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.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about gun issues, etc?
Here's a bell curve for the iPad user demographic: ...../^\.....x
The x is your data point. If you classify the Mac platform as "weak bang for the buck with limited software availability" then you are very much not the target market.
And it's not really "form over function" if the device does *exactly what you want it to do* better than the alternatives (for me that's Windows or Linux), and in cellphones that's pretty much all the other cellphones I have come across. Even Android is not really showing me anything that I personally am doing right now on the iPhone that I could do better on an Android device, and no, I don't need to listen to streaming radio stations while simultaneously checking my email while driving the car, nor do I need root access on my phone. It just does what I ask it to do.
So the mac platform (mobile and OS X) have "nothing to offer" YOU personally - but this being the case, you must surely see that the Mac itself, the iPhone, the iPod Touch (and when it;s released the iPad) do in fact have "something to offer" a large number of people who find that the products work for them.
You can dismiss them as helpless sheep, wandering blind in the tech wilderness if you like, but that would be somewhat disingenuous and I think you know it. If you're smart enough to use any alternative than Windows as your main OS you are smart enough to understand that just because a product doesn't work for you doesn't make it worthless.
Show me a computer that costs £1225 ($1500) [price of the higher spec 21.5" iMac on UK/US store) that has the same specs - in those specs you must also include the ability to pack it up into a box in 2 minutes (including unplugging cables) and carry it like a suitcase so you can take it to your friend's house and set it up again in under 2 minutes, with a 21" IPS screen and all the other hardware, and the ability to triple boot OS X/Win/Linux as required (hackintoshes are allowed - I know the OS X licence forbids it, but go with it). The computer must be entirely contained in one unit except for the keyboard and mouse.
There was a reason that one of the best Windows laptops of 2009 was a MacBook Pro - people like the hardware, regardless of OS, and are willing to pay for what they like. If you can afford the extra for the nice case, then why not? What makes a computer any different from any other tool/device/appliance you own? No one bats an eyelid if you buy a slightly more expensive TV set because you preferred the way the case looked, even if the picture quality was the same. I mean, you have to look at the case too for as long as you own the thing.
No one bats an eye when people spend more money on a car that does exactly the same as a perfectly serviceable and good quality boxy car. Raw performance figures, rock bottom price (and the relative open-ness of the OS) are not the sole indicators of a product. "Value for money" doesn't mean "the absolute fastest thing I can buy for the lowest money" - it is a highly subjective thing.
I am very happy with the £1100 I paid for my late-2006 iMac - it was worth every penny I paid for it, and continues to be my main machine and will be for some time.
It's not any more common for women to lack sexual urges. But they do tend to work it out differently. My complaint is not so much about masterbation as it is about pornography and, more importantly, fantasy.
What I'm saying is that I, a real man, will acknowledge that something is wrong and do something about it, while a boy might escape into a fantasy to ignore their problem.
I think fantasy can be a reasonable survival mechanism for abused children, but it doesn't have a place in the life of a mature adult, who should be taking proactive action to resolve their problem, or asking for help from others.
Sexual urges are not desires that need to be filled (as one periodically needs to empty their bladder), and I think it's really bad to look at sexuality that way. But I guess we live in a society where people have needs and then they fill them, rather than thoughtfully considering their actions. They have a headache, and instead of asking "what does my headache mean?" they reach for the aspirin or whatever. They want to have sex with someone, but instead of asking what it means and resolving it, they just have sex with them, or they go home and masterbate.
People ask "what is wrong with rapists that they do such things?". Well, the simple fact is that a rapist views his sexual urges as a need to be filled, and then he goes out an fills them they same way our society tells us to fill any other urges. I figured this out a year ago, and I told all my friends about it. It's been a very enlightening experience for me, because women for the most part avoid me entirely (some don't). I'm just like "wow, what would they do if they knew that all men have this problem?!". Society is fucked up, but I'm a lot better of now than I was before. It's no wonder half or marriages end in divorce, if this is how well men and women understand each others' problems going into it.