I get the general point of the column, and I agree that in a perfect world major players like HBO would be treated exactly the same as smallest iOS developer. Of course, we all know that this is far from a perfect world.
And yeah: I saw about 15 minutes of "Stacked Racks from Mars" and it was just about as softcore as softcore can get. Honestly, that 15 minutes was kinda funny. I might check out the whole thing one day, if it's as funny as those few minutes.
By this logic, Apple should axe Safari ... which I'm sure is the biggest conduit for porn in Apple's ecosystem. But it was only ever a click bait article, right? I actually hope so.
What is the logic of Apple providing Safari on iOS devices and yet holding other apps to a standard they don't adhere to themselves? Why pull 500px - which is a photography enthusiast website which happens to contain a nudes section - when you can visit the website via Safari?
The article is just highlighting that this latest development further shows up the hypocrisy that governs the App store.
Wow, this is so stupid. Your examples of "hypocrisy" are that Vine lost "prime placement" in the app store, and Tumblr decided to add a warning. You make it sound like Apple is practicing extreme censorship against everyone but HBO, but these apps have not been pulled, even though they are both rife with hardcore porn.
No app gets "prime placement" forever. It's not a right that Vine was wrongfully deprived of. Apple didn't remove Vine from the App Store, even though Vine is LOADED with TONS of the most graphic porn you could imagine, with absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. But they are still in the App Store. And so is Tumblr, which is also a haven for hardcore porn.
So you can watch a few soft core movies on HBO, and meanwhile there is a TON of extremely graphic porn available on Vine and Tumblr, which both enjoy full access to the iOS platform... and somehow to you this shows that Apple is giving HBO preferential treatment while censoring everyone else? Your argument makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.
There's nothing wrong with porn, of course. The only thing wrong is Apple's double standard.
There are lots of thing wrong with the porn industry. If there ever was a thing such as a fairtrade certificate for porn, at least it would make sure everyone involved were treated with respect, with a fair compensation, and according to regulations. I think there are som really dirty contracts for porn actors out there..
Then there's the psychological effect of consuming porn.. But that's completely on the other end.
Uh, a whole lot of people disagree with that opinion there...
I'm glad for Apple's smut controls, personally.
Yeah. It's good they take a stance for their app store. Now I haven't tried HBO Now, so I don't know what they're talking about. But if it's soft, no genitals in sight, porn I guess it's a sort of gray zone..
Today a web app on iOS will work nearly just as good as a native app. So anything can be done through Safari, then streamed to the Apple TV.
Having said all that. If we say no to porn, then do we say no to controversial movies such as Lars von Trier's Nymphomaniac, and the likes?
This is a pointless fluff piece. Broadcasters and along with movies and music are already regulated therefore Apple need only comply with these rules. The App Store is operated by Apple and its fairly sensible of them to avoid any grey areas regarding what is and is not classed as pornography by having a restriction on any and all apps which could be perceived as porn.
This is a pointless fluff piece. Broadcasters and along with movies and music are already regulated therefore Apple need only comply with these rules. The App Store is operated by Apple and its fairly sensible of them to avoid any grey areas regarding what is and is not classed as pornography by having a restriction on any and all apps which could be perceived as porn.
You are probably correct that Apple are only required to comply with classification rules wrt movies, but that doesn't mean they don't have the ability to set their own standards in choosing which content to allow in their devices. Clearly it's not really feasible for web content but they've demonstrated their willingness to play police on app content that can be perceived a certain way. There's nothing to stop them disneyfying the HBO channels presented through Apple devices.
On that basis you could accuse Apple of some form of hypocrisy but tbh until I read this article I'd never even put my mind to it.
Not surprised by this. Here's an example: Marco Arment's podcast app used to have a feature in settings where you could try other podcast apps. It was basically 'if you don't like my app try one of these other great podcast apps'. When you tapped on one of the apps it took you out of Marco's app and to the App Store. Apple made him remove that feature because of this App Store rule:
“Apps that display Apps other than your own for purchase or promotion in a manner similar to or confusing with the App Store will be rejected.”
What Arment did was in no way confusing with the App Store because it took you out of his app and to the App Store! You were never downloading or purchasing from inside his app; you always got redirected to the App Store. Apple made him remove that feature yet completely looks the other way when Facebook does this:
It seems they also look away when every one of Google's apps looks just like its Android version.
I'm glad Apple has tighter rules on what's allowed in the App Store as far as sexually explicit content goes, but I can understand why some people think it's silly considering you can open Safari or any other web browser and easily access sexually explicit content.
This post seems like "it's Friday afternoon let's pump out a piece that will create controversy and maybe get picked by Main Street press,,,,'As noted on tech website AI, Apple is now supporting pornography". Basically it is an OPINION of somebody on staff, an example of the old saying: Everybody has two jobs; what they get paid to do, and being a movie critic.
I would suggest putting the weight of this site behind someone's opinion, someone not familiar with Standards, is misdirected effort, unless you label it or dedicate the site to Opinion. Some sites are pure Opinion, ie. Daring Fireball. Well thought out, still Opinion. I don't have to agree, it's his opinion, I have mine. Like DF once said S. Jobs plan to dress as Willy Wonka and give out gold tickets was not 'cool'. I read DF daily, consider it a smart site, though far from a judge of what's 'cool'.
If you understand film, what constitutes porn is not akin to what Jack Warner (Warner Brothers old timer studio head) said about what is good..."I'll tell you when I see it", though there are a lot of people who have and make their own definition of pornography, criminal behavior, what's "right". Not to throw a wrench in those people's thinking, there are community standards and legal guidelines for film and television. The referenced shows in this post don't approach the legal definition of pornograohy. If someone wonders why, then research it.
This response is NOT an Opinion response. It is based on facts, Standards and law. If a site decides to evaluate content, it's smart to understand the terms used in the evaluation. You would expect and require "bloggers, reporters, editors"...whatever one chooses to call oneself, to understand technology details before posting a critique on technology, you would also expect AI, if it wants to enter the Entertainment Industry's legions of advisors and gatekeepers, to research existing Standards and laws to better inform their posts, unless it's an Opinion, then...anything goes, you are the Man.
What a silly and childish article. It's literally impossible for Apple to hold the EXACT standard and stance in ALL contexts, and throughout ALL their services. That does not make anyone a hypocrite. It means they are human beings who are attempting to maintain some decency and age-appropriateness for the software they sell through their own digital stores. And no, movies and video subscriptions are not identical to apps in this regard, no should they be. So whats the solution? Open the floodgates to porn, or bar absolutely everything, including popular shows like Game of Thrones? Both those moves would be utterly moronic, but I guess they'd be "consistent".. or something.
You want porn? Open safari on your iPhone/iPad. You have access to an infinite pool of porn, and more free, streaming video that will last you a million lifetimes. But no, that's not enough, you also demand it in your apps. Why? Why the **** should Apple be forced to distribute it through their digital store? It's their store and their rules. Seeing as how it's used by hundreds of millions of people, including millions of young kids, I don't see how you can't comprehend that they'd prefer to err on the side of caution, and look at the big picture- not just self-righteous porn addicts like you that have no subtlety in understanding the complexity of the situation.
PS- None of the shit you described is "porn" and iTunes has been selling movies with nudity for more than a decade.
The article is hardly silly. It points out that Apple's policy is not consistent. HBO really only show soft porn, but Apple has denied apps access to the App Store for the same reason. Apple also allows some questionable apps but disallows others. For instance, the ikarmulsutra app was once allowed, but then disallowed because some parent complained about the illustrations. It was a really well done app, but Apple still allows other similar but less well done apps.
What is the logic of Apple providing Safari on iOS devices and yet holding other apps to a standard they don't adhere to themselves? Why pull 500px - which is a photography enthusiast website which happens to contain a nudes section - when you can visit the website via Safari?
The article is just highlighting that this latest development further shows up the hypocrisy that governs the App store.
Actually the rationale is quite simple if you follow the money. Yes, to those in the US the App store restrictions seem kind of pointless when Safari already offers a much larger conduit to porn than any app store app could provide. But Apple also operates in countries that practice censorship. Authoritarian regimes like China can and do filter what people access through Safari without any direct involvement of or impact to Apple. But since they cannot snoop on App Store connections (at least not since Apple upgraded to https (https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/03/09/apple-finally-adopts-https-for-the-app-store-here-is-why-it-matters/)), they could and probably would ban Apple from operating unless it policed the App Store according to the party's agenda.
Comments
They're the same thing,
????
It's not porn
Or as Lenny Bruce said in his notorious trial on the difference between porn and art. 'tearing off ass with class'
They're the same thing,
????
LOL
So very true.
I get the general point of the column, and I agree that in a perfect world major players like HBO would be treated exactly the same as smallest iOS developer. Of course, we all know that this is far from a perfect world.
And yeah: I saw about 15 minutes of "Stacked Racks from Mars" and it was just about as softcore as softcore can get. Honestly, that 15 minutes was kinda funny. I might check out the whole thing one day, if it's as funny as those few minutes.
By this logic, Apple should axe Safari ... which I'm sure is the biggest conduit for porn in Apple's ecosystem. But it was only ever a click bait article, right? I actually hope so.
What is the logic of Apple providing Safari on iOS devices and yet holding other apps to a standard they don't adhere to themselves? Why pull 500px - which is a photography enthusiast website which happens to contain a nudes section - when you can visit the website via Safari?
The article is just highlighting that this latest development further shows up the hypocrisy that governs the App store.
No app gets "prime placement" forever. It's not a right that Vine was wrongfully deprived of. Apple didn't remove Vine from the App Store, even though Vine is LOADED with TONS of the most graphic porn you could imagine, with absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. But they are still in the App Store. And so is Tumblr, which is also a haven for hardcore porn.
So you can watch a few soft core movies on HBO, and meanwhile there is a TON of extremely graphic porn available on Vine and Tumblr, which both enjoy full access to the iOS platform... and somehow to you this shows that Apple is giving HBO preferential treatment while censoring everyone else? Your argument makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.
Then there's the psychological effect of consuming porn.. But that's completely on the other end.
Yeah. It's good they take a stance for their app store. Now I haven't tried HBO Now, so I don't know what they're talking about. But if it's soft, no genitals in sight, porn I guess it's a sort of gray zone..
Today a web app on iOS will work nearly just as good as a native app. So anything can be done through Safari, then streamed to the Apple TV.
Having said all that. If we say no to porn, then do we say no to controversial movies such as Lars von Trier's Nymphomaniac, and the likes?
If we're talking about Game of Thrones, etc- although somewhat gratuitous it's mostly situational- yes women in a brothel will be nude.
Now if Skin-a-Max was on there that'd be a different story.
On that basis you could accuse Apple of some form of hypocrisy but tbh until I read this article I'd never even put my mind to it.
It's the vehicle vs the delivery method. iTunes has long had R rated content with nudity, so the difference?
Much of HBO porn content is nudity within a show- not the sole content of the show. If it were Skinamax- sure different story.
People who say GOT or shows/movies with nudities are porn I refer to the definition of porn: "erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings."
What Arment did was in no way confusing with the App Store because it took you out of his app and to the App Store! You were never downloading or purchasing from inside his app; you always got redirected to the App Store. Apple made him remove that feature yet completely looks the other way when Facebook does this:
It seems they also look away when every one of Google's apps looks just like its Android version.
I'm glad Apple has tighter rules on what's allowed in the App Store as far as sexually explicit content goes, but I can understand why some people think it's silly considering you can open Safari or any other web browser and easily access sexually explicit content.
I would suggest putting the weight of this site behind someone's opinion, someone not familiar with Standards, is misdirected effort, unless you label it or dedicate the site to Opinion. Some sites are pure Opinion, ie. Daring Fireball. Well thought out, still Opinion. I don't have to agree, it's his opinion, I have mine. Like DF once said S. Jobs plan to dress as Willy Wonka and give out gold tickets was not 'cool'. I read DF daily, consider it a smart site, though far from a judge of what's 'cool'.
If you understand film, what constitutes porn is not akin to what Jack Warner (Warner Brothers old timer studio head) said about what is good..."I'll tell you when I see it", though there are a lot of people who have and make their own definition of pornography, criminal behavior, what's "right". Not to throw a wrench in those people's thinking, there are community standards and legal guidelines for film and television. The referenced shows in this post don't approach the legal definition of pornograohy.
If someone wonders why, then research it.
This response is NOT an Opinion response. It is based on facts, Standards and law. If a site decides to evaluate content, it's smart to understand the terms used in the evaluation. You would expect and require "bloggers, reporters, editors"...whatever one chooses to call oneself, to understand technology details before posting a critique on technology, you would also expect AI, if it wants to enter the Entertainment Industry's legions of advisors and gatekeepers, to research existing Standards and laws to better inform their posts, unless it's an Opinion, then...anything goes, you are the Man.
The article is hardly silly. It points out that Apple's policy is not consistent. HBO really only show soft porn, but Apple has denied apps access to the App Store for the same reason. Apple also allows some questionable apps but disallows others. For instance, the ikarmulsutra app was once allowed, but then disallowed because some parent complained about the illustrations. It was a really well done app, but Apple still allows other similar but less well done apps.
I agree.
What is the logic of Apple providing Safari on iOS devices and yet holding other apps to a standard they don't adhere to themselves? Why pull 500px - which is a photography enthusiast website which happens to contain a nudes section - when you can visit the website via Safari?
The article is just highlighting that this latest development further shows up the hypocrisy that governs the App store.
Actually the rationale is quite simple if you follow the money. Yes, to those in the US the App store restrictions seem kind of pointless when Safari already offers a much larger conduit to porn than any app store app could provide. But Apple also operates in countries that practice censorship. Authoritarian regimes like China can and do filter what people access through Safari without any direct involvement of or impact to Apple. But since they cannot snoop on App Store connections (at least not since Apple upgraded to https (https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/03/09/apple-finally-adopts-https-for-the-app-store-here-is-why-it-matters/)), they could and probably would ban Apple from operating unless it policed the App Store according to the party's agenda.