No, no, that's my point...something I'm trying to get clarification on. If I have settings on my iPhone that restricts apps to 9+, I expect there to be no way, no how (short of resetting or jailbreaking) any app that is 17+ to be installed on that iPhone. I don't care what computer or iTunes account that iPhone is connected to, if I make that setting on the iPhone, those are the restrictions I expect to be respected. Is this not true?
Which is why I think that was his original intent...by bringing to to someone else's computer, it can be synced with that PC...i.e. wiped and reset. By no means is that a convenient method to circumvent the parental controls. Outside of that, I don't know how effective the controls are on the iPhone.
And your youngest could go next door and be shown a porn web site too on Safari, right?
Right. But he/she can't load an app from the iTunes Store that is not there.
Quote:
But back to the Parental Controls. Please explain since I've never used them and just assumed they worked. (I also have an iPhone, not a Touch) Are you saying that if I "Enable Restrictions" under General Settings, and go all the way to the bottom of the screen and select "9+", I can bypass the iPhone's restrictions and still install an app that has been designated as "17+" on this 9+ restricted iPhone??? This has nothing to do with a computer, just on the iPhone itself.
If this is true it sounds like the Parental Controls truly do nothing.
Once you set up 'Restrictions' on an iPhone you need the password to bypass it. Thus Parental Controls work beautifully. But they can be negated.
Anybody can remove the 'Restrictions' on the iPhone, set up a new Apple iTunes account and new Parental Control Restrictions on your iPhone that only you then can access.
Which is why I think that was his original intent...by bringing to to someone else's computer, it can be synced with that PC...i.e. wiped and reset. By no means is that a convenient method to circumvent the parental controls. Outside of that, I don't know how effective the controls are on the iPhone.
Gotcha. If a kid was going to go to that much trouble to get some silly boob app then I'd think he (or she) could just as easily go to the trouble of jailbreaking the phone and get worse stuff on there, bypassing the App store altogether.
Gotcha. If a kid was going to go to that much trouble to get some silly boob app then I'd think he (or she) could just as easily go to the trouble of jailbreaking the phone and get worse stuff on there, bypassing the App store altogether.
Exactly.
or they could do what they really bright kids are doing these days...really cutting edge stuff....they open a web browser.
Right. But he/she can't load an app from the iTunes Store that is not there.
True, but you do realize that there are worse things that can be accessed on Safari that would never be available on the app store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Once you set up 'Restrictions' you need the password to bypass it. Thus Parental Controls work beautifully.
So what's the problem then? That your kid would figure out your password and turn the restrictions off?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
However, anybody can remove the 'Restrictions'
Hint: if you have an password protected iPhone, what would be the first thing you would do if you forgot your password? The second thing is a little more complicated.
I guess I would have to reset the phone and then re-enable the restrictions. What's your point?
Look, I'm a big fan of Apple and their products and understand that as a private company they are free to do what they want. I may disagree with what they're doing here, but what makes me and a lot of other people upset is how they are going about it. It seems like out of the blue they are trying to be some kind of squeaky clean company.
...Except they still sell music with adult language.
...Except they still sell movies with nudity and adult language.
...Except they still will sell apps by a "well-known company with previously published material available broadly" which shows scantily clad women in sexual poses.
...Except they will still provide a browser that will allow anyone to go to god knows what site and view whatever.
This inconsistency policy-wise seems very unlike Apple and smacks of a knee jerk reaction. In the end I think (hope) they will do the right thing and iron out all this out one way or another.
True, but you do realize that there are worse things that can be accessed on Safari that would never be available on the app store.
I never said or implied anything differently.
You can go a lot of places to get a gun and shoot your toe off. I couldn't or wouldn't stop you. But you can't do it in my house unless your bring your own gun.
Cripes, I may even help you pull the trigger.
Apple has decided to protect their image after
Quote:
?a small number of developers had been submitting ?an increasing number of apps containing very objectionable content.?
then,
Quote:
It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable, as well as parents who were upset with what their kids were able to see
And when asked about the Sports Illustrated app, Mr. Schiller told the Times that Apple considered the source.
Quote:
The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format.
Obviously, Apple is not removing all the apps with sexual content. Just like at home, there is a line you better not cross. If you need to, do it in you own house.
But what is that line? And how do you know when you've crossed it?
It seems like this whole thing could have been handled by doing three things:
1) Enforce the proper categorization of app with developers.
2) Point the women objecting, to an Apple support document that explains how to use the parental controls.
3) Fix iTunes to show only apps that respect the parental controls.
Tossing out apps at random doesn't seem to cut it when two apps show women in bikinis posing with their hips jutting out, but only one of the images is considered "very objectionable" and "too degrading" and the other is not.
But what is that line? And how do you know when you've crossed it?
It seems like this whole thing could have been handled by doing three things:
1) Enforce the proper categorization of app with developers.
2) Point the women objecting, to an Apple support document that explains how to use the parental controls.
3) Fix iTunes to show only apps that respect the parental controls.
Tossing out apps at random doesn't seem to cut it when two apps show women in bikinis posing with their hips jutting out, but only one of the images is considered "very objectionable" and "too degrading" and the other is not.
You are way behind the times. The Bikini app was reinstated earlier today.
Apple is obvious re-reviewing the 'subjected apps'. As was pointed out earlier today as well, a small group of developers were trying to get around the 'sexual' issue with some very explicit content in a slew of apps. They probably got noticed very quickly and thus the immediate action to clear them out as quickly as possible was ordered.
Come on now. Why are people on here still whining about porn? "Wah, wah...Walmart doesn't sell porn. Walmart doesn't sell porn..."
Nobody is saying that porn should be sold in the app store. This argument was never about porn. Walmart does, however sell bikinis for example, and Apple still allows the playboy and maxxim apps.
Get it? Understand?
Dude, I don't know you, but retract your claws. All I'm saying is that the App Store should be family friendly. As for Playboy, SI, etc., those mags have an established "brand" that stands for more than just showing skin. I imagine that the rating system would be sufficient to deter most kids -- there will always be those that buck the system.
Apple really can't defend their current stance in any way. It's just wrong, and the more of these stunts they pull the more mind-share will turn against them. It already is with the tech crowd, you need only look at how the likes of DIGG have gone from Apple worshipers to Apple haters.
You are way behind the times. The Bikini app was reinstated earlier today.
Apple is obvious re-reviewing the 'subjected apps'. As was pointed out earlier today as well, a small group of developers were trying to get around the 'sexual' issue with some very explicit content in a slew of apps. They probably got noticed very quickly and thus the immediate action to clear them out as quickly as possible was ordered.
I am not talking about the bikini app that was reinstated. I never was.
But instead of addressing these concerns by pointing to their Parental Controls, they start pulling apps.
But that's not unexpected when it comes to Apple. Instead of making stuff work properly, they just eliminate the functionality from their products.
Maybe in a couple of years they will figure out how to do Parental Controls, but at this point, their implementation is horrible. In the meantime, they lop off functionality, which is waht they seem to always do.
Apple really can't defend their current stance in any way. It's just wrong, and the more of these stunts they pull the more mind-share will turn against them. It already is with the tech crowd, you need only look at how the likes of DIGG have gone from Apple worshipers to Apple haters.
Apple is already a punch line. They are made fun of by the mainstream media taste-makers. When SNL mocks the basic functionality of their best product, something is very wrong.
Comments
No, no, that's my point...something I'm trying to get clarification on. If I have settings on my iPhone that restricts apps to 9+, I expect there to be no way, no how (short of resetting or jailbreaking) any app that is 17+ to be installed on that iPhone. I don't care what computer or iTunes account that iPhone is connected to, if I make that setting on the iPhone, those are the restrictions I expect to be respected. Is this not true?
Which is why I think that was his original intent...by bringing to to someone else's computer, it can be synced with that PC...i.e. wiped and reset. By no means is that a convenient method to circumvent the parental controls. Outside of that, I don't know how effective the controls are on the iPhone.
And your youngest could go next door and be shown a porn web site too on Safari, right?
Right. But he/she can't load an app from the iTunes Store that is not there.
But back to the Parental Controls. Please explain since I've never used them and just assumed they worked. (I also have an iPhone, not a Touch) Are you saying that if I "Enable Restrictions" under General Settings, and go all the way to the bottom of the screen and select "9+", I can bypass the iPhone's restrictions and still install an app that has been designated as "17+" on this 9+ restricted iPhone??? This has nothing to do with a computer, just on the iPhone itself.
If this is true it sounds like the Parental Controls truly do nothing.
Once you set up 'Restrictions' on an iPhone you need the password to bypass it. Thus Parental Controls work beautifully. But they can be negated.
Anybody can remove the 'Restrictions' on the iPhone, set up a new Apple iTunes account and new Parental Control Restrictions on your iPhone that only you then can access.
Which is why I think that was his original intent...by bringing to to someone else's computer, it can be synced with that PC...i.e. wiped and reset. By no means is that a convenient method to circumvent the parental controls. Outside of that, I don't know how effective the controls are on the iPhone.
Gotcha. If a kid was going to go to that much trouble to get some silly boob app then I'd think he (or she) could just as easily go to the trouble of jailbreaking the phone and get worse stuff on there, bypassing the App store altogether.
Gotcha. If a kid was going to go to that much trouble to get some silly boob app then I'd think he (or she) could just as easily go to the trouble of jailbreaking the phone and get worse stuff on there, bypassing the App store altogether.
Exactly.
or they could do what they really bright kids are doing these days...really cutting edge stuff....they open a web browser.
Right. But he/she can't load an app from the iTunes Store that is not there.
True, but you do realize that there are worse things that can be accessed on Safari that would never be available on the app store.
Once you set up 'Restrictions' you need the password to bypass it. Thus Parental Controls work beautifully.
So what's the problem then? That your kid would figure out your password and turn the restrictions off?
However, anybody can remove the 'Restrictions'
Hint: if you have an password protected iPhone, what would be the first thing you would do if you forgot your password? The second thing is a little more complicated.
I guess I would have to reset the phone and then re-enable the restrictions. What's your point?
Look, I'm a big fan of Apple and their products and understand that as a private company they are free to do what they want. I may disagree with what they're doing here, but what makes me and a lot of other people upset is how they are going about it. It seems like out of the blue they are trying to be some kind of squeaky clean company.
...Except they still sell music with adult language.
...Except they still sell movies with nudity and adult language.
...Except they still will sell apps by a "well-known company with previously published material available broadly" which shows scantily clad women in sexual poses.
...Except they will still provide a browser that will allow anyone to go to god knows what site and view whatever.
This inconsistency policy-wise seems very unlike Apple and smacks of a knee jerk reaction. In the end I think (hope) they will do the right thing and iron out all this out one way or another.
True, but you do realize that there are worse things that can be accessed on Safari that would never be available on the app store.
I never said or implied anything differently. Obviously, Apple is not removing all the apps with sexual content. Just like at home, there is a line you better not cross. If you need to, do it in you own house.
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune....000-sexy-apps/
It seems like this whole thing could have been handled by doing three things:
1) Enforce the proper categorization of app with developers.
2) Point the women objecting, to an Apple support document that explains how to use the parental controls.
3) Fix iTunes to show only apps that respect the parental controls.
Tossing out apps at random doesn't seem to cut it when two apps show women in bikinis posing with their hips jutting out, but only one of the images is considered "very objectionable" and "too degrading" and the other is not.
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!
LOL
But what is that line? And how do you know when you've crossed it?
It seems like this whole thing could have been handled by doing three things:
1) Enforce the proper categorization of app with developers.
2) Point the women objecting, to an Apple support document that explains how to use the parental controls.
3) Fix iTunes to show only apps that respect the parental controls.
Tossing out apps at random doesn't seem to cut it when two apps show women in bikinis posing with their hips jutting out, but only one of the images is considered "very objectionable" and "too degrading" and the other is not.
You are way behind the times. The Bikini app was reinstated earlier today.
Apple is obvious re-reviewing the 'subjected apps'. As was pointed out earlier today as well, a small group of developers were trying to get around the 'sexual' issue with some very explicit content in a slew of apps. They probably got noticed very quickly and thus the immediate action to clear them out as quickly as possible was ordered.
Come on now. Why are people on here still whining about porn? "Wah, wah...Walmart doesn't sell porn. Walmart doesn't sell porn..."
Nobody is saying that porn should be sold in the app store. This argument was never about porn. Walmart does, however sell bikinis for example, and Apple still allows the playboy and maxxim apps.
Get it? Understand?
Dude, I don't know you, but retract your claws. All I'm saying is that the App Store should be family friendly. As for Playboy, SI, etc., those mags have an established "brand" that stands for more than just showing skin. I imagine that the rating system would be sufficient to deter most kids -- there will always be those that buck the system.
Apple really can't defend their current stance in any way. It's just wrong, and the more of these stunts they pull the more mind-share will turn against them. It already is with the tech crowd, you need only look at how the likes of DIGG have gone from Apple worshipers to Apple haters.
You are way behind the times. The Bikini app was reinstated earlier today.
Apple is obvious re-reviewing the 'subjected apps'. As was pointed out earlier today as well, a small group of developers were trying to get around the 'sexual' issue with some very explicit content in a slew of apps. They probably got noticed very quickly and thus the immediate action to clear them out as quickly as possible was ordered.
I am not talking about the bikini app that was reinstated. I never was.
But instead of addressing these concerns by pointing to their Parental Controls, they start pulling apps.
But that's not unexpected when it comes to Apple. Instead of making stuff work properly, they just eliminate the functionality from their products.
Maybe in a couple of years they will figure out how to do Parental Controls, but at this point, their implementation is horrible. In the meantime, they lop off functionality, which is waht they seem to always do.
Apple really can't defend their current stance in any way. It's just wrong, and the more of these stunts they pull the more mind-share will turn against them. It already is with the tech crowd, you need only look at how the likes of DIGG have gone from Apple worshipers to Apple haters.
Apple is already a punch line. They are made fun of by the mainstream media taste-makers. When SNL mocks the basic functionality of their best product, something is very wrong.