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."
I wonder if this will mean apps like Newspapers will be labeled as "Mature Content" similar to CDs? It still seems absurd and hyper conservative that a newspaper application would have that label, but I guess it's better than the overt censorship that's going on now.
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.
Who the fuck buys their kid an iPhone?
I want to be adopted.
Instructing a device I own not to display content that I find offensive is not censorship, by any stretch of the imagination. ...and considering that I am a long-haired, Bush-hating, free software-loving, paranoid Slashdot denizen, my definition of censorship is probably on the permissive side.
"because of a topless photo in one of the app's subscribed-to papers"
That is indeed a tasteless photo. How could they not be wearing a turtle neck sweater? This reeks of disrespect for The Jobs!
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
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.
I think the problem in this case is more of an objection to Apple censoring everyone's phone until they implement the parental controls being a valid stopgap measure.
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?
I mean, here you got hardware with Java native support (processor chosen by Apple got the Jazelle option), with a license that prevent JVM to be installed on it !!!
All right, we all know that "Java is too slow" was touted by Steve simply because he need exclusive application to ensure the success of his pay-per-download platform.
Allowing Java would have simply killed the exclusivity, because Java is né multiplatform and some order of magnitude easier to develop with. Having let people the choice would have make Java the default choice. Thus allowing for instance application to run easilly on Android or other mobile OS with strong Java implementation level (think nokia for instance).
Apple with a great product and well-thinked limitation/contracts have manage to build again a milking-cow : cash on each mobile fee, cash on each application downloaded, cash on very battery renewed ...
This looks pretty cool as a business model ;-)
But how long will it last ? It would be interresting if anybody fill a class action again Apple for not allowing Java :P
Where is the RMS/FSF here fighting for Libre ? Because, this might be a Unix band band, but this looks a prety proprietary one ;-)
My only real complaint with the iPhone comes as the result of having developed a few applications that are currently for sale on the iTunes app store, and it goes like this:
I'm not allowed to interact with my customers.
I frequently get feedback (both positive and negative) on the applications I've written. I'd love an opportunity to comment on this feedback, either to address concerns or to graciously accept the accolades. However, Apple keeps a stranglehold on all feedback from customers, and does not permit you to know much of anything about how to contact the customer directly.
I wish this was different, and is one of the reasons I've taken a break from iPhone development for a while.
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"?
How did this get a +5?
The ENTIRE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE is that apple is adding the ability to allow or disallow adult apps in 3.0. The same as you can currently do with itunes.
Well we'll certainly miss whatever the fuck it is you were maybe going to write but didn't due to this.
Do you have a link to what you've written for mobile phones thus far (android I'm guessing?)?
Is there really that much difference between a horse and a donkey in this regard? I mean, why must the word of God clarify that they had donkey-size penises and ejaculated like horses? Do horses shoot significantly more (or less) "emission" than donkeys? Or are their genitals significantly larger or smaller? What if they had horse-size genitals and had emissions like donkeys -- would that make the girl in this passage more or less of a whore? It just seems like a strange detail to be hung up on, but if it's in the Bible, there must be a good reason for it.
Ballmer's kids: Daddy, Daddy, will you show me how to work my Zune?
Ballmer: Sure, let me see show you...
kids: HAHA just kidding Daddy we have ipods like everyone else in the world!
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.
I think a lot of it is that a decent portion of Slashdot's population is teenagers. Not all (maybe not even most), but you have a lot of 13-17 year old teenage males who are going to complain about legitimate filters. When they're overly broad they (along with everyone else, and fairly I might add) will complain about the situation as restricting what consenting adults can look at. But even when the filter gets properly narrowed down to the appropriate groups those teenagers are still going to complain because they ARE the appropriate groups (as least as society defines them).
As a legal adult myself, I can say that I really just don't care what I'm looking at is labeled, as long as nobody tries to restrict my rights to view it. And as an adult, optional filters don't restrict it. I'm fine with this type of stuff.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I know! Why does everyone have a problem with 'parental controls'.
Children have a fundamental human right to free speech and free expression and to be exposed to free ideas every bit as much as adults. It's MORE important for children to have access to ideas so that they cannot be brainwashed by propaganda that sees itself as so flimsy that the only way it can prevail in the wild is by suppressing facts and arguments that would destroy it, long enough for the brainwashing to take hold.
Beyond that, if parents can filter children's content, then national censors can filter citizen's content, very easily, using the same tools.
The only moral content filter is one that a person self-selects. Doing so for anyone else without their approval and consent is evil.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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!