
Daring Fireball: Tits and Apps - mcav
http://daringfireball.net/2010/02/tits_and_apps
======
megaduck
Every time I read one of these stories, I think of Nintendo in the 1980s and
90s. Back then, Nintendo was the undisputed king of video games with an
install base of over 60 million NES consoles. They had a trusted brand, a
massive library of titles, and money coming in hand-over-fist. They even
managed to keep that success rolling, and the SNES was the top console through
the early 90s.

Developers _hated_ doing business with Nintendo. Nintendo put every game
through a rigorous review process, and stripped out anything that they found
objectionable. This castrated a lot of games like Mortal Kombat and Final
Fight, and ensured that some titles never came to market at all.

Nintendo also charged a licensing fee, and ensured that only licensed games
could be played. In order to distribute games, publishers had to buy the
cartridges from Nintendo at pretty hefty prices.

This system worked great until Sony came along, and told publishers that
they'd cut a better deal. Much more relaxed terms, and a far fewer
restrictions on content. Suddenly, developers migrated en masse to the
Playstation. Square became Sony-only. Capcom suddenly concentrated on
Playstation games like Metal Gear Solid. All of a sudden, all the big new
games were Playstation exclusives, and the only big games for N64 were
Nintendo's own first-party titles. At the time, it felt like a switch had been
flipped.

I feel a similar dynamic starting to play out with the App Store and Android.
History seldom repeats itself, but it tends to rhyme.

~~~
martythemaniak
Sadly, I've seen no developer-centric push from Google. The SDK and tooling
are excellent and the platform is very open, but the Android Marketplace
itself is crap. The app descriptions and screenshots are paltry, there are no
statics or metrics of any kind (other than total number of downloads and
users), payment is not available in most countries, in-app purchases are
nowhere on the roadmap and there isn't even a web-interface to the store!

For such an important piece of Android, the Marketplace is remarkably shitty.

~~~
jamesbritt
"For such an important piece of Android, the Marketplace is remarkably
shitty."

True, but OTOH, you don't need it. You can locate apps reviewed and
recommended on Web sites, and install using a qrcode.

I'd still like to see the marketplace improved. Given that there are few
restrictions on what gets in there, having some better search and filtering
tools would be a big win.

Maybe Google needs to buy a search company ...

~~~
glhaynes
Perhaps _(s)he_ \-- a commenter on Hacker News -- doesn't need it, but the
non-techy people that are driving the App Store's incredible sales LOVE having
all these apps in one place, no typing, just tap "buy".

------
tdm911
I had wondered if Apple had removed them simply because the apps were of such
low quality. This would explain why Playboy, Sport Illustrated etc are still
present.

The cheap 'boobs/babes/bikini' apps constantly filled many slots in the top
app lists, yet most seemed to be simply a collection of images and as such,
their ratings were very, very low. They seemed to have no real content that
wasn't freely available on the web.

Looking at the ones that were high in the top free app lists, they were simply
6-8 images of women in bikinis with ads attached.

~~~
jvdh
Did you even bother to read the linked article?

~~~
tdm911
Yes and then decided to give my take on it, much in the same way Gruber has
given his take on it.

Neither of us know for sure why Apple did what they did.

~~~
jvdh
It would have behooved you to say that you agreed with what John Gruber said,
instead of just paraphrasing what he said:

"I think what Apple was getting squeamish about wasn’t the sexy apps
themselves, but the cheesiness that the sexy apps (and their prominence in
best selling lists) was bestowing upon the general feel and vibe of the App
Store. One thing I wasn’t aware of before the recent crackdown was the degree
to which these apps were seeping into various non-entertainment categories.
E.g., like half the “new” apps in the “productivity” category featured imagery
of large-breasted bikini-clad women."

------
jrockway
Maybe someday I will understand why sexual content "sullies" a brand's
reputation. (Or rather why seeing 99% skin is fine and "family friendly", but
as soon as the other 1% comes out, it's suddenly dirty. Also, if sex isn't
"family friendly", where exactly did these families come from?)

Actually... I know I will probably never understand this.

~~~
jacoblyles
Just because social traditions are formed without conscious thought does not
mean that they are without reason.

There is a large population that believes it is healthy to practice some
restraint on the expression of human sexuality. They may not have a rational
argument for believing so, but witnessing the dissolution of the family in the
western world I wonder if traditional mores may be wiser than some of us
think.

Some people with children desire to encourage them to have some reservation in
their expression of sexuality, to resist the uninhibited style of our age.
They hope to at least raise children that refrain from surfing porn with a
handheld computer on a commuter train, fer chrissakes. And if Apple is willing
to cater to their sensibilities, they will continue to earn their customers'
money. It boils down to consumer preference and giving users what they want.

~~~
jrockway
_It boils down to consumer preference and giving users what they want._

No, this is not what not allowing an app to be sold is. This is Apple's
preference and not allowing users to get what they want.

Also, what's intrinsicialy wrong with someone looking at porn on the train?
What makes it more wrong than, say, reading the Bible?

~~~
jacoblyles
>"Also, what's intrinsicialy wrong with someone looking at porn on the train?
What makes it more wrong than, say, reading the Bible?"

You're missing the point in the most spectacular possible way.

------
MikeMacMan
Does John Gruber have any demonstrable evidence to back up his opinions? No,
they're rank speculation. They are, at best, educated guesses. I tire of this
kind of blogging. I'm not saying that Mr. Gruber isn't informed, or
intelligent, or perceptive. What I'm saying is that he's got nothing beyond
that, and that's not good enough for me.

~~~
mkramlich
A Tale of Two Cities, Les Miserables, To Kill a Mockingbird, Hamlet -- all
full of opinion and rank speculation. At best, educated guesses. :P

~~~
telemachos
I think your _reductio_ would work better if you used non-fiction: The
Republic, The Nicomachean Ethics, The Meditations on First Philosophy and
Leviathan are full of opinion and rank speculation. At best, educated guesses.

(At least then, the parallel is on-target.)

~~~
gjm11
And, in fairness, how much of what's in any of those would get much agreement
these days? The Republic advocates the abolition of families, a ban on poetry,
and a systematic campaign of deception on the part of the ruling classes. The
Meditations contain what despite stiff competition is still one of the worst
ever attempts to prove the existence of God, and the whole "assume nothing and
work up from first principles approach" is pretty much completely discredited.
Leviathan is a sustained argument for totalitarianism.

I suppose the Nicomachean Ethics might get a bit more love, though it's a lot
more self-centred than you might expect from the title. (Aristotle's basic
question is "how should one live so as to attain _eudaimonia_?", and that last
term means something much more like "happiness" or "well-being" than, say,
"virtue".)

Which isn't to say that those works aren't historically important, or
interesting, or produced by first-rate thinkers. But it does kinda suggest
that if what you're after is _truth_ , opinion and rank speculation aren't
very reliable ways to get that even when done by geniuses.

(Yes, "kinda suggest" rather than "prove" or anything similarly strong; it is
of course possible that we're all wrong nowadays and that, say, Descartes was
right. But it's not looking likely.)

------
aresant
start blah blah apple doesnt like their brand to be sullied by risque material
blah blah blah apple's walled-garden approach is dangerous for developers blah
blah end

Sorry, getting so bored with repetitive nature of all discussion around app
store. Apple is walled garden, will do what they want, allowed to do what they
want.

~~~
ugh
Not all walled gardens are created equal.

------
epochwolf
Not exactly a great move on apple's part but I can understand why. I'd imagine
quite a few parents would be upset to see adult content in the app store.

~~~
ugh
That’s what parental controls are for. Also: did you read the article?

~~~
ROFISH
[http://gizmodo.com/5480421/the-ipod-touch-is-this-
generation...](http://gizmodo.com/5480421/the-ipod-touch-is-this-generations-
tamagotchi)

Look at the numbers for the iPod Touch, almost _two thirds_ of all iPod Touch
owners are below 17. Given how many iPod Touches are out there, how many
parents know about Parental Controls and how parents give little Johnny an
iPod and never touch it after that and call Fox News when they find out about
these "sexy apps"?

At least in with this branding idea, the parents might blame the app maker
(SI, Playboy) instead of Apple because of the name recognition.

(That said, I'm all for removing this crap off the Top 25 lists.)

