or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple changes App Store policy on 'overtly sexual content'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple changes App Store policy on 'overtly sexual content' - Page 5

post #161 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lockelo View Post

There needs to be an adult app section with different levels of parental control and access.


Really? Why? Why does there HAVE to be an adult section? My video store doesn't. They just don't want to have it, and in fact there isn't another rental store in the neighborhood. And no one calls it censorship or a monopoly. They just go elsewhere.

Why must anyone have a section to accommodate anything, if their decision is to not carry it? Why must they carry it?


People have a strange idea of what censorship is legally defined as.
post #162 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

there isn't another rental store in the neighborhood. And no one calls it censorship or a monopoly. They just go elsewhere.

The difference in your example is people CAN go elsewhere.

Image receiving a notice stating that, by living in your town, you MUST get all of your videos from that store. And in the event someone feels that's BS and goes to another source, the store has the right to "brick" their TV and erase any videos they may own.

Any neighborhood would understandably be in arms & stand up against such intrusion. But Apple does the same thing and we go along like little sheep....

Look, I'm not making a case for porn. What I am saying is there's something fundamentally wrong about Apple being the sole gatekeeper between a consumer's device and its content. There's a crowd that'll argue "If you don't like it go somewhere else". If Apple gets too obsessed with control, that might be good advice.
post #163 of 185
I see the hypocrites are out in force tonight, likely all have a "honk for jesus" bumper sticker next to their Apple one.

To me this is not a PORN issue - none of the apps involved are porn to begin with, scantily clad woman/men - sure. Porn -no.

As much as the book burners want to scream about porn and it's ill effects it's been challenged in courts over and over and unless it's sick / child it's not going anywhere. Do you understand the porn actually drove most of the technology adoption? VCR - porn, Cable/Sat - porn, Internet - porn. Mobility is the next platform and porn is right there. If you don't like it - don't purchase / view it. The funny thing is your neighbor, boss likely is.

Now Apple is toeing a Anti-Trust precendent here and what they need to do is put in writing exactly WHAT their AppStore policy for apps is. Put it out there in black and white and this won't happen. You can't APPROVE Apps and then a year later decide it's not what you wanted. To make it worse it seems big pocketed developers (Playboy, Maxim, SI) Apps are not being removed.

If the FCC and others poked around due to Google Voice, you can bet actions will be taken on this regardless if it's Apple's store or not.

I'd like all religious Apps removed as they offend me. This should be church and state.

Another growing thought is Apple needs to be broken apart. iTunes is too large and powerful now and should be seperated from Apple the hardware company.
post #164 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

I would be interested in what you meant. It certainly sounded like you were saying that Apple wasn't complying with the laws of the land.

Sorry that wasn't the intention. What I mean is that politicians are a good representation of the needs and preferences of the community. The laws in place regarding this kind of thing therefore also represent the line that the majority of society is comfortable with. If Apple were to loosely align their policy in similar terms (whereas the restrictions in the law is an obligation, but also a reference for what people are comfortable with) they would make the most amount of people happy, most of the time.
post #165 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

Sorry that wasn't the intention. What I mean is that politicians are a good representation of the needs and preferences of the community. The laws in place regarding this kind of thing therefore also represent the line that the majority of society is comfortable with. If Apple were to loosely align their policy in similar terms (whereas the restrictions in the law is an obligation, but also a reference for what people are comfortable with) they would make the most amount of people happy, most of the time.

It would appear that based on Apple's current sales trends and the success of the iTunes Store as well as the general feelings of the developer community, that is exactly what Apple is doing.

Certainly most communities don't want a porn shop in their neighbor hood. Most parents don't want 'sexual content' on their kids computers; they also don't want their kids' friends to have it on their's either.

Simply stated, most people just don't want overtly sexual content flashing in front of their face. Apple is just complying with the wishes of the majority. As for this idea that you should be able to do anything that you want to on something you own, try telling your kids it is all right to pee in your pool.

Any suggestion that putting a parental controlled 'backroom' on the Apple iTunes Store would satisfy everybody, is ludicrous. Think that such a strategy would or could prevent access by any segment of the population is even more ludicrous.

As for "…politicians are a good representation of the needs and preferences of the community…" I don' know of anybody that wants increased taxation, but I do know a lot of people that want more better access to healthcare. Just a couple of examples that our representatives just seem bound not to give us at any time.
post #166 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

As for this idea that you should be able to do anything that you want to on something you own, try telling your kids it is all right to pee in your pool.

I love this place!
post #167 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

It would appear that based on Apple's current sales trends and the success of the iTunes Store as well as the general feelings of the developer community, that is exactly what Apple is doing.

Certainly most communities don't want a porn shop in their neighbor hood. Most parents don't want 'sexual content' on their kids computers; they also don't want their kids' friends to have it on their's either.

Simply stated, most people just don't want overtly sexual content flashing in front of their face. Apple is just complying with the wishes of the majority. As for this idea that you should be able to do anything that you want to on something you own, try telling your kids it is all right to pee in your pool.

Any suggestion that putting a parental controlled 'backroom' on the Apple iTunes Store would satisfy everybody, is ludicrous. Think that such a strategy would or could prevent access by any segment of the population is even more ludicrous.

As for "…politicians are a good representation of the needs and preferences of the community…" I don' know of anybody that wants increased taxation, but I do know a lot of people that want more better access to healthcare. Just a couple of examples that our representatives just seem bound not to give us at any time.

I agree with much of what you've said here, and the idea of content in people's face is not what most of us want at all. I have no interest in it either and I've not really commented on that aspect so I again agree with your points there. As a side note, no sale controls are absolute anyhow for any product or any type of store.

As to the point about politicians representing us that remains a fact. They are representative most of the time. Using your example, in almost every country in the world the cost of healthcare is vastly less than it is in the US, with a smaller proportional change in tax, which invariably does please more people, most of the time, in a global sense.

Politicians are not genies though. They can't rub a pot and grant every wish, as much as they'd like to please more voters. The laws relating to both healthcare and tax represent what the community accepted at the time, though with hindsight everyone knows its not a satisfactory outcome.
post #168 of 185
So I was surfing the iTunes store with a 12 year old virgin sitting next to me, and lo and behold, what did I stumble across!?

http://itunes.apple.com/app/playboy/id340150554?mt=8

The poor girl was traumatized. Apple needs to get out of the smut business, and FAST!
post #169 of 185
Yes I saw some of apps have been disappeared from the app store buat still playboy and Sport Illustrated Swimsuit app still there very "exhibited pictures" meaning it is not clear what is the definition of overtly sexual????? Meaning women with transparent dress still ok? if the app came from big company?? or no way for small developer?
post #170 of 185
I will try and explain the situation in a simple way.

Apple is an American corporation. American corporations must toe the dominant American cultural line.

In the dominant American cultural experience, the most offensive thing is the sight of the naked human body. If we were to compare offensiveness quantitatively, a moving image of the naked female body would be more than 10 times as offensive as a moving image of a person shooting another person. A naked male body would be more than 20 times as offensive.

The dominant American cultural experience is invoked by the need to keep their young men sexually suppressed and violent and aggressive so that they will develop an interest primarily in wealth and possessions, and the acquisition of wealth and possessions through business transactions and war. This suppression is achieved through saturation of the adolescent experience with violent games, television and sport, and absolute suppression of all sexual content.

An American who is beholden to the dominant cultural imperative has as his or her worst fear that his or her child might see a naked adult. These kind of American's engage in a kind of psycho-cultural suppression of the infant experience of being suckled at the breast. There is a special kind of disdain in this American culture for the sight of a female nipple. For example, the sight of Janet Jackson's bared nipple in a major US television event caused nationwide outrage.

In light of this analysis, it is easy to see why the US has one of the world's highest rate of sexual disfunction including impotence, premature ejaculation and failure to achieve arousal in women... AND why there is no room for sexually-oriented content on the Apple iPhone App Store.
post #171 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

So I was surfing the iTunes store with a 12 year old virgin sitting next to me, and lo and behold, what did I stumble across!?

http://itunes.apple.com/app/playboy/id340150554?mt=8

The poor girl was traumatized. Apple needs to get out of the smut business, and FAST!

Yeah. And they should remove Safari, too.
post #172 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless View Post

Yeah. And they should remove Safari, too.

Nah, just make it so you can only browse "safe" pages "approved" by Apple.

While we're at it, let's open our iPhones to random remote inspection by Apple as well. Any photos, emails, music etc. deemed "objectionable" would be automatically removed.

If Apple wants control, at least do it right.

(Hmmm... if the "1984" commercial was re-filmed today, which side would Apple represent??)
post #173 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

Then I would suggest that you tell that to the authors who stated,

predators often send adult porn to children to desensitize them from sexual content and child porn to show the child that other children are sexual; sending them a message that it is okay.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...&client=safari

Or an FBI Congressional Testimony: http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress...bach050102.htm

In context and not cherry picked, I don't think the authors would find what I said particularly interesting or contrary to their study.
post #174 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

safeway still won't stock a lifesize sex doll. Stores can sell what they want or not sell what they don't want.

I'm not familiar Safeway, but if they are somewhere that people may expect to buy a lifesize sex doll, or if the presence of a lifesize sex doll fits with the type of goods they sell, but they are not carrying it on moral grounds, I would argue against that form of censorship too. Obviously I would never suggest they must carry anything; as you mentioned they can sell what they want or not sell what they don't want, as they are a private company.
post #175 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by airspeed View Post


Bravo Apple. Porn or any overtly sexual material is not wanted or needed in the App store by me.

Fixed that for you.
post #176 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post

So much better put & to the point then how I stated it, bravo! Agreed, people whining about loosing access to porn apps on the iTunes store can just create their own web apps from sites on the web. Look at it this way, now you won't have to pay a few bucks just to see something you probably could have found elsewhere for free.

... missing the point completely. And who's whining about not having access to porn apps? From what I can read the thread is more about Apple's decision to censor based on an ambiguous and abusable policy.
post #177 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

So I was surfing the iTunes store with a 12 year old virgin sitting next to me, and lo and behold, what did I stumble across!?

http://itunes.apple.com/app/playboy/id340150554?mt=8

The poor girl was traumatized. Apple needs to get out of the smut business, and FAST!

Good idea - everyone should only paticipate in activities that are fully understood by and suitable for a 12 year old! Age based access restrictions be damned, everyone should conform to the lowest common denominator!
post #178 of 185
We're ok with violence, but we can't handle a few boobs. Does this seem backward to anyone else but me?

How bout they remove anything "overtly violent" from the app store?

This irritates me 1) that apple is acting as a content censor at all. 2) they are caving in to complaints by puritanical jack-asses.
post #179 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by estyle View Post

There are thousands of bookstores that choose not to sell porn (or erotic) magazines.

Why shouldn't apple have this choice?

Plenty of stores that serve the larger population that don't sell those kind of movies either (in Europe as well!).

Think Best Buy, Borders, Barnes & Nobles, Target, Sears, Harrods, Stockmann(Finland), Kaufhof(Germany), Le Printemps(France)

THe retailer that wants to attract a larger more diverse clientele has the right to selectively not offer certain products that they feel will hurt that larger customer base.

Since very few of the porn or overtly sexual apps have been in the top ten of free or paid or top grossing, it represents a niche for the App Store, and probably is not worth losing more significant business over.

I don't think it has to do with moral attitude as much as with dollars.

The retailers you mentioned sell lots of media with boobs and bikinis - even stuff (books and movies) that could be considered to be "overtly sexual", and contain nudity and sexual themes.
post #180 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdyates View Post

We're ok with violence, but we can't handle a few boobs. Does this seem backward to anyone else but me?

How bout they remove anything "overtly violent" from the app store?

This irritates me 1) that apple is acting as a content censor at all. 2) they are caving in to complaints by puritanical jack-asses.

I agree with the viewpoint that sex should be less offensive than violence but at the same time, there's no denying that sexual content causes physical reactions where violence does not.

If you were to see a poster of a naked girl while driving, you could have an accident. If you saw one while jogging in your spandex in a park where children were nearby and something came up, you'd have a lot to answer for.

When you see violent images however, you are not in any way inclined to walk over to someone and punch them.

I think one good reason to keep the sexual content out is that it stifles everything else. Any app that has boobs or girls or sex in the title immediately has a bigger draw than an app that's actually useful. If it gets more traffic then developers start to see what sells and follow the same route. Then we get inundated with useless apps.

This is what has happened to advertising online. You never see ads that really have anything that would truly benefit you, it's always teeth whitening or quick-fix abs or stories about how some teenager is getting paid loads by Google designed to make you click it because you think you deserve it more than them or ways to meet girls in your area luring you in with pictures of pornstars only to discover you just really need to find a better area to live in.

It drags the whole system into the gutter.

On the other hand, if I want a porn app on my iphone, I should be allowed to put one on. Allowing external sources seems like the only way to do this and Apple could even have approved external sources that aren't referenced from the App Store.
post #181 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

On the other hand, if I want a porn app on my iphone, I should be allowed to put one on. Allowing external sources seems like the only way to do this and Apple could even have approved external sources that aren't referenced from the App Store.

Yes. Bingo. Agreed.

Apple let itself in for a world of hurt when it decided to become the sole vendor of iPhone Apps.

I've got to come down on the side that they can sell or not sell anything they want. I understand that they do not want to sell certain material.

But where they stepped on their pud was making it a policy that nobody else could sell this material for installation on the iPhone.

It changes the equation from "what Apple sells" to "what Apple allows its customers to have".

They would have no problems with accusations of censorship, double standards, boneheaded puritanical thinking or any of the rest IF they were not the sole source for apps.

I don't like locking myself in to a single vendor. It is rarely a wise move. And I think that the recent bad publicity will make more folks rethink whether being locked in to the AppStore makes sense for them.
post #182 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Yes. Bingo. Agreed.

Apple let itself in for a world of hurt when it decided to become the sole vendor of iPhone Apps.

I've got to come down on the side that they can sell or not sell anything they want. I understand that they do not want to sell certain material.

But where they stepped on their pud was making it a policy that nobody else could sell this material for installation on the iPhone.

It changes the equation from "what Apple sells" to "what Apple allows its customers to have".

They would have no problems with accusations of censorship, double standards, boneheaded puritanical thinking or any of the rest IF they were not the sole source for apps.

I don't like locking myself in to a single vendor. It is rarely a wise move. And I think that the recent bad publicity will make more folks rethink whether being locked in to the AppStore makes sense for them.

Agree. Would say 100% agree, but then there are jailbroken phones, so there is a way how to get the content you want on your iPhone. It makes the platform less secure, compared to scenario, where you can install apps from external sources, in the way Android handles this (tick on single checkbox in the system settings).

But I feel we will see this trend to continue and possibly we'll see AppStore for mac applications for OS X 10.7
post #183 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by sippincider View Post

(Hmmm... if the "1984" commercial was re-filmed today, which side would Apple represent??)

Well not only that, but did you see the way her bust iWobbled while she was running in that 1984 commercial? Scandalous! I cant believe a moral and upstanding company such as Apple would attach their name to something that could be construed as overtly sexual in nature as this commercial.

The thing that has me most concerned about this new policy is that Playboy, SIs Swimsuit issue, and a few other Apps are still on there. Selectively enforcing this policy is a bad idea.
post #184 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So here's a test for you.

Say a developer wanted to sell a "Find a Child for sex" App.

According to you they should be entitled to do so.

LINES MUST BE DRAWN.

It's where those lines lie that creates the dilemma for Apple.

btw is that the same Internet that is freely accessible from Apple devices?


Yeah, they should not be censored. Since child pornography is criminal act, they should get prosecuted, and likely put in jail, but any form of censorship is way worse than what it tries to "protect" us from.
post #185 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So here's a test for you.

Say a developer wanted to sell a "Find a Child for sex" App.

According to you they should be entitled to do so.

LINES MUST BE DRAWN.

It's where those lines lie that creates the dilemma for Apple.

btw is that the same Internet that is freely accessible from Apple devices?

This has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever read.

But to answer your question, yes, if that developer wanted to, he can create and submit it to Apple for review. There's absolutely nothing that can stop him from downloading the SDK and creating the app in his home. That's his right.

Once he submits it to the App Store, I hope that the monitors would be smart enough to raise red flags and forward the contact information to the police for investigation and remove the app quickly.

But with different levels of controls in place and properly implimented, I see no problems with having a section for adult apps.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple changes App Store policy on 'overtly sexual content'