Phil Schiller Acknowledges New App Store Sexual Content Ban and Exceptions

[Robert M.]

It is censorship and favoritism(and most likely they get a kickback from Sports Illustrated Swimsuit and Playboy.)



So boobs from a well-known company is okay, but not from an unknown user....so hypocritical! If they really wanted to protect kids and parents they wouldn't put playboy or SI swimsuit...it's even worse...it's showing kids that those forms of expression are acceptable....denigrating women and make them only valuable as sex objects. Otherwise they should put all, and use a rating system that can prevent children from seeing these images.

Best thing in this thread! I agree 100 percent!

They should have pulled everything! But no...they're too scared to touch the Playboy app! It's like they're bullying the small companies. I really don't understand why they couldn't filter things out.

Are their more kids with iPhones/iPods than adults?

 

[Journojulz]

It is always going to be a blurred line.

So they made a decision and drew the line based on business potential and public profile.

Can't see the problem.

 

[HiRez]

So "well established" porn and "broadly available" porn is better than ... other porn? Okay.

 

[NightFox]

So "well established" porn and "broadly available" porn is better than ... other porn? Okay.

It's nothing to do with better than, it's all to do with more widely accepted.

 

[jb007clone]

Why did they have to get rid of the apps? Couldn't they just create an adult section of the iTunes app store and restrict it? Seriously. Doesn't iTunes and the iPod support ratings 'G', 'PG', 'R', etc? What's the point of even having those then? By their logic, why don't they just sanitize everything on iTunes for the parents & children? I'm sure lots of parents have problems with violence and crude language as well.

 

[Journojulz]

So "well established" porn and "broadly available" porn is better than ... other porn? Okay.

Yes. Its the market test for public acceptability.

If its ok to appear in the Simpsons.....

Why did they have to get rid of the apps?

If you are trying to sell your tech to the entire family - it pays not to flood the market with tons of adolescent male oriented tat.

Its all about taste. If you are selling to women - its a good idea to bear in mind that they don't find boobs as gigglesome.

The could make a "whack store" for immature content - but apple seem to believe the wankers are better off with a palm.

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1-update1; en-gb; Nexus One Build/ERE27) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)

As per the app-store, just make an adult section

The store IS an adult section.

Do we need a "horny teenager & lonely wanker" store?

"warning - contains immature content"

Bear in mind how many people will be flicking round your new ipad.

Want your sister in law or boss pressing a random app and see the last image you whacked off to?

Bear in mind Apple is going all out to sell this thing to a demographic that is 50% women.

What does this have to do with bears? Are there animal sex apps now?



They definately should be banned.

 

[Nuvi]

Talk about double standards... I think Apple is just asking for a law suit here. If this isn't anti competitive then what is? Regarding erotic content I really don't get it. First, you have parental protection features which should filter out unwanted content in the first place. The fact it doesn't can only be Apple's fault. Second, iPhone apps mentioned here are not pornography. Calling them even erotic entertainment is a stretch. How on earth is killing some poor souls in a game better then seeing some boobs?

 

[Journojulz]

What does this have to do with bears?

I think 'Bare in Mind' is the best place for nudity.

Are there animal sex apps now?
They definately should be banned.

Quite.

Anyone spending their creative talents trying to develop any bestial necrophile apps will almost certainly be flogging a dead horse.

 

[Robert M.]

Since Playboy and SI are magazine companies, Apple obviously didn't want to burn their bridges with them. Still I feel bad for the small companies. So like I said before Playboy subscription for the iPad!!! I really do read it for the articles...bare breast and bottoms do nothing for me anymore. I'm desensitized!

 

[Reed Rothchild]

The store IS an adult section.

Do we need a "horny teenager & lonely wanker" store?

"warning - contains immature content"

Bear in mind how many people will be flicking round your new ipad.

Want your sister in law or boss pressing a random app and see the last image you whacked off to?

Bear in mind Apple is going all out to sell this thing to a demographic that is 50% women.

So true. Thank you Apple for identifying and protecting that important demographic. Women would never be able to protect themselves from the ravages of pron out there. Hopefully Apple will also bundle a burka with their new device, or at the very least a hotline number to a man who can help them should they (heaven forbid) stumble across an image that is in any way sexual. We all know that women don't like that kind of thing, don't we?

 

[RaZaK]

Sooooooo

All the porn apps developers need to do is develop a worldwide subscription base so that Apple can make exceptions in its "morals" to allow their apps to be sold again.

what a crock. More like they didn't want to give up the ridiculous revenue they must be getting from SI and Playboy in comparison to these small dev teams.

 

[Journojulz]

We all know that women don't like that kind of thing, don't we?

They generally think its immature to be obsessed with breasts.

Today is a great day to grow up.

 

[chrules]

Parental Control?

Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as i know, apple doesn't have parental controls on the iPhone?...

That would be a very simple solution to the problem. Instead of discriminating developers, just make the parents able to choose what apps their kids can see/buy, and it'll all be good.

And I think the feminist thingy about women not liking it being there is bullcrap, and they should get over it. If they don't like that, then they certainly shouldn't use the internet ^^...

 

[onigami]

Hokay, so let's see how many idiots with the same argument fall in here:

If you want boobs on an iPhone, use Safari. Plus, anything to help filter all the untold crap out of the App Store is a blessing.

This is beating an old horse to death. You want porn, use Safari.

I'm pleased
if you want porn, the internet is full of it
there is no need for all these crapapps

...3. Meh, maybe I missed one or two.

Still, here's my point to make: By your logic, then, the App Store is pointless. Why? Just about everything else in the App Store can be found on Safari. (The exceptions, of course, involve use of the accelerometers) Banking apps, games, website-specific apps, review guides, anything. And yet they exist. Why? Because they are specifically useful to the iPhone, because there is an advantage to having an app than a Flash-less internet browser, or to download specific items onto the phone formatted specifically for the iPhone.

So why must porn be excluded from this, really? Is it because it is obscene? Is it because it immature? Is it because it is an awful quality? I could go into a long-winded explanation on sexuality, maturity, and porn/erotica, but let me keep it to one sentence:

It's your fault that this is happening.

 

[pmz]

That is the most absurd bs I have ever hears from Apple as a public statement.

There is nothing legitimate about it. Playboy gets a pass because they're an established brand?! WTF!!!!!!!?

I'd like to see that language in the TOS.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

The previous posting about Apple removing thousands of "sexual content" apps irritated me, but the blind support from the iZealots bothered me a lot more.

Now with this posting, people are actually thinking a little deeper about the heavy handed censorship and hypocrisy, and I think there might even be a tinge of outrage. A little faith is restored for Apple users.

 

[Reed Rothchild]

They generally think its immature to be obsessed with breasts.

Today is a great day to grow up.

I'm sure you're right regarding those who are obsessed with breasts, though you are quite wrong to use that as a straw man response to the original question of whether "women don't like sexual imagery". You must live in a very repressed environment.

 

[Journojulz]

There is nothing legitimate about it. Playboy gets a pass because they're an established brand?! WTF!!!!!!!?

That's business.

You have to draw a line somewhere - might as well draw it for a well established company that has appeared on the simpsons.

If you don't agree - I am sure there is a solution in the palm.

 

[Journojulz]

I'm sure you're right regarding those who are obsessed with breasts.

Yes - which is why this business decision was made while trying to sell tech outside the traditional tech consumer.

How many people will want a have play with your new iPad?

 

[iJed]

Apple can do whatever they wish with the app store. They made it and control it. It's not a debate about free speech. It's a store. A very popular store. Any store can choose what they want to put in it.
If people don't like it there are alternatives.

The problem is that there are no alternatives unless you jailbreak.

 

[Erwin-Br]

You guys are focusing way too much on the details here. It's irrelevant that Apple is banning apps that contain nudity. It's about the principle of the thing. Apple is able to pull software from the store, even after they approved it.

What if you bought some of the apps that are removed? Do you get your money back?

And most importantly, think about the developers. They sign up for 99 bucks a year, release an app, and it gets pulled. Do they get their development time and money back? If I were a developer, I'd be crazy to take that risk. I'd develop for Android or WM because I'm sure my app won't be banned for whatever reason.

Now we're talking about porn, but what's next? Uncle Steve doesn't like Google and decides to pull all Google apps? Oh, wait...

 

[ToroidalZeus]

You have to draw a line somewhere - might as well draw it for a well established company that has appeared on the simpsons.

Talk about being gullible. Big corporations love big corporations. Not to mention those named companies have good lawyers so they could sue apple and actually win; While the small ones could not. But the truth is apple is actually doing companies like playboy a favor since it is removing there competition.

 

[jayenh]

You guys are focusing way too much on the details here. It's irrelevant that Apple is banning apps that contain nudity. It's about the principle of the thing. Apple is able to pull software from the store, even after they approved it.

What if you bought some of the apps that are removed? Do you get your money back?

And most importantly, think about the developers. They sign up for 99 bucks a year, release an app, and it gets pulled. Do they get their development time and money back? If I were a developer, I'd be crazy to take that risk. I'd develop for Android or WM because I'm sure my app won't be banned for whatever reason.

Now we're talking about porn, but what's next? Uncle Steve doesn't like Google and decides to pull all Google apps? Oh, wait...

This.

What will they ban next? - is the question all you "its a great business move" iworshipers should be thinking.

a lot of parents aren't going to want their kids to hit the itunes store and download family guy episodes because it looks like a cartoon... will they pull that? or their young son might hear his school-friends talking about the current "cool" rapper and download his track with explicit lyrics. will they pull those tracks? what about music videos? this rule can be applied to half the stuff available through the apps/itunes store. better categorising and parental controls of the device is what is needed if they truly want to target the family living room. stop them showing up in searches if the phone/pad is set to "family mode" which can only be turned off with a password.

 

[kresh]

Seriously, are you kidding me?? Sorry, I know this is a personal matter, but I really can't help asking if you have no trust in your 16 year old kid, whatsoever? Or at least some respect for his/her privacy? Damn. In some countries this would even be illegal (when your kid is past 16 years of age).

This is exactly the kind of over-protection that makes these kids go crazy once they turn 18 or 20 or 21 or whatever and discover all that's been hidden from them or not allowed. And all that stuff is especially fun doing when your parents don't like it

Yes, I am quite serious. They will be monitored until they are adults and have moved out. There is no magical switch that gets flipped at 16 that gives them instant wisdom, it is actually quite the reverse.

Strict parental guidance has worked for mankind for thousands of years. Adolescents would be escorted while courting, or at gatherings, parties, dances and such. The line of reasoning you espouse became popular in the mid 60's. You can look at almost all morality metrics and see them fall off the edge of the cliff when this thinking became popular, i.e. teenage pregnancy, drug use, civil disrespect and so on.

As far as them going crazy at 18 or 20 or 21, many studies have proven this false. Of course there are always exceptions.