AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's 'overtly sexual' iPhone crackdown purges 5,000 apps
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's 'overtly sexual' iPhone crackdown purges 5,000 apps - Page 4

post #121 of 195
2/22/10 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJJ View Post

Double agree. The problem is not Apple's decision so much, rather their clearly offensive double standard on parade again. If you're taking 5,000+ apps out of the store that are "racy", and leaving Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition (TIME Inc), Maxim and Playboy in, there's an obvious favoritism going on.

This is a great point. Is Playboy, Maxim, and other big names still being offered on the app store with partial nudity? If so that is where the problem lies.
Reply
Reply
post #122 of 195
2/22/10 at 1:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Because there is no guarantee that it works.

Even if you block your kid, his best buddy may not be.

And there is nothing to stop anybody from getting their own iTunes Store account.

...which is what makes banning 'questionable' apps completely useless and asinine.

If Apple decided to release an update that blocked all data from the iPhone, to protect their users from coming in contact with the filthy internet, the exact same arguments to defend the actions in this thread would be used.


incredible.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #123 of 195
2/22/10 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I think that raises the question as to how the apps in question got approved in the first place, since a lot of the apps in question weren't hiding what they're about. How is having switchmasters helpful if they find they were asleep at the switch for months on end and nobody checked up on their work?

If I am not mistaken nearly 10,000 apps are submitted weekly.

Basically, the main priority is that the app works, which computerized simulators checks can do quite easily.

The subjective classification takes much longer. Poorly, vaguely or falsely written descriptions can extend the reviewing time. And lets face it, some developers are very good at hiding their intent.

Again, read the SDK agreements. Jobs' obviously relied on the developers to conform to the violent/sexual guidelines and Apple reviewers' inexperience took their word and/or simply gave them the benefit of the doubt. Bottom line, Apple always reserved their right to change their minds; developers know that and except for a couple(?), we are not complaining.

Right now, the 4,000 delisted apps represents 2.5% of all the apps in the iTunes App Store. And we have heard from how many developers? Surely there must be one Larry Flynt amongst them.
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 195
2/22/10 at 2:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

...which is what makes banning 'questionable' apps completely useless and asinine.

If Apple decided to release an update that blocked all data from the iPhone, to protect their users from coming in contact with the filthy internet, the exact same arguments to defend the actions in this thread would be used.


incredible.

No different if you came into my home and I banned your from smoking. True, you can leave and drag as much as you want. However, you can't question my intent for considering my health is more important than yours.

Bottom line; no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to smoke in my house, even if you came in the back door.
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 195
2/22/10 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

There's no guarantee that anything works. If someone else's kid is going to be considered a possible vector, then you have every other avenue and media to contend with as well.

Yes it does work for the iPod touch and iPhone.

I don't care how good, bad or indifferent someone else's kid is, he/she is not going to put something on your kids' iPod touch or iPhone if it isn't in the store in the first place.
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 195
2/22/10 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

It's almost like anything passes for an argument to defend Apple's actions.

Seems like a mountain out of a molehill to me. I'd say "much ado about nothing", except that I think there is a very important element that many are missing, in that Apple is acting to protect its most important asset, its brand image.

Remember that the education market is very important to Apple, and it has fostered a very family friendly brand. The last thing Apple needs is to be labeled broadly as a publisher of adult content. I don't think for a minute that Steve Jobs or anybody else at Apple cares what people choose to view on their iPhone. In fact it's easy enough to load pictures or video, and use Safari to search the web. There simply is no compelling reason for Apple to be publishing adult content related apps, especially since they have been receiving complaints about it.
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 195
2/22/10 at 2:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


It's almost like anything passes for an argument to defend Apple's actions.

The other thing that comes to mind about this statement is the opposite. It's almost like anything here passes for an argument to bash Apple. Why wouldn't you expect people here to defend Apple? It is Appleinsider after all.
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 195
2/22/10 at 3:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Yes it does work for the iPod touch and iPhone.

I don't care how good, bad or indifferent someone else's kid is, he/she is not going to put something on your kids' iPod touch or iPhone if it isn't in the store in the first place.

This is totally incorrect. What is on the iPhone/Touch is totally independent of what is in the App Store.

Go to iPorn.com, for example. Save it as an icon on the iPhone.
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 195
2/22/10 at 3:19pm
Ah, nothing like suppression from the folks who once symbolized free thinking.

If the "1984" commercial were made today, which side would Apple represent?

Perhaps a year from now we'll be celebrating the first glorious anniversary...
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 195
2/22/10 at 3:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamthecarny View Post

But we should be allowed to criticise those decisions, ...

You are.
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 195
2/22/10 at 3:50pm
Apple telling me what I shouldn't have on my computing device is insulting to me as a free citizen and adult. There are some standards of which I agree but the scope of this censorship is way over the line. Like the Taliban, they believe the female body shouldn't be seen in anything but a burka.

This is a small step away from apple censoring and telling us what apps and content we can have on our desktop or laptop, after all isn't the iPad the next device of which is supposed to replace those?

I personally don't think shooter games are the healthiest thing either but its not my right to tell others what they are allowed to enjoy. Why is it that conservative purists always seem to find violence to be much more acceptable form of expression then anything deemed even mildly "sexual" in its nature.

This is an unfair and idiotic decision bases on a vocal minority of prudes who are simply afraid of the human body. Its apples right to censor whatever they want but I sure as heck don't have to support it.

This has me thinking twice about if I really want to support a product under this type of censorship, yet another example of how apple is slowly turning into another overbearing company like microsoft.
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 195
2/22/10 at 4:24pm
So what about all of the R rated movies, books and music? I can think of a few that are considered "overtly sexual content" . The problem is all the Moms and Dads out there that do not keep up with what there kids are doing. If you are looking for "overtly sexual content" just go to the mall or pool. What about the camera? So your Teens are taking photos and videos of "overtly sexual content", Well there goes the camera on the IPhone. What about all the Movies and TV shows that have "overtly sexual content"? Oh well! There goes the video player in the Iphone and Ipod Touch.
What about the Music that has "overtly sexual content"? Oh snap. There goes the Speaker and headphone jack. I just think if Apples intentions are to save the world One horny kid at a time...go big or go home. Don't just do it in bits and pieces. I think Apple should balls up and make sure they have a solution to every problem regarding overtly sexual content. But that would mean...they would lose millions daily. What a effin joke! Parents be parents to your children...and Apple...keep doing what you're doing. Just let us know when you've realized it's not your responsibility to raise the world. if that's the case... where's my effin child support check?
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 195
2/22/10 at 4:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

No different if you came into my home and I banned your from smoking. True, you can leave and drag as much as you want. However, you can't question my intent for considering my health is more important than yours.

Bottom line; no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to smoke in my house, even if you came in the back door.

That's a specious argument. Apple is a publicly traded corporation, not your house. Without even having to get into any specific details about whether Apple has the right to do this or not, they certainly have to play by a different set of rules than you do at your house. It's a little more complicated than your analogy.
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 195
2/22/10 at 4:31pm
I'm scratching my head as I watch this app story continue because it's completely illogical. On what basis does Apple distinguish between music, movies and television shows with plenty of sexual content -- which are still available from the iTunes store -- and the applications they've chosen to censor? It smells an awful lot like the selective book burning some of us thought we left behind last century. Apple, please explain.
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 195
2/22/10 at 4:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by billoweb View Post

This has me thinking twice about if I really want to support a product under this type of censorship, yet another example of how apple is slowly turning into another overbearing company like microsoft.

I'm seeing Apple repeat the Macintosh, where the quantum leap couldn't offset the arrogance and blunders that followed.

If Apple gets too heavy-handed people WILL leave, just as they left for the crap-but-good-enough Windows PC's.

I realize iTunes and the App Store are Apple's. But when Apple mows down 5,000 previously-approved apps because they don't meet new arbitrary guidelines, that should send a chill down everyone's spine.

Writing and submitting apps was always a dicey prospect for developers. Now that Apple has demonstrated their willingness to remove apps en masse and on a whim, developers need to seriously ask themselves whether it's worth the risk.
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 195
2/22/10 at 4:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Yes it does work for the iPod touch and iPhone.

I don't care how good, bad or indifferent someone else's kid is, he/she is not going to put something on your kids' iPod touch or iPhone if it isn't in the store in the first place.

That covers the apps, but I wasn't talking about that so much. I was talking about the multitude other avenues to see stuff that's even worse. What does blocking it in the app store do for imported media? Or the web? Or even off the iDevice, what magazines can they dig up and look at while at the other kid's house? Maybe a defeated or missing lockout on certain cable channels? Do you really want the app store to continue to make Maxim, Playboy & Penthouse? Where is your defense or objection for those items and the apparent double standard on Apple's part?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

If I am not mistaken nearly 10,000 apps are submitted weekly.

Basically, the main priority is that the app works, which computerized simulators checks can do quite easily.

The subjective classification takes much longer. Poorly, vaguely or falsely written descriptions can extend the reviewing time. And lets face it, some developers are very good at hiding their intent.
...
Right now, the 4,000 delisted apps represents 2.5% of all the apps in the iTunes App Store.

2.5% is what I would call a high failure rate for just about any process. If it's too much workload, then the process needs to be scaled up enough so that a product with "boob" in the name can be easily rejected. While I understand there is subjectivity involved in a lot of cases, the example titles and descriptions given in the articles I've seen should not have been at all difficult to tell what it was about. If the app doesn't comply with the original stated standard, then those apps shouldn't have been allowed in the first place.

This still doesn't explain why certain very well known magazines have apps with lingerie models plainly showing in the app description. If they don't recognize the brand names and they don't notice the images, then what is really going on here?
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 195
2/22/10 at 4:53pm
Clearly Apple can choose what they want to sell, and since they decided to become Disney-squeaky-clean, that's their choice. (I wonder when you have to sport a Pepsodent smile or be denied buying an iPhone, because someone with a sinister facial expression could shed a bad light on Apple's products...)

The problem starts, when there's only a single store to buy content, because then a retailer's choice turns into censorship.

If WalMart decides not to carry certain videos or CDs, I can order them through Amazon, or in a local store. If the local store decides not to carry some magazines, I can subscribe to them by mail. But if Apple blocks things from the app store, there's no alternative outlet.

So Apple has two choices: allow people to download and install applications from other sources, just like I can install random MP3 songs on my iPhone, not just those sold by the iTunes music store, OR allow everything to be sold in the app store, as long as it has a proper rating attached to it.

Apple does neither of these two, and THAT IS WRONG, because it means thanks to DRM we are now giving powers to private entities that we have long denied the government, and that's a very dangerous course to allow to happen.
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 195
2/22/10 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GB in HK View Post

I'm scratching my head as I watch this app story continue because it's completely illogical. On what basis does Apple distinguish between music, movies and television shows with plenty of sexual content -- which are still available from the iTunes store -- and the applications they've chosen to censor? It smells an awful lot like the selective book burning some of us thought we left behind last century. Apple, please explain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sippincider View Post

I'm seeing Apple repeat the Macintosh, where the quantum leap couldn't offset the arrogance and blunders that followed.

If Apple gets too heavy-handed people WILL leave, just as they left for the crap-but-good-enough Windows PC's.

I realize iTunes and the App Store are Apple's. But when Apple mows down 5,000 previously-approved apps because they don't meet new arbitrary guidelines, that should send a chill down everyone's spine.

Writing and submitting apps was always a dicey prospect for developers. Now that Apple has demonstrated their willingness to remove apps en masse and on a whim, developers need to seriously ask themselves whether it's worth the risk.

Well said. And what's equally as chilling to me is how many people seem to be ok with the idea that some are espousing here that we should stop whining because Apple knows what's best for us. We're not just talking about a set of tools, but the content created and distributed with those tools.
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 195
2/22/10 at 5:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD View Post

First no Flash Porn on the Pad and now this!
There's no stopping Uncle Steve and his moral apples. Whatever happened to an open and free internet?

All Apple haters seem to be completely ignorant.
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 195
2/22/10 at 5:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

Clearly Apple can choose what they want to sell, and since they decided to become Disney-squeaky-clean, that's their choice. (I wonder when you have to sport a Pepsodent smile or be denied buying an iPhone, because someone with a sinister facial expression could shed a bad light on Apple's products...)

The problem starts, when there's only a single store to buy content, because then a retailer's choice turns into censorship.

If WalMart decides not to carry certain videos or CDs, I can order them through Amazon, or in a local store. If the local store decides not to carry some magazines, I can subscribe to them by mail. But if Apple blocks things from the app store, there's no alternative outlet.

So Apple has two choices: allow people to download and install applications from other sources, just like I can install random MP3 songs on my iPhone, not just those sold by the iTunes music store, OR allow everything to be sold in the app store, as long as it has a proper rating attached to it.

Apple does neither of these two, and THAT IS WRONG, because it means thanks to DRM we are now giving powers to private entities that we have long denied the government, and that's a very dangerous course to allow to happen.

The alternative is Mobile Safari.

Get your facts straight. Apple hasn't banned porn on their devices, they banned it in the App Store.
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 195
2/22/10 at 6:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

No different if you came into my home and I banned your from smoking. True, you can leave and drag as much as you want. However, you can't question my intent for considering my health is more important than yours.

Bottom line; no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to smoke in my house, even if you came in the back door.

wow...was that supposed to be an relevant analogy?

No, it would be more like you and your wife smoking in every room in your house and then telling your kids they can't smoke in the living room, but all other rooms are ok.

i.e. your attempt to protect them from the dangers of smoking in the living room would be both asinine and completely useless.

..and wtf is the back door comment? The 'back door' in your example was the Apple approval process allowing thousands of individual apps right on in.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #142 of 195
2/22/10 at 6:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

Seems like a mountain out of a molehill to me. I'd say "much ado about nothing", except that I think there is a very important element that many are missing, in that Apple is acting to protect its most important asset, its brand image.

Remember that the education market is very important to Apple, and it has fostered a very family friendly brand. The last thing Apple needs is to be labeled broadly as a publisher of adult content. I don't think for a minute that Steve Jobs or anybody else at Apple cares what people choose to view on their iPhone. In fact it's easy enough to load pictures or video, and use Safari to search the web. There simply is no compelling reason for Apple to be publishing adult content related apps, especially since they have been receiving complaints about it.

1) They allow material as 'bad' or 'worse' than anything they recently purged....so, that alone counters most of your arguments.
2) As you say, Safari can allow you to view much more graphic material, of the iPhone.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #143 of 195
2/22/10 at 6:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIM View Post

The alternative is Mobile Safari.

Get your facts straight. Apple hasn't banned porn on their devices, they banned it in the App Store.

There never was any "porn" in the store (the famous "I know it when I see it serves as my on yardstick to what "porn" is) but there was some mild titillation and racy apps, perhaps.

You point doesn't explain why some high profile apps of similar nature are still available (Maxim, Playboy, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit) that offer the same degree of titillation. The difference is that these apps are owned by mega-corporations that Apple wouldn't dare bother (TIME Inc., Playboy Enterprises).

Until Apple applies their "censorship" or whatever passes for acceptance evenly to all apps, then this is nothing more than favoritism and keeping media corporations happy at the expense of smaller developers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

Clearly Apple can choose what they want to sell, and since they decided to become Disney-squeaky-clean, that's their choice.

Playboy and Maxim and Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition are not considered, by the religious types in my little city, "Disney-squeaky-clean." Apple needs to apply the rules evenly, or stop pretending they're anything but a profit-hungry, despotic corporation no better than MS etc. (Disclosure: I am an Apple computer owner since my first Apple IIe. So I am in the fanboy camp, just very old.)

Actually, I'll dash off an email right now to Steve J objecting to that very content. Grab those while you can boys, cause I want 'em gone!
"I tried to get a tattoo once but passed out. It wasn't wetting my arm that bothered me, I just couldn't press firmly for 30 seconds."
Reply
"I tried to get a tattoo once but passed out. It wasn't wetting my arm that bothered me, I just couldn't press firmly for 30 seconds."
Reply
post #144 of 195
2/22/10 at 6:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

The other thing that comes to mind about this statement is the opposite. It's almost like anything here passes for an argument to bash Apple. Why wouldn't you expect people here to defend Apple? It is Appleinsider after all.

Yes, thanks. I have been here for a while.

Yes, there are many, many, oh far too many unthinking anti-Apple trolls that will post nonsensical, stupid, essentially useless 'arguments' with the only goal being to bash Apple.

As a very, very long term Apple user (and long time member here) it disappoints me to see Apple fans/zealots post in defence of anything and everything Apple does, apparently without any thought. I will defend anything Apple does, when it is right.

I actually don't care at all about this move my Apple. It doesn't affect me at all. Neither my Apple usage nor my detachment from this issue mean that I should turn off my brain and make arguments in favour of their actions that have no meaning.

unthinking posts from trolls are not much different than unthinking thoughts from zealots.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #145 of 195
2/22/10 at 7:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sippincider View Post

I'm seeing Apple repeat the Macintosh, where the quantum leap couldn't offset the arrogance and blunders that followed.

If Apple gets too heavy-handed people WILL leave,

That's a big part of what hapened to AOL.
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 195
2/22/10 at 7:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIM View Post

All Apple haters seem to be completely ignorant.

All of them. Completely.
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 195
2/22/10 at 8:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

The other thing that comes to mind about this statement is the opposite. It's almost like anything here passes for an argument to bash Apple. Why wouldn't you expect people here to defend Apple? It is Appleinsider after all.

This might seem counterintuitive, but my recent Apple-bashing here has been in defense of Apple.

Call it tough love. I'm a big fanboy from the Apple II days as well. Apple has great stuff, but when I see them going adrift I'm gonna call them on it (such as with their growing control-obsession).

NOT defending Apple is when we line up gung-ho behind whatever they do, and then proceed to follow them off the cliff.
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 195
2/22/10 at 9:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

Seems like a mountain out of a molehill to me. I'd say "much ado about nothing", except that I think there is a very important element that many are missing, in that Apple is acting to protect its most important asset, its brand image.

Remember that the education market is very important to Apple, and it has fostered a very family friendly brand. The last thing Apple needs is to be labeled broadly as a publisher of adult content.


But, why is it okay to have shooter games aiming at someone's head, and killing? Is that family friendly?

I think it's understandable that Apple wants to avoid sex content. But it's ironic and thought-provoking why we do worry about sexual content, as if it's... what... inappropriate for children to see, while we invite them to choose sniper rifles and blow off people's heads, and call that entertainment.
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 195
2/22/10 at 9:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by billoweb View Post

Apple telling me what I shouldn't have on my computing device is insulting to me as a free citizen and adult. There are some standards of which I agree but the scope of this censorship is way over the line. Like the Taliban, they believe the female body shouldn't be seen in anything but a burka.

This is a small step away from apple censoring and telling us what apps and content we can have on our desktop or laptop, after all isn't the iPad the next device of which is supposed to replace those?

I personally don't think shooter games are the healthiest thing either but its not my right to tell others what they are allowed to enjoy. Why is it that conservative purists always seem to find violence to be much more acceptable form of expression then anything deemed even mildly "sexual" in its nature.

This is an unfair and idiotic decision bases on a vocal minority of prudes who are simply afraid of the human body. Its apples right to censor whatever they want but I sure as heck don't have to support it.

This has me thinking twice about if I really want to support a product under this type of censorship, yet another example of how apple is slowly turning into another overbearing company like microsoft.

Great post articulated much better than I ever could.
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 195
2/22/10 at 9:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sippincider View Post

This might seem counterintuitive, but my recent Apple-bashing here has been in defense of Apple.

Call it tough love. I'm a big fanboy from the Apple II days as well. Apple has great stuff, but when I see them going adrift I'm gonna call them on it (such as with their growing control-obsession).

NOT defending Apple is when we line up gung-ho behind whatever they do, and then proceed to follow them off the cliff.

Right on.

For me, and along the lines of "choose your fights carefully", I just don't get very worked up on this one. Not having Wobble iBoobs (while it admittedly sounds interesting), is not going to stop me from getting an iPhone or an iPad, and I really don't think it will have a significant adverse effect on Apple's business in that regard. It might even have a positive impact, especially in the education sector.

The whole bit about still allowing SI, Playboy, et al. is weird and seems suspicious and unfair, but that also doesn't make me want to go on a crusade. Apple should clarify and possibly reconstruct the wording of the rules.
Reply
Reply
post #151 of 195
2/22/10 at 9:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

But, why is it okay to have shooter games aiming at someone's head, and killing? Is that family friendly?

I think it's understandable that Apple wants to avoid sex content. But it's ironic and thought-provoking why we do worry about sexual content, as if it's... what... inappropriate for children to see, while we invite them to choose sniper rifles and blow off people's heads, and call that entertainment.

bwik, are you from the States?

We have a very odd sense of what is appropriate here, with a real significant disdain for all things sexual and an unexplainable acceptance of depicted violence. I suspect that dissertations could be written on how and why this came to be. I might have some thoughts, but the reality as far as this discussion goes is that Apple is in the same boat as the rest of us with regards to socially accepted norms.

Apple simply wants to provide an ecosystem for content delivery that enhances the perceived value of their mobile products. They don't make games themselves and leave that to game developers. My guess is they never would have gone to the trouble of deleting Wobble iBoobs et al if they had not received complaints.

Then again, it may be that it got to a point of excess with regards to "boob" apps that they just decided enough is enough. As I wrote previously, I think Apple is just acting to protect their brand image, which they have invested a great deal to build. They have been called out on adult content, and they don't want to be viewed as a publisher of adult content
Reply
Reply
post #152 of 195
2/22/10 at 11:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD View Post

Porn = Flash, which is incompatible with Safari mobile.

There's LOTS of porn out there in Quicktime. Don't ask me how I know this.

Personally, I think Apple is making a good decision. iTunes should be family-friendly and that includes the App Store. Walmart doesn't sell porn either. And people that want porn on their iPhone (or iPad) can certainly find it with their browser. (Again, don't ask me how I know this.)

NW98
NW '98
"Everything works, in theory..."
Reply
NW '98
"Everything works, in theory..."
Reply
post #153 of 195
2/22/10 at 11:57pm
Just on a side note, we've certainly come a long ways from a barefoot Steve Jobs asking an applicant if he's ever gotten laid.
NW '98
"Everything works, in theory..."
Reply
NW '98
"Everything works, in theory..."
Reply
post #154 of 195
2/23/10 at 3:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

Oh, yea, I suspect a lawsuit is coming. Apple is most likely scared of Playboy Inc. didn't pull their app.

A lawsuit would fail. Developers sign up to Apples T&C, you can bet there is a clause that allows for this. Besides, these hard-up developers whose income has suddenly disappeared need to diversify into something more lucrative than spamming the app store with cheap titty-apps. Some guy had what, 50 of these pulled? Go and write something useful.
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
post #155 of 195
2/23/10 at 3:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitewing98 View Post

Personally, I think Apple is making a good decision. iTunes should be family-friendly and that includes the App Store. Walmart doesn't sell porn either. And people that want porn on their iPhone (or iPad) can certainly find it with their browser. (Again, don't ask me how I know this.)

NW98

Quoted for truth. Apple are reacting to customer complaints, and rightly so. Why should my wife have to put up with reams of "sexy girl" apps and crap like that when she browses the app store if she doesn't want to?

The best solution is to dump all that rubbish into a separate category, and simply kick developers who don't categorise their junk correctly out of the store. That way people have the choice.
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
post #156 of 195
2/23/10 at 3:28am
There's some double standards being applied here.

An app which is a portal for a swimwear company has been removed in the great smut extermination, while the Playboy app remains.

If Apple wish to have rules, then at the very least, we should expect those rules to be applied fairly and consistently.

Personally, I think Apple should solve the problem with better classification, instead of playing censor.

C.
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 195
2/23/10 at 5:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

If I am not mistaken nearly 10,000 apps are submitted weekly.

Basically, the main priority is that the app works, which computerized simulators checks can do quite easily.

The subjective classification takes much longer. Poorly, vaguely or falsely written descriptions can extend the reviewing time. And lets face it, some developers are very good at hiding their intent.

Again, read the SDK agreements. Jobs' obviously relied on the developers to conform to the violent/sexual guidelines and Apple reviewers' inexperience took their word and/or simply gave them the benefit of the doubt. Bottom line, Apple always reserved their right to change their minds; developers know that and except for a couple(?), we are not complaining.

Right now, the 4,000 delisted apps represents 2.5% of all the apps in the iTunes App Store. And we have heard from how many developers? Surely there must be one Larry Flynt amongst them.

Yes, they have the legal right to remove the apps...no one is questioning that.

But are you really suggesting that 5000 apps were approved accidently? That no one at Apple noticed all of the boob and bikini apps? Even if that were true, now that they have completed their purge, why is Playboy still there? Why is SI still there?

The decision was, again, inconsistent, relying on vague or poorly enforced SDK rules and completely ineffective at preventing the material in question from being available on the iPhone.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #158 of 195
2/23/10 at 5:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Yes it does work for the iPod touch and iPhone.

I don't care how good, bad or indifferent someone else's kid is, he/she is not going to put something on your kids' iPod touch or iPhone if it isn't in the store in the first place.

unless they, you know, are all techie wizard guru types and open Safari, or iTunes, or Mail.

I was right. If Apple decided to block all data on the iPhone to protect us from possibly seeing questionable material, some people here would use the exact same defense. Now it is "well, they have the right" and "well, they should do it".

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #159 of 195
2/23/10 at 5:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitewing98 View Post

Just on a side note, we've certainly come a long ways from a barefoot Steve Jobs asking an applicant if he's ever gotten laid.

Yep. If made today, the 1984 ad would have iSteve up on the big screen, with a bikini model throwing the hammer...and missing.

It is sad to see what Apple has become.
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 195
2/23/10 at 5:43am
I can't believe all the prude defenders of this. Who are you to say what comes in my house and who are you to impose YOUR beliefs on me.

It would have been a little easier to swallow, till playboy and sports illustrated where allowed to stay.

No i'm not an iphone basher i'm on my 2nd one, but i have ran into a problems and limitations imposed by apple and not the phone itself. ie tethering, Bluetooth, and my choice of apps. Now i did make sure my wife who needed a new phone got the bold 9700 so when we go on trips i can use her phone to do what i need to do, ie tethering, bluetooth.

You can say it was your chose for getting the phone, but why then can't i get out of this phone and get another? Oh i'm under contract for this phone.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's 'overtly sexual' iPhone crackdown purges 5,000 apps