

Apple insult their customers, women, free speech - erlik
http://www.tech-no-media.com/2010/02/apple-insult-their-customers-women-free.html

======
tseabrooks
This is absurd. Apple isn't insulting anyone. what apple has done is what
apple should have done long ago. That is, they have made the app store more
usable by removing the thousands off "iBooble", "Bikini Girls", etc apps from
the store so that people who want to actually find apps for their phones don't
have to wade through as much trash. These apps were overwhelming the already
terrible app store so much that they often appeared 5+ times in the top 25.

~~~
sdurkin
Why not just have an "adult" section that doesn't show up on the Top 25, or
only shows up when you opt-in?

That seems to be a better solution than arbitrary censorship.

~~~
silencio
I agree, and I don't know why people don't see that Apple can totally have a
half-hidden Adult category that requires you to login with your Apple ID and
confirm your birth date before being able to view it in the dropdown list,
with no mention whatsoever of the existence of the category on the main app
store pages even if you're logged in.

I also don't know why people don't realize that Apple has parental controls
and ratings for apps already both in the store and on the devices. They can
piggyback on those to restrict adult apps even further.

Furthermore, the comment you replied to is mentioning a problem that is
rampant in the entire store, which prompted Apple to do things like banning
developers with thousands of near-identical apps (that I'm sure we can agree
is abuse) and creating another category for books (remember those idiots that
would upload 99 cent public domain ebooks?). Apple can improve the storefront
in general to make it more optimized for searching/viewing applications, not
music or movies.

Clearly these apps are popular and Apple needs to stop judging apps based on
content (only rating, not judging) and just screen for security/stability
purposes.

------
mattmaroon
People get so confused about freedom of speech in the US (and much of the free
world). The belief we hold sacred about government censorship does not apply
to private concerns. Apple has the absolute right to censor what occurs on
their platform, it's not intrusive on any human rights. In fact given that
they could be sued (justly or otherwise) for what goes on, they actually have
the responsibility to do so.

You can argue about whether it's intelligent or not for Apple to do this, but
it's certainly well within their rights.

------
sdurkin
The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit app is still live. Apparently, Apple's
determinination of obscenity is a function of your corporate clout.

------
nickpp
Ugh, you DO know the iPhone has a browser right? You do know what makes up 99%
of the web, right? Let the pr0n flow...

~~~
Mark_B
To quote a comment in the linked article that is in the same vein that stood
out for me: "if I want to be titillated by softcore crap, I know where to go
and it ain't the app store."

------
mojombo
Like every decision Apple makes, this has everything to do with business and
nothing to do with censorship or misogyny. Apple intends the iPhone/iPod/iPad
to be something that everyone on the planet owns. To do that, they think that
creating an app store that isn't riddled with pasties and swimsuit apps on
every Top 50 list will improve their chances of meeting that goal. It's the
same reason they review every app. It reduces the chance that the average user
will become frustrated with the apps they are downloading. Their market is NOT
just computer-savvy programmers like us, it's the entire planet's population.
If you keep that in mind, you'll start to see some logic in the decisions that
Apple makes. Those decisions aren't necessarily what you or I want, but they
do tend to be what will make the mobile experience the simplest, best, and
least offensive for the population at large.

~~~
silencio
> It reduces the chance that the average user will become frustrated with the
> apps they are downloading.

What, like non-adult apps are all examples of mindblowingly good developer
talent and design?

There are unbelievably awful apps on the store that got past the review
process (can you even call that a review process anymore? riddled with issues
and reviewers actually not opening apps...) that are crash happy, ugly as sin,
useless and more. Where's the problem with adult content that makes that more
likely to happen?

> Apple intends the iPhone/iPod/iPad to be something that everyone on the
> planet owns.

It's called ratings and parental controls. It's called Apple can redesign the
app store. It's called requiring an Apple ID with credit card and birth date
to see adult-rated apps in their own hidden category.

Apple already sells softcore porn/erotica in the form of many TV shows and
movies, and already sells explicit songs. People can still use browsers and
other apps to gain access to adult content. If people are happy enough with
parental controls/ratings for that, what's the deal with apps? Apple can fix
this on their end instead of removing all these apps.

> Like every decision Apple makes, this has everything to do with business

The business behind the top 10/25/50 list in any category is tantamount to a
lot of money.

> It's the same reason they review every app.

Too bad Apple suffers from indecisiveness and a lack of consistency. That's
the problem here. As I've mentioned many times on HN before, the bigger issue
is that Apple was okay enough with these to review and approve them and to
come up with ratings and controls for apps, but then on a whim decided to pull
them - and wasn't even consistent there. What's next? It's definitely their
marketplace and their device, but a growing number of developers will become
discontent, and Apple will suffer without them.

------
mseebach
This is exactly why I'm trying to steer free of anything tied to the Apple App
store (not that I have any particular use for sex-apps, but first they came
for ...).

But I have to protest to the headline: This has _nothing_ to do with free
speech.

You bought a piece of hardware tied to an editorial process that you don't
control. If that bothers you, learn from your mistake and move on. If it
doesn't, good for you, but don't complain once it does.

Tying this sort of luxury problem to something as serious as free speech is an
affront to those who live in fear for the live and livelihood of themselves
and their families because they dare to speak their mind.

------
sant0sk1
It's _their_ store for _their_ flagship product. They don't have to explain to
you if they want to take out the trash.

~~~
jasonlotito
That doesn't mean we can't question their practices and their choices.

~~~
GHFigs
We can also question the validity and reasoning of the criticism and hopefully
arrive at a better level of criticism. It does no good to simply say "I
disagree, therefore it is wrong."

In this case, the author has characterized Apple's operation of Apple's own
store as "almost Stalinian" and "completely unacceptable in a democratic
country" without any argument to support this. Pointing out that it is within
Apple's rights is a counter-argument to the argument that was actually made,
not merely a dismissal of it as inarguable.

~~~
jasonlotito
_sigh_ "They don't have to explain to you if they want to take out the trash."
That's the dismissal. The OP was dismissing the argument.

"Pointing out that it is within Apple's rights is a counter-argument to the
argument that was actually made, not merely a dismissal of it as inarguable."

This wasn't a point, and has no bearing on the arguments being presented.

~~~
GHFigs
What arguments are being presented? I quoted the article. You sighed. It's
unclear what you think is being argued by claiming nonsense like that Apple is
acting like Stalin.

~~~
jasonlotito
You're just purposely being dense now. If you aren't...

~~~
GHFigs
Forgive me if I do not divine any great insight from your use of ellipsis. I
honestly do not know what you're talking about, and your approach does not
clarify anything. It is obvious that you disagree with me, but it is not
obvious in what way and from what line of reasoning.

I quoted part of the article in which the author argues that what Apple has
done has no place in a democratic country. I do not understand how that is not
easily refuted by the fact that in this democratic country, Apple is well
within their rights to do what they have done. I see one of two possibilities:
1) I have misinterpreted the passages I have directly quoted. 2) I have failed
to detect the argument(s) you're referring to.

1) is plausible, but unlikely. 2) is plausible, but your response to my
question does not give me any reason to believe that is the case.

The conclusion I'm left with is the one I started with: that this article is
simply a poor piece of criticism.

------
yardie
I don't know why they changed the rules, I do have a feeling how it could have
happened though. They definitely could have gone about it another way. I
believe the problem comes from the fact that downloads can be restricted by
age and content, previews cannot. So if you've got a 5 year old who isn't
allowed to download adult apps if they go looking for a Wubble app, wobbling
bikinis might be one of the results shown. For some conservative parents this
can cause a problem.

For most programmers an extra line of SQL could have fixed this so I don't
know why apple is using this ass backwards approach.

------
tspiteri
Apple's actions are not about suppressing free speech, but about making sure
the app store keeps a certain standard. As an analogy, no one is stopping you
from going for a drink in any kind of pub/shop/restaurant, but some
establishments have stricter codes of conduct and you have to behave
appropriately if you choose to frequent them. I compare these app store rants
to someone ranting that they can't get drunk and noisy in a restaurant because
there's nothing wrong in getting drunk. Sure there's nothing wrong, but to do
so you go to an appropriate place.

~~~
dablya
I agree with it having nothing to do with free speech. However, your analogy
seems off. I can buy any other brand bottle of alcohol and drink it at home
and behave how I want to. Apple expects a strict code of conduct out of me
even at home. And in this case they seem to be changing the conduct they
allow.

It's definitely within their right, but surely we can complain about it.

~~~
GHFigs
In the analogy, Apple's store is the restaurant. Once you leave the restaurant
(the store), Apple's policies within the restaurant do not apply. Shedding the
analogy: They can't and don't do anything to stop you from viewing pornography
(or whatever) through channels other than the App Store.

~~~
dablya
But they do prevent me from installing iBoobies (or whatever they just removed
from the store) by other means right? Unless I jailbreak the phone (the
bottle), which I assume they don't encourage, they're controlling not just the
restaurant, but also how i consume the alcohol...

~~~
GHFigs
_phone (the bottle)_

In my analogy, the bottle would have been an application. The App Store (the
restaurant) contains applications (the alcohol), not the phone. The phone
would be, I suppose, the "world". After all, if you abandon that phone, the
rules of that world do not apply.

The analogy strains at this point anyway: In my jurisdiction, and most others
that I've lived, restaurants by law only sell alcohol in open containers,
which you can only consume on site. You can't take it home with you. I know
it's not the same everywhere, but it's hard to draw a consistent analogy when
the thing being analogized to doesn't behave the same way everywhere.

On the other hand, maybe that is apt.

------
AndrewO
Poppycock: when a company decides that it doesn't want to be seen as demeaning
to women by profitting off of the sale of pornography (a highly subjective
label, but one that they're going to take to safest, most conservative
definition of) by taking its percentage of the App Store sale price it's
absurd to say that they're being demeaning to women by _not_ taking profits
from pornography.

------
jsz0
_"Thankfully I puchased an Android powered HTC Magic"_

Bad choice. Google has the same policy on adult applications in the Android
Market. Not sure if they enforce it or not. They certainly do block some
applications such as wifi tethering apps. Android is not a good choice if you
want a fully open platform.

~~~
orangecat
The major difference is that Android allows installing applications from
anywhere, so you aren't limited by what Google approves.

------
GHFigs
How do you reconcile the supposed infantilizing and misogyny with your
decision to "just let my wife play with the iPod"?

~~~
joecode
Indeed... the article is so poorly written it looks more like satire.

Anyway, though it made sense to do something about the proliferation of these
apps, just removing all of them was a stupid move, for both developers and
users, given that there are obvious and easy technical solutions.

------
tstegart
Unconfirmed reports coming in indicate puppies, 7 -year-olds and the entire
state of Alabama were also insulted by Apple's latest moves.

