Why do your kids have unsupervised access to the app store?
Maybe you should pay a little more attention
Maybe you should pay a little more attention
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.
Phil Schiller Acknowledges New App Store Sexual Content Ban and Exceptions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What an embarrassing post. The fact that you're equating looking at naked pictures of women (which is something that ALL children will come across sooner or later) with getting hit by a car just shows how closed-minded and brainwashed you are. Playing on a highway will get you killed; looking at nudity is generally considered less dangerous.
This censorship isn't about social responsibility. This is about enforcing the arbitrary and baseless opinion that nudity is taboo, and should be hidden from children, because certain people are so set in said arbitrary beliefs that they think it should be forced on everybody else. Don't compare apples with oranges.
"Oh, won't somebody please think of the children!"
Print is Dying
The problem is the regulation. Apple has not figured out how to properly regulate the App Store yet. It can't even get the approval process right. The real issue is money. Everyone is ignoring that. I think everyone posting here only reads the bible and nothing else, is no one aware that publishing companies are already fighting to set higher prices. From $9.99 to $14.99? Does no one see the pattern of the Music Store repeating itself? The media mafia is scared of losing more money.
The problem is the regulation. Apple has not figured out how to properly regulate the App Store yet. It can't even get the approval process right. The real issue is money. Everyone is ignoring that. I think everyone posting here only reads the bible and nothing else, is no one aware that publishing companies are already fighting to set higher prices. From $9.99 to $14.99? Does no one see the pattern of the Music Store repeating itself? The media mafia is scared of losing more money.
Yep, I'd go along with most of that. This is about keeping the customers satisfied, and that doesn't always mean making logical decisions. Yes, it's illogical or at least ironic that porn on IT is seen as a "bad" whereas violent video games are widely accepted. However, you base your business decisions on that whether it makes sense or not, it's still a fact of life.
The best long term solution is better categorization and parental controls. I can understand Apple not wanting these apps cluttering the store (me either). So put them all in their own category
Entertainment->Photobook apps->People->Swimsuit
and then utilize the parental controls. Done.
I hope Apple will do that soon, but they may have decided to go a stronger route initially just to send a clear message to devs to discourage these type of apps. Especially with the iPad coming up.
The problem with the latest rule of "getting too degrading and objectionable" is that it is too subjective, as opposed to something clear like "no nudity". The rules now rely even more on judgement calls and drawing an arbitrary line and that's just going to upset developers and end users in the long run. Not good for the platform in my opinion. Prime case in point is "Daisy Mae" which looks like a pretty good game actually and is just not in the same category at all as the endless swimsuit photo apps.
I hope Apple will do that soon, but they may have decided to go a stronger route initially just to send a clear message to devs to discourage these type of apps. Especially with the iPad coming up.
The problem with the latest rule of "getting too degrading and objectionable" is that it is too subjective, as opposed to something clear like "no nudity". The rules now rely even more on judgement calls and drawing an arbitrary line and that's just going to upset developers and end users in the long run. Not good for the platform in my opinion. Prime case in point is "Daisy Mae" which looks like a pretty good game actually and is just not in the same category at all as the endless swimsuit photo apps.
Really? Who's "WE"? Re-read the thread... loads of people are arguing exactly that. See how many times the word "censor" crops up.
There's lots of different arguments going on here.
Axel Springer today announced that they will fight together with other European publishing companies against the "Apple censorship" and for freedom of the press.
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,679750,00.html (German only)
http://www.robbmontgomery.com/2010/02/apple-ban-newspaper-iphone-apps-nudity/
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,679750,00.html (German only)
http://www.robbmontgomery.com/2010/02/apple-ban-newspaper-iphone-apps-nudity/
Horsepucky. It's not about nudity (no nudity involved) but about tasteless titillation apps. And no one gives a rat's ass about certain people with arbitrary beliefs. It's a smart business decision because the crap was overflowing and junking up the store. Get over it.
And I totally agree with you. But since Apple is the "gatekeeper" of all things surrounding nudity, this is a valid argument.
This "gatekeeper" argument has been talked about for over 50 years with regards to content...a classic example is the US government and the V-Chip...or what Walmart feels is respectable to sell for cds/dvds...etc.
Those infamous words from the movie Network.. "I'm as mad as hell I am not going to take this anymore!"
I can see it now.... The Olympic committee making changes to mens swimsuit rules, ie all mens swimsuits must cover the belly button, not 6 inches below, so we don't violate the "Apple iSex Policy!" This stuff cracks me up!
I can see it now.... The Olympic committee making changes to mens swimsuit rules, ie all mens swimsuits must cover the belly button, not 6 inches below, so we don't violate the "Apple iSex Policy!" This stuff cracks me up!
Considering that the app that started this whole rant is a boob-jiggler, I think I have a good idea. It's still disrespectful and not artistic in any manner.
I think that if Apple wanted to get nudity and apps that are offensive to women they should get rid of ALL of them. But letting Playboy, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit, Hooters, and the likes of that, is hypocritical. I would respect Apple more if they did that across the board.
I find it interesting how Americans censor sex while they freely advertise violence. In other countries it's the other way around, they censor violence. I'd rather see people having sex than killing each other. In European countries kids are exposed to sex as a norm in life, I think they are better adjusted than western kids, who violence is a norm in their lives.
I find it interesting how Americans censor sex while they freely advertise violence. In other countries it's the other way around, they censor violence. I'd rather see people having sex than killing each other. In European countries kids are exposed to sex as a norm in life, I think they are better adjusted than western kids, who violence is a norm in their lives.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking:
1) we must protect our kids! (from "sex," not violence)
2) no titillating content! (except from big-named corporations)
3) no titillating content! (except if it's music or video)
4) we must protect our kids! (by banning content instead of using the already-existing content filters)
5) no titillating content! (except if it's provided by mobile safari, which has no way to block it)
6) Apple's a corporation and can do what it wants! (even break implied contracts resulting from promissory estoppel - by providing a filtering mechanism - stating explicitly that this content was acceptable if properly classified in itunesconnect - and accepting many "titillating" apps, Apple encouraged companies to incur a detriment [the cost of developing apps] and received a benefit [$99 fees], and now these companies are out their development cost and their $99).
1) we must protect our kids! (from "sex," not violence)
2) no titillating content! (except from big-named corporations)
3) no titillating content! (except if it's music or video)
4) we must protect our kids! (by banning content instead of using the already-existing content filters)
5) no titillating content! (except if it's provided by mobile safari, which has no way to block it)
6) Apple's a corporation and can do what it wants! (even break implied contracts resulting from promissory estoppel - by providing a filtering mechanism - stating explicitly that this content was acceptable if properly classified in itunesconnect - and accepting many "titillating" apps, Apple encouraged companies to incur a detriment [the cost of developing apps] and received a benefit [$99 fees], and now these companies are out their development cost and their $99).
Another win for people wanting "The Right to Not Be Offended" to get ratified in the Constitution.
Apple had the right to cater to these people. Doesn't mean Apple was right in doing so.
Apple had the right to cater to these people. Doesn't mean Apple was right in doing so.
The rating and filtering may not be working as efficiently enough, so Apple manually stepped in to remove destructive materials, and the adults who need those destructive materials to make their lives more exciting are complaining.
I guess most of the whiners aren't parents. You will understand once you've became parents, whiners. Or for the better, don't become parents at all. I will feel sorry for your kids.
Too many whiners. What the heck is wrong with this country?
Here's someone who's probably burning books as their afternoon hobby.
There's nothing to understand when a corporation decides censorship is its business. Parental controls are the only appropriate way to regulate access to content - and of course the moral responsibility to perform these controls falls naturally with the parents. We may as well ask what kind of parent YOU are, if you're expecting a corporation to fulfil YOUR moral responsibilities towards your children.
Judging a book, are you? Goddess forgive him, he knows not what he speaks of.
I don't deny that there's a lot of morality being discussed in here, but that doesn't mean it's all religious. I'm betting you didn't even read the verses I referenced. You might discover that it discusses those who are too vocal about their religions.
My point is and was that there's a large difference between artistic and crude. I happen to like artistic, but crude merely turns me off. Apple, I believe, is trying to help define the line between the two.
What the hell does the bible have to do with anything? I could quote from a scientific article about the importance of beta-defensins in bird color polymorphism and it would have about as much relevance to this discussion.
In what way is removing the apps from the store NOT hiding sexuality behind closed doors? You're promoting exactly what you suggest is a bad idea. They will just find it on the internet anyway. Doing this won't change a thing.
Removing "overtly sexual" apps from the app store is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Lalalalalalala" when you don't want to listen to what somebody is saying. It doesn't make the truth go away; you'll still have to deal with it eventually.
Bull. This is clearly censorship. Apple has (or is attempting to) restrict any application that is not approved by Apple. Given the lack of a proper (legal) alternative route, Apple needs to be held to a higher standard.
The porn industry has always been an innovator in the tech industry. You could make an argument that this censorship by a tech company is stalling innovation in the industry. (Source for Porn and innovation: USAToday)
Furthermore, Wikipedia claims censorship is "...the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor."
Apple is clearly a media company in this instance.
Schiller is such a shill. (I just want to use that line. I have no problem with him, it just sounds funny.)
Shouldn't there be an opt out system, instead of just pulling the apps? Why can't it ask if you want NSFW material displayed in the app store when you sign up for an account? It would seem that method would prevent any censorship and allow us to save the children and easily shocked, while allowing innovation by the porn industry.
I'll go one by one.
No
No
They won't
Maybe
Nope.
That work for ya?
I'm not sure what you mean by "read the same material," but by removing some of these apps, they are removing functionality from my phone. (My Phone. Not Apple's. I pay its monthly bill.) An example of Adult material leading innovation can be found with the Jiggle App. Is there even another purpose for it, besides to make pictures jiggle? I'm not sure there is a place I can go on the web from my iPhone to replicate such an "experience."
Apple does own the app store, but they should not have 100% of control over the content. They do not allow any other party to install apps on the iPhone. Only Apple approved apps. Since they have created a monopoly on iPhone apps, they have a responsibility to ensure they do not stifle innovation. This is a Billion dollar industry. I thought the sole propose of the app store was to prevent viruses from taking hold. Not to censor app devs.
The government may have a role, but I'm not so sold on the idea. I'm not a fan of Apple censoring devs. I'm even less of a fan of Apple being the sole legal route to download applications on my mobile phone. This is a billion dollar industry and one company should not have all the control. We're talking Microsoft anti-trust here.
On the flip side, I don't the the government should step in. At least not in the form of legislation. If the government takes a stand, it should be in the form of a court.
I disagree that I can vote with my pocketbook. I have spent a fair amount of money on my phone, accessories, content. I have also spent a large amount of time setting everything up. It's also not enough to make me use a different phone... yet.
Why was Microsoft sued for Anti-trust? Couldn't consumers simply go and use Linux or Mac?
No it's not. It's saying "whack away, but don't use our apps bought from our store to do it."
What an embarrassing post. The fact that you're equating looking at naked pictures of women (which is something that ALL children will come across sooner or later) with getting hit by a car just shows how closed-minded and brainwashed you are. Playing on a highway will get you killed; looking at nudity is generally considered less dangerous.
This censorship isn't about social responsibility. This is about enforcing the arbitrary and baseless opinion that nudity is taboo, and should be hidden from children, because certain people are so set in said arbitrary beliefs that they think it should be forced on everybody else. Don't compare apples with oranges.
"Oh, won't somebody please think of the children!"
Why do so many of these arguments sound just like a certain political party's attitude of "Don't teach our kids about sextell them to 'Just Say No' to sex." Strangely, since that policy went into effect, teenage pregnancy went up over 60%. What's to prevent a similar outcome if you tell them, "Don't look at those sex apps; they're bad for you"?