As long as the Americans remain as prudish publicly as they are today, Apple is quite right to not allow porn in the App store. Imagine the outcry of the righteous should there be a bare nipple shown there. And what about the possible fines they would have to pay.
The web is free and HTML5 is the proper solution to provide satisfaction to those who want it. Hypocrisy reigns in the good old USA.
Good news. But the best news is the idea all internet porn to have a .xxx suffix instead of .com. I hope it gets passed and adopted.
This will allow parents, libraries and businesses to block porn.
Don't get me wrong, I dig porn just as much as the next guy. But I wouldn't want my children exposed to it.
I do find it intrusive, time wasting to some degree and I can see why it can be addicting.
Me personally I avoid it. Just like I avoid casinos, slot machines, MacDonald's/fast food, Soft drinks/coca-cola, cigars, pipes, grass, red meat, processed food, etc.
But I don't avoid beer, bourbon or coffee, to name a few!
Cheers!
Those vendors have NO intention of giving up their .com addresses. They are simply planning on adding the same site names with a .xxx in addition to their existing sites
Commonly, sites have used RealPlayer and WMV for full content. The WMV stuff doesn't work on the Mac as Flip4Mac doesn't support streaming. The trailers are in Flash but the streaming content hasn't been. I recently saw a switch to SilverLight, which works well on the desktop platforms but a switch to HTML 5 is best as the mobile platforms outnumber by an order of magnitude.
Now that there are around 150 million people with Macs/iPods/iPhones/iPads, it makes sense to add some support when they are likely to have more money than other customers. Digital Playground also take the smart move of allowing DRM free downloads.
Since parental controls prohibit minors from accessing inappropriate content, explain to me again WHY the app store needs to be policed? I mean, besides to calm down the uptight bible-bashing repubs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I disagree. Policing the app-store is exactly what's needed. The app store should appeal to the largest percentage of users which includes adults, kids, companies, and personal users.
Porn on the website-side (HTML5) is a perfect compromise.
If you're joe-consumer on your own private internet connection, or 3G, you can pleasure yourself to your heart's content.
If the user is using a corporate network then the firewall's policy can restrict content on the HTML5 side.
Both sides - for the most part - are satisfied.
You may not like it, perhaps even I may not like it but I will gladly take Apple's walled-garden approach versus the competitions weed-lawn anytime. People have enough things on their plate to do without having to worry about what apps might be available to the younger minds.
I don't understand the surprise at the influence of the pr0n industry on technology. Porn and gambling made the Internet what it is today. Without them, the 'net would just be an obscure means for universities and government institutions to share data.
I agree for the most part if we are talking about "porn." The trouble is Apple has banned and removed a lot of apps that couldn't remotely be described as "porn" at all.
Apple has removed all the apps it considers "too sexy" including bikini apps and all kinds of apps from other countries where what they portray is as normal and common as any other material.
Apple removed an "upskirt" app for instance when all it contained were pictures of women in skirts that you could "blow up" by touching the screen. It's hard to defend such a trivial app, but it's clearly *not* pornography at all and completely harmless. Apple also won't allow any kind of nudity even in apps that have no sexual content or purpose, (medical apps, art apps etc.), and that is just ridiculous.
When you add to that, the absolute hypocrisy of Apple letting in the Playboy app as well as hundreds of movies, songs, and TV shows with absolutely horrific content ... well it just makes no sense at all.
Apple is using a very Christian, and very American yardstick to measure for what they think is "objectionable." No one wants to see kiddy porn, but most of the rest of the world left behind America's Disney-esque concepts of what's "moral" many years ago.
Excellent post, professor. I downloaded a medical app for my iPad, and it had a "naked" man and woman, and you could click on different parts for different diagnoses. Well both man and woman had no genitals. What does a little kid think if they look at this and they see that they have a hole (girls) or a worm (boys) where the models have nothing? "OMG, mommy, I have a terrible disease!". Jeez, there is nothing wrong with the human body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
But I wouldn't want my children exposed to it.
Why? If your kids are pre-pubescent, porn would bore them to death and they'd look at something else. If they are post-pubescent, well, they're going to find porn somewhere. Didn't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey
I believe he doesn't want porn on the App Store because there are plenty of well organized prudes in the USA who would LOVE to use Apple's high profile to make a point.
And there are well organized prudes who think homosexuality is a sin, but Apple still offers domestic partners benefits, and was publicly opposed to Prop 8 in California (banning gay marriage) to the tune of donating $100,000 to it. I always thought Microsoft pandered to the majority, but that Apple would Think Different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
They have parental controls and now require all apps to have an age rating. The trouble is that they allow the developers to set the ratings and that has blown up on them. You mentioned the Ulysses comic. Well there was another one that was banned at the same time. It was a homoerotic soft core porn comic loosely based on The Importance of Being Earnest, complete with 'correct' drawings of bare male buttocks and penises. The publisher of this app went on record saying that originally it was rated 12+ not 17+ because he felt that children need to be educated about homosexuality. He's welcome to that opinion and perhaps it is in line with his European standards. However parents that have turned on parental controls to let the 13 year old buy apps with his online allowance might feel different when Little Johnny downloads said comic unawares, even without being a family that believes that homosexuality is filthy, a sin and those that practice it are damned to hell. THAT fervor is just as bad as Big Bad Apple censoring their store.
Why? Said comic is not going to turn Little Johnny gay. Where is the harm in that app?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtm135
Since parental controls prohibit minors from accessing inappropriate content, explain to me again WHY the app store needs to be policed? I mean, besides to calm down the uptight bible-bashing repubs?
Exactly. There is a way to control every argument I've heard for why Apple should police content.
It's kind of ironic, apple is fairly strict about it's apps, but with FaceTime, probably has given the porn biz a nice boost via a new medium to work with.
Also recall our glorious supreme court(paraphrase)- 'I don't know how to describe porn, but I know it when I see it'. I'll bet.
It is also good to know via the comments so far, there is no global morality, just regional. Very interesting. That is, if porn is a morality issue?
Good. Flash is reaching the end of it's useful life. Adobe will do everything possible to keep Flash on life support for years to come, but, I think we are finally seeing the beginning of the end of Flash. And I say good riddance to the buggy, bloated, expensive software.
Or they final get off their asses and fix it?
I must admit, that would be a hell of a "Blow" (some pun intended) to Apple's quest to rid the world of "Flash".
I contend that MS' relectance to fully back HD-DVD by including it in every XBOX 360 is what sealed its fate, by allowing Blu-ray player and subsequent content adoption to outgrow HD-DVD at a rapid pace with the inclusion of every PS3. Of course, MS didn't seem to take a direct interest in either platform so perhaps, in retrospect, Toshiba should have fronted the bill for HD-DVD upgrades as standard in every 360.
That is a valid factor. Yes.
And to someone earlier. Yes. We did run from HD-DVD in part because MS were backing it. It was our opinion that with what we saw as recent failures MS made that we did add that to the equation and postponed our decision afterwhich siding with BLU-RAY. It wasn't a flippant decision. Quite informed. And apparently the correct one.
But do note it was an educated decision. Such as the move to all macs for video editing using FCP. As editing on a PC resulted in a nightmare thanks to Windows and poor performance in editing.
I must admit, that would be a hell of a "Blow" (some pun intended) to Apple's quest to rid the world of "Flash".
Apple doesn't have a quest to rid the world of Flash. They're perfectly content to let others have Flash on their devices.
Apple's position is quite simply that Flash doesn't work well enough to be on iDevices. If Adobe ever gets around to creating a decent version that runs well on mobile devices, Apple might well support it. Not that Adobe will ever do that, of course.
Since parental controls prohibit minors from accessing inappropriate content, explain to me again WHY the app store needs to be policed? I mean, besides to calm down the uptight bible-bashing repubs?
Easy! To make sure the app content conforms to the parental-controls rating.
Seriously-- one could be very comfortable with portraying sex and the human body to their children, but abhorrent to violence.
If they go to any store and buy content with a rating, they have every right to expect:
1) that the content conforms to accepted rating standards
2) that the rating is correct for a given content.
The above, is pretty easy for stick & stucco stores as they have a hard copy with the industry rating printed on the label (unless someone slips "Debbie Does Dallas" into a "Toy Story 3" case).
For electronic distribution, movies and TV shows [usually] have the industry ratings.
But, individual apps are rated by their developers and this rating needs to be policed or Apple exposes itself [sic] to all sorts of undesirable activities (lawsuits, blacklisting, boycotts, negative PR).
All that said, it is kind of funny that you can access almost any kind of content through YouTube.
I have a 10-year-old grandson who talks constantly, and loudly says (and later repeats) whatever comes into his mind (before his brain has processed it).
I would not want to be around when he tells the world of his impression of the latest Eisenbeck Beer commercial he saw on YT.
... I suppose this is more protecting society from my grandson, than vice versa!
You do have a point and for the real pornography I can agree with you. However, e.g. in Germany regular newspaper have to make changes so that they get their app approved by Apple. This is too much. Newspapers call this 'they have to make the Iran version for the App store.' The whole problem is that when Apple started this kind of policing they are the ones drawing the line - something that - in case of newspapers - is the job of the government/society.
Do like the NYT and just create a HTML5 website for your newspaper. Problem solved and I like it better. The NYT's site is awesome on the iPad. I don't want an app for that.
I think for some things app's are a waste and people should implement a web solution. i.e. the news and magazine industry.
As long as the Americans remain as prudish publicly as they are today, Apple is quite right to not allow porn in the App store. Imagine the outcry of the righteous should there be a bare nipple shown there. And what about the possible fines they would have to pay.
The web is free and HTML5 is the proper solution to provide satisfaction to those who want it. Hypocrisy reigns in the good old USA.
Apple is a company, not a country. I believe their App store policies are very similar wherever they will be stated (throughout the world). Last I checked Apple can and will do what they please as far as companies can. If you don't like the company for supporting exposed nipples on the phone, blame the company. Better yet, just don't support them by purchasing their products. Don't blame the country.
Imagine my out cry reading your post. Fines who would have to pay for what? Are you smoking bad whacky-weed or just trolling? Idiocy reigns on the forums of AppleInsider.
Why don't you go to Iran, or just about any choice of your middle eastern country and whip out your nipples or jiggly-bits (if you're a guy) and learn what "prudish" actually means compared to the good old USA.
Apple is using a very Christian, and very American yardstick to measure for what they think is "objectionable." No one wants to see kiddy porn, but most of the rest of the world left behind America's Disney-esque concepts of what's "moral" many years ago.
It is their right to do so. Probably the reason you're not calling the shots. See above post.
Apple is finding an unlikely ally in its efforts to support HTML5 in preference to Adobe Flash as the platform for dynamic web content: pornographers.
According to a report by ConceivablyTech, leading adult film studio Digital Playground has announced its intentions to make the leap to HTML5, based in part upon needing to target HTML5 to reach Apple's iPhone users.?
Would it be safe to call these people the New Pornographers?
I agree for the most part if we are talking about "porn." The trouble is Apple has banned and removed a lot of apps that couldn't remotely be described as "porn" at all.
Apple has removed all the apps it considers "too sexy" including bikini apps and all kinds of apps from other countries where what they portray is as normal and common as any other material.
And yet apps like iJiggles manage to make it into the App Store:
Really? I mean talk about throwing in that extra little bit of cheesiness for effect. So MS and Intel decided they liked HD DVD, and that sealed the fate of HD DVD. That's really amazing. Hey, I wonder what else we can predict when Microsoft shows interest in something. I'm all for some good ol MS bashing, but this was such a stretch it just was a facepalm moment for me when I read it.
MS & Intel backing didn't "seal the fate" of HD-DVD, but it did turn some companies against the format, for at least two reasons:
1. MS & Intel wanted to sell Home Theatre PCs, and lobbied for both formats to allow a "managed copy" of the movie to be placed on Windows-based home servers, using Windows DRM. Blu-ray camp balked at requiring all content to be copied to HTPCs, and would only specifiy it as optional - while the HD-DVD camp agreed to require all content to be copyable to HTPCs.
That is when MS & Intel threw their support behind HD-DVD.
That is also when content-owners who didn't like the idea of any digital copies of their content being made decided to shift emphasis to Blu-ray.
2. Believe it or not, several consumer electronics companies were less than thrilled with the idea of MS establishing the same kind of monopoly on HD-content distribution that MS has in computer OS, and Apple has in music sales.
Comments
The web is free and HTML5 is the proper solution to provide satisfaction to those who want it. Hypocrisy reigns in the good old USA.
Good news. But the best news is the idea all internet porn to have a .xxx suffix instead of .com. I hope it gets passed and adopted.
This will allow parents, libraries and businesses to block porn.
Don't get me wrong, I dig porn just as much as the next guy. But I wouldn't want my children exposed to it.
I do find it intrusive, time wasting to some degree and I can see why it can be addicting.
Me personally I avoid it. Just like I avoid casinos, slot machines, MacDonald's/fast food, Soft drinks/coca-cola, cigars, pipes, grass, red meat, processed food, etc.
But I don't avoid beer, bourbon or coffee, to name a few!
Cheers!
Those vendors have NO intention of giving up their .com addresses. They are simply planning on adding the same site names with a .xxx in addition to their existing sites
Now that there are around 150 million people with Macs/iPods/iPhones/iPads, it makes sense to add some support when they are likely to have more money than other customers. Digital Playground also take the smart move of allowing DRM free downloads.
I disagree. Policing the app-store is exactly what's needed. The app store should appeal to the largest percentage of users which includes adults, kids, companies, and personal users.
Porn on the website-side (HTML5) is a perfect compromise.
If you're joe-consumer on your own private internet connection, or 3G, you can pleasure yourself to your heart's content.
If the user is using a corporate network then the firewall's policy can restrict content on the HTML5 side.
Both sides - for the most part - are satisfied.
You may not like it, perhaps even I may not like it but I will gladly take Apple's walled-garden approach versus the competitions weed-lawn anytime. People have enough things on their plate to do without having to worry about what apps might be available to the younger minds.
Here are a few examples:
Fire - so you can see naked burds at night
The Wheel - get to naked burds shack quicker
Camera - Pictures of naked burds
Video - Moving pictures of naked burds
Internet - Access to pictures/videos of naked burds
iPhone - Naked burds in your hand
I agree for the most part if we are talking about "porn." The trouble is Apple has banned and removed a lot of apps that couldn't remotely be described as "porn" at all.
Apple has removed all the apps it considers "too sexy" including bikini apps and all kinds of apps from other countries where what they portray is as normal and common as any other material.
Apple removed an "upskirt" app for instance when all it contained were pictures of women in skirts that you could "blow up" by touching the screen. It's hard to defend such a trivial app, but it's clearly *not* pornography at all and completely harmless. Apple also won't allow any kind of nudity even in apps that have no sexual content or purpose, (medical apps, art apps etc.), and that is just ridiculous.
When you add to that, the absolute hypocrisy of Apple letting in the Playboy app as well as hundreds of movies, songs, and TV shows with absolutely horrific content ... well it just makes no sense at all.
Apple is using a very Christian, and very American yardstick to measure for what they think is "objectionable." No one wants to see kiddy porn, but most of the rest of the world left behind America's Disney-esque concepts of what's "moral" many years ago.
Excellent post, professor. I downloaded a medical app for my iPad, and it had a "naked" man and woman, and you could click on different parts for different diagnoses. Well both man and woman had no genitals. What does a little kid think if they look at this and they see that they have a hole (girls) or a worm (boys) where the models have nothing? "OMG, mommy, I have a terrible disease!". Jeez, there is nothing wrong with the human body.
But I wouldn't want my children exposed to it.
Why? If your kids are pre-pubescent, porn would bore them to death and they'd look at something else. If they are post-pubescent, well, they're going to find porn somewhere. Didn't you?
I believe he doesn't want porn on the App Store because there are plenty of well organized prudes in the USA who would LOVE to use Apple's high profile to make a point.
And there are well organized prudes who think homosexuality is a sin, but Apple still offers domestic partners benefits, and was publicly opposed to Prop 8 in California (banning gay marriage) to the tune of donating $100,000 to it. I always thought Microsoft pandered to the majority, but that Apple would Think Different.
They have parental controls and now require all apps to have an age rating. The trouble is that they allow the developers to set the ratings and that has blown up on them. You mentioned the Ulysses comic. Well there was another one that was banned at the same time. It was a homoerotic soft core porn comic loosely based on The Importance of Being Earnest, complete with 'correct' drawings of bare male buttocks and penises. The publisher of this app went on record saying that originally it was rated 12+ not 17+ because he felt that children need to be educated about homosexuality. He's welcome to that opinion and perhaps it is in line with his European standards. However parents that have turned on parental controls to let the 13 year old buy apps with his online allowance might feel different when Little Johnny downloads said comic unawares, even without being a family that believes that homosexuality is filthy, a sin and those that practice it are damned to hell. THAT fervor is just as bad as Big Bad Apple censoring their store.
Why? Said comic is not going to turn Little Johnny gay. Where is the harm in that app?
Since parental controls prohibit minors from accessing inappropriate content, explain to me again WHY the app store needs to be policed? I mean, besides to calm down the uptight bible-bashing repubs?
Exactly. There is a way to control every argument I've heard for why Apple should police content.
Also recall our glorious supreme court(paraphrase)- 'I don't know how to describe porn, but I know it when I see it'. I'll bet.
It is also good to know via the comments so far, there is no global morality, just regional. Very interesting. That is, if porn is a morality issue?
Good. Flash is reaching the end of it's useful life. Adobe will do everything possible to keep Flash on life support for years to come, but, I think we are finally seeing the beginning of the end of Flash. And I say good riddance to the buggy, bloated, expensive software.
Or they final get off their asses and fix it?
I must admit, that would be a hell of a "Blow" (some pun intended) to Apple's quest to rid the world of "Flash".
Skip
C. Flash is still used EVERYWHERE
If Flash is so universal why do I need to use it in Firefox rather than Safari or Chrome for certain sites or applications?
I say screw Flash. I use a flash blocker and if I go to a new site that is Flash dependant they lose my business.
I've no issue with Apple's "walled garden" approach on iOS since they also support the wild-west of the open, standards-based web.
I have no iOS device, no smartphone.
I've no issue with Apple's "walled garden" approach on iOS since they also support the wild-west of the open, standards-based web.
So how do you create a web app that uploads photos to your web site from your iPhone, if Mobile Safari doesn't support it?
A web app is not just an HTML version of an App Store app. There are many things a web app can't do.
They are not equivalent.
I contend that MS' relectance to fully back HD-DVD by including it in every XBOX 360 is what sealed its fate, by allowing Blu-ray player and subsequent content adoption to outgrow HD-DVD at a rapid pace with the inclusion of every PS3. Of course, MS didn't seem to take a direct interest in either platform so perhaps, in retrospect, Toshiba should have fronted the bill for HD-DVD upgrades as standard in every 360.
That is a valid factor. Yes.
And to someone earlier. Yes. We did run from HD-DVD in part because MS were backing it. It was our opinion that with what we saw as recent failures MS made that we did add that to the equation and postponed our decision afterwhich siding with BLU-RAY. It wasn't a flippant decision. Quite informed. And apparently the correct one.
But do note it was an educated decision. Such as the move to all macs for video editing using FCP. As editing on a PC resulted in a nightmare thanks to Windows and poor performance in editing.
Or they final get off their asses and fix it?
I must admit, that would be a hell of a "Blow" (some pun intended) to Apple's quest to rid the world of "Flash".
Apple doesn't have a quest to rid the world of Flash. They're perfectly content to let others have Flash on their devices.
Apple's position is quite simply that Flash doesn't work well enough to be on iDevices. If Adobe ever gets around to creating a decent version that runs well on mobile devices, Apple might well support it. Not that Adobe will ever do that, of course.
Since parental controls prohibit minors from accessing inappropriate content, explain to me again WHY the app store needs to be policed? I mean, besides to calm down the uptight bible-bashing repubs?
Easy! To make sure the app content conforms to the parental-controls rating.
Seriously-- one could be very comfortable with portraying sex and the human body to their children, but abhorrent to violence.
If they go to any store and buy content with a rating, they have every right to expect:
1) that the content conforms to accepted rating standards
2) that the rating is correct for a given content.
The above, is pretty easy for stick & stucco stores as they have a hard copy with the industry rating printed on the label (unless someone slips "Debbie Does Dallas" into a "Toy Story 3" case).
For electronic distribution, movies and TV shows [usually] have the industry ratings.
But, individual apps are rated by their developers and this rating needs to be policed or Apple exposes itself [sic] to all sorts of undesirable activities (lawsuits, blacklisting, boycotts, negative PR).
All that said, it is kind of funny that you can access almost any kind of content through YouTube.
I have a 10-year-old grandson who talks constantly, and loudly says (and later repeats) whatever comes into his mind (before his brain has processed it).
I would not want to be around when he tells the world of his impression of the latest Eisenbeck Beer commercial he saw on YT.
... I suppose this is more protecting society from my grandson, than vice versa!
.
You do have a point and for the real pornography I can agree with you. However, e.g. in Germany regular newspaper have to make changes so that they get their app approved by Apple. This is too much. Newspapers call this 'they have to make the Iran version for the App store.' The whole problem is that when Apple started this kind of policing they are the ones drawing the line - something that - in case of newspapers - is the job of the government/society.
Do like the NYT and just create a HTML5 website for your newspaper. Problem solved and I like it better. The NYT's site is awesome on the iPad. I don't want an app for that.
I think for some things app's are a waste and people should implement a web solution. i.e. the news and magazine industry.
As long as the Americans remain as prudish publicly as they are today, Apple is quite right to not allow porn in the App store. Imagine the outcry of the righteous should there be a bare nipple shown there. And what about the possible fines they would have to pay.
The web is free and HTML5 is the proper solution to provide satisfaction to those who want it. Hypocrisy reigns in the good old USA.
Apple is a company, not a country. I believe their App store policies are very similar wherever they will be stated (throughout the world). Last I checked Apple can and will do what they please as far as companies can. If you don't like the company for supporting exposed nipples on the phone, blame the company. Better yet, just don't support them by purchasing their products. Don't blame the country.
Imagine my out cry reading your post. Fines who would have to pay for what? Are you smoking bad whacky-weed or just trolling? Idiocy reigns on the forums of AppleInsider.
Why don't you go to Iran, or just about any choice of your middle eastern country and whip out your nipples or jiggly-bits (if you're a guy) and learn what "prudish" actually means compared to the good old USA.
Apple is using a very Christian, and very American yardstick to measure for what they think is "objectionable." No one wants to see kiddy porn, but most of the rest of the world left behind America's Disney-esque concepts of what's "moral" many years ago.
It is their right to do so. Probably the reason you're not calling the shots. See above post.
Are all the weirdo's coming out today?
Apple is finding an unlikely ally in its efforts to support HTML5 in preference to Adobe Flash as the platform for dynamic web content: pornographers.
According to a report by ConceivablyTech, leading adult film studio Digital Playground has announced its intentions to make the leap to HTML5, based in part upon needing to target HTML5 to reach Apple's iPhone users.?
Would it be safe to call these people the New Pornographers?
I agree for the most part if we are talking about "porn." The trouble is Apple has banned and removed a lot of apps that couldn't remotely be described as "porn" at all.
Apple has removed all the apps it considers "too sexy" including bikini apps and all kinds of apps from other countries where what they portray is as normal and common as any other material.
And yet apps like iJiggles manage to make it into the App Store:
http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewe...3D0,00.asp?p=n
Really? I mean talk about throwing in that extra little bit of cheesiness for effect. So MS and Intel decided they liked HD DVD, and that sealed the fate of HD DVD. That's really amazing. Hey, I wonder what else we can predict when Microsoft shows interest in something. I'm all for some good ol MS bashing, but this was such a stretch it just was a facepalm moment for me when I read it.
MS & Intel backing didn't "seal the fate" of HD-DVD, but it did turn some companies against the format, for at least two reasons:
1. MS & Intel wanted to sell Home Theatre PCs, and lobbied for both formats to allow a "managed copy" of the movie to be placed on Windows-based home servers, using Windows DRM. Blu-ray camp balked at requiring all content to be copied to HTPCs, and would only specifiy it as optional - while the HD-DVD camp agreed to require all content to be copyable to HTPCs.
That is when MS & Intel threw their support behind HD-DVD.
That is also when content-owners who didn't like the idea of any digital copies of their content being made decided to shift emphasis to Blu-ray.
2. Believe it or not, several consumer electronics companies were less than thrilled with the idea of MS establishing the same kind of monopoly on HD-content distribution that MS has in computer OS, and Apple has in music sales.