Slashdot Mirror
Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset
An anonymous reader writes "Apple is now removing many risque applications from its App Store so as not to 'scare off potential customers.' The removed applications, including SlideHer and Dirty Fingers, allowed people to see scantily clad women. Although they were once approved by Apple, even reaching the 'most downloaded' lists, Apple removed them after getting complaints that they were degrading to women. That said, the Sports Illustrated application is still available for those who want scantily clad women on their iPhone, and developers are up in arms over the perceived inconsistency. It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind of web browser on there. On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible."
Some are speculating that this is a ploy from Apple to drum up interest in the iPad from educators.
Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset
Shoot.
Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt.
.
Trolling is a art,
Apple makes some of the dumbest moves in regards to the lifeline of their app store - the developers! Boy are they good at pissing people off! I'm a very happy shareholder (picked it up at 27 back when...!) but every day there's some new twist that they've pulled and alienated this group or that. I think parental controls and allowing any app that doesn't do harm to the phone itself would be their best stance - how many sales are they missing because of these China-like rules?
Do or do not. There is no try. --Yoda
Look at me crying for these devs who supported this fucked up anticonsumer family of products.
And I'm laughing on the inside looking at their wittle tears.
I find it laughable that slashdot labels so many stories as evil censorship or somehow violating "your rights online" when it is nothing of the sort.
The fact is, a consumer retailer like Apple can stock and sell whatever products to choose to its customers. What they don't stock is really none of your business, and if you don't like, take your products and have someone else carry it.
This is just another non-issue. The problem with Apple is that they are too successful, they need to keep out the riff raff.
A merchant app that sold bikinis was dropped too, for showing girls in bikinis. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/23/swimwear_seller_hit_by_apples_removal_of_sexual_apps.html
I guess axing ~5,000 applications is easier than building a more effective and granular per-device rating setting system...
Lazier, though, a lot lazier.
As someone who downloaded "Free Boobs" you can find more scantily clad women in a sears catalog...
app delete.
Besides, that is what your browser is for you lazy app using sods!
I'm pretty sure Apple could drum up an altruistic-sounding or business-smart reason to ban just about any app from their store.
-No competing browsers? They duplicate existing functionality. Certainly wouldn't want that.
-No scantily clad women? They objectify women. But pay no heed to the Sports Illustrated app or the entirety of the internet at your very literal fingertips.
-No Google voice? Also duplicates existing functionality. But be sure to ignore the allowance of Skype.
Yep, Apple's got a good reason for everything that it does, and its reason is placing consumers and developers first!
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
Typical feminist hypocrisy on **anything** that might appeal to heterosexual male sexuality, but that doesn't involve a "by your leave, your majesty" from a woman! It's ok for a woman to masturbate, use toys and sleep around. That's "empowering." A man does anything like that and he's "degrading women."
"...you're never more than one click away from something horrible"
Like ... a naked female body? Spoiling them poor kids?
A gun is million more times obscene then a female breast!
Reality TV is obscene. Billy Graham is obscene. Muscle cars are obscene.
A beautiful woman is not.
Heh, guess I should have proof read that a little better.
Especially on a product that has "Designed ... in California" on its back. Here are some alternative things Apple could do that would keep the app store clean and still go after the edu market:
1) Require app developers to keep screenshots G-rated.
1a) If necessary, ask app developers to keep the app names "clean". This is harder to do and I'm not comfortable about this, but the general guidance is that "Playboy" and "Wobble" is okay, but "AssTits Deluxe" is not. There should be bright-line guidance for what is okay and what is not.
2) Use content ratings to keep things at (roughtly) R or even M level. Users should have to manually change settings to see NC-17-rated content.
3) Only allow folks with credit cards (nominally adults) to see NC-17 rated content.
4) Extend enterprise policies (which the iPhone already supports) to allow admins to block levels of content.
These are from the top of my head. But all of these are better than going all Taliban on app developers.
Go somewhere random
They were hardly real apps. "Big Boobs," "Large Boobs," "Young Boobs," et cetera, et cetera. Recipe: Make an image display app, throw some pictures into it, make another version with different pictures, repeat indefinitely.
They probably really only deleted five or ten real distinct apps.
Where to draw the line?
There are many applications that have some less-than-fully-dressed women (and men!) in them, what to think of apps like "Funny Pics" or "LOLcats"? Soon we'll only have Burqua clad women in the AppStore?
Sure, make a separate Adult/18+ category or something, I'm fine with that.
I'm not saying this because I don't want to protect children or offend any women. I just think that there is no way to consistently apply any criteria beyond "not showing genitals", without banning a lot more apps than they currently have. And then the inequality of not banning SI or PB added on top of that.
And given that there is a browser on the system, Google-Images is only two clicks away.
It's like banning all apps that have references to gambling, smoking or driving irresponsible. This is just beyond silly.
And I'm saying that as someone who often defends Apple.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
There was a app for a countdown clock for second term of Bush in Nov 2008. When it was rejected, the author emailed Apple, and Jobs himself replied: http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/
Mr. Jobs replied : Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. Whatâ(TM)s the point? Steve
This space for rent.
Women and men do not need to be ashamed of their bodies. It is disappointing that Apple is contributing to the harmful Abrahamic stereotype that your body is dirty and something to be ashamed of - in particular, it seems here that Apple is telling women to cover up (and get back to the kitchen?), even having a problem with swimwear merchant apps.
Last I checked Sports Illustrated isn't trafficking women forcing them to pose in swimsuits. These women make their own choice to pose for these thing. Just because some conservative women don't like it who cares.
Not that I am a big fan of getting rid of a bunch of content because of seemingly arbitrary rules, but from the sounds of it many of this 'apps' are nothing more then a image (or a few images) of a girl/boy/goat in a bikini. It seems like a bit of a stretch to refer to those who create such content as developers.
On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible.
Hmmm.. "Read More..." *click*
Aww, crap.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
This one is filled with open source images and written in jQTouch so it doesn't need the App Store: http://www.wayner.org/node/69
Only 37 comments as yet??
Where are all ./ folks on such a delicate matter?
(.)(.)
I could understand this as a choice, although it is hard to do so when they have a very good rating system in place (which they have).
But what does not make any sense is doing this ban and exempting large companies like Playboy and Sports Illustrated. I mean, you CAN understand it but the action is indefensible.
Especially when you can get porn of any level via the browser, why ban these apps at all?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't see anyone truly upset over perceived inconsistencies in Apple's policies. Those screaming loudest are all about "censorship" and the end of democracy, or frustrated adolescent fantasies, etc, etc. The "besides, they still have _______, and that's inconsistent" argument is thrown in as a freebie, not as the main argument. It's an attempt at logic: if you can't be 100% consistent, then you're wrong to do anything in the first place. Uh huh.
I'm not sure whether those screaming loudest are living the Frat House Lifestyle (tm) or if Slashdot is allowing 6-year-olds ("THAT'S NOT F-A-I-R !!") to post.
. It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind of web browser on there. On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible."
Well, yeah. That's kind of the point. The things they can't control, they're making no attempt to control. However, they *can* control the contents of the store - and so they do, in order to appeal to their largest customer base. Time will tell if it's the right move; but you can't cry censorship when you agree to purchase a device whose sole gateway to applications is what is officially sanctioned by that device's creator. You sign away the right to control your user experience when you agree that they have control via the appstore. If you don't like it, don't buy the device until they change it; or buy it and jailbreak it (but be aware of the consequences as well).
Apple is fully within their rights to decide they want the appstore to sell ONLY applications designed for people age 8 and under. You know it when you buy the device (and if you don't, isn't that your responsibility too? being educated about your purchases?). App developers agree to it when they obtain the license that allow them to develop for the devices. You always have the choice to go with a different product. (Such as blackberry... no restrictions on what you can install, tens of thousands of compatible j2me apps. They have an appworld that's growing daily, but you're not required to use it to install software. I believe Android fits this bill too? )
A company that is exercising the rights that its customers and developers willingly cede to it is not censorship.
Commence downmodding.
I'm amused by the juxtaposition of the last two slashdot stories.
Google has too much freedom in its Android software development efforts resulting in confusion and developers being upset.
Apple has too much control in its App store policy resulting in confusion and developers being upset.
Ok, the emotions are a little different in each case but you gotta admit, these two stories highlight the main difference (to developers at least) between the Google and Apple way of doing things!
Censorship is when a third party prevents you from reading or viewing or watching content that you want to. In this case, Apple is the arbiter of their own app store for their own devices, and you know when you buy it that they get to choose what you do and do not have access to in the app store. It may be stupid and petty and lazy and a general sign of their incompetence, but that's not the same thing as censorship.
If Apple prevented you from viewing sexy items on the internet in general, then that would be censorship. This is more akin to a quickie mart that stops carrying Hustler. There are still other places to get Hustler.
(Side note: this is a good and valid argument for markets and competition. Where Apple fails, you can choose another vendor. In the market for tablet devices, the worst outcome is that you were swindled out of several hundred dollars. You just need slight regulation to make sure they don't catch fire or hand out your bank information out of the box.)
So let's call it censorship, then.
Doesn't really matter. Once you buy into their single point of sale ecosystem, you're buying into their censorship. They have the right to do as they see fit with their storefront.
Don't like it? There are other options.
So they are removing apps of women in bikinis but leaving apps of fully naked women.
Phil Schiller says it is because Playboy is an established brand: http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/23/phil-schiller-acknowledges-new-app-store-sexual-content-ban-and-exceptions/
So the real message here is that these images are only degrading if they come from a non-established brand. apparently established brands are less offensive.
I have an iPhone and love it, would never buy a porn app from it, and hate to see the App Store clogged with those apps, but this is not the answer. Create an Adults/Mature section, put the the apps like this in there, and be done with it.
I think the real problem is not that you are forced to follow the rules to be on the apple store. Is that if, as a developer, you want to develop for the iPhone, you HAVE to use the apple store. Apple specifically, and (IANAL) dodgily makes you sign an agreement that says you cannot build your own appstore for iphone, even if it is for your own apps. Now if I had a lot of free time/money to throw at the problem, I'd try to challenge this on the basis of the local consumer laws, and(I'm in Quebec) with the language thing, I'm sure we could build a case for our own appstore, used only for apps meaningful here.
Don't give you damned kids an iphone if you're worried about the content they may come across. Why, back in my day...
Just because someone doesn't follow your logic doesn't make them dumb. There could be a variety of reasons, a few being, A.) adult content isn't worth that much when opportunity cost is taken in to consideration. What's the point in pleasing a few depraved nerds when you can indoctrinate an entire generation from grade school. B.) This could be from a lobbyist stand point. Apple lobbies some senator for support with the educational system and there stipulation is get rid of the porn. At this point in cooperate management nothing comes down to being dumb or dumb.
there were a couple of developers that created
Woman With Few Cloths app and then copied it
Woman With Few Cloths 01012010
Woman With Few Cloths 01012011
Woman With Few Cloths 01012012
Woman With Few Cloths 01012013
etc.
so they always had the "new app" position.
plus these apps didnt have nude woman they had woman in suggestive positions wearing cloths. to get around the parental filtering.
It's been a long while since I've played clicks to pron, is it now only 1 click from disney.com?
Apple's mistake was in failing to make the App Store restrictive ENOUGH. What they should have done (and what Google should be doing for Android) is build a two tier system. The lower tier is basically just hosting - anything goes. Set up a rating system and a popularity count, but don't bother with approving anything. The top tier should be a heavily restricted best-of-breed catalog built of submissions, highly rated and highly popular apps from the lower tier manually reviewed and copied over by Apple, and (because they can't help themselves) apps from their beloved corporate partners.
That scheme would have given them the flexibility to accept everything that makes an open computing platform great, while providing the quality filter that Apple allegedly builds its brand on. "Young Boobs" and the other 40 variants of image-viewer-app-with-embedded-image-catalog can go in the lower tier, get highly rated by 14 year old boys and heavily downloaded by men ages 9 to 90, and Apple needn't bother to consider it for promotion to the upper tier. Meanwhile quality, useful applications get promoted and get far greater visibility.
To sweeten the deal and actively encourage quality, give developers who get admitted to the upper tier a larger cut of the income, for those apps that charge money.
Too late now...
There goes my plan to port Custer's Revenge to the iPhone.
I love the quote from the CNN article:
Isn't it more degrading to women to have them viewed as massive bitch's because certain women feel the need to bitch about everything including the sun. My GF even agrees women get a bad rap because other women feel the need to complain when they could just go along with it. After all have you heard of men complaining that topless men are degrading, of course not, after all were rational.
The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies.
They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.
Consumer rights don't trump anything when the consumer knows fully well going into a contract that the are prohibited from doing "what they want" with their DRMed phones.
Sorry, but if you don't want that kind of control placed on you, just don't buy it. You can complain all you want that the iPhone is wildly popular and therefore should be open to anything, but that's not how Apple works, not is it how it has ever worked.
An informed consumer is a good consumer.
Apple just removed support for porn. Sell your shares now.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
I disagree, porn is for boys, not men. No man would escape into fantasy land to gain sexual satisfaction, because that is a boyish thing to do. Of course, not all boys are under 18. Is seems there are very few real men in the world.
Also, it's nice to say that boys should not consume porn, but everyone knows that all boys have access to it. That's why I have such a huge problem with this kind of censorship. It does nothing to solve the real problem. It just gives parents an excuse to believe there may not be a problem, when there clearly is one.
Well, I decided to be scientific about it, and try to beat off to a gun, a reality TV show, Billy Graham, muscle cars and naked pictures of women. I'd say that the women win hands down.
I'm trying to be even more scientific and do a double blind study, but so far everyone I've asked to get blindfolded and masturbate has looked at me funny and even threatened to sue. ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
1.)Ban all "politically charged" apps. 2.)Ban Google Voice for duplication of phone functionality but leave tons of dialer apps up that do just that. 3.)Ban sexy apps with the exception of the Sports illustrated swimsuit edition. 4.)? 5.)Profit! I finally figured out what the "?" means! ? = Double standards folks. Get used to it...
Alright, technically it is censorship. The literal definition of censorship is preventing access to information, but in this case, Apple is censoring information on Apple devices from the Apple Store, after you agreed in the EULA that you would allow them to do that. So, you should call it mutually agreed-to censorship, which is the same as walking in to an R rated movie that used to have NC-17 scenes that were cut out of it.
And the analogy still holds true - Apple isn't the only place in the universe that has electronic T&A. If it were, then I would consider it meaningful censorship. For censorship to matter, the information should be important, unique, and purposefully repressed. This case hardly satisfies those parameters.
Apple allows Big Content to put up porn apps, just not little publishers, so your explanation doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Inconsistency where the female form is concerned?
I see you and I raise you.
I went into my local 7-Eleven a few weeks ago and saw that Maxim, which sported an attractive scantily clad girl on the front cover, was covered up. Beside it was the National Enquirer (or one of those tabloids) showing a scantily clad girl parading a horrific and stomach-churning display of stretched skin, fat and cellulite. It wasn't covered up.
Shit man, if I wanted to live in a country where the sight of a human body was offensive I'd move to Saudi fucking Arabia.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I know that us nerds love our legalism and our precise definitions, but sometime we need to get real and think about what is actually going on. Apple is a large, powerful company. They manage the largest online app store, and the rule over it with an iron fist. They remove apps simply because they compete with their own, and they remove content which they consider to be objectionable.
Legally, you are correct. They are well within their legal rights, and they are not a branch of the government. However, just because something is legally right does not mean it is fair, or just, or reasonable, or good in any way. Moreover, corporations like apple are made possible through legal constructions that are only possible due to governmental authority. And, companies like Apple do things like this to maintain favor with the government (for example, it has been suggested that Apple is doing this to drum up educational support for their iPad, Schools are almost entirely governmental organizations).
What I am really trying to say here is that in tunnel-vision legalism land, this is not censorship. However, in the real world, which we all are actually living in, it most definitely is censorship.
and it is going to kill the App Store.
You know, people keep saying that, and yet, they hit 1 billion+ downloads so far in nine months (if their numbers are to be trusted). So, in a way, I'm finding it harder and harder to agree that their formula isn't viable. It seems to be doing fine. Is that because ($JOE_END_USER.cares() == false)? Yeah probably. But I'm not worried for their success. It seems unavoidable.
Reply to That ||
If "China like rules" means banning political things, the P is right.
If it means throwing people into jail, the GP is right.
Let's define things like mud^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hclearly.
Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
The worm has turned hasn't it? Microsoft commits monopolistic practices strong arming companies into killing competition and continue to look for new ways to leverage their monopoly (albeit more subtly so they stay off the radar) and they are merely incompetant? And yet Apple creates a device people actually want and they are evil incarnate?
Say what you will about Apple, but trying to say Apple is more evil than Microsoft is like saying getting hit by a Cadillac Escalade at 60 MPH is some how worse than getting hit by a Ford Explorer at 60 MPH. If you grandmother doesn't like the iPhone, she has a choice of switching to an Android. Viola, problem solved. If your mom doesn't like Windows, what is her choice? Linux? hahahahahhahaah you Linux n00b. Oh and we can't switch to mac OS because you just declared them evil incarnate... ooooooooooo... even if they only have 5% of the desktop/laptop OS market.
Please. These are businesses making money. When you have a choice in products, move away from what you don't like and get over it. They are businesses out to get your money and are trying to attract as many people as possible. In this case you have a choice.
And if you really want porn on your iPhone, go to a website. These apps are no great loss realistically, 99.99% of them were scams anyway and they are already starting to put back some of the ones that shouldn't have been taken down, like Daisy Mae.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
America is full of prudes. Compare with a well know Finnish company.
http://store.ovi.com/content/17993
Deleted
My observation is that the only people who bitch about images of barely-dressed hot women, are the ugly cows nobody wants to see anyway. They're just jealous and would gladly run about naked if they had a comparable body in which to do so.
So, Sears,Wallmart,JC Penny's,Kmart just to name a few big name stores, don't sell pornography are they control freaks as well? Its funny how people think the internet is any different then a brick and mortar store. As it is the internet has become one huge Catalog store,like the old Sears and robuck catalog where you could even buy a house.
Jack of all trades,master of none
but you're wrong. when vhs and beta came out, beta supported 250 lines of resolution vs vhs' 240, and the heavy luma/chroma 'bleed' in vhs made the picture look noticeably worse. eventually vhs upped to 250 lines of resolution, and incidently beta actually downgraded to 240 lines of resolution in order to fit 2 hours onto a tape. however, the misconception about betamax picture quality is often attributed to people who've seen superbeta tapes, which weren't introduced until 1985 when the format war was already over. however, at 290 lines of resolution these tapes were/are significantly clearer than vhs. as for porn, yes there was beta porn, but it came much later than vhs porn and was significantly harder to come by, and this was because sony initially tried to block it from the platform completely. so while the common stories told about the format war aren't fully accurate, calling them 'false urban legends' is well, a false internet legend.
"Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset"
Face it, Apple doesn't care about it's developers, aside from the $99/299 subscription fees. If the title was: "Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Customers Upset"
I'm sure Apple would have those apps back on line asap.
When will devs realize Apple doesn't care about you and how hard it's to develop on OSX/iPhone, the appstore, the SDK, and xcode and all the associated restrictions...? It's like you need to prove to Apple that you're worthy of 'this' relationship.
It's AppStore's complete lack of filtering and sorting capabilities.
have you ever try to actually find an application?
Search by keyword only--no sort by anything. No filter by anything.
Browse by top 100 or by date--no sort by anything. No filter by anything.
Categiries are a start, but come on Apple, why can't we search WITHIN a category? This is really basic stuff.
Or are people so swayed by the "Top paid" and "Top free" apps that anything not on those lists are simply not important to Apple?
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Well, they've scared off this customer by doing that.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
I strongly believe that Apple can sell whatever the heck they want from their app store. But the unfortunate thing is that there is apparently a market for these kinds of apps - and other kinds of "objectionable" apps as well, yet now there's no way to get them on people's phones legally. I suspect that those people who really want these apps will jailbreak their phones to get them.
On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible.
Three links in the summary, but none in that sentence. What a missed opportunity to make it really hit home...
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Because Apple has become about being in a certain mindset. They not only promote it, lately they're doing their best to ENFORCE it. If you use Apple, you're a young, cool, hip, media loving yuppy.
And apparently you have no libido! Within a generation, all the fanbois will die out, which is why they must recruit more each day!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I want to see them remove the Safari app now...
Shouldn't they also ban Safari? You can view images of boobs on that, too. How unthoughtful of them not to do that.
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
Yes the Apple app store has double standards. Yes, some of these denials seems unnecessary. But, they are also the result of being in the public view - and constant scrutiny.
Few of these articles, especially on banning of sexually explicit apps, consider the situation from Apple's point of view. Which is: iPhones, iTouches, iPods and iPads are marketed to people under the age of 18 and 21. Apple products are family products and need to abide by general morality guidelines if they are to be accepted in to homes, schools, and businesses.
Other topics, such as apps that are redundant to the Apple or their partner's apps, challenge Apples *successful* business strategy.
Undeniably, the iPad changes the situation from a phone with apps to mini-computer with a phone, yet still apps cannot interfere with the phone device or the partnered service plan.
Many people recoil and shout "CENSORSHIP!" in their blogs, but I wonder if they really understand the role Apple fills. What happens when something bad happens to a device or to the user? The responsibility will fall on Apple's shoulders - will hurt Apple's bottom line. Someone in the equation has to be responsible and, frankly, I don't expect that from anyone under 30.
No, I am not trolling. Just look at the post above and the complete utter lack of logic, "It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind of web browser on there." Apple's app store doesn't sell internet content. Apple is not accountable for what's on the internet. Its only accountable for what it sells via the store and the content it points us too. Wobbly boobs apps appeal directly to children.
Yes, Apple's app approval process needs to be more benign. No, Apple shouldn't allow all and any app. Buy Android if you need to have sex apps with you at all times...
developers are up in arms?
Didn't you read the dozens of articles on the net about how Apple works with regards to The App Store? They're like Cohaagen in Total Recall, absolute rulers. It's their shit and they can fuck with you however they want in the most inconstent way they like and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Sorry, but you developers who get fucked over by Apple can just STFU. That's the risk you took when you went iPhone. Maybe you should have considered developing for a more open OS
From my perspective, Apple is completely wormy. The people running it, imho, are greedy unethical cheaters who have corrupted the market and the law.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
I think this is a really bad business decision, regardless of one's beliefs.
Why would you eliminate the "porn" because you're worried about scaring off potential customers? Porn has been estimated to generate more than $10B/year! This makes sense since we, as a species, have evolved to fixate on sex all the time. Apple should be cashing in, not out if they are worried about maintaining customers. Even the puritanical types who publically denounce porn have been known to engage in a little private titillation... which the iPhone is perfect for.
I don't find the lewd apps offensive, but I do find the stupid ones like iFart moronic to the point that they offend me. I guess I would rather live with a bunch of horny people than a bunch of morons.
It would have been a lot more intelligent to just develop an adult app section that requires credit card age verification. I suspect this has more to do with Steve's personal preferences than anything else.
Any stop saying "If you want porn, you can just use Safari!" It's a silly argument. How would you feel if someone told you "If you want to check your mail, you can just use Safari." The same goes for the weather app, the calendar app, the maps app and any of the other apps you can buy in the app store.
Mod me to flaming hell, but here is the real reason:
Apple cares about its image. As a MOBILE platform, the iPhone was attracting too many sweaty, mouth-breathing baldies, an image with which Apple did not want to be tainted.
No, you are not going to "get" this comment. It will stay at 0 or move to -1, troll. However, it is the actual reason. Oh, that and teenagers/preteens getting the iPhone from their gated-community living parents, who don't want them getting corrupted. But it's mostly the former.
The first thing they could do is not file a Creationism app under Education: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/answers-in-genesis/id353046149?mt=8
An Apple a day keeps the pervs away.
Apple, sanitized for your protection.
Apple, the white bread of computing.
You know, something like a third of web-site porn consumers these days are women, and women are the fastest growing demographic of porn consumers. This is why the market should decide.
If you haven't read this book yet you should.
(True not all porn is created equal. There is some really interesting porn films out there which have received raving reviews in magazines like "Women's Health" and "Oprah Magazine.")
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
What they don't stock is really none of your business.
The iPhone ought to be enough for anybody.
But honestly, these apps -were- getting annoying. I have nothing against them, but it was annoying to see them taking up slots in the Top 25 lists and such when I really want "interesting" apps to be there, not run of the mill photo collections. Now mind you, I honestly believe Apple should simply create a Adult category, only show it if the parental controls on the phone aren't turned on, and let parents decide to block it if they like. Then allow whatever in there, I don't care. Hell I'll even check it out and see what's there occasionally, but then it also isn't flooding out the other apps.
On that note I won't be surprised if Apple -does- add a category for it and start letting these apps back in at some point. The catch being, if Apple has shown one thing in the life of the App store, is that such updates are unlikely to come without a major iPhoneOS update and the changes that come with that to iTunes Connect. I'm sure if these apps are making money, then they're also making money for Apple, and Steve Jobs or not, the stockholders interests then show that it's probably a good idea to keep selling them in a fashion that isn't -costing- the company money from other angles. But those changes would take yet more changes to the parental control systems on both iTunes and the iPhone OS, so it'll be awhile. No big shock there either. Now to all those complaining, please have fun, keep complaining, nothing gets done without someone complaining about it. But do realize there's an entire distribution architecture there that is affected by changes and nothing is ever likely to happen overnight.
Be grateful they took out that link from the submission.
And to think I was torn for so long about what to link from that text :( So many things to choose from... goatse, a Rickroll, AYBABTU...
I dare to say, if it's not in Google, it doesn't exist. And that's another reason why monopoly is bad. At the current point, no other company could potentially compete with Google in web search, taking into account its vast processing resources and experience in this field. Yahoo is stagnating, Bing was never considered a rival, despite all Microsoft tricks to steal customers.
The only hope is that someday a p2p indexing technology (like BitTorrent) arises, which would use peoples' resources to index sites. But today Google is so powerful, it's influencing politics and governments. G8 will need to welcome another G soon.
Apple removed them after getting complaints that they were degrading to women.
How exactly is this degrading to women?
Typical of an American corporation. Well, let's be honest, it is. Oh the republicans are up in arms! A blanket ban? Let adults decide for themselves, for fucks sakes.
To all the iPhone developers of the world, Apple would like to spread the following message:
You are our bitch now.
Thank you, and enjoy!
Bow-ties are cool.
It's Apple, after all. Can't they employ some kind of DRM to lock down the education-targeted phones? That would make those more desirable, yes?
First they came for the Jews and I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew. THEN THEY CAME FOR MY PORN . . .
Apple removed them after getting complaints that they were degrading to women.
How exactly is this degrading to women?
Well, generally speaking, Apple is extremely degrading to women. A lot of people have been talking about how the iPad sounds like a feminine product, but few people seem to remember this quote from Steve Jobs' iPad keynote:
"And remember to keep the iPad away from your bitch when she's on the rag. You don't want her to bleed on it."
The Cupertino campus also briefly instituted "shirts-off Fridays" and, when I visited in 2000, at the end of their tour they handed out nude photos of their female workers.
So I can certainly see how someone would say Apple was degrading to women.
Bow-ties are cool.
I'll tell you what is degrading... participating in directly fostering the mindset that does not allow someone to choose what they want to do with their own body.
Good looks are a natural gift, as much valid proceeds of the genetic lottery as athleticism, intelligence, sharp vision, fast reflexes, strength, longevity and so forth.
The despicable double standard that says a person should be ashamed of, or forbidden to, take advantage of good looks, yet may be valued for intelligence or athleticism, etc., is just another way to try to repress people and enforce stone-age outlooks upon what should be a more compassionate and flexible society.
What Apple is doing here deserves no respect whatsoever. It is pitifully shallow. And yes, I'm an Apple customer. I find this, and many other aspects of Apple's "control freakiness", to be highly offensive.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You know, people keep saying that, and yet, they hit 1 billion+ downloads so far in nine months (if their numbers are to be trusted).
Until the day they removed The Pussy from the AppStore.
Nothing should stay between a human being and its necessary dose of smut.
This, ladies and gentleman, is how Android won the market :
Because *the other one* forgot what drives human brains 90% of the time.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Speaking as someone who works in the adult industry, I don't even know why this matters all that much.
It's not as if there's a browser within the damn iPhone and iPad. It's not as if it isn't possible to create an interface for your website that matches or surpasses what you can get out of an app. For my adult product, I've already done that.
All people want to do here is to view pictures and videos. It's nothing that requires native coding.
So you can't use Apple's payment processing system to sell porn to people? So cunting what? It's Apple's choice whether or not they want to have it on their store.
And while we're at it, a large percentage of the apps (my guess is over 40% of them) that are on the app store *can* be done via the web with the same level of effectiveness. The app store is an easy way to advertise and an easy way to bill for the functionality you're offering.
In fact, I wish there was *less* of the kind of apps that could have been done via the web.
As someone who a) sells software that's porn related and b) owns an iPhone, I'm not crying over this. There's still plenty of money to be made.
That is all.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Apple... the trendy artist friendly giant corporation... hates freedom and expression.
Case closed. Apple's run by pussified Hypocritical Anti American Faggots who will sell under age female singers basically singing "fuck me daddy"....
but sex in the app store is a no no.
Please America... especially Apple... Look between your legs, there is either a dick or a pussy.... and a shit hole in back.
Censor everything! Censor it all... burn the country down and give the planet back to the universe.
Maybe this is a way out of buying the iphone/ ATT contract,they used the famous bait and switch tactic. They allowed nudes,porn until they had a huge market share then they decide to remove the porno,nudes
Jack of all trades,master of none
It's time to learn about ^W
When confronted with one problem, some think "I'll use recursion". Now they are confronted with one problem.
Lake Travis in Austin, Texas has a beach called "Hippie Hollow" that's nude and operated by Travis County.
Additionally, the city of Austin has no law prohibiting females from being topless in public, which is frequently practiced at Barton Springs and on Sixth Street during Mardis Gras.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Just say that your sexy application is for educational purposes. Problem solved!
They are claiming they banned these apps because of complaints by women. I call bullshit - when has a big company ever restrained itself to try to avoid hurting women? If Apple was sincere, Playboy would never have gotten in the door, much less be allowed to stay after the "purge." Women are just convenient scapegoats to be a target for all the angry whining from the frustrated fappers.
Apple is a publicly traded company and they are simply doing their best to enforce common community standards. Publicly traded companies are expected to have a set of values and these rejections are a reflection of that. They are also aware that their stores are accessed by all sorts of age groups and they are not interested in creating segregated sections based on age group.
This is really no different than moderated forums. When a moderator deletes posts or bans members, it is not censorship because they are a private entity. Censorship laws apply to the state.
Pornography has never been about "freedom of speech". It is a dishonest legal defence.
It is true that SI and Playboy are still present in the store but those are both publicly traded companies with rigorous internal corporate compliance rules which ensure that anyone appearing in the photos are paid fairly, not exploited through drug abuse or underage at the time of the photo shoot. These other apps are often created by small fly by night outfits and could possibly contain picture they do not have copyright for and possibly depict underaged girls.
Apple is not interested in investigating the legality of every "girly" picture app.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Isn't this one of the factors that killed off Sony Betamax format (against VHS)?
There were other issues too, like record time and price-point, but Sony refused to allow pr0n on Betamax and it became a huge market on VHS.
I guess they're about to ban the iPhone itself for being too sexy. And here I thought Apple's goal was to make sexy products.
Apple have the freedom to do this. We have the freedom to criticise.
Yes, I have no sympathy for developers who decided to develop for a platform knowing that Apple control the software. I have no sympathy for users who bought such a phone. I can sit here and laugh at them, saying how I knew this all along, while I happily continue to use my 5800.
But I can still criticise Apple too - so that people are aware of this issue, and can exercise their choice to buy something else; and so that people realise why this model of computing, where single companies decide the software, is fundamentally broken.
Publicity works both ways. We get Apple slashvertisements when there is so much of a rumour, so you can get Apple stories when they are negative, too.
Call me when their sales start dropping.
Call me when their sales are anything noteworthy, as opposed to the niche they currently have.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/24/apple_creates_explicit_category_for_app_store_software.html
> It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind
> of web browser on there.
That is exactly why these apps are not needed in App Store. All Apple devices have an HTML5 browser with ISO audio video. There is no shortage of porn without having to go through Apple.
App Store is specifically about being an alternative to the Web. What you have on the Web, you should not have in App Store and vice versa. In App Store, it's managed, it's mediated, and the Web is completely unmanaged, unmediated.
Plus these apps were softcore garbage. The selection of porno on the Web is much more sophisticated. Everybody is better off because of this.