Phil Schiller Acknowledges New App Store Sexual Content Ban and Exceptions

[cmaier]

If you honestly think there is no difference between your examples of creating content using a manufacturers editing equipment, and creating an app using aapl's sdk and aapl selling that app on its app store, then it's no wonder you see no problem with the crap apps. That's my point.

You keep asserting there's some difference but you've either chosen not to articulate it or you're incapable of doing so.

Perhaps instead of repeatedly pointing out my stupidity, you could either explain to me what the difference is, or explain why I have mischaracterized your argument as "exclusivity on the iTunes store and/or use of Apple's tools in creating content renders Apple culpable."

Repeatedly pointing out that I am incapable of understanding the majesty of your argument isn't getting you anywhere.

 

[Darkroom]

i love it!

 

[marksman]

Why do I get the feeling that 50% of the people complaining about this don't even own an iPhone?

 

[cmaier]

Why do I get the feeling that 50% of the people complaining about this don't even own an iPhone?

I'm complaining and I own 5.

 

[PJT]

i love it!

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, don't make fun of other people's religion. It would be a great nod to civility on these forums if you took out the picture. Thanks.

 

[cmaier]

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, don't make fun of other people's religion. It would be a great nod to civility on these forums if you took out the picture. Thanks.

I'm sure the intention was to make fun of Apple, not someone's religion.

 

[aristotle]

Apple is a publicly traded company and because of that, they have to have internal corporate compliance and risk management.

Publishing those other apps were putting Apple at risk to lawsuits or potentially criminal prosecution. What if some of the apps had material that the author of the app did not have the right to distribute? What if the apps had picture of underaged girls?

To avoid having to spend a lot of money vetting all of the material, Apple decided to only rely on established companies like SI and playboy which also have their own internal compliance and risk management teams.

This is not a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech only applies to governments and I don't view porn as "speech".

People who have an addiction to erotic imagery should really get some help and they really can live without porn on their phone. Apple is actually doing people a favour by helping people avoid being labelled as a sex offender if they view pornography in a public place where children are present.

View your porn at home on your computer. Keep it out of the public eye.

 

[Vmaatta]

Wrong. Apple has a perfect right to restrict apps, designed using its sdk, on its apps store.

Well sure they do.. question is how they use that right.

I.e. they should remove a developer’s applications if the developer is dumping hundreds of useless apps to the store. Not for nudity while letting others keeps similar apps in the store.

 

[petsounds]

[...]

To avoid having to spend a lot of money vetting all of the material, Apple decided to only rely on established companies like SI and playboy which also have their own internal compliance and risk management teams.

This is not a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech only applies to governments and I don't view porn as "speech".

People who have an addiction to erotic imagery should really get some help and they really can live without porn on their phone. Apple is actually doing people a favour by helping people avoid being labelled as a sex offender if they view pornography in a public place where children are present.

View your porn at home on your computer. Keep it out of the public eye.

Apple doing us a favor. Wow...just, wow. "Addiction to erotic imagery." You know, I'd worry a lot more about people's addiction to violence, hatred and ignorance.

This has nothing to do with "risk management." The pulled apps would have never been allowed on the store in the first place if there was a legal risk. Apple has way too many high-priced lawyers to allow that to happen.

This reeks of backroom dealing. The fact that Playboy got blessed means that they probably wrangled an exclusive deal with Apple for erotic content on the iPad (and the iPhone as innocent bystander). I'm sure they'd love to distribute the Playboy mag on the iPad and wanted to make sure they had no competition in the new playground.

 

[CBGEEK626]

I think the Ipad's larger screen size and its impending release is the impetus for removing these apps now. Simply put, you can't easily hide a screen this size to keep adult content out of underage eyes in public.

What was once tolerated on the Iphone/Ipad's smaller screens will not be on the Ipad. That phase of app development is over and now it's time to move on.

I really don't think this is a freedom of speech, censorship, or constitutional issue. It's a litegation prevention issue.

Dave

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't agree with you about what Apple did. You stated Apple responded to, "Please make these people stop expressing themselves in ways innappropriate for our kid's age level". I believe they responded to, "Please provide an age-appropriate place for us to bring our kids."

Both are the same if they result in the first group's banning from the site in question so that you can "bring your kids". Like a city turning a nudie bar into a daycare center because some moms complained they wanted to bring their kids there, instead of opening one a few blocks away.

To clarify, I never petitioned Apple to do this. My support of the decision is not based on trying to repress freedom of expression. With the App Store being a closed environment, some will in turn interpret it as such. I do believe that the type of store Apple runs is up to Apple.

Again, for people being dense here :

Apple has a right to decide what is in their store. It doesn't mean Apple was right to do what it did. Having the right to do something doesn't automatically make it the right thing to do.

 

[CBGEEK626]

Both are the same if they result in the first group's banning from the site in question so that you can "bring your kids". Like a city turning a nudie bar into a daycare center because some moms complained they wanted to bring their kids there, instead of opening one a few blocks away.



Again, for people being dense here :

Apple has a right to decide what is in their store. It doesn't mean Apple was right to do what it did. Having the right to do something doesn't automatically make it the right thing to do.

Had Apple given some heads up that they were pulling these apps in one week say and announcing that the App Store would no longer be open to these types of apps, would that have made it 'right' to you? Was it what they did or how they did it you are in disagreement with?

Dave

 

[fleshman03]

https://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/2...apple-claims-third-place-in-smartphone-sales/

That's overall Smart Phone market. I'm talking about applications for the iPhone. Remember, Microsoft was sued for not allowing other browsers and too closely integrating IE into the OS.

Sounds an awful lot like Apple and the App Store.

 

[PJT]

I'm sure the intention was to make fun of Apple, not someone's religion.

And I am sure Apple's intention on pulling the apps was to please some groups, not repress other's freedom of expression. But according to many, that's what they did. The intention of the graphic's creator, I do not know. But they could have just as easily made it about accountants. Instead, they chose a religious symbol. While they might not have intended to offend, they did. Why it is OK to insult religion and not sell overtly sexual apps is just sort of beyond me.

 

[iVoid]

What I find ironic is that the #1 and #2 highest grossing movies of all time both feature more skin than these bikini apps.

I guess Apple will not be selling Avatar from the iTunes store.

Oh, that's right, it's got a big established movie studio and director behind it, so that's okay.

Once upon a time, Apple empowered small businesses, developers, and individuals to create their own music, artwork, movies, etc... and urged them to Think Different. Now, Apple is just puppet of a bunch of extremist feminists that are using the Hitler inspired 'think of the children' lie to drive their anti-adult content campaign.

And, also ironically, they are putting women out of work because of it.

The iBurka icon is very apt for this, since many feminists wear pants suits (the western version fo the Burka).

 

[iVoid]

Why it is OK to insult religion and not sell overtly sexual apps is just sort of beyond me.

You realize that's not a real App Store app, right?

It's just something created to show where the 'no flesh' puritans would lead us if they could.

 

[PJT]

Both are the same if they result in the first group's banning from the site in question so that you can "bring your kids". Like a city turning a nudie bar into a daycare center because some moms complained they wanted to bring their kids there, instead of opening one a few blocks away.

Again, for people being dense here :

Apple has a right to decide what is in their store. It doesn't mean Apple was right to do what it did. Having the right to do something doesn't automatically make it the right thing to do.

Well, at least we both agree that if Apple would open things up so that there is more than one store the issue would be solved. Apple holding all the keys to the store is an issue.

Your city example is kind of weak to me. First of all, I am not talking about taking my kids to places where consenting adults engage in freedom of expression. The App store is not an adult store. But say there was one bookstore in my town, and that bookstore had a stripper pole next to the kid's section. I would politely explain to the owner that I respect their freedom to run their store as they wish, but if they would like my patronage, please move the pole. If the owner said no, no worries. I would figure out another option to get books. Also, the city represents government. Apple is a company. I look at them differently.

I do find it interesting that you are making moral judgments on Apple's decision. Aren't you imposing your moral authority on Apple as to what is right and wrong?

 

[aristotle]

Apple doing us a favor. Wow...just, wow. "Addiction to erotic imagery." You know, I'd worry a lot more about people's addiction to violence, hatred and ignorance.

This has nothing to do with "risk management." The pulled apps would have never been allowed on the store in the first place if there was a legal risk. Apple has way too many high-priced lawyers to allow that to happen.

This reeks of backroom dealing. The fact that Playboy got blessed means that they probably wrangled an exclusive deal with Apple for erotic content on the iPad (and the iPhone as innocent bystander). I'm sure they'd love to distribute the Playboy mag on the iPad and wanted to make sure they had no competition in the new playground.

What happens if Apple approves an app that initially appears to have only legal content but later ends up with underaged teen girls on it through server side updates? What if California decides to prosecute Apple for distribution of child pornography? What if you downloaded the app and now California wants to prosecute everyone who downloaded the app in question for possession of child pornography? How are Apple employees supposed to protect themselves from prosecution from images downloaded during the application vetting process?

BTW, there was apparently an app that was banned a while ago because server side contents resulted in teen girls pictures appearing which had not initially appeared in the image lists. Apple could have been prosecuted and people who downloaded that app were also at risk of being charged.

This has everything to do with risk management.

 

[PJT]

You realize that's not a real App Store app, right?

It's just something created to show where the 'no flesh' puritans would lead us if they could.

Yes, I assumed that it is not a real app. But why do you assume that because people made their opinion known to Apple that they are 'no flesh' puritans? (Another slam on religion.) I did not approach Apple on this, but as a parent, I like the decision they made. I honestly am not proposing a ban on overtly sexual apps/books/whatever. I am not looking to lead you anywhere. When I sit down with my son to look for cool apps, I like knowing that it is safe. Apologies, but I am not thinking abut you. My suggestion would be for people to stop accusing Apple and others of oppressing freedom of expression or censorship (as some have done) and put all that energy into petitioning them for another store or a better content management system.

I really don't know what people were asking for in the first place. Was it to remove the apps or better control over what is displayed? Whatever it was, Apple decided on removing apps, and as Munster said in the NY Times article, it might have to do with their public image.

 

[Reed Rothchild]

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, don't make fun of other people's religion. It would be a great nod to civility on these forums if you took out the picture. Thanks.

I don't think the point was to make fun of people's religion. It's actually a neat way of showing how Apple's stance on swimwear apps could be linked (however tenuously) to the cultural norms in some societies (though a Playboy poking out of the burqa's pocket would have been an even neater touch ). I don't think many Islamist scholars argue that the burqa is a part of Islamic religion.

 

[KnightWRX]

Had Apple given some heads up that they were pulling these apps in one week say and announcing that the App Store would no longer be open to these types of apps, would that have made it 'right' to you? Was it what they did or how they did it you are in disagreement with?

Dave

I'm in a disagreement in general with their level of control over the App Store. All the non-sense they've fed us to try to justify why they retain so much control is just piling on. This is one more thing on top of an already large pile.

It's not the way they did, it's that they did it, "for the children". If they really were doing it for the children, they'd fix their parental controls so as to give parents actual tools to do parenting.

 

[PJT]

I've been thinking about this a little more. Thanks to everyone who engaged in the conversation. Not that it should mean anything to anyone else, but here is what I decided to do.

I am going to write to Apple and tell them that I appreciate them thinking about my kids and me as a parent; however, their stance on overtly sexual apps is hypocritical. As a consumer, I wish for (not demand) an app store that does not contain overtly sexual apps. However, since they are still allowing overtly sexual apps, and approving overtly sexual apps, they have not really helped me. I will ask them to improve their system for ratings to ensure inappropriate apps are not displayed on my properly configured iPhones and iPod Touch and when browsing the iTunes store from my computer. I will also express my opinion that Apple should not associate itself with distributing overtly sexual apps, that in the end this is their choice, and that they should open channels of distribution beyond Apple to avoid such association.

I know that not everyone agrees with me, and that's OK. Regardless, have a great day.

 

[dru007]

How disillusioning...

Now apple is in the business of censorship, hip, hip horayyyyy!
Next step.... buy a $300 netbook and HACK-IN-TOSH it !

 

[Torajima]

Only in America...

Death, violence, and murder simulators are okay, but god forbid somebody see a girl in bikini!

Seriously Apple, what is the point of having a ratings system if you're only going to allow G rated content?

Can't you just create more stringent parental controls, and turn them on by default?

 

[aristotle]

Now apple is in the business of censorship, hip, hip horayyyyy!
Next step.... buy a $300 netbook and HACK-IN-TOSH it !

Government can be accused of censorship. Private citizens and companies cannot. I cannot be forced to publish comments on my blog for instance. I am not bound by censorship laws since I'm not a government.