Wrong. Apple has a perfect right to restrict apps, designed using its sdk, on its apps store.
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
Wrong. Apple has a perfect right to restrict apps, designed using its sdk, on its apps store.
Who reads Playboy to watch the latest interview with an Architect?
I mean, seriously, Playboy is a company that its entire business circles around nudity and sex. When you think about Playboy, you think about nude pretty girls. I'm not saying they are not respectable, just that their content in the App Store is just the same as the ones in the other apps that were removed.
As for SI, I really like their magazines.
But the same applies, content is the same. If you don't want to remove them because they are big players, and making good apps, it's OK. But this doesn't remove the hypocrisy from Apple's actions.Actually it isn't. There are plenty of text features straight from the print edition, including the lengthy interviews. This month with Sean Combs.
Dave
Right. That must be why the screen shots they provide on itunes are all boobies. People download it for the interviews with lame rappers.
inconsistent Apple is at it again. use the content ratings. default to "no sexy apps". let users decide if they want to change it.
this has the added benefit of stopping you from embarrassing yourself with the kinds of statements Schiller made. it's pretty pathetic to substantiate your corporate policies by citing complaints from "women" and worries about "children and parents."
it's their store and they can run it how they like but they don't have to sound like fools in the process.
this has the added benefit of stopping you from embarrassing yourself with the kinds of statements Schiller made. it's pretty pathetic to substantiate your corporate policies by citing complaints from "women" and worries about "children and parents."
it's their store and they can run it how they like but they don't have to sound like fools in the process.
Interesting, if I were making the decision, this is pretty much where I would draw the line. Sounds like there's a little collateral damage out there that needs to get fixed, but allowing publications that have achieved cultural acceptance while stemming the flow of crap in this area is what my goal would have been if I were allowed to make the decision.
The world is an arbitrary place sometimes...
Some would argue that if Apple want's to be a major player they *must* do this. Quality control is critical to preventing the App Store from becoming an online ghetto.
I imagine MSFT not dictating content and rapidly falling behind Apple in the smartphone segment. They had what, a 10 year head start? You think their going to surge ahead again on the strength of bikini apps?
You can't sue someone for not selling your product. Can you imagine the world if you could? There are certain anti-trust exceptions, but we're nowhere near that territory right now. There will almost certainly be lawsuits, there always are when there is this much money involved, but the that inevitability demonstrates why Apple can't let that dictate their business decisions.
Bait all you like, that will not change the actual app content. Which is more than just 'boobies.' If you don't like how they advertise the app please direct your comments to Playboy Inc.
Dave
It's not baiting. The point is that this app is as much "just boobies" as were many of the apps that were removed, if not more so.
No one has answered my question: Why did Apple HAVE to get rid of the apps?
Why not restrict them and put them in a separate, tucked away section of the app store?
Newsflash: Pornography exists on the internet. If someone really wants to find it, they will. If someone wants to be offended by it, the stuff on the app store is the least of their worries compared to what's out there.
IT IS entirely hypocritical for them to remove offensive apps, but still keep vulgar music and violent tv & movies.
Why not remove them too? Why are only app developers dealing with censorship?
Why not restrict them and put them in a separate, tucked away section of the app store?
Newsflash: Pornography exists on the internet. If someone really wants to find it, they will. If someone wants to be offended by it, the stuff on the app store is the least of their worries compared to what's out there.
IT IS entirely hypocritical for them to remove offensive apps, but still keep vulgar music and violent tv & movies.
Why not remove them too? Why are only app developers dealing with censorship?
this is correct. survey 100 mothers and i guarantee you that they all object to Playboy as smut. Apple is being wildly inconsistent in ways that seem to suggest they are trying to make it look like they are siding with mothers while still keeping the successful smut purveyors happy.
This is a matter of opinion and not a fact and the opinion of the store owner is the only one that matters here.
Dave
It's ALL a matter of opinion. That's the point. And Apple has the right to do whatever it wants re: banning stuff, but that doesn't mean they're being consistent, and it's the lack of consistency that sucks. Apple should just state what criteria they are using.
Survey another 100 mothers and they may not. This is conjecture. What is not is that Playboy is socially respectable & has been published in magazine form since 1953. Some store sell it and some do not. One of these stores is the app store.
Dave
They have.
Its no to nudity unless you are an established manistream part of american culture. Hefner has even been on the Simpsons, larry Flynt for example has not
Its a business decision - they drew a line for business reasons.
There was too much immature tat crowding out the store at time when apple has bigger markets to sell to - IE Women.
Want to show your new toy is not just for adolescent geeks?
Then don't crowd it with wobbling boobies - trust me , women don't think they are that funny.
Oh nonsense. You think you get to decide what's fact and what's opinion, and then you state that it is a fact that Playboy is socially respectable. That's just silliness.
In any event, you have seized on to a meaningless detail. The point is that Schiller's supposed explanation is a meaningless lie, and that Apple has not stated any concrete criterium that explains why some apps are not permitted while others are.
Explain the business reasons, then. Why is a perfectly respectable manufacturer of swimsuits not allowed to have an app showing its wares, while SI is allowed to publish an app full of oiled-up airbrushed models wearing those same swimsuits?
Let's not pretend there isn't an inconsistency here.
And how sexist is it to presume that women somehow have a lower threshold for accepting titillating apps than do men.
See the problem is, no one is forcing you to buy the app. Just like no one is forcing you to buy the song with explicit lyrics and the movie with sex & violence. It's up to you to purchase it.
If the problem is that they're visible in the app store, then restrict them to a separate section. Just like in a real store.
The App Store has never allowed nudity. Even the Playboy app doesn't have nudity. So, obviously, that's not the criteria.