Steve Jobs Recommends Android For Fans of Porn

hansamurai writes "After being asked about the App Store's recent ban on 'sexy apps,' Steve Jobs responded, 'We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy an Android phone. You know, there's a porn store for Android, you can download nothing but porn. You can download porn, your kids can download porn. That's a place we don't want to go, so we're not going to go there.' Apps such as Playboy's and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition are still available on the App Store, however, as they come from 'more reputable companies.'"

Comments

Re:Okay

[Pharmboy]

Its OK if Johnny sees a titty blown off with a shotgun, as long as no one was suckling it at the time.

Re:I don't need

[Altus]

Sorry I defended your favorite whipping boy.

What? What?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Who cares? Anyone with access to the internets thing can get endless free porn 24/7/365. Even on the The iPhone. It has one of those web browser things. You can stare at all the fun-sized porn your poor eyes can handle right there on the bus to your lousy temp job. Who needs an App for porn? What? Someone update Custer's Revenge for the iPhone?

Re:Ready Pitchforks!

[node 3]

What exactly isn't true about apple not allowing you to run programs that do things they don't want you to do?

Because their blocking of programs isn't because they do things they don't want you to do.

They don't want you using google voice, so they don't let google put an app up (aka they don't let you run it).

Not true. They don't want you to replace the built-in phone functions with Google Voice. *NOT* because Apple doesn't want you to use Google Voice (you can, Google even has a nice web app for it that you can save as an icon right on your iPhone). It's that Apple doesn't want the user experience to be degraded by replacing the built-in phone app.

I don't agree with them in this case, but regardless, it's not a case of Apple wanting to control you.

They have a long history of trying to brick peoples devices who get through apples protection

Um, no. There was one update which bricked some unlocked iPhones due to a bug in the replacement baseband used by the unlockers. Apple later released an update which fixed those phones. Even if it were deliberate, one example doesn't make for a "long history".

If someone willingly opted out of the user experience, why is apple deliberately destroying that persons user experience to preserve the "user experience"?

This is not because they want to control you. It's because they want to control the quality iPhone user experience. If this is offensive to you, you can simply buy another phone. Very few people have a problem with this.

The problem for Apple here is that if it's a simple opt-out to use third-party apps, then it's a pretty meaningless distinction. People will simply opt-out, have problems, then blame Apple. Yes, putting an opt-out with a stern warning technically puts the blame on the user, but they'll still blame Apple, and it will tarnish the reputation of quality and usability that Apple strives for.

Apple's biggest strength is the quality of their products. So it makes sense that they'll preserve that, even at the expense of some amount of freedom. Google's biggest strength is their openness and ubiquity. So it makes sense that they'll trade away some quality to become more of a commodity.

Take your time responding, I realize you're very busy drinking koolaid these days.

No, I'm just not a moron who thinks Steve Jobs wants to control me.

Neither Apple, nor Steve Jobs, wants to control you, your thoughts, none of that (do you not realize how absurd it is I have to write something like that?). Their control over the iPhone is all centered around keeping the iPhone as high a quality experience as they can muster.

Re:But Apple does not provide them

[Lars T.]

Yeah, yeah I forgot that Apple didn't put a browser on the iPhone, and that they will send their black helicopters if you jailbreak it.