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.
...which is what makes banning 'questionable' apps completely useless and asinine.
If Apple decided to release an update that blocked all data from the iPhone, to protect their users from coming in contact with the filthy internet, the exact same arguments to defend the actions in this thread would be used.
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?
If I am not mistaken nearly 10,000 apps are submitted weekly.
Basically, the main priority is that the app works, which computerized simulators checks can do quite easily.
The subjective classification takes much longer. Poorly, vaguely or falsely written descriptions can extend the reviewing time. And lets face it, some developers are very good at hiding their intent.
Again, read the SDK agreements. Jobs' obviously relied on the developers to conform to the violent/sexual guidelines and Apple reviewers' inexperience took their word and/or simply gave them the benefit of the doubt. Bottom line, Apple always reserved their right to change their minds; developers know that and except for a couple(?), we are not complaining.
Right now, the 4,000 delisted apps represents 2.5% of all the apps in the iTunes App Store. And we have heard from how many developers? Surely there must be one Larry Flynt amongst them.
...which is what makes banning 'questionable' apps completely useless and asinine.
If Apple decided to release an update that blocked all data from the iPhone, to protect their users from coming in contact with the filthy internet, the exact same arguments to defend the actions in this thread would be used.
incredible.
No different if you came into my home and I banned your from smoking. True, you can leave and drag as much as you want. However, you can't question my intent for considering my health is more important than yours.
Bottom line; no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to smoke in my house, even if you came in the back door.
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.
Yes it does work for the iPod touch and iPhone.
I don't care how good, bad or indifferent someone else's kid is, he/she is not going to put something on your kids' iPod touch or iPhone if it isn't in the store in the first place.
It's almost like anything passes for an argument to defend Apple's actions.
Seems like a mountain out of a molehill to me. I'd say "much ado about nothing", except that I think there is a very important element that many are missing, in that Apple is acting to protect its most important asset, its brand image.
Remember that the education market is very important to Apple, and it has fostered a very family friendly brand. The last thing Apple needs is to be labeled broadly as a publisher of adult content. I don't think for a minute that Steve Jobs or anybody else at Apple cares what people choose to view on their iPhone. In fact it's easy enough to load pictures or video, and use Safari to search the web. There simply is no compelling reason for Apple to be publishing adult content related apps, especially since they have been receiving complaints about it.
It's almost like anything passes for an argument to defend Apple's actions.
The other thing that comes to mind about this statement is the opposite. It's almost like anything here passes for an argument to bash Apple. Why wouldn't you expect people here to defend Apple? It is Appleinsider after all.
I don't care how good, bad or indifferent someone else's kid is, he/she is not going to put something on your kids' iPod touch or iPhone if it isn't in the store in the first place.
This is totally incorrect. What is on the iPhone/Touch is totally independent of what is in the App Store.
Go to iPorn.com, for example. Save it as an icon on the iPhone.
Apple telling me what I shouldn't have on my computing device is insulting to me as a free citizen and adult. There are some standards of which I agree but the scope of this censorship is way over the line. Like the Taliban, they believe the female body shouldn't be seen in anything but a burka.
This is a small step away from apple censoring and telling us what apps and content we can have on our desktop or laptop, after all isn't the iPad the next device of which is supposed to replace those?
I personally don't think shooter games are the healthiest thing either but its not my right to tell others what they are allowed to enjoy. Why is it that conservative purists always seem to find violence to be much more acceptable form of expression then anything deemed even mildly "sexual" in its nature.
This is an unfair and idiotic decision bases on a vocal minority of prudes who are simply afraid of the human body. Its apples right to censor whatever they want but I sure as heck don't have to support it.
This has me thinking twice about if I really want to support a product under this type of censorship, yet another example of how apple is slowly turning into another overbearing company like microsoft.
So what about all of the R rated movies, books and music? I can think of a few that are considered "overtly sexual content" . The problem is all the Moms and Dads out there that do not keep up with what there kids are doing. If you are looking for "overtly sexual content" just go to the mall or pool. What about the camera? So your Teens are taking photos and videos of "overtly sexual content", Well there goes the camera on the IPhone. What about all the Movies and TV shows that have "overtly sexual content"? Oh well! There goes the video player in the Iphone and Ipod Touch.
What about the Music that has "overtly sexual content"? Oh snap. There goes the Speaker and headphone jack. I just think if Apples intentions are to save the world One horny kid at a time...go big or go home. Don't just do it in bits and pieces. I think Apple should balls up and make sure they have a solution to every problem regarding overtly sexual content. But that would mean...they would lose millions daily. What a effin joke! Parents be parents to your children...and Apple...keep doing what you're doing. Just let us know when you've realized it's not your responsibility to raise the world. if that's the case... where's my effin child support check?
No different if you came into my home and I banned your from smoking. True, you can leave and drag as much as you want. However, you can't question my intent for considering my health is more important than yours.
Bottom line; no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to smoke in my house, even if you came in the back door.
That's a specious argument. Apple is a publicly traded corporation, not your house. Without even having to get into any specific details about whether Apple has the right to do this or not, they certainly have to play by a different set of rules than you do at your house. It's a little more complicated than your analogy.
I'm scratching my head as I watch this app story continue because it's completely illogical. On what basis does Apple distinguish between music, movies and television shows with plenty of sexual content -- which are still available from the iTunes store -- and the applications they've chosen to censor? It smells an awful lot like the selective book burning some of us thought we left behind last century. Apple, please explain.
This has me thinking twice about if I really want to support a product under this type of censorship, yet another example of how apple is slowly turning into another overbearing company like microsoft.
I'm seeing Apple repeat the Macintosh, where the quantum leap couldn't offset the arrogance and blunders that followed.
If Apple gets too heavy-handed people WILL leave, just as they left for the crap-but-good-enough Windows PC's.
I realize iTunes and the App Store are Apple's. But when Apple mows down 5,000 previously-approved apps because they don't meet new arbitrary guidelines, that should send a chill down everyone's spine.
Writing and submitting apps was always a dicey prospect for developers. Now that Apple has demonstrated their willingness to remove apps en masse and on a whim, developers need to seriously ask themselves whether it's worth the risk.
I don't care how good, bad or indifferent someone else's kid is, he/she is not going to put something on your kids' iPod touch or iPhone if it isn't in the store in the first place.
That covers the apps, but I wasn't talking about that so much. I was talking about the multitude other avenues to see stuff that's even worse. What does blocking it in the app store do for imported media? Or the web? Or even off the iDevice, what magazines can they dig up and look at while at the other kid's house? Maybe a defeated or missing lockout on certain cable channels? Do you really want the app store to continue to make Maxim, Playboy & Penthouse? Where is your defense or objection for those items and the apparent double standard on Apple's part?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
If I am not mistaken nearly 10,000 apps are submitted weekly.
Basically, the main priority is that the app works, which computerized simulators checks can do quite easily.
The subjective classification takes much longer. Poorly, vaguely or falsely written descriptions can extend the reviewing time. And lets face it, some developers are very good at hiding their intent.
...
Right now, the 4,000 delisted apps represents 2.5% of all the apps in the iTunes App Store.
2.5% is what I would call a high failure rate for just about any process. If it's too much workload, then the process needs to be scaled up enough so that a product with "boob" in the name can be easily rejected. While I understand there is subjectivity involved in a lot of cases, the example titles and descriptions given in the articles I've seen should not have been at all difficult to tell what it was about. If the app doesn't comply with the original stated standard, then those apps shouldn't have been allowed in the first place.
This still doesn't explain why certain very well known magazines have apps with lingerie models plainly showing in the app description. If they don't recognize the brand names and they don't notice the images, then what is really going on here?
Clearly Apple can choose what they want to sell, and since they decided to become Disney-squeaky-clean, that's their choice. (I wonder when you have to sport a Pepsodent smile or be denied buying an iPhone, because someone with a sinister facial expression could shed a bad light on Apple's products...)
The problem starts, when there's only a single store to buy content, because then a retailer's choice turns into censorship.
If WalMart decides not to carry certain videos or CDs, I can order them through Amazon, or in a local store. If the local store decides not to carry some magazines, I can subscribe to them by mail. But if Apple blocks things from the app store, there's no alternative outlet.
So Apple has two choices: allow people to download and install applications from other sources, just like I can install random MP3 songs on my iPhone, not just those sold by the iTunes music store, OR allow everything to be sold in the app store, as long as it has a proper rating attached to it.
Apple does neither of these two, and THAT IS WRONG, because it means thanks to DRM we are now giving powers to private entities that we have long denied the government, and that's a very dangerous course to allow to happen.
I'm scratching my head as I watch this app story continue because it's completely illogical. On what basis does Apple distinguish between music, movies and television shows with plenty of sexual content -- which are still available from the iTunes store -- and the applications they've chosen to censor? It smells an awful lot like the selective book burning some of us thought we left behind last century. Apple, please explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sippincider
I'm seeing Apple repeat the Macintosh, where the quantum leap couldn't offset the arrogance and blunders that followed.
If Apple gets too heavy-handed people WILL leave, just as they left for the crap-but-good-enough Windows PC's.
I realize iTunes and the App Store are Apple's. But when Apple mows down 5,000 previously-approved apps because they don't meet new arbitrary guidelines, that should send a chill down everyone's spine.
Writing and submitting apps was always a dicey prospect for developers. Now that Apple has demonstrated their willingness to remove apps en masse and on a whim, developers need to seriously ask themselves whether it's worth the risk.
Well said. And what's equally as chilling to me is how many people seem to be ok with the idea that some are espousing here that we should stop whining because Apple knows what's best for us. We're not just talking about a set of tools, but the content created and distributed with those tools.
Clearly Apple can choose what they want to sell, and since they decided to become Disney-squeaky-clean, that's their choice. (I wonder when you have to sport a Pepsodent smile or be denied buying an iPhone, because someone with a sinister facial expression could shed a bad light on Apple's products...)
The problem starts, when there's only a single store to buy content, because then a retailer's choice turns into censorship.
If WalMart decides not to carry certain videos or CDs, I can order them through Amazon, or in a local store. If the local store decides not to carry some magazines, I can subscribe to them by mail. But if Apple blocks things from the app store, there's no alternative outlet.
So Apple has two choices: allow people to download and install applications from other sources, just like I can install random MP3 songs on my iPhone, not just those sold by the iTunes music store, OR allow everything to be sold in the app store, as long as it has a proper rating attached to it.
Apple does neither of these two, and THAT IS WRONG, because it means thanks to DRM we are now giving powers to private entities that we have long denied the government, and that's a very dangerous course to allow to happen.
The alternative is Mobile Safari.
Get your facts straight. Apple hasn't banned porn on their devices, they banned it in the App Store.
No different if you came into my home and I banned your from smoking. True, you can leave and drag as much as you want. However, you can't question my intent for considering my health is more important than yours.
Bottom line; no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to smoke in my house, even if you came in the back door.
wow...was that supposed to be an relevant analogy?
No, it would be more like you and your wife smoking in every room in your house and then telling your kids they can't smoke in the living room, but all other rooms are ok.
i.e. your attempt to protect them from the dangers of smoking in the living room would be both asinine and completely useless.
..and wtf is the back door comment? The 'back door' in your example was the Apple approval process allowing thousands of individual apps right on in.
Comments
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.
...which is what makes banning 'questionable' apps completely useless and asinine.
If Apple decided to release an update that blocked all data from the iPhone, to protect their users from coming in contact with the filthy internet, the exact same arguments to defend the actions in this thread would be used.
incredible.
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?
If I am not mistaken nearly 10,000 apps are submitted weekly.
Basically, the main priority is that the app works, which computerized simulators checks can do quite easily.
The subjective classification takes much longer. Poorly, vaguely or falsely written descriptions can extend the reviewing time. And lets face it, some developers are very good at hiding their intent.
Again, read the SDK agreements. Jobs' obviously relied on the developers to conform to the violent/sexual guidelines and Apple reviewers' inexperience took their word and/or simply gave them the benefit of the doubt. Bottom line, Apple always reserved their right to change their minds; developers know that and except for a couple(?), we are not complaining.
Right now, the 4,000 delisted apps represents 2.5% of all the apps in the iTunes App Store. And we have heard from how many developers? Surely there must be one Larry Flynt amongst them.
...which is what makes banning 'questionable' apps completely useless and asinine.
If Apple decided to release an update that blocked all data from the iPhone, to protect their users from coming in contact with the filthy internet, the exact same arguments to defend the actions in this thread would be used.
incredible.
No different if you came into my home and I banned your from smoking. True, you can leave and drag as much as you want. However, you can't question my intent for considering my health is more important than yours.
Bottom line; no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to smoke in my house, even if you came in the back door.
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.
Yes it does work for the iPod touch and iPhone.
I don't care how good, bad or indifferent someone else's kid is, he/she is not going to put something on your kids' iPod touch or iPhone if it isn't in the store in the first place.
It's almost like anything passes for an argument to defend Apple's actions.
Seems like a mountain out of a molehill to me. I'd say "much ado about nothing", except that I think there is a very important element that many are missing, in that Apple is acting to protect its most important asset, its brand image.
Remember that the education market is very important to Apple, and it has fostered a very family friendly brand. The last thing Apple needs is to be labeled broadly as a publisher of adult content. I don't think for a minute that Steve Jobs or anybody else at Apple cares what people choose to view on their iPhone. In fact it's easy enough to load pictures or video, and use Safari to search the web. There simply is no compelling reason for Apple to be publishing adult content related apps, especially since they have been receiving complaints about it.
It's almost like anything passes for an argument to defend Apple's actions.
The other thing that comes to mind about this statement is the opposite. It's almost like anything here passes for an argument to bash Apple. Why wouldn't you expect people here to defend Apple? It is Appleinsider after all.
Yes it does work for the iPod touch and iPhone.
I don't care how good, bad or indifferent someone else's kid is, he/she is not going to put something on your kids' iPod touch or iPhone if it isn't in the store in the first place.
This is totally incorrect. What is on the iPhone/Touch is totally independent of what is in the App Store.
Go to iPorn.com, for example. Save it as an icon on the iPhone.
If the "1984" commercial were made today, which side would Apple represent?
Perhaps a year from now we'll be celebrating the first glorious anniversary...
But we should be allowed to criticise those decisions, ...
You are.
This is a small step away from apple censoring and telling us what apps and content we can have on our desktop or laptop, after all isn't the iPad the next device of which is supposed to replace those?
I personally don't think shooter games are the healthiest thing either but its not my right to tell others what they are allowed to enjoy. Why is it that conservative purists always seem to find violence to be much more acceptable form of expression then anything deemed even mildly "sexual" in its nature.
This is an unfair and idiotic decision bases on a vocal minority of prudes who are simply afraid of the human body. Its apples right to censor whatever they want but I sure as heck don't have to support it.
This has me thinking twice about if I really want to support a product under this type of censorship, yet another example of how apple is slowly turning into another overbearing company like microsoft.
What about the Music that has "overtly sexual content"? Oh snap. There goes the Speaker and headphone jack. I just think if Apples intentions are to save the world One horny kid at a time...go big or go home. Don't just do it in bits and pieces. I think Apple should balls up and make sure they have a solution to every problem regarding overtly sexual content. But that would mean...they would lose millions daily. What a effin joke! Parents be parents to your children...and Apple...keep doing what you're doing. Just let us know when you've realized it's not your responsibility to raise the world. if that's the case... where's my effin child support check?
No different if you came into my home and I banned your from smoking. True, you can leave and drag as much as you want. However, you can't question my intent for considering my health is more important than yours.
Bottom line; no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to smoke in my house, even if you came in the back door.
That's a specious argument. Apple is a publicly traded corporation, not your house. Without even having to get into any specific details about whether Apple has the right to do this or not, they certainly have to play by a different set of rules than you do at your house. It's a little more complicated than your analogy.
This has me thinking twice about if I really want to support a product under this type of censorship, yet another example of how apple is slowly turning into another overbearing company like microsoft.
I'm seeing Apple repeat the Macintosh, where the quantum leap couldn't offset the arrogance and blunders that followed.
If Apple gets too heavy-handed people WILL leave, just as they left for the crap-but-good-enough Windows PC's.
I realize iTunes and the App Store are Apple's. But when Apple mows down 5,000 previously-approved apps because they don't meet new arbitrary guidelines, that should send a chill down everyone's spine.
Writing and submitting apps was always a dicey prospect for developers. Now that Apple has demonstrated their willingness to remove apps en masse and on a whim, developers need to seriously ask themselves whether it's worth the risk.
Yes it does work for the iPod touch and iPhone.
I don't care how good, bad or indifferent someone else's kid is, he/she is not going to put something on your kids' iPod touch or iPhone if it isn't in the store in the first place.
That covers the apps, but I wasn't talking about that so much. I was talking about the multitude other avenues to see stuff that's even worse. What does blocking it in the app store do for imported media? Or the web? Or even off the iDevice, what magazines can they dig up and look at while at the other kid's house? Maybe a defeated or missing lockout on certain cable channels? Do you really want the app store to continue to make Maxim, Playboy & Penthouse? Where is your defense or objection for those items and the apparent double standard on Apple's part?
If I am not mistaken nearly 10,000 apps are submitted weekly.
Basically, the main priority is that the app works, which computerized simulators checks can do quite easily.
The subjective classification takes much longer. Poorly, vaguely or falsely written descriptions can extend the reviewing time. And lets face it, some developers are very good at hiding their intent.
...
Right now, the 4,000 delisted apps represents 2.5% of all the apps in the iTunes App Store.
2.5% is what I would call a high failure rate for just about any process. If it's too much workload, then the process needs to be scaled up enough so that a product with "boob" in the name can be easily rejected. While I understand there is subjectivity involved in a lot of cases, the example titles and descriptions given in the articles I've seen should not have been at all difficult to tell what it was about. If the app doesn't comply with the original stated standard, then those apps shouldn't have been allowed in the first place.
This still doesn't explain why certain very well known magazines have apps with lingerie models plainly showing in the app description. If they don't recognize the brand names and they don't notice the images, then what is really going on here?
The problem starts, when there's only a single store to buy content, because then a retailer's choice turns into censorship.
If WalMart decides not to carry certain videos or CDs, I can order them through Amazon, or in a local store. If the local store decides not to carry some magazines, I can subscribe to them by mail. But if Apple blocks things from the app store, there's no alternative outlet.
So Apple has two choices: allow people to download and install applications from other sources, just like I can install random MP3 songs on my iPhone, not just those sold by the iTunes music store, OR allow everything to be sold in the app store, as long as it has a proper rating attached to it.
Apple does neither of these two, and THAT IS WRONG, because it means thanks to DRM we are now giving powers to private entities that we have long denied the government, and that's a very dangerous course to allow to happen.
I'm scratching my head as I watch this app story continue because it's completely illogical. On what basis does Apple distinguish between music, movies and television shows with plenty of sexual content -- which are still available from the iTunes store -- and the applications they've chosen to censor? It smells an awful lot like the selective book burning some of us thought we left behind last century. Apple, please explain.
I'm seeing Apple repeat the Macintosh, where the quantum leap couldn't offset the arrogance and blunders that followed.
If Apple gets too heavy-handed people WILL leave, just as they left for the crap-but-good-enough Windows PC's.
I realize iTunes and the App Store are Apple's. But when Apple mows down 5,000 previously-approved apps because they don't meet new arbitrary guidelines, that should send a chill down everyone's spine.
Writing and submitting apps was always a dicey prospect for developers. Now that Apple has demonstrated their willingness to remove apps en masse and on a whim, developers need to seriously ask themselves whether it's worth the risk.
Well said. And what's equally as chilling to me is how many people seem to be ok with the idea that some are espousing here that we should stop whining because Apple knows what's best for us. We're not just talking about a set of tools, but the content created and distributed with those tools.
First no Flash Porn on the Pad and now this!
There's no stopping Uncle Steve and his moral apples. Whatever happened to an open and free internet?
All Apple haters seem to be completely ignorant.
Clearly Apple can choose what they want to sell, and since they decided to become Disney-squeaky-clean, that's their choice. (I wonder when you have to sport a Pepsodent smile or be denied buying an iPhone, because someone with a sinister facial expression could shed a bad light on Apple's products...)
The problem starts, when there's only a single store to buy content, because then a retailer's choice turns into censorship.
If WalMart decides not to carry certain videos or CDs, I can order them through Amazon, or in a local store. If the local store decides not to carry some magazines, I can subscribe to them by mail. But if Apple blocks things from the app store, there's no alternative outlet.
So Apple has two choices: allow people to download and install applications from other sources, just like I can install random MP3 songs on my iPhone, not just those sold by the iTunes music store, OR allow everything to be sold in the app store, as long as it has a proper rating attached to it.
Apple does neither of these two, and THAT IS WRONG, because it means thanks to DRM we are now giving powers to private entities that we have long denied the government, and that's a very dangerous course to allow to happen.
The alternative is Mobile Safari.
Get your facts straight. Apple hasn't banned porn on their devices, they banned it in the App Store.
No different if you came into my home and I banned your from smoking. True, you can leave and drag as much as you want. However, you can't question my intent for considering my health is more important than yours.
Bottom line; no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to smoke in my house, even if you came in the back door.
wow...was that supposed to be an relevant analogy?
No, it would be more like you and your wife smoking in every room in your house and then telling your kids they can't smoke in the living room, but all other rooms are ok.
i.e. your attempt to protect them from the dangers of smoking in the living room would be both asinine and completely useless.
..and wtf is the back door comment? The 'back door' in your example was the Apple approval process allowing thousands of individual apps right on in.