Slashdot Mirror
No Playboy App For iPad, After All
tsamsoniw writes "The rumors that a Playboy app would appear in the Apple App Store were greatly exaggerated. Playboy plans to offer an online service through which subscribers can access past and current issues of the nudie mag — and per Playboy, it will be accessible via Safari and support iPad features (whatever that means). But if Playboy does come out with a native app for iPad, all the nudity will be censored. That should be just fine for the legions of people who indeed read the magazine for the articles. This really shouldn't be a surprise, though: If Apple insists on 'protecting' users of its high-priced gear from pixelated naughty bits in a graphic-novel version of classic literature, it certainly won't let users access the full monty. It's a shame, though: If Apple's customers want access to that sort of content, Apple should allow them to get at it via a native app instead of suffering a potentially buggier, less secure browser-based experience."
They should rather release it for the nintendo 3d thing
When asked for comment, outgoing CEO Steve Jobs replied, "I would cut off the more disreputable parts of the body, and use the space for playing fields."
and support iPad features (whatever that means)
It means:
- It will be locked down.
- Touch interaction with 'models' will be disabled.
- Page turning will be forced on a 20 second timer to ensure users don't get too 'excited'.
- All images of screwing will be replaced with 'pentalobular interaction'.
- Steve Jobs will read the articles via a quaint brittish accent TTS engine.
- All images will come with an accompanying 'I'm Offended!' reporting link.
- All nipple shots will be replaced with miniature Natalie Portman faces.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Skyfire browser for flash and to avoid being directed to the pay mobile site instead of the free desktop one
a few apps are private browsers to hide your history from your wife
some websites support idevices directly
#1 is the best and is a deal at $1.99 or $2.99
"But if Playboy does come out with a native app for iPad, but all the nudity will be censored." -- sentence failure!
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I'd trust a general-purpose web browser to be more secure and less buggy than some made-up "app" any day.
But if Playboy does come out with a native app for iPad, all the nudity will be censored.
Seems to me that what they're describing is a web app, which someone can save to the home screen just like any other iPad app. Unless the app needs to do something particularly special with hardware, sound, 3D animation, the camera, etc. (which I can't imagine this sort of app doing), the only significant distinction between that and a native (store) app is the payment model.... (And the language it's written in, of course, but a user doesn't see that part.)
Much ado about nothing, methinks.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Thank God for Apple, no need for those pesky Parental Controls when Steve Jobs our Lord and Savior is watching over the flock.
And remember, you paid extra for the blocking of any nudity in apps! Well, other than the web browser of course. But aside from all the porn in the world, you're getting the porn blocking you paid for!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
it makes parents feel comfortable buying their kids iPads and iPhones
now you don't have to like this marketing ploy, and you don't have to like the rationale behind the parent's thinking. but you have to admit it works, it brings in the $, and that's all that matters
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
native app instead of suffering a potentially buggier, less secure browser-based experience.
Care to explain what it even means? I mean, sure, any app X is potentially buggier than some other app Y (possibly except when Y is ATI Linux proprietary driver). But why would web apps be specifically buggier than native, and how is it any less secure? If anything, it seems to be more secure to me - native app means running native code on your device, while web app means running sandboxed JavaScript.
"Potentially buggy" version? Web developers everywhere are outraged
This is bizarre. Playboy is R-rated, not NC-17, and Apple already distributes music that carries the [EXPLICIT] tag. Hell, they sell and rent Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and there's nothing you can see in Playboy that's not in that movie, and nothing they say in Playboy that's not in American Pie.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
So once again: Gore, Murder, Violence, Beheading, Rape - Acceptable Breasts, Buttocks, Genitals, i.e...The Human Body = Unacceptable /sigh
Naked and Petrified!
> suffering a potentially buggier, less secure browser-based experience
Why is a webapp potentially buggier, less secure?
"Apple should allow them to get at if via a native app instead of suffering a potentially buggier, less secure browser-based experience" mmm kay, that's a leap.
Apple does not "block" porn, they just refuse publishing porn themselves. Sure, there is that tiny deal about them not supporting any other distribution methods, but thats a different matter. Truth be told: I would not install a pornographic application on my iPad or iPhone if you put a gun on a kitten's head (if it was my head I'd install and delete it once the gun wielder was arrested.)
The web provides all the porn I could need, and it displays magnificently in the iPad, touch screens are easier to clean than the mouse or the keyboard too!!
What's "porn"? What makes Playboy pornographic but not Eyes Wide Shut?
Until Apple answers this question, no publisher of anything beyond nursery rhymes can safely do business with them.
What utter bollocks you spew: this idea of 'safely' doing business is bizarre and new to me. Tell me about your 'safe' business practices, and I'll listen and nod, then let you loose into the lions' den. Go for it, Mr. Safe Business: I'm going to be charging to sweep up your remains.
"Safe" meaning your company can afford to spend months or even years developing a title for publication, with confidence that it will not be arbitrarily rejected by Apple for reasons which are inconsistent with policies under which other applications and media have previously been approved.
touch screens are easier to clean than the mouse or the keyboard too!!
Too much information.
I guess the "early adopters" will need an iPad (Betamax) and another tablet (VHS) :-)
Apple maintains the ability to "kill" (Apple's term) software users install on their own Apple hardware. Apple maintains the control they need to decide on a case-by-case basis who gets to run what program. Apple retains the power to make it hard for any user(s) to watch porn through an application. How Apple uses this power may change over time, denying some users access to an app but allowing others. Apple can apply this power with absolutely no legal ability for the user to gainsay Apple's power, predict who is denied what, or understand for what reason someone was denied complete control of their computer.
We would not stand for this control in any other medium. It should not be up to anyone but the owner of the device to exert control over what they wish to read or run.
Digital Citizen
rather than tell us about your tendency to masturbate, maybe you could let us all know why it is that people like you seem to defend apple, whatever it is they choose to inflict on their poor gullible users, or attempt to inflict on the rest of us.
what kind of identity issues, in your particular case, led to the sorry state that you're in...?
oh and btw, if you defend apple continuously then it kind of invalidates your opinion on things a bit. funny how that works isn't it!
"pinch" to zoom, indeed...
And remember, you paid extra for the blocking of any nudity in apps! Well, other than the web browser of course. But aside from all the porn in the world, you're getting the porn blocking you paid for!
I know this is a joke and the mods missed it.
To mods: Since when is a web browser not good enough for porn?
When people turn their noses up at web based porn, Apple and their app store wins. You can stick a fork in the web, it's done.
Lion's den you say... http://www.lionsdenadult.com/
You had to see that coming, right?
... I'm on the iPad.
If I wanted to pay money to not see women nude I would go grocery shopping.
And with the case screw thing, Apple="New Hitler"?
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Aww he will come bawing asking you to stop ad hominem attacks. Thats what amateur apple sales reps are programed to do.
I can't use a product with such a lame user base.
Apple does not "block" porn, they just refuse publishing porn themselves.
s/porn/nudity/g
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
They know their target audience has no interest in seeing naked women.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Completely off topic since this was just about the concept of blocking porn (if they were, they have the power to filter it through Safari.)
But you intrigue me, I had never heard of apple deleting apps from users devices, nor have I heard of them alloing some users to run software that others are not allowed to run.
Can you list links and examples of remote app deletion and apps that are not allowed to be used by certain consumers?
We would not stand for this control in any other medium. It should not be up to anyone but the owner of the device to exert control over what they wish to read or run.
Agree, but why people do this mess over the iPhone but not over video game consoles? They are even more closed and have been around longer. There do are a few groups working on their jailbreak but you don't hear the huge accusations against THOSE manufacturers. What makes Apple any more evil than Nintendo, Sega (in their day), Sony and Microsoft in the gaming department?
They know their target audience has no interest in seeing naked women.
They know their target audience gets easy access to the real thing. :P
They know their target audience has no interest in seeing naked women.
They know their target audience gets easy access to the real thing. :P
so.... their target market is women who own mirrors?
Agree, but why people do this mess over the iPhone but not over video game consoles? They are even more closed and have been around longer. There do are a few groups working on their jailbreak but you don't hear the huge accusations against THOSE manufacturers. What makes Apple any more evil than Nintendo, Sega (in their day), Sony and Microsoft in the gaming department?
For a number of reasons. The primary one is that Nintendo, Sega, Sony and Microsoft didn't and don't try to portray their devices as all inclusive. No one buys a 360 to surf the net, Microsoft doesn't push the Xbox as an alternative to a computer or claim that their device is perfect for tasks other than gaming. No one buys a Wii to type up documents and Nintendo doesn't market it that way, they market it as a game console. But Apple and their fanboys seem to think that an iPad is essentially a replacement for a laptop for most tasks and not a crippled machine at twice the price of a laptop. They seem to think that it does everything one could ever want with no room for improvement and rather than expanding their line, addressing user concerns and removing the walled garden, Apple (and their fanboys) instead prefer to claim that users really have no problems with them and that what they are doing is some task that they shouldn't do in the first place. A game console is marketed to do one thing, play games, just like the Kindle is marketed to do one thing, to read books. The iPad is marketed to do anything you want to do on a laptop and fails at that goal and is naturally taking backlash because of it.
And "a few groups" working on jailbreaks? The Wii has a thriving homebrew scene with many, many applications and creative programs. And while Nintendo does release a yearly update to block homebrew, it is generally worked around within a few days and you can go back to playing with no loss in functionality. Not only that, but there is full documentation to use Wii hardware with standard PC bluetooth hardware. The 360 has a small homebrew scene but it is limited mostly by Microsoft's banning of people with modified 360 consoles on Xbox live and is, quite honestly, used mostly for warez than legitimate homebrew when compared to things like the DS, PSP and Wii homebrew scenes. Most people don't criticize MS for their stance for a number of reasons, first off the Xbox live marketplace is pretty open and the other fact is that it is their services you are accessing and it is their right to choose to allow you on there or not. The PS3 though is a different story, there has been a number of developments, a number of patches and a number of features Sony has removed from the PS3 simply to thwart homebrew and Sony has been fairly and justly criticized for their actions, but again, Sony never marketed the PS3 as anything more than a blu-ray player, game system and media centre, however, they did market it as being able to run alternate OSes and when Sony removed that feature, many users I believe in the EU were able to get their money back because of Sony's fraudulent advertising.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Since the iPad doesn't have flash it breaks the formatting of many sites and requires an "app" to get them to work halfway decently.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
What's "porn"? What makes Playboy pornographic but not Eyes Wide Shut?
Is that the international version or the US censored version of the movie?
AFAIK Apple is selling the uncensored edition that was (finally) released in the US a couple of years ago.
As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror... ...and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the Android Market have the same authority. They can remote kill an app just as easily, no?
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/06/exercising-our-remote-application.html
booo timothy
Morpheus, God of Dreams.
Not only that, but it can remotely delete apps you've purchased off your device, too. Apple's rejected apps, removed apps, etc., but they've never used that power to delete or stop apps from running that you've already bought. Even if you bought an app that was later deleted, iTunes doesn't stop you from reinstalling that app on any iDevice you own. Hell, even iDOS is back in the App Store (with the warning to "not update" for those who purchased it before).
But it's OK when Google does it, and not when Apple says they can do it but hasn't (yet). Just like it's evil when Amazon does it.
Heck, we don't even know if iOS can even do remote deletions. The only capability that comes close is CoreLocation's ability to disable apps, but that only works for apps that use CoreLocation to begin with. Then again, maybe all it does is the app's ability to get anything other than fake GPS data...
Consider alcohol and drug abuse as an option in life.
The primary reason is one of intended use. Smart phones are are billed as a do anything be your central media device. It sucks to then find out that they deny some things based on *content*. One can usually understand why a smart phone isn't going to play DVD's, not so much that you can't get a playboy magazine because the person who runs the smartphones company thinks you shouldn't be watching that. Further it is apps that a good number want to do and find they can't so it is something they notice. When they (and I include all the smart phone makers - this isn't apple centric) market them as general purpose computing devices that happen to make phone calls people expect them to be general purpose computers.
Game consoles are, well game consoles. When they do other things - like watch movies or surf the internet - that is generally a plus. It's rare someone looks and say "Gosh I wish I could do that on this thing but they will not let me". Few complain that they can't reflash their Blu-ray players, TV's, microwaves, non-smartphones, and most other appliances.
Some will always want to hack around on them, but for the most part being able to run Linux on a PS3 is a irrelevancy to all but a handful of PS3 owners because that isn't what you purchased the device to do. You purchase a smart phone to have a portable computer that makes phone calls.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
But you intrigue me, I had never heard of apple deleting apps from users devices, nor have I heard of them alloing some users to run software that others are not allowed to run.
Can you list links and examples of remote app deletion and apps that are not allowed to be used by certain consumers?
While I do admit I haven't heard of any times Apple has remotely deleted Apps (yet), they have admitted that they built in a back door in iOS that will allow them to do just that.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
I can find any porn (from straight missionary to stuff that makes you wonder if you've zapped into a parallel universe) for free at any time.
Who cares what Apple is allowing on the App store?
Do I really need porn in a 10 inch window, or is that *way* too loaded of a question? :-) We have reached the promised age of 3D, 1080p-orn on 70" screens in surround sound.
I'm serious about that parallel Earth thing. I saw porn last week where the number of people and number of genitalia just didn't add up right. :-(
pixelated nip? really? Really? REALLY?
So, It's PG rated if we simply pixelate nip?
What if we just cut the digital middleman and just let kids watch strippers who have pixelated nip paint or something... that would be awesome.
The HTML5 API is the open iOS API. That is where all the nudity is. It's unmediated. It's perfect for Playboy. The iPad features are touch events and WebKit enhancements.
The Cocoa API on iOS is managed so that it is an alternative to anything-goes HTML5. Yes, you can shop at App Store with freedom from porn, because you can't get away from it on the Web. Yin and yang. Balance. Choice. I know it is unfamiliar totalitarian nerd like the original poster, but luckily there is at least one company giving users what they want instead of what nerd dogma says they are allowed to have.
The idea that it's not "safe" to develop for iOS is absurd.
Apple maintains the ability to "kill" (Apple's term) software users install on their own Apple hardware.
As does Google (and Mozilla, for that matter). In fact, Google and Mozilla actually *have* both employed their kill switches. Apple has never done this. Their curated store has made it unnecessary, in spite of having significantly more apps to deal with.
Apple maintains the control they need to decide on a case-by-case basis who gets to run what program. Apple retains the power to make it hard for any user(s) to watch porn through an application. How Apple uses this power may change over time, denying some users access to an app but allowing others.
And what makes you think any of those "mays" are even remotely likely? What possible reason would Apple have to do any of those things?
The truth is, there is no such reason. You're simply making absurd claims because it's the only way to make the "kill switch" scary enough for a sane person to give half a shit about.
Apple can apply this power with absolutely no legal ability for the user to gainsay Apple's power, predict who is denied what, or understand for what reason someone was denied complete control of their computer.
That sentence is absolutely false.
We would not stand for this control in any other medium.
Which is why CBS is required to broadcast any program I want them to, and DVD discs don't have region codes, and digital cameras don't have water sensing dots, and stock stereos in cars don't have proprietary connectors, and TiVo doesn't have the ability to remotely erase recorded shows, and movie theaters don't disallow outside foods, and Google doesn't have the exact same kill switch and the exact same control over their own Android Marketplace and they have *actually* done the thing you are trying to scare people by saying that Apple *might* do!
It should not be up to anyone but the owner of the device to exert control over what they wish to read or run.
And with few exceptions, that's the case with iOS.
Your whole argument is that the iPad is marketed as being a multipurpose device (and it is, in fact, an excellent multipurpose device), and games consoles aren't? Apparently you haven't seen the end of all PS3 ads that say "It only does everything." What's most humorous is that your defense of the consoles demonstrate the point that the situation on consoles are far worse than the situation on iOS.
The iPad is marketed to do anything you want to do on a laptop and fails at that goal and is naturally taking backlash because of it.
Only amongst an extremely insignificant subset of geeks. Apple sold 15 million iPads last year. You wanna know why? Because normal people don't give a shit about all the things that make you hate Apple's products.
While I do admit I haven't heard of any times Apple has remotely deleted Apps (yet),
For one very good reason: they haven't. Google, on the other hand, actually has used their kill switch on Android.
they have admitted that they built in a back door in iOS that will allow them to do just that.
You know why they admitted it? Because it's not some scary evil thing. In fact, it's there for a very good reason. If an app gets through the App Store that turns out to be malware, Apple can kill it.
Since the iPad doesn't have flash it breaks the formatting of many sites and requires an "app" to get them to work halfway decently.
It's funny that you mostly only ever hear people bitch about lack of flash from those that hate Apple, and not actual Apple customers. You know why? Because the Internet has moved on to H.264, and serves videos up using HTML5 for iOS devices, and Flash for everyone else.
In fact, it gets even better. On Android, Flash is available, but largely unusable. So whereas iOS users get a perfectly smooth H.264 video, Flash users on Android are served the same H.264 video via Flash, which stutters, drains the battery, crashes the browser, and severely degrades the responsiveness of the system.
Scary that got modded "Informative" rather than "Funny"
This is what a touch interface with feedback is meant for...
Apple does not "block" porn, they just refuse publishing porn themselves. Sure, there is that tiny deal about them not supporting any other distribution methods, but thats a different matter. Truth be told: I would not install a pornographic application on my iPad or iPhone if you put a gun on a kitten's head (if it was my head I'd install and delete it once the gun wielder was arrested.)
The web provides all the porn I could need, and it displays magnificently in the iPad, touch screens are easier to clean than the mouse or the keyboard too!!
No it's not a different matter and not a tiny deal. By not allowing any other official/supported means of installing applications then decided for themselves what content is and is not appropriate they are indeed for all intents and purposes blocking said content.
The idea that it's not "safe" to develop for iOS is absurd.
Except that you're wrong, it isn't safe long term. Apple is the final arbiter of what gets published. If by some whim or caprice they decide your apps don't meet whatever moral code they decide to follow they can and will pull it. That puts a small development business at risk, which is the definition of not being safe to do business with them.
forgive me for pointing this out, but along with the other apple fanboys that show up here, you always seem defend apple and their behavior.
does this not invalidate your opinion on any matter concerned with apple and suggest that you are a worthless and tiresome individual...?
They know their target audience has no interest in seeing naked women.
They know their target audience gets easy access to the real thing. :P
so.... their target market is women who own mirrors?
Have you not been to a bar/club recently?
Take a look at random. I guarantee that you'll see Saint Jobs creations in more than a few female hands. They seem to be even more obsessed with Apple than male Apple "geeks."
node 3, tharsman & stewbacca are the saddest apple trolls on slashdot. please don't feed them by replying to any of their comments.
they take turns to mod each other up, but if ignored by everyone else they will stop spamming slashdot with their comments.
Playstation: "It only does everything"
Xbox360: "The Xbox is beyond being a gaming console. It is the central hub for any entertainment in your living room" (Marketing blurb regarding Hulu and other services).
If they would just tweak their content a tiny bit - you know, ditch the hot chicks and just show fugly drag queens blowing each other in the Castro district - then Apple would welcome them with open arms.
I was so looking forward to the multitouch centerfold.
Now? I guess it's just back to having sex, I guess.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Most people don't criticize MS for their stance for a number of reasons, first off the Xbox live marketplace is pretty open and the other fact is that it is their services you are accessing and it is their right to choose to allow you on there or not.
This one line destroys the entire argument and declares it all a double standard.
Note: I am OK with some one bringing forward a good argument, but that argument must not make excuses for others that do the same. The App Store is not that closed, nor is the XBox Live store that open. Try to make a pornographic game and get it into the XBox live market. Try to make a movie streaming app and put it there, and don't say "the machine is for games" because many households use it quite often only for movie streaming through Netflix.
Apple has some rules of what will not be allowed into the app store, yes. Just as Microsoft does for the XBox marketplace, and neither allows you to download software from other sources. You either are against both, at the same level, in favor of both, or simply holding a personal grudge against Apple in question. The last one would not fade away even if they made the thing wide open.
Don't want to make this too long, but one final note: Apple does not advertise the iPad as a laptop replacement that will do anything anyone would ever want to do in a laptop. It is marketed as something that will do anything most people DO with a laptop. Heck, as a programmer, I have found my laptop never gets used anymore. All the things that you could imagine I'd be able to do in a laptop beyond what the iPad can do, I still disliked to do there and would do in my desktop. But that's just me. Truth is the iPad CAN replace a laptop for many home users that just open their laptops to browse the web, look at facebook and read email. Oh and one last thing:
And "a few groups" working on jailbreaks? The Wii has a thriving homebrew scene with many, many applications and creative programs.
Yes, a few groups working on jailbreaks. Working on jailbreaks means working on jailbreaks. Working on homebrew is working on homebrew. See the difference, and perhaps now see why my use of the word "few"? On that note, the iPhone has also "a few" jail-breaking groups and a bucket-load of people selling and distributing their products through Cyidia, Rock and others.
BTW, I'm disappointed at not seeing that list of remote app kills and apps that apple only allow certain users to install and refuse to others.
If it contains anyone doing anything where the objective is to focus on their looks.
You Apple haters are certainly a sorry lot.
Tell me, do you have an actual erection while you're spewing your vitriol, or does that wait until later while you replay it in your mind?
Since you can jailbreak easily, your argument is only valid in a fantasy land where your conditions are actually true.
Who needs an app for that? Just put the mags up on the website. Let people download the images or pdfs. Everything works fine.
The topic here concerns Playboy, pornography, and Apple. How is it you /.ers shut down a conversation: call something off-topic?
For being a discussion board where ostensibly technical-minded people talk in detail about technical things, some of you sure exhibit horrible logic getting lost in red herrings and side issues. For example, you're actually trying to respond to non-freedom from Apple by pointing out that Google's non-freedom also exists. Well guess what: yes, non-freedom from one proprietor doesn't become better or worse because some other proprietor does the same thing.
Another pair of overly highly moderated posts (1, 2) try to derail us into thinking about Apple's use of their metaphorical Sword of Damocles, suggesting that if Apple hasn't used their power we ought not consider that power so seriously (and certainly not to Apple's benefit): that's irrelevant and a bad way to look at non-freedom. The power which prevents you from fully controlling a computer you own doesn't become more acceptable because the proprietor hasn't yet seen fit to exercise their power on someone's device. It's not good strategy to enter a situation you know can become bad and then hope things won't become bad. You'll end up with a bigger mess to clean up afterwards. Much wiser to avoid foreseeable bad situations from the start.
I've already responded (prebuttal?) to the equally ridiculous objection that Apple's power is just, right, and proper because it will be used to excise "malware". Nobody knows what Apple's power will be used to do until they no longer have that power but those uses and rationale are irrelevant so long as they are proprietary and irrevocable, because the stronger objection is whether anyone but the device's owner should have that control at all. Let users choose if they want someone to help them excise malware, and let users choose from multiple options ad-hoc whom to trust with that power. Apple can be one of many providers of said service competing for users' attention and business. Or users can set up their own malware removal service and come to trust each other, or trust nobody but themselves. But the current situation is monopolistic control. Monopoly is what proprietors always offer and Apple no doubt benefits from the paternalistic view that their monopoly is merely looking out for users.
Finally there is a post and some followups which get lost in the red herring of how the device is advertised, as if advertised intent is justification to curtail a user's freedom; so if the device were said to be a proprietary control-hording overreach that would make it okay to behave that way (as proprietors always behave): no, freedom is not some trifling. Software freedom is critical for society to function well for its citizens, and we need to consider our need for software freedom and complete control of our own computers as the limits of acceptable action for those with whom we would do business. I don't care what a device is intended to perform, users should be able to control their devices to play games on book readers, read books on console machines, and so on.
Digital Citizen
With the potential of the iPad... I mean, you can hold it with one hand!
Perhaps if you spent more time reading the posts rather than admiring your own, you would see that the parent was responding to the parent above that.
And how many apps have been outright banned? And of those, how many weren't clearly treading if not outright crossing the line?
You are acting like Apple just randomly and whimsically bans apps with no rhyme or reason.
The claim that it's not safe to to business on Apple's App Store is proved false millions of times per day. The actual risk, which is infinitesimal, and the risk that exists in your mind, are severly out of sync.
In other words, people who defend Apple must, by definition, not be listened to? How does that make any sense?
The view of Apple around here is delusional. I'm just bringing reality into the picture.
There's a legal difference between distributing apps from an apps store and conventional local software downloaded from some other place. The app store becomes the *distributor* of many thousands of apps and as such will want the ability to kill a bad or potentially damaging app after it goes live. It is risk management.
...Apple should allow them to get at it via a native app instead of suffering a potentially buggier, less secure browser-based experience.
This is so terribly wrong headed.
You are correct, for the 5% of users who even know what jailbreaking is, let alone are willing to do it. There is no convincing Apple apologists though. I hope the Koolaid is tasty!
Don't get me wrong; I love my Mac, but I will never own an iOS device so long as they are so restrictive. Sure I can jailbreak, but why bother? There are plenty of perfectly good options for devices that perform the same functions so I vote with my wallet.
I think you're proving my point rather than disproving it...
To hell with Playboy. Bring back the complete archives of Omni Magazine as an app: I'd pay for that, as would many others, and it would be a lot more entertaining than historical smut.
Sorry to say that your reality may be subject to a distortion field...
I'll argue against equivocating mobile phones, iPhone or otherwise, to console games for the sake of playing devil's advocate. A reason some people might complain about Apple and Motorola blocking apps or preventing certain uses and not Microsoft or Sony might be that video game consoles are an establishment technology, something that a few generations have grown up with. As such, there's been an acceptance of the fact that a game console, whilst being a computer, is locked down and simplified versus a personal computer. Smartphones are still very new, having evolved from the PDA. The PDA did not have an app store, but instead followed the PC tradition of the user searching for the software he wants to run, acquiring it, and then installing it on his device. As a developer, you could acquire your platform SDK easily, develop your own app, and release it without seeking permission, and without worry that the platform's owner would somehow intervene. Today's Android and iOS based devices break that tradition in favor of an iTunes-like model that is still relatively new. Furthermore, when one sees an Android or iPhone, it's easy to relate that device directly to their home computer, so it may be natural for the user to mistakingly assume that he possesses all the privileges and powers on that environment as he would on a home computer. Whereas, video game consoles are still largely viewed as appliances, smartphones are perhaps imagined as replacements for netbooks, laptops, PDAs, and a number of other computing devices we might keep around for limited uses.