Swimwear seller hit by Apple's removal of 'sexual' apps

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 124
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Phil Schiller, head of worldwide product marketing for Apple, spoke with The New York Times about Apple's newfound policy on applications with sexual content. He said the Cupertino, Calif., company wanted to make sure the App Store did not scare off potential customers, as numerous parents had become upset with what their children could access on the iPhone and iPod touch. The forthcoming iPad will also have access to the App Store.



    But as Apple purged more than 5,000 apps last week from the App Store, some with more risque content, including the magazine Playboy, have remained. Schiller explained that well-known and established brands, such as Sports Illustrated and its swimsuit edition, were given special consideration.



    Yikes, I smell a class action law suite, Apple is going to get blasted for giving special treatment to "established" brands.



    The more that is released on this the more it's obvious that what Apple is attempting to do is being approached all wrong. THE COMPLAINTS ARE BECAUSE APPS ARE STILL VISIBLE EVEN WHEN AGE RESTRICTION IS SET!! Apple has created a PR nightmare for themselves, they fumbled the ball on this one & I actually hope they get raked over the coals for once.



    I hope someone from Apple is listening cause here is the fix:

    Make the age restriction more prominent in the setup & fix the app store so that restricting by age appropriateness doesn't just restrict purchase but also visibility of an app!



    Also, give categories to ratings so that a parent can also block things based on more than just what you deem is age appropriate. (ie, partial nudity, blood/gore).



    You do all that Apple & you will fix the problem overnight!
  • Reply 62 of 124
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post


    From the New York Times, Phil Schiller:







    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/te...gy/23apps.html



    I'm sorry, but these parents are too f**king stupid for their own good. They give there kids an electronic device and expect without first setting up parental controls. Windows 7/Vista provides parent controls for gaming. The Xbox 360 provides parental controls as well IIRC. The iPhone/iPod touch provides parental controls to stop kids from installing "adult" apps.



    I'm so sick and tired of the PC bullcrap and parents that don't give a s**t about being actual parents. STEP UP and take responsibility for ONCE in your lives.



    And on a side note, 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!



    The issue is specific to what actually appears in the app preview & how restricting by age appropriateness doesn't change visibility of the app & app preview. So it's worse than your accusation, it's plain old bad design of the age appropriateness restrictions!



    Totally agree on your point about special treatment to "established" companies, Hope that one bites them big time.
  • Reply 63 of 124
    Amen! Absolutely on the nose!





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post


    yikes, i smell a class action law suite, apple is going to get blasted for giving special treatment to "established" brands.



    The more that is released on this the more it's obvious that what apple is attempting to do is being approached all wrong. The complaints are because apps are still visible even when age restriction is set!! Apple has created a pr nightmare for themselves, they fumbled the ball on this one & i actually hope they get raked over the coals for once.



    I hope someone from apple is listening cause here is the fix:

    Make the age restriction more prominent in the setup & fix the app store so that restricting by age appropriateness doesn't just restrict purchase but also visibility of an app!



    Also, give categories to ratings so that a parent can also block things based on more than just what you deem is age appropriate. (ie, partial nudity, blood/gore).



    You do all that apple & you will fix the problem overnight!



  • Reply 64 of 124
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,569member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post


    The more that is released on this the more it's obvious that what Apple is attempting to do is being approached all wrong. THE COMPLAINTS ARE BECAUSE APPS ARE STILL VISIBLE EVEN WHEN AGE RESTRICTION IS SET!! Apple has created a PR nightmare for themselves, they fumbled the ball on this one & I actually hope they get raked over the coals for once.



    I hope someone from Apple is listening cause here is the fix:

    Make the age restriction more prominent in the setup & fix the app store so that restricting by age appropriateness doesn't just restrict purchase but also visibility of an app!




    Also, give categories to ratings so that a parent can also block things based on more than just what you deem is age appropriate. (ie, partial nudity, blood/gore).



    You do all that Apple & you will fix the problem overnight!



    Agree 100%. This should be a no-brainer for Apple. How they missed this is beyond me.
  • Reply 65 of 124
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,569member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post


    The issue is specific to what actually appears in the app preview & how restricting by age appropriateness doesn't change visibility of the app & app preview. So it's worse than your accusation, it's plain old bad design of the age appropriateness restrictions!



    Totally agree on your point about special treatment to "established" companies, Hope that one bites them big time.



    Ahhh, you're right. Changing the age restriction DOES NOT prevent them from being viewed. I can see why parents would be a bit upset at that one IF they properly setup the controls. I'll edit my post.



    Apple, FIX IT!
  • Reply 66 of 124
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post


    Yikes, I smell a class action law suite, Apple is going to get blasted for giving special treatment to "established" brands.



    The more that is released on this the more it's obvious that what Apple is attempting to do is being approached all wrong. THE COMPLAINTS ARE BECAUSE APPS ARE STILL VISIBLE EVEN WHEN AGE RESTRICTION IS SET!! Apple has created a PR nightmare for themselves, they fumbled the ball on this one & I actually hope they get raked over the coals for once.



    I hope someone from Apple is listening cause here is the fix:

    Make the age restriction more prominent in the setup & fix the app store so that restricting by age appropriateness doesn't just restrict purchase but also visibility of an app!



    Also, give categories to ratings so that a parent can also block things based on more than just what you deem is age appropriate. (ie, partial nudity, blood/gore).



    You do all that Apple & you will fix the problem overnight!



    Perfect answer to a... um... sticky problem?!
  • Reply 67 of 124
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post


    Agree 100%. This should be a no-brainer for Apple. How they missed this is beyond me.



    Not only that, but if they do fix or enhance the parental control, then what? Do they slowly start allowing the "overtly sexual" apps back in? After they said they weren't going to allow them?



    I've always been a great supporter of Apple but I can't believe the knee jerk reaction they've had to this. I think we're still not getting the whole story. And the comments by Phil Schiller regarding "established businesses" or whatever is just mind boggling.
  • Reply 68 of 124
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,569member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


    Perfect answer to a... um... sticky problem?!



    Haha, exactly. It should be a simple coding change to allow the parental controls to not only block installation of the apps, but block them from being viewed at all. Ok, maybe it's not exactly "simple", but Apple has plenty of smart people on staff.



    Then everyone would be happy. Pervs can have their boobies, parents can block the boobies, and Apple can still make money off the boobies.



    And then Apple can tell parents to SHUT THE EFF up if they complain because there are Parental Controls in place to block such content.
  • Reply 69 of 124
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post


    Not only that, but if they do fix or enhance the parental control, then what? Do they slowly start allowing the "overtly sexual" apps back in? After they said they weren't going to allow them?



    I've always been a great supporter of Apple but I can't believe the knee jerk reaction they've had to this. I think we're still not getting the whole story. And the comments by Phil Schiller regarding "established businesses" or whatever is just mind boggling.



    The folks at Apple aren't stupid as some here have insinuated. With very high probability, they likely concluded they will sell more, not fewer, iPhones if they don't allow the App Store to become a big porn shop.
  • Reply 70 of 124
    Aybody out there would call me the ultimate Kool-Aid-drinkin', Apple-Fanboy... so just saying, also as an APPL stockholder... this is an absolute PR disaster! hezekiahb has it right. Apple must fix the App Store.

    After that, any developer found mis-categorizing, or wrongly rating their App, is then and only then thrown out... and possibly banned for a short period of time, say 6 months.



    Developers have made the iPhone what it is, and have leveraged the ability to sell Apple's Mobile devices, and keep them with a pretty strong lead into the future. However, p*ss them off enough... and they'll leave for someone else's products.



    With that said... I've had my strong suspicions that a number of unscrupulous developers... or just kids... were "gaming" the store in the first place. You can't tell me that their isn't a heck of a lot of "cr*p" in that 170,00+ number they like to throw around. Needs some "weeding out".



    It's like taking all of the China-trinkets and knock-offs, and throwing 'em haphazardly around in Nieman Marcus. Not good merchandising or store plan.



    And yes... if ya absolutely gotta have "it"... there's Safari. Although I must admit, there's a "gotcha" from Apple there too because Flash does not work.



    More than "a few" kinks Apple has to work out I guess.
  • Reply 71 of 124
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    So, Playboy =OK but clothing store=offensive....ok, gotcha.



    Why do I get the idea the decision makers in this case would similarly mistake the sears catalog for hard core porn?



    They certainly do have some store issues in that regard, but with the growth they've experienced I do have to wonder how many people are working in that department and how many of them all new to Apple.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post


    Man I don't know about you but I find some of those craftsman catalogs to be pure hardcore tool porn.



  • Reply 72 of 124
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Can the Apps be set to multiple categories? That is something I wish iTunes would allow for music genres but don't so I have to imagine that they only let devs choose one category. As others are saying, having an adult section that only appears for users who have allowed it in the account settings would be great.
  • Reply 73 of 124
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NanoAkron View Post


    Ah...the slippery slope of mass censorship.

    ...

    Toshiba doesn't dictate what apps I can use on their laptops, neither does Microsoft ban an entire swathe of applications for fear of offending American sensibilities that fly in the face of their European customers.



    Completely different topic.

    Toshiba DOES decide what is included on their computers when sold and Microsoft DOES decide what goes into their OS.

    Apple is the source of the apps. Toshiba and MS are not the main source of 3rd party apps.
  • Reply 74 of 124
    Too funny....



    Personally I don't really care about any of the apps that got banned or any of the ones that were allowed to stay but I find it hilariously funny that people actually think it's a PR nightmare! hahahaha.



    Guys, seriously, how in the world is this going to be a PR nightmare when the general public reads "Apple removes 5k overtly sexual apps."? Seriously! Even if the title reads but still allows the 99 cent playboy app it isn't going to matter. Who, going forward, is the biggest buyer of iPhones? Parents for their kids who've grown up on iPods. You really think the iPhone is going to lose out to Android when the parent goes and looks at controls and availability of smut? Sure, there's a 99 cent Playboy app with a few body parts covered but compare that to all the open smart phones - they are just layered with smut! Same thing happens w/ torrents - go to a torrent site and find the top, say, 20 downloads. I'd bet at least 15 of them are smut.



    If you want smut take to the web - you shouldn't have to sort through it when searching the app store for, say, games or something else. Apple might get a stern look from some people but the end result for Apple is a large net gain.



    If you still think it's a PR nightmare you've got your geek/nerd goggles on - you need to think "average dumb consumer"...



    EDIT: Case in point from CNN's main page "Apple bans most sexy iPhone apps" - from the average joe schmo consumer standpoint that's nothing but a good thing.
  • Reply 75 of 124
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


    And yes... if ya absolutely gotta have "it"... there's Safari. Although I must admit, there's a "gotcha" from Apple there too because Flash does not work.



    Not having Flash is a total non-issue when it comes to internet smut. The iPhone is so popular there are dozens of free sites that are H.264 compliant. And, ya know, for images just do a google search.
  • Reply 76 of 124
    This and many other reasons to short Apple !

    Apple lacks a respect of other people's creativity.
  • Reply 77 of 124
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nite41 View Post


    Why are people making so much noise about these useless apps being thrown out of the App Store? Agreed, for some people, those apps might have been the only reason to visit the App Store. But, me, as an average user, I was irritated to see these useless apps hog the limelight in the Most Popular section. Sometimes, it seemed to me that the App Store would soon start looking like YouTube (videos with thumbnails of semi-nude women)! I am grateful that Apple banned them! 5,000 less crap apps now in the App Store.

    Now, some developers are crying out loud over lost income. I honestly do sympathize with you. I haven't read the fine-print of the App Store rules, but, I am sure somewhere Apple must have stated 'Rules and conditions are subject to change'. They just exercised the option. Simple.

    If anyone really misses such apps, get your dose through other sources! I really do not have any sympathy for users who want such useless apps to satisfy their sexual desires!



    Seriously? What if the next step is they ban, religious apps so they dont offend any religious groups? or Liberal or Conservative apps so they don't offend any poltical views?



    Censorship is Censorship. People are upset because they (grown adults) are being told what they can and cannot see by apple.



    Maybe you don't use those aps. Good for you. Did someone tell you not to use them? No, you made that choice.



    Just because you don't use an app, doesn't make it useless to others, the fact it is highly downloaded verses your apps, would actually make your apps, less desireable. Should they be banned because some thinks they are useless?



    Apple made this problem by making itself the exclusive dealer in apps, if there were other avenues which wouldn't make thier iphone a paperweight, people would use those other avenues.



    Don't try to justify thier business practices with your moral values, because they could just as easily turn the other way and make you the next victim.
  • Reply 78 of 124
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    But as Apple purged more than 5,000 apps last week from the App Store, some with more risque content, including the magazine Playboy, have remained. Schiller explained that well-known and established brands, such as Sports Illustrated and its swimsuit edition, were given special consideration.



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



    He's actually defending this? WOW.
  • Reply 79 of 124
    This is getting freakin' ridiculous! Blocking an app that sells bikinis? Seriously?



    Who complained about bikinis, anyway? Some puritanical (literally) f-wads with a website and big mouths? Bikinis? Seriously?



    Now, granted, I'm not into girls in bikinis, but I sure as heck am not offended by them. And they're everywhere on TV. Seriously, check out that Hard Rock Rehab show, and other reality crap. Jeebus!



    I think Apple may have to backtrack somewhat on this. Girls in bikinis and guys in speedos should be allowed. Said girls and guys being nekkid and/or doing lewd things, well... that's different. The difference being that I can go to any random beach and see the girls and guys in bikinis and such, but I don't expect to see the lewd stuff.



    Yes, I realize other people's moral limits are different than mine, but COME ON! BIKINIS?!?!
  • Reply 80 of 124
    iPhone owners know Schiller knows what he's talking about.
Sign In or Register to comment.