Slashdot Mirror
Apple May Loosen Restrictions With iPhone 3.0
mr100percent writes "Apple rejected the iPhone aggregator app Newspapers because of a topless photo in one of the app's subscribed-to papers. In the rejection message, Apple noted that Parental Controls have been announced for iPhone OS 3.0, adding that it 'would be appropriate to resubmit your application for review once this feature is available.' Rumor sites are speculating that Apple will relax their content restrictions once the 3.0 update puts parental controls in place. This may mean that apps like NIN will be allowed in the future."
I'll be over here using my blackberry to browse porn and run whatever the hell I want. Shame I can't make the copy/paste joke anymore though.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Even if those changes are forthcoming, it's still ridiculous that an expensive piece of technology used primarily by adults has such puritanical restrictions on it. I realize it does reflect poorly on Apple to have apps that are in very poor taste (e.g. the one where you shake the baby...), but it's pretty obvious that mainstream bands like NIN are an acceptable part of American culture.
I work in technology (but not a tech-only office) and this fiasco is definitely getting noticed and is clearly reflecting badly on Apple.
I'm not sure whether the concept of a parental-controls setting was the product of a deliberate leak to address this issue or if it was just part of the plan all along, but I seriously doubt that a significant portion of the iPhone userbase is comprised of children who might have not been given the phone if the app store weren't policed. It seems pretty clear to me that Apple is more than happy to piss off their users and snub even Trent (who is considered rather avant-garde in the music biz) if there's any risk to their image.
I hereby submit my new app for app store approval. My app is aimed at teaching parts of the sacred bible to kid, most specifically Ezekiel 23:19-20.
19 Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose genitals were like those of donkeys, and whose emissions was like that of horses.
Since the app is aimed at little kids, it graphically depicts the holiness and splendid beauty of this biblical moment with the Egyptians' donkey-sizes penises as ejaculating like horses.
AMEN.
The iPhone is a nice technology demonstrator, but it's things like this that make it useless.
The millions of people who bought one because of the functionality it offers may disagree.
Complete control over content
Except that anyone can jailbreak them if that bothers them.
no tethering
Again, jailbreaking if that is important to you.
no background apps
Well, no app store background apps. Some of the built in apps do in fact operate in the background.
no user space that mounts as a USB thumbdrive
As the saying goes, there's an app for that (uses WebDAV to load/unload files).
you can only sync to one computer
Again, if that matters to you there's a workaround. To most people that doesn't matter. Also, even without that workaround you can still have a computer update video without disturbing the music on the device if you select video only (which would be the thing you'd care most about updating from a laptop).
Safari still has that dumb bug where it re-loads pages when you switch between windows
That's called "resource constraint", not a bug.
There's a lot you can do with a hacked phone, but then you're missing out on everything else.
Like what? You can still use the app store from a jailbroken phone.
It works well within its very limited scope
Pretty amusing considering that at this point any other phone has a more limited scope as to what you can actually do with it since they are just getting up to snuff with their own application solutions (even Android is behind on that one).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Restrictions wont be loosened because the restrictions are ambiguous and inconsistent. Racism (pocket god), violence (pick a shooter) and infanticide (baby shaker) are OK but a third party mail client is not?
In simpler terms restrictions will remain the same, applications will be accepted or rejected entirely at Apples whim.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I know! Why does everyone have a problem with 'parental controls'. They allow people that want to use them to filter content and for those who don't care don't have to. I think it is quite useful actually. Without these controls you can't even do an image search for anything on Google without getting porn. So these content filtering features can even aid someone in finding useful information rather than just porn. (Even though we all know that is all the internet was made for.)
Or is it that people can't stand to have what they look at labeled as 'explicit' or 'mature'?
I am not sure but I just don't see how, as pointed out in the parent, allowing the USER to filter content doesn't anything other than help the user.
Two issues
1)Parental controls presume that there's an adult mode- a mode where the owner (or their parent) can choose not to be censored
2)There should be multiple groups doing the filtering, not just one. If one group makes all the decisions its ripe for abuse- it's too tempting to censor competitors, negative views of the company, or fold to interest groups. If multiple groups compete, you can choose one that does a good job of it without those worries, since at least 1 group is likely not to do so.
Neither is the case with Apple. That makes it a bad thing.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
We have some company deciding that people should not be able to install an application which contains a graphic of ladies with no blouses. You can buy every day at a newstand in the UK two or three newspapers which have, on page 3, pictures of ladies with no blouses. Anyway, Apple does not want you to see these pictures as part of an application on the phone you have just bought.
But then, after you've bought the phone, you can browse the web to the page 3 sites or others, and see those same pictures.
So what on earth are they thinking? Do they really think there is something terrible that people should not be allowed to see in something as commonplace as ladies without blouses? What exactly is so terrible about it? Do they really think that banning this awful stuff from the apps makes any difference at all to what people look at and see on iPhones?
These people are going completely mad in terms of an obsession with interference which they mistake for control. But worse than that, their values about what they want to control are all screwed up.
Do you all still think this is "cool"?
Why do I need parental controls in any device of mine?
Parental controls just give lazy parents the feeling of doing something when in reality they are doing nothing about the education of their offspring.
I can decide myself if an application is tasteful or not and if I want it in any device of mine.
Which is why I don't have an iPhone, but all the rest of you that feel compelled to be treated like an audience of captive putative children, enjoy your poison (and to think people actually pay for the privilege ....).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You need to be 18 to get a cellphone in your name.
Because "parental control" is always about porn? It's never about filtering offensive material, if you want to do that, you'll have to make your own filter. Where is the parental control that allows me to filter Christian propaganda, politicians (aka. professional liars), the MAFIAA, Microsoft and Apple? Without blocking porn, of course. Porn doesn't hurt anyone.
(Yes, I do live in Europe).
There's lots of alternatives. Even in Soviet USia.
Best Slashdot Co
Okay, and THE ENTIRE POINT OF COMPLAINING is because every iPhone is currently a "child's phone" until Apple gets around to adding the self-censorship module.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
It's a controversy for us Americans.
We're prudes, and are sure you should be too.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Newspaper app: allows a user to see an image of a topless woman. Status: denied.
Mobile Safari: allows a user to see as much hard-core porn as he/she wants. Status: open for all users, baby!
NIN app: allows a user to hear disturbing lyrics from one of the band's albums. Status: denied.
Mobile Safari: allows access to Nazi hate sites, al Qaeda recruiting sites, any other hateful site you can think of, and oh, by the way - the same song lyrics that appear in the NIN application. Status: all systems go!
If there's a clearer example of how fucked up Apple's App Store approval policies are, I can't think of what it could be.
Let me rephrase this for you...
I will *never* publish anything for possibly the most profitable platform for developers, as long as there is something about it that I don't like. I don't care, even if I lose most of my potential clients because of it.
And you think people who _buy_ the iPhone are dumb?
You're saying flat out that you don't care if you lose most of your business? Ethical standpoints are nice and all, but not when there are people who would like to give you money!