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.
1) They allow material as 'bad' or 'worse' than anything they recently purged....so, that alone counters most of your arguments.
2) As you say, Safari can allow you to view much more graphic material, of the iPhone.
Get your facts straight. Apple hasn't banned porn on their devices, they banned it in the App Store.
There never was any "porn" in the store (the famous "I know it when I see it serves as my on yardstick to what "porn" is) but there was some mild titillation and racy apps, perhaps.
You point doesn't explain why some high profile apps of similar nature are still available (Maxim, Playboy, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit) that offer the same degree of titillation. The difference is that these apps are owned by mega-corporations that Apple wouldn't dare bother (TIME Inc., Playboy Enterprises).
Until Apple applies their "censorship" or whatever passes for acceptance evenly to all apps, then this is nothing more than favoritism and keeping media corporations happy at the expense of smaller developers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
Clearly Apple can choose what they want to sell, and since they decided to become Disney-squeaky-clean, that's their choice.
Playboy and Maxim and Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition are not considered, by the religious types in my little city, "Disney-squeaky-clean." Apple needs to apply the rules evenly, or stop pretending they're anything but a profit-hungry, despotic corporation no better than MS etc. (Disclosure: I am an Apple computer owner since my first Apple IIe. So I am in the fanboy camp, just very old.)
Actually, I'll dash off an email right now to Steve J objecting to that very content. Grab those while you can boys, cause I want 'em gone!
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, thanks. I have been here for a while.
Yes, there are many, many, oh far too many unthinking anti-Apple trolls that will post nonsensical, stupid, essentially useless 'arguments' with the only goal being to bash Apple.
As a very, very long term Apple user (and long time member here) it disappoints me to see Apple fans/zealots post in defence of anything and everything Apple does, apparently without any thought. I will defend anything Apple does, when it is right.
I actually don't care at all about this move my Apple. It doesn't affect me at all. Neither my Apple usage nor my detachment from this issue mean that I should turn off my brain and make arguments in favour of their actions that have no meaning.
unthinking posts from trolls are not much different than unthinking thoughts from zealots.
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.
This might seem counterintuitive, but my recent Apple-bashing here has been in defense of Apple.
Call it tough love. I'm a big fanboy from the Apple II days as well. Apple has great stuff, but when I see them going adrift I'm gonna call them on it (such as with their growing control-obsession).
NOT defending Apple is when we line up gung-ho behind whatever they do, and then proceed to follow them off the cliff.
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.
But, why is it okay to have shooter games aiming at someone's head, and killing? Is that family friendly?
I think it's understandable that Apple wants to avoid sex content. But it's ironic and thought-provoking why we do worry about sexual content, as if it's... what... inappropriate for children to see, while we invite them to choose sniper rifles and blow off people's heads, and call that entertainment.
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.
Great post articulated much better than I ever could.
This might seem counterintuitive, but my recent Apple-bashing here has been in defense of Apple.
Call it tough love. I'm a big fanboy from the Apple II days as well. Apple has great stuff, but when I see them going adrift I'm gonna call them on it (such as with their growing control-obsession).
NOT defending Apple is when we line up gung-ho behind whatever they do, and then proceed to follow them off the cliff.
Right on.
For me, and along the lines of "choose your fights carefully", I just don't get very worked up on this one. Not having Wobble iBoobs (while it admittedly sounds interesting), is not going to stop me from getting an iPhone or an iPad, and I really don't think it will have a significant adverse effect on Apple's business in that regard. It might even have a positive impact, especially in the education sector.
The whole bit about still allowing SI, Playboy, et al. is weird and seems suspicious and unfair, but that also doesn't make me want to go on a crusade. Apple should clarify and possibly reconstruct the wording of the rules.
But, why is it okay to have shooter games aiming at someone's head, and killing? Is that family friendly?
I think it's understandable that Apple wants to avoid sex content. But it's ironic and thought-provoking why we do worry about sexual content, as if it's... what... inappropriate for children to see, while we invite them to choose sniper rifles and blow off people's heads, and call that entertainment.
bwik, are you from the States?
We have a very odd sense of what is appropriate here, with a real significant disdain for all things sexual and an unexplainable acceptance of depicted violence. I suspect that dissertations could be written on how and why this came to be. I might have some thoughts, but the reality as far as this discussion goes is that Apple is in the same boat as the rest of us with regards to socially accepted norms.
Apple simply wants to provide an ecosystem for content delivery that enhances the perceived value of their mobile products. They don't make games themselves and leave that to game developers. My guess is they never would have gone to the trouble of deleting Wobble iBoobs et al if they had not received complaints.
Then again, it may be that it got to a point of excess with regards to "boob" apps that they just decided enough is enough. As I wrote previously, I think Apple is just acting to protect their brand image, which they have invested a great deal to build. They have been called out on adult content, and they don't want to be viewed as a publisher of adult content
Porn = Flash, which is incompatible with Safari mobile.
There's LOTS of porn out there in Quicktime. Don't ask me how I know this.
Personally, I think Apple is making a good decision. iTunes should be family-friendly and that includes the App Store. Walmart doesn't sell porn either. And people that want porn on their iPhone (or iPad) can certainly find it with their browser. (Again, don't ask me how I know this.)
Oh, yea, I suspect a lawsuit is coming. Apple is most likely scared of Playboy Inc. didn't pull their app.
A lawsuit would fail. Developers sign up to Apples T&C, you can bet there is a clause that allows for this. Besides, these hard-up developers whose income has suddenly disappeared need to diversify into something more lucrative than spamming the app store with cheap titty-apps. Some guy had what, 50 of these pulled? Go and write something useful.
Personally, I think Apple is making a good decision. iTunes should be family-friendly and that includes the App Store. Walmart doesn't sell porn either. And people that want porn on their iPhone (or iPad) can certainly find it with their browser. (Again, don't ask me how I know this.)
NW98
Quoted for truth. Apple are reacting to customer complaints, and rightly so. Why should my wife have to put up with reams of "sexy girl" apps and crap like that when she browses the app store if she doesn't want to?
The best solution is to dump all that rubbish into a separate category, and simply kick developers who don't categorise their junk correctly out of the store. That way people have the choice.
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.
Yes, they have the legal right to remove the apps...no one is questioning that.
But are you really suggesting that 5000 apps were approved accidently? That no one at Apple noticed all of the boob and bikini apps? Even if that were true, now that they have completed their purge, why is Playboy still there? Why is SI still there?
The decision was, again, inconsistent, relying on vague or poorly enforced SDK rules and completely ineffective at preventing the material in question from being available on the 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.
unless they, you know, are all techie wizard guru types and open Safari, or iTunes, or Mail.
I was right. If Apple decided to block all data on the iPhone to protect us from possibly seeing questionable material, some people here would use the exact same defense. Now it is "well, they have the right" and "well, they should do it".
I can't believe all the prude defenders of this. Who are you to say what comes in my house and who are you to impose YOUR beliefs on me.
It would have been a little easier to swallow, till playboy and sports illustrated where allowed to stay.
No i'm not an iphone basher i'm on my 2nd one, but i have ran into a problems and limitations imposed by apple and not the phone itself. ie tethering, Bluetooth, and my choice of apps. Now i did make sure my wife who needed a new phone got the bold 9700 so when we go on trips i can use her phone to do what i need to do, ie tethering, bluetooth.
You can say it was your chose for getting the phone, but why then can't i get out of this phone and get another? Oh i'm under contract for this phone.
2.5% is what I would call a high failure rate for just about any process. 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?
Two examples!!!?
2.5%? I gather you never served in the military? Taught School? Managed a company? Had children?
What you have never changed your mind? Your parents never changed their mind? What world do you live in?
As Apple has clearly said in the original iPhone SDK NDA and ever since, they have the right to accept or refuse an app and their conditions could be subject to change at their will.
In fact, Jobs did allude to this in his announcement of the iPhone SDK. That they were new to this, that explicit violent and sexual content would not be allowed, that the program was a work in progress.
Since the introduction, Apple did open the program to more liberal views; however the SDK was always tied to the proviso that the program was being monitored and thus still subject to modification.
Now Apple has received a significant number of complaints. Obvious much of it is coming from the same audience that Apple is entertaining for the iPad. These concerned parents, educators, business professionals and publishers don't want to see overtly sexual content in their homes, schools or businesses, or next to their mast heads.
And as to "…this still doesn't explain…," the audacity of demanding such is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. Especially to an audience, in part, as juvenile as resides here.
Comments
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.
1) They allow material as 'bad' or 'worse' than anything they recently purged....so, that alone counters most of your arguments.
2) As you say, Safari can allow you to view much more graphic material, of the iPhone.
The alternative is Mobile Safari.
Get your facts straight. Apple hasn't banned porn on their devices, they banned it in the App Store.
There never was any "porn" in the store (the famous "I know it when I see it serves as my on yardstick to what "porn" is) but there was some mild titillation and racy apps, perhaps.
You point doesn't explain why some high profile apps of similar nature are still available (Maxim, Playboy, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit) that offer the same degree of titillation. The difference is that these apps are owned by mega-corporations that Apple wouldn't dare bother (TIME Inc., Playboy Enterprises).
Until Apple applies their "censorship" or whatever passes for acceptance evenly to all apps, then this is nothing more than favoritism and keeping media corporations happy at the expense of smaller developers.
Clearly Apple can choose what they want to sell, and since they decided to become Disney-squeaky-clean, that's their choice.
Playboy and Maxim and Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition are not considered, by the religious types in my little city, "Disney-squeaky-clean." Apple needs to apply the rules evenly, or stop pretending they're anything but a profit-hungry, despotic corporation no better than MS etc. (Disclosure: I am an Apple computer owner since my first Apple IIe. So I am in the fanboy camp, just very old.)
Actually, I'll dash off an email right now to Steve J objecting to that very content. Grab those while you can boys, cause I want 'em gone!
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, thanks. I have been here for a while.
Yes, there are many, many, oh far too many unthinking anti-Apple trolls that will post nonsensical, stupid, essentially useless 'arguments' with the only goal being to bash Apple.
As a very, very long term Apple user (and long time member here) it disappoints me to see Apple fans/zealots post in defence of anything and everything Apple does, apparently without any thought. I will defend anything Apple does, when it is right.
I actually don't care at all about this move my Apple. It doesn't affect me at all. Neither my Apple usage nor my detachment from this issue mean that I should turn off my brain and make arguments in favour of their actions that have no meaning.
unthinking posts from trolls are not much different than unthinking thoughts from zealots.
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,
That's a big part of what hapened to AOL.
All Apple haters seem to be completely ignorant.
All of them. Completely.
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.
This might seem counterintuitive, but my recent Apple-bashing here has been in defense of Apple.
Call it tough love. I'm a big fanboy from the Apple II days as well. Apple has great stuff, but when I see them going adrift I'm gonna call them on it (such as with their growing control-obsession).
NOT defending Apple is when we line up gung-ho behind whatever they do, and then proceed to follow them off the cliff.
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.
But, why is it okay to have shooter games aiming at someone's head, and killing? Is that family friendly?
I think it's understandable that Apple wants to avoid sex content. But it's ironic and thought-provoking why we do worry about sexual content, as if it's... what... inappropriate for children to see, while we invite them to choose sniper rifles and blow off people's heads, and call that entertainment.
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.
Great post articulated much better than I ever could.
This might seem counterintuitive, but my recent Apple-bashing here has been in defense of Apple.
Call it tough love. I'm a big fanboy from the Apple II days as well. Apple has great stuff, but when I see them going adrift I'm gonna call them on it (such as with their growing control-obsession).
NOT defending Apple is when we line up gung-ho behind whatever they do, and then proceed to follow them off the cliff.
Right on.
For me, and along the lines of "choose your fights carefully", I just don't get very worked up on this one. Not having Wobble iBoobs (while it admittedly sounds interesting), is not going to stop me from getting an iPhone or an iPad, and I really don't think it will have a significant adverse effect on Apple's business in that regard. It might even have a positive impact, especially in the education sector.
The whole bit about still allowing SI, Playboy, et al. is weird and seems suspicious and unfair, but that also doesn't make me want to go on a crusade. Apple should clarify and possibly reconstruct the wording of the rules.
But, why is it okay to have shooter games aiming at someone's head, and killing? Is that family friendly?
I think it's understandable that Apple wants to avoid sex content. But it's ironic and thought-provoking why we do worry about sexual content, as if it's... what... inappropriate for children to see, while we invite them to choose sniper rifles and blow off people's heads, and call that entertainment.
bwik, are you from the States?
We have a very odd sense of what is appropriate here, with a real significant disdain for all things sexual and an unexplainable acceptance of depicted violence. I suspect that dissertations could be written on how and why this came to be. I might have some thoughts, but the reality as far as this discussion goes is that Apple is in the same boat as the rest of us with regards to socially accepted norms.
Apple simply wants to provide an ecosystem for content delivery that enhances the perceived value of their mobile products. They don't make games themselves and leave that to game developers. My guess is they never would have gone to the trouble of deleting Wobble iBoobs et al if they had not received complaints.
Then again, it may be that it got to a point of excess with regards to "boob" apps that they just decided enough is enough. As I wrote previously, I think Apple is just acting to protect their brand image, which they have invested a great deal to build. They have been called out on adult content, and they don't want to be viewed as a publisher of adult content
Porn = Flash, which is incompatible with Safari mobile.
There's LOTS of porn out there in Quicktime. Don't ask me how I know this.
Personally, I think Apple is making a good decision. iTunes should be family-friendly and that includes the App Store. Walmart doesn't sell porn either. And people that want porn on their iPhone (or iPad) can certainly find it with their browser. (Again, don't ask me how I know this.)
NW98
Oh, yea, I suspect a lawsuit is coming. Apple is most likely scared of Playboy Inc. didn't pull their app.
A lawsuit would fail. Developers sign up to Apples T&C, you can bet there is a clause that allows for this. Besides, these hard-up developers whose income has suddenly disappeared need to diversify into something more lucrative than spamming the app store with cheap titty-apps. Some guy had what, 50 of these pulled? Go and write something useful.
Personally, I think Apple is making a good decision. iTunes should be family-friendly and that includes the App Store. Walmart doesn't sell porn either. And people that want porn on their iPhone (or iPad) can certainly find it with their browser. (Again, don't ask me how I know this.)
NW98
Quoted for truth. Apple are reacting to customer complaints, and rightly so. Why should my wife have to put up with reams of "sexy girl" apps and crap like that when she browses the app store if she doesn't want to?
The best solution is to dump all that rubbish into a separate category, and simply kick developers who don't categorise their junk correctly out of the store. That way people have the choice.
An app which is a portal for a swimwear company has been removed in the great smut extermination, while the Playboy app remains.
If Apple wish to have rules, then at the very least, we should expect those rules to be applied fairly and consistently.
Personally, I think Apple should solve the problem with better classification, instead of playing censor.
C.
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.
Yes, they have the legal right to remove the apps...no one is questioning that.
But are you really suggesting that 5000 apps were approved accidently? That no one at Apple noticed all of the boob and bikini apps? Even if that were true, now that they have completed their purge, why is Playboy still there? Why is SI still there?
The decision was, again, inconsistent, relying on vague or poorly enforced SDK rules and completely ineffective at preventing the material in question from being available on the iPhone.
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.
unless they, you know, are all techie wizard guru types and open Safari, or iTunes, or Mail.
I was right. If Apple decided to block all data on the iPhone to protect us from possibly seeing questionable material, some people here would use the exact same defense. Now it is "well, they have the right" and "well, they should do it".
Just on a side note, we've certainly come a long ways from a barefoot Steve Jobs asking an applicant if he's ever gotten laid.
Yep. If made today, the 1984 ad would have iSteve up on the big screen, with a bikini model throwing the hammer...and missing.
It is sad to see what Apple has become.
It would have been a little easier to swallow, till playboy and sports illustrated where allowed to stay.
No i'm not an iphone basher i'm on my 2nd one, but i have ran into a problems and limitations imposed by apple and not the phone itself. ie tethering, Bluetooth, and my choice of apps. Now i did make sure my wife who needed a new phone got the bold 9700 so when we go on trips i can use her phone to do what i need to do, ie tethering, bluetooth.
You can say it was your chose for getting the phone, but why then can't i get out of this phone and get another? Oh i'm under contract for this phone.
2.5% is what I would call a high failure rate for just about any process. 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?
Two examples!!!?
2.5%? I gather you never served in the military? Taught School? Managed a company? Had children?
What you have never changed your mind? Your parents never changed their mind? What world do you live in?
As Apple has clearly said in the original iPhone SDK NDA and ever since, they have the right to accept or refuse an app and their conditions could be subject to change at their will.
In fact, Jobs did allude to this in his announcement of the iPhone SDK. That they were new to this, that explicit violent and sexual content would not be allowed, that the program was a work in progress.
Since the introduction, Apple did open the program to more liberal views; however the SDK was always tied to the proviso that the program was being monitored and thus still subject to modification.
Now Apple has received a significant number of complaints. Obvious much of it is coming from the same audience that Apple is entertaining for the iPad. These concerned parents, educators, business professionals and publishers don't want to see overtly sexual content in their homes, schools or businesses, or next to their mast heads.
And as to "…this still doesn't explain…," the audacity of demanding such is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. Especially to an audience, in part, as juvenile as resides here.