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.
More questionable than what?
When did I suggest Apple was evil? Where (in this thread) have I discussed Apple's overall ethics, or their morality apart from this one decision? Why must one unethical (in my opinion) decision make Apple "evil"? Why the need for a label "evil" in the first place? Isn't it just a shortcut for ad hominem attacks?
My point was that the morality of the decision is largely independent of economic viability, although ideally it shouldn't be. That a product sells says nothing of the morality of the decisions made in the design, production or sales of that product, although ideally it should. My point is that the argument "if it sells then it was the right (with regards to ethics/morals) decision" is ignorant.
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!
Safari isn't safe enough to browse porn sites with. In fact no browser really is, but Safari is currently the worse with Firefox being the best and IE in the middle security wise according to security experts.
Also since it's a pain viewing web sites on a iPhone, a app would do much better with images and return relevant results based upon a users preference.
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?
Because there is no guarantee that it works.
Even if you block your kid, his best buddy may not be.
And there is nothing to stop anybody from getting their own iTunes Store account.
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...
I'll name a couple for him since he doesn't seem to get it.
google.com (image search)
bing.com (image search)
Such a hardship... Seriously, if people are so stupid to actually pay to see scantily clad women then, well, they are stupid and Apple shouldn't even bother caring what they think. Honestly, if you into the stuff, there are so so so many options out there you should never pay for it and, like Theral said, there are iPhone specific websites w/ video but if you're too stupid to find it that's not my fault.
Safari isn't safe enough to browse porn sites with. In fact no browser really is, but Safari is currently the worse with Firefox being the best and IE in the middle security wise according to security experts.
Also since it's a pain viewing web sites on a iPhone, a app would do much better with images and return relevant results based upon a users preference.
Did you even read your link?
"Neither. Consumers should see if Apple's iPad or the forthcoming devices based on Google's Chrome OS suit their needs because both are significantly more secure than any general-purpose desktop system, Linux, Mac, or PC."
Ya know, the iPad, the big iPod that sports the same version of Safari as the iPhone has. Seems to me like he's saying the iPhone is more secure than ANY desktop system...
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.
The abuse exists because Apple doesn't plan ahead for it.
Just like they didn't plan ahead and have a separate section for Adult content now that the iPad is rolling out and going to be marketed to schools.
So what do they do?, they knee-jerk react, start pulling content and denying developers their just returns on investment.
Oh, yea, I suspect a lawsuit is coming. Apple is most likely scared of Playboy Inc. didn't pull their app.
Oh, I just browsed the AppStore to see what are the "adult" apps still on the AppStore. One of the apps I came across was a 2010 "hot girls" calendar. It had a single screen dump, same as the app icon. Below the app, you could find a bunch of 1-star comments. The 2 major complains:
the calendar in this calendar app is 1 day off. Apparently, the developer did not care to fix this.
the pictures are the same as last year
All you "freedom" advocates here: this is the quality of the apps we are talking about!
Honestly, I think all those complaining about Apple move either have no idea what they are talking about, replacing the reality with theory, or are just bashing Apple because they hate it.
No, it's not about adult content here. It is about spam and crap! The 'overtly sexual' theme is just the best reasoning Apple could come up with. Remember, Apple can not ban an app just because they don't like it! They have to follow the rules, albeit their own rules. And yes, they will rather change the rules when they find that the old rules are not protecting their user and developer base!
Of course, they should not change the rules frequently. Changing the rules too often is like having no rules.
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.
This analogy is completely incorrect. There is no App Store competition on the iPhone/iPad, therefore there is no alternative. It's not wrong in the sense that it's Apple's store, it's wrong because you can't get equivalent apps anywhere else.
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.
Except for the iPhone/iPod App Store being a monopoly, you mean.
OK, so women in bikinis are bad, but an app that kills 'island natives' in a variety of gruesome scenarios is OK and hits #1 on the sales lists. Maybe if the bikini girls had guns it would be OK?
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.
Playboy and Sport Illustrated and Maxim are parts of very large companies with well-paid lawyers. Small development companies or individuals? Much easier targets.
This analogy is completely incorrect. There is no App Store competition on the iPhone/iPad, therefore there is no alternative. It's not wrong in the sense that it's Apple's store, it's wrong because you can't get equivalent apps anywhere else.
The Android lovers would beg to differ...
Also, didn't Walmart stop selling the SI swimsuit issue because of consumers complaining about it? That's the only place you can go to buy Wal-Mart brand food (whatever brand they are calling it now) and it's by far the biggest retailer in the country so this really isn't all the different to be honest. There's plenty of competition in the Smart Phone market so it's not Apple owns the entire thing and you're left with no choices at all. Just because you think the iPhone is the best doesn't mean it doesn't have any comparable competition...
Seriously, if people are so stupid to actually pay to see scantily clad women then, well, they are stupid and Apple shouldn't even bother caring what they think. Honestly, if you into the stuff, there are so so so many options out there you should never pay for it and, like Theral said, there are iPhone specific websites w/ video but if you're too stupid to find it that's not my fault.
People pay not to see scantily clad women, as it's free on the internet, but the assurance that with buying a app to see those pictures they are getting quality of content and not jerked around by blind links and exploits.
The iPhone has people's personal and very sensitive data on it, more than a computer in most cases.
With Apple vetting the Adult apps and content, makes sure developers play by the rules.
Apple just doesn't want their new iPad's image to be soiled in public with pictures of adult material.
They allowed it a bit for the smaller screened devices as it can be hard too see, but the iPad is designed to attract eyeballs.
Just goes to show what's coming down the pipe as Apple is clamping down even harder on their devices.
If the Adult web all had .porn addresses, I'm almost sure Apple would block those sites from being run in Safari on the iPad.
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.
Not trying to single you out specifically, because other people have said the same thing.
I think these kinds of responses are missing the point.
I don't think anyone is saying that companies don't have a right to sell what they want (Wal-Mart has for years pressured the RIAA to release censored CDs, for example, even though they sell video games like Grand Theft Auto, and even though that's idiotic, it's perfectly legal).
What (I think) many of the people here are saying is that banning the Apps in this case is disappointing. Not legally wrong, but ethically disappointing. In a country that supposedly has free speech, they're operating a store (similarly to Wal-Mart) where they are, in effect, not living up to the principles of the country (free speech, etc.). Worse, they are being hypocritical about it (leaving sexual stuff from big companies like Playboy but cutting out small developers who are doing stuff less titillating).
To make a slightly different point, this is why I'd love the see the "officially approved by Apple" iTunes App Store, but then have them open up the eco-system so people could sell Apps from anywhere...their own personal web sites, etc. Then, if people wanted to sanitized content (both thematically and technically), and if they wanted to risk it with non-approved apps, they could.
Am I saying Apple should be forced to open up the ecosystem? No, I'm saying I wish they would.
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.
So then they are going to remove all R-rated movies and songs with explicit lyrics from iTunes, right?
The "for the schools" argument makes no sense, because the devices should be locked down. The iTunes accounts (and passwords) would belong to the schools, so how would the students be able to download unauthorized apps and iTunes content?
All you "freedom" advocates here: this is the quality of the apps we are talking about!
Such a solid argument, using a carefully selected representative!
Quote:
Originally Posted by EUiPhoneUser
Honestly, I think all those complaining about Apple move either have no idea what they are talking about, replacing the reality with theory, or are just bashing Apple because they hate it.
Or they don't agree with Apple's decision, irrespective of their opinion of Apple in general?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EUiPhoneUser
No, it's not about adult content here. It is about spam and crap! The 'overtly sexual' theme is just the best reasoning Apple could come up with.
That's a defense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EUiPhoneUser
Remember, Apple can not ban an app just because they don't like it! They have to follow the rules, albeit their own rules. And yes, they will rather change the rules when they find that the old rules are not protecting their user and developer base!
So why not create a rule that uses a term as equally vague and abusable as "overtly sexual", like "spam and crap"?.
Except for the iPhone/iPod App Store being a monopoly, you mean.
It's a smart phone. It's one of many smart phones. Do you even know what a monopoly is? I know people like to throw around words like unethical, immoral, monopoly, censor but, in virtually every instance, none of these (legally) apply to the subject as hand. Just like this one - there is absolutely nothing illegal about this.
Everybody knows that the Internet is comprised 79% of porn, so it's not like they have ended anything. And to all the people who say "We have a right for porn" STFU. Show me in the constitution where it says that all companies must provide porn for people.
Boobs were taking over. Go to Photography apps, boobs. Go to Utility apps, boobs. Go to Productivity apps, boobs. Go to Gaming apps, ...well, those were mostly games, but you get the point. There were boobs in every category basically, so it was difficult to find ACTUAL USEFUL STUFF. Nearly every third app it seemed like was boobs
It disappoints me that people say that Apple had parental ratings for the app store. Sure it prevented you from downloading certain things, BUT THEY WERE STILL THERE TO MAKE YOUR SEARCH MORE IRRELEVANT. The parental controls didn't prevent you from seen the apps, and having them get in the way of what you're looking for.
The iPod/iPhone/iPad has a full web browser, so if you need to get a hardon, then just browse the bloody web.
People pay not to see scantily clad women, as it's free on the internet, but the assurance that with buying a app to see those pictures they are getting quality of content and not jerked around by blind links and exploits.
The iPhone has people's personal and very sensitive data on it, more than a computer in most cases.
With Apple vetting the Adult apps and content, makes sure developers play by the rules.
Apple just doesn't want their new iPad's image to be soiled in public with pictures of adult material.
They allowed it a bit for the smaller screened devices as it can be hard too see, but the iPad is designed to attract eyeballs.
Just goes to show what's coming down the pipe as Apple is clamping down even harder on their devices.
If the Adult web all had .porn addresses, I'm almost sure Apple would block those sites from being run in Safari on the iPad.
Again, seriously, if you can't take to the internet to find the kind of nudity you want than this is really a non-issue. If you want pictures go to google, if you want video I'm sure you can google "iPhone video porm" (spelling intentional since I'm at work) or something like that and I'm quite certain you won't get taken to a whole bunch of crazy blind links. If you're incapable of browsing the internet without finding yourself with a dozen pop-ups then, well, I think you need to figure out how to browse more efficiently.
If they had made an adult section so there wouldn't be boob apps in every single category, then that would be fine.
Everyone here talks about their "right to free speech." Well guess what? The courts have long ruled that companies are people, and they have the same rights that you have. And guess what else? THEIR right to free speech means that they can do what they want; their right to do what they want trumps your right for them to do what YOU want.
What if I wanted you to sell porn? I'm sure some of you would gladly, but just because I want you to do it does not mean that your are required, or even inclined to do it.
Comments
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.
More questionable than what?
When did I suggest Apple was evil? Where (in this thread) have I discussed Apple's overall ethics, or their morality apart from this one decision? Why must one unethical (in my opinion) decision make Apple "evil"? Why the need for a label "evil" in the first place? Isn't it just a shortcut for ad hominem attacks?
My point was that the morality of the decision is largely independent of economic viability, although ideally it shouldn't be. That a product sells says nothing of the morality of the decisions made in the design, production or sales of that product, although ideally it should. My point is that the argument "if it sells then it was the right (with regards to ethics/morals) decision" is ignorant.
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!
Safari isn't safe enough to browse porn sites with. In fact no browser really is, but Safari is currently the worse with Firefox being the best and IE in the middle security wise according to security experts.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html
Also since it's a pain viewing web sites on a iPhone, a app would do much better with images and return relevant results based upon a users preference.
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?
Because there is no guarantee that it works.
Even if you block your kid, his best buddy may not be.
And there is nothing to stop anybody from getting their own iTunes Store account.
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...
I'll name a couple for him since he doesn't seem to get it.
google.com (image search)
bing.com (image search)
Such a hardship... Seriously, if people are so stupid to actually pay to see scantily clad women then, well, they are stupid and Apple shouldn't even bother caring what they think. Honestly, if you into the stuff, there are so so so many options out there you should never pay for it and, like Theral said, there are iPhone specific websites w/ video but if you're too stupid to find it that's not my fault.
Safari isn't safe enough to browse porn sites with. In fact no browser really is, but Safari is currently the worse with Firefox being the best and IE in the middle security wise according to security experts.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html
Also since it's a pain viewing web sites on a iPhone, a app would do much better with images and return relevant results based upon a users preference.
Did you even read your link?
"Neither. Consumers should see if Apple's iPad or the forthcoming devices based on Google's Chrome OS suit their needs because both are significantly more secure than any general-purpose desktop system, Linux, Mac, or PC."
Ya know, the iPad, the big iPod that sports the same version of Safari as the iPhone has. Seems to me like he's saying the iPhone is more secure than ANY desktop system...
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.
The abuse exists because Apple doesn't plan ahead for it.
Just like they didn't plan ahead and have a separate section for Adult content now that the iPad is rolling out and going to be marketed to schools.
So what do they do?, they knee-jerk react, start pulling content and denying developers their just returns on investment.
Oh, yea, I suspect a lawsuit is coming. Apple is most likely scared of Playboy Inc. didn't pull their app.
- the calendar in this calendar app is 1 day off. Apparently, the developer did not care to fix this.
- the pictures are the same as last year
All you "freedom" advocates here: this is the quality of the apps we are talking about!Honestly, I think all those complaining about Apple move either have no idea what they are talking about, replacing the reality with theory, or are just bashing Apple because they hate it.
No, it's not about adult content here. It is about spam and crap! The 'overtly sexual' theme is just the best reasoning Apple could come up with. Remember, Apple can not ban an app just because they don't like it! They have to follow the rules, albeit their own rules. And yes, they will rather change the rules when they find that the old rules are not protecting their user and developer base!
Of course, they should not change the rules frequently. Changing the rules too often is like having no rules.
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.
This analogy is completely incorrect. There is no App Store competition on the iPhone/iPad, therefore there is no alternative. It's not wrong in the sense that it's Apple's store, it's wrong because you can't get equivalent apps anywhere else.
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.
Except for the iPhone/iPod App Store being a monopoly, you mean.
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.
Playboy and Sport Illustrated and Maxim are parts of very large companies with well-paid lawyers. Small development companies or individuals? Much easier targets.
This analogy is completely incorrect. There is no App Store competition on the iPhone/iPad, therefore there is no alternative. It's not wrong in the sense that it's Apple's store, it's wrong because you can't get equivalent apps anywhere else.
The Android lovers would beg to differ...
Also, didn't Walmart stop selling the SI swimsuit issue because of consumers complaining about it? That's the only place you can go to buy Wal-Mart brand food (whatever brand they are calling it now) and it's by far the biggest retailer in the country so this really isn't all the different to be honest. There's plenty of competition in the Smart Phone market so it's not Apple owns the entire thing and you're left with no choices at all. Just because you think the iPhone is the best doesn't mean it doesn't have any comparable competition...
Seriously, if people are so stupid to actually pay to see scantily clad women then, well, they are stupid and Apple shouldn't even bother caring what they think. Honestly, if you into the stuff, there are so so so many options out there you should never pay for it and, like Theral said, there are iPhone specific websites w/ video but if you're too stupid to find it that's not my fault.
People pay not to see scantily clad women, as it's free on the internet, but the assurance that with buying a app to see those pictures they are getting quality of content and not jerked around by blind links and exploits.
The iPhone has people's personal and very sensitive data on it, more than a computer in most cases.
With Apple vetting the Adult apps and content, makes sure developers play by the rules.
Apple just doesn't want their new iPad's image to be soiled in public with pictures of adult material.
They allowed it a bit for the smaller screened devices as it can be hard too see, but the iPad is designed to attract eyeballs.
Just goes to show what's coming down the pipe as Apple is clamping down even harder on their devices.
If the Adult web all had .porn addresses, I'm almost sure Apple would block those sites from being run in Safari on the iPad.
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.
Not trying to single you out specifically, because other people have said the same thing.
I think these kinds of responses are missing the point.
I don't think anyone is saying that companies don't have a right to sell what they want (Wal-Mart has for years pressured the RIAA to release censored CDs, for example, even though they sell video games like Grand Theft Auto, and even though that's idiotic, it's perfectly legal).
What (I think) many of the people here are saying is that banning the Apps in this case is disappointing. Not legally wrong, but ethically disappointing. In a country that supposedly has free speech, they're operating a store (similarly to Wal-Mart) where they are, in effect, not living up to the principles of the country (free speech, etc.). Worse, they are being hypocritical about it (leaving sexual stuff from big companies like Playboy but cutting out small developers who are doing stuff less titillating).
To make a slightly different point, this is why I'd love the see the "officially approved by Apple" iTunes App Store, but then have them open up the eco-system so people could sell Apps from anywhere...their own personal web sites, etc. Then, if people wanted to sanitized content (both thematically and technically), and if they wanted to risk it with non-approved apps, they could.
Am I saying Apple should be forced to open up the ecosystem? No, I'm saying I wish they would.
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.
So then they are going to remove all R-rated movies and songs with explicit lyrics from iTunes, right?
The "for the schools" argument makes no sense, because the devices should be locked down. The iTunes accounts (and passwords) would belong to the schools, so how would the students be able to download unauthorized apps and iTunes content?
All you "freedom" advocates here: this is the quality of the apps we are talking about!
Such a solid argument, using a carefully selected representative!
Honestly, I think all those complaining about Apple move either have no idea what they are talking about, replacing the reality with theory, or are just bashing Apple because they hate it.
Or they don't agree with Apple's decision, irrespective of their opinion of Apple in general?
No, it's not about adult content here. It is about spam and crap! The 'overtly sexual' theme is just the best reasoning Apple could come up with.
That's a defense?
Remember, Apple can not ban an app just because they don't like it! They have to follow the rules, albeit their own rules. And yes, they will rather change the rules when they find that the old rules are not protecting their user and developer base!
So why not create a rule that uses a term as equally vague and abusable as "overtly sexual", like "spam and crap"?.
Except for the iPhone/iPod App Store being a monopoly, you mean.
It's a smart phone. It's one of many smart phones. Do you even know what a monopoly is? I know people like to throw around words like unethical, immoral, monopoly, censor but, in virtually every instance, none of these (legally) apply to the subject as hand. Just like this one - there is absolutely nothing illegal about this.
Boobs were taking over. Go to Photography apps, boobs. Go to Utility apps, boobs. Go to Productivity apps, boobs. Go to Gaming apps, ...well, those were mostly games, but you get the point. There were boobs in every category basically, so it was difficult to find ACTUAL USEFUL STUFF. Nearly every third app it seemed like was boobs
It disappoints me that people say that Apple had parental ratings for the app store. Sure it prevented you from downloading certain things, BUT THEY WERE STILL THERE TO MAKE YOUR SEARCH MORE IRRELEVANT. The parental controls didn't prevent you from seen the apps, and having them get in the way of what you're looking for.
The iPod/iPhone/iPad has a full web browser, so if you need to get a hardon, then just browse the bloody web.
People pay not to see scantily clad women, as it's free on the internet, but the assurance that with buying a app to see those pictures they are getting quality of content and not jerked around by blind links and exploits.
The iPhone has people's personal and very sensitive data on it, more than a computer in most cases.
With Apple vetting the Adult apps and content, makes sure developers play by the rules.
Apple just doesn't want their new iPad's image to be soiled in public with pictures of adult material.
They allowed it a bit for the smaller screened devices as it can be hard too see, but the iPad is designed to attract eyeballs.
Just goes to show what's coming down the pipe as Apple is clamping down even harder on their devices.
If the Adult web all had .porn addresses, I'm almost sure Apple would block those sites from being run in Safari on the iPad.
Again, seriously, if you can't take to the internet to find the kind of nudity you want than this is really a non-issue. If you want pictures go to google, if you want video I'm sure you can google "iPhone video porm" (spelling intentional since I'm at work) or something like that and I'm quite certain you won't get taken to a whole bunch of crazy blind links. If you're incapable of browsing the internet without finding yourself with a dozen pop-ups then, well, I think you need to figure out how to browse more efficiently.
Everyone here talks about their "right to free speech." Well guess what? The courts have long ruled that companies are people, and they have the same rights that you have. And guess what else? THEIR right to free speech means that they can do what they want; their right to do what they want trumps your right for them to do what YOU want.
What if I wanted you to sell porn? I'm sure some of you would gladly, but just because I want you to do it does not mean that your are required, or even inclined to do it.