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 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.
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?
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"?
I know Apple-hating always wins an applause around here, but your description of how things stand is a substantial (and deliberate) distortion. Apple acknowledged that approving Baby Shaker was a mistake, and quickly removed it from the store; Pocket God is only racist according to the most paranoid leftist point of view; shoot 'em ups are subject to the same rules of decency as any other app, and none of those available in the store seriously qualify as adult material. Third-party mail clients are banned for the very clear reason that Apple don't want programs in the app store that reproduce the iPhone's basic functions--you may not agree with the rule, but it isn't ambiguous or inconsistent as you describe.
Apple have made some well-publicised errors in their approvals process, but any company starting a new service and processing that volume of material would have made mistakes. I suspect you simply object in principle to Apple supervising the content on the iPhone, which I know is a commonly held view; but it is an entirely reasonable policy for Apple to take, to avoid genuinely wanton or malicious programs being available on their device. For people who want an unregulated system, there are other phones and platforms available.
If you lived in an agrarian society all of your life, these differences would be significant.
How about this revision:
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 the size of Playstation 3s, and whose emissions burned with the fire of the Xbox 360.
The ______ Agenda
Suggesting jailbreaking is a stupid answer to legitimate complaints about failings of the device. The average user is not going to do it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.