Seems silly to me to begin with. Why do companies so desperately need a specialized app just to sell their own stuff? No wonder the App Store is becoming impossible to navigate with so many unnecessary apps cluttering it up. Unless it does something more than just a website would -- for instance, letting you put a swimsuit directly onto a picture you've taken with your iPhone seconds before -- I don't see the need.
I think Apple is the victim of their own success. They set themselves up as the gatekeeper of all applications on the iPhone & iPod Touch. The product became wildly successful (as I'm sure Apple hoped) but they also got flooded with apps. How many thousands of people would it take to review every app from every kid in a basement with $100 to drop on a Apple Dev. license and a girlfriend or wife willing to pose for a few naughty pictures - or one could even steal them off the Web. And who is Apple to dictate that selling naughty pictures that one has full rights to is not a legitimate app?
I don't think Apple thought their cunning plan through all the way. Perhaps they're happy letting big well-known brands/corporations sell content while barring little guys from selling the exact same thing. But that's really sleazy IMHO.
I think a good solution would be for Apple to do a mea culpa and open up app distribution to developers directly. Keep the AppStore for "mainstream" applications from bigger developers that Apple has time to review but let people sell their own apps. Make the AppStore the Walmart for iPhone apps - most of the time, most of the people can find what they want there, but for specialty items you'll have to go elsewhere.
Apple will lose some quality control there, which I'm sure will irk them. But I think the iPhone application space has grown too big for them to shepherd.
Apple is walking a thin line here and forgetting to let end-users to determine if there is a market for any of those apps. Apple is treating these "content" as if it cheapens the Apple brand. Don't pull a "Tiger Woods" on us Apple!
In related news "Tiger Woods PGA Tour by EA Sports" game app is still on the iTunes! So let me see if I get this new Apple-speak...
a wholesome, attractive lady dresses in a bikini for a sensuous photo shoot for a clothing retail outlet app gets pulled
BUT
a lying, cheating, sex-addict, who I am sure got paid for the use of his name... "prostitution" anyone?... and probably gets a royalty for each one sold of a game app of a pervert and his putter is still on iTunes!
There may have been over 5000 apps dumped but the biggest losers are Apple and the censorship nut jobs. That's it... they're just losers.
Apple has a right to protect their business as well as a responsibility to their stockholders. One of the best ways for Apple to ruin their iPhone enterprise is to allow all kinds of objectionable stuff on it. They are smart to not let that happen.
Would you buy a Sony TV if it only allowed you to view Sony channels?
After all, Sony has a right to protect their business as well as a responsibility to their stockholders. They shouldn't allow their TV enterprise to be ruined by objectionable stuff...
So now when the App for Gaylord Foods sends stuff to me, It will be censored because it has the word Gay in it??? Come on....when did I sign up to the Nazi or the Republican party?
This reminds me of when our idiot IT guy was advising folks on how to get rid of spam from their inbox. One suggestion he had was a rule to trash anything with "sex" in the title.
A secretary asked what would happen to email which mentions Middlesex County. He turned red and stammered.
Seems silly to me to begin with. Why do companies so desperately need a specialized app just to sell their own stuff? No wonder the App Store is becoming impossible to navigate with so many unnecessary apps cluttering it up. Unless it does something more than just a website would -- for instance, letting you put a swimsuit directly onto a picture you've taken with your iPhone seconds before -- I don't see the need.
Are you as out of your mind as Phil Schiller? Why shouldn't they have the opportunity to make money off an app like everyone else?
This isn't even a question! It's Apple being absolutely inappropriately draconian and ridiculous!
Playboy is OK, by Schiller's words, because it's an established brand. That is the LARGEST chunk of horse **** EVER to come out of that man's mouth in a public fashion. As an investor, I'm seriously considering this man's sanity.
Ah, you must remember, the one Lord God Mr. Jobs knows what's best for you and your eyes - do not resist and you must allow him to decide what's best for you.
I loved iTunes and my iPod Touch, and spent hours a week messing with some of the more popular apps out there. But I eventually got tired of someone else deciding for me what I can and cannot download, that I could not change my battery by myself, and later decide that no, I did not "need" a camera on my new iPod or on the iPad I had planned to buy.
My nephew now has my iPod and I'm perfectly happy with "another name brand" player - one who's boss doesn't decide for me what's best. Perhaps if more users (or more importantly, more outlets that are making apps for the iPod) decided to go with those other Gods, then Lord Jobs would realize it's not his place to make those decisions for us. Just my opinion.
This is EXACTLY why I am getting closer to getting rid of my iPhone on a daily basis. I don't have a problem with AT&T. In fact, I'm looking forward to the improved performance with the offloading of a crap ton of customers when someone else gets it.
However, Apple is becoming more of a political parent than a quality manufacturer. This is ridiculous. First and ENORMOUS point....
You lost ALL credibility when you removed smaller apps but left the Penthouse app (which incidentally BLATANTLY violates the "silhouette" rule...) and the Playboy app, which EVERYONE knows is an adult magazine. How much more "overt" do you get than something that EVERYONE knows. (Yes, even the kiddies they're trying to protect know what it is.)
Second, I got the iPhone for what it could do. Because there WERE no limits. Well, there goes that one. Now that i know what we're doing on them is being policed... the potential is going down hill fast. i mean, what's next? seriously. Applications that have racy jokes in them?
Third, it's not their place to decide what apps i should and should not be allowed to have on my phone. I'M A FRAKKING ADULT! If i want porn, i should be allowed to have it! If you're worried about the kiddies, then build in some form of parental controls into the App Store and the iPhone OS. Don't tell me I can't have what everyone else would let me have.
To quote a friend of mine... "... Everyone thinks they're so wholesome, but really, their business practices are WAY more restrictive and Nazi-like than Microsoft ever was." And I have to whole-heartedly agree at this point. "I love their products, but as a business, they're just as greedy and monopolistic as the next." EXACTLY, JON!
If they're going to be asinine about crap, I will say they at least need to be consistent about it. They've shown a complete lack of consistency when it comes to their app store, over and over again. That's right. This isn't the first inconsistent issue, by a long shot.
If you think this opinion is harsh... well... reality is hardly ever subtle.
Do you really think this is Apple's final move in dealing with the crap on the app store? I know most of you think that APPLE (or as you put it... Steve Jobs) is all knowing and that they surely anticipated all future growth and movement before it was ever made available for public use, but I'm sure they are developing and changing as this whole thing rolls out.
I don't like the openess I have in viewing this smutty apps because I want full choice in not seeing them. I have clicked on what seems to be a totally innocent app only to find slutty garbage inside! I wonder what my son has looked at.
Ok. Correction to the following italicised comments.... There ARE Parental Controls. You can start by using them. They're not perfect and need a LOT of improvement but... start there...
Then this is why they need parental controls, not just taking everything off. I can understand the issue with accidentally fidning things that you don't want. that goes to show a needed inprovement in catagorizing and approving apps. With parental controls, or some form of "filter" that you can turn on that won't show those types of apps, well... that solves that problem.
However, I don't want to see religious apps, but am forced to see them when searching apps and such. I've even looked at a few that I didn't realize were going to be as religious as they were. Are you saying it would be ok to just remove those from the app store because I want the choice to NOT see them?
You can see where this becomes sticky. It becomes an either "Do it for all, or do it for none" scinario.
My point is not that I WANT "smutty" applications. I just feel I shouldn't be kept from having them just because someone doesn't want them. There are other ways to keep people from getting them.
Do you really think this is Apple's final move in dealing with the crap on the app store? I know most of you think that APPLE (or as you put it... Steve Jobs) is all knowing and that they surely anticipated all future growth and movement before it was ever made available for public use, but I'm sure they are developing and changing as this whole thing rolls out.
I don't like the openess I have in viewing this smutty apps because I want full choice in not seeing them. I have clicked on what seems to be a totally innocent app only to find slutty garbage inside! I wonder what my son has looked at.
Are you as out of your mind as Phil Schiller? Why shouldn't they have the opportunity to make money off an app like everyone else?
This isn't even a question! It's Apple being absolutely inappropriately draconian and ridiculous!
Playboy is OK, by Schiller's words, because it's an established brand. That is the LARGEST chunk of horse **** EVER to come out of that man's mouth in a public fashion. As an investor, I'm seriously considering this man's sanity.
Playboy is OK because it makes Apple money... "...greedy and monopolistical..." Yup. That's what it comes down to. The little guys can't bring in enough money for Apple to keep their apps in the store. The big "established" names can.
A possible reason why Apple is banning certain racy apps and not others is it's catering to the big media to get their content on the iPad.
Quote:
Apple marketing boss Phill Schiller talked to the New York Times yesterday, in an effort to explain why apps full of mostly naked women -- like Playboy and the Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit edition -- continue to be available in Apple's iTunes App Store, while similar apps from smaller developers are not.
When asked about the Sports Illustrated app, Mr. Schiller said Apple took the source and intent of an app into consideration. ?The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format,? he said.
The mistake behind all this was in allowing the trashy 6 pics of girls type apps in the app store at all. If they hadn't let the app store become such a joke with so much rubbish in it then they wouldn't have got complaints and we wouldn't be at the stage where swimsuit shops or games with a female fantasy character are being removed.
Hopefully they'll relax over the coming months and we can get to a sensible state where the crappy bikini girl pic type apps are gone but swimsuit shops and mild games and such are ok.
Btw, I don't like the inconsistency or lack of clarity on the rules - and notice that there is still the tubes app in the UK store so they're not even being efficient or consistent.
I do have to agree here. Those types of apps shouldn't have made it to begin with. Instead of developing an entire app... FREAKING DO IT IN A WEB PAGE! Have we forgotten that the iPhone has web access? not EVERYTHING has to be turned into an app.
If i ever want smut on my iPhone, i can get it much easier via a mobile web page than searching for it and downloading an app for only 6 freaking pictures. WTF!
2) Apple has a right to protect their business as well as a responsibility to their stockholders.
Why yes, they do.
They also have a moral and ethical responsibility to apply their rules fairly and evenly for everyone. When Maxim, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit, Victoria's Secret, Penthouse, and Playboy are removed, then the field is fair.
Until then, it's simple reeking of hypocrisy. Plain and simple.
It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable, as well as parents who were upset with what their kids were able to see.
Apple still allows the SI Swimsuit app and the Playboy app... and the Victoria's Secret app. Talk about being hypocritical.
Yay for sticking up for the big guys and pissing on the little guys, Apple!
Would you buy a Sony TV if it only allowed you to view Sony channels?
After all, Sony has a right to protect their business as well as a responsibility to their stockholders. They shouldn't allow their TV enterprise to be ruined by objectionable stuff...
This analogy doesn't work since Sony does not provide, market or host any of the content. Apple has chosen a business model that is more problematic because they host and market the content for apps.
I sell iPhones and iPods and when a parent comes in to say "How can my 10 year old get games on here" and I say "Its easy - look at the popular free apps in the top 25 free apps section Apple provides" and the parent sees 2 boob apps and one about creative positions it looks like Apple is not doing its job to market appropriately for a huge portion of its potential customer base.
From the OS 2.0 intro they made it a point that not all apps would be allowed. I think a better way of categorizing and limiting access would be a better solution to blanket denial, but there is no doubt that something needed to be done.
People will get over this. That swimsuit app will be allowed back in. This will be non-news in a month when all those that have complained about not being allowed content realize that Safari is still there and this is just about Apple making a good choice.
I also agree that it is pretty stupid to leave in the apps that have bigger names - unless they lock them down better.
Comments
I don't think Apple thought their cunning plan through all the way. Perhaps they're happy letting big well-known brands/corporations sell content while barring little guys from selling the exact same thing. But that's really sleazy IMHO.
I think a good solution would be for Apple to do a mea culpa and open up app distribution to developers directly. Keep the AppStore for "mainstream" applications from bigger developers that Apple has time to review but let people sell their own apps. Make the AppStore the Walmart for iPhone apps - most of the time, most of the people can find what they want there, but for specialty items you'll have to go elsewhere.
Apple will lose some quality control there, which I'm sure will irk them. But I think the iPhone application space has grown too big for them to shepherd.
- Jasen.
Apple is walking a thin line here and forgetting to let end-users to determine if there is a market for any of those apps. Apple is treating these "content" as if it cheapens the Apple brand. Don't pull a "Tiger Woods" on us Apple!
In related news "Tiger Woods PGA Tour by EA Sports" game app is still on the iTunes! So let me see if I get this new Apple-speak...
a wholesome, attractive lady dresses in a bikini for a sensuous photo shoot for a clothing retail outlet app gets pulled
BUT
a lying, cheating, sex-addict, who I am sure got paid for the use of his name... "prostitution" anyone?... and probably gets a royalty for each one sold of a game app of a pervert and his putter is still on iTunes!
There may have been over 5000 apps dumped but the biggest losers are Apple and the censorship nut jobs. That's it... they're just losers.
Sorry Apple but you lost me on this one!
Apple has a right to protect their business as well as a responsibility to their stockholders. One of the best ways for Apple to ruin their iPhone enterprise is to allow all kinds of objectionable stuff on it. They are smart to not let that happen.
Would you buy a Sony TV if it only allowed you to view Sony channels?
After all, Sony has a right to protect their business as well as a responsibility to their stockholders. They shouldn't allow their TV enterprise to be ruined by objectionable stuff...
So now when the App for Gaylord Foods sends stuff to me, It will be censored because it has the word Gay in it??? Come on....when did I sign up to the Nazi or the Republican party?
This reminds me of when our idiot IT guy was advising folks on how to get rid of spam from their inbox. One suggestion he had was a rule to trash anything with "sex" in the title.
A secretary asked what would happen to email which mentions Middlesex County. He turned red and stammered.
Seems silly to me to begin with. Why do companies so desperately need a specialized app just to sell their own stuff? No wonder the App Store is becoming impossible to navigate with so many unnecessary apps cluttering it up. Unless it does something more than just a website would -- for instance, letting you put a swimsuit directly onto a picture you've taken with your iPhone seconds before -- I don't see the need.
Are you as out of your mind as Phil Schiller? Why shouldn't they have the opportunity to make money off an app like everyone else?
This isn't even a question! It's Apple being absolutely inappropriately draconian and ridiculous!
Playboy is OK, by Schiller's words, because it's an established brand. That is the LARGEST chunk of horse **** EVER to come out of that man's mouth in a public fashion. As an investor, I'm seriously considering this man's sanity.
I loved iTunes and my iPod Touch, and spent hours a week messing with some of the more popular apps out there. But I eventually got tired of someone else deciding for me what I can and cannot download, that I could not change my battery by myself, and later decide that no, I did not "need" a camera on my new iPod or on the iPad I had planned to buy.
My nephew now has my iPod and I'm perfectly happy with "another name brand" player - one who's boss doesn't decide for me what's best. Perhaps if more users (or more importantly, more outlets that are making apps for the iPod) decided to go with those other Gods, then Lord Jobs would realize it's not his place to make those decisions for us. Just my opinion.
However, Apple is becoming more of a political parent than a quality manufacturer. This is ridiculous. First and ENORMOUS point....
You lost ALL credibility when you removed smaller apps but left the Penthouse app (which incidentally BLATANTLY violates the "silhouette" rule...) and the Playboy app, which EVERYONE knows is an adult magazine. How much more "overt" do you get than something that EVERYONE knows. (Yes, even the kiddies they're trying to protect know what it is.)
Second, I got the iPhone for what it could do. Because there WERE no limits. Well, there goes that one. Now that i know what we're doing on them is being policed... the potential is going down hill fast. i mean, what's next? seriously. Applications that have racy jokes in them?
Third, it's not their place to decide what apps i should and should not be allowed to have on my phone. I'M A FRAKKING ADULT! If i want porn, i should be allowed to have it! If you're worried about the kiddies, then build in some form of parental controls into the App Store and the iPhone OS. Don't tell me I can't have what everyone else would let me have.
To quote a friend of mine... "... Everyone thinks they're so wholesome, but really, their business practices are WAY more restrictive and Nazi-like than Microsoft ever was." And I have to whole-heartedly agree at this point. "I love their products, but as a business, they're just as greedy and monopolistic as the next." EXACTLY, JON!
If they're going to be asinine about crap, I will say they at least need to be consistent about it. They've shown a complete lack of consistency when it comes to their app store, over and over again. That's right. This isn't the first inconsistent issue, by a long shot.
If you think this opinion is harsh... well... reality is hardly ever subtle.
I don't like the openess I have in viewing this smutty apps because I want full choice in not seeing them. I have clicked on what seems to be a totally innocent app only to find slutty garbage inside! I wonder what my son has looked at.
I'm officially offended by the kids in bathing suits in the iMovie demos. Where do I complain and get iMovie removed from iLife?
Phil Schiller is out of his f*cking mind.
Ahhh -remember the days when Apple had Ellen Feiss as its spokewoman? Now that was pornographic!
Then this is why they need parental controls, not just taking everything off. I can understand the issue with accidentally fidning things that you don't want. that goes to show a needed inprovement in catagorizing and approving apps. With parental controls, or some form of "filter" that you can turn on that won't show those types of apps, well... that solves that problem.
However, I don't want to see religious apps, but am forced to see them when searching apps and such. I've even looked at a few that I didn't realize were going to be as religious as they were. Are you saying it would be ok to just remove those from the app store because I want the choice to NOT see them?
You can see where this becomes sticky. It becomes an either "Do it for all, or do it for none" scinario.
My point is not that I WANT "smutty" applications. I just feel I shouldn't be kept from having them just because someone doesn't want them. There are other ways to keep people from getting them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you really think this is Apple's final move in dealing with the crap on the app store? I know most of you think that APPLE (or as you put it... Steve Jobs) is all knowing and that they surely anticipated all future growth and movement before it was ever made available for public use, but I'm sure they are developing and changing as this whole thing rolls out.
I don't like the openess I have in viewing this smutty apps because I want full choice in not seeing them. I have clicked on what seems to be a totally innocent app only to find slutty garbage inside! I wonder what my son has looked at.
Are you as out of your mind as Phil Schiller? Why shouldn't they have the opportunity to make money off an app like everyone else?
This isn't even a question! It's Apple being absolutely inappropriately draconian and ridiculous!
Playboy is OK, by Schiller's words, because it's an established brand. That is the LARGEST chunk of horse **** EVER to come out of that man's mouth in a public fashion. As an investor, I'm seriously considering this man's sanity.
Playboy is OK because it makes Apple money... "...greedy and monopolistical..." Yup. That's what it comes down to. The little guys can't bring in enough money for Apple to keep their apps in the store. The big "established" names can.
Talk about horse sh**!
If Apple doesn't want to sell an app, that's their choice. There are plenty of other places to buy smutty apps for your iPhone!
Yes. There are other ways to get what you want for your iPhone, but there are also other phone manufacturers that I can switch to. Hmm.
Apple marketing boss Phill Schiller talked to the New York Times yesterday, in an effort to explain why apps full of mostly naked women -- like Playboy and the Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit edition -- continue to be available in Apple's iTunes App Store, while similar apps from smaller developers are not.
When asked about the Sports Illustrated app, Mr. Schiller said Apple took the source and intent of an app into consideration. ?The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format,? he said.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple...-y-apps-2010-2
Small fish beware. Apple is sliding out of control down the slope of censorship.
The mistake behind all this was in allowing the trashy 6 pics of girls type apps in the app store at all. If they hadn't let the app store become such a joke with so much rubbish in it then they wouldn't have got complaints and we wouldn't be at the stage where swimsuit shops or games with a female fantasy character are being removed.
Hopefully they'll relax over the coming months and we can get to a sensible state where the crappy bikini girl pic type apps are gone but swimsuit shops and mild games and such are ok.
Btw, I don't like the inconsistency or lack of clarity on the rules - and notice that there is still the tubes app in the UK store so they're not even being efficient or consistent.
I do have to agree here. Those types of apps shouldn't have made it to begin with. Instead of developing an entire app... FREAKING DO IT IN A WEB PAGE! Have we forgotten that the iPhone has web access? not EVERYTHING has to be turned into an app.
If i ever want smut on my iPhone, i can get it much easier via a mobile web page than searching for it and downloading an app for only 6 freaking pictures. WTF!
2) Apple has a right to protect their business as well as a responsibility to their stockholders.
Why yes, they do.
They also have a moral and ethical responsibility to apply their rules fairly and evenly for everyone. When Maxim, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit, Victoria's Secret, Penthouse, and Playboy are removed, then the field is fair.
Until then, it's simple reeking of hypocrisy. Plain and simple.
It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable, as well as parents who were upset with what their kids were able to see.
Apple still allows the SI Swimsuit app and the Playboy app... and the Victoria's Secret app. Talk about being hypocritical.
Yay for sticking up for the big guys and pissing on the little guys, Apple!
Would you buy a Sony TV if it only allowed you to view Sony channels?
After all, Sony has a right to protect their business as well as a responsibility to their stockholders. They shouldn't allow their TV enterprise to be ruined by objectionable stuff...
This analogy doesn't work since Sony does not provide, market or host any of the content. Apple has chosen a business model that is more problematic because they host and market the content for apps.
I sell iPhones and iPods and when a parent comes in to say "How can my 10 year old get games on here" and I say "Its easy - look at the popular free apps in the top 25 free apps section Apple provides" and the parent sees 2 boob apps and one about creative positions it looks like Apple is not doing its job to market appropriately for a huge portion of its potential customer base.
From the OS 2.0 intro they made it a point that not all apps would be allowed. I think a better way of categorizing and limiting access would be a better solution to blanket denial, but there is no doubt that something needed to be done.
People will get over this. That swimsuit app will be allowed back in. This will be non-news in a month when all those that have complained about not being allowed content realize that Safari is still there and this is just about Apple making a good choice.
I also agree that it is pretty stupid to leave in the apps that have bigger names - unless they lock them down better.