Porn = Flash, which is incompatible with Safari mobile.
Completely untrue, almost all streaming video websites (including naughty ones) supply H.264 when accessed by the iPhone so there's no problem. Not that I've been looking obviously ...
You're a bit late to the party dude. Censorship exists in the world, in one form or another. I'm not defending it, but I am defending Apple.
Watched any porn on ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox lately?
No, because I live in the UK. There is a healthy amount of boobage on display on many channels here though, (and I'm not talking about porn channels), and of course HBO aren't afraid of showing all either.
Who said anything about illegal except you? No one has said Apple is acting illegally, not even borderline illegally. No one. Why should legality be the only concern when deciding if a decision is a good decision or not? Why can't we discuss the ethics and morals of a legal decision?
You said monopoly... In the US a monopoly is illegal - that's not at all a jump of logic. I mean, we're apple fans here and we know that MSFT has been fighting against monopoly law suits for years - you'd think we'd all know that monopoly = bad.
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.
Like fan said, Apple isn't removing porn.
They're removing cartoon characters in bikinis and apps that ship with no images whatsoever.
Apple does not want to be seen with objectionable material on its iPhone. Bad for its image. I applaud Apple for this.
Apple sells a Playboy app.
Apple ships a web browser that can be used to visit tens of thousands of sites with "inappropriate" content.
Apple has removed an app that displays cartoon characters in swimsuits.
Apple has removed an app that ships with ZERO images because users could potentially use Safari to visit an "objectionable" web site, download an image and then add it to said app.
Apple is targeting the weaker developers as to reduce it's risk to a lawsuit that's going to come out of this.
Double agree. The problem is not Apple's decision so much, rather their clearly offensive double standard on parade again. If you're taking 5,000+ apps out of the store that are "racy", and leaving Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition (TIME Inc), Maxim and Playboy in, there's an obvious favoritism going on.
So I suppose they will ban "overtly violent" shooter games as well. Oh wait... No?
If you ever watched to Steve Jobs' keynotes on the iPhone SDK or read the SDK guidelines, you would be aware of Apple's position on violent/sexual content.
All developers are cognizant of basically what will be approved, and certainly have agreed to the fact that Apple has the right to approve, reject or remove an app, as well as to change the change the guidelines at their will and at anytime.
Knowing some of the developers, I would suggest that some apps submitted were overtly violent and had to be modified to be accepted. As 'overtly violent' is a relative thing, it is quite possible that not all reviewers would deem every app equally.
But again, we are forewarned of the potential that our apps may be re-reviewed and that there is no guarantee that once an app is approved that it could not be later removed.
And Apple is not alone:
Quote:
For many years, Nintendo had a policy of strict content guidelines for video games published on its consoles. Although Nintendo Japan allowed graphic violence in its video games, nudity and sexuality were strictly prohibited. Former Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi believed that if the company allowed the licensing of pornographic games, the company's image would be forever tarnished.[25] Nintendo of America and Nintendo of Europe went further in that games released for Nintendo consoles could not feature nudity, sexuality, profanity (including racism, sexism or slurs), blood, graphic or domestic violence, drugs, political messages or religious symbols (with the exception of widely unpracticed religions, such as the Greek Pantheon)
Stop being a pussy, go and do it, better yet sell your iPhone on ebay and go buy a Nexus one then go whine over n Android forums.
Bye
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail
Except that if I was that desperate for it the next logical step would be to go to another store that sold that content, but there is no alternate store on the iPhone unless you jailbreak, and god damn does Apple make it look more attractive everyday they do something like this.
What concerns me the most is that people are worried about what their child may see....or not see.... from these apps......Stop and think about what people wear/or don't wear out in public? My husband has about 3 pages of these apps, there is nothing on any of them that one wouldn't see out in public. I think we really need to start worrying about more important things than half naked body apps. Maybe like, crime.....killing.....drugs......sexual things are a given......that's how we made it to this world in the first place.....sure wasn't from a gun fight. ESB
You said monopoly... In the US a monopoly is illegal - that's not at all a jump of logic. I mean, we're apple fans here and we know that MSFT has been fighting against monopoly law suits for years - you'd think we'd all know that monopoly = bad.
Monopolies are usually not illegal in themselves. Some are even government sanctioned. There are certain limits as to what a monopoly is allowed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
If you ever watched to Steve Jobs' keynotes on the iPhone SDK or read the SDK guidelines, you would be aware of Apple's position on violent/sexual content.
I think that raises the question as to how the apps in question got approved in the first place, since a lot of the apps in question weren't hiding what they're about. How is having switchmasters helpful if they find they were asleep at the switch for months on end and nobody checked up on their work?
So I suppose they will ban "overtly violent" shooter games as well. Oh wait... No?
Exactly. How f'd up does our value system have to be for us to be offended by some bikinis and boobs, but be ok with graphic violence. And what about the graphically sexual content in the itunes music store? What about Playboy magazine? Surely that is "overtly sexual".
I'm surprised to see so many people defending this kind of censorship. Or are they just defending Apple regardless the issue?
If you ever watched to Steve Jobs' keynotes on the iPhone SDK or read the SDK guidelines, you would be aware of Apple's position on violent/sexual content.
....and so ~5000 were then approved...
It's almost like anything passes for an argument to defend Apple's actions.
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.
There's no guarantee that anything works. If someone else's kid is going to be considered a possible vector, then you have every other avenue and media to contend with as well.
How long will this continue? We are all clones living in THX-1138. We will all have iPhones which will keep us from evil thoughts of arousal. I can't wait.
Double agree. The problem is not Apple's decision so much, rather their clearly offensive double standard on parade again. If you're taking 5,000+ apps out of the store that are "racy", and leaving Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition (TIME Inc), Maxim and Playboy in, there's an obvious favoritism going on.
This is a great point. Is Playboy, Maxim, and other big names still being offered on the app store with partial nudity? If so that is where the problem lies.
Comments
Porn = Flash, which is incompatible with Safari mobile.
Completely untrue, almost all streaming video websites (including naughty ones) supply H.264 when accessed by the iPhone so there's no problem. Not that I've been looking obviously ...
You're a bit late to the party dude. Censorship exists in the world, in one form or another. I'm not defending it, but I am defending Apple.
Watched any porn on ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox lately?
No, because I live in the UK. There is a healthy amount of boobage on display on many channels here though, (and I'm not talking about porn channels), and of course HBO aren't afraid of showing all either.
Anybody care to explain why the need for porn apps on their phone?
Just wondering.
They're for if you suffer from insomnia or need tutorials.
Who said anything about illegal except you? No one has said Apple is acting illegally, not even borderline illegally. No one. Why should legality be the only concern when deciding if a decision is a good decision or not? Why can't we discuss the ethics and morals of a legal decision?
You said monopoly... In the US a monopoly is illegal - that's not at all a jump of logic. I mean, we're apple fans here and we know that MSFT has been fighting against monopoly law suits for years - you'd think we'd all know that monopoly = bad.
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.
Like fan said, Apple isn't removing porn.
They're removing cartoon characters in bikinis and apps that ship with no images whatsoever.
They are going way too far.
Apple does not want to be seen with objectionable material on its iPhone. Bad for its image. I applaud Apple for this.
Apple sells a Playboy app.
Apple ships a web browser that can be used to visit tens of thousands of sites with "inappropriate" content.
Apple has removed an app that displays cartoon characters in swimsuits.
Apple has removed an app that ships with ZERO images because users could potentially use Safari to visit an "objectionable" web site, download an image and then add it to said app.
Are you still applauding?
Yes, I agree.
Apple is targeting the weaker developers as to reduce it's risk to a lawsuit that's going to come out of this.
Double agree. The problem is not Apple's decision so much, rather their clearly offensive double standard on parade again. If you're taking 5,000+ apps out of the store that are "racy", and leaving Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition (TIME Inc), Maxim and Playboy in, there's an obvious favoritism going on.
Somehow I can't imagine Steve Ballmer objecting to porn on his MS tablet:
iBallzer
shake to throw chairs
shake harder and watch his pants fall off
So I suppose they will ban "overtly violent" shooter games as well. Oh wait... No?
If you ever watched to Steve Jobs' keynotes on the iPhone SDK or read the SDK guidelines, you would be aware of Apple's position on violent/sexual content.
All developers are cognizant of basically what will be approved, and certainly have agreed to the fact that Apple has the right to approve, reject or remove an app, as well as to change the change the guidelines at their will and at anytime.
Knowing some of the developers, I would suggest that some apps submitted were overtly violent and had to be modified to be accepted. As 'overtly violent' is a relative thing, it is quite possible that not all reviewers would deem every app equally.
But again, we are forewarned of the potential that our apps may be re-reviewed and that there is no guarantee that once an app is approved that it could not be later removed.
And Apple is not alone:
Bye
Except that if I was that desperate for it the next logical step would be to go to another store that sold that content, but there is no alternate store on the iPhone unless you jailbreak, and god damn does Apple make it look more attractive everyday they do something like this.
Weak doesn't even describe your response to his question.
I'll let Jeff be the best judge of that AH.
You said monopoly... In the US a monopoly is illegal - that's not at all a jump of logic. I mean, we're apple fans here and we know that MSFT has been fighting against monopoly law suits for years - you'd think we'd all know that monopoly = bad.
Monopolies are usually not illegal in themselves. Some are even government sanctioned. There are certain limits as to what a monopoly is allowed.
If you ever watched to Steve Jobs' keynotes on the iPhone SDK or read the SDK guidelines, you would be aware of Apple's position on violent/sexual content.
I think that raises the question as to how the apps in question got approved in the first place, since a lot of the apps in question weren't hiding what they're about. How is having switchmasters helpful if they find they were asleep at the switch for months on end and nobody checked up on their work?
So I suppose they will ban "overtly violent" shooter games as well. Oh wait... No?
Exactly. How f'd up does our value system have to be for us to be offended by some bikinis and boobs, but be ok with graphic violence. And what about the graphically sexual content in the itunes music store? What about Playboy magazine? Surely that is "overtly sexual".
I'm surprised to see so many people defending this kind of censorship. Or are they just defending Apple regardless the issue?
If you ever watched to Steve Jobs' keynotes on the iPhone SDK or read the SDK guidelines, you would be aware of Apple's position on violent/sexual content.
....and so ~5000 were then approved...
It's almost like anything passes for an argument to defend Apple's actions.
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.
There's no guarantee that anything works. If someone else's kid is going to be considered a possible vector, then you have every other avenue and media to contend with as well.
Double agree. The problem is not Apple's decision so much, rather their clearly offensive double standard on parade again. If you're taking 5,000+ apps out of the store that are "racy", and leaving Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition (TIME Inc), Maxim and Playboy in, there's an obvious favoritism going on.
This is a great point. Is Playboy, Maxim, and other big names still being offered on the app store with partial nudity? If so that is where the problem lies.