Phil Schiller Acknowledges New App Store Sexual Content Ban and Exceptions

fleshman03 said:
Why was Microsoft sued for Anti-trust? Couldn't consumers simply go and use Linux or Mac?
Click to expand...


At the time Microsoft had a 95% plus market share - that was a monopoly. Apple has nowhere near that kind of market share - estimates put them at the #3 platform.

Not to mention that MS used their monopoly to muscle out other competitors illegally was the ticker.
 
"The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format"


WHAT?????????!!!!!!!!!

Hypocrites!!!
 
cmaier said:
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).
Click to expand...

Yes but who's hypocrisy is it? Is it Apples or is it that of "we, the people"?

(OK, maybe not for No. 6, but do you really think any of these App spammers will have made a loss? If the legal case is so clear-cut it will be interesting to see if any of them pursue this. Personally, I'm not going to be shedding many tears for them.)
 
cmaier said:
.....
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).
Click to expand...


If you can file it with a straight face, go for it. Good luck!
 
NightFox said:
Yes but who's hypocrisy is it? Is it Apples or is it that of "we, the people"?

(OK, maybe not for No. 6, but do you really think any of these App spammers will have made a loss? If the legal case is so clear-cut it will be interesting to see if any of them pursue this. Personally, I'm not going to be shedding many tears for them.)
Click to expand...

The "soccer mom" is not "we the people". This is a case of "selective censorship", which excludes the well known established pornography industry.
 
In other words, give more of a monopoly status to established businesses, and create more barriers to entry for new businesses...

The solution is SIMPLE, just put ratings on the apps, just like motion pictures. Problem solved. Give the parents the control to lock which kinds of apps can be seen. *sheesh*
 
Vulpinemac said:
Why do so many of these arguments sound just like a certain political party's attitude of "Don't teach our kids about sex—tell 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"?
Click to expand...


Stop being ridiculous.
 
BigJimmyC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you didn't read the referenced verses.


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.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Removing them means they aren't accessible to any device that uses that source. That doesn't mean the same kind of material can't be found elsewhere, but it does mean that it is significantly harder to access and cannot be 'accidentally' found by an innocent minor. It means that the device can be used as an educational tool whose internet access can be controlled by the school's network (unless the student happens to be using a 3G model) and can be considered reasonably safe. iTunes carries a fair amount of educational apps; I don't deny that they also carry a fair amount of explicit material in one way or another.

However, by removing such apps from the app store, it's not "... sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Lalalalalalala" when you don't want to listen to what somebody is saying..." but rather preventing them from hearing it in the first place. Pre-teens don't have a need to hear it, though I don't deny they tend to learn about it far sooner than their parents might believe. The problem is, by merely 'hiding' applications of this sort, you challenge the child to find it. By removing it entirely, there's nothing to be found.

My guess is that you've never had your child walk into your bedroom while you're making love and had that child ask, "What are you doing?" How do you answer?
 
Why can't Apple just establish a rating system and then restrict said apps to those over 17/file them in their own section? You need a credit card to purchase apps anyhow, so any parent who sets an account up for their child should be aware of what they're buying/looking at anyhow.

sohelpme said:
It's popular, well known porn, therefore it's OK.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Totally ridiculous and hypocritical.
 
charlituna said:
so i lift mom's CC and I know her date of birth. problem solved.
Click to expand...

Frankly, if you're the theoretical kind of child who is going to steal their mother's credit card to purchase pseudo-pornographic apps then you're not the kid who Apple is looking to protect -- because you're going to "accidentally" run into this kind of content anyway, online.
 
BrianMojo said:
Why can't Apple just establish a rating system and then restrict said apps to those over 17/file them in their own section? You need a credit card to purchase apps anyhow, so any parent who sets an account up for their child should be aware of what they're buying/looking at anyhow.
Click to expand...

They already have such a rating system. Now I suppose it only applies to gambling, violence, and whatever else people who believe that an invisible entity controls their lives think is inappropriate for minors.
 
a) Handle it like movies and music, with content ratings and parental controls to protect the innocent (a perfectly fine method).

b) Don’t give a company an exception just for being big!
 
The only difference between the "well established" Playboy app, and the "less established" Wobble app is the size of their legal departments. It's all about the size of the boat.
 
cmaier said:
They already have such a rating system. Now I suppose it only applies to gambling, violence, and whatever else people who believe that an invisible entity controls their lives think is inappropriate for minors.
Click to expand...

Aha! My bad. I thought I'd heard of one, but after hearing of this report I figured there was no possible way there could be a rating system -- because a properly implemented rating system w/ user filtering would've completely avoided this whole mess.

So I'm getting that instead of fixing their system Apple decided to pull a whole slew of apps? Brilliant. :rolleyes:
 
Vulpinemac said:
And get yourself accused of Child Molestation when that child tells her friends at school?

NOW you see why so many of our laws are more harmful than good.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? In what FSM-forsaken hellhole do you live where sex ed. is child molestation?
 
BrianMojo said:
Aha! My bad. I thought I'd heard of one, but after hearing of this report I figured there was no possible way there could be a rating system -- because a properly implemented rating system w/ user filtering would've completely avoided this whole mess.

So I'm getting that instead of fixing their system Apple decided to pull a whole slew of apps? Brilliant. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yep. Whenever we submit an app we have to fill out a form. The form asks all sorts of questions about sex, violence, gambling, etc. We have to, for each, specify whether we have such content, and whether it is fleeting, common, or excessive. From that an age-rating is automatically generated.
 
Worrying

Once again.. when you thought Apple was changing direction they go and do something like this :mad:.

It doesn’t matter if the subject is nudity or not but a few points:

  • Discriminination.. plain and simple (Playboy etc. VS. no-names).
  • Apple imposing their morals / "moral superiority”.
  • Complete disregard for the developer.

Not everyone has problems with nudity like some do.. And the issue here is Apple’s actions in this case and not the nudity. This sort of things should be handled via parental controls etc. and Apple and those who can’t stomach the content have no right in imposing their morals on others.

PS. I don’t give rat’s arse if App Store has sexual content or not :D. But I really care about how that content is or is not censored / dictated upon.
 
sjo said:
If Apple seriously is trying to be a major player in the smartphone area, especially in the US, they can't go on behaving like this for long. They have to choose between letting go some of the control in choosing the apps and allowing application installation from other app stores.

Imagine MSFT dictating what people can and cannot install in their computers. If Apple wants to get the similar position in smartphone markets with Iphone, they will face the similar restrictions on their freedom to do whatever they want.

The small players Apple can kick around as they wish, but Opera or Adobe or similar is going to sue Apple for rejecting their app sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

You can sue anybody for anything...doesn't mean you have a case you can win. Apple does not have to allow every application on their store, it's that simple (good decision or not).
 
I'm with Apple in removing this apps (not for their content, but because they were spamming the store), but I'm disappointed that they're being impartial.

How can this not enter in their description of "inappropriate content"?



- If they are going to remove the apps because of their content, at least remove ALL of them.
- Or if you are removing the apps because they were spamming the app store, and you just want to keep the ones that come from big companies or that are polished and decently coded, at least have the decency to say so.

But, at the end of the day, it's business. Apple is just acting in accord to their interests.
 
Sigh. I live in Canada. I'm 41 years old. I'm fine with Apple doing this. It's about prevailing social values in the United States.

Playboy magazine is not Barely Legal or Juggs. From Wiki: "Playboy features monthly interviews of notable public figures, such as artists, architects, economists, composers, conductors, film directors, journalists, novelists, playwrights, religious figures, politicians, athletes and race car drivers. The magazine throughout its history has expressed a libertarian outlook on political and social issues." Like it or not, it is 'respectable.'

Again from Wiki: Sports Illustrated is an American sports magazine owned by media conglomerate Time Warner. It has over 3 million subscribers and is read by 23 million adults each week, including over 18 million men, 19% of the adult males in the United States." Once a year they publish a swimsuit issue.

Apple wants the Idevices (especially the Ipad) to be family friendly. Game over. They can do that. Don't like it, buy another device. Apple has shown a certain kind of developers the door. Don't let it hit them on the asses on their way out.

Does Blockbuster rent porn (I really don't know but I'm guessing not.) But I bet they rent SI: swimsuit videos and sexy erotic thrillers. Is that hypocritical? And if they don't - why not? We all want porn and we have the right to rent it at Blockbuster if we want to, don't we? I don't want to have go to Sleazebag Joe's in the bad part of town to get my wank on, I want to get my wank on at Blockbuster!

Dave
 
Apple hasn't removed sexual content. It has removed smutty crap. I see a big difference between ideological censorship and what Apple has done here. They are the company that donated for gay rights, remember?

I read about sex all the time in my McSweeney's app. Maybe with BIGBOOBS2010 gone it'll make its way into the top 50 one day...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top