Phil Schiller Acknowledges New App Store Sexual Content Ban and Exceptions

[kresh]

Church was not my point. I just quoted a person i met while i was staying in the US. She refferred to a girl as the "nice girl from church".

You could replace the trem by: "Honor Role Student"; 4.0 GPA Student"; "Nice next dor neighbour" and so on... its the facade that iam talking about.

I see, I agree with you 100 percent.

 

[SteveSparks]

Makes sense.

+1

Yes. I predicted that publishers who provide content and have well established there relationship with the public would be ok, but the others would get kicked out as unacceptable content, considering "Playboy" as a brand with more than just images, that includes humor, culture and political content.

 

[JAQ]

I never would have expected Apple to start parroting Anita Bryant's "think of the children" slogan.

 

[CaptainPerverso]

I am worried, too.

It's not about whether you can have porn on your phone or not! It's about that Apple are Software-Nazis!

 

[PJT]

The false Moral of the US is the thing that always pissed me off bigtime.

When i was in the US for about a year of my lifetime (midwest! i have to admit as much) i saw all them "nice girls from church" getting laid by 3 guys/night beeing totaly wasted at the age of 17 and than get into a car and drive home pregnant by three potential fathers.

Boobs NO. But a gun Simulator is fine? Well i forgot Boobs are not in the 2nd Amendment, and the republican lobby isn´t to big either...


PS: Who in gods name buys/downloads these stupid bikini Apps anyway You Get a life !!!!!

Would you please stick to the topic, which is Apple (a company) making a business decision, and not accuse an entire country of thinking this way. Regardless of my opinion on the topic, stop equating the actions of Apple with that of the US.

To the poster who provides oversight to his children while they use computers, kudos to you. Right on, and know that there is at least one dad on these boards who agrees with you. I love my kids. I respect their privacy, but respecting their privacy does not mean I give them free reign. Because, I believe quite honestly, the people that produce the porn that is on the net really are not coming at it from the perspective of "How can I help this young man grow up to be a mature adult." I don't believe they have the best interest of my kids in mind. When my kids become adults, they will make their own decision about what they chose to consume. Until then, I will teach them how to make decisions, which includes monitoring them on the net and keeping them from sticking things in light sockets.

To the poster who thinks that just because I agree with Apple on this that I am an iZealot, what's up with that? I just have a different opinion than you. Why can't I have a different opinion without being called a zealot? The tenor of your posts fall more into this category. Lighten up and have a discussion. If we don't agree, isn't that OK?

This is just a company that makes a phone, they don't rule our lives!

 

[pagansoul]

Oh for craps sake, get your own favorite pictures and load them on your phone yourself. You don't need a third-party pimp to supply you with shots. If you want to look a hot guys and/or gals in wet t-shirts just google them. I myself have a s-load of pictures of my cat. Is there an app for that? Who the frell cares, I make my own.

Yes, the App Store is cluttered. I think over half is just garbage but what you gonna do, some people like garbage. Some people even pay for garbage. What they need is a non-Apple App store where nothing is checked by apple and you load at your own risk and it just links you to the creators and gets a referral fee, that's it.

 

[huntercr]

They very easily could create a separate section for adult content. Those Apps don't have to mix with the regular apps at all.

They're losing money by banning these apps......

This.

I, for one, think "adult" apps are silly, but why stop people from selling them? Isn't that the purpose for the ratings system?

Why not make it so you login with your Apple ID ( which records your age anyway IIRC ) and then have an adult category that doesn't even show up if your < 18. Done and Done.

There's some other reason for this we aren't hearing about, and I'm guessing it's "image" based. Apple probably doesn't want to be known for porn. ( understandable ) but they are digging themselves a hole with all this manipulation.

 

[cutthroughthebs]

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

Just jailbreak your phone and move on... These people have a viable argument. Just because you get your jollys looking @ little pictures of female exploitation doesn't mean others do! Some do the real deal! It's funny how people think just because Apple offers a store how they can tell Apple what to do with it. You don't like it sell your phone and get off mac rumors with your demands... simple enough! I don't care what they do or don't do... I just think the perves have safari if they need that.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

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"

What Schiller really wanted to say is: Time-Warner and Playboy are major players in the Mag world and Apple can't afford to piss them off with the iPad launch approaching. (For the record, I support Apple's right to refuse whatever class of apps it wants from its store, but it should at least have a standard that applies to all. This lasted move is arbitrary, and could end up creating a chilling effect w/ small/med sized developers which will not be good for the iPhone OS devices long term.)

 

[dru`]

I clicked the link to the Playboy app and looked at some of the apps folks also bought. Some were already removed but others were not. I couldn't tell why some were and some weren't when the preview, at least, suggested similar content.

I'm surprised Playboy remains available given the plain brown wrapper needs for its covers.

There's no question in my mind the tarted up young woman, styled with school girl pigtails and young makeup, washing fake smudges off your iPhone/iPodTouch wearing next to no clothing goes too far as is.

A scratch-off women's clothing app? I'm embarrassed for Apple that such content *ever* made it on the App Store.

I don't envy Apple's chore in developing and maintaining App Store standards. I am glad, however, it's not a "Wild West" situation like Droid has.

I don't see this creating a "chilling effect" except for the kinds of degenerate quick-buck types who are not adding value to the platform.

 

[Journojulz]

This lasted move is arbitrary, and could end up creating a chilling effect w/ small/med sized developers which will not be good for the iPhone OS devices long term.)

yes and no.

yes it will have a chilling effect on developers of low grade tittilation

but the overall effect is that developers will have to earn their money by using their creative endeavours to cater for something other than the lowest common denominator.

 

[str1f3]

It's not about whether you can have porn on your phone or not! It's about that Apple are Software-Nazis!

They may be but the problem here is not what the App Store will allow. Apple can do whatever they like with their store. The problem is that you cannot install apps outside of the App Store. This will be the problem that persists through the Jobs era and possibly later.

 

[bmk]

So you say that these applications make that people think degrading women is cool and will start using violence against them...? First of all all humans (even men) are thinking beings. As long as they are not totally stupid or have brain damage, these apps don;t have any effect on them.

I think you are giving human beings more credit for rationality than they deserve. Anyway most of these apps are directed at adolescent boys, who are not the most rational beings on the planet.

Second of all it's most probably the other way around. People that already have these twisted ideas will use these apps (along with others that are just curious).

I agree that the apps don't cause the problem, but they do reinforce the general level of cultural misogyny.

Last of all, I don't really see what on earth could be degrading about a naked female body.

You are being a bit naive. There are plenty of naked female bodies on the internet and a lot of them are being degraded or presented in a degrading context. Context is everything. If I had a picture of my naked girlfriend and looked at it privately, she would think that was fine. If I were to wave it around at my mates, shouting 'look at the tits on that', I think you'd agree she'd find that degrading.

 

[yg17]

And yet GTA is OK, as long as that cop you kill isn't showing any cleavage

Schiller is a f***ing hypocrite.

 

[Jus11]

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.

While I do not think the decision as such is cencorship (we should save that word for far more deeper restrictions of public communication), I do think that giving Playboy and SI an exceptional right to carry on exploiting women is VERY hypocritical. I completely agree with the above.

I guess they are just not brave enough to think it through. Money talks.

 

[cutthroughthebs]

Haha, Phil Schiller back to doing damage control. What did they think would happen when they did this? Did they think that all these developers would roll over and take it?

They should just put them into a special section and have them not show up in any top lists. I think that was the main problem. Some of those boob jiggling and asian hotties apps were showing up all over the place. I read somewhere that one dev had like 500 variations of pasties or something.

Personally though, if I had to pick between them being there or not, I'd pick them not being there. They were getting annoying and I don't use them. They should still do a better job at parental controls though. Even for browsing apps! Leave them turned off by default and let people enable their viewing if they want to.

Besides, who gives their kid an iPod Touch and then leaves the app store wide open? I'd also lock down Safari so that they don't wander onto some weird stuff when I'm not paying attention. It's getting harder and harder to keep the "family computer" in an open location. There are so many tiny computers floating around people's houses! By the time I have kids it will probably be impossible to keep them from chatting with strangers, viewing hardcore porn, learning how to make bombs, or watching any of those sick suicide or death videos. There is so much crap and there will be so many ways to access it. Whoever makes parental controls that actually work (without blocking adults) and can be implemented on multiple systems will be a very rich man / woman.

Those sites you mention are policed BIG TIME for people who may be into that stuff... The net is a PERFECT tool to catch criminals! Go frequent those sites and see what happens! You'd be a FOOL to check that stuff out if you want to keep your anonymity! Yeah, those sites are there for a reason...

 

[QCassidy352]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

I thought this was the whole point of ratings?...For parents to set what their kids can and cannot have access to. I mean, why remove apps if you have ratings and ratings control in place in iTunes already? R rated movies, explicit television shows and songs with explicit lyrics are all available on the iTunes store. Is Apple going to remove those too? Why are apps singled out while other forms of content aren't?

Apple this is a losing battle. You need to get out of the content approval business and judge apps solely on whether or not they contain malware, cause your iPhone to crash or give out personal data without the user knowing. Other than that, you really should not be determining what adults can or cannot purchase. You have ratings and ratings controls in place. It's up to parents to decide whether to use them or not. Don't restrict adults from purchasing whatever products they want in the app store.

You see it as a restriction; I see it as apple choosing what they sell and therefore is associated with their brand. Where on earth would you get the idea that all sellers must be sellers of all things?

 

[igazza]

Im glad these apps have gone. but its unfair playboy gets to stay.

 

[sinsin07]

New largest app store

Gotta agre with this. I currently have:
AnyRSS Reader, Armoured Strike, Battle for Mars, Camera Zoom FX, Centos, Compass, Google Earth, FlickrDroid, Gameboid (GBA Emulator), Gensoid (Genesis Emulator), Google Sky Map, Last.fm (with live scrobbling support), Google Listen, MAhjong 3D, NESOID (NES Eulator), SNESoid (SNES Emulator), Opera Mini, Photoshop, Robo Defense, Seesmic twitter app, Shazam, Shoot u physics, Google Shopper, Speedx3D, Taskiller, Tower Raiders, Vegas Pool, WaveSecure and Wordpress.

All from the Android Market which is "rampant" with crapps at 20,000 but the App Store is full of top grade apps at over 100,000.

Logic has no place here.

im really glad that my comment provoked you to list all your non crapps from the android store. haha. who knew.

Would love to see a list of the 140,000 or so app store apps, see how mush is crap and how much is useable.

In any regard there is a new sherif in town:
http://i.engadget.com/2010/02/23/pocketgear-acquires-handango-becomes-worlds-largest-cross-plat/

 

[emulator]

This is the usual behavior of American parents who will always blame and sue others for their incapability of teaching their children basic manners. If your kid is a serial killer on a campus, just sue Rockstar and bestbuy. Your kid is a pedo? Sue the porn industry.

Nothing will ever change here.

 

[JeffDM]

It's popular, well known porn, therefore it's OK.

Swimsuit and Playboy hardly qualify as "porn" in my book...

I agree it's not porn, but this highlights a double standard. It doesn't look that different to me from several the titles that are allowed to remain. They decided to brand them degrading and objectionable, Phil's words. Why is broadly accepted degrading and objectionable really any different? Is "broadly accepted" really a justifiable reason? I doubt the kind of people that complained about the other apps would refrain from complaining about Playboy remaining in the store.

 

[ay98182]

Yes, I am quite serious. They will be monitored until they are adults and have moved out.

Strict parental guidance has worked for mankind for thousands of years.

Until they are adults and have moved out? By which point they'll have become mindless clones of yourself, unable to act any differently. Children need structure and discipline, but they also need room to make mistakes, mess around - they need a little privacy to develop themselves, not constant surveillance. Your posts are truly terrifying. I suggest you watch Haneke's 'The White Ribbon' - he put it better than I could.

By what criteria do you measure 'strict parental guidance' working for mankind? Because it's produced (as well as those it's screwed over) upstanding societal cogs, who marry, produce a few kids, retire and die? Forgive me if I don't see that as a triumph. If it's what they were happy with, wonderful, but somehow I don't think anyone asked them if they were. And they didn't have the capacity to ask themselves, knowing nothing else. Forgive me if I'm saddened by education and parenting that works towards children unthinkingly embracing the status quo. Forgive me also if I don't look back at the history of mankind as a triumph.

As for Apple removing sexual apps - yes it's there right to control their own content. But I personally disagree with it. They should be working to make the age restriction system as foolproof as possible, not, as someone else put it, deciding what adults can or cannot purchase.

At the end of the day, for Apple this isn't about morality, but wanting to maintain a clean-cut image so they can make more money peddling their goods to a variety of people. That's why if enough people whine to them about removing 'objectionable' content, those people will always win.

For everyone who did whine - here's a novel little idea for you: object to it by not viewing it and not paying the developers anything. Sound good? No? Why not? Oh, it's because you don't want anyone else viewing it either. God, thanks so much for thinking for me.

 

[Takeo]

Giving a child unfettered access to the internet on a portable device is a danger far worse than these apps.

Yes... but Apple is not directly complicit in that. Completely different.

 

[Stella]

I'm wondering how long it will until Apple decide to control OSX Apps? ( due to complaints that kids are downloading objectionable apps - and parents not doing their job in monitoring little Jonny and Suzie )

In a similar forum, someone said an OSX application controlled environment would be good. They obviously didn't think about the consequences far enough. For example:

"No duplication of core OSX functionality - there goes Path Finder and a boat load of other apps."

People respond "But Apple won't control OSX apps - its a desktop OS. "
I say "So what - mobile OSX is just another computing platform... yet Apple choose to control that. "

IMO - this is a Slippery slope - how until Apple decide to remove another category of applications.

 

[Takeo]

I have to admit... this line made me laugh "put then needs of the kids and parents first". Do it for the children! LOL. He should have said "put then needs of our customers first".