“Apple recently began purging over 5000 ‘overtly sexual’ apps from the App Store after customer complaints caused Apple to reverse a policy that had allowed such apps to be approved. The New York Times recently asked Apple’s SVP of worldwide marketing, Phil Schiller, to explain the reasoning behind the decision, and he says that it’s all about the children. However, there might be a double standard if you are an ‘established brand’ such as Playboy or Sports Illustrated. The uneven application of constantly changing standards is a problem for developers and users alike, and continues to be a thorn in Apple’s side.”
Apple VP Attempts to Explain Double Standard for Risque Apps
About The Author
Follow me on Twitter @thomholwerda
2010-02-24 3:38 amtupp
Parents who won’t take responsibility for enabling such controls on their children’s iPhones could sue Apple if their innocent little darlings were exposed to something as shocking as a pair of boobs. Until we fix the problem of mindless litigation these things will continue to happen. Apple are (rightly from a business perspective) covering their butts here.
The crux of this thread involves Apple’s “double standard” on censoring the “sexual” apps — not the simple fact that Apple is censoring apps.
Apple is not “covering their butts” by allowing some sexual apps, and, surely, Apple is wrongly favoring the big companies.
I suppose that we all should want an even playing field when it comes to apps and content, who gets approved and who doesn’t. I few years back Ubuntu had some ‘tasful nudes’ in the default install. after a chunk of controversy these were removed, they mere moved to a different package. Now personally I feel like people should have the freedom of choice. But the reality of this is slightly more complex. Steve jobs is a Corporate face, and a father and he said that during the iPhone launch “No Pornography”. And as a father of a proud and strong daughter I suppose that I have a different point of view than I did when I was 20. And many people are going to say well Apple is some sort of hypocritical dictatorship because they do not want adult apps on the store. But is that really so bad?
Years ago I deleted all adult content and bookmarks from all my machines. I was raised better than that. That does not mean that I am some holy roller on a crusade, and I prolly going to take a little bit of flack on this, but I can think of no reason to re-admit some of these apps to the store. Does this mean that you can’t go to adult sites on your phone? Not at all. It just means that Apple Co. chooses not to take part in that.
P.S. I know that sports illustrated will come up but that is not adult content maybe immature content — Jus’ Sayin
2010-02-23 11:09 pmbannor99
Many of us, some of whom are also parents, don’t see a conflict with family values and appreciation of the nude form.
Sports Illustrated has been running pictorials with painted models for years – on most of them, you can clearly see their nipples as they are, after all, topless.
Isn’t that pornographic? Also, Playboy was also mentioned as being an exception – that is clearly pornography.
I don’t have a problem with parents who want to (over-)protect their children so long as they don’t infringe on what others decide to teach theirs.
Regrettably, there rarely seems to be any middle-ground.
I would remind those who wish to melt, burn and spray-paint everything they find objectionable that they cannot pass off their need or duty to watch over their kids by forcing the rest of us to bubble-wrap the planet.
2010-02-24 12:13 amkaelodest
Oh of course, and that is a personal responsibility. However Apple is a corporate entity. And there is the possibility that many of these ‘apps’ would not be welcome on the Corp. LAN.
AND I do not see that I am trying to overprotect my children but I might just point out that in the state that I live in you can get some pretty hardcore stuff at the “Other 7-11” (Rutter’s Farm Store) these are out on the floor next to regular magazines. This has already been decided in the court of public opinion, people know what they can read in public. (It is the same social rule that suggests that I might not want to play a Shooter-Game on the train especially without headphones) Given the choice I would like to see less violence and more love and responsible portrayal of human beauty.
Apple might have similar guidelines against Racist or Anti-Semitic, Hateful or Violent apps we could debate that. At the heart of this art is art. and porn is porn, and we as men (IDK the male v. female ratio on this site) Men can make the choice that porn is just as offensive as racism or violence.
I suppose I teach my children well, and I am not saying that I want this to be legislated. I do not want the world to be bubble wrapped or censored. But I do not see sexist/racist/violent/or anti-semitic apps on CNet or Download.com. I cannot go into best buy or any other real store and get these. I cannot go into a Mall and get sex toys and junk why should Apple.
Additionally I suppose there is a difference between a small developer and Playboy and that might be a point of debate, but publishing is big business.
2010-02-24 11:19 amSoulbender
It just means that Apple Co. chooses not to take part in that.
No, Apple chooses to take money from big, established adult entertainment like Playboy while pretending to give a shit by removing smaller players.
If you think this has anything to do with protecting the children you’re deluding yourself.
2010-02-24 11:32 amThom Holwerda
And even protecting children isn’t Apple’s job – it’s the parents’ job.
On top of that – seeing some delicious boob has never hurt anyone. Get over it already. Go get laid or something.
2010-02-24 4:55 pmWereCatf
On top of that – seeing some delicious boob has never hurt anyone.
Not quite true, I’m afraid. I just read a while ago about a female student who was urged by her friends to go stand on the side of a busy highway and take her shirt off. She caused atleast 2 cars to drive off the road and one person got somewhat badly injured. So yes, seeing delicious boobies can be bad for your health
Look, each one of us has our personal views on pornography, “risque content”, and all the other things that seems to get some of us in a huff (Disclaimer: Yes, I am a Christian).
Personally, I see nothing wrong with just having it there, as an opt-in thing, behind parental controls or something. All these points about “gosh, it might get on the corporate LAN”, or “oh noes! My kids might see it!” are moot if you have to expend effort to find it.
Look, if adults, or heck, teenagers really want to find naked pictures, it’s not that hard, seriously. Even before the internet, I’m sure it wasn’t that hard to find. It’s up to you as parents to teach them what’s right and what’s not.
And I’d have to say I don’t agree with the points raised by kaelodest. Look, you walk into a newsagency, and I’m pretty sure you can find adult magazines. Heck, walk into a bookstore, and if you know the right section, or how to ask the assistant, they’ll show them to you. So you’re point about walking into stores and not wanting it there is moot. It’s there, it’s just legislation probably prevents it from being right out there visible, which I think is a good thing.
It’s the same here – if people want it, let them have it, just don’t advertise it blantantly. Make it opt in or something. And the whole deal with Playboy/Sports Illustrated makes me think that this is more about money, than anything else. Forgive me, but I don’t think I’ll give Apple the benefit of the doubt here. They want to “present” a family-friendly image, or whatever it is they want, yet still reap in the money they’re undoubtedly getting from companies like Playboy and SI. Sorry, that’s just double-faced.
Their app policies have lead to the store being full of trash, and now they are having to arbitrarily clean it up. Expect more random dismissals. The fart apps will be next
The problem started with the lockin. Once you will only allow people to buy apps from your store, then you become responsible for what is in it. Then you are open to pressure to carry or not carry, which means in effect banning or not banning. Then you have a real problem. Some people like swimsuits, others don’t. You now are in a mess and cannot please everyone. So you adopt the values of Walt Disney and the Readers Digest 1955 vintage.
The whole idiotic situation comes about because of this desperate desire to control what on a moment’s reflection they should see they cannot hope to manage. The desires and interests and behaviour of millions or billions of independent people.
Its sick, but the sickness is in Cupertino.
How come if your an Established brand your suddenly not pornographic? Give me a break. Playboy? It should be all or none. I wish people would stop making a point about Apple owning the store as if there is a point in that. It is Apples choice to do what they want. I agree 100%. But it is just as much my choice to not agree with Apple and what I perceive as a double standard afforded to large companies such as Playboy etc.
Parental Controls could be used to block these types of apps, sadly we get back to the litigation argument. Parents who won’t take responsibility for enabling such controls on their children’s iPhones could sue Apple if their innocent little darlings were exposed to something as shocking as a pair of boobs.
Until we fix the problem of mindless litigation these things will continue to happen. Apple are (rightly from a business perspective) covering their butts here.