Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple May Loosen Restrictions With iPhone 3.0

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the minimallly-invasive dept.

Cellphones 178

mr100percent writes "Apple rejected the iPhone aggregator app Newspapers because of a topless photo in one of the app's subscribed-to papers. In the rejection message, Apple noted that Parental Controls have been announced for iPhone OS 3.0, adding that it 'would be appropriate to resubmit your application for review once this feature is available.' Rumor sites are speculating that Apple will relax their content restrictions once the 3.0 update puts parental controls in place. This may mean that apps like NIN will be allowed in the future."

cancel ×

178 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Democratize Censorship (1, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842213)

Ya, that makes sense.

Re:Democratize Censorship (5, Interesting)

Aurisor (932566) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842323)

Instructing a device I own not to display content that I find offensive is not censorship, by any stretch of the imagination. ...and considering that I am a long-haired, Bush-hating, free software-loving, paranoid Slashdot denizen, my definition of censorship is probably on the permissive side.

Re:Democratize Censorship (5, Insightful)

maharb (1534501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842567)

I know! Why does everyone have a problem with 'parental controls'. They allow people that want to use them to filter content and for those who don't care don't have to. I think it is quite useful actually. Without these controls you can't even do an image search for anything on Google without getting porn. So these content filtering features can even aid someone in finding useful information rather than just porn. (Even though we all know that is all the internet was made for.)

Or is it that people can't stand to have what they look at labeled as 'explicit' or 'mature'?

I am not sure but I just don't see how, as pointed out in the parent, allowing the USER to filter content doesn't anything other than help the user.

Re:Democratize Censorship (5, Informative)

KibibyteBrain (1455987) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842629)

I think the problem in this case is more of an objection to Apple censoring everyone's phone until they implement the parental controls being a valid stopgap measure.

Re:Democratize Censorship (3, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842689)

Two issues

1)Parental controls presume that there's an adult mode- a mode where the owner (or their parent) can choose not to be censored
2)There should be multiple groups doing the filtering, not just one. If one group makes all the decisions its ripe for abuse- it's too tempting to censor competitors, negative views of the company, or fold to interest groups. If multiple groups compete, you can choose one that does a good job of it without those worries, since at least 1 group is likely not to do so.

Neither is the case with Apple. That makes it a bad thing.

Re:Democratize Censorship (2, Informative)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842947)

How did this get a +5?
The ENTIRE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE is that apple is adding the ability to allow or disallow adult apps in 3.0. The same as you can currently do with itunes.

Re:Democratize Censorship (4, Insightful)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844077)

Okay, and THE ENTIRE POINT OF COMPLAINING is because every iPhone is currently a "child's phone" until Apple gets around to adding the self-censorship module.

I am way above 18 (2, Insightful)

jotaeleemeese (303437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843249)

Why do I need parental controls in any device of mine?

Parental controls just give lazy parents the feeling of doing something when in reality they are doing nothing about the education of their offspring.

I can decide myself if an application is tasteful or not and if I want it in any device of mine.

Which is why I don't have an iPhone, but all the rest of you that feel compelled to be treated like an audience of captive putative children, enjoy your poison (and to think people actually pay for the privilege ....).

Re:Democratize Censorship (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27843623)

I know! Why does everyone have a problem with 'parental controls'. They allow people that want to use them to filter content and for those who don't care don't have to

Because "parental control" is always about porn? It's never about filtering offensive material, if you want to do that, you'll have to make your own filter. Where is the parental control that allows me to filter Christian propaganda, politicians (aka. professional liars), the MAFIAA, Microsoft and Apple? Without blocking porn, of course. Porn doesn't hurt anyone.

(Yes, I do live in Europe).

Re:Democratize Censorship (1)

whhyohwhyslashdot (1546467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844093)

umm, no it is not. Have you even looked at Apples existing parental controls? you have complete control over what you want shown or not shown.

Re:Democratize Censorship (1, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844169)

I know! Why does everyone have a problem with 'parental controls'.

The "slippery slope" — first you make them live in the ghetto, then you send them to the camps, then you send them to the showers.

Re:Democratize Censorship (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843173)

Not censorship, I agree, but instructing a device I own not to display content that doesn't offend me is far from ideal.

Re:Democratize Censorship (1)

LucidBeast (601749) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842365)

Stop complaining corporates know what's best for you. Well not all, but Steve Jobs ran corporation does.

Re:Democratize Censorship (1)

ppanon (16583) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843141)

Stop complaining corporates know what's best for you. Well not all, but Steve Jobs ran [sic] corporation does.

Well, you appear to be speaking ironically. However Pixar's successful track record in making hugely popular family-friendly and adult-friendly movies indicates that (as far as judging the appeal and appropriateness of content goes) there's actually a good basis of truth in your statement, no matter how ironically it was intended.

The Holy Bible is pure (5, Insightful)

linhares (1241614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842441)

Dear puritanical Apple overlords,

I hereby submit my new app for app store approval. My app is aimed at teaching parts of the sacred bible to kid, most specifically Ezekiel 23:19-20.

19 Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose genitals were like those of donkeys, and whose emissions was like that of horses.

Since the app is aimed at little kids, it graphically depicts the holiness and splendid beauty of this biblical moment with the Egyptians' donkey-sizes penises as ejaculating like horses.

AMEN.

Re:The Holy Bible is pure (1)

Mr. Roadkill (731328) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842745)

Which translation is that from? I'm not disputing the content - on the contrary, I think we all know what they mean by "flesh" and "issue" in the more common translations - but I don't think I've seen it put quite so bluntly before. I can put a copy of that translation to *very* good use, making heads explode.

Re:The Holy Bible is pure (3, Informative)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842773)

That's the English Standard Version [esv.org] (ESV).

Re:The Holy Bible is pure (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842769)

That whole passage is... wow. O.o You don't hear that one read in church very often. I'll definitely remember that one for future encounters with religidroids.

Re:The Holy Bible is pure (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843009)

glad to be of service

Re:The Holy Bible is pure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27843961)

The Donkey Service?

Re:The Holy Bible is pure (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27843285)

A better one is Judges 1:19:

âoeSo the Lord was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.â

That one is always a riot when you suggest that gods power is easily thwarted by getting into your car. (Especially if it's a lincoln)

Re:The Holy Bible is pure (4, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842831)

That's nothing:

Exodus 12:29-30: And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

Let's not forget:

Isaiah 13:15-16: Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

And:

Samuel 15:2-3: Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

I would rather let my children read about Egyptians donkey penises than about mass murder of women and children being depicted as a good thing that god encourages and occasionally commits himself.

Re:The Holy Bible is pure (5, Insightful)

Kippesoep (712796) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843093)

I agree... It appears most Americans are more easily offended by even mild nudity than by horrible acts of violence. The Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" springs to mind. In this country such a thing would be pretty much completely ignored (maybe a small message on the third-to-last page of the papers). This behaviour has long puzzled me. We're all born naked. I can understand not wanting (ones kids to) see explicit porn, but nudity does not mean porn per se. I get the feeling Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" would be censored in the US. On the other hand it seems perfectly ok to show violence in cartoons and games to kids. The dichotomy is what's interesting. Maybe the whole 2nd amendment thing has something to do with it. Personally, I could care less about the effects of nudity and violence, but only if paid to do so. Well, actually, I prefer kids to grow up into people running around (semi-)naked than into people who think violence solves anything.

Re:The Holy Bible is pure (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843279)

I agree... It appears most Americans are more easily offended by even mild nudity than by horrible acts of violence.

The newspaper that Apple didn't like, The Sun [thesun.co.uk] , is the best selling newspaper in Britain, available from every corner shop and supermarket.

They have a special website [page3.com] for their page 3 content.

If you want more topless women in your newspaper, try the Daily Star [dailystar.co.uk] . If even that has too much writing, there's always the Sunday Sport [sundaysport.com] and Daily Sport [dailysport.co.uk] .

(Three of those websites are blocked as "Adult - Sexually Explicit" at my work, which should give you a clue.)

Re:The Holy Bible is pure (2, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844021)

My opinion is easily summed up by this quote:

If man were meant to be naked he would have been born that way.
-Oscar Wilde

Re:The Holy Bible is pure (1)

alienunknown (1279178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842835)

it graphically depicts the holiness and splendid beauty of this biblical moment with the Egyptians' donkey-sizes penises as ejaculating like horses.

AMEN.

Oh stop it, your turning me on.

Re:The Holy Bible is pure (1)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842867)

19 Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose genitals were like those of donkeys, and whose emissions was like that of horses.

In my version it says "whose heat was like that of horses", which makes far more sense to me. Not that I care how horny the ancient Egyptian porn-stars were.

Re:The Holy Bible is pure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27842913)

Whats wrong with the tities in the next passage ?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2023:19-21;&version=76;31;77;65;

I have a question about this passage (2, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843103)

Is there really that much difference between a horse and a donkey in this regard? I mean, why must the word of God clarify that they had donkey-size penises and ejaculated like horses? Do horses shoot significantly more (or less) "emission" than donkeys? Or are their genitals significantly larger or smaller? What if they had horse-size genitals and had emissions like donkeys -- would that make the girl in this passage more or less of a whore? It just seems like a strange detail to be hung up on, but if it's in the Bible, there must be a good reason for it.

Re:I have a question about this passage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27843119)

who are you to question the word of the lord?

Re:I have a question about this passage (5, Funny)

cgenman (325138) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843501)

If you lived in an agrarian society all of your life, these differences would be significant.

How about this revision:

19 Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose genitals were the size of Playstation 3s, and whose emissions burned with the fire of the Xbox 360.

Re:Democratize Censorship (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842447)

I wonder what their built-in web browser makes of that news site...

ALL TOP LESS WOMEN WELCOME (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27842231)

I definitely have to get me on of those fangled Apple phones now!

Right. (2, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842249)

I'll be over here using my blackberry to browse porn and run whatever the hell I want. Shame I can't make the copy/paste joke anymore though.

Re:Right. (2, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842363)

Yeah, the application approval process Apple is using is totally fucked up. They seem to have a group of people doing it, most of whom are reasonable, but there are a couple of them with suspenders attached to their thongs, rejecting apps for all kinds of stupid reasons.

But this whole 'objectionable content' thing is total crap, because the way Apple seems to be applying it, they should be rejecting all the 3rd party browsing applications (which just wrap WebKit in different ways), because they all permit viewing of porn (even the ones with so-called parental controls). Their rejection of a twitter app was particularly ludicrous. Apple rejected an update just because when the app was submitted, one of current Twitter TRENDS entries was 'FuckItList'.

Re:Right. (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842429)

Wouldn't this mean that if Apple's own browser had to apply to be on the iPhone, it would also be rejected?

Re:Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27842743)

Do you, sir, even understand what a black hole is!?!?

There's nothing preventing you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27842487)

from browsing porn using Safari.

Considering they don't have a parental control system in place yet, I'm not surprised they would start by rejecting explicit applications.

Re:There's nothing preventing you (1)

Ender_Wiggin (180793) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842515)

Under the Settings>General>Restrictions, you can disable Safari and Youtube entirely, as well as "explicit" iTunes tracks.

Re:There's nothing preventing you (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842703)

But it's not disabled by default. And even if it were: You can still enable it. Try that with rejected AppStore apps...

Re:There's nothing preventing you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27842799)

Your arguement has nothing in common with the GP. Besides, wait until Apple rolls out parental controls and then we'll see...

Re:Right. (1)

Kumiorava (95318) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842711)

I went to look for this porn from Blackberry appworld there isn't any! I feel cheated, where can I find porn apps for Blackberry? Remember that browsing the sites is already possible on Safari and zooming works much nicer than on Blackberry.

'Mature Content' Label? (5, Interesting)

jordan314 (1052648) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842255)

I wonder if this will mean apps like Newspapers will be labeled as "Mature Content" similar to CDs? It still seems absurd and hyper conservative that a newspaper application would have that label, but I guess it's better than the overt censorship that's going on now.

Re:'Mature Content' Label? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27842399)

Apparently according to TFA one of the UK tabloids posted topless photos, which in America would be "Mature content" and hidden in newsstands next to porn.

Re:'Mature Content' Label? (3, Interesting)

linhares (1241614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842473)

Apparently according to TFA one of the UK tabloids posted topless photos, which in America would be "Mature content" and hidden in newsstands next to porn.

Oh, America, land of the free puritans and perverts [economist.com] .

Re:'Mature Content' Label? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843691)

Yay, premium content. Guess who's not going to sign up for the Economist to read it? Anybody.

Got any links we don't have to pay to read? (Not that the site works without js anyway. Tards.)

Re:'Mature Content' Label? (4, Informative)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842759)

one of the UK tabloids posted topless photos

If by 'one of' you mean 'all of, every issue'. It's called Page 3 [wikipedia.org] and it's a national institution. The German papers [wikipedia.org] are worse.

Re:'Mature Content' Label? (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842983)

> If by 'one of' you mean 'all of, every issue'.

He certainly doesn't mean "all off" as it precludes the Mirror, Daily Mail, plus the Guardian and Independent if by tabloid you're referring to the size of the paper. There are a few other "papers" like the Daily Sport and the Star which have topless pictures but they're extremely low circulation (compared with The Sun which is usually the most popular paper).

From Wikipedia:

"The Sun and other British tabloids have also provoked controversy by featuring girls as young as 16 as topless models."

Amusing - I'm not aware of any controversy here. I think I must have skipped the papers that day.

Re:'Mature Content' Label? (2, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844141)

It's a controversy for us Americans.

We're prudes, and are sure you should be too.

Re:'Mature Content' Label? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27843029)

"It still seems absurd and hyper conservative that a newspaper application would have that label"

But why? Any newspaper that contained nudity would be considered Mature Content.

still fairly ridiculous (5, Insightful)

Aurisor (932566) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842307)

Even if those changes are forthcoming, it's still ridiculous that an expensive piece of technology used primarily by adults has such puritanical restrictions on it. I realize it does reflect poorly on Apple to have apps that are in very poor taste (e.g. the one where you shake the baby...), but it's pretty obvious that mainstream bands like NIN are an acceptable part of American culture.

I work in technology (but not a tech-only office) and this fiasco is definitely getting noticed and is clearly reflecting badly on Apple.

I'm not sure whether the concept of a parental-controls setting was the product of a deliberate leak to address this issue or if it was just part of the plan all along, but I seriously doubt that a significant portion of the iPhone userbase is comprised of children who might have not been given the phone if the app store weren't policed. It seems pretty clear to me that Apple is more than happy to piss off their users and snub even Trent (who is considered rather avant-garde in the music biz) if there's any risk to their image.

Re:still fairly ridiculous (3, Insightful)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842401)

The iPhone is a nice technology demonstrator, but it's things like this that make it useless. Complete control over content, no tethering, no background apps, no user space that mounts as a USB thumbdrive, severely restricted syncing options (you can only sync to one computer, so if you want to load some stuff from your laptop on to your iphone while on the road, you have to erase everything you put on it with your desktop, for example.) No apps allowed that 'duplicate existing functionality' on the iPhone - meaning you have to wait for apple to fix the ongoing bugs in the mail client and Safari - namely that the mail client doesn't properly download POP3 messages even when you ask it to ("0 bytes remaining" and never displays the message unless it connects to Wifi) and Safari still has that dumb bug where it re-loads pages when you switch between windows. Painful when you're not on 3G.

There's a lot you can do with a hacked phone, but then you're missing out on everything else. It's kind of a lose-lose situation. It works well within its very limited scope, and if you're happy with that scope, it's a great product. If you want it to be more useful, it's deeply frustrating.

Re:still fairly ridiculous (4, Insightful)

Ender_Wiggin (180793) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842425)

Usless to who? Most people, including my mother, don't need those for their iPhone. The average user does not have those complaints. My sister's biggest complaint with the iPhone is that you can't use the keyboard in landscape mode for texting the way other touchscreen phones can (and that's why she eagerly wants the 3.0 update)

Those features would all be nice, and I think 3.0 will fix many of those complaints like tethering and background notifications.

Re:still fairly ridiculous (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843949)

Those features would all be nice, and I think 3.0 will fix many of those complaints

No it won't. And if the average user does not care either way, it makes more sense to give the sophisticated user the ability to run the applications of their choice, since the naive user won't be bothered to, if they actually cared about serving the customer's needs. But they don't. They serve Apple's needs, not the user, and not the developer.

It's called expectation management. If people don't know what is actually possible, they'll never ask for it. You are being controlled by Apple, and you are so whipped you're liking it.

Re:still fairly ridiculous (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844127)

Usless to who? Most people, including my mother, don't need those for their iPhone. The average user does not have those complaints.

Most people don't complain about censorship either, yet it still affects their lives negatively because they don't even know what they're missing.

I wouldn't compare this to actual censorship; Apple is not the only smartphone manufacturer. It's still lame, and yes, one more reason not to buy an iPhone. Who knows what other fantastic applications will never exist because of the chilling effects of Apple's iron hand?

Not really accurate (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842521)

The iPhone is a nice technology demonstrator, but it's things like this that make it useless.

The millions of people who bought one because of the functionality it offers may disagree.

Complete control over content

Except that anyone can jailbreak them if that bothers them.

no tethering

Again, jailbreaking if that is important to you.

no background apps

Well, no app store background apps. Some of the built in apps do in fact operate in the background.

no user space that mounts as a USB thumbdrive

As the saying goes, there's an app for that (uses WebDAV to load/unload files).

you can only sync to one computer

Again, if that matters to you there's a workaround [tinyfish.net] . To most people that doesn't matter. Also, even without that workaround you can still have a computer update video without disturbing the music on the device if you select video only (which would be the thing you'd care most about updating from a laptop).

Safari still has that dumb bug where it re-loads pages when you switch between windows

That's called "resource constraint", not a bug.

There's a lot you can do with a hacked phone, but then you're missing out on everything else.

Like what? You can still use the app store from a jailbroken phone.

It works well within its very limited scope

Pretty amusing considering that at this point any other phone has a more limited scope as to what you can actually do with it since they are just getting up to snuff with their own application solutions (even Android is behind on that one).

Re:Not really accurate (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843709)

Suggesting jailbreaking is a stupid answer to legitimate complaints about failings of the device. The average user is not going to do it.

Re:Not really accurate (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844009)

The solution to despotic control over the things you own is to exploit security flaws within it? And that is praise for the despot?

Rationalize, you magnificent fanboy, rationalize!

getting up to snuff with their own application solutions

Oh, you ruined it! You can do more with a five year old Symbian phone than you can do with the iPhone.

Re:still fairly ridiculous (2, Informative)

thebigbadme (194140) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842577)

you can only sync to one computer

technically true, however, you don't have to sync your device with a computer in order to load music onto it. In fact, I've found that you only need to sync for pictures, and apps. I never sync music, not even from one computer, but I use 3 different computers regularly to load music onto my iTouch (the limitations in this area are the same between touch and phone) and have used 2 others as well with no problems.

Just drag and drop inside of iTunes

Re:still fairly ridiculous (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27843595)

The iPhone is a nice technology demonstrator

Huh? It has a crappy camera without even a flash - worse than the phone I have replaced after having for 2 years.

Jumping to conclusions (1)

hax0r_this (1073148) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842423)

used primarily by adults

Really?

Re:Jumping to conclusions (2, Insightful)

prockcore (543967) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843335)

You need to be 18 to get a cellphone in your name.

Re:still fairly ridiculous (1, Insightful)

enoz (1181117) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842439)

These restrictions should not be a surprise to anyone who hasn't been living under a rock. It is exactly the same type of restrictions that Apple applies to all their products; be it iPod, iPhone, OSX or whatever else you can think of.

Apple controls the products and they control the distribution channels (iTunes, App Store, etc). Most people who buy iPhones are slaves to the App store, just as most people who buy iPods are slaves to iTunes, and most people who buy OSX are slaves to buying Apple Hardware.

Re:still fairly ridiculous (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843537)

It is exactly the same type of restrictions that Apple applies to all their products; be it iPod, iPhone, OSX or whatever else you can think of.

The NIN content that Apple found objectionable can currently be bought from iTunes, just not as an app. Similarly, OSX is a pretty well understood platform that really only needs hardware developers to bother creating compatible drivers. You can put any content you want on iPods, and there are a wide variety of secondary apps to do this if you don't like iTunes. [yamipod.com]

Really, the only thing Apple has this much control over is the App store. Friends of mine have had far less trouble getting music onto the iTunes store than onto the app store. This whole thing smacks of expecting the iPhone to be just a Nokia Candybar ++, and being overwhelmened when people are using it like a genuine platform.

Re:still fairly ridiculous (2, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842761)

I realize it does reflect poorly on Apple to have apps that are in very poor taste

No, it doesn't. It reflects poorly on those that created the app.

Some people are just retarded, and would call the street builder criminal because someone got killed on their streets.
Which reflects poorly on those people.

Re:still fairly ridiculous (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844135)

"...but it's pretty obvious that mainstream bands like NIN are an acceptable part of American culture."

Ok, I like Nine Inch Nails. Quite a bit. But, let's be real - what America are you living in that makes you think that NIN are an acceptable part of American culture? First, I would imagine that a majority of Americans have never, in their lives, even heard of NIN (which makes it obvious they aren't remotely a part of "American culture"). Second, I would imagine that a very large percentage (possibly even a majority) of Americans who have heard of NIN dislike them, greatly. I would imagine their music actually offends more people than it entertains (making the acceptable part of your statement very questionable). Their music may entertain a lot of people but it's also a style that many people dislike, strongly.

So, again, while I like NIN a great deal and think that Trent Reznor is doing some spectacular things to push music into the new era, I am curious what America you live in that you think they are even vaguely an acceptable part of American culture.

Kids with iPhones? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27842315)

Who the fuck buys their kid an iPhone?

I want to be adopted.

Re:Kids with iPhones? (4, Funny)

Divebus (860563) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842345)

Ballmer's kids had to buy their own.

with apologies to some cartoon (2, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843121)

Ballmer's kids: Daddy, Daddy, will you show me how to work my Zune?

Ballmer: Sure, let me see show you...

kids: HAHA just kidding Daddy we have ipods like everyone else in the world!

Re:Kids with iPhones? (1)

Ender_Wiggin (180793) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842409)

Rich New Yorkers it seems. I was in line for an Apple Store Grand opening and met two 7-year-olds with iPhones. It's enough to make you jealous.

Re:Kids with iPhones? (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843373)

It's not that I buy my kids an iPhone, but they do occasionally get to play with the iPod Touch (for example on long flights I pop a kids' film on there, or they play a game). Having parental controls makes sense, I suspect.

As if (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27842327)

Fuck you Apple, you fascistic pigs.

Topless? Ptah! (4, Funny)

YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842417)

"because of a topless photo in one of the app's subscribed-to papers"

That is indeed a tasteless photo. How could they not be wearing a turtle neck sweater? This reeks of disrespect for The Jobs!

Re:Topless? Ptah! (1)

kramulous (977841) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842911)

I'm always up for viewing some topless pics. I wish somebody would post a link to it. I tried to watch the whole video but seeing Trent do an Apple advertisement had me wanting to claw my eyes out and jam chopsticks into my ears {aside ... currently eating ... join the dots on what /aside}

Re:Topless? Ptah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27843563)

But it was not in one of the subscribed to papers it was on page3.com which is a separate site altogether. (A Fourth party if you like)

At Apples whim. (2, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842551)

Restrictions wont be loosened because the restrictions are ambiguous and inconsistent. Racism (pocket god), violence (pick a shooter) and infanticide (baby shaker) are OK but a third party mail client is not?

In simpler terms restrictions will remain the same, applications will be accepted or rejected entirely at Apples whim.

Baby shaker out (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843033)

Initial acceptance can be a little random but stuff that does not meet guidelines does get filtered eventually.

Re:At Apples whim. (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843095)

Not to mention Flash Lite 3. Could easily be on the iPhone but Jobs won't let it because it 'runs too slow'. Goodbye easy streaming audio/video.

Re:At Apples whim. (3, Informative)

friendofthenite (1226310) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843175)

I know Apple-hating always wins an applause around here, but your description of how things stand is a substantial (and deliberate) distortion. Apple acknowledged that approving Baby Shaker was a mistake, and quickly removed it from the store; Pocket God is only racist according to the most paranoid leftist point of view; shoot 'em ups are subject to the same rules of decency as any other app, and none of those available in the store seriously qualify as adult material. Third-party mail clients are banned for the very clear reason that Apple don't want programs in the app store that reproduce the iPhone's basic functions--you may not agree with the rule, but it isn't ambiguous or inconsistent as you describe.

Apple have made some well-publicised errors in their approvals process, but any company starting a new service and processing that volume of material would have made mistakes. I suspect you simply object in principle to Apple supervising the content on the iPhone, which I know is a commonly held view; but it is an entirely reasonable policy for Apple to take, to avoid genuinely wanton or malicious programs being available on their device. For people who want an unregulated system, there are other phones and platforms available.

I will not publish anything in the Apple store! (0, Troll)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842581)

I will *ever* not publish anything in the Apple store, as long as there is any limitation at all. I don't care, even if I lose most of my potential clients because of it. Mod me troll, but I think if they are stupid enough, to buy that crappy piece of shit that the iPhone is, and put up with all those weirdo and hypocrite US-bible-belt-style rules of Apple, that they would not be clients you want to have anyway.

Imagine them approaching your work with that attitude, and then spamming in all the forums and blogs on the net about it, with their retarded attitude. No thanks.

I hope that the USA splits up in retardo-country and a normal country as soon an possible. So good people don't have to be punished for the idiocy of others.

The more you will mod me troll for this, the more I will know how right I am. ^^

Re:I will not publish anything in the Apple store! (2, Funny)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842965)

Well we'll certainly miss whatever the fuck it is you were maybe going to write but didn't due to this.

Do you have a link to what you've written for mobile phones thus far (android I'm guessing?)?

Re:I will not publish anything in the Apple store! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27843105)

Typical Linux elitist. Well we in the real world didn't want you anyway

Re:I will not publish anything in the Apple store! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27843265)

> Imagine them approaching your work with that attitude, and then spamming in all the forums and blogs on the net about it, with their retarded attitude. No thanks.

What a highly-polished mirror you have.

What about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27842591)

... Safari? I can find topless photos using that. Or worse. They need to block it until parental controls are released.

Re:What about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27842625)

You can already. The settings menu allows you to disable Safari and iTunes.

Can't these problems be easily solved? (1)

alienunknown (1279178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842595)

Obviously mobile phones are becoming more advanced and have more features these days and we want to be able to use them with the same kind of freedom we get with a desktop. Wouldn't the solution be to have an appstore with all the censorship crap and "protection" and also allow users to install whatever the hell they want on their phone via their own means? Wouldn't that appease pretty much everyone? Oh wait, this is about control over what one can do with their own phone that they purchased, such as limiting tethering and VoIP and anything that the phone companies do not want, I totally forgot.

And no, I don't hate apple (typing this on my mac) and I'm thinking of getting an iphone but this crap is really starting to piss me off. I don't want to buy a phone thats locked down so badly that I can't do what I want with it without jailbreaking it. Its ridiculous.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27842613)

Posters should keep in mind that the iphone apps also work on the touch and that is likely to become a very viable video game platform for kids.

There are sound marketing concerns for parental ccontrols.

Will they loosen restriction on Java as well ? (2, Interesting)

testman123 (1111753) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842713)

I mean, here you got hardware with Java native support (processor chosen by Apple got the Jazelle option), with a license that prevent JVM to be installed on it !!!

All right, we all know that "Java is too slow" was touted by Steve simply because he need exclusive application to ensure the success of his pay-per-download platform.

Allowing Java would have simply killed the exclusivity, because Java is né multiplatform and some order of magnitude easier to develop with. Having let people the choice would have make Java the default choice. Thus allowing for instance application to run easilly on Android or other mobile OS with strong Java implementation level (think nokia for instance).

Apple with a great product and well-thinked limitation/contracts have manage to build again a milking-cow : cash on each mobile fee, cash on each application downloaded, cash on very battery renewed ...

This looks pretty cool as a business model ;-)

But how long will it last ? It would be interresting if anybody fill a class action again Apple for not allowing Java :P

Where is the RMS/FSF here fighting for Libre ? Because, this might be a Unix band band, but this looks a prety proprietary one ;-)

Someone thought it was a good idea... (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843917)

Just last night I installed a Java stack on my jailbroken iPod touch 2G. I got JamVM for a lightweight JVM, Jikes for a compiler, and JDBC drivers/JocStrap for libraries.

The JVM weighs in at around 2MB, and the libraries were about half a meg each, IIRC. JocStrap is described as a Java/Objective C connection library.

So far as JocStrap goes, I haven't had a chance to look at it; not sure if 'connection' means bindings or wrapper classes or what. However, the fact that the JVM is included makes me assume that you run native Java instead of interpreted java bytecode on top of objective-C.

My Only Real iPhone Complaint (5, Interesting)

quangdog (1002624) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842767)

My only real complaint with the iPhone comes as the result of having developed a few applications that are currently for sale on the iTunes app store, and it goes like this:

I'm not allowed to interact with my customers.

I frequently get feedback (both positive and negative) on the applications I've written. I'd love an opportunity to comment on this feedback, either to address concerns or to graciously accept the accolades. However, Apple keeps a stranglehold on all feedback from customers, and does not permit you to know much of anything about how to contact the customer directly.

I wish this was different, and is one of the reasons I've taken a break from iPhone development for a while.

Re:My Only Real iPhone Complaint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27843071)

I think iTunes uses more of an Amazon.com system for reviews, and it sounds like you'd rather an eBay system of reviews.

Would it be better for you to just leave a feedback email address in the app description (if you didn't already)?

Re:My Only Real iPhone Complaint (1)

CommanderData (782739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844031)

Well, I do hate the fact you cannot reply to reviews (sometimes that would be *very* helpful), but did you ever think of starting a forum or finding a well established on-topic forum to post in?

I did both with Rogue Touch (yep, iPhone programmer in my spare time too). I post regularly at TouchArcade and also created my own forum for people to socialize and get help (at http://www.chronosoft.com/ [chronosoft.com] ). It's been a great way to get suggestions and interact with users of my game, and I recommend it highly over the "blog" style websites a lot of iPhone devs seem to be using.

Now my seasoned Rogue Touch players can help new players out when I'm too busy to post myself. That sort of thing wouldn't be possible with an e-mail support system...

Re:My Only Real iPhone Complaint (1)

Stele (9443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844113)

Exactly. We get those 1-star "reviews" from people who can't be bothered to read the in-store documentation, the in-app help, or even be bothered to just experiment with the app for 5 seconds before claiming a certain advertised feature is missing and therefore we are outright lying. I would love to reply to those and say "you are either too dumb to use this app or are 10, go away" and revoke their "review".

This is truly mad (4, Insightful)

Budenny (888916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27842881)

We have some company deciding that people should not be able to install an application which contains a graphic of ladies with no blouses. You can buy every day at a newstand in the UK two or three newspapers which have, on page 3, pictures of ladies with no blouses. Anyway, Apple does not want you to see these pictures as part of an application on the phone you have just bought.

But then, after you've bought the phone, you can browse the web to the page 3 sites or others, and see those same pictures.

So what on earth are they thinking? Do they really think there is something terrible that people should not be allowed to see in something as commonplace as ladies without blouses? What exactly is so terrible about it? Do they really think that banning this awful stuff from the apps makes any difference at all to what people look at and see on iPhones?

These people are going completely mad in terms of an obsession with interference which they mistake for control. But worse than that, their values about what they want to control are all screwed up.

Do you all still think this is "cool"?

So don't buy their damn phone then. (2, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843627)

There's lots of alternatives. Even in Soviet USia.

Re:So don't buy their damn phone then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27844015)

Yeah, that's what he's suggesting. You catch on quickly.

Re:This is truly mad (0, Troll)

wkurzius (1014229) | more than 5 years ago | (#27843637)

1. Person buys iPhone from Apple.
2. Person buys Newspaper app under assumption he will get news.
3. Person sees exposed mammary glands in said app.
4. Person sues Apple.

If you actively search for porn on the internet that's your problem, but if you find the same material on an application supported by Apple (not a porn company) then it's there problem. This was lawsuit waiting to happen, and now with parental controls they can shift the responsibility off of their shoulders on to the user, where it should be.

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27843053)

Apple is rumored to possibly, maybe, perhaps, do something, largely inconsequential with a version release of an equally unimportant product embraced only by fanboys, according to unconfirmed rumors by unknown sources!

Re:IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27843349)

basically every apple related news piece

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?