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
Do the math.
I agree. But all of those apps should never had been approved in the first place. Added to the fact that Apple allows similar content in its movies, music, and television shows...
If Apple is preventing users of paid apps to receive updates to those apps (iTunes in the only way to do this), then Apple needs to reimburse the users of those apps.
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.
Woohoo, you don't get the idea. I don't mind erotic apps or porn for that matter, but those apps are neither. Most of them are pure spam. They just make it harder for developers to promote their apps and for AppStore users to find the app they want.
During the last year, I spent a lot of time analyzing the AppStore. From what I can tell, there are a number of problems with those apps:
After reading the reviews, you will find out that many of them are just fishing for purchases - the only things they have is a 'sexy' name, 'sexy' icon and one decent screen dump for the store. The rest is crap that won't satisfy neither the porn fans or puritans.
I came across a number of complains that some complanies/developers are re-shuffling the same images and packaging them as different apps.
the ownership of the copyright is questionable in the majority of cases.
Most importantly, the majority of the banned apps add absolutely no value to the iPhone user experience. As mentioned by TheralSadurn above, if you want porn there is www for that.
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.
They can do what they want - they are a private business. Are they "wrong"? That depends on your definition. Are they acting unethically by outright censoring based on the objections of a few? I would say yes. There are other methods, already described, that would be much more fair than outright removal. The store doesn't have to be fair, they are a private business, but we are still allowed to criticise them for being unfair, no?
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.
that is what they have been trying to do with the ratings. but not all apps have one, because it has been up to the developer to add that info.
Now for all we know, and aren't being told cause it's more titillating to make Apple look like jerks, is that every one of those developers might have not put a rating on their app and were removed pending an update with said detail added.
Quote:
and denying people's right to access to adult themed material.
just as you have a 'right to access' companies do have a right to not have provide you. So Apple is NOT in the wrong here. You can still go get on Safari and get your T&A. And there are some apps that are apparently still up (with appropriate ratings etc).
Quote:
Apple is trying to make the App Store pristine for a reason,
again, all this made be about is removing apps that didn't add a rating as they were asked to after the update to 3.0. In fact I believe that all developers were asked to certify that their apps worked under 3.0 or possibly be removed from the store. So some of these removals could be temporary ones due to a lack of updates and compatibility confirmation
Quote:
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...
One of the reasons I admire Apple is that it is not afraid to set and enforce its own rules and guidelines. It's analogous to an individual with the integrity and the courage to set his own course in life and to follow it. Just as an individual should be afforded the liberty to determine his own legal course in life, so should a corporate entity like Apple be able to determine its own legal course.
Policy is necessary in order for there to be direction and agreement amongst a group like Apple. Though we outside Apple may wonder at times just what that direction is, it's not for us to determine, other than to express our opinions of it via our purchase or lack thereof of its products.
No one is suggesting that Apple shouldn't be allowed to set and enforce its own rules and guidelines. But we should be allowed to criticise those decisions, particularly if they are seemingly ambiguous, hypocritical, and easily abusable.
I disagree that our opinion can only be reflected through purchasing or not purchasing their product, particularly because the changes they are making are not affecting only new purchases, but also because I believe in education rather than silence.
Porn = Flash, which is incompatible with Safari mobile.
That's total BS... there already ARE enough pages that do NOT depend on Flash and have converted their content to be available to iPhone users. Just like Youtube did.
Did Apple remove apps that didn't have their ratings updated to 17+, or did they remove apps that had a 17+ rating?
If they were just removing old apps that didn't have their rating updated to 17+ then I agree with Apple doing it. If they removed apps that were 17+ but didn't remove the Playboy app then they ought to remove the playboy app.
Apple needs an adult store where Apple charges customers an extra $10/month or something for it. Then all of these complaints will go away because the only way to get to the hot and steamy stuff would by be paid subscription.
It is correct for the company that is responsible for the product to make their own decisions.
If I'm a store owner, I should be able to choose whether to carry Playboy or not - regardless of whether 0.1% or 99.9% of the population is against it. It's the store owner's choice.
Similarly, it's Apple's choice what to allow in the App Store. You may not like it, but you're free to make your own phone with your own Porn Store if you wish. Personally, I would have preferred for Apple to use the Adult rating system more effectively instead, but if eliminating porn from the iPhone meets Apple's objectives better, that's their choice.
No one is suggesting that Apple be forced into selling something they don't want to sell. Encouraging ethical action (and criticising unethical action) is not the same as regulating what is sold.
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
Do the math.
Exactly. Moreover, it is not as though people who want to access adult content through any of these Apple devices cannot do so -- there is the browser (and no, Flash is not a necessity, from what I've heard), there are movies on iTunes, etc.
Apple is clearly making its app-based ecosystem one around which it is drawing some bright lines, and sending a signal that they are not willing to negotiate in that part of their world. I say, great for Apple!
From the same people who deride this move on Apples' part, we constantly hear that there's tons of competition out there, so why don't the others take the ball and run with it to gain share at Apple's expense? And, the complainers should simply put their actions where their opinions are, and take their $$ elsewhere.
Bottom line: If it's a real problem for you, then dump Apple, and go with someone else. If you decide to stay, stop whining.
For those complaining about 'dual standards' here:
When it comes to music and video, there is a powerful infrastructure to control the copyright issues. Besides, there is always a party, no matter large player or an indy artist, who take the responsibility for the content.
When it comes to apps, there is no way of controlling the copyright. To see the pictures, you need to buy the app in the first place. Anybody with spare $99 can create an account and publish an app. When I followed the support site link of some of those apps, I found that there are sites that offer "shells" or templates for apps. You just put some crap into it and publish an app. Although you sign an agreement with Apple, there is no way Apple can take legal action agains, say, Chinese or Russian independent developer. Unlike the music/movie industry, there is no infrastructure in place to defend the rights of contend providers and Apple is the only party which can defend it's users.
I think Apple would not mind to have the official Playboy app, but it would be accused in dual-standars for this. The vast majority of the 'overtly sexual' apps are nothing like Playboy or Maxim. They are much more like those "increase your penis" and Viagra email spam. That is, absolutely no value!
Apple hasn't broken any laws and is not doing anything they aren't rightfully allowed to do in a business sense. This says nothing of the ethics of their decision, nor does it provide adequate defence for criticisms of censorship. The ethics behind their decision encompasses much more than just what they must or can do, it also includes what they should do.
Did Apple remove apps that didn't have their ratings updated to 17+, or did they remove apps that had a 17+ rating?
If they were just removing old apps that didn't have their rating updated to 17+ then I agree with Apple doing it. If they removed apps that were 17+ but didn't remove the Playboy app then they ought to remove the playboy app.
Apple needs an adult store where Apple charges customers an extra $10/month or something for it. Then all of these complaints will go away because the only way to get to the hot and steamy stuff would by be paid subscription.
The removal of apps has nothing to do with the ratings. Our 17+ rated app was removed yesterday. As a matter of fact, Apple started to apply the revised rules to the newly submitted apps first. We had a rejection for what used to be a mild issue and we had to remove a couple of images to get one of the other apps approved.
Also, the ratings could only be changed when submitting a new binary (that is, new app or new version). The rating is checked during the approval process. If Apple finds it inappropriate, it asks you either to change the rating or modify the app.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the move. (If you care, see my posts above to find out the reasons).
Why must morality be judged by the economic viability of a product?
The immorality of the move is even more questionable. Also, if people agree with you on the "Apple is evil" matter, this will affect Apple sales as well.
I am pretty sure this move with strengthen both Apple's ethic image and Apple's sales.
Exactly. Moreover, it is not as though people who want to access adult content through any of these Apple devices cannot do so
That is not the argument at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Apple is clearly making its app-based ecosystem one around which it is drawing some bright lines, and sending a signal that they are not willing to negotiate in that part of their world.
They have every right to do so - but that alone does not make their decision a fair or "right" decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
From the same people who deride this move on Apples' part, we constantly hear that there's tons of competition out there, so why don't the others take the ball and run with it to gain share at Apple's expense? And, the complainers should simply put their actions where their opinions are, and take their $$ elsewhere.
Bottom line: If it's a real problem for you, then dump Apple, and go with someone else. If you decide to stay, stop whining.
The audience of AppleInsider is in no way as polarised as you suggest. You are conflating two separate groups of people into "those who have a different opinion to me". I think you will find a lot of people that deride Apple's move who have not discussed the iPhone's competition at all, and will likely stay with the iPhone for its many great features. The two options you provide "go with someone else" or "stop whining" are not the only two options that are available, nor should they be the only two options, regardless of whether you feel otherwise.
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
Do the math.
Why is it that none of those people can be bothered to turn on the parental controls? If life is a two-way street, why are all the demands placed on one side of the equation of this alleged math?
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?
The difference is that no one publishes 30 plus editions of a game. I think it's this abuse that is part of the problem. They should have made all these girls in-app purchase add-ons instead
This is B.S. The price you pay to exercise the speech you value is that you have to tolerate the speech other people value. Apple should stay out of the censorship business and follow established or similar guidelines for ratings as we have for movies, tv, music, videos, etc.
Is Apple going to ban albums now that have overtly sexual content? How bout overtly violent content? Religious? Political?
Comments
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
I agree. But all of those apps should never had been approved in the first place. Added to the fact that Apple allows similar content in its movies, music, and television shows...
If Apple is preventing users of paid apps to receive updates to those apps (iTunes in the only way to do this), then Apple needs to reimburse the users of those apps.
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.
Woohoo, you don't get the idea. I don't mind erotic apps or porn for that matter, but those apps are neither. Most of them are pure spam. They just make it harder for developers to promote their apps and for AppStore users to find the app they want.
During the last year, I spent a lot of time analyzing the AppStore. From what I can tell, there are a number of problems with those apps:
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.
They can do what they want - they are a private business. Are they "wrong"? That depends on your definition. Are they acting unethically by outright censoring based on the objections of a few? I would say yes. There are other methods, already described, that would be much more fair than outright removal. The store doesn't have to be fair, they are a private business, but we are still allowed to criticise them for being unfair, no?
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.
that is what they have been trying to do with the ratings. but not all apps have one, because it has been up to the developer to add that info.
Now for all we know, and aren't being told cause it's more titillating to make Apple look like jerks, is that every one of those developers might have not put a rating on their app and were removed pending an update with said detail added.
and denying people's right to access to adult themed material.
just as you have a 'right to access' companies do have a right to not have provide you. So Apple is NOT in the wrong here. You can still go get on Safari and get your T&A. And there are some apps that are apparently still up (with appropriate ratings etc).
Apple is trying to make the App Store pristine for a reason,
again, all this made be about is removing apps that didn't add a rating as they were asked to after the update to 3.0. In fact I believe that all developers were asked to certify that their apps worked under 3.0 or possibly be removed from the store. So some of these removals could be temporary ones due to a lack of updates and compatibility confirmation
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...
more like video sextexting. by the kids.
One of the reasons I admire Apple is that it is not afraid to set and enforce its own rules and guidelines. It's analogous to an individual with the integrity and the courage to set his own course in life and to follow it. Just as an individual should be afforded the liberty to determine his own legal course in life, so should a corporate entity like Apple be able to determine its own legal course.
Policy is necessary in order for there to be direction and agreement amongst a group like Apple. Though we outside Apple may wonder at times just what that direction is, it's not for us to determine, other than to express our opinions of it via our purchase or lack thereof of its products.
No one is suggesting that Apple shouldn't be allowed to set and enforce its own rules and guidelines. But we should be allowed to criticise those decisions, particularly if they are seemingly ambiguous, hypocritical, and easily abusable.
I disagree that our opinion can only be reflected through purchasing or not purchasing their product, particularly because the changes they are making are not affecting only new purchases, but also because I believe in education rather than silence.
Am I the only one who finds it ridiculous that the Playboy app hasn't been banned under the new rules? It pretty much breaks all of em.
i bet playboy is a "partner" for the new ipad
Porn = Flash, which is incompatible with Safari mobile.
That's total BS... there already ARE enough pages that do NOT depend on Flash and have converted their content to be available to iPhone users. Just like Youtube did.
But I'm not here to name them for you...
If they were just removing old apps that didn't have their rating updated to 17+ then I agree with Apple doing it. If they removed apps that were 17+ but didn't remove the Playboy app then they ought to remove the playboy app.
Apple needs an adult store where Apple charges customers an extra $10/month or something for it. Then all of these complaints will go away because the only way to get to the hot and steamy stuff would by be paid subscription.
It is correct for the company that is responsible for the product to make their own decisions.
If I'm a store owner, I should be able to choose whether to carry Playboy or not - regardless of whether 0.1% or 99.9% of the population is against it. It's the store owner's choice.
Similarly, it's Apple's choice what to allow in the App Store. You may not like it, but you're free to make your own phone with your own Porn Store if you wish. Personally, I would have preferred for Apple to use the Adult rating system more effectively instead, but if eliminating porn from the iPhone meets Apple's objectives better, that's their choice.
No one is suggesting that Apple be forced into selling something they don't want to sell. Encouraging ethical action (and criticising unethical action) is not the same as regulating what is sold.
There are other phones and platforms. Let's see how this move affects Apple. It gets thumbs up from me (see my post above).
Why must morality be judged by the economic viability of a product?
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
Exactly. Moreover, it is not as though people who want to access adult content through any of these Apple devices cannot do so -- there is the browser (and no, Flash is not a necessity, from what I've heard), there are movies on iTunes, etc.
Apple is clearly making its app-based ecosystem one around which it is drawing some bright lines, and sending a signal that they are not willing to negotiate in that part of their world. I say, great for Apple!
From the same people who deride this move on Apples' part, we constantly hear that there's tons of competition out there, so why don't the others take the ball and run with it to gain share at Apple's expense? And, the complainers should simply put their actions where their opinions are, and take their $$ elsewhere.
Bottom line: If it's a real problem for you, then dump Apple, and go with someone else. If you decide to stay, stop whining.
When it comes to music and video, there is a powerful infrastructure to control the copyright issues. Besides, there is always a party, no matter large player or an indy artist, who take the responsibility for the content.
When it comes to apps, there is no way of controlling the copyright. To see the pictures, you need to buy the app in the first place. Anybody with spare $99 can create an account and publish an app. When I followed the support site link of some of those apps, I found that there are sites that offer "shells" or templates for apps. You just put some crap into it and publish an app. Although you sign an agreement with Apple, there is no way Apple can take legal action agains, say, Chinese or Russian independent developer. Unlike the music/movie industry, there is no infrastructure in place to defend the rights of contend providers and Apple is the only party which can defend it's users.
I think Apple would not mind to have the official Playboy app, but it would be accused in dual-standars for this. The vast majority of the 'overtly sexual' apps are nothing like Playboy or Maxim. They are much more like those "increase your penis" and Viagra email spam. That is, absolutely no value!
Did Apple remove apps that didn't have their ratings updated to 17+, or did they remove apps that had a 17+ rating?
If they were just removing old apps that didn't have their rating updated to 17+ then I agree with Apple doing it. If they removed apps that were 17+ but didn't remove the Playboy app then they ought to remove the playboy app.
Apple needs an adult store where Apple charges customers an extra $10/month or something for it. Then all of these complaints will go away because the only way to get to the hot and steamy stuff would by be paid subscription.
The removal of apps has nothing to do with the ratings. Our 17+ rated app was removed yesterday. As a matter of fact, Apple started to apply the revised rules to the newly submitted apps first. We had a rejection for what used to be a mild issue and we had to remove a couple of images to get one of the other apps approved.
Also, the ratings could only be changed when submitting a new binary (that is, new app or new version). The rating is checked during the approval process. If Apple finds it inappropriate, it asks you either to change the rating or modify the app.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the move. (If you care, see my posts above to find out the reasons).
Why must morality be judged by the economic viability of a product?
The immorality of the move is even more questionable. Also, if people agree with you on the "Apple is evil" matter, this will affect Apple sales as well.
I am pretty sure this move with strengthen both Apple's ethic image and Apple's sales.
Exactly. Moreover, it is not as though people who want to access adult content through any of these Apple devices cannot do so
That is not the argument at hand.
Apple is clearly making its app-based ecosystem one around which it is drawing some bright lines, and sending a signal that they are not willing to negotiate in that part of their world.
They have every right to do so - but that alone does not make their decision a fair or "right" decision.
From the same people who deride this move on Apples' part, we constantly hear that there's tons of competition out there, so why don't the others take the ball and run with it to gain share at Apple's expense? And, the complainers should simply put their actions where their opinions are, and take their $$ elsewhere.
Bottom line: If it's a real problem for you, then dump Apple, and go with someone else. If you decide to stay, stop whining.
The audience of AppleInsider is in no way as polarised as you suggest. You are conflating two separate groups of people into "those who have a different opinion to me". I think you will find a lot of people that deride Apple's move who have not discussed the iPhone's competition at all, and will likely stay with the iPhone for its many great features. The two options you provide "go with someone else" or "stop whining" are not the only two options that are available, nor should they be the only two options, regardless of whether you feel otherwise.
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
Why is it that none of those people can be bothered to turn on the parental controls? If life is a two-way street, why are all the demands placed on one side of the equation of this alleged math?
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?
The difference is that no one publishes 30 plus editions of a game. I think it's this abuse that is part of the problem. They should have made all these girls in-app purchase add-ons instead
App approval time is about to get even shorter.
Is Apple going to ban albums now that have overtly sexual content? How bout overtly violent content? Religious? Political?