
No Sex Please, We’re Apple: iPhone Giant Seeks TV Success on Its Own Terms - smacktoward
https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-sex-please-were-apple-iphone-giant-seeks-tv-success-on-its-own-terms-1537588880
======
Nasrudith
This sounds like a case of Apple not learning from their own history.
Previously their management actively discouraging gaming for a while because
they wanted to be business machines and they worried computers were already
too whimsical. It isn't an end-all as a niche but the forfeiture is pointless
- especially since endearing itself to a young niche as a brand can pay
premiums. They wound up left behind anyway since they aren't their customer
base anyway and prefer others. IBM got the business market largely. Meanwhile
Apple's target while pretty broad certainly doesn't seem concentrated on
prudes and stodgy sort but the trendy if anything.

I know that slogans tend to be pretty vapid and poorly followed at best but
the irony of 'think different' and that sort of mindless conformism to
outdated norms is staggering.

------
reaperducer
I’m OK with this.

The market is already saturated with entertainment that is little more than
shock value. There’s a reason that channels like GSN, RFD, MeTV, etc... have
growing audiences. As some point people want their entertainment to be
entertaining, not a stream of sensory overload.

If Apple goes all-in in this programming strategy, we’ll have a better idea
how popular this sort of thing really is.

~~~
belorn
There are two paths to reduced how much shock value and sensory overload there
is. Either culturally we can change and view sex and nudity as less shocking
and simply part of life, or we reinforce old values by making it more taboo.

I would prefer entertainment to be more entertaining by simply viewing sex and
nudity as less shocking.

~~~
DoreenMichele
The way to make a body part sexy is to cover it and keep it covered. Letting
it all hang out, all the time actually reduces sexiness.

There are huge social, psychological and emotional components to human
sexuality. The physical aspects are just one piece of the equation.

There are consequences to making it all too prosaic to have everything on
display and they aren't all positive by any stretch of the imagination.

~~~
krageon
You're presenting this as a set of hard facts, where in reality you are just
telling us about your subjective view of sexuality. That's natural, but
perhaps there is a more neutral way to word your stance if that's the case.

~~~
DoreenMichele
That's not my _subjective_ view. It is historical and well documented fact
that cultures cover and keep covered body parts they deem sexual. There is
lots of literature on the subject, anywhere from articles noting that the
first pair of shorts in spring is a big deal, but by the end of summer people
are inured to it, to testimony from people who participate in nudist colonies
that people walking around nude all the time takes the sex out of nudity.

I have spoken to someone who went to nudist colonies. He told me outsiders
always imagine it's all sex, all the time but it absolutely is the opposite of
that. Most people aren't especially sexy when running around naked to begin
with and when you normalize nudity, it further reduces the sexual element.

Just because you aren't familiar with the literature doesn't mean I'm making
stuff up here.

------
PhantomGremlin
Here's the subhead from the article: _The tech giant wants to make scripted
shows for streaming, only without violence, politics and risqué story lines_

That already exists. It's called the Hallmark Channel.

My wife likes to watch. I also occasionally watch. At Hallmark the movies are
invariably rated G and often end with the romantic leads having their first
kiss (after about three interrupted attempts earlier in the movie).

I wish that, in at least some subset of the Hallmark movies, the romantic lead
characters would "bang it out" at some point in the film. But that never
happens. Nor have I ever seen a Hallmark movie with black lead characters.
Haven't seen any gay lead characters either.

Hallmark is enjoyable. But it's a niche. Apple couldn't make enough money to
move the needle by pursuing a niche like that. And how much edgier could they
get if they're so worried about their brand?

Disney used to use the Touchstone Pictures distribution label for their edgier
content. But that now seems to have faded out. Maybe the simplest answer is
for Apple to use a different label for the risqué stuff?

~~~
akvadrako
There are more alternatives to "violence, politics and risque" than Hallmark.
For instance Apple wants to produce a Foundation series based off Isaac
Asimov's work.

Even Morman TV, which is similarly prudish, has the freedom to create exciting
stories, like _Extinct_.

~~~
w0utert
I think his point was that apple would invariably end up serving a niche
audience. Referring to two other examples of niche programming only reinforces
that assertion.

Sure you could fill a whole service with programs for a wide variety of niche
audiences, but I don’t think it would be very profitable as none of the
individual shows will ever attract the kind of audience a show that is not
constrained by these kinds of broad-stroke programming choices could attract.

~~~
akvadrako
His point clearly wasn't just "it's targeting niches" but "it's a niche like
Hallmark". You however might have a point, but as long as it's sometime I'm
into, great.

------
Bucephalus355
Really wanted to watch the show Billions, but the opening scene is literally
main character’s ( Paul Giamatti) wife peeing on him right after she burns out
a cigarette on him during a severe BDSM session.

What.

~~~
moetech
It's dumb and it's there to pander to an edgy audience, but it really
shouldn't be a problem. Why does that scene bother you? Isn't it just because
that stuff is taboo?

~~~
badrabbit
People watch shows for enjoyment. Most people don't enjoy watching a person
urninate on another person.

~~~
mirko22
Most people don’t change their gender yet we are told that’s perfectly
acceptable?

So if some of us like watching people peeing on each other should we all be
sent to Gulags?

At which point is the line drawn?

------
newshorts
I’m good with it.

In comedy toilet humor is easy.

In Movies, it seems shock value is the equivalent. It’s much harder to tell a
great story.

There are many popular titles that don’t include shocking levels of violence
or sex. Just take a look at Star Wars or lord of the rings

~~~
hrktb
Sex is not just shock value though, the same as toilet humour is not just poop
jokes.

Here it seems it goes beyond and Apple doesn’t want disturbing content. For
instance in these terms I’d expect a blackmirror style social ranking
commentary to be refused if it hit too close to home.

Or to get back to sex, LGBT subjects including suicide, depression, domestic
violence or realistic bullying would also be out.

Apple is a small player in entertainment industries, so I don’t care what they
value, but I hope every producing company doen’t do the same.

~~~
k__
lol, for people from the US it probably is the definition of shock value

------
newscracker
As a new entrant in this space, I don’t see an issue with Apple being cautious
and sticking to non-controversial content.

But there are several ways to tastefully include sex and nudity to add to the
artistic value of the work without compromising its brand. The same goes with
violence, drugs, politics, etc. The English speaking world may be fine with
this. But this decision could possibly end up being an impediment to getting
more creators and in turn making more money if Apple wants to get into local
content beyond English and beyond that world.

Different people in cultures may have slightly different views on the well
known characterization of porn as “I know it when I see it” (by Alan
Novak/Justice Potter Stewart), but what matters more is whether the content
fits the context (or sets the context) and is useful to carry the story along.
Even people who are more conservative in their views of sex and nudity can
distinctly evaluate/classify pornographic movies from non-pornographic movies.

~~~
ummonk
Alternatively, Apple could succeed in places that tend to be less enthusiastic
risqué content than even the US (e.g. China is one of Apple's biggest
markets).

------
gordon_freeman
Would not Apple miss out on hugely popular shows like Game of Thrones or
Breaking Bad if it starts filtering out shows that have violence or sex from
its original programming? Apple can be successful but it won;t be hugely
successful with this strategy like HBO or Netflix in my opinion.

~~~
Krakadero
Disney seems to be doing fine though.

~~~
gordon_freeman
Even Disney has Marvel with R-rated movies like Deadpool franchise etc.

~~~
chungy
Deadpool is part of the X-Men franchise that 20th Century Fox has movie rights
to produce. They put the MARVEL logo and appropriate Disney credit in the
credits, but that's as far as it goes... it isn't produced by Disney.

~~~
scarface74
Not yet.

Disney isn’t going to drop their adult content when the Fox acquisition is
complete.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/D2MSl](http://archive.is/D2MSl)

------
village-idiot
I understand that this is largely a marketing strategy, and I'm fine with
that.

What's always kind of hilarious is when their "no porn" strategy, again a
marketing choice, is portrayed by third parties as a moral issue for Apple. I
mean, if Apple actually actually cared about adult content in general, they
would remove browsers from all their content, lest their users be exposed to
an infinite torrent of smut and filth.

~~~
drb91
> I mean, if Apple actually actually cared about adult content in general,
> they would remove browsers from all their content, lest their users be
> exposed to an infinite torrent of smut and filth.

You say this like it’s possible. If it were, I’d bet it would ship by default
in browsers.

In any case, the fact that they have a stake in content at all is a moral
choice. They could allow users to install apps through any other way than
Apple, but they don’t.

~~~
daveFNbuck
They could pretty easily block the 100 most popular porn sites in Safari if
they cared to. This wouldn't be 100% effective, but it would do something if
that were their goal.

Restricting people to the app store where they get a cut of all sales is a
business choice, not a moral one. They get more money when you can only buy
stuff in the way that gives them money.

~~~
alsetmusic
Let’s get this said early in the conversation.

Apple isn’t interested in restricting your access. They’re interested in brand
association. Nobody conflates Apple’s Sari browser with adult content.

This is about Apple producing or licensing content. They don’t want their
name, logo, or brand associated with certain content. It will limit their
ability to ship content like Game of Thrones, but it’s not about blocking
content produced by third parties.

~~~
Mindwipe
Yes it is. Apple block stacks of content on iOS, and heavily restrict any
mechanisms for people to access them otherwise.

Social networking sites for BDSM sexual minorities are banned from the app
store. Sites like Comixology frequently delist books from their app because
they're terrified of Apple's arbitrary and capricious censorship deleting them
off the platform entirely, despite the fact they don't even accept payments
via any Apple systems. They block sexual health education apps.

Apple is _very_ interested in restricting people's access to sexual content
and to sexual minorities that Tim Cook isn't a member of.

~~~
alsetmusic
That’s a brand issue again. The App Store is hosted by Apple. They choose not
to host certain content. That’s not the same as restricting access. You can
fire up any number of BDSM sites in your browser.

~~~
drb91
Last i checked my phone was more than a browser. They’re restricting access to
app installation.

------
GeekyBear
It's interesting that Apple does already sell music with explicit lyrics and R
rated movies as well as television content like Game of Thrones and video
games with violent content (all labeled with appropriate ratings so parents
can use the provided parental controls to exclude them on children's devices).

One wonders why it wouldn't be good enough to give explicit apps an accurate
rating and go on about your business, given what they already sell.

My guess is that this case was more about being wary of what sort of content
they produce in house than what they sell.

