Apple creates 'explicit' category for App Store software

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 75
    Perhaps the category should be relabeled "Sexually stimulating to a 17 year old". The United States has a rather Victorian attitude when it comes to sex (I'm from Michigan), so a low threshold should be established. If further granulation is necessary, so be it. "Explicit" could be a sub-category within "Sexually Stimulating". This stratification would allow the baby killer app to come back in the "Violence" category. And the iFart apps could be relegated to the "Childish Prank" category. Just give me the option to show me everything.



    Movies are easily handled because a great deal of time and attention has been put into the MPAA rating system. The same is true of the RIAA "Explicit Lyrics" label on music content. The App Store is no different. It's not censorship, it's classification. Besides, I can go to Safari and look at anything I want on the Internet. Lighten up people.



    Best comments:



    ... we're witnessing the birth of the Hairy Palm Pilot

    \t

    Luckily... if you get 'too much porn on your hands'... it washes off pretty easily.
  • Reply 62 of 75
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TEKSTUD View Post


    What - your misunderstanding or censorship?



    Obviously your misunderstanding (of anything you write about).
  • Reply 63 of 75
    This is probably a feature that is embargoed till iPhone OS 4.x...
  • Reply 64 of 75
    Apple is keeping their options open in case another device moves on the "explicit" category and gains momentum. Let some other company fill their app store with porn and see the response. If apple feels the need to compete it will be ready to have an explicit category. Nothing will happen anytime soon but apple knows that porn is one of the main reasons the Internet is so popular today. Free market app store would be so huge. If apple breaks down those walls with the lead it has now you can kiss any competition goodbye for the next decade or so. By slow rolling it's hand on this matter it's opening the back door for competition. Jmho.
  • Reply 65 of 75
    ibillibill Posts: 392member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    Apple Removes Explicit Option From iTunes



    Does this mean we weren't grasping at straws?
  • Reply 66 of 75
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TEKSTUD View Post


    Well we all know they had to do this or die a slow death. I wonder if they have "feelers" out there reading the various boards?

    Unfortunately this bloats iTunes yet even more. It needs its own website.

    Will the "explicit" section make way for hard core?



    Nah. Seriously, what interesting do you think they are supposed to read from "feelers" on boards?

    They just had some nicely efficient business lunch with Playboy and Penthouse folks.
  • Reply 67 of 75
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iBill View Post


    Does this mean we weren't grasping at straws?



    No, still grasping. Along with the fact that they allowed them before and are obviously considering allowing them again, it certainly shows 'being associated' with these types of apps isn't a main concern. More likely that want to allow the apps but do it in a way that doesn't offend the prudes.
  • Reply 68 of 75
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by InfoDave View Post


    Perhaps the category should be relabeled "Sexually stimulating to a 17 year old". The United States has a rather Victorian attitude when it comes to sex (I'm from Michigan), so a low threshold should be established. ...



    Movies are easily handled because a great deal of time and attention has been put into the MPAA rating system. The same is true of the RIAA "Explicit Lyrics" label on music content. The App Store is no different. It's not censorship, it's classification.



    I agree but the problem for Apple is that they have to create some sort of rating system on their own now for Apps and come up with a system that suits international needs. At least the movie industry has the MPAA to deflect the animosity from viewers even if they created the MPAA.



    I think there will be a consortium of developers that have to "censor themselves" to deflect animosity from consumers and avoid government intervention. Again that's why the MPAA was formed.



    also...



    Why does everyone think America is any more puritanical than other countries? Because you can see a booby on BBC? Wow! You also can't see a glock 9 on the BBC either. Should we return to cigarettes ads?



    As if other countries don't have their own laws regarding violence and sex. A poster just above mentioned no "R" games in Australia. Americans simply want porn "in it's place" even if we can't find one.



    It's an absurd notion... All you have to do is visit LA or Vegas to discover that sex is a huge business in the states. Where else could you visit websites unrestricted and view thousands of full length porn movies for free? I'm not saying any country has a truly solid solution, but to say America's standards are any more conservative than any other country is just silly. No government or rules can control content effectively without censorship of some sort (which isn't popular with the masses) so ultimately nothing works and it's still up to the parents to at least put things into perspective.



    Europeans need to understand that most of our states are bigger than EU countries and managing them as a whole is a very tiring task when you have a plethora of ideologies beliefs and religions within "one" geographical region. So STFU and quit barking about America not being free or puritanical and realize there are trade offs no matter what and no solution is perfect. (IE. Apple Vs. Windows.)
  • Reply 69 of 75
    Apple shouldn't accommodate moral complaints about an app unless the number of complaints is more than half the number of downloads.
  • Reply 70 of 75
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DistortedLoop View Post


    Well, yes and no. Refusing to sell stuff in your store is fine, as long as you're not the only store in town, and you don't have the ability to stop consumers from going to other stores, and take constant measures to prevent those who manage to slip out to another store somehow, and take steps to ban store owners from another store from selling wares in your store.



    It's like the old company stores in the mining towns of the 19th century.






    No it isn't. Get a non-Apple device and load it up to your heart's content with whatever you want. Last I heard Apple wasn't stopping you from that. I find it funny that people chide Apple for having such a small market share and then complain that they hold a monopoly on something or other.



    You prefer Android anyway. So why do you care? Get anything you can find on the OS that has it available and you can do anything you want.
  • Reply 71 of 75
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DistortedLoop View Post




    It's like the old company stores in the mining towns of the 19th century.





    No, it's like people taking it personally because they can't get orange Converse sneakers instead of buying a pair of orange KEDS.
  • Reply 72 of 75
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post


    Apple shouldn't accommodate moral complaints about an app unless the number of complaints is more than half the number of downloads.



    If Apple were a federal, state or local governing body, that might be reasonable. But it's not, so it has nothing to do with ones morality or censorship.
  • Reply 73 of 75
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iLad View Post


    Offensive is offensive. So the swimwear store who got their apped pulled because of bikini models showcasing product, got pulled because they are not an established brand is total BS. At least they are trying to create a section but that retail app shouldn't be in that section. These bible thumpers who keep complaining are so annoying. Whatever happened to freedom and free speech. Right to express oneself. Funny thing though it's these same people who molest kids, commit adultery and other questionable things. I say shut up and leave people alone. Be better parents stop having others do your job. If you can't manage your kids then you should not have had them. Stop making it everyone else's problem. Clearly this group is vocal and yields power but it is up to us all to drown their voices out with our own.



    Perhaps you should become more familiar with the law, i.e.,
    The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states:
    Quote:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



    The First Amendment only applies to prohibit direct government censorship. Exceptions apply, e.g., The protection from libel suits recognizes that the power of the state is needed to enforce a libel judgment between private persons.



    And most important,

    Quote:

    The U.S. Supreme Court has never interpreted the First Amendment as having the same power to alter private property rights, or provide any other protection against purely private action.



    When considering private authority figures (such as a child's parents or an employee's employer), Constitutional free speech provides no protection. A private authority figure may reserve the right to censor their subordinate's speech, or discriminate on the basis of speech, without any legal consequences. For example, per the at-will employment doctrine, an employee may be fired from their occupation for speaking out against a politician that the employer likes.



  • Reply 74 of 75
    ibillibill Posts: 392member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    No, still grasping. Along with the fact that they allowed them before and are obviously considering allowing them again, it certainly shows 'being associated' with these types of apps isn't a main concern. More likely that want to allow the apps but do it in a way that doesn't offend the prudes.



    Like I said before, they're concerned about their brand image.
  • Reply 75 of 75
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iBill View Post


    Like I said before, they're concerned about their brand image.



    duh. (no other response really seems fitting for such a pronouncement...what other gems await)



    But one would be pulling a large one from a rear facing orifice to then claim they know Apple wants to avoid being associated with these apps and hence banned them. First, because they previously allowed them and second because the briefly appearing 'explicit' category shows they are considering just such a category.
Sign In or Register to comment.