The iPad Will Get Playboy In March

Stoobalou writes "Playboy boss Hugh Hefner has confirmed that — despite Steve Jobs' protestations that Apple is pure and Android is for porn — an app for browsing uncensored back issues of Playboy is to launch later this year on the iPad. The news, which is likely to generate significantly more buzz for Apple's popular tablet as a publishing device than Rupert Murdoch's delayed digital newspaper The Daily, comes courtesy of Hefner's Twitter stream, in which he proclaimed: 'Big news! Playboy — both old & new — will be available on [the] iPad beginning in March.'"

Comments

Quick, the Ink Will Dry While He's Sick!

[eldavojohn]

*an emaciated Steve Jobs returns from medical leave*
Lord Jobs: Why is there porn on my iPad, Captain Cook?!
Tim Cook: Uh, well, you see, the uh, engineers they ... ack! uck!
*Jobs holds up his fingers pinched together*
Lord Jobs: You have failed me for the last time, Captain.

Re:Quick, the Ink Will Dry While He's Sick!

[Cephas Aurelius]

*Jobs holds up his fingers pinched together*

So the Force has a multitouch interface? Cool!

I only want to subscribe....

[surfdaddy]

...for the articles.

Re:I only want to subscribe....

[MikeDirnt69]

I can see a naked chick whenever I want

So what the hell are you doing here?

Re:I only want to subscribe....

[spun]

I can see a naked chick whenever I want

So what the hell are you doing here?

Looking at all the naked chicks. What? You can't see them? Go to your preferences and click the "Format stories as ASCII naked chicks" checkbox.

Re:I only want to subscribe....

[Locke2005]

When I was a child, my mom used to read Playboy... for the articles, or at least that's what she claimed. Personally, I always liked their cartoons and jokes page... Gahan Wilson, anyone?

Re:I only want to subscribe....

[spun]

Must be for premium members only, darn.

Actually, so as not to offend either of Slashdot's female readers, the site has implemented a gender check policy. You just have to verify that you are male by sending an email from the account linked to your Slashdot account with the phrase "I like porn!" in the subject and "Show me the naked chicks!" in the body to daddypants@slashdot.org. Then you will see the "Format Stories as ASCII naked chicks" checkbox on your preferences page.

Re:I only want to subscribe....

[PopeRatzo]

...for the articles.

Why else would an Apple fan want Playboy?

Playboy isn't Porn

[Old97]

If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity.

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[LordNacho]

Good p

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[LordNacho]

Hmm, how do I delete this strange half-typed thing? It honestly didn't look like this when I hit submit...

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[jgagnon]

At least you had a good pee. For your next post try for a good BM!

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[GiveBenADollar]

Why wait, just get an android tablet. AHEM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IraQfhlMwi4

And they support flash too!

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[Ephemeriis]

If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity.

I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is. And with that where you live so I can get an idea of whether your standards are close to your communities standards. As there is no definitive statement as to what constitutes porn that could be applied globally.

Granted, I haven't looked at Playboy in years... So it may have changed dramatically. But last time I looked I would not have called it pornography.

Sure, there's some pictures of naked women in there, and they're sure to titillate your average pubescent male...

But there's more text to the magazine than images. Substantially more text. And most of it is actually decent stuff. Some interesting articles and interviews and whatnot. I suspect that Playboy could actually survive as a magazine even if it didn't have nude photos. Well, maybe not so much these days with the web and all... Any print publication is suffering these days... But you know what I mean.

As for the images themselves, they were far too "tasteful" for my tastes. Plenty of breasts... 3/4 shots... Maybe a glimpse of pubic hair here or there... But that's about it. Your average art gallery has images substantially more pornographic than a Playboy magazine.

If I had to label Playboy, I'd call it "erotica" at best. Certainly not pornography.

Anyone who really thinks Playboy is pornography just needs to visit Google Images or Google Videos with Safe Search turned off to have their horizons dramatically broadened.

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is.

"Whatever Steve Jobs says is porn, is porn."

Alternatively, "Whatever is on Android is porn."

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[egomaniac]

I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is.

The best definition I've heard of it so far is "stuff you lose interest in looking at after you're done masturbating."

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[Stregano]

Playboy is when I want to whack off and feel classy

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[ginbot462]

A while ago, I might have thought same thing (concerning text in Playboy), but they have moved more towards FHM/Maxim. I would say most magazines are like this now (excluding something like Economist). I picked up a March 1984 Popular Science at antique/curios shop; I forgot how much writing there use to be in magazines, and less dumbed down. In Popular Science's defense, they seem to have stayed at a similar level comparing this 1984 issue to say the 2007 iClone issue.

See for yourself:
Mini Mac
iClone

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[oldmac31310]

Anyone who really thinks Playboy is pornography just needs to surf the internet using Windows XP and Internet Explorer 6 and have their horizons dramatically broadened. It's awesome. The porn just pops up allover the place. you don't have to do anything!

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[GameboyRMH]

Anyone who really thinks Playboy is pornography just needs to visit Google Images or Google Videos with Safe Search turned off to have their horizons dramatically broadened.

I caught your goatse / speculum porn reference.

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[NicknamesAreStupid]

Porn is in the eye of the beholder. So, I need to behold it before declaring it porn.

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[maxwell demon]

But there's so much you can see there! Stripped binaries. Hard disks. Even fsck!

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Premature posting. That's okay. It happens to all guys now and then.

Re:Playboy isn't Porn

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I just wear a monocle.

Hot Damn.

[Petersko]

It's damned hard to masturbate while trying to trying to balance a netbook. The iPad is the right tool for the job.

Jobs knows it when he sees it

[PraiseBob]

Maybe you should tell that to the iphone app developers that got kicked out of the App store for being "porn" despite only showing girls in bikinis.

I Wish America Hated Censorship

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I really wish Americans valued the freedom of others to make personal choices, even if those choices are ones they wish others would not make. I really wish there were more people that hated white power literature, but would raise hell when big companies presumed to refuse to let them make an individual choice about buying it or not. I really wish it wasn't good business for Apple, Amazon, Walmart, etc. to censor and limit the content they sell in order to cater to busybodies that don't want other people to have the opportunity to make choices the majority does not like. I wish we were living in the freedom loving, individual rights valuing country a subset of our founding fathers envisioned.

It's great that people have decided playboy isn't so bad or something, but I don't really care. I wish, instead, people were pressuring Apple to become common carriers of content, dedicated to being neutral and letting users choose for themselves.

Re:I Wish America Hated Censorship

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

or in other words.. If you seek prosperity for the iPad and Apple in general

Sadly, no. Apple and the other big companies censor content because that makes them the most money, in their estimation. Heck, Walmart censors music they sell in the states, but not in most of the EU. Why do you suppose that is? It's because they're doing what the public wants because that makes them the most money.

No, my post was lamenting that what makes the most money, what the public demands is some level of censorship, because they don't value individual choice as much as they value making sure their kids and parents and random people, are not free to make choices that run counter to their beliefs. The US does not value free expression and individual choice, which is why big companies are doing what they're doing.

Re:I Wish America Hated Censorship

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Actually, I highly support social censorship as opposed to government enforced censorship.

I find the lack of respect for individual choice reflected by such censorship deeply saddening. Individuals should be given the right to make their own choices, even if the majority disagrees. That belief is the foundation of the concept of "freedom" which is often mentioned in political speeches but not valued by society, yourself included apparently.

But this power is all we need to control corporations. We vote every day with the power of our dollar.

This isn't really true, since corporations can legally lobby congress and spend money on media to get their puppets elected. Those politicians then pass laws that restrict our choices. When there is only one or two companies you can buy a needed service from, and both use the same behavior, your voting with your dollar is useless; your strategy wholly impotent. We voted with our dollars against the incompetent expensive mess that is domestic car manufacture, look how well that worked out.

Re:I Wish America Hated Censorship

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Where am I saying that individuals can't make choices? If I don't want a corporation to push certain material for whatever reason, be it too violent, immoral, or what not, then I don't support it.

I guess that depends upon what you mean by "don't support it". Does that mean you don't buy it, or that you pressure companies not to sell it so others don't have as easy of a time getting it? By saying you're in favor of "social censorship" to "control corporations" I inferred the latter, and that certainly does remove choices from people by making it harder for them to get things, taking the choice of them buying it at the vendor away from the individual and putting it in the hands of the corporation and the society pressuring that corporation.

I also notice your interesting choice of words "push certain material" as if offering something for sale was pushing it on others.

If we as a society realized this power, no government official would be free to take such action, and no evil corporation would be able to lobby to gain such control.

Theoretically we can just vote out the politicians now. Realistically, people don't care enough, are too distracted, and are too misinformed by people with a lot of money for marketing campaigns.

Rather than fighting an impossible battle that we're currently fighting, we should be pushing for people to wake up and realize their power as consumers.

Our best hope of controlling corporations isn't massive boycotts as those are too difficult to organize on a large scale especially when there aren't many choices for consumers in a locality. Our best hope is government as influenced by the democratic process. There is lots of room for a selfish politician or group to jump on the "ban lobbying; ban legalized bribes; and legislate that corporations are not people, don't have rights, and exist only for the common good" train. I suspect such a political movement would gain a lot of supporters in a hurry. Republican or Democrat, the vast majority of people would like to see lobbying made illegal and some day someone will capitalize upon that to get elected as a reform candidate for the people.

Re:I Wish America Hated Censorship

[GiveBenADollar]

Ahem. Freedom is also having the right to sell or not sell what you please. I may not agree with Apple or Walmart in regards to what they won't sell, but I do respect their right to choose what they won't sell. You always have other alternatives and always will unless the government bans them. Self censorship is and should always be allowed, without it we may as well have the government force a christian book store to sell playboy or a doughnut shop to sell salads.

Reminds me of a joke

[Weaselmancer]

Winston Churchill and a socialite at a party:

Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

I'm an iPad and I'm highfalutin

[trollertron3000]

I only look at airbrushed pussy

- Sir Grandiloquent Highfalutin, Count of Hypocrisy

Playboy??

[OzPeter]

You think with a name like iPad they would serve up Playgirl

/rimshot

Re:Playboy??

[Locke2005]

You do realize the overwhelming majority of Playgirl buyers are male, don't you?

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

please mod parent up - as that is truly the crux in this story.

It doesn't matter what GP poster believes is porn, or what you - the reader - believe is porn, or what -I- believe is porn. What matters is Apple's definition of porn (and related terms) that have lead to apps which just displayed pictures of girls in bikini or lingerie or whatever being rejected or pulled.

The added value of those apps may be questionable (I guess they exist for people who can't open the browser and look for bikini-clad girls that way), but they should be held to the same criteria as any Playboy app.

If, and this is a big if, the Playboy app does indeed launch with pictures of girls in bikini or even less clothing, without a app policy change*, then those app developers have every right to go bitchslap Apple.

* If there will be a policy change it would seem that Playboy would be at an advantage by having a headstart by knowing this change would come ahead of time, most likely due to discussion between them and those responsible at Apple.

In either case Apple would apparently be giving Playboy preferential treatment. Which wouldn't be -entirely- surprising, given Apple's recent re-iteration that they're not fond of apps from publishers that simply link people to the online content where the user then has to pay for the subscription - thus skirting Apple's desire to take a good chunk of advertising income / subscription fees by running this through their infrastructure.

Re:mod parent up

[node 3]

The added value of those apps may be questionable (I guess they exist for people who can't open the browser and look for bikini-clad girls that way), but they should be held to the same criteria as any Playboy app.

They are. One particular criteria that mattered here was "are you an established, respected brand?".

If there will be a policy change it would seem that Playboy would be at an advantage by having a headstart by knowing this change would come ahead of time, most likely due to discussion between them and those responsible at Apple.

I don't see why this should be a problem. First off, Playboy has an advantage over them by simply being Playboy. Second, it's pretty clear that Apple is working closely with magazines right now to get the subscription model right.

In either case Apple would apparently be giving Playboy preferential treatment.

You state this like it's some bad thing. Apple always asks a few respected members of whatever industry they are going into to help them get it right. They did this with music, with video, with iOS apps. And they are doing this now as well. It's very rational.

Which wouldn't be -entirely- surprising, given Apple's recent re-iteration that they're not fond of apps from publishers that simply link people to the online content where the user then has to pay for the subscription - thus skirting Apple's desire to take a good chunk of advertising income / subscription fees by running this through their infrastructure.

It's difficult to say how much the 30% revenue plays a role in these sorts of decisions. Apple spends a lot on keeping the stores and the infrastructures running smoothly (watch how fast that 10 billion download counter is spinning, and that doesn't even count upgrades). But more to the point, every time there is a decision like this which benefits Apple financially outside of their core profit models, their decision also tends to add far more value to their core product than it generates in direct revenue. On the topic of magazine subscriptions specifically, just like the rest of the store, the iOS platform benefits immensely by being absolutely simple. If you have to manage your subscriptions individually with each magazine (or each publisher) it's going to be inefficient and people who would otherwise like to subscribe will not due to the hassle involved. On the other hand, if it all goes through the very same login and credit card that you use to buy music, tv, films, apps, books, etc., then it's going to be just as easy as those things, and people will be more likely to make use of it. This also provides a significant value to the consumer over Android, which has almost no unifying feature at all (something which geeks love, but consumers hate).

So I really doubt that 30% is the primary motivating factor here. Apple sold over 60 million iOS devices since late September. Their core profit center is in hardware. If they can bolster the value of their hardware, that's gotta be their primary goal. If they can make some extra cash along the way, that's great, but I suspect the motivation is to use that cut primarily to cover operating costs and invest in expansion, so that they essentially get their "value multiplier" that is iTunes (many geeks hate, but consumers love) for free. It's absolutely brilliant, and their numbers from yesterday prove this out.

Re:He's doing this to put pressure on Apple.

[Yoik]

Even more likely he has only signed a contract with the developers, and hasn't a clue whether it will get approved.

The development group's salesman was, no doubt, very enthusiastic and certain of the approval, but they get paid approved or not :-). Gratz, sales guy! Sounds like fun to work on.

App?

[jorisk]

While the article talks about an 'app' for the iPad, Hugh never wrote about an app. To be more precise he wrote "Big news! Playboy--both old & new--will be available on iPad beginning in March." http://twitter.com/#hughhefner/status/27551318994325504

In later tweets he refers to 'Playboy on iPad', again without the word 'app'.

Based on earlier rumors we will either see a new Magazine store for the iPad (with subscriptions and a different policy) or Hugh is just making headlines by announcing a plain old HTML version optimized for iPad.

Re:There Will Be An Introductory Prequel Magazine.

[gstrickler]

I'll bet the average iPad owner get laid more often than the average slashdot poster.