Part of the outrageousness is the double-standard. Full-frontal nudity and sexual situations are allowed in movies sold on the iTunes Store, and don't get me started on explicit song lyrics. The introduction of parental controls was supposed to let adults be adults and kids be kids. So why, inexplicably only in the area of apps, is Apple deciding to treat adults like kids?
It's a very simple matter to transfer these "overtly sexual" apps to a more mature section of the App Store and wall them off with adult access.
This is something Apple should have done in the first place, now they appear like censorship nazi's and denying people's right to access to adult themed material.
Supposedly the human male thinks about sex a average of 6 times a day and is even willing to pay for sex. Adult themed material is a safe avenue to vent, rather than being sexual harassing to actual people or engaging in risky conduct.
Apple is trying to make the App Store pristine for a reason, the iPad and selling them to schools. It's perfectly understandable why nobody in their right mind wants any reference anything sexual in that environment. It's a shame that that small market is dictating what everyone else has to abide by when Apple could create walled sections by default in the App Store instead and cater to everyone.
What's going to happen when parent's complain about the religious Apps programming their children into being cultists?
At least Steve didn't put a camera in the iPad yet, so the child predators in the schools can't use it to spy on the students in their bedrooms...
Good point, I like looking at naked women as much as the next guy....but I do also respect the positions of people who find it offensive. I've always thought a good solution would be instead of .com suffix a .Porn suffix for all the 'Adult' sites.
Parents, library's businesses, etc., could 'block' their computers from accessing .Porn sites. Or receiving offensive emails from them too for that matter. I can see Apple's position of not wanting either the iPhone or App store being co-opted by the porn industry.
Good gosh folks! (The "gosh" in deference to the prudes here.) Why all these references to "porn" on the app store? These are not porn apps that are being removed.
Part of the outrageousness is the double-standard. Full-frontal nudity and sexual situations are allowed in movies sold on the iTunes Store, and don't get me started on explicit song lyrics. The introduction of parental controls was supposed to let adults be adults and kids be kids. So why, inexplicably only in the area of apps, is Apple deciding to treat adults like kids?
Few months ago the company I work for released a new iPhone app. It was placed in the Lifestyle category. Normally, it takes more than 12 hours from the app approval till the application appears on the "what's new" list. Sometimes it takes more than 24 hours. The apps from the same date are listed in alphabetical order.
The particular app I am giving as an example made it's first public appearance on the 14th page in the what's new list! This means 0 (ZERO) visibility. The only way to find it was to make a search.
When I looked at the other apps from the same day, most of them were those 'overtly sexual' crap, and most of them in batches of 20 or more from the same company. Many of them had an A, AA or AAA prefix, so they were listed first. Me and my company were f***ed up, but so was the AppStore user.
I was expecting that Apple will make a separate category for those apps, but then there was a whole new problem: the 'overtly sexual' apps were starting to occupy all categories and in order to make a separate category work, Apple had to restrict the possibility to assign or change the category whenever you want, which would be bad for us.
So, for all those complaining here: take a closer look, and you will understand that there is no 'Perfect' solution. I think Apple made the best compromise to defend it's users and developers.
EDIT: Oh, one of our apps was pulled from the AppStore in the process. We are not complaining at all. It was released out of frustration anyway
Really? So if someone owns a small grocery store and one day decides to stop selling, Playboy, Penthouse, hell Hightimes and Biker mags because the locals complain about them, does that make him wrong as well? It's the exact same thing.
It's not the same thing at all. There are millions of grocery stores, sometimes there's a dozen on a single block. There is only one source for apps on Apple's new mobile platform.
This is the same thing as if the government said that Maxim, Sport's Illustrated etc. are "obscene" and that no one is allowed to sell them because some small amount of vocal idiots might be "upset" by the images.
Worse, this is the same as if the American government said that it was illegal in Europe to sell or look at such magazines. It's absolutely outrageous and everyone should be against it regardless of their opinion on the subject matter.
It's not the same thing at all. There are millions of grocery stores, sometimes there's a dozen on a single block. There is only one source for apps on Apple's new mobile platform.
This is the same thing as if the government said that Maxim, Sport's Illustrated etc. are "obscene" and that no one is allowed to sell them because some small amount of vocal idiots might be "upset" by the images.
Worse, this is the same as if the American government said that it was illegal in Europe to sell or look at such magazines. It's absolutely outrageous and everyone should be against it regardless of their opinion on the subject matter.
Tolerance and intolerance work both ways....I'm 'tolerant' of people who find Maxim magazine covers with young women 'presenting' their 'monkeys' offensive....I personally do not find it offensive in fact I quite enjoy it. The 'all or nothing' crowd on both sides of most issues seem to me to be 'intolerant' of the other sides stance, (no pun intended!)
It's not the same thing at all. There are millions of grocery stores, sometimes there's a dozen on a single block. There is only one source for apps on Apple's new mobile platform.
This is the same thing as if the government said that Maxim, Sport's Illustrated etc. are "obscene" and that no one is allowed to sell them because some small amount of vocal idiots might be "upset" by the images.
Worse, this is the same as if the American government said that it was illegal in Europe to sell or look at such magazines. It's absolutely outrageous and everyone should be against it regardless of their opinion on the subject matter.
There are other phones and platforms. Let's see how this move affects Apple. It gets thumbs up from me (see my post above).
Few months ago the company I work for released a new iPhone app. It was placed in the Lifestyle category. Normally, it takes more than 12 hours from the app approval till the application appears on the "what's new" list. Sometimes it takes more than 24 hours. The apps from the same date are listed in alphabetical order.
The particular app I am giving as an example made it's first public appearance on the 14th page in the what's new list! This means 0 (ZERO) visibility. The only way to find it was to make a search.
When I looked at the other apps from the same day, most of them were those 'overtly sexual' crap, and most of them in batches of 20 or more from the same company. Many of them had an A, AA or AAA prefix, so they were listed first. Me and my company were f***ed up, but so was the AppStore user.
I was expecting that Apple will make a separate category for those apps, but then there was a whole new problem: the 'overtly sexual' apps were starting to occupy all categories and in order to make a separate category work, Apple had to restrict the possibility to assign or change the category whenever you want, which would be bad for us.
So, for all those complaining here: take a closer look, and you will understand that there is no 'Perfect' solution. I think Apple made the best compromise to defend it's users and developers.
EDIT: Oh, one of our apps was pulled from the AppStore in the process. We are not complaining at all. It was released out of frustration anyway
What if a game app is named AAA... and surpasses yours in the alphabetical name rank, should all games now be pulled from the App Store too?
I'm suspecting because Apple has to go back and remove Adult themed apps from the App Store is that they never looked at the apps to begin with, most likely just ran their code for verification and allowed the developers to classify their apps themselves.
It's rather easy to classify a app if it's Adult or not, just install 'woody meters' in the pants of the respective reviewers based upon their sexual preference.
mhh... I don't really see all this as a problem. I mean, yes, some of the banned Apps should probably not have been banned. But as Apple is ? via the App Store ? the publisher of all Apps I can really understand their move. In the end Apple just wants to remain as 'the nice guy', with a shiny happy people Nintendo image. Which is okay imho.
And if you really DO need porn etc on your iPhone... there's an App for that as well... it's called Safari!
mhh... I don't really see all this as a problem. I mean, yes, some of the banned Apps should probably not have been banned. But as Apple is ? via the App Store ? the publisher of all Apps I can really understand their move. In the end Apple just wants to remain as 'the nice guy', with a shiny happy people Nintendo image. Which is okay imho.
And if you really DO need porn etc on your iPhone... there's an App for that as well... it's called Safari!
Somehow I can't imagine Steve Ballmer objecting to porn on his MS tablet:
Balmer is porn!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K.
I smell a class action lawsuit brewing...
LOL - Horny Guys vs Apple, Inc.
Personally I think Apple can do whatever they want with their product. If we don't like it we can go buy Balmers hot products before the last one is gone. Go get a Blackberry, I hear they have some real hot apps.
mhh... I don't really see all this as a problem. I mean, yes, some of the banned Apps should probably not have been banned. But as Apple is ? via the App Store ? the publisher of all Apps I can really understand their move. In the end Apple just wants to remain as 'the nice guy', with a shiny happy people Nintendo image. Which is okay imho.
And if you really DO need porn etc on your iPhone... there's an App for that as well... it's called Safari!
Porn = Flash, which is incompatible with Safari mobile.
I respect Apple's right to control the content on their own store, but why have a rating and lock-out system if everything has to be PG anyways? Can't people be responsible for themselves? It's as if the people that don't want to see it don't want other people to see it either, and it's that I find disturbing. I;m sure they would change their tune about that kind of thing if their favorite store wouldn't sell anything that depicts women wearing anything less than a full burqa with niqab because a vocal minority demands it.
Following last week's revelation that Apple had reversed its policy on sexual content in the iPhone App Store, a new report claims more than 5,000 inappropriate applications have been removed from the download destination.
Great move.
Considering the following potential audiences.
iPod touch/iPhone owners; millions of children
Public school students: hundreds of million
Public School Libraries: millions
Publishers/magazines/text books; thousands/millions/hundreds of thousand
Family homes anti-overt sexual content: billions
Enterprise: millions of employees
vs
Family homes pro/neutral-overt sexual content: handful
AI trollers/mac haters: unfortunately they are all here
Comments
It's a very simple matter to transfer these "overtly sexual" apps to a more mature section of the App Store and wall them off with adult access.
This is something Apple should have done in the first place, now they appear like censorship nazi's and denying people's right to access to adult themed material.
Supposedly the human male thinks about sex a average of 6 times a day and is even willing to pay for sex. Adult themed material is a safe avenue to vent, rather than being sexual harassing to actual people or engaging in risky conduct.
Apple is trying to make the App Store pristine for a reason, the iPad and selling them to schools. It's perfectly understandable why nobody in their right mind wants any reference anything sexual in that environment. It's a shame that that small market is dictating what everyone else has to abide by when Apple could create walled sections by default in the App Store instead and cater to everyone.
What's going to happen when parent's complain about the religious Apps programming their children into being cultists?
At least Steve didn't put a camera in the iPad yet, so the child predators in the schools can't use it to spy on the students in their bedrooms...
MacBooks used to spy
Good point, I like looking at naked women as much as the next guy....but I do also respect the positions of people who find it offensive. I've always thought a good solution would be instead of .com suffix a .Porn suffix for all the 'Adult' sites.
Parents, library's businesses, etc., could 'block' their computers from accessing .Porn sites. Or receiving offensive emails from them too for that matter. I can see Apple's position of not wanting either the iPhone or App store being co-opted by the porn industry.
Part of the outrageousness is the double-standard. Full-frontal nudity and sexual situations are allowed in movies sold on the iTunes Store, and don't get me started on explicit song lyrics. The introduction of parental controls was supposed to let adults be adults and kids be kids. So why, inexplicably only in the area of apps, is Apple deciding to treat adults like kids?
Thats is a very good point.
Few months ago the company I work for released a new iPhone app. It was placed in the Lifestyle category. Normally, it takes more than 12 hours from the app approval till the application appears on the "what's new" list. Sometimes it takes more than 24 hours. The apps from the same date are listed in alphabetical order.
The particular app I am giving as an example made it's first public appearance on the 14th page in the what's new list! This means 0 (ZERO) visibility. The only way to find it was to make a search.
When I looked at the other apps from the same day, most of them were those 'overtly sexual' crap, and most of them in batches of 20 or more from the same company. Many of them had an A, AA or AAA prefix, so they were listed first. Me and my company were f***ed up, but so was the AppStore user.
I was expecting that Apple will make a separate category for those apps, but then there was a whole new problem: the 'overtly sexual' apps were starting to occupy all categories and in order to make a separate category work, Apple had to restrict the possibility to assign or change the category whenever you want, which would be bad for us.
So, for all those complaining here: take a closer look, and you will understand that there is no 'Perfect' solution. I think Apple made the best compromise to defend it's users and developers.
EDIT: Oh, one of our apps was pulled from the AppStore in the process. We are not complaining at all. It was released out of frustration anyway
Really? So if someone owns a small grocery store and one day decides to stop selling, Playboy, Penthouse, hell Hightimes and Biker mags because the locals complain about them, does that make him wrong as well? It's the exact same thing.
It's not the same thing at all. There are millions of grocery stores, sometimes there's a dozen on a single block. There is only one source for apps on Apple's new mobile platform.
This is the same thing as if the government said that Maxim, Sport's Illustrated etc. are "obscene" and that no one is allowed to sell them because some small amount of vocal idiots might be "upset" by the images.
Worse, this is the same as if the American government said that it was illegal in Europe to sell or look at such magazines. It's absolutely outrageous and everyone should be against it regardless of their opinion on the subject matter.
At least we have something new to argue about instead of Flash. Although in a way, this is about getting flashed.
Somehow I can't imagine Steve Ballmer objecting to porn on his MS tablet:
It's not the same thing at all. There are millions of grocery stores, sometimes there's a dozen on a single block. There is only one source for apps on Apple's new mobile platform.
This is the same thing as if the government said that Maxim, Sport's Illustrated etc. are "obscene" and that no one is allowed to sell them because some small amount of vocal idiots might be "upset" by the images.
Worse, this is the same as if the American government said that it was illegal in Europe to sell or look at such magazines. It's absolutely outrageous and everyone should be against it regardless of their opinion on the subject matter.
Tolerance and intolerance work both ways....I'm 'tolerant' of people who find Maxim magazine covers with young women 'presenting' their 'monkeys' offensive....I personally do not find it offensive in fact I quite enjoy it. The 'all or nothing' crowd on both sides of most issues seem to me to be 'intolerant' of the other sides stance, (no pun intended!)
It's not the same thing at all. There are millions of grocery stores, sometimes there's a dozen on a single block. There is only one source for apps on Apple's new mobile platform.
This is the same thing as if the government said that Maxim, Sport's Illustrated etc. are "obscene" and that no one is allowed to sell them because some small amount of vocal idiots might be "upset" by the images.
Worse, this is the same as if the American government said that it was illegal in Europe to sell or look at such magazines. It's absolutely outrageous and everyone should be against it regardless of their opinion on the subject matter.
There are other phones and platforms. Let's see how this move affects Apple. It gets thumbs up from me (see my post above).
As a developer, I appreciate the move.
Few months ago the company I work for released a new iPhone app. It was placed in the Lifestyle category. Normally, it takes more than 12 hours from the app approval till the application appears on the "what's new" list. Sometimes it takes more than 24 hours. The apps from the same date are listed in alphabetical order.
The particular app I am giving as an example made it's first public appearance on the 14th page in the what's new list! This means 0 (ZERO) visibility. The only way to find it was to make a search.
When I looked at the other apps from the same day, most of them were those 'overtly sexual' crap, and most of them in batches of 20 or more from the same company. Many of them had an A, AA or AAA prefix, so they were listed first. Me and my company were f***ed up, but so was the AppStore user.
I was expecting that Apple will make a separate category for those apps, but then there was a whole new problem: the 'overtly sexual' apps were starting to occupy all categories and in order to make a separate category work, Apple had to restrict the possibility to assign or change the category whenever you want, which would be bad for us.
So, for all those complaining here: take a closer look, and you will understand that there is no 'Perfect' solution. I think Apple made the best compromise to defend it's users and developers.
EDIT: Oh, one of our apps was pulled from the AppStore in the process. We are not complaining at all. It was released out of frustration anyway
What if a game app is named AAA... and surpasses yours in the alphabetical name rank, should all games now be pulled from the App Store too?
I'm suspecting because Apple has to go back and remove Adult themed apps from the App Store is that they never looked at the apps to begin with, most likely just ran their code for verification and allowed the developers to classify their apps themselves.
It's rather easy to classify a app if it's Adult or not, just install 'woody meters' in the pants of the respective reviewers based upon their sexual preference.
And if you really DO need porn etc on your iPhone... there's an App for that as well... it's called Safari!
mhh... I don't really see all this as a problem. I mean, yes, some of the banned Apps should probably not have been banned. But as Apple is ? via the App Store ? the publisher of all Apps I can really understand their move. In the end Apple just wants to remain as 'the nice guy', with a shiny happy people Nintendo image. Which is okay imho.
And if you really DO need porn etc on your iPhone... there's an App for that as well... it's called Safari!
Well said!
Somehow I can't imagine Steve Ballmer objecting to porn on his MS tablet:
Balmer is porn!
I smell a class action lawsuit brewing...
LOL - Horny Guys vs Apple, Inc.
Personally I think Apple can do whatever they want with their product. If we don't like it we can go buy Balmers hot products before the last one is gone. Go get a Blackberry, I hear they have some real hot apps.
mhh... I don't really see all this as a problem. I mean, yes, some of the banned Apps should probably not have been banned. But as Apple is ? via the App Store ? the publisher of all Apps I can really understand their move. In the end Apple just wants to remain as 'the nice guy', with a shiny happy people Nintendo image. Which is okay imho.
And if you really DO need porn etc on your iPhone... there's an App for that as well... it's called Safari!
Porn = Flash, which is incompatible with Safari mobile.
Following last week's revelation that Apple had reversed its policy on sexual content in the iPhone App Store, a new report claims more than 5,000 inappropriate applications have been removed from the download destination.
Great move.
Considering the following potential audiences.
- iPod touch/iPhone owners; millions of children
- Public school students: hundreds of million
- Public School Libraries: millions
- Publishers/magazines/text books; thousands/millions/hundreds of thousand
- Family homes anti-overt sexual content: billions
- Enterprise: millions of employees
- Family homes pro/neutral-overt sexual content: handful
- AI trollers/mac haters: unfortunately they are all here
Do the math.vs
Great move.
Considering the following potential audiences.
- iPod touch/iPhone owners; millions of children
- Public school students: hundreds of million
- Public School Libraries: millions
- Publishers/magazines/text books; thousands/millions/hundreds of thousand
- Family homes anti-overt sexual content: billions
- Enterprise: millions of employees
- Family homes pro/neutral-overt sexual content: handful
- AI trollers/mac haters: unfortunately they are all here
Do the math.vs
My math says since when did Apple replace the parent, the school teacher and the police?