIGHT or JUSTIFIED.

w00master

 

[cmaier]

The same people who think Schiller made logical sense are not capable of grasping the subtlety of your argument. If one can't see through such blatant corporate 1984-style doublespeak, how is one to grasp the difference you explain below.

Some of the Apple Kool-aid drinkers seriously amaze me. Ok, extreme fanboys, let me spell it out to you folks:

WE ARE NOT ARGUING THAT APPLE DOES NOT HAVE THE "RIGHT" TO PULL APPS.

Of course they have this "right," it's their store. They can do what they want.

WE AGREE ON THIS.

The problem is on whether or not this is actually RIGHT. The fact that they allow SI and Playboy through and pull the others is HYPOCRITICAL. There's just no arguing this point. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

It's a form of corporate censorship and FAVORATISM. That's the PROBLEM.

So AGAIN, YES APPLE HAS THE RIGHT TO PULL THESE APPS BECAUSE THEY OWN THE STORE.

However, imho (and others) that doesn't make it OK or RIGHT or JUSTIFIED.

w00master

 

[_Refurbished_]

They very easily could create a separate section for adult content. Those Apps don't have to mix with the regular apps at all.

They're losing money by banning these apps......

+1,000,000

In the long run, I see that happening. This seems like a temporary fix for the mean time. I am not one to censor my children, but I can see the need to control this type of content. I am fairly certain Apple will remedy this in the future through more complex parental controls on the App Store. The App Store is a baby and is still developing.

An open platform would be nice, but I think people make a bigger deal out of it than it really is. Slingbox is a perfect App to demonstrate the evolvement of the App Store. When it made sense to enable the 3G aspect of the app, they approved it. I think the future holds the same truth for Adult Apps, although through modified software.

Oh, and if you're still thinking Apple is not the company they hated in their 1984 comercial, it's time to come to reality. They are hypocritical, they are Big Brother, they are everything they didn't want to become. I don't knock them for it, it's just the evolution of the company. In order to create products the way Apple does, they NEED to have some control of their platform. Apple is, and will be for a long time, a closed environment. If you can't deal with that, switch brands. I have no issues with the "closed" platform, as it exceeds my needs content wise. There are many alternatives to the App store if you want to switch. If you don't like the way Apple handles business, switch ships. Nothing's changing in the near future.

 

[justinfreid]

Wirelessly posted (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)

Safari can also deliver sexual content. I think it should be removed from OS X.

 

[seedster2]

Sad that the company that made the 1984 commercial is engaging in such Doublespeak to justify it's blatant inconsistency.

Phil, just say it - you don't care about kids and moms, you care about $$. And for whatever reason, allowing SI to sell explicit software makes you money.

And for those of you who think what Phil said makes sense, it's obvious our school systems no longer teach formal logic an argument, because it was gibberish with null semantic content.

Some of the Apple Kool-aid drinkers seriously amaze me. Ok, extreme fanboys, let me spell it out to you folks:

WE ARE NOT ARGUING THAT APPLE DOES NOT HAVE THE "RIGHT" TO PULL APPS.

Of course they have this "right," it's their store. They can do what they want.

WE AGREE ON THIS.

The problem is on whether or not this is actually RIGHT. The fact that they allow SI and Playboy through and pull the others is HYPOCRITICAL. There's just no arguing this point. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

It's a form of corporate censorship and FAVORATISM. That's the PROBLEM.

So AGAIN, YES APPLE HAS THE RIGHT TO PULL THESE APPS BECAUSE THEY OWN THE STORE.

However, imho (and others) that doesn't make it OK or RIGHT or JUSTIFIED.

w00master

Precisely gentlemen. Anyone who cannot see the above are in denial or just stupid.

Nothing wrong with looking out for the success launch of your new gadget, but don't piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining.

 

[Stella]

but don't piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining.

ROTFL!

 

[Reed Rothchild]

Sure. Enjoying your Zune? Reading all your posts, nothing but knocking every aapl product. Go get a real job.

Ha. I have lots of Apple computers. Their OS is still the least worst out ther. What I'm reluctant to do in the future is to give money to a company that is so hypocritical and patronising to its user base.

Oh, I suspect that I also earn considerably more than you - thanks to not having a "real" job. Enjoy being an "aapl" lackey.

 

[_Refurbished_]

Ha. I have lots of Apple computers. Their OS is still the least worst out ther. What I'm reluctant to do in the future is to give money to a company that is so hypocritical and patronising to its user base.

Oh, I suspect that I also earn considerably more than you - thanks to not having a "real" job. Enjoy being an "aapl" lackey.

You lost me at "least worst".

 

[dwd3885]

Apple is justified in doing whatever they want to do with the App Store. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Where will it stop? Pretty soon you'll have laptops and desktops running the iPhone OS and Apple will tell you what you can and can't install on your system.

If you don't like it, don't buy and Apple computer or an Apple product. It's always been about sucking you into iTunes. I fear Apple will piss off many customers and developers by banning apps for no good reason whatsoever. Once Android is more evolved, you will see more and more developers not wanting to get the run around bs from developing with Apple.

Apple's entire platform is becoming an over-controlled, under-powered, over-priced and somewhat buggy experience. This is why Apple controls less than 7% worldwide market share of computers.

 

[Reed Rothchild]

You lost me at "least worst".

May I suggest a remedial education course then. It'll help you keep up.

 

[mccldwll]

The problem is on whether or not this is actually RIGHT. The fact that they allow SI and Playboy through and pull the others is HYPOCRITICAL. There's just no arguing this point. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

It's a form of corporate censorship and FAVORATISM. That's the PROBLEM.

The point certainly is arguable, despite your declaration. SI is easily distinguishable--a long-time mainstream publication--and it's far from hypocritical to keep it. Playboy obviously is a much closer call, and people can legitimately argue that it's hypocritical to allow it. But since there's a clear difference between a long-time, mainstream publication which somewhat tastefully titillates, and fly by night developers pushing hundreds of sleazily promoted apps of essentially the same pics with different faces, it's ridiculous to say "there's just no arguing this point." Maybe you should use more caps.

 

[skellener]

Apple can do whatever they wish with the app store. They made it and control it. It's not a debate about free speech. It's a store. A very popular store. Any store can choose what they want to put in it.
If people don't like it there are alternatives.

I never said anything about free speech. I said there are already parental controls in place. They already sell explicit material with audio and video. Why are apps being singled out for banning? It's hypocritical.

 

[Darkroom]

Apple's head of worldwide product marketing Phil Schiller explained the reasoning behind the decision, citing an increasing number of apps with objectionable content:When asked about the needs of the developers who were affected by the policy shift, Schiller said that while they cared about developers, in the end "have to put then needs of the kids and parents first". Analysts suspect the upcoming iPad was in part a reason for the policy change. The iPad is expected to be popular amongst families and schools which could object to such applications.

ugh... i feel sick to my stomach now.

 

[CactusHawk]

1) The lack of girly apps is really a deal breaker for you?

2) If it is (find it hard that the lack of bikini girl apps would cause one to walk away) then unlock and sell it. I'm pretty sure you could sell on eBay and recoup your cost + cancellation fee.

3) $1,000s of $ on accessories? If money is that cheap for you I fail to see why you are complaining. I'm not exactly poor, but I can't fathom wasting 1,000s of dollars on iPhone accessories. I can't even believe you could spend $1,000s. Do you have 24k gold plated cases or something? If you are really hurting now, then maybe you need to learn to spend your money more wisely.

4) What you bought still works. Apple never stated that if you buy the iPhone bikini girl apps will be available forever. You have no beef in your argument.

5) Get a girlfriend and you won't need a bikini girl app -- she won't let you have one anyway. If you spend half as much on her as you do your iPhone you'll be golden.

1) Nope I don’t want iWiggle or anything like it. But what I do want may not be available next week and you think I should be fine with that (or go to Android).
2) JB and sell…not really the point.
3) Yes $1,000 on accessories. A Bose system for the office is $399 (* 2 for the wife), the modules that allow me to control the iPod functions of my iPhone via my touch screen navigation system in my car was $499, various Apple docs $150, component cables…external batteries…cases…
4) As stated I did not buy any of these iWiggle apps.
5) I have a wife that I have been married to for 17 years. She would be pi$$ed if I got a girlfriend