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

145679

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 194
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Two examples!!!?



    2.5%? I gather you never served in the military? Taught School? Managed a company? Had children?



    Have you ever been in manufacturing? Would you accept a 2.5% defect rate?



    Quote:

    What you have never changed your mind? Your parents never changed their mind?



    I've changed my mind, but not on this issue. Being willing to change my mind doesn't mean I will.



    How about you? Have you ever changed your mind? I've never seen you do that.



    Quote:

    As Apple has clearly said in the original iPhone SDK NDA and ever since, they have the right to accept or refuse an app and their conditions could be subject to change at their will.



    In fact, Jobs did allude to this in his announcement of the iPhone SDK. That they were new to this, that explicit violent and sexual content would not be allowed, that the program was a work in progress.



    They've been doing it for a year and a half. Should have been plenty long to establish some sort of quality checking system.



    Quote:

    And as to "…this still doesn't explain…," the audacity of demanding such is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. Especially to an audience, in part, as juvenile as resides here.



    For that part, I think you're just dodging this particular question. Why do you think that Playboy, Maxim & Penthouse should be reasonably excepted from this rule? Do you want those apps on your kid's iPhones? Phil Schiller has already made his excuse for those examples, and I really don't think the people that complain about titillating apps would really accept explanation.
  • Reply 162 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by knightlie View Post


    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.



    I agree.



    But keep in mind that developers aren't complaining. Those that submitted apps now being rejected knew that Jobs looked dis-favorably on explicit violent and sexual content. They understood that such material would not be approved or could be pulled later. It is part of the conditions we agreed upon.



    And I doubt that putting such labelled offensive material in another section of any store, would be a a place your wife would want to be seen in.
  • Reply 163 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    I agree.



    But keep in mind that developers aren't complaining. Those that submitted apps now being rejected knew that Jobs looked dis-favorably on explicit violent and sexual content. They understood that such material would not be approved or could be pulled later. It is part of the conditions we agreed upon.



    And I doubt that putting such labelled offensive material in another section of any store, would be a a place your wife would want to be seen in.



    You keep skipping the main issue, and yes i was in the Navy for 5 years. Playboy, Maxim & Penthouse !!!
  • Reply 164 of 194
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Two examples!!!?



    2.5%? I gather you never served in the military? Taught School? Managed a company? Had children?



    What you have never changed your mind? Your parents never changed their mind? What world do you live in?



    As Apple has clearly said in the original iPhone SDK NDA and ever since, they have the right to accept or refuse an app and their conditions could be subject to change at their will.



    In fact, Jobs did allude to this in his announcement of the iPhone SDK. That they were new to this, that explicit violent and sexual content would not be allowed, that the program was a work in progress.



    Since the introduction, Apple did open the program to more liberal views; however the SDK was always tied to the proviso that the program was being monitored and thus still subject to modification.



    Now Apple has received a significant number of complaints. Obvious much of it is coming from the same audience that Apple is entertaining for the iPad. These concerned parents, educators, business professionals and publishers don't want to see overtly sexual content in their homes, schools or businesses, or next to their mast heads.



    And as to "?this still doesn't explain?," the audacity of demanding such is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. Especially to an audience, in part, as juvenile as resides here.



    Yes, it audacious to expect consistency or fairness. You have an interesting way of phrasing.



    You keep arguing that Apple has the right. Try hard to understand, no one questions that. Of course they have the right. It doesn't make it right.
  • Reply 165 of 194
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    I agree.



    But keep in mind that developers aren't complaining.



    Gotta call bullshit on that too.



    Who are you to say they aren't complaining? You have no idea if this is true. Perhaps they are simply focusing their complaints at Apple instead of here. Look at the front page of AI today. There is a company that sells swimsuits that has had their app banned. They don't seem entirely pleased.
  • Reply 166 of 194
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,754member
    You have to start wondering, are there any actions or policies that Apple could implement that would be questioned by some people here. It seems like the clear answer is no. Sad.
  • Reply 167 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    You have to start wondering, are there any actions or policies that Apple could implement that would be questioned by some people here. It seems like the clear answer is no. Sad.



    I bet no one would question full functionality of bluetooth wouldn't be questioned
  • Reply 168 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Have you ever been in manufacturing? Would you accept a 2.5% defect rate?



    Firstly, yes. Big time.



    What defect are you referring to. The apps work. The process works. Simply changing the protocol to suit the strategy is not a defect.



    Quote:

    How about you? Have you ever changed your mind? I've never seen you do that.



    Yes I have. Many times. More important, if it doesn't affect you, why should you.



    Quote:

    They've been doing it for a year and a half. Should have been plenty long to establish some sort of quality checking system.



    The decision to pull these 'overtly sexually explicit' apps had nothing to do with their checking system. It wasn't the quality of the app that is now being challenged. It was the quality of a life-style that the app indulges the users in.



    (If I am not mistaken, the U.S. took a significantly longer time to find out that the Iraqi's didn't have weapons of mass destruction.)



    Again, Jobs has not hidden his thoughts on violence or sexual content on apps intended for his store. Apple tried things; they reviewed the consequences; they renewed the rules. Not any different than when our son turned 18 and we let him loose, so to speak. Well, that lasted for about a year; in our house, that is.



    Quote:

    Why do you think that Playboy, Maxim & Penthouse should be reasonably excepted from this rule? Do you want those apps on your kid's iPhones? Phil Schiller has already made his excuse for those examples, and I really don't think the people that complain about titillating apps would really accept explanation.



    Who is to say that they too will be not removed. Those magazines you speak of, I can find in our local 24/7 store. Same for cigarettes which are stored on closed door shelves. I can buy them, but my underaged daughter can't. As long as there is a real person that can physically prevent my children their access, I feel comfortable with the process.



    Since only two apps/developers have been identified out of the 4,000 or more that have been removed, I can't tell you the difference between them and the three apps you mentioned. Relative to those that have been removed, are they 'over the top'? Admittedly, I don't know how "overtly sexual content" is defined.



    But I do know that when my father wouldn't allow me to do certain things, I would often question him why. Sometimes too vehemently. Over time, I would challenge him less, but I really didn't become smart enough to understand completely until I had children of my own.
  • Reply 169 of 194
    Playgirl Centerfold app big buisness at work
  • Reply 170 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rfrmac View Post


    I for one am glad to see it. There are some that are always pushing the limits which forces others to make more rules. Then they, the people responsible, never end up taking the heat for what they have done. Why don't we blame the people that really should be blamed for these changes?



    They really need to be fair though, can't pick & choose who you ban based on company clout. If they ban wobbly whatever they need to ban playboy as well.



    The whole mess could really be fixed if Apple were to actually restrict the visibility of the app based on age rating & not just the purchase. A lot of kick back probably comes from parents & companies who want to be able to restrict not just the purchase but even the visibility of all sexual material, allowing such material on a company phone may even violate certain terms of harassment. In this one I'm gonna have to blast Apple for being ill prepared to properly restrict content, they have a long way to go in their iPhone management utility too.



    What's obvious to me is that Apple doesn't thinks a little too much in the box. They really need to hear more of what their customers want & not just what his Steviness thinks is great.
  • Reply 171 of 194
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post




    Since only two apps/developers have been identified out of the 4,000 or more that have been removed, I can't tell you the difference between them and the three apps you mentioned. Relative to those that have been removed, are they 'over the top'? Admittedly, I don't know how "overtly sexual content" is defined.




    Firstly, it is more than two.



    As to why, well, let's let Phil explain it to you:

    Quote:

    "The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format," Schiller told the Times.



    Can't see how someone can't see that for the bullshit answer it is.
  • Reply 172 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Now Apple has received a significant number of complaints. Obvious much of it is coming from the same audience that Apple is entertaining for the iPad. These concerned parents, educators, business professionals and publishers don't want to see overtly sexual content in their homes, schools or businesses, or next to their mast heads.



    But instead of addressing these concerns by pointing to their Parental Controls, they start pulling apps. What exactly is parental controls on the iPhone for, if not for addressing just this issue. There is a switch for allowing or disallowing 17+ apps and the controls seem fairly fine grained or at least extend-able. And even if the apps are pulled, how does that stop the problem of someone seeing "overtly sexual content in their homes, schools or businesses, or next to their mast heads" via Safari?



    Now if developers haven't properly categorized their apps then they should be pulled until they do so. But simply pulling their apps seems to send the message that Apple's parental controls cannot do the job.
  • Reply 173 of 194
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Firstly, yes. Big time.



    What defect are you referring to. The apps work. The process works. Simply changing the protocol to suit the strategy is not a defect.



    You mean they decided to relax what was considered overtly sexual, and then retract it?



    Quote:

    (If I am not mistaken, the U.S. took a significantly longer time to find out that the Iraqi's didn't have weapons of mass destruction.)



    That was because of a faulty politicized intelligence system. That's starting to stray into politics though.



    Quote:

    Who is to say that they too will be removed. Those magazines you speak of, I can find in our local 24/7 store. Same for cigarettes which are stored on closed door shelves. I can buy them, but my underaged daughter can't. As long as there is a real person that can physically prevent my children their access, I feel comfortable with the process.



    You mean won't be removed?



    Your kid can still easily buy the app from the app store because it still remains, bypassing the retail store. The same system which you preferred overtly sexual apps not be available, but some still are, under a dubious grandfather clause that Phil Schiller himself said in the last day.
  • Reply 174 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post


    Now if developers haven't properly categorized their apps then they should be pulled until they do so. But simply pulling their apps seems to send the message that Apple's parental controls cannot do the job.



    No app, no get.



    Parental controls only work on the computer that has it activataed. Any app that is in any iTunes app store can be accessed from another computer, i.e., that is not secured as such.



    For example, my youngest could go next door and get an app on her iPod touch from her best friend's older brother's computer which isn't Parentally controlled. And she wouldn't have to use his account.
  • Reply 175 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nitewing98 View Post


    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



    Come on now. Why are people on here still whining about porn? "Wah, wah...Walmart doesn't sell porn. Walmart doesn't sell porn..."



    Nobody is saying that porn should be sold in the app store. This argument was never about porn. Walmart does, however sell bikinis for example, and Apple still allows the playboy and maxxim apps.



    Get it? Understand?
  • Reply 176 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    You mean they decided to relax what was considered overtly sexual, and then retract it?



    No. The term 'overtly sexual' has only recently been defined and subsequently put into effect, as every developer was fully informed that they could do.



    Again, Jobs was always concerned about violence and sexual content apps being made available from the iTunes Store. And he did say at the WWDC that the submission guidelines was an ongoing process and would be monitored, reviewed and addressed in the future, as necessary.



    Quote:

    That was because of a faulty politicized intelligence system. That's starting to stray into politics though.



    And perhaps Apple has determined that their move would be 'politically' correct.



    Quote:

    You mean won't be removed?



    Thank you. Will correct it.



    Quote:

    Your kid can still easily buy the app from the app store because it still remains, bypassing the retail store. The same system which you preferred overtly sexual apps not be available, but some still are, under a dubious grandfather clause that Phil Schiller himself said in the last day.



    Not sure what you mean. Certainly not if it is not in the Apple iTunes App Store. If you are referring to Web apps, that would be the same as a school banning smoking on their property. Can't stop the kid from walking across the street.



    As I said, I don't know how 'overtly sexual' has been defined by Apple. After all, the term only appeared in the last few days. I did look at the Penthouse app and it doesn't appear to be 'overtly sexual'.



    Remember, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.



    My parents used stop me from doing things that I thought were no different than all the other things they let me do. Told myself I would never do that when I had kids. Unfortunately, like all parents, I lied to myself.
  • Reply 177 of 194
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Not sure what you mean. Certainly not if it is not in the Apple iTunes App Store. If you are referring to Web apps, that would be the same as a school banning smoking on their property. Can't stop the kid from walking across the street.



    To correct your analogy again, and make it somewhat pertinent to the subject: it would be more akin to a school banning smoking on the property, unless you smoke one of the major brand name cigarettes, then smoke away. Also, if they further allowed smoking in the washrooms, so long as it was not out in the open, also go for it.
  • Reply 178 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    No app, no get.



    Parental controls only work on the computer that has it activataed. Any app that is in any iTunes app store can be accessed from another computer, i.e., that is not secured as such.



    For example, my youngest could go next door and get an app on her iPod touch from her best friend's older brother's computer which isn't Parentally controlled. And she wouldn't have to use his account.



    And your youngest could go next door and be shown a porn web site too on Safari, right?



    But back to the Parental Controls. Please explain since I've never used them and just assumed they worked. (I also have an iPhone, not a Touch) Are you saying that if I "Enable Restrictions" under General Settings, and go all the way to the bottom of the screen and select "9+", I can bypass the iPhone's restrictions and still install an app that has been designated as "17+" on this 9+ restricted iPhone??? This has nothing to do with a computer, just on the iPhone itself.



    If this is true it sounds like the Parental Controls truly do nothing.
  • Reply 179 of 194
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post


    And your youngest could go next door and be shown a porn web site too on Safari, right?



    But back to the Parental Controls. Please explain since I've never used them and just assumed they worked. (I also have an iPhone, not a Touch) Are you saying that if I "Enable Restrictions" under General Settings, and go all the way to the bottom of the screen and select "9+", I can bypass the iPhone's restrictions and still install an app that has been designated as "17+" on this 9+ restricted iPhone??? This has nothing to do with a computer, just on the iPhone itself.



    If this is true it sounds like the Parental Controls truly do nothing.



    Either that or he means his daughter could visit the neighbours and use their computer to load apps onto he iPod or iPhone. I thought she would have to sync to that PC however...not like you can just drag and drop apps onto your phone.
  • Reply 180 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    Either that or he means his daughter could visit the neighbours and use their computer to load apps onto he iPod or iPhone. I thought she would have to sync to that PC however...not like you can just drag and drop apps onto your phone.



    No, no, that's my point...something I'm trying to get clarification on. If I have settings on my iPhone that restricts apps to 9+, I expect there to be no way, no how (short of resetting or jailbreaking) any app that is 17+ to be installed on that iPhone. I don't care what computer or iTunes account that iPhone is connected to, if I make that setting on the iPhone, those are the restrictions I expect to be respected. Is this not true?
Sign In or Register to comment.