I see the hypocrites are out in force tonight, likely all have a "honk for jesus" bumper sticker next to their Apple one.
To me this is not a PORN issue - none of the apps involved are porn to begin with, scantily clad woman/men - sure. Porn -no.
As much as the book burners want to scream about porn and it's ill effects it's been challenged in courts over and over and unless it's sick / child it's not going anywhere. Do you understand the porn actually drove most of the technology adoption? VCR - porn, Cable/Sat - porn, Internet - porn. Mobility is the next platform and porn is right there. If you don't like it - don't purchase / view it. The funny thing is your neighbor, boss likely is.
Now Apple is toeing a Anti-Trust precendent here and what they need to do is put in writing exactly WHAT their AppStore policy for apps is. Put it out there in black and white and this won't happen. You can't APPROVE Apps and then a year later decide it's not what you wanted. To make it worse it seems big pocketed developers (Playboy, Maxim, SI) Apps are not being removed.
If the FCC and others poked around due to Google Voice, you can bet actions will be taken on this regardless if it's Apple's store or not.
I'd like all religious Apps removed as they offend me. This should be church and state.
Another growing thought is Apple needs to be broken apart. iTunes is too large and powerful now and should be seperated from Apple the hardware company.
I would be interested in what you meant. It certainly sounded like you were saying that Apple wasn't complying with the laws of the land.
Sorry that wasn't the intention. What I mean is that politicians are a good representation of the needs and preferences of the community. The laws in place regarding this kind of thing therefore also represent the line that the majority of society is comfortable with. If Apple were to loosely align their policy in similar terms (whereas the restrictions in the law is an obligation, but also a reference for what people are comfortable with) they would make the most amount of people happy, most of the time.
Sorry that wasn't the intention. What I mean is that politicians are a good representation of the needs and preferences of the community. The laws in place regarding this kind of thing therefore also represent the line that the majority of society is comfortable with. If Apple were to loosely align their policy in similar terms (whereas the restrictions in the law is an obligation, but also a reference for what people are comfortable with) they would make the most amount of people happy, most of the time.
It would appear that based on Apple's current sales trends and the success of the iTunes Store as well as the general feelings of the developer community, that is exactly what Apple is doing.
Certainly most communities don't want a porn shop in their neighbor hood. Most parents don't want 'sexual content' on their kids computers; they also don't want their kids' friends to have it on their's either.
Simply stated, most people just don't want overtly sexual content flashing in front of their face. Apple is just complying with the wishes of the majority. As for this idea that you should be able to do anything that you want to on something you own, try telling your kids it is all right to pee in your pool.
Any suggestion that putting a parental controlled 'backroom' on the Apple iTunes Store would satisfy everybody, is ludicrous. Think that such a strategy would or could prevent access by any segment of the population is even more ludicrous.
As for "…politicians are a good representation of the needs and preferences of the community…" I don' know of anybody that wants increased taxation, but I do know a lot of people that want more better access to healthcare. Just a couple of examples that our representatives just seem bound not to give us at any time.
As for this idea that you should be able to do anything that you want to on something you own, try telling your kids it is all right to pee in your pool.
It would appear that based on Apple's current sales trends and the success of the iTunes Store as well as the general feelings of the developer community, that is exactly what Apple is doing.
Certainly most communities don't want a porn shop in their neighbor hood. Most parents don't want 'sexual content' on their kids computers; they also don't want their kids' friends to have it on their's either.
Simply stated, most people just don't want overtly sexual content flashing in front of their face. Apple is just complying with the wishes of the majority. As for this idea that you should be able to do anything that you want to on something you own, try telling your kids it is all right to pee in your pool.
Any suggestion that putting a parental controlled 'backroom' on the Apple iTunes Store would satisfy everybody, is ludicrous. Think that such a strategy would or could prevent access by any segment of the population is even more ludicrous.
As for "…politicians are a good representation of the needs and preferences of the community…" I don' know of anybody that wants increased taxation, but I do know a lot of people that want more better access to healthcare. Just a couple of examples that our representatives just seem bound not to give us at any time.
I agree with much of what you've said here, and the idea of content in people's face is not what most of us want at all. I have no interest in it either and I've not really commented on that aspect so I again agree with your points there. As a side note, no sale controls are absolute anyhow for any product or any type of store.
As to the point about politicians representing us that remains a fact. They are representative most of the time. Using your example, in almost every country in the world the cost of healthcare is vastly less than it is in the US, with a smaller proportional change in tax, which invariably does please more people, most of the time, in a global sense.
Politicians are not genies though. They can't rub a pot and grant every wish, as much as they'd like to please more voters. The laws relating to both healthcare and tax represent what the community accepted at the time, though with hindsight everyone knows its not a satisfactory outcome.
Yes I saw some of apps have been disappeared from the app store buat still playboy and Sport Illustrated Swimsuit app still there very "exhibited pictures" meaning it is not clear what is the definition of overtly sexual????? Meaning women with transparent dress still ok? if the app came from big company?? or no way for small developer?
I will try and explain the situation in a simple way.
Apple is an American corporation. American corporations must toe the dominant American cultural line.
In the dominant American cultural experience, the most offensive thing is the sight of the naked human body. If we were to compare offensiveness quantitatively, a moving image of the naked female body would be more than 10 times as offensive as a moving image of a person shooting another person. A naked male body would be more than 20 times as offensive.
The dominant American cultural experience is invoked by the need to keep their young men sexually suppressed and violent and aggressive so that they will develop an interest primarily in wealth and possessions, and the acquisition of wealth and possessions through business transactions and war. This suppression is achieved through saturation of the adolescent experience with violent games, television and sport, and absolute suppression of all sexual content.
An American who is beholden to the dominant cultural imperative has as his or her worst fear that his or her child might see a naked adult. These kind of American's engage in a kind of psycho-cultural suppression of the infant experience of being suckled at the breast. There is a special kind of disdain in this American culture for the sight of a female nipple. For example, the sight of Janet Jackson's bared nipple in a major US television event caused nationwide outrage.
In light of this analysis, it is easy to see why the US has one of the world's highest rate of sexual disfunction including impotence, premature ejaculation and failure to achieve arousal in women... AND why there is no room for sexually-oriented content on the Apple iPhone App Store.
Nah, just make it so you can only browse "safe" pages "approved" by Apple.
While we're at it, let's open our iPhones to random remote inspection by Apple as well. Any photos, emails, music etc. deemed "objectionable" would be automatically removed.
If Apple wants control, at least do it right.
(Hmmm... if the "1984" commercial was re-filmed today, which side would Apple represent??)
Then I would suggest that you tell that to the authors who stated,
?predators often send adult porn to children to desensitize them from sexual content and child porn to show the child that other children are sexual; sending them a message that it is okay. http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...&client=safari
safeway still won't stock a lifesize sex doll. Stores can sell what they want or not sell what they don't want.
I'm not familiar Safeway, but if they are somewhere that people may expect to buy a lifesize sex doll, or if the presence of a lifesize sex doll fits with the type of goods they sell, but they are not carrying it on moral grounds, I would argue against that form of censorship too. Obviously I would never suggest they must carry anything; as you mentioned they can sell what they want or not sell what they don't want, as they are a private company.
So much better put & to the point then how I stated it, bravo! Agreed, people whining about loosing access to porn apps on the iTunes store can just create their own web apps from sites on the web. Look at it this way, now you won't have to pay a few bucks just to see something you probably could have found elsewhere for free.
... missing the point completely. And who's whining about not having access to porn apps? From what I can read the thread is more about Apple's decision to censor based on an ambiguous and abusable policy.
The poor girl was traumatized. Apple needs to get out of the smut business, and FAST!
Good idea - everyone should only paticipate in activities that are fully understood by and suitable for a 12 year old! Age based access restrictions be damned, everyone should conform to the lowest common denominator!
There are thousands of bookstores that choose not to sell porn (or erotic) magazines.
Why shouldn't apple have this choice?
Plenty of stores that serve the larger population that don't sell those kind of movies either (in Europe as well!).
Think Best Buy, Borders, Barnes & Nobles, Target, Sears, Harrods, Stockmann(Finland), Kaufhof(Germany), Le Printemps(France)
THe retailer that wants to attract a larger more diverse clientele has the right to selectively not offer certain products that they feel will hurt that larger customer base.
Since very few of the porn or overtly sexual apps have been in the top ten of free or paid or top grossing, it represents a niche for the App Store, and probably is not worth losing more significant business over.
I don't think it has to do with moral attitude as much as with dollars.
The retailers you mentioned sell lots of media with boobs and bikinis - even stuff (books and movies) that could be considered to be "overtly sexual", and contain nudity and sexual themes.
We're ok with violence, but we can't handle a few boobs. Does this seem backward to anyone else but me?
How bout they remove anything "overtly violent" from the app store?
This irritates me 1) that apple is acting as a content censor at all. 2) they are caving in to complaints by puritanical jack-asses.
I agree with the viewpoint that sex should be less offensive than violence but at the same time, there's no denying that sexual content causes physical reactions where violence does not.
If you were to see a poster of a naked girl while driving, you could have an accident. If you saw one while jogging in your spandex in a park where children were nearby and something came up, you'd have a lot to answer for.
When you see violent images however, you are not in any way inclined to walk over to someone and punch them.
I think one good reason to keep the sexual content out is that it stifles everything else. Any app that has boobs or girls or sex in the title immediately has a bigger draw than an app that's actually useful. If it gets more traffic then developers start to see what sells and follow the same route. Then we get inundated with useless apps.
This is what has happened to advertising online. You never see ads that really have anything that would truly benefit you, it's always teeth whitening or quick-fix abs or stories about how some teenager is getting paid loads by Google designed to make you click it because you think you deserve it more than them or ways to meet girls in your area luring you in with pictures of pornstars only to discover you just really need to find a better area to live in.
It drags the whole system into the gutter.
On the other hand, if I want a porn app on my iphone, I should be allowed to put one on. Allowing external sources seems like the only way to do this and Apple could even have approved external sources that aren't referenced from the App Store.
On the other hand, if I want a porn app on my iphone, I should be allowed to put one on. Allowing external sources seems like the only way to do this and Apple could even have approved external sources that aren't referenced from the App Store.
Yes. Bingo. Agreed.
Apple let itself in for a world of hurt when it decided to become the sole vendor of iPhone Apps.
I've got to come down on the side that they can sell or not sell anything they want. I understand that they do not want to sell certain material.
But where they stepped on their pud was making it a policy that nobody else could sell this material for installation on the iPhone.
It changes the equation from "what Apple sells" to "what Apple allows its customers to have".
They would have no problems with accusations of censorship, double standards, boneheaded puritanical thinking or any of the rest IF they were not the sole source for apps.
I don't like locking myself in to a single vendor. It is rarely a wise move. And I think that the recent bad publicity will make more folks rethink whether being locked in to the AppStore makes sense for them.
Apple let itself in for a world of hurt when it decided to become the sole vendor of iPhone Apps.
I've got to come down on the side that they can sell or not sell anything they want. I understand that they do not want to sell certain material.
But where they stepped on their pud was making it a policy that nobody else could sell this material for installation on the iPhone.
It changes the equation from "what Apple sells" to "what Apple allows its customers to have".
They would have no problems with accusations of censorship, double standards, boneheaded puritanical thinking or any of the rest IF they were not the sole source for apps.
I don't like locking myself in to a single vendor. It is rarely a wise move. And I think that the recent bad publicity will make more folks rethink whether being locked in to the AppStore makes sense for them.
Agree. Would say 100% agree, but then there are jailbroken phones, so there is a way how to get the content you want on your iPhone. It makes the platform less secure, compared to scenario, where you can install apps from external sources, in the way Android handles this (tick on single checkbox in the system settings).
But I feel we will see this trend to continue and possibly we'll see AppStore for mac applications for OS X 10.7
Comments
To me this is not a PORN issue - none of the apps involved are porn to begin with, scantily clad woman/men - sure. Porn -no.
As much as the book burners want to scream about porn and it's ill effects it's been challenged in courts over and over and unless it's sick / child it's not going anywhere. Do you understand the porn actually drove most of the technology adoption? VCR - porn, Cable/Sat - porn, Internet - porn. Mobility is the next platform and porn is right there. If you don't like it - don't purchase / view it. The funny thing is your neighbor, boss likely is.
Now Apple is toeing a Anti-Trust precendent here and what they need to do is put in writing exactly WHAT their AppStore policy for apps is. Put it out there in black and white and this won't happen. You can't APPROVE Apps and then a year later decide it's not what you wanted. To make it worse it seems big pocketed developers (Playboy, Maxim, SI) Apps are not being removed.
If the FCC and others poked around due to Google Voice, you can bet actions will be taken on this regardless if it's Apple's store or not.
I'd like all religious Apps removed as they offend me. This should be church and state.
Another growing thought is Apple needs to be broken apart. iTunes is too large and powerful now and should be seperated from Apple the hardware company.
I would be interested in what you meant. It certainly sounded like you were saying that Apple wasn't complying with the laws of the land.
Sorry that wasn't the intention. What I mean is that politicians are a good representation of the needs and preferences of the community. The laws in place regarding this kind of thing therefore also represent the line that the majority of society is comfortable with. If Apple were to loosely align their policy in similar terms (whereas the restrictions in the law is an obligation, but also a reference for what people are comfortable with) they would make the most amount of people happy, most of the time.
Sorry that wasn't the intention. What I mean is that politicians are a good representation of the needs and preferences of the community. The laws in place regarding this kind of thing therefore also represent the line that the majority of society is comfortable with. If Apple were to loosely align their policy in similar terms (whereas the restrictions in the law is an obligation, but also a reference for what people are comfortable with) they would make the most amount of people happy, most of the time.
It would appear that based on Apple's current sales trends and the success of the iTunes Store as well as the general feelings of the developer community, that is exactly what Apple is doing.
Certainly most communities don't want a porn shop in their neighbor hood. Most parents don't want 'sexual content' on their kids computers; they also don't want their kids' friends to have it on their's either.
Simply stated, most people just don't want overtly sexual content flashing in front of their face. Apple is just complying with the wishes of the majority. As for this idea that you should be able to do anything that you want to on something you own, try telling your kids it is all right to pee in your pool.
Any suggestion that putting a parental controlled 'backroom' on the Apple iTunes Store would satisfy everybody, is ludicrous. Think that such a strategy would or could prevent access by any segment of the population is even more ludicrous.
As for "…politicians are a good representation of the needs and preferences of the community…" I don' know of anybody that wants increased taxation, but I do know a lot of people that want more better access to healthcare. Just a couple of examples that our representatives just seem bound not to give us at any time.
As for this idea that you should be able to do anything that you want to on something you own, try telling your kids it is all right to pee in your pool.
I love this place!
It would appear that based on Apple's current sales trends and the success of the iTunes Store as well as the general feelings of the developer community, that is exactly what Apple is doing.
Certainly most communities don't want a porn shop in their neighbor hood. Most parents don't want 'sexual content' on their kids computers; they also don't want their kids' friends to have it on their's either.
Simply stated, most people just don't want overtly sexual content flashing in front of their face. Apple is just complying with the wishes of the majority. As for this idea that you should be able to do anything that you want to on something you own, try telling your kids it is all right to pee in your pool.
Any suggestion that putting a parental controlled 'backroom' on the Apple iTunes Store would satisfy everybody, is ludicrous. Think that such a strategy would or could prevent access by any segment of the population is even more ludicrous.
As for "…politicians are a good representation of the needs and preferences of the community…" I don' know of anybody that wants increased taxation, but I do know a lot of people that want more better access to healthcare. Just a couple of examples that our representatives just seem bound not to give us at any time.
I agree with much of what you've said here, and the idea of content in people's face is not what most of us want at all. I have no interest in it either and I've not really commented on that aspect so I again agree with your points there. As a side note, no sale controls are absolute anyhow for any product or any type of store.
As to the point about politicians representing us that remains a fact. They are representative most of the time. Using your example, in almost every country in the world the cost of healthcare is vastly less than it is in the US, with a smaller proportional change in tax, which invariably does please more people, most of the time, in a global sense.
Politicians are not genies though. They can't rub a pot and grant every wish, as much as they'd like to please more voters. The laws relating to both healthcare and tax represent what the community accepted at the time, though with hindsight everyone knows its not a satisfactory outcome.
http://itunes.apple.com/app/playboy/id340150554?mt=8
The poor girl was traumatized. Apple needs to get out of the smut business, and FAST!
Apple is an American corporation. American corporations must toe the dominant American cultural line.
In the dominant American cultural experience, the most offensive thing is the sight of the naked human body. If we were to compare offensiveness quantitatively, a moving image of the naked female body would be more than 10 times as offensive as a moving image of a person shooting another person. A naked male body would be more than 20 times as offensive.
The dominant American cultural experience is invoked by the need to keep their young men sexually suppressed and violent and aggressive so that they will develop an interest primarily in wealth and possessions, and the acquisition of wealth and possessions through business transactions and war. This suppression is achieved through saturation of the adolescent experience with violent games, television and sport, and absolute suppression of all sexual content.
An American who is beholden to the dominant cultural imperative has as his or her worst fear that his or her child might see a naked adult. These kind of American's engage in a kind of psycho-cultural suppression of the infant experience of being suckled at the breast. There is a special kind of disdain in this American culture for the sight of a female nipple. For example, the sight of Janet Jackson's bared nipple in a major US television event caused nationwide outrage.
In light of this analysis, it is easy to see why the US has one of the world's highest rate of sexual disfunction including impotence, premature ejaculation and failure to achieve arousal in women... AND why there is no room for sexually-oriented content on the Apple iPhone App Store.
So I was surfing the iTunes store with a 12 year old virgin sitting next to me, and lo and behold, what did I stumble across!?
http://itunes.apple.com/app/playboy/id340150554?mt=8
The poor girl was traumatized. Apple needs to get out of the smut business, and FAST!
Yeah. And they should remove Safari, too.
Yeah. And they should remove Safari, too.
Nah, just make it so you can only browse "safe" pages "approved" by Apple.
While we're at it, let's open our iPhones to random remote inspection by Apple as well. Any photos, emails, music etc. deemed "objectionable" would be automatically removed.
If Apple wants control, at least do it right.
(Hmmm... if the "1984" commercial was re-filmed today, which side would Apple represent??)
Then I would suggest that you tell that to the authors who stated,
In context and not cherry picked, I don't think the authors would find what I said particularly interesting or contrary to their study.
safeway still won't stock a lifesize sex doll. Stores can sell what they want or not sell what they don't want.
I'm not familiar Safeway, but if they are somewhere that people may expect to buy a lifesize sex doll, or if the presence of a lifesize sex doll fits with the type of goods they sell, but they are not carrying it on moral grounds, I would argue against that form of censorship too. Obviously I would never suggest they must carry anything; as you mentioned they can sell what they want or not sell what they don't want, as they are a private company.
Bravo Apple. Porn or any overtly sexual material is not wanted or needed in the App store by me.
Fixed that for you.
So much better put & to the point then how I stated it, bravo! Agreed, people whining about loosing access to porn apps on the iTunes store can just create their own web apps from sites on the web. Look at it this way, now you won't have to pay a few bucks just to see something you probably could have found elsewhere for free.
... missing the point completely. And who's whining about not having access to porn apps? From what I can read the thread is more about Apple's decision to censor based on an ambiguous and abusable policy.
So I was surfing the iTunes store with a 12 year old virgin sitting next to me, and lo and behold, what did I stumble across!?
http://itunes.apple.com/app/playboy/id340150554?mt=8
The poor girl was traumatized. Apple needs to get out of the smut business, and FAST!
Good idea - everyone should only paticipate in activities that are fully understood by and suitable for a 12 year old! Age based access restrictions be damned, everyone should conform to the lowest common denominator!
How bout they remove anything "overtly violent" from the app store?
This irritates me 1) that apple is acting as a content censor at all. 2) they are caving in to complaints by puritanical jack-asses.
There are thousands of bookstores that choose not to sell porn (or erotic) magazines.
Why shouldn't apple have this choice?
Plenty of stores that serve the larger population that don't sell those kind of movies either (in Europe as well!).
Think Best Buy, Borders, Barnes & Nobles, Target, Sears, Harrods, Stockmann(Finland), Kaufhof(Germany), Le Printemps(France)
THe retailer that wants to attract a larger more diverse clientele has the right to selectively not offer certain products that they feel will hurt that larger customer base.
Since very few of the porn or overtly sexual apps have been in the top ten of free or paid or top grossing, it represents a niche for the App Store, and probably is not worth losing more significant business over.
I don't think it has to do with moral attitude as much as with dollars.
The retailers you mentioned sell lots of media with boobs and bikinis - even stuff (books and movies) that could be considered to be "overtly sexual", and contain nudity and sexual themes.
We're ok with violence, but we can't handle a few boobs. Does this seem backward to anyone else but me?
How bout they remove anything "overtly violent" from the app store?
This irritates me 1) that apple is acting as a content censor at all. 2) they are caving in to complaints by puritanical jack-asses.
I agree with the viewpoint that sex should be less offensive than violence but at the same time, there's no denying that sexual content causes physical reactions where violence does not.
If you were to see a poster of a naked girl while driving, you could have an accident. If you saw one while jogging in your spandex in a park where children were nearby and something came up, you'd have a lot to answer for.
When you see violent images however, you are not in any way inclined to walk over to someone and punch them.
I think one good reason to keep the sexual content out is that it stifles everything else. Any app that has boobs or girls or sex in the title immediately has a bigger draw than an app that's actually useful. If it gets more traffic then developers start to see what sells and follow the same route. Then we get inundated with useless apps.
This is what has happened to advertising online. You never see ads that really have anything that would truly benefit you, it's always teeth whitening or quick-fix abs or stories about how some teenager is getting paid loads by Google designed to make you click it because you think you deserve it more than them or ways to meet girls in your area luring you in with pictures of pornstars only to discover you just really need to find a better area to live in.
It drags the whole system into the gutter.
On the other hand, if I want a porn app on my iphone, I should be allowed to put one on. Allowing external sources seems like the only way to do this and Apple could even have approved external sources that aren't referenced from the App Store.
On the other hand, if I want a porn app on my iphone, I should be allowed to put one on. Allowing external sources seems like the only way to do this and Apple could even have approved external sources that aren't referenced from the App Store.
Yes. Bingo. Agreed.
Apple let itself in for a world of hurt when it decided to become the sole vendor of iPhone Apps.
I've got to come down on the side that they can sell or not sell anything they want. I understand that they do not want to sell certain material.
But where they stepped on their pud was making it a policy that nobody else could sell this material for installation on the iPhone.
It changes the equation from "what Apple sells" to "what Apple allows its customers to have".
They would have no problems with accusations of censorship, double standards, boneheaded puritanical thinking or any of the rest IF they were not the sole source for apps.
I don't like locking myself in to a single vendor. It is rarely a wise move. And I think that the recent bad publicity will make more folks rethink whether being locked in to the AppStore makes sense for them.
Yes. Bingo. Agreed.
Apple let itself in for a world of hurt when it decided to become the sole vendor of iPhone Apps.
I've got to come down on the side that they can sell or not sell anything they want. I understand that they do not want to sell certain material.
But where they stepped on their pud was making it a policy that nobody else could sell this material for installation on the iPhone.
It changes the equation from "what Apple sells" to "what Apple allows its customers to have".
They would have no problems with accusations of censorship, double standards, boneheaded puritanical thinking or any of the rest IF they were not the sole source for apps.
I don't like locking myself in to a single vendor. It is rarely a wise move. And I think that the recent bad publicity will make more folks rethink whether being locked in to the AppStore makes sense for them.
Agree. Would say 100% agree, but then there are jailbroken phones, so there is a way how to get the content you want on your iPhone. It makes the platform less secure, compared to scenario, where you can install apps from external sources, in the way Android handles this (tick on single checkbox in the system settings).
But I feel we will see this trend to continue and possibly we'll see AppStore for mac applications for OS X 10.7