Phil Schiller Acknowledges New App Store Sexual Content Ban and Exceptions

[bikertwin]

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.

What's next?

Will apps with information on abortion services be banned? Gay themes banned? Anything "too black" banned? Anything-you-don't-like banned?

If it's in the economic interests of its shareholders, should a company have slaves?

 

[Reed Rothchild]

Obviously, you didn't read the referenced verses.




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?

I guess I'd explain that mummy and daddy were having some "happy time". I'd be interested in how you would answer. Your solution appears to be "remove it entirely". I'm struggling to find the analogy of a couple making love in the privacy of their own bedroom and Apple's hypocrisy in this instance though. Maybe they're both along the lines of "screw you".

 

[jb007clone]

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 disagree. Here's the issue, even corporations have to present a logical stance. Otherwise, it is frustrating to both consumers and developers. As evidenced by the vocal response in this thread. This is why many have mission statements and so forth. The decision to remove juvenile apps from the iTunes store is, no doubt, motivated by profits. The issue, is that it is logically incoherent with retaining other 'offensive' types of material.

Developers spend time & money creating apps and then have to wait, with no idea whether or not their app will be approved because they have no clear baseline of what is 'appropriate' or not. Some apps banned, some not. Joe-schmo company, no. Big company, yes.

Apple has drawn a line in the sand and arbitrarily said, this is inappropriate or juvenile, but also, the rules don't apply to everyone, or to all types of media. Can you have an "offensive" song/podcast/movie/tv show on iTunes? Yes. "Offensive" App? No* (*well, maybe if you're an established corporation). Do you see how this can be confusing?

 

[Analog Kid]

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.

That's almost exactly what they said... Paraphrasing, they essentially they said, "We've been receiving a lot of complaints and acted on much of the content subject to those complaints but have left in place well accepted applications."

Trying to optimize among conflicting goals is not hypocrisy.

 

[Reed Rothchild]

Britain has a lower murder rate because we don't have the choice of legal firearms in pawn shops.
__________________

Probably not. http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/7/26/american-vs-european-crime-rates/

Although I've been agreeing with your thoughts on Apple in this thread, you've gone and blown it by posting that link . Linking to an article that shows the US murder rate is actually quite a bit lower if you remove homicides carried out by the blacks is quite disturbing.

 

[cmaier]

That's almost exactly what they said... "We've been receiving a lot of complaints and acted on much of the content subject to those complaints but have left in place well accepted applications."

Trying to optimize among conflicting goals is not hypocrisy.

They didn't say what you put in quotes. Here's what Schiller did say:

"We obviously care about developers, but in the end have to put the needs of the kids and parents first."

"It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable, as well as parents who were upset with what their kids were able to see."

He is claiming he's doing it "for the kids." ********. That's the hypocrisy.

 

[Analog Kid]

I disagree. Here's the issue, even corporations have to present a logical stance. Otherwise, it is frustrating to both consumers and developers. As evidenced by the vocal response in this thread. This is why many have mission statements and so forth. The decision to remove juvenile apps from the iTunes store is, no doubt, motivated by profits. The issue, is that it is logically incoherent with retaining other 'offensive' types of material.

Developers spend time & money creating apps and then have to wait, with no idea whether or not their app will be approved because they have no clear baseline of what is 'appropriate' or not. Some apps banned, some not. Joe-schmo company, no. Big company, yes.

Apple has drawn a line in the sand and arbitrarily said, this is inappropriate or juvenile, but also, the rules don't apply to everyone, or to all types of media. Can you have an "offensive" song/podcast/movie/tv show on iTunes? Yes. "Offensive" App? No* (*well, maybe if you're an established corporation). Do you see how this can be confusing?

I agree, but the way this works is that Apple has a platform and customers. They make a series of decisions on how that platform can be used and developers may or may not choose to develop for that platform and customers may or may not choose to buy that platform. If Apple allows garbage to crowd out quality, developers don't feel they have exposure and customers are turned off. If Apple changes the rules too frequently and arbitrarily, developers feel they can't rely on profiting from their efforts and customers feel uncertain they'll really get the value they expected from their investment.

Apple's goal is to optimize their path through the ambiguity. Since this is a new and rapidly evolving environment there is certainly going to be a bit of turmoil. If Apple negotiates it well, they'll be successful. If they over or under react, they'll fail.

So in the end, the question is whether this decision does them more harm than good. The vocal response in this thread is a handful of loud individuals, not mass outcry from the marketplace. I don't think most people are surprised or upset. I don't think blocking bikini apps is going to kill the customer base, and I think it will probably broaden it. I think developers of bikini apps should have been aware that they were operating at the fringes and were among the least secure in their business model.

Now we all get to go out and vote on this decision with our consumer dollars and development resources.

 

[cmaier]

Although I've been agreeing with your thoughts on Apple in this thread, you've gone and blown it by posting that link . Linking to an article that shows the US murder rate is actually quite a bit lower if you remove homicides carried out by the blacks is quite disturbing.

Sometimes statistics are disturbing, but of course I wasn't trying to make some ludicrous point that blacks are particularly prone to killing each other. My point, which is made in that (and many other) articles on the subject, is that it is very easy to say "availability of guns" is the issue, but in reality there are far more complicated socio-economic forces at work that don't necessary exist in many other nations.

 

[Analog Kid]

They didn't say what you put in quotes. Here's what Schiller did say:

"We obviously care about developers, but in the end have to put the needs of the kids and parents first."

"It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable, as well as parents who were upset with what their kids were able to see."

He is claiming he's doing it "for the kids." ********. That's the hypocrisy.

No he's claiming they did it because of complaints. If it was for the kids they would have done it proactively, not reactively.

Is there something about this in particular that's set you off or do you always become indignant so easily?

 

[cmaier]

No he's claiming they did it because of complaints. If it was for the kids they would have done it proactively, not reactively.

Is there something about this in particular that's set you off or do you always become indignant so easily?

If it was based on complaints, they would have only removed apps people complained about.

Intellectual dishonesty makes me indignant. Like I said - if Apple told the truth about its reasons and thus gave us all an understandable rule for how to know if something is acceptable in the appstore, I'd have no problem with it.

 

[GoodWatch]

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

Yes Steve, we believe you.

 

[rachmanfan]

I don't really care what Apple allows or doesn't allow on its app store but at the very least Phil Schiller should apologize for trying to explain away the hypocrisy of leaving Playboy and SI in the store.

Trying to explain that away was an insult to their customers intelligence. I think that is what has most people so upset.

But perhaps Apple execs truly believe their customers are idiots... based on their overpriced old technology offerings.

 

[CBGEEK626]

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.

Lie is a strong word and if it bothers you so much why Apple cut some apps and not others then contact them and see what they say. Save you some keystrokes in here. Please let us know what they say.

Dave

 

[cmaier]

Lie is a strong word and if it bothers you so much why Apple cut some apps and not others then contact them and see what they say. Save you some keystrokes in here. Please let us know what they say.

Dave

You're clearly trying to short-circuit the discussion because you have no point to make.

 

[Darkroom]

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.

generally, i tend to agree with this statement.

Many companies support gay rights, not just Apple.

apple donated $100K to support the fight against Proposition 8 in California, then this past week they opened an App Store for Uganda. i feel the later cancels the former in terms of supporting gay rights. this along with other "changes" to the company over the past few years, they no longer represent an underdog corporation with a liberalist attitude.

now they jus' a regula' bitch.

 

[CBGEEK626]

If it was based on complaints, they would have only removed apps people complained about.

Intellectual dishonesty makes me indignant. Like I said - if Apple told the truth about its reasons and thus gave us all an understandable rule for how to know if something is acceptable in the appstore, I'd have no problem with it.

You ever notice that all-request weekends on radio stations pretty much play what they play all the time anyway? Only they play them for Dan or Sue. Think they pick and choose the requests that are in sync with their playlists? Is that dishonest?

Apple no doubt wanted to remove these apps anyway and probably does get complaints about some of them. So they cite the factual complaints that rationalize their BUSINESS decision. Is that dishonest?

Dave

 

[CBGEEK626]

Yes Steve, we believe you.

I have no idea what this means.

Dave

 

[jb007clone]

If Apple allows garbage to crowd out quality, developers don't feel they have exposure and customers are turned off.

"Garbage" developers are developers nonetheless. They have a right to have their approved material sold just like everyone else. If the concern is someone not being able to purchase an app because there are too many juvenile apps confusing them, that problem is easily solvable by better sorting the apps.

So in the end, the question is whether this decision does them more harm than good. The vocal response in this thread is a handful of loud individuals, not mass outcry from the marketplace. I don't think most people are surprised or upset. I don't think blocking bikini apps is going to kill the customer base, and I think it will probably broaden it. I think developers of bikini apps should have been aware that they were operating at the fringes and were among the least secure in their business model.

Now we all get to go out and vote on this decision with our consumer dollars and development resources.

The question is not whether this decision does them more harm than good. It probably won't affect their profits at all, really.

The REAL question is: If the apps are being removed because they are offending people, then why hasn't other 'offensive' material in the iTunes store been removed?

The issue is hypocrisy, plain and simple. Justifications can be attempted, but the issue remains.

 

[cmaier]

You ever notice that all-request weekends on radio stations pretty much play what they play all the time anyway? Only they play them for Dan or Sue. Think they pick and choose the requests that are in sync with their playlists? Is that dishonest?

Apple no doubt wanted to remove these apps anyway and probably does get complaints about some of them. So they cite the factual complaints that rationalize their BUSINESS decision. Is that dishonest?

Dave

1) no, i never noticed because I don't listen to terrestrial radio
2) yes, that's dishonest

 

[dejo]

That's almost exactly what they said... "We've been receiving a lot of complaints and acted on much of the content subject to those complaints but have left in place well accepted applications."

You should stop making up quotes. It only weakens your arguments.

 

[cmaier]

Even Apple can't figure out what its rules are:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...y_reinstates_swimwear_iphone_application.html

 

[zacman]

 

[Consultant]

I suspect there is something funny going on.

Like the old iTunes feedback, even people who are not customers can say anything (many example of shilling were found).

Thus certain type of feedbacks should only be allowed for customers only.

 

[Shin3r]

Well I hate how people are thinking they can control the apps that go on my iPhone.

Newsflash, they can control what you put on your iphone, at least within the realm of the appstore that they control. It is their product after all and they didn't force you to buy the iphone. Also, if you hate that I think that, I'm sorry, but it's just the reality, I'm not making it up to piss you off.

It's also not a big secret that from the very beginning Apple said they would control this type of content. I'm neither for or against this, I just don't get how people can be pissed when this was open knowledge from the onset.

 

[Journojulz]

Although I've been agreeing with your thoughts on Apple in this thread, you've gone and blown it by posting that link . Linking to an article that shows the US murder rate is actually quite a bit lower if you remove homicides carried out by the blacks is quite disturbing.

There are quite a lot more people feeling disturbed right now after that post.....