Phil Schiller Acknowledges New App Store Sexual Content Ban and Exceptions

[xxBURT0Nxx]

Beautiful. I want to disagree sooo much, but cant.

haha i'm with you, i don't think the app store model suits the desktop space all that well, and i wish apple was more lenient with the app store, but it really does make sense why they would do it. Simplicity is going to be the new selling point because electronics have gotten to confusing for your average joe to learn to use. Prepare for a sudden onslaught of "dumbphones"

 

[skellener]

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

Agreed.

 

[Peruna]

This is not censorship, it is business.

It kills me how so many people out there that think anytime a business decides not to offer something that is a violation of their rights. FIrst of all, Apple is a private business, not the government, so they are not obliged by the Constitution and the can offer or not offer whatever they want. Seriously, if you owned a store, would your customers have the right to demand you sell porn in it? Of course not. Apple has made a business decision that it is better (i.e. more profitable) for to not offer sexually explicit material. They gain more customers than the lose and hurray for them for stemming the tide to self gratifying porn. If you that material, great, it is available for you on the web. Put it does have to have Apple's seal of approval.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

So since Apple is banning most nudy material, what about the movies and tv shows like Seinfeld, Friends, Desperate Housewives, The Bachelor, and Family Guy (all which are on iTunes!!!) that have any sexual references, dirty words, "inappropriate" content? And the Playboy app still lives on? What about the NY Times occasional news articles about sex? Yea, like that will ever be banned. What about science and biology books/magazines that dare talk about reproductive organs?

Apple has a double standard here...on many levels.

that's not even remotely a viable comparison. They still teach sex ed in school, show pictures of reproductive organs, etc. You have to look at the context of the material. If a school showed a porn in sex ed there would be quite a large uproar over the incident. There is a big difference between a sex article in the nyt and a porn app... this is not a double standard. Porn is explicit nudity, i don't think people would consider a biology book explicit!!

 

[OdysseyExplorer]

This is all pretty silly. I wondered why Apple even allowed this content in the first place if it goes so much against their ideals. They are probably afraid of the iPhone turning into a mobile porn device. LOL.

 

[Vulpinemac]

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.

In response to this, I give you Luke 18: 9-14. Do you truly believe that all of those who would openly shun you would not secretly accept the gift? The ones who would silently ignore you would be the ones who disagree with you.

Knowing children as I do, especially young boys who are just starting to feel their hormones, hiding something away merely whets their appetites to seek and discover that which is hidden. Better to not have it at all than to merely hide it behind closed doors.

The problem here is that you equate the apps being rejected as completely equivalent to the ones being kept; they aren't. There is a large difference between artistic nudity and blatant, disrespectful crudity. Objectifying certain body parts with the intent of titillating or shock is neither artistic nor elegant. At least Playboy and SI avoid the crude and disrespectful. I stand disappointed that such elegant works of art such as Michaelangelo's Statue of David must wear a fig leaf in so many displays because of the prudery of certain viewers, but those who would go so far as to wag their parts in public display to any and all are far more base and obscene. It is regretful that definitions of obscenity have to be so finely described, because what may be obscene to some could be perfectly normal to others. The problem is, it's a matter of point of view when you ride that fine line. However, the apps rejected are nowhere near that fine line.

 

[skellener]

....in the end "have to put then needs of the kids and parents first"

Conspiracy??? Now they want to redesign food to protect "the kids" too.....

Pediatricians Want Redesign of Hot Dogs, Candy to Curb Kids' Choking

 

[guzhogi]

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.

Agreed. Are Apps controlled that differently than music that Apple can't find a way around it other than pulling them?

 

[GoodWatch]

I see. An app, in which you have to import (explicit) pictures yourself to 'jiggle' them is deemed inappropriate and canned but gun apps - "now with even more realistic sounds and blow-back effects!"- are OK? Deadly violence versus a deadly nipple?

Yes, I came too late when they handed out brains so I don't understand, sorry.

 

[dbassett]

Good for Apple to finally step up and go against popular OPINION. Although they still need a definitive standard. (one of Authority) I'm surprised there is no mention from brand managers to the effect of these apps dirtying there brand, image and reputation. How it ever got this far is beyond me if a major portion of your mission is kids.

On a separate note These developers are making a living from exploitation. Is America so desensitized now that we can't distinguish between safe environments.

For the ignorant statements as "Leave it alone" or "Don't look", how foolish. Would you allow your kids to play on the highway? We have a responsibility to lookout for our children. If you do not have children, why are you even speaking? You have no clue!!!

 

[dwd3885]

It kills me how so many people out there that think anytime a business decides not to offer something that is a violation of their rights. FIrst of all, Apple is a private business, not the government, so they are not obliged by the Constitution and the can offer or not offer whatever they want. Seriously, if you owned a store, would your customers have the right to demand you sell porn in it? Of course not. Apple has made a business decision that it is better (i.e. more profitable) for to not offer sexually explicit material. They gain more customers than the lose and hurray for them for stemming the tide to self gratifying porn. If you that material, great, it is available for you on the web. Put it does have to have Apple's seal of approval.

Clearly Apple has made a business decision to squash independent developers and let the big boys stay, regardless of how useless any of these apps are.

 

[Vulpinemac]

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".

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

Literally, he just claimed OS X is the BEST OS out there.

 

[Arran]

This is all pretty silly. I wondered why Apple even allowed this content in the first place if it goes so much against their ideals. They are probably afraid of the iPhone turning into a mobile porn device. LOL.

Interesting point. They pretty much didn't allow it from the outset (which was fine by me). And then something changed.

Maybe someone's annual bonus was tied to meeting a target for "# of apps in the app store"? Quantity not quality!

 

[PodPacker]

Pressure from Paper

This is to keep upstarts from "muscling in" on the big five's dying paper business. They will have enough trouble competing with the iPad, they don't need additional headaches from a small operation putting out a new e-magazine with girls in swimsuits and taking a cut of their shrinking margins. If you think this is simply a "free speech issue" or "morality issue" then you are either blind or stupid. This is about money. Everyone is making money. At $0.99 you can hope to make at least $10,000 a month. That's with no effort. If you have a 100+ operations doing this, that's $1,000,000 a month in lost revenue for publications. Playboy and the Swimsuit issue are old news, if they were still relevant, there would be no Smooth, King or Stuff. Even Complex now features racier photography. Sex sells and if Apple wants to have the big pubs on their side, they have to make them happy and that means stopping the competition before it starts.

 

[CactusHawk]

In response to this, I give you Luke 18: 9-14. Do you truly believe that all of those who would openly shun you would not secretly accept the gift? The ones who would silently ignore you would be the ones who disagree with you.

Knowing children as I do, especially young boys who are just starting to feel their hormones, hiding something away merely whets their appetites to seek and discover that which is hidden. Better to not have it at all than to merely hide it behind closed doors.

The problem here is that you equate the apps being rejected as completely equivalent to the ones being kept; they aren't. There is a large difference between artistic nudity and blatant, disrespectful crudity. Objectifying certain body parts with the intent of titillating or shock is neither artistic nor elegant. At least Playboy and SI avoid the crude and disrespectful. I stand disappointed that such elegant works of art such as Michaelangelo's Statue of David must wear a fig leaf in so many displays because of the prudery of certain viewers, but those who would go so far as to wag their parts in public display to any and all are far more base and obscene. It is regretful that definitions of obscenity have to be so finely described, because what may be obscene to some could be perfectly normal to others. The problem is, it's a matter of point of view when you ride that fine line. However, the apps rejected are nowhere near that fine line.

Do you actually know what was removed from the app store? If this was the only post I read in this thread I would think Apple was allowing, and then removed, Bestiality or worse. We are talking about pictures of women with clothes ON.

 

[enberg]

Well, it has made the appstore much more plesant to use. No more scrolling through page after page of worthless apps targeted at the socially akward demographic. Then, I suppose they could have achieved tha same with a new category. "Hairy Palms" maybe.

 

[CactusHawk]

Well, it has made the appstore much more plesant to use. No more scrolling through page after page of worthless apps targeted at the socially akward demographic. Then, I suppose they could have achieved tha same with a new category. "Hairy Palms" maybe.

Well at least there is that.

 

[PodPacker]

Cactus Hawk

If you are dumb enough to start replying to a religious nut, then you deserve whatever grief you get. This thread has religious fodder written all over it. The truth is: Religion is about choice. You either do the right thing or you don't. You choose to do something because of faith and conviction in what you believe. Even Jesus was tempted in the desert. But without temptation, then can we have religion?

 

[NightFox]

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".


Adolf Hitler
The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. (Mein Kampf)


Censorship in the name of benefiting the children. Just great. Apple already have parental control, it would be easy to extend this feature to include mature rated apps.

Godwin's law proves true once again. You lose.

 

[knightlie]

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

So sayeth the Apple!

Actually, as this is in response to customer complaints, it's more like "only see the apps customers want to see." No-one except schoolboys and immature trolls (and Android fans, apparently) wants to see these smutty BS "apps" all over the store, and Apple have reacted to that. Don't like it? Switch to Android with it's single app store and dangerous security model.

And to the idiot who says "don't look" - it's not a question of not looking, the crap is there in your face all the time, with spammy "AAAA" titles so it appears at the top of the daily updates. Good riddance.

 

[champ01]

I get Apple for doing this but...

It can all be fixed with a 18+ section


But seriously why is there no petition for a 18+ section in the appstore/itunes

And I'm still waiting for Leisure Suit Larry to enter the appstore

 

[hprata]

Disappointing

I'am an Apple fanatic but the way they are handling the app store is unfair and unacceptable. They control the eco system they can easily put in adult material safe guards, like make an adult category with parental controls to block any app from that category. They developed a DRM system before use that knowledge in a productive way instead of using it to annoy customers.
I don't download things like that but they should be available to those who do. Do whats right for all not just the few! This is not to the best of there ability this is lazy and knee jerk! I agree with the angry dev's

 

[Erwin-Br]

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.

Haha, kudos to you, Sir. This is the best analogy yet, and I agree 100%.

 

[QCassidy352]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

I fully support Apple doing this. It isn't censorship, it's choosing what they want to offer in their store...

Which would be perfectly fine if the App Store wasn't the sole source of purchasing and installing applications.

Because of this inherent monopolistic system, this behavior will NOT stand for very long, particularly if Apple obtains a dominant marketshare of the smartphone and/or tablet market.

This censorship and blocking of access to desired applications and/or content because of some vocal minority's complaints is bad enough.... Using their monopoly power to block competitors products from reaching the consumer market (ala Google Voice, Firefox, Windows Live sync, RSS Podcast apps etc) is likely illegal.

Although I love the iPhone 3GS and appreciate Apple's long history of innovation, this nanny-state authoritarian crap has to go, and I hope the FTC breaks up the App Store monopoly.

I don't think you know what the word "monopoly" means.

I don't know how many times it has to be said, but I'll try one more time. There are two basic objections to this:
1) it's censorship
this one is almost too dumb to discuss, but since so many people keep saying it... A decision about what to carry in a privately owned and operated store is not censorship. The app store is not the internet. Apple neither must nor should allow everything that doesn't break some law.

2) it's inconsistent
this one is at least true. Yesterday the uproar was about allowing games like GTA or explicit music; today Schiller has made the criticism that much easier by listing SI and playboy as exceptions. But the answer in both cases is the same - yes it's inconsistent, but this is not a moral decision that demands consistency. It's a business decision. Playboy, explicit music, and violent games and movies can stay in iTunes because customers aren't complaining about them. Pulling these apps is about appeasing customers and therefore protecting sales. It's not about some guiding moral principle, so stop looking for moral consistency.

 

[Erwin-Br]

For the ignorant statements as "Leave it alone" or "Don't look", how foolish. Would you allow your kids to play on the highway?

You just invalidated your own argument, because telling our children not to play on the highway is EXACTLY what we do. Or do you people BAN highways in your country because a child COULD decide to play on it behind your back?