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."

Comments

still fairly ridiculous

[Aurisor]

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.

Re:still fairly ridiculous

[PhantomHarlock]

The iPhone is a nice technology demonstrator, but it's things like this that make it useless. Complete control over content, no tethering, no background apps, no user space that mounts as a USB thumbdrive, severely restricted syncing options (you can only sync to one computer, so if you want to load some stuff from your laptop on to your iphone while on the road, you have to erase everything you put on it with your desktop, for example.) No apps allowed that 'duplicate existing functionality' on the iPhone - meaning you have to wait for apple to fix the ongoing bugs in the mail client and Safari - namely that the mail client doesn't properly download POP3 messages even when you ask it to ("0 bytes remaining" and never displays the message unless it connects to Wifi) and Safari still has that dumb bug where it re-loads pages when you switch between windows. Painful when you're not on 3G.

There's a lot you can do with a hacked phone, but then you're missing out on everything else. It's kind of a lose-lose situation. It works well within its very limited scope, and if you're happy with that scope, it's a great product. If you want it to be more useful, it's deeply frustrating.

Re:still fairly ridiculous

[Ender_Wiggin]

Usless to who? Most people, including my mother, don't need those for their iPhone. The average user does not have those complaints. My sister's biggest complaint with the iPhone is that you can't use the keyboard in landscape mode for texting the way other touchscreen phones can (and that's why she eagerly wants the 3.0 update)

Those features would all be nice, and I think 3.0 will fix many of those complaints like tethering and background notifications.

The Holy Bible is pure

[linhares]

Dear puritanical Apple overlords,

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.

Re:The Holy Bible is pure

[clarkkent09]

That's nothing:

Exodus 12:29-30: And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

Let's not forget:

Isaiah 13:15-16: Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

And:

Samuel 15:2-3: Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

I would rather let my children read about Egyptians donkey penises than about mass murder of women and children being depicted as a good thing that god encourages and occasionally commits himself.

Re:The Holy Bible is pure

[Kippesoep]

I agree... It appears most Americans are more easily offended by even mild nudity than by horrible acts of violence. The Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" springs to mind. In this country such a thing would be pretty much completely ignored (maybe a small message on the third-to-last page of the papers). This behaviour has long puzzled me. We're all born naked. I can understand not wanting (ones kids to) see explicit porn, but nudity does not mean porn per se. I get the feeling Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" would be censored in the US. On the other hand it seems perfectly ok to show violence in cartoons and games to kids. The dichotomy is what's interesting. Maybe the whole 2nd amendment thing has something to do with it. Personally, I could care less about the effects of nudity and violence, but only if paid to do so. Well, actually, I prefer kids to grow up into people running around (semi-)naked than into people who think violence solves anything.

Re:Democratize Censorship

[maharb]

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.

Re:Democratize Censorship

[AuMatar]

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.

This is truly mad

[Budenny]

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"?

Re:Not really accurate

[drinkypoo]

Suggesting jailbreaking is a stupid answer to legitimate complaints about failings of the device. The average user is not going to do it.

Re:Democratize Censorship

[Thing 1]

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.