People are upset because they (grown adults) are being told what they can and cannot see by apple.
No they're not, because the web browsers have unfettered access so you can still access what ever smut or religion info you want via the web. Heck, you can even play porn videos on your iPhone.
What you have a problem with is Apple being a business that chooses what to sell and what not to sell, but this is just like any store in the world in a free country. I don't expect to see Hustle magazine for sale in Toy R US because it's not good for business. Apple made a decision as to what is appropriate for their store, not yours. You don't have to like it but you do have to accept it. CAPITALISM FTW!
Why are people making so much noise about these useless apps being thrown out of the App Store? Agreed, for some people, those apps might have been the only reason to visit the App Store. But, me, as an average user, I was irritated to see these useless apps hog the limelight in the Most Popular section. Sometimes, it seemed to me that the App Store would soon start looking like YouTube (videos with thumbnails of semi-nude women)! I am grateful that Apple banned them! 5,000 less crap apps now in the App Store.
Now, some developers are crying out loud over lost income. I honestly do sympathize with you. I haven't read the fine-print of the App Store rules, but, I am sure somewhere Apple must have stated 'Rules and conditions are subject to change'. They just exercised the option. Simple.
If anyone really misses such apps, get your dose through other sources! I really do not have any sympathy for users who want such useless apps to satisfy their sexual desires!
It's not for you to decide which apps are useless and which ones are useful, and your sympathy is inconsequential. The price you pay for your freedom to say what you want and look at what you want is that you have to put up with other people saying what they want and looking at what they want.
Everyone defends free speech until someone says something they don't like.
"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." ~Abbott Joseph Liebling
I still can't believe that Phil Schiller, in the same conversation said, "Putting kids and families first" (whatever the f___ that means), and then said, "Established brands are OK, big names = OK. Little guy = f you"
It's just staggering. If you read that and don't have a problem with it, well I think you might need help.
Hopefully this is all temporary while we wait for better parental controls on the AppStore... I could care less about most of these apps, but we all know where censorship leads. It would be nice if Apple gave us a better idea of what their intentions and plans are before making huge changes like this...
I agree with another poster that this is Apple's store and they should have the right to pull apps that they don't think match their image. I think that is an okay form of censorship. The same reason they pulled the Droid app. Personally though, I hope they just revamp parental controls and create some new categories so we don't have to see these apps in the popular categories. There obviously is interest in some of these apps so it is probably bad for business to totally exclude them.
If Apple is going to sell explicit music in iTunes, I don't see why they shouldn't sell explicit Apps on the AppStore.
This analogy doesn't work since Sony does not provide, market or host any of the content. Apple has chosen a business model that is more problematic because they host and market the content for apps.
Correct.
The point is, would you buy a Sony TV if you were limited to Sony channels?
Would you buy the spin that the limits were because Sony was "looking out" for you?
Would it not be a bit hypocritical if they filtered content yet offered video from Playboy and Penthouse?
I still can't believe that Phil Schiller, in the same conversation said, "Putting kids and families first" (whatever the f___ that means), and then said, "Established brands are OK, big names = OK. Little guy = f you"
It's just staggering. If you read that and don't have a problem with it, well I think you might need help.
I still can't believe that Phil Schiller, in the same conversation said, "Putting kids and families first" (whatever the f___ that means), and then said, "Established brands are OK, big names = OK. Little guy = f you"
It's just staggering. If you read that and don't have a problem with it, well I think you might need help.
My thoughts exactly. I don't see a problem with pulling content, just treat everyone equal. Hopefully this is temporary until Apple improves parental controls. If that is the case, they will probably need to resubmit their apps to end up in the right categories anyway.
I sell iPhones and iPods and when a parent comes in to say "How can my 10 year old get games on here" and I say "Its easy - look at the popular free apps in the top 25 free apps section Apple provides" and the parent sees 2 boob apps and one about creative positions it looks like Apple is not doing its job to market appropriately for a huge portion of its potential customer base.
This is getting freakin' ridiculous! Blocking an app that sells bikinis? Seriously?
Who complained about bikinis, anyway? Some puritanical (literally) f-wads with a website and big mouths? Bikinis? Seriously?
Now, granted, I'm not into girls in bikinis, but I sure as heck am not offended by them. And they're everywhere on TV. Seriously, check out that Hard Rock Rehab show, and other reality crap. Jeebus!
I think Apple may have to backtrack somewhat on this. Girls in bikinis and guys in speedos should be allowed. Said girls and guys being nekkid and/or doing lewd things, well... that's different. The difference being that I can go to any random beach and see the girls and guys in bikinis and such, but I don't expect to see the lewd stuff.
Yes, I realize other people's moral limits are different than mine, but COME ON! BIKINIS?!?!
Bikinis can reveal the soft supple skin of a woman's inner thigh and evoke the thought of softly caressing her.
I still can't believe that Phil Schiller, in the same conversation said, "Putting kids and families first" (whatever the f___ that means), and then said, "Established brands are OK, big names = OK. Little guy = f you"
It's just staggering. If you read that and don't have a problem with it, well I think you might need help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers
My thoughts exactly. I don't see a problem with pulling content, just treat everyone equal. Hopefully this is temporary until Apple improves parental controls. If that is the case, they will probably need to resubmit their apps to end up in the right categories anyway.
Really? You've never paid more money for a product because you had prior experience with the brand or company over a one you' had never heard of? Of course you have because your experience led you to trust a product more than others. The same philosophy applies here.
For instance, Apple is pretty sure the Sport's Illustrated Swimsuit app isn't going to start posting porn, but they can' be so sure of most App Store developers.
I see your point, but I don't think the issue is as black or white as many are making it out to be.
EDIT: Case in point from CNN's main page "Apple bans most sexy iPhone apps" - from the average joe schmo consumer standpoint that's nothing but a good thing.
It was getting pretty bad with the iWiggle Boobs apps and very pornographic "appearing" apps creeping higher and higher up into the top 10 on a daily basis... I remember looking at an app
I think it was bad PR move by apple to allow any 17+ rated apps or anything with BOOBS in the title to reach a top 50 status... There should have been a walled garden for such material and it shouldn't even be in the ranking system for other apps.
Apple screwed up and they are banning them for now.. As a sort of PR move to Moms and Dads.. who they are CLEARLY marketing the IPAD too...
Eventually they can quietly open a adults only section.. where you actually have to contact apple to verify your age or something to access it. But until then it's really not a big deal at all...
Really? You've never paid more money for a product because you had prior experience with the brand or company over a one you' had never heard of? Of course you have because your experience led you to trust a product more than others. The same philosophy applies here.
For instance, Apple is pretty sure the Sport's Illustrated Swimsuit app isn't going to start posting porn, but they can' be so sure of most App Store developers.
I see your point, but I don't think the issue is as black or white as many are making it out to be.
Paid more money for a better product? Sure - we pay a premium for a premium product. We are on an Apple forum because we prefer a premium product. Noone has said that bigger brands can't or shouldn't charge more. That totally misses the point, which is that smaller brands aren't even available or allowed to be in the app store based on a false justification.
If the justification really is that the content is objectionable, then the SI, Playboy, Maxxim apps would also have been removed. Schiller admitted that they were given special treatment.
Really? You've never paid more money for a product because you had prior experience with the brand or company over a one you' had never heard of? Of course you have because your experience led you to trust a product more than others. The same philosophy applies here.
For instance, Apple is pretty sure the Sport's Illustrated Swimsuit app isn't going to start posting porn, but they can' be so sure of most App Store developers.
I see your point, but I don't think the issue is as black or white as many are making it out to be.
It wouldn't even be an issue if Apple's Parental Controls were properly in place to begin with. The privacy controls currently only allow users to block the installation of adult content.
If Apple were to simply allow those Parental Controls to block the display of the "offending" content from Top 25/What's Hot/Search as well, this wouldn't even be an issue because parents and prudes would be able to easily block the content.
All of this could have been easily avoided with that simple change. As I said before, with that in place, people wouldn't have a reason to complain at all.
I can't believe the people that claim the aren't going to buy an Iphone because Apple removed a bikini App. Obviously the problem is that as apposed to Victoirias secret, Sport's Illustrated and playboy that the retailer didn't want to be labeled as an adult App. Apple is not a totalitarian regime censoring people. If you want porn, RIP a movie and synch your ipod. Why would an adult ever pay for a flaccid softcore bikini app?
The whole thing is a bit silly and an over reaction on Apple's behalf given that there are probably better implementations at their disposal to fix the problem like better parental controls and App store organization, but obviously they are looking for a quick fix. The real problem is that every kid i know with an IPT jailbreaks it immediately and can put whatever content they want on the damned thing. I'm not sure this is Apple's problem, but it does kind of overshadow the problem apps on the store. If a kid can reset or Jailbreak how the ITS works is kind of a mute point.
Honestly it's easy to understand that Apple doesn't want to distribute anything even remotely smutty, it's not really a moral way of making a popular product and not the kind of reputation that is easy to live with; it would truly kill the product if things got out of hand. Apple has to "police" their store as best as they can and I support and applaud them in this effort, but have to acknowledge that Apple appears to be slightly floundering on this issue and it is a dichotomy that Apple should resolve once and for all. Apple adult store? LOL Obviously a bikini retailer shouldn't be left out.
On a side note... Everyone here should read some of the feedback for the "massager" apps on the ITS, they're equally disparaging (if not more so) as the feedback the "bikini" apps might have gotten and decidedly comical. The teen girls are thrilled of course, but the parents aren't happy about their little girls masturbating with their IPT's either. That's just wrong. I feel dirty.
Comments
People are upset because they (grown adults) are being told what they can and cannot see by apple.
No they're not, because the web browsers have unfettered access so you can still access what ever smut or religion info you want via the web. Heck, you can even play porn videos on your iPhone.
What you have a problem with is Apple being a business that chooses what to sell and what not to sell, but this is just like any store in the world in a free country. I don't expect to see Hustle magazine for sale in Toy R US because it's not good for business. Apple made a decision as to what is appropriate for their store, not yours. You don't have to like it but you do have to accept it. CAPITALISM FTW!
Why are people making so much noise about these useless apps being thrown out of the App Store? Agreed, for some people, those apps might have been the only reason to visit the App Store. But, me, as an average user, I was irritated to see these useless apps hog the limelight in the Most Popular section. Sometimes, it seemed to me that the App Store would soon start looking like YouTube (videos with thumbnails of semi-nude women)! I am grateful that Apple banned them! 5,000 less crap apps now in the App Store.
Now, some developers are crying out loud over lost income. I honestly do sympathize with you. I haven't read the fine-print of the App Store rules, but, I am sure somewhere Apple must have stated 'Rules and conditions are subject to change'. They just exercised the option. Simple.
If anyone really misses such apps, get your dose through other sources! I really do not have any sympathy for users who want such useless apps to satisfy their sexual desires!
It's not for you to decide which apps are useless and which ones are useful, and your sympathy is inconsequential. The price you pay for your freedom to say what you want and look at what you want is that you have to put up with other people saying what they want and looking at what they want.
Everyone defends free speech until someone says something they don't like.
"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." ~Abbott Joseph Liebling
It's just staggering. If you read that and don't have a problem with it, well I think you might need help.
I agree with another poster that this is Apple's store and they should have the right to pull apps that they don't think match their image. I think that is an okay form of censorship. The same reason they pulled the Droid app. Personally though, I hope they just revamp parental controls and create some new categories so we don't have to see these apps in the popular categories. There obviously is interest in some of these apps so it is probably bad for business to totally exclude them.
If Apple is going to sell explicit music in iTunes, I don't see why they shouldn't sell explicit Apps on the AppStore.
This analogy doesn't work since Sony does not provide, market or host any of the content. Apple has chosen a business model that is more problematic because they host and market the content for apps.
Correct.
The point is, would you buy a Sony TV if you were limited to Sony channels?
Would you buy the spin that the limits were because Sony was "looking out" for you?
Would it not be a bit hypocritical if they filtered content yet offered video from Playboy and Penthouse?
I still can't believe that Phil Schiller, in the same conversation said, "Putting kids and families first" (whatever the f___ that means), and then said, "Established brands are OK, big names = OK. Little guy = f you"
It's just staggering. If you read that and don't have a problem with it, well I think you might need help.
Agreed. That pisses me off.
Censorship is Censorship.
(...)
Apple made this problem by making itself the exclusive dealer in apps
I'm very surprised the ACLU (for better or worse) hasn't chimed in on this.
I still can't believe that Phil Schiller, in the same conversation said, "Putting kids and families first" (whatever the f___ that means), and then said, "Established brands are OK, big names = OK. Little guy = f you"
It's just staggering. If you read that and don't have a problem with it, well I think you might need help.
My thoughts exactly. I don't see a problem with pulling content, just treat everyone equal. Hopefully this is temporary until Apple improves parental controls. If that is the case, they will probably need to resubmit their apps to end up in the right categories anyway.
I sell iPhones and iPods and when a parent comes in to say "How can my 10 year old get games on here" and I say "Its easy - look at the popular free apps in the top 25 free apps section Apple provides" and the parent sees 2 boob apps and one about creative positions it looks like Apple is not doing its job to market appropriately for a huge portion of its potential customer base.
Good point.
This is getting freakin' ridiculous! Blocking an app that sells bikinis? Seriously?
Who complained about bikinis, anyway? Some puritanical (literally) f-wads with a website and big mouths? Bikinis? Seriously?
Now, granted, I'm not into girls in bikinis, but I sure as heck am not offended by them. And they're everywhere on TV. Seriously, check out that Hard Rock Rehab show, and other reality crap. Jeebus!
I think Apple may have to backtrack somewhat on this. Girls in bikinis and guys in speedos should be allowed. Said girls and guys being nekkid and/or doing lewd things, well... that's different. The difference being that I can go to any random beach and see the girls and guys in bikinis and such, but I don't expect to see the lewd stuff.
Yes, I realize other people's moral limits are different than mine, but COME ON! BIKINIS?!?!
Bikinis can reveal the soft supple skin of a woman's inner thigh and evoke the thought of softly caressing her.
I still can't believe that Phil Schiller, in the same conversation said, "Putting kids and families first" (whatever the f___ that means), and then said, "Established brands are OK, big names = OK. Little guy = f you"
It's just staggering. If you read that and don't have a problem with it, well I think you might need help.
My thoughts exactly. I don't see a problem with pulling content, just treat everyone equal. Hopefully this is temporary until Apple improves parental controls. If that is the case, they will probably need to resubmit their apps to end up in the right categories anyway.
Really? You've never paid more money for a product because you had prior experience with the brand or company over a one you' had never heard of? Of course you have because your experience led you to trust a product more than others. The same philosophy applies here.
For instance, Apple is pretty sure the Sport's Illustrated Swimsuit app isn't going to start posting porn, but they can' be so sure of most App Store developers.
I see your point, but I don't think the issue is as black or white as many are making it out to be.
EDIT: Case in point from CNN's main page "Apple bans most sexy iPhone apps" - from the average joe schmo consumer standpoint that's nothing but a good thing.
Were you aware that the average guy enjoys porn?
Yes, I realize other people's moral limits are different than mine, but COME ON! BIKINIS?!?!
According to some posters here, that sort of thing causes children to get raped.
I think it was bad PR move by apple to allow any 17+ rated apps or anything with BOOBS in the title to reach a top 50 status... There should have been a walled garden for such material and it shouldn't even be in the ranking system for other apps.
Apple screwed up and they are banning them for now.. As a sort of PR move to Moms and Dads.. who they are CLEARLY marketing the IPAD too...
Eventually they can quietly open a adults only section.. where you actually have to contact apple to verify your age or something to access it. But until then it's really not a big deal at all...
Really? You've never paid more money for a product because you had prior experience with the brand or company over a one you' had never heard of? Of course you have because your experience led you to trust a product more than others. The same philosophy applies here.
For instance, Apple is pretty sure the Sport's Illustrated Swimsuit app isn't going to start posting porn, but they can' be so sure of most App Store developers.
I see your point, but I don't think the issue is as black or white as many are making it out to be.
Paid more money for a better product? Sure - we pay a premium for a premium product. We are on an Apple forum because we prefer a premium product. Noone has said that bigger brands can't or shouldn't charge more. That totally misses the point, which is that smaller brands aren't even available or allowed to be in the app store based on a false justification.
If the justification really is that the content is objectionable, then the SI, Playboy, Maxxim apps would also have been removed. Schiller admitted that they were given special treatment.
I'm very surprised the ACLU (for better or worse) hasn't chimed in on this.
It is not a civil liberties issue.
Really? You've never paid more money for a product because you had prior experience with the brand or company over a one you' had never heard of? Of course you have because your experience led you to trust a product more than others. The same philosophy applies here.
For instance, Apple is pretty sure the Sport's Illustrated Swimsuit app isn't going to start posting porn, but they can' be so sure of most App Store developers.
I see your point, but I don't think the issue is as black or white as many are making it out to be.
It wouldn't even be an issue if Apple's Parental Controls were properly in place to begin with. The privacy controls currently only allow users to block the installation of adult content.
If Apple were to simply allow those Parental Controls to block the display of the "offending" content from Top 25/What's Hot/Search as well, this wouldn't even be an issue because parents and prudes would be able to easily block the content.
All of this could have been easily avoided with that simple change. As I said before, with that in place, people wouldn't have a reason to complain at all.
The whole thing is a bit silly and an over reaction on Apple's behalf given that there are probably better implementations at their disposal to fix the problem like better parental controls and App store organization, but obviously they are looking for a quick fix. The real problem is that every kid i know with an IPT jailbreaks it immediately and can put whatever content they want on the damned thing. I'm not sure this is Apple's problem, but it does kind of overshadow the problem apps on the store. If a kid can reset or Jailbreak how the ITS works is kind of a mute point.
Honestly it's easy to understand that Apple doesn't want to distribute anything even remotely smutty, it's not really a moral way of making a popular product and not the kind of reputation that is easy to live with; it would truly kill the product if things got out of hand. Apple has to "police" their store as best as they can and I support and applaud them in this effort, but have to acknowledge that Apple appears to be slightly floundering on this issue and it is a dichotomy that Apple should resolve once and for all. Apple adult store? LOL Obviously a bikini retailer shouldn't be left out.
On a side note... Everyone here should read some of the feedback for the "massager" apps on the ITS, they're equally disparaging (if not more so) as the feedback the "bikini" apps might have gotten and decidedly comical. The teen girls are thrilled of course, but the parents aren't happy about their little girls masturbating with their IPT's either.
I wonder if these apps are next to get the axe.
Bikinis can reveal the soft supple skin of a woman's inner thigh and evoke the thought of softly caressing her.
Sacrilege!!!