MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

We will not distribute apps that contain pornography

Whoops, how long until they pull Safari?

Jun 26, 09 - 12:21 pm Comment from: Steve516

You're obviously a genius....

How can they? Every time something controversial appears, they either have to pull it or put it back. The scrutiny is ridiculous- the tech media is non-existant unless they write about Apple. You don't see them poring over Microsoft or Dell with a magnifying glass.

I'm sure if they looked hard enough, they'd find Ballmer had health issues- probably lactose intolerance at the very least.

No matter how you slice it, it's still free publicity (though it was overshadowed by Farrah and Michael.)

The bottom line is that the app wasn't all that creative. At least be original like the I Am Rich app. Or make an animated strip bar game like GTA or something. If Apple had let it stay you'll see the App Store flooded with poor scroller crap like that.

I think Apple's stance has more to do with design and artistic quality. Like the mantra in business don't associate yourself with losers. It's more about what Apple wants the apps to represent about the iPhone as its style than anything moral or political.

Then also Apple is known to study a market for a long time and perfect its own product before coming to a decisive take. They're probably studying whether to break out a whole new Adult only category besides Entertainment in the App Store.

Jun 26, 09 - 12:46 pm Comment from: The Other Steve

I still don't understand what this app did that a web app couldn't accomplish?
Other than it was an app in the Apple store that got pulled and it is now getting a ton or press . . .

Oh never mind.

Good call Apple!

It's now clear that the parental controls were put in place for violent video games. Glorifying extreme violence in society is A-OK but heaven forbid we see some titties.

That's what happens when you have a single outlet for applications. Apple and the carriers are in complete control over what we can and cannot have. The industry should tighten up the definition of a smartphone and exclude the iPhone because it's barely a step above one of Verizon's LG touchscreen dumbphones (which are now being advertised as having "apps").

Jun 26, 09 - 12:53 pm Comment from: HMCIV

Well crap. There goes my plan to offer a turn by turn direction service that auto-updates Boston with tasteful shots of John Kerry topless.

(Shake the phone to watch him windsurf!)

Apple, what should I watch on my Mac tonight?

Jun 26, 09 - 12:57 pm Comment from: The Other Steve

Yes I can understand that many of you are complaining that Apple is limiting choice.

On the other hand, I can let my kids on the app store without worrying about what they are looking at. Lets face it, most people don't know or understand about the rating system.

I hate it when I agree with the right!

Jun 26, 09 - 12:58 pm Comment from: HazMatt

Rattymouse, what are you doing here? This isn't a Psystar thread.

"The bottom line is that the app wasn't all that creative"

Oh really? It wasn't creative like the 200 fart apps that Apple allowed into the store? How about the beer apps or the other 40,000 shitty apps that aren't worth downloading?

No, the bottom line is that Apple banned the app for containing nudity and, even with the new parental controls in place, they won't allow any application with it. Don't come peddling your excuses. The bottom line is that the iPhone is locked down like a prison cell block.

Jun 26, 09 - 01:04 pm Comment from: SKY LARK

Rattymouse = Flimflam doofus.

R2 = Long time try-hard drongo.

clearly someone high-up approved 17+ content, then steve-o found out and a veto was issued.

doh!

Shhh.

Dont' tell apple, but you can have a lesbian relation ship on Sims 3. Wait, they are all for Gay stuff .ok cool. but isn't it subjective material?

Apple never approved the nudity. It was originally an app for pictures of scantily clad hot babes, no nudes. The pictures were accessed online via the developer's servers. Once the parental controls were put in place with iPhone 3.0, the dev thought it would be alright to add nude pics that could be seen through the app (and even they were pretty tame). Apple found out and removed the app.

Jun 26, 09 - 01:35 pm Comment from: Cascadians

I applaud Apple for having moral standards. We need more companies and individuals who uphold morals.

@R2
You can say the same about the FCC and NFL when they condemn Janet Jackson for the non-nudity. It's OK to let little kids watch erectile disfunction commercials and grown men purposely trying to hurt each other but NO not the thought of toplessness. That's the society, not Apple.

At least the fart apps and beer app used and demonstrated the unique capability of the phone. What is the point of a similar fart or beer web page? But the ability to secretly command fart noises in a boring meeting - THAT is funny and priceless. The nudity app might get you fired or sued for sexual harassment if you pull it out at work by accident.

Jun 26, 09 - 02:08 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

@ RP3,

"Apple, what should I watch on my Mac tonight?"

Well, if you've got one of those damn glossy screens you'll be watching yourself.

(just thought I'd beat the whackos to it)

Maybe this is just a bizarre PR scheme, along the lines of "any press is good press"?

Every week there seems to be a new story about Apple rejecting or permitting some app that either should or should not be allowed. These stories totally overwhelm any hits for other app stores.

Yeah, and then all those holier-than-thou Apple employees and board members go home and have sex with their husbands and wives and boyfriends and girlfriends, while the iPod/Touch/iPhone users have sex with their significant others... What's the point of having parental controls on the various devices if there's nothing to control? I don't understand this American puritanical mentality (and I'm American).

Bug given people's love of porn, other companies will develop applications that can be used on the devices.

What's the problem?
iPhone has an excellent browser, use it, there are a lot of sites out there!

Note to self: request Private Browsing feature

Jun 26, 09 - 02:34 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

@ Mark,

"Yeah, and then all those holier-than-thou Apple employees and board members go home and have sex with their husbands and wives and boyfriends and girlfriends ..."

Yes, but they do it fully clothed.

Jun 26, 09 - 02:35 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

I think this whole episode would make a good plot for South Park.

I'm shocked no one else has mentioned this...

How long until Apple pulls "Titanic", and ohhh, several hundred other movies from the iTunes Store (many of which contain far more and more explicit material than simply naked women)?

Yeah... not gonna happen. I understand this is a difficult issue to navigate, but Apple has some serious thinking to do on the matter.

Okay, frigtards, re-read the article. Those of you critical of Apple for this move (including some pundits I'm about to go bitch-slap) need to understand the what and why of Apple's statement above. Obviously, developers sign agreements with Apple that what they submit to the App store is on the level. That the developer of this app tried to go around Apple by automatically downloading pornography from their server after the app was purchased is a breach of contract by attempting to circumvent the terms of the contractual agreement. Definitely a sleazeball move by the developer of 'Hottest Girls'. This is a legal issue, not a moral issue as some of you would assume. End of story.

Meanwhile, drive-by journalists and pundits with an axe to grind are using this story to stick it to Apple. They're wrong. But by merely publishing, the damage has already been done. And they know this. Asshats.

@Rob: The whole world knows about Michael and Farrah. I'm guessing very few people know or care about this piece of news. The news isn't even on the same scale or importance.

So what again is pornography? I guess the Apple head honchos KNOW it when THEY see it.

Jun 26, 09 - 03:07 pm Comment from: BC Kelly

Some of you out there may know more about this than me, so please chime in ...

The early Web growth was fueled by porn, a LOT of porn that made a LOT of profit

-----------------------------------------------

A quick Google found this via PBS ...


"Wall Street Meets Pornography"

"The General Motors Corporation, the world's largest company, now sells more graphic sex films every year than does Larry Flynt, owner of the Hustler empire," reports Timothy Egan in this October 2000 report in The New York Times. Egan dissects some of Wall Street's under-reported ties to the adult industry.
(New York Times, Oct. 23, 2000)

---------------------------------------------

And also an interesting connection with ATT as described on this page

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/interviews/mcalpine.html


"How much money is AT&T;Broadband making from adult entertainment?"

"Probably a significant amount. They've got, give or take, 10 million subscribers. If you assume that 10 percent of those subscribers, or a million of them, buy one movie a month, at let's say $10, which is a high-end price -- that's $10 million dollars. They're getting probably 80 percent to 90 percent of that ... the remainder going to the program supplier. So they're getting $8 million to $9 million, minimum. They may be getting twice that on a very good month. So they could get $15 million, $20 million a month. That adds up over the course of a year to a good-sized amount of money."

-------------------------------------------------

And were many other "reputable" companies also involved through shadow/front businesses - NewsCorp is one (Fox/Murdoch)

You can do your own research on all this, but confident you'll find that many Companies want profit at any "cost"



And while you're at it, read about the early Film Industry from 100 years ago

Those 5 cent nickelodeons weren't popular for their "art"

And the profits got Hollywood started


On and on ... guys like looking at naked women, always have, fairly simple fact

i.e. Greek statues of Venus


So this is nothing new, but ....

Let's all be happy Apple is not going down that path



BC

Jun 26, 09 - 03:18 pm Comment from: Gordon Horne

I disagree with this decision because of one unanswered question, "What is pornography?" Seriously. My job used to include enforcement of anti-pornography statutes and regulations and you would be amazed how undefined pornography is even in laws about pornography. Aside from wildly disparate lists of extremely specific acts, 'community standards' are referenced a lot. They are not defined, just referenced.

Community standards are difficult enough at the city level. They get more complicated at the state or provincial level. Extremely complicated at the national level. International? Forget it. The internet is a huge, incredibly diverse community. Apple is an international company. An appeal to a lowest common denominator is unworkable. The lowest common denominator is very, very low—prohibitions against the pictorial depiction of humans.

I oppose banning an app because it contains pornography because pornography is indefinable. You can write a million posts in response to this telling me what you think pornography is, but that is exactly what you will be doing. Telling me what you think pornography is. You won't agree with each other.
If Apple want to get more specific about what they won't allow (bare breasts, exposed genitals, actual or simulated intercourse) all power to them.

This decision does not effect your ability to put whatever pictures you want on your iPhone or iPod. Nor does it effect your ability to view whatever you want on the internet using your iPhone or iPod Touch. It only effects to ability of publishers to serve a certain, poorly defined class of pictures to your iPhone or iPod Touch via an AppStore app.

Apple does have a very strong case for revoking the approval they granted this app without referencing pornography. The developer submitted an app for approval, then changed the nature of the app after approval was granted. This app is all about content, so by serving different content from a website, the developer changed the nature of the app.

Well, I guess I'll have to go back to taking snapshots of nude hookers with my iPhone again... sheeesh...

Jun 26, 09 - 05:06 pm Comment from: LTD*

@ Smarmy

Problem solved.

Nudity does not equal Pornography.

I don't want Apple dictating what I can and cannot do on any device they sell me.

My iPhone no longer displays a photo of Michelangelo's "David", and "Dying Slave" sculptures, and his painting, "Fall and Expulsion of Adam and Eve".

Hmmmmm.....

Apple can do what it wants--its their product--if you porn addicts have to have your porn then go buy a fricking blackberry and stop whining every time you don't get your way WAHHHHHHHH
BTW thanks Apple, it's nice to know that at least one company in America can still make a good profit without having to sink into the gutter of porn

Like the judge once said "I may not be able to define porn, but I know it when I see it"

Good move Apple. Keep the store clean. Please.

Jun 27, 09 - 05:22 pm Comment from: iPol

Beware of the beginnings:
It starts with a confusion of nudity and pornography, it continues with censoring any pieces of art that show more than Janet Jackson did!
Where will censorship end ??
I never understood the embarrassment of an American lady with whom I visited the Louvre Museums in Paris - now I slowly understand that you have to be chauvinistic, hypocritical - or maybe just American to accept being blinded by human beauty.
Apple, please keep cool!

Good more for Apple. I can't believe how many people think the iPhone/iPod Touch is reduced to worthless if they can't have porn on it. Although, as has already been pointed out, this is not really an anti-sex campaign by Apple, as obviously they are not that kind of company -- which is obvious to anyone with a little sense and even a scant knowledge of Apple history.

Those of you who think that porn = "human beauty" do not understand *anything* about beauty or virtue.

Jun 28, 09 - 11:25 am Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

@ Military Police,

If "virtue" is of concern to you, then you should probably worry more about the decadent and immoral crap being disseminated through network and cable television and the movie industry.

Most people don't appear to think twice about allowing their children to spend a large part of their formative years viewing this garbage. Promiscuity, violence and disrespect are the new values promoted by these venues.

And with each succeeding generation we degenerate into a lower life form from which the greatest technologies envisioned wont help us one damn bit. If Apple really wanted to protect us from ourselves instead of protecting their own asses they would eliminate a lot of the videos that they rent and sell.

Jun 29, 09 - 08:50 am Comment from: NCIceman

Anyone else tired of the association that nudity = pornography?
Is there any proof that accidentally seeing a boobie warps children's minds? Why is it ok to see them several times a day the first year of your life and not again until your married? Boy, the hypocracy of the american puritan ethic never ceases to amaze me...