Schiller wrote "Even though the developer chose to censor some terms, there still remained enough vulgar terms that it required a parental control rating of 17+."
So I assume he's OK with Safari requiring parental controls? It can access all kinds of nasty stuff....
Since when is censorship a good business decision? I guess WalMArt knows what there doing to by censoring lyrics too? We all know how fanstastic a company WalMart is. At lease let us put non- sactioned Apple apps on our phones if Apple doesn't want to sell them. Like widgets on our computers.
Actually it has been a good business decision for Walmart - not sure why that's that shocking of an idea...
Apple doesn't want the bad press associated with apps that some very vocal people would deem offensive - that's why it's a business decision - how is that not clear?
Remember all over CNN when apple had officially "gone topless"? there was a huge uproar - Apple doesn't want that. They want to stay as relatively clean as they can and if that means blocking things that some want to see in order to keep their company high on the morality list then so be it - it's worked out exceptionally well for them so far (and will continue to).
Well, what would you prefer them to do? Reject porn apps outright (which they do now because those clearly do violate Apple's App Store guidelines) OR approve them and then put black bars on all the naughty parts after the fact?
Personally, I will always prefer the former to the latter.
Hmmm- Black bars on naughty parts can still titillate- no?
"it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable,"
Bad word choice. Once you say reasonable, you admit that you are making the call on what to approve and what not to based on your own definition of reasonable.
Reminds me of this pathetic and horrid event where MIchael Hayden admits that at the NSA they could care less what the 4th amendment of the constitution says, "Reasonable" is their standard, and they define it.
Well, what would you prefer them to do? Reject porn apps outright (which they do now because those clearly do violate Apple's App Store guidelines) OR approve them and then put black bars on all the naughty parts after the fact?
Personally, I will always prefer the former to the latter.
You're not thinking outside the box. You should prefer to have an app that streams porn from all your favorite free porn sites for free.
It's always pretty funny when me and my friends are going on a long drive, and out of nowhere you just hear some really hardcore porn coming from my phone.
Seriously though, wouldn't you like to at least have the choice to do such a thing? Why should anyone have the right to tell you what you can and can't do with something you paid for (as long as it's not illegal)?
I know a lot of people think porn isn't that big of a deal, and not something iphone owners care about, nor would influence business in any way, but let me ask you this: Had porn chosen HD DVD, would Bluray had done so well?
this comment offends me in so many ways, you have no idea
The problem isn't with the original poster's comments, but the fact that you're so easily offended. What's wrong with "Jesus police"? The censorship is clearly aimed at appeasing Christians, since no one else is offended by the so called "vulgar" words.
Go back and re-read then- I changed it to a PG13 Version so you wont be offended. Judas priest!
actually you should have put "jeebus" (check the urban dictionary).
I've got to be honest here, I'm a Christian and I don't find that horribly offensive. Jesus was an exceptionally moral person and held a higher standard for morality that any of us can manage. Teck was simply stating that Apple hired the the police to try to attain the high moral standards set by Him.
The Google Voice rejection is most very likely an AT&T root cause. AT&T is still living and operating in the last century and has too much revenue and profit at stake to allow Google Voice over their network. This is precisely why Apple must offer a second or third carrier choice.
However, Google Voice should be allowed to operate over the WIFI connection without limitation at the very least.
The problem isn't with the original poster's comments, but the fact that you're so easily offended. What's wrong with "Jesus police"? The censorship is clearly aimed at appeasing Christians, since no one else is offended by the so called "vulgar" words.
Hey now, don't say it's aimed at Christians - as I just posted I'm not offended. Like with everything else you can't just place it entirely on a certain group of people because of one person. (Unless of course you believe all whites and muslims like to blow up buildings, all blacks fight pit bulls and all hispanics work at mexican food places (fill in your own idiotic stereotype here)).
The Google Voice rejection is most very likely an AT&T root cause. AT&T is still living and operating in the last century and has too much revenue and profit at stake to allow Google Voice over their network. This is precisely why Apple must offer a second or third carrier choice.
However, Google Voice should be allowed to operate over the WIFI connection without limitation at the very least.
Not that I really care if Apple censors a dictionary but the application of the word in the arguments is spot on with the actual definition...
"to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news> ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>"
Censorship is an official act, by definition. A censor is an official empowered to suppress. Apple is not official and consequently it does not posses the power to censor. The use of the word in this context is hyperbolic (i.e., an exaggeration).
Not that anyone much cares about what words mean anymore. But then, that was the irony I was pointing out here.
You're not thinking outside the box. You should prefer to have an app that streams porn from all your favorite free porn sites for free.
It's always pretty funny when me and my friends are going on a long drive, and out of nowhere you just hear some really hardcore porn coming from my phone.
Seriously though, wouldn't you like to at least have the choice to do such a thing? Why should anyone have the right to tell you what you can and can't do with something you paid for (as long as it's not illegal)?
I know a lot of people think porn isn't that big of a deal, and not something iphone owners care about, nor would influence business in any way, but let me ask you this: Had porn chosen HD DVD, would Bluray had done so well?
I can see both sides of the argument, free speech vs. the slippery slope to complete censorship. The answer, as far as the internet is concerned, is have all Porn sites use a .porn suffix in their URL address like .com, .org, .edu, etc., and then businesses, libraries, parents, etc., can just set their Servers/IP's/computers/iPhones/browsers/firewalls/email clients not to accept anything from a .porn URL and people who want porn can set it to accept URL's with a .porn suffix.
The Google Voice rejection is most very likely an AT&T root cause. AT&T is still living and operating in the last century and has too much revenue and profit at stake to allow Google Voice over their network. This is precisely why Apple must offer a second or third carrier choice.
However, Google Voice should be allowed to operate over the WIFI connection without limitation at the very least.
Do you have any idea how Google Voice work?!
GV only use data to communicate with Google server. Google Voice calls are placed using your AT&T voice plan (using your AT&T minutes). GV is not using 3G, Edge, nor WiFi to make calls. GV uses your data plan or Wifi to send SMS just like IM apps.
Comments
Schiller wrote "Even though the developer chose to censor some terms, there still remained enough vulgar terms that it required a parental control rating of 17+."
So I assume he's OK with Safari requiring parental controls? It can access all kinds of nasty stuff....
Since when is censorship a good business decision? I guess WalMArt knows what there doing to by censoring lyrics too? We all know how fanstastic a company WalMart is. At lease let us put non- sactioned Apple apps on our phones if Apple doesn't want to sell them. Like widgets on our computers.
Actually it has been a good business decision for Walmart - not sure why that's that shocking of an idea...
Apple doesn't want the bad press associated with apps that some very vocal people would deem offensive - that's why it's a business decision - how is that not clear?
Remember all over CNN when apple had officially "gone topless"? there was a huge uproar - Apple doesn't want that. They want to stay as relatively clean as they can and if that means blocking things that some want to see in order to keep their company high on the morality list then so be it - it's worked out exceptionally well for them so far (and will continue to).
Well, what would you prefer them to do? Reject porn apps outright (which they do now because those clearly do violate Apple's App Store guidelines) OR approve them and then put black bars on all the naughty parts after the fact?
Personally, I will always prefer the former to the latter.
Hmmm- Black bars on naughty parts can still titillate- no?
"it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable,"
Bad word choice. Once you say reasonable, you admit that you are making the call on what to approve and what not to based on your own definition of reasonable.
Reminds me of this pathetic and horrid event where MIchael Hayden admits that at the NSA they could care less what the 4th amendment of the constitution says, "Reasonable" is their standard, and they define it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGhcECnWRGM
Well, what would you prefer them to do? Reject porn apps outright (which they do now because those clearly do violate Apple's App Store guidelines) OR approve them and then put black bars on all the naughty parts after the fact?
Personally, I will always prefer the former to the latter.
You're not thinking outside the box. You should prefer to have an app that streams porn from all your favorite free porn sites for free.
It's always pretty funny when me and my friends are going on a long drive, and out of nowhere you just hear some really hardcore porn coming from my phone.
Seriously though, wouldn't you like to at least have the choice to do such a thing? Why should anyone have the right to tell you what you can and can't do with something you paid for (as long as it's not illegal)?
I know a lot of people think porn isn't that big of a deal, and not something iphone owners care about, nor would influence business in any way, but let me ask you this: Had porn chosen HD DVD, would Bluray had done so well?
So I assume he's OK with Safari requiring parental controls? It can access all kinds of nasty stuff....
It does...
this comment offends me in so many ways, you have no idea
Keep your religious restrictions out of my iPhone.
this comment offends me in so many ways, you have no idea
The problem isn't with the original poster's comments, but the fact that you're so easily offended. What's wrong with "Jesus police"? The censorship is clearly aimed at appeasing Christians, since no one else is offended by the so called "vulgar" words.
Go back and re-read then- I changed it to a PG13 Version so you wont be offended. Judas priest!
actually you should have put "jeebus" (check the urban dictionary).
I've got to be honest here, I'm a Christian and I don't find that horribly offensive. Jesus was an exceptionally moral person and held a higher standard for morality that any of us can manage. Teck was simply stating that Apple hired the the police to try to attain the high moral standards set by Him.
However, Google Voice should be allowed to operate over the WIFI connection without limitation at the very least.
The problem isn't with the original poster's comments, but the fact that you're so easily offended. What's wrong with "Jesus police"? The censorship is clearly aimed at appeasing Christians, since no one else is offended by the so called "vulgar" words.
Hey now, don't say it's aimed at Christians - as I just posted I'm not offended. Like with everything else you can't just place it entirely on a certain group of people because of one person. (Unless of course you believe all whites and muslims like to blow up buildings, all blacks fight pit bulls and all hispanics work at mexican food places (fill in your own idiotic stereotype here)).
The Google Voice rejection is most very likely an AT&T root cause. AT&T is still living and operating in the last century and has too much revenue and profit at stake to allow Google Voice over their network. This is precisely why Apple must offer a second or third carrier choice.
However, Google Voice should be allowed to operate over the WIFI connection without limitation at the very least.
That's totally unrelated...
Not that I really care if Apple censors a dictionary but the application of the word in the arguments is spot on with the actual definition...
"to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news> ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>"
Censorship is an official act, by definition. A censor is an official empowered to suppress. Apple is not official and consequently it does not posses the power to censor. The use of the word in this context is hyperbolic (i.e., an exaggeration).
Not that anyone much cares about what words mean anymore. But then, that was the irony I was pointing out here.
Which character was Apple in the 1984 ad again? I forget...
OK- then where's all the Porn Apps?? Don't tell me there is no Apple censorship- that's utter BS.
What, you can't get enough porn on it already!
I can! At least on my iPod, never mind an iPhone! Only trouble is the screen isn't big enough!
Ooops, did I offend someone?
In that book they remove words from the language to stop people having subversive thoughts.
You're not thinking outside the box. You should prefer to have an app that streams porn from all your favorite free porn sites for free.
It's always pretty funny when me and my friends are going on a long drive, and out of nowhere you just hear some really hardcore porn coming from my phone.
Seriously though, wouldn't you like to at least have the choice to do such a thing? Why should anyone have the right to tell you what you can and can't do with something you paid for (as long as it's not illegal)?
I know a lot of people think porn isn't that big of a deal, and not something iphone owners care about, nor would influence business in any way, but let me ask you this: Had porn chosen HD DVD, would Bluray had done so well?
I can see both sides of the argument, free speech vs. the slippery slope to complete censorship. The answer, as far as the internet is concerned, is have all Porn sites use a .porn suffix in their URL address like .com, .org, .edu, etc., and then businesses, libraries, parents, etc., can just set their Servers/IP's/computers/iPhones/browsers/firewalls/email clients not to accept anything from a .porn URL and people who want porn can set it to accept URL's with a .porn suffix.
Am I missing something here?
The Google Voice rejection is most very likely an AT&T root cause. AT&T is still living and operating in the last century and has too much revenue and profit at stake to allow Google Voice over their network. This is precisely why Apple must offer a second or third carrier choice.
However, Google Voice should be allowed to operate over the WIFI connection without limitation at the very least.
Do you have any idea how Google Voice work?!
GV only use data to communicate with Google server. Google Voice calls are placed using your AT&T voice plan (using your AT&T minutes). GV is not using 3G, Edge, nor WiFi to make calls. GV uses your data plan or Wifi to send SMS just like IM apps.