SJ and Ryan Tate go at it via email at 2AM!

[LagunaSol]

uh oh, steve jobs is against porn. i have a feeling that fanboys will start joining the mormons in droves.

Yes, and I suppose WalMart, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, RIM, Palm, Netflix, Barnes & Noble, and the 8 billion other companies that refuse to sell porn are going to start joining the Mormons too.

And since when are the Mormons the only ones morally opposed to porn?

At least the intellectual value of your commentary remains consistent.

*massive snip*

One can refute your entire multi-paragraph argument with one simple line: like many other companies, Apple chooses not to be in the porn sales business.

The end.

It's not that difficult to understand, people.

 

[Nemesis]

Gawker Media Job Requirements

I didn't plan to pick a fight with Steve Jobs last night. It just sort of happened: An iPad advertisement ticked me off; I sent the Apple CEO an angry email; he told me about "freedom from porn." The electronic debate proceeded from there.
-- Ryan Tate

It seems Gawker Media has in their 'Gawker Media Career Application Form' the requirement: "Must have intellectual capacity of a boiled potato."

 

[Nemesis]

I must say that for the first time Jobs comes across like a retard when he uses arguments like "no porn".

Saying no to porn doesn't make someone a retard. But it does take someone of the intellectual capacity of a boiled potato not to understand someone's else's stanza against porn.

 

[tozol]

Wow yet another really interesting Steve's story;, I have to say though the OP, here gets slightly pwnd,here.
he does put across some valid points, as does Steve, but were I actually agree with Steve here is, that for once, it's nice to see someone actually trying to rid us of constant porn that floods our everyday life now, and no I'm not some mad church going fanatic, I'm a red blooded male, who shock horror, actually does look at porn on my PC, when I feel like it.

So me for one, actually commend Apple here, for at least trying to do something different to the norm, do I see that as control or a power trip, nope,I actually see it as trying to be different.
And let's face it, if you want it on your apple devices, it's available if you want, as for the other stuff, flash and the adobe thing, I just see that as business arguments that happen in all walks of business life, and I have no doubt it will all work out OK in the end for all parties.
Hey and I'm one of the poor saps who has had to pay stupid amounts of cash for a UK Ipad, but you know what, I want one, and I have no doubt ill enjoy the experience immensely, will I miss porn on it, nope, I can assure you, there are a million other ways to serve my and all yours craving for porn, but I'm sure you all know that by now.

Brave to post though, and again up's to Steve for replying

 

[Darkroom]

Yes, and I suppose WalMart, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, RIM, Palm, Netflix, Barnes & Noble, and the 8 billion other companies that refuse to sell porn are going to start joining the Mormons too.

i guess you're right, all those die-hard WalMart fanboys outnumber us all.

i mean, really. has steve jobs learned nothing from Salt 'n Pepa?

 

[macUser2007]

Saying no to porn doesn't make someone a retard. But it does take someone of the intellectual capacity of a boiled potato not to understand someone's else's stanza against porn.

I do understand, that it takes such a "boiled patato," not to be able to figure out that porn is NOT the issue here.

How does allowing Adobe's cross-compiler, or banning Flash and Java, safeguard us from "porn," or from "applications which steal your information?" Cutting off access to the internet will be more efficient, no?

 

[Carniphage]

Apples with Hard Cores

Let's be totally clear.
The iPad does do porn.
You can watch porn on it, visit porny websites and even fill the photo-gallery with porn. There are porn websites that are iPad friendly.

As a platform, there are two ways into the iPad.
Through the web connection and through the App store.

Apple has certainly no intention of censoring or restricting what you do with your internet connection. So as a porn platform - it is open and unrestricted.

So it's only the App store that Apple are attempting to control. And even there - there's porn aplenty. If run Air Video or Tumblr apps - they function as perfectly (dis)respectable porn apps.

So we get to the sole remaining area of censorship that Apple is applying, which is Apps with overtly sexual names or themes.

This is the most minor of minor issues. Apple won't allow a porn game on the iPhone for the same reason Sony won't allow a porn game on the PS3 or Nintendo on the Wii.

Yes it is dumb for Jobs to describe this as "freedom" - but to equate this to some totalitarian censorship is absurd.

Why not boycott McDonalds for their refusal to serve beer? Or complain in Borders about their poor selection of hardcore?

C.

 

[Dammit Cubs]

The best answer was:

If you have problem with it. Don't develop for the iphone OS. and basically to the consumer, if don't like it it. Then DONT BUY IT.

LOL. It's 100% true. For people who whine. My god, the lady may be fat but you don't have to sleep with her!!!!

 

[Darkroom]

How does allowing Adobe's cross-compiler, or banning Flash and Java, safeguard us from "porn," or from "applications which steal your information?" Cutting off access to the internet will be more efficient, no?

it doesn't, but that debate got old fast. the true gem here is that steve jobs is against porn... not only is he against porn, but he's against porn because he's a concerned parent. LOL, i'm still laughing about that.

seems to me like daddy steve may have missed too many birthday parties because of work and now gets confused between his real kids and his customers.

 

[PJT]

Then how then in the hell is the inability to install apps outside of the app store protecting me from porn??????

I don't know what he expects us to do if they ever reach a full on monopoly status, or those who already rely upon Apple products in their everyday lives, but it's good to know he cares almost nothing about what we think.

Nobody is trying to protect you from porn. Do what you want.

He might not care what you think, but he is spot on in caring about what I think. Sorry you are on the outside.

You are right, IMO, the issue is not about porn. It is about a company that is very far from a monopoly selling what it wants to sell. I really don't get people telling Apple what they should or should not do. These people engage in the very same behavior of which they accuse Apple.

Would someone please just go out and build a better device than Apple so that all these whiners can join a different forum.

 

[slackpacker]

TATE is a immature little brat. Its funny how many like minded idiots are posting on Gawker. I attempted to post there but I have yet to see my post be posted. Steve is totally right if Apple wants to create a walled garden its Apples right. He makes an argument that Porn is ok.....If we were just dealing with Playboy I can almost see his point but you and I know Porn has many levels way beyond Playboy.

To Tate if you read this .... you were owned even though your to stupid to see it.

 

[satkin2]

Everyone has the option to choose

The whole argument about whether Apple is closed etc; really amuses me.

What is the issue, everyone has a choice. You can buy an iPad, iPhone or iPod touch if you want to. As part of this you know you won't have access to Flash on the web and the applications that you can used are controlled by Apple. Alternatively, you can by a Blackberry, an Android phone, or a Window mobile device. Here you may be able to view flash and have more open app stores.

If your happy to go with the limitations of a device to get it then buy it, if not don't.

The argument that we should be able to choose what we view on our phone is desirable but not always possible. I want a sporty car that I can have automatic gears in, they don't do it, so I can't have it, I have to go else where. If Flash is an essential to you, you don't buy an Apple product.

 

[Nuvi]

Yes it is dumb for Jobs to describe this as "freedom" - but to equate this to some totalitarian censorship is absurd.

Why not boycott McDonalds for their refusal to serve beer? Or complain in Borders about their poor selection of hardcore?

I'm not sure if you are getting the point here. It's not about Apple allowing or disallowing porn on App store. Its about Steve Job's argument of protecting freedom of iPhone OS users. Not allowing porn on App store is not protecting the said child (see Jobs emails) from pornographic material. If Apple wanted truly to protect something other then brand image they would implement solid web filtering and parental control solution. However, if we examine the new features of iPhone OS 4.0 there are no such features available and therefore we may conclude that only thing Steve Job is protecting is their brand image and their business strategy and not the innocent children he was referring to. Regarding totalitarian control; Steve Jobs management is the text book example. It's the psychodynamics of organizational totalitarianism that is reflected with his "freedoms".

 

[marksman]

Which hand do all of you hold your iPor uh iPhones in?

 

[edtech]

Troll alert

Consider that some of the inane comments about the "right" to expect Apple to sell porn in the app store may be coming from trolls - paid trolls, or self amusing trolls - not interested in any rational discussion, but trying to bait you into an emotional response.

Don't feel compelled to feed the trolls. Ignore them and pray they go away when they don't get the spotlight of attention they seek.

 

[Carniphage]

I'm not sure if you are getting the point here. It's not about Apple allowing or disallowing porn on App store. Its about Steve Job's argument of protecting freedom of iPhone OS users. Not allowing porn on App store is not protecting the said child (see Jobs emails) from pornographic material. If Apple wanted truly to protect something other then brand image they would implement solid web filtering and parental control solution. However, if we examine the new features of iPhone OS 4.0 there are no such features available and therefore we may conclude that only thing Steve Job is protecting is their brand image and their business strategy and not the innocent children he was referring to. Regarding totalitarian control; Steve Jobs management is the text book example. It's the psychodynamics of organizational totalitarianism that is reflected with his "freedoms".

If you read my post, I am suggesting that Apple's stance is the lightest of touches.

It achieves one thing only. When parents browse Apple's app store for games, the don't come across "Boob Invaders" or worse.

Yes, Apple are guilty of attempting to maintain a brand identity. And I agree that this stance protects Apple more than it protects children.

But to equate this to totalitarianism, is insulting.

There are very few companies which do not attempt to maintain control of their commercial output.

C.

 

[bobob]

...a company being held hostage to the will of a single CEO. One who non-chalantly imposes limitations on his devices and rather than letting the user-decide for themselves, decides for them.... I don't know what he expects us to do if they ever reach a full on monopoly status, or those who already rely upon Apple products in their everyday lives, but it's good to know he cares almost nothing about what we think.

Amazing the contortions people will bend themselves into when they encounter independent self confidence in our committee-run modern world.

 

[Nuvi]

If you read my post, I am suggesting that Apple's stance is the lightest of touches.

It achieves one thing only. When parents browse Apples app store for games, the don't come across "Boob Invaders" or similar.

Yes, Apple are guilty of attempting to maintain a brand identity. And agree that this stance protects Apple more than it protects children.

But to equate this to totalitarianism, is insulting.

There are very few companies which do not attempt to maintain control of their commercial output.

As I said the availability of pornographic material is meaningless in this context. It's the Steve Jobs arguments which he outlines as the reason for the companies stance that remain the subject of interest. As you said the exclusion of porn is not to protect children but to protect their brand image. Therefore we can assume that at least one of Steve Jobs arguments is based on lie. This raises questions regarding moral integrity of Steve Jobs. What other "freedoms" are just there for some totally other purpose (ban on cross platform dev tools, flash etc.) Regarding totalitarianism I think you are referring to totalitarian government when we should in this current context talk about totalitarian management and in some extent the psychodynamics of organisational totalitarianism.

 

[DoFoT9]

sorry if i missed anybodies replied

You do have a choice.

Last time I checked, buying an iPad was NOT mandatory. If it's not what you want, choose something else.

Why do so many people on these threads think Apple must make products that fit in with their own particular requirements? Apple, like every other commercial company in the entire world, makes products for profit. It's the companies' choice of what to make; it's your choice to buy or not.

Is that too hard to understand.

Hmmm, my reaction to this: nobody took away your choice in the first place. It's not like you commissioned Steve Jobs to create all these things for you. Don't use apple stuff if you don't want to or make your own app store if you want one, and software platform etc. Just because a company makes something, they are under no obligation to make it something that all people want and like (just look at Microsoft). Why should apple or any company be beholden to some else's idea of likes, dislikes (unless it is somehow harmful to the public). Companies like apple are profit making entities not public service utilities. In a place like China, the line between the two is blurred. The real difference is here in the USA we have the freedom to think and speak critically about this.

We have our own choice, nobody forces no one to use an iPod/iPhone.

Hey, you have the choice to decide what to do. Use your safari browser. Have you heard of it?

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Apple does not want p*** in their app store. Yet, you are free to do as you please. Moreover, you and other such as yourself can get a google phone or any other phone for that matter, and exercise your freedom... Man, this argument about p*** are so insane...

I have small kids, niece, nephew, parents, in-laws... they all use iphone + other apple products. I am glad that I do not have to explain what not to do to any of them! There is freedom to do the p*** that you and so many crave for. Go and indulge yourself... goodness...

the fact is that p*** existed before the iphone and ipad. Did you and other lovers of p*** had the freedom that you so much crave now? What is the difference?

Are you serious? This is a consumer product. A computer platform. Not some right put forth in the constitution of
the U.S. that gives all Americans the right to choose porn on their mobile device.

You do get a choice. The choice it to watch it somewhere else.

I think the only reason the app system does not have porn is because apple is the one selling it and getting their 30%. If you could get apps without going through itunes and directly downloading from different websites then porn would be on the ipad.

They don't want to force their employees to review porn apps and they do not want to make money off porn.

How fun would that job be? ... "Hey I got this 2 chicks 1 cup app, who wants to review it?" "give it to the porn app review guy"

You are. The iPhone and iPad has this thing called Safari on it. You can find some really outrageous stuff on the web, if you want, and some of it's in HTML5! I mean, really, what a tempest in a teapot. Boobie apps? Seriously? This is "freedom."

If Congress passes a law to shut down porn on the Internet, I'd be against. But seriously, Boobie apps?

I'm sorry, but I totally disagree. If you want to look at porn, subscribe to Playboy, or use your browser. There is absolutely no need for Apple to allow Porn apps in their store. A company's image does still exist in today's world, and Apple allowing porn Apps is just plain distasteful and sleezy. You can talk about adding parental controls restricting searches within iTunes, but kids would stumble upon it elsewhere. You argue the option should exist for those users that would choose to view it. So, basically because people want it, Steve and Apple should make it? Um...no. It's not your company. Deal with it. This country isn't so free yet you can demand what other corporations can do. This is just like Adobe crying about Flash not being allowed on a product that isn't even theirs. Tough luck. Make your own company and you can do whatever you wish with it.

While I respect the fact that people want to absorb content in a manner that is easy, Porn has no place in a professional company store like Apple. If you want it in the App store, do you also want a porn magazine rack in every brick & mortar Apple Store? What about Best Buy...do you want to buy porn there?

So...
How can you complain that Apple is denying you a lack of choice, when you are doing THE EXACT SAME THING TO APPLE? You're all saying that YOU have that right of choice, but Apple - the creators of the devices - doesn't?

You have tons of choices. Jailbreak. Android. Pre. Windows Phone 7.

If you want porn, last time I checked, there was no shortage of it on the internet.

you have seriously all missed the point, something major!

you seem to assume that i want porn on the apple store? i never suggested such a thing - i said that if people want to then it could be a route for apple to go down, they are a company who wants money. it certainly would bring in plenty of it!

my point here is based about the availability of services from the app store. there are LOTS of limitations on the apple store, apple doesnt let competition from say, particular web browsers because they might compete with the built in safari - etc.

and dont try the "go somewhere else then" excuse - the arguement doesnt expand that far. if i wanted a product that DIDNT work, i would buy them then

why so harsh everybody? isn't somebody allowed to have their own opinion? i am sure that lots of (no-creepy) people support my ideas. i agree with a lot of your points and disagree with a lot too. no need to bash the hell out of me because your view point differs from mine.

p.s. i wonder if this is a major point why apple doesnt support flash

p.s.s from what i see it as, SJs arguement was something like "we want to protect the kids - but we might possibly maybe do whatever we want however we see fit"

No, emphatically no! There is absolutely no reason Apple should pander to unprincipled fools like you. Go somewhere else for your porn, you idiot.

i sure hope that you get banned for that that's just rediculous for you to even suggest that - you dont even know me

 

[Carniphage]

As I said the availability of pornographic material is meaningless in this context. It's the Steve Jobs arguments which he outlines as the reason for the companies stance that remain the subject of interest. As you said the exclusion of porn is not to protect children but to protect their brand image. Therefore we can assume that at least one of Steve Jobs arguments is based on lie. This raises questions regarding moral integrity of Steve Jobs. What other "freedoms" are just there for some totally other purpose (ban on cross platform dev tools, flash etc.) Regarding totalitarianism I think you are referring to totalitarian government when we should in this current context talk about totalitarian management and in some extent the psychodynamics of organisational totalitarianism.

I don't see any lie.

There is a sizeable number of consumers who would prefer to not have their markets crammed with porn.

I am vociferously anti-censorship, but I was surprised to see street newspaper vendors in Germany selling hard-core pornography (with hard core content on the cover)

Some consumers prefer to not be subjected to adult content - for all sorts of reasons.

I think the correct word for this is "protection". But it's not a lie to term this a "freedom".

It's really not unusual for companies, or politicians to spin their policies in a positive way.

C.

 

[Fraaaa]

800 comments and people is still argueing over this?
How long does it take for the the average-user to understand don't like/don't buy rule?

 

[DoFoT9]

800 comments and people is still argueing over this?
How long does it take for the the average-user to understand don't like/don't buy rule?

exactly if you dont like the app dont buy it.. oh wait we dont have the choice.

hahaha

 

[odedia]

I really don't get it. There's a great porn app on the iPad.

It's called Safari.

 

[gathart]

Can't agree more with Jobs.

You know when you by apple products that there is a certain about of restriction control.

Same thing as if you enter a Chinese restaurant and ask for pizza. If you want pizza go to Pizza hut...

and tbh I actually am glad that Apple has such a more stand.

 

[gathart]

I don't see any lie.

There is a sizeable number of consumers who would prefer to not have their markets crammed with porn.

I am vociferously anti-censorship, but I was surprised to see street newspaper vendors in Germany selling hard-core pornography (with hard core content on the cover)

Some consumers prefer to not be subjected to adult content - for all sorts of reasons.

I think the correct word for this is "protection". But it's not a lie to term this a "freedom".

It's really not unusual for companies, or politicians to spin their policies in a positive way.

C.

But you have a choice: get an android or an MS OS notebook and you can get as much porn as you like.

It's like going to a restaurant: don't expect chinses food in an italian restaurant. That is not censorship it's just a different market.