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.
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.
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
I'd say taking down a best seller App based on its "Risque-ness" is censorship, any way you want to slice it.
Apple can stock and sell whatever products it wants to choose from. Yes. It is still censorship - but we've come to terms that private companies have the right to censorship. Apple is fine with censoring, its their product. And I agree - there's nothing wrong with that. But to say it isn't censorship is like saying the Chinese government isn't censoring web searches, they are just choosing to provide what they think is best, not censorship at all.
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.
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
The GP's Subject line is inaccurate, but the body of his post is correct.
It is censorship, but it's not 'evil' censorship, nor is it a violation of anyone's rights.
Apple is exercising their right to control what's in their storefront. If you don't like it, you have other options for your porn^H^H^Hhone.
I can see the fnords!
. 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 find it irksome that people have such an impoverished understanding of how censorship works.
Yes, the sort of censorship where a government bureaucrat with a slightly sinister mustache uses the threat of state violence to control your speech is the most extreme and severe form. And, if you simply must, you are free to assert that this is the only "true censorship". You can then go on to assert that anything else isn't "real" censorship, and anything that has some link to a contractual relationship, no matter how tenuous the link or adhesive the contract, is happy and voluntary and not at all censorship. Hurray, hurray!
However, and this part is important: Censorship is evil and dangerous in two distinct respects: The first is that it involves the illegitimate use(or threat of use) of violence for coercive ends. The second is that it distorts a society's flow of information in whatever direction is favored by the powerful and the incumbents. Since both democracies and free markets depend on informed actors, this is a major practical problem(and, of course, vibrant cultures arguably depend on the ability of individuals to express themselves without constraint).
It is true that the various forms of "censorship lite" practiced by the private sector(and some aspects of the public sector, through subtler than armed force means) possess relatively little of the first respect(though, unless you have ample resources, private sector use of lawsuits and contracts of adhesion to secure your silence can be unpleasantly close to coercive force). However, these forms of censorship possess the second respect to an enormous degree, likely greater than that of state censorship in all but the most repressive societies. The majority of controls over access to, and expression of, information faced by the people of any moderately free society are private sector. Many of them are, at least ostensibly, voluntary to some degree. Nevertheless, they have an effect.
Police-state censorship is evil; but dramatic and(in the more or less free world) relatively rare. The creeping death-by-a-thousand-cuts of the private sector, with its arbitration clauses, cryptographic controls, content filters, lawsuit threats, media ownership consolidation and so on and so forth is where the vast majority of information landscape distortion is happening. It is subtle, and most of it can be rationalized as "voluntary" with enough jesuitical hair-splitting about contracts; but that makes it no less dangerous.
Unless of course, the App was only for the iPhone, and it was accessible at one point. Now it is not. Thus, Apple is the third party, restricting you from accessing something you once could. Yes?
They are inconsistent is that an approved app should stay approved until the app itself changes to make a reevaluation of its status necessary.
It's like if your local authority decided to revoke your driver's license while you're driving the car, and then fines you for driving without a license.
I love the quote from the CNN article:
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.
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.
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.
That is utter bullshit, I can only assume that your wife reads what you post here. Good luck with that.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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
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.
America is full of prudes. Compare with a well know Finnish company.
http://store.ovi.com/content/17993
Deleted
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.
Hm, I'm not so sure about that. Schiller has already intimated that Apple is now operating a cartel with certain app developers when responding to a question about why Sports Illustrated's and Playboy's apps are not banned:
“The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format”.
I also suspect that Apple's App Store practices will lead to an antitrust investigation at some point. The iPhone is gaining dominance in the smartphone market and if its capricious App Store behaviour continues, accusations of monopolistic behaviour are bound to crop up.
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.
All men masturbate. Some just lie about it. But playing the moral superiority, 'real men don't fantasize' card is such nineteenth century, Victorian ere crap. All the studies I've read show fantasy and masturbation as normal, healthy aspects of human sexuality.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
That doesn't make it not censorship, poindexter, that just makes it not unconstitutional. You are capable of comprehending the difference, right?
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Just put your still photos on the phone via iTunes....or rip your pr0n dvd's with Handbrake..and put them on the device via iTunes. YOu don't have to use the app store for ALL your content.
Hell, I've never actually bought anything off iTunes...I have my own audio and video content. I've only used the store for free podcasts...and the free apps for the iPhone. Other than that..who needs the store?
Put what you want on there..nothing is stopping you.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
So you're not "married/dating/interestedindating" and you think that masterbation is unhealthy. So either you're a woman, your balls are locked away somewhere, or you're engaging in some rather unhealthy sexual activities yourself. Whichever it is, good luck with all that!
Without all those porn apps, even Apple hardware isn't that sexy. :P
Hey, if I had mod points I'd mod this flamebait, and I'm taking it. I'm a woman and I DON'T THINK masturbation is unhealthy. Watch what you say.
There's one point I concur with the controversial post here. I have the feeling that youngsters actually search for porn more actively than adults, since adults have access to it easily (I'm not going to say 'boys' cause girls do it too [you don't believe me?]). Now, I'm not a parent, but I'm kind of sure I wouldn't freak out if my teenager watched porn. As long as he doesn't start treating (wo)men like they do in porn. If anything, teach kids fantasy from reality. That solves a lot of problems.
You may have fooled the DMV into checking the "M" box on your driver's license application, but I've looked back through your comments. You're definitely a woman.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
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
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
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.
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.