No belly buttons unless Steve Jobs keeps copies of your printed publication under his mattress?
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
No belly buttons unless Steve Jobs keeps copies of your printed publication under his mattress?
Lol, when they came for the spam apps I said nothing, for I was not a spammer.
When they came for adult pictures I said . . . . well . . it looks like everyone is already complaining,
don't need to say anything.
When they came for adult pictures I said . . . . well . . it looks like everyone is already complaining,
don't need to say anything.
Didn't have to, wanted to. That's sufficient justification in a free market economy.
No need to. Even Apple doesn't need to unless their shareholders insist. You're welcome to raise this at the next shareholder meeting and see how much time it gets.
The world is a strange and ambiguous place. I find a teddy bear helps get me through...
Oh, no question - the app store got it wrong there. It is inconsistent and needs fixing.
Women simply don't have the same fascination with breasts.
That isn't sexist - its basic biology.
Picture the scene - you get your iPad out at the family xmas - everyone wants to have a go.
How do you feel about handing it over to your mother-in-law or neice to have a look at?
Or maybe you have a boss who has heard of the thing and she and to see what this new tech can do.
Do you feel proud that you are introducing new tech - or is there a niggling worry that they may press a button and find the last pic you whacked over?
The vision for iPad is grown up enough to understand that families will want to have a go.
As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, we get that Apple has the right to do what it did and that it doesn't have to explain its reasons. But we are also free to point out Apple's heavy handedness and, more importantly, it's hypocrisy.
And we also have the right to ask those who are saying that Apple's behavior is rational and consistent why, exactly, it is so. And responding with "we don't have to explain why we think Apple's behavior is consistent" doesn't really advance your argument.
Hmm... I wonder why they don't "want" to get rid of offensive music, tv & music as well?
Of course in a free market economy, Apple can do whatever they want... But that doesn't mean what they do isn't hypocritical and stupid.
Does the world need an iWank store?
Really?
Isn't that what Palms are for?
Does the world really need an iWank store? Who knows, but at least you'd have the choice to purchase the app if you wanted to. More choice is always better, than no choice.
Nope - but making a business decision based on projected demographics and marketplace acceptance isn't hypocritical.
And banning trashy adolescent apps isn't stupid.
Its a matter of taste.
I wasn't commenting on your education, but rather your negative attitude toward OS's in general. I hope you enjoy the Nexus One with your fantastical job and your cocky attitude.
Of course it's hypocritical. Schiller didn't say ANYTHING about "projected demographics and marketplace acceptance."
And this is what Apple has done: for the sake of "kids" it has banned only certain apps (not all apps with similar content), and only for one thing that might be an issue with minors (not violence, gambling, etc.), and in only one medium (not music, videos, etc.)
Apple is pretending to be acting to protect our children, and that's not at all what is motivating it as evidenced by its inconsistent behavior. That is the very definition of hypocrisy. They are espousing convictions they don't actually hold.
Not necessarily
Britain has a lower murder rate because we don't have the choice of legal firearms in pawn shops.
Or to bring it home - there are lots of talented people jerking off making jerk off apps.
If they want to carry on - there are other app stores for other platforms.
If they want to work with apple - they had better start making better use of their natural resources.
So by less choice to make trash - there will be more worthy apps.
Consider this an "intervention" to a friend addicted to masturbation.
Today is a great day to grow up.
It sure is when you have 'offensive' material in other app store items and you choose not to remove them as well. It's a double standard.
You're absolutely right, removing the juvenile apps is a matter of taste. It not a decision rooted in logic, but rather a subjective decision based on the company's personal preference.
This is why we need an alternative to the Apple App store
I wouldn't mind Apple purging these junk applications so much if Apple allowed users to download apps from any other place. Put the burden on the buyer to vet non-Apple App store purchases and live with the consequences.
The biggest problem is that Apple demands that it be the sole retailer of third-party apps. As pointed out, Apple's decisions are completely arbitrary, Playboy and SI swimsuit app - yes; iWobbleBoobs no. A while back Apple denied a political guide to Congress app approval because of unflattering caricatures drawn by a Mad magazine artist. It was later approved after a public outcry.
I don't want the sole retailer of apps making moral or political decisions on what I can see and use. Let grown- ups make grown up decisions on what apps they want, even if you and I may think they are stupid. Thats what makes America great.
I wouldn't mind Apple purging these junk applications so much if Apple allowed users to download apps from any other place. Put the burden on the buyer to vet non-Apple App store purchases and live with the consequences.
The biggest problem is that Apple demands that it be the sole retailer of third-party apps. As pointed out, Apple's decisions are completely arbitrary, Playboy and SI swimsuit app - yes; iWobbleBoobs no. A while back Apple denied a political guide to Congress app approval because of unflattering caricatures drawn by a Mad magazine artist. It was later approved after a public outcry.
I don't want the sole retailer of apps making moral or political decisions on what I can see and use. Let grown- ups make grown up decisions on what apps they want, even if you and I may think they are stupid. Thats what makes America great.
Blinded By Greed
What's artistic about farting applications? What's artistic about sex guide apps?
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cute-irish-girl-says-wise/id356857058?mt=8
This must be your idea of the Mona Lisa.
Apple is not defining anything.
This is about money and if you think otherwise, then read between these lines:
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"
So pushing arian blondes with fake breasts and spray tans on "the children" is acceptable behavior?
What's artistic about farting applications? What's artistic about sex guide apps?
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cute-irish-girl-says-wise/id356857058?mt=8
This must be your idea of the Mona Lisa.
Apple is not defining anything.
This is about money and if you think otherwise, then read between these lines:
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"
So pushing arian blondes with fake breasts and spray tans on "the children" is acceptable behavior?
What's crude about an app that provides a catalog from a swimsuit manufacturer? What's art about SI's oiled-up airbrushed models?
I'm not disputing the numbers - just the reason. (Further, if that were the reason, the U.S. would be far higher on the list).
The murder rate in Britain has nothing to do with Apple removing juvenile apps. Please try again.
I have to believe that if you got it, I mean really understood in a non-dismissive sort of way, you wouldn't keep demanding that people justify the actions of a company they probably don't control.
You're looking for hypocrisy along the wrong axis. Apple is not the National Endowment for the Arts or the ACLU. Their role in the world is not to protect and expand the freedom of expression and peoples exposure to new ideas. Apple is a corporation. The purpose of a corporation is to advance the interests of the shareholders. More often than not, those interests are largely motivated by profit, but need not be exclusively so. If you look at this decision from a the perspective of business pursuing the interests of its shareholders, the hypocrisy argument falls away.
All of the subtle details about what is allowed and what isn't and why certain areas are black and white and others are grey are almost certainly explained by the balancing act between clarity and flexibility.
I completely get it, and the only people that I demand justify anything are the people who claim this is somehow consistent behavior. I am much more concerned with Apple lying to me about what the appstore criteria are than I am about the substantive things they chose to ban.
The hypocrisy doesn't "fall away" as you suggest. You can't change the subject and make it go away. It's the very definition of hypocrisy, and not hard to comprehend:
1) Apple says it removed apps that were bad for kids, to help protect them.
2) If that were the case it would at least have removed all things containing similar content and thus a similar impact on kids. It not only has not removed all similar apps, but it has left many far more objectionable things in its music and video stores. And that doesn't even include the fact that violence is arguably far more of a danger to kids.
If Apple would just come out and say "we remove things that don't make a lot of money for us but which lead to a lot of complaints, so the criteria we use is dollars of income per complaint" that would not be hypocritical.
Apple has not said that. It has tried to claim some moral high ground, and justified their inconsistency with doublespeak worthy of Big Brother in the classic novel that inspired Apple's famous 1984 commercial.
You act like we don't understand that Apple made its choices based on monetary considerations, and therefore is acting with internal consistency. Well we get that. But Apple is saying one thing and doing another (external inconsistency), and that is what is so objectionable.