Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

eleven2brett

macrumors regular
Oct 20, 2008
224
0
H-Town
The iphone, or any camera can be used to send pictures that are way more offensive and adult in nature than a simple ADULT comedy show. My opinion, parents need to be the censors. I know they can't be around all the time, but they need to have more sense than give a kid an iPhone or an ipod. If the kid is old enough to pay for that stuff himself though, he's probably watching south park anyway.
 

cubedweller

macrumors 6502
Nov 25, 2007
305
52
Censorship from a private company doesn't set a bad example, it sets a good example. It's called responsibility. No censorship at all would quickly result in the iPhone becoming associated with porn. You can imagine the stories on the news about kids using the iPhone at school to watch porn, and watch it via apps that Apple sells on its app store. It would be terrible for Apple's reputation.

Kids can already use the current iteration of the iPhone to access porn. There are tons of iPhone-based web apps for this purpose alone. Lots of these sites will even stream video. And.........wait for it......yes, kids can even load these sites while in class! The horror!

All joking aside, objectionable content is already readily available on the iPhone to anyone who wants it. Rejecting this app doesn't protect Apple (or their reputation) from this fact. It just further alienates their developer base which will ultimately hurt YOU -- the end user.
 

slu

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2004
1,636
107
Buffalo
They aren't really saying jailbreaking is illegal - they are just saying it violates the terms of the agreement (again, something that you signed/agreed to and they are the ones that made it so, tough *****, you willingly entered the sandbox so don't get all riled up about the edges).

I like SouthPark but I honestly couldn't give a crap about this. It is about Apple having a sense of decency, it is also about Apple not having a system set up for restricting access to offensive material (which I'm sure they'll reconcile shortly). The FCC does it, Apple does it, your local news does it, don't act so freakin' shocked...

I'd rather have Apple maintain some sense of control over offensive material until they are ready to restrict it to the appropriate parties then have the lawsuits flowing from PO'd parents about how their kids ended up looking at something like pron that was OK'd by Apple (I know SouthPark isn't pron but that's really the crux of the argument here - the restriction of Adult material to Adults).

Flame away...

Apple's current stance on jailbreaking: http://consumerist.com/5153597/appl...orthy-of-jail-time-2500-fine?skyline=true&s=x

Your tone aside, I agree with you to a point. Apple can sell whatever they want in their store. But once I buy the phone, I should be able to do whatever I want to it. And if I don't like the service provided by Apple there are many alternatives, but that doesn't change the fact that I own the hardware. And please, let's not compare the FCC and broadcast TV to the App Store. The content for those is regulated by the Governement because they use public airwaves. If anything, this the iPhone ecosystem is more like cable TV, where there is no government content regulation (Even though this comparison is crappy as well since neither of these examples sell you or control the hardware you use. If you bought your TV from the FCC and they told you that you could not do what you want with the TV even though you bought it, it might be a viable comparison.).

And since when is Apple the decency police? I'd rather have parents be responsible for what their children are doing. This "OMG, won't someone please think of the children" stuff is a bunch of crap and you know it.

An iPhone can reach places on the internet that are not good for children either. Why doesn't Apple block any websites if this whole issue is about protecting the precious little children?
 

alchemistmuffin

macrumors 6502a
Dec 28, 2007
718
692
This is the reason why Apple needs to create a separate iPhone Game section on the iTunes store, and implement ESRB rating for the US store.

But pretty much for now, Viacom is pretty much banned from BEING in the iPhone developer program.

I think the rejection was done by Steve Jobs.
 

iLunar

macrumors 6502
Jul 23, 2006
350
2,079
Kids can already use the current iteration of the iPhone to access porn. There are tons of iPhone-based web apps for this purpose alone. Lots of these sites will even stream video. And.........wait for it......yes, kids can even load these sites while in class! The horror!

But it all comes down to liability. If Apple allows offensive material through "their" distribution channel aka the App store, they are liable. If a kid accesses objectionable material from the internet using another distribution channel on the internet but just happens to be on an iPhone, that is a completely different situation.

Just because objectionable content is easily accessible doesn't mean Apple wouldn't/shouldn't be liable should that content be distributed through their channels.
 

jlanganki

macrumors newbie
Feb 17, 2009
9
0
Dear Apple

Dear Apple,

I am being shown inappropriate content on your Safari web browser. Please remove the Safari web browser from my iPhone.
 

alchemistmuffin

macrumors 6502a
Dec 28, 2007
718
692
Dear Apple,

I am being shown inappropriate content on your Safari web browser. Please remove the Safari web browser from my iPhone.


You can.

You can disable Safari via Parental Control.

Many parents who let their kids have iPhone DO NOT even know that it has built in parental control that lets them disable Safari, YouTube, Explicit Songs on iPod, iTunes, App Store, and even Camera. And the best part, if the kid tries to type in passcode, and they get it wrong 10 times, they have the option to have the whole data from the phone wiped clean, and locked until synced with iTunes.
 

unfrozen.jon

macrumors member
Sep 23, 2007
51
0
Canada
I'm a Mac guy, we're about to add a third Mac to our house (Mac Pro for high capacity media server/gaming) and my wife and I both have iPhones. And yes sometimes I'm a bit much of an Apple fanboy defending them at every turn but this kind of draconian control makes me think twice about getting future iPhone models if Apple is going to continue this way.

I can watch all the south park epsiodes I buy off iTunes on my iPhone but an app from a TV show thats proved lucrative for iTunes isn't allowed for the same content Apple profits off of in iTunes?
 

slu

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2004
1,636
107
Buffalo
But it all comes down to liability. If Apple allows offensive material through "their" distribution channel aka the App store, they are liable. If a kid accesses objectionable material from the internet using another distribution channel on the internet but just happens to be on an iPhone, that is a completely different situation.

Just because objectionable content is easily accessible doesn't mean Apple wouldn't/shouldn't be liable should that content be distributed through their channels.

Liable for what?

And using your example, then AT&T should be liable if a kid uses Safari on the iPhone to access "objectionable" content because they provide the distribution channel.

If my kid stays up late and watches South Park is Comcast Liable or Comedy Central?

This whole nonsense is nothing but noise anyway. It is not preventing kids from doing anything.
 

MidtownFreak

macrumors newbie
Feb 4, 2009
10
0
Apparently, iLunar is the only person in this thread that has successfully read between the lines.

It's NOT that Apple is censoring the app, it's that they are not finished with implementing parental controls FOR the app store. As soon as they are done with that, they can move on.

Currently, Apple IS liable for nearly all of the content that is on the App Store. Because, they provide the channel AND collect revenue (remember 30% goes to them!) from individual app sales. Thus, they can be held liable through varying degrees for the content.

As for those of you that think that it's nonsense and can't happen, don't forget about FEPA! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act

Need evidence that this is the case for Apple's rejection? Re-read the quote silly.

Why would Apple encourage them by citing an instance (the allowing of explicit content on iTunes) that was eventually resolved? Duh. Because, then, like now, they did not have parental controls and/or had finished conducting surveys on whether or not to allow questionable content. Fortunately, that was eventually resolved and we can all now enjoy the vulgarity. :)
 

zombitronic

macrumors 65816
Feb 9, 2007
1,127
39
I think the rejection may have more to do with the fact that the app would stream content that you'd otherwise have to pay for (via the iTunes store). Maybe Apple is holding off until the "iTunes Replay" On-Demand Video service is ready.



AppleInsider reports that Apple is developing an on-demand video service that would allow users to stream their purchased iTunes movies and TV shows from Apple's servers for playback on personal devices. The service, to be called "iTunes Replay", would eliminate the need for users to provide significant storage space for their libraries of purchased digital video.

In particular, devices with limited storage capacity, such as the iPhone/iPod touch and Apple TV, could benefit from this service, removing the need to sync with a host computer to load desired video files and circumventing storage capacity constraints of the portable devices.AppleInsider notes that while Amazon's Video on Demand and Netflix's Instant Watch services provide similar functionality, DRM requirements imposed by content owners have resulted in certain limitations on playback ability, generally requiring an Internet browser. Apple, however, has already integrated DRM tools into its devices, which would allow for a more flexible viewing experience for users.

Apple has been known to be exploring streaming iTunes media to the iPhone and iPod touch, with a recent patent application addressing the ability for users to stream their own at-home iTunes libraries to their mobile devices while on the go.

Article Link: 'iTunes Replay' On-Demand Video Coming?
 

unfrozen.jon

macrumors member
Sep 23, 2007
51
0
Canada
Apparently, iLunar is the only person in this thread that has successfully read between the lines.

It's NOT that Apple is censoring the app, it's that they are not finished with implementing parental controls FOR the app store. As soon as they are done with that, they can move on.

Currently, Apple IS liable for nearly all of the content that is on the App Store. Because, they provide the channel AND collect revenue (remember 30% goes to them!) from individual app sales. Thus, they can be held liable through varying degrees for the content.

As for those of you that think that it's nonsense and can't happen, don't forget about FEPA! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act

Need evidence that this is the case for Apple's rejection? Re-read the quote silly.

Why would Apple encourage them by citing an instance (the allowing of explicit content on iTunes) that was eventually resolved? Duh. Because, then, like now, they did not have parental controls and/or had finished conducting surveys on whether or not to allow questionable content. Fortunately, that was eventually resolved and we can all now enjoy the vulgarity. :)

Not trying to be rude but what about Amateur Surgeon:

http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=299186925&mt=8

It has a disclaimer and a rating.

and the app store game ratings section, is this based off a standardized game rating system?

http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/gameRatings


If so too bad that South Park was interested in jumping through hoops to relabel their app as a game to get it on the app store quicker.
 

BRussell

macrumors member
Aug 25, 2002
53
20
Kids can already use the current iteration of the iPhone to access porn. There are tons of iPhone-based web apps for this purpose alone. Lots of these sites will even stream video. And.........wait for it......yes, kids can even load these sites while in class! The horror!

All joking aside, objectionable content is already readily available on the iPhone to anyone who wants it. Rejecting this app doesn't protect Apple (or their reputation) from this fact. It just further alienates their developer base which will ultimately hurt YOU -- the end user.

You'll have to send me the link to those so I can evaluate it myself.
 

alchemistmuffin

macrumors 6502a
Dec 28, 2007
718
692
Liable for what?

And using your example, then AT&T should be liable if a kid uses Safari on the iPhone to access "objectionable" content because they provide the distribution channel.

If my kid stays up late and watches South Park is Comcast Liable or Comedy Central?

This whole nonsense is nothing but noise anyway. It is not preventing kids from doing anything.

Do you use parental control for iPhone when you let your kids use it?

Apparently, not many parents do not know that this feature exists.
 

Miker2k

macrumors regular
Feb 2, 2009
135
0
I find the many iterations of the 'fart' applications to be much more offensive (and stupid mind you) than South Park is.
 

MidtownFreak

macrumors newbie
Feb 4, 2009
10
0
If so too bad that South Park was interested in jumping through hoops to relabel their app as a game to get it on the app store quicker.

Interesting find, I was not aware that Apple had a game rating system in place.


Well, if the app was not labeled as a game, then that would give Apple enough justification for not hosting it until they've decided to figure out/extend the system to all apps.
 

quinney

macrumors member
Jul 22, 2007
55
0
Consider the possibility that the South Park guys deliberately wrote
the application to be so offensive that it would be rejected. There
will indeed be an episode about the rejection. It is indeed a publicity
stunt, but by the South Park guys, not Apple.
 

blindzero

macrumors regular
Nov 28, 2006
198
47
Consider the possibility that the South Park guys deliberately wrote
the application to be so offensive that it would be rejected. There
will indeed be an episode about the rejection. It is indeed a publicity
stunt, but by the South Park guys, not Apple.

And what a hilarious episode it will be.. the show airing on the same date the app will be officially released in the App Store...
 

aristotle

macrumors 68000
Mar 13, 2007
1,768
5
Canada
There are a ton of Java apps. No need to support Apple's proprietary and closed platform.
That's nice. How does that make the phone work with OS X, have a usable UI, work effectively as an MP3 player that I can sync to with iTMS? What about fact that those allegedly "open" phones are often locked down to a carrier's online store for purchasing ringtones for 3-4 bucks. I speak from experience with previous phones that I had on Roger which I could not add my own ringtones onto.

Go right ahead and go back to using your crappy phone with overpriced Java games with 2d graphics.

Where are all of these tons of Java apps that you speak of? How much do they cost and how much to they cost to download? Remember that most phones that are java based are usually not "smart phones" and are usually not bundled with data plans.
 

Winni

macrumors 68040
Oct 15, 2008
3,207
1,196
Germany.
"Hail to the king, baby!"

It always blows me away that Apple can do whatever fascist crap they won't, and there will still be someone here who will defend them with his last drop of blood. For some, Apple just can't do anything wrong.

This is just another reason to boycott that big brother iPhone platform. And I've lost count how many reasons there have already been before Apple did not approve this little app.

Or to bring it to the point: This entire AppStore concept is reason enough to NOT buy an iPhone or iPod Touch. I want to install whatever app -- I -- want -- WITHOUT -- having to go through Apple's AppStore. This is yet another anti-competitive control measure from Apple. Microsoft can learn a lot from them. Especially how to be evil and still have fanboys.
 

iLunar

macrumors 6502
Jul 23, 2006
350
2,079
Liable for what?

And using your example, then AT&T should be liable if a kid uses Safari on the iPhone to access "objectionable" content because they provide the distribution channel.

No, AT&T is protected by DCMA from 1996. AT&T is not hosting or distributing objectionable content, Apple would be in the App store.

If my kid stays up late and watches South Park is Comcast Liable or Comedy Central?

If Comedy Central failed to put up appropriate warnings out lined by the FCC, then yes, they would be held liable. Remember Janet Jackson/Superbowl/Nipplegate fiasco? That case has yet to be settled.
 

MagnusVonMagnum

macrumors 603
Jun 18, 2007
5,193
1,442
This is absolutely ridiculous. If the iPhone starts to slide backwards, it will be because the insistence of Apple's leadership to push their personal preferences upon the user, not anything the competition is doing.

Don't forget that they are the SOLE outlet for iPhone software (short of hacking) *AND* they rake 30% right off the top to boot. The point is they never should be allowed to monopolize ANY market like that, whether it be the software for the iPhone or the hardware for OS X. But fanboyz galore think it's A-OK because Apple "owns" that property (intellectual or otherwise) and they are 'allowed' to do ANYTHING they want with it whether you like it or not if you don't, go buy someone else's product and leave the fanboyz alone with their censored hardware.
 

bug67

macrumors regular
Feb 1, 2007
155
0
Alaska
So, who died and left Apple in charge of the "What people should think" department? Aren't people other than Apple able to decide for themselves what is "offensive" or not? Fascists!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.