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!

The iPad Will Get Playboy In March

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the clean-the-screen dept.

Apple 223

Stoobalou writes "Playboy boss Hugh Hefner has confirmed that — despite Steve Jobs' protestations that Apple is pure and Android is for porn — an app for browsing uncensored back issues of Playboy is to launch later this year on the iPad. The news, which is likely to generate significantly more buzz for Apple's popular tablet as a publishing device than Rupert Murdoch's delayed digital newspaper The Daily, comes courtesy of Hefner's Twitter stream, in which he proclaimed: 'Big news! Playboy — both old & new — will be available on [the] iPad beginning in March.'"

cancel ×

223 comments

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

Quick, the Ink Will Dry While He's Sick! (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930196)

*an emaciated Steve Jobs returns from medical leave*
Lord Jobs: Why is there porn on my iPad, Captain Cook?!
Tim Cook: Uh, well, you see, the uh, engineers they ... ack! uck!
*Jobs holds up his fingers pinched together*
Lord Jobs: You have failed me for the last time, Captain.

Re:Quick, the Ink Will Dry While He's Sick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930662)

Turn in your geek card, that was an Admiral NOT a Captian.

Re:Quick, the Ink Will Dry While He's Sick! (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931102)

*an emaciated Steve Jobs returns from medical leave*
Lord Jobs: Why is there porn on my iPad, Captain Cook?!
Tim Cook: Uh, well, you see, the uh, engineers they ... ack! uck!
*Jobs holds up his fingers pinched together*
Lord Jobs: You have failed me for the last time, Captain.

They told me it was for the articles.

I only want to subscribe.... (5, Funny)

surfdaddy (930829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930222)

...for the articles.

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930524)

The articles are actually really good. It would be nice if they had a text only app too. I can see a naked chick whenever I want, but reading Alex Haley's articles from the 60s would be uniquely awesome. My library doesn't carry playboy on their microfiche.

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (5, Funny)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930572)

I can see a naked chick whenever I want

So what the hell are you doing here?

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930624)

mod this man insightful

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931056)

Done!

I always take commands from AC.

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931304)

Don't I just hate it when I'm talking to myself?

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (5, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930640)

I can see a naked chick whenever I want

So what the hell are you doing here?

Looking at all the naked chicks. What? You can't see them? Go to your preferences and click the "Format stories as ASCII naked chicks" checkbox.

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930718)

Must be for premium members only, darn.

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (5, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930888)

Must be for premium members only, darn.

Actually, so as not to offend either of Slashdot's female readers, the site has implemented a gender check policy. You just have to verify that you are male by sending an email from the account linked to your Slashdot account with the phrase "I like porn!" in the subject and "Show me the naked chicks!" in the body to daddypants@slashdot.org. Then you will see the "Format Stories as ASCII naked chicks" checkbox on your preferences page.

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930780)

Indeed.

So many really good authors have published works through Playboy (D.M. Thomas, Thomas Pyncheon to name just two), I'm inclined to encourage this, despite the fact that I have never actually looked at the magazine. (For the record, I have nothing against looking at pictures of naked ladies...)

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930670)

...for the articles.

The subscription comes with a waterproof cover for the Ipad. Just in case you find the pictures, well, interesting.

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931166)

...for the articles.

The subscription comes with a waterproof cover for the Ipad. Just in case you find the pictures, well, interesting.

iPad condoms? eewww!
Maybe we could send them to China as medium size.

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930760)

You are right, from a technical/engineering/nerdish point of view the Hustler babes are more awesome.

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (2)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930842)

When I was a child, my mom used to read Playboy... for the articles, or at least that's what she claimed. Personally, I always liked their cartoons and jokes page... Gahan Wilson, anyone?

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931220)

Then get the Kindle version, honey.

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931378)

...for the articles.

Why else would an Apple fan want Playboy?

Re:I only want to subscribe.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931436)

...for the articles.

There's articles?

Playboy isn't Porn (5, Funny)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930240)

If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity.

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (1, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930302)

If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity.

I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is. And with that where you live so I can get an idea of whether your standards are close to your communities standards. As there is no definitive statement as to what constitutes porn that could be applied globally.

I Like the Nov 1988 Article on Presidential Race (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930586)

"Lick Bush Now".

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (5, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930652)

If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity.

I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is. And with that where you live so I can get an idea of whether your standards are close to your communities standards. As there is no definitive statement as to what constitutes porn that could be applied globally.

Granted, I haven't looked at Playboy in years... So it may have changed dramatically. But last time I looked I would not have called it pornography.

Sure, there's some pictures of naked women in there, and they're sure to titillate your average pubescent male...

But there's more text to the magazine than images. Substantially more text. And most of it is actually decent stuff. Some interesting articles and interviews and whatnot. I suspect that Playboy could actually survive as a magazine even if it didn't have nude photos. Well, maybe not so much these days with the web and all... Any print publication is suffering these days... But you know what I mean.

As for the images themselves, they were far too "tasteful" for my tastes. Plenty of breasts... 3/4 shots... Maybe a glimpse of pubic hair here or there... But that's about it. Your average art gallery has images substantially more pornographic than a Playboy magazine.

If I had to label Playboy, I'd call it "erotica" at best. Certainly not pornography.

Anyone who really thinks Playboy is pornography just needs to visit Google Images or Google Videos with Safe Search turned off to have their horizons dramatically broadened.

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (4, Interesting)

ginbot462 (626023) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931462)

A while ago, I might have thought same thing (concerning text in Playboy), but they have moved more towards FHM/Maxim. I would say most magazines are like this now (excluding something like Economist). I picked up a March 1984 Popular Science at antique/curios shop; I forgot how much writing there use to be in magazines, and less dumbed down. In Popular Science's defense, they seem to have stayed at a similar level comparing this 1984 issue to say the 2007 iClone issue.

See for yourself:
Mini Mac [google.com]
iClone [google.com]

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930778)

I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is.

"Whatever Steve Jobs says is porn, is porn."

Alternatively, "Whatever is on Android is porn."

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931266)

Yeah, but geek porn just doesn't interest most non-geeks.

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930816)

I'm not the OP but I agree fully with his classification of Playboy as non-porn.

I live 50 mins. from Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930872)

I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is.

That's actually an interesting question.

So much porn is, well, artificial and not really very arousing [for me]. However, "erotica" in its various forms (without necessarily being particularly explicit) can be quite beautiful, without being sleazy.

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (5, Funny)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931016)

I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is.

The best definition I've heard of it so far is "stuff you lose interest in looking at after you're done masturbating."

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (1)

crunchygranola (1954152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931458)

If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity.

I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is. And with that where you live so I can get an idea of whether your standards are close to your communities standards. As there is no definitive statement as to what constitutes porn that could be applied globally.

I guess we should be thankful that Steven Jobs has not converted to a strict orthodox sect that believes the bodies of adult women should be completely covered in public. I don't need to specify a religion, all the major religions have such sects (the Amish/Salafi/Haredi/etc./etc.).

Seriously - Playboy is no more pornographic than the old and modern masters that school kids view in museums. Is the governing criterion whether the model has died of old age?

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930306)

"If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity."

Yeah..wondering when magazines with more..ahem...'gynecological' images will be allowed on the iPad?

I wonder if Hustler's Barely Legal will get on there next?

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931196)

"If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity."

Yeah..wondering when magazines with more..ahem...'gynecological' images will be allowed on the iPad?

I wonder if Hustler's Barely Legal will get on there next?

It gives new meaning to iPad.

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (3, Insightful)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930354)

Good p

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (4)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930392)

Hmm, how do I delete this strange half-typed thing? It honestly didn't look like this when I hit submit...

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (2)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930492)

At least you had a good pee. For your next post try for a good BM!

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (1)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930374)

Yeah I'm looking forward to reading the articles.

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (1)

Scutter (18425) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930546)

Yeah I'm looking forward to reading the articles.

I am too. Playboy, back in the day, was about selling the high-class James Bond lifestyle. They had cutting-edge fiction, interviews, technology and film reviews, and articles written by some of the most prolific authors of their generation. Yes, it had nudity, but that was only one part of the magazine. Since the advent of the internet, the magazine lost most of that and just turned into a watered-down skin rag. The old joke is that "I read it for the articles", but you you really could read it just for the articles. It used to be a great magazine. I'd love to be able to have that massive archive of high-end content available again.

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930378)

horrible analogy

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (1)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930446)

Why is it horrible? No cars?

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930728)

Because it makes no sense..
the guys tyring to say playboy isn't really porn, by comparing it to disneyworld not being authentic....authentic what though, amusementpark?
i suppose you could say he was trying to imply disney movies aren't authentic to the fairytails they mimic, but that has zero to do with the themepark

better anology

saying playboy is to porn, what taco bell is to mexican food.
or
playboy is to porn what disney movies are to historical acuarcy

Jobs knows it when he sees it (5, Insightful)

PraiseBob (1923958) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930384)

Maybe you should tell that to the iphone app developers that got kicked out of the App store for being "porn" despite only showing girls in bikinis.

mod parent up (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930680)

please mod parent up - as that is truly the crux in this story.

It doesn't matter what GP poster believes is porn, or what you - the reader - believe is porn, or what -I- believe is porn. What matters is Apple's definition of porn (and related terms) that have lead to apps which just displayed pictures of girls in bikini or lingerie or whatever being rejected or pulled.

The added value of those apps may be questionable (I guess they exist for people who can't open the browser and look for bikini-clad girls that way), but they should be held to the same criteria as any Playboy app.

If, and this is a big if, the Playboy app does indeed launch with pictures of girls in bikini or even less clothing, without a app policy change*, then those app developers have every right to go bitchslap Apple.

* If there will be a policy change it would seem that Playboy would be at an advantage by having a headstart by knowing this change would come ahead of time, most likely due to discussion between them and those responsible at Apple.

In either case Apple would apparently be giving Playboy preferential treatment. Which wouldn't be -entirely- surprising, given Apple's recent re-iteration that they're not fond of apps from publishers that simply link people to the online content where the user then has to pay for the subscription - thus skirting Apple's desire to take a good chunk of advertising income / subscription fees by running this through their infrastructure.

Re:mod parent up (3, Interesting)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931244)

The added value of those apps may be questionable (I guess they exist for people who can't open the browser and look for bikini-clad girls that way), but they should be held to the same criteria as any Playboy app.

They are. One particular criteria that mattered here was "are you an established, respected brand?".

If there will be a policy change it would seem that Playboy would be at an advantage by having a headstart by knowing this change would come ahead of time, most likely due to discussion between them and those responsible at Apple.

I don't see why this should be a problem. First off, Playboy has an advantage over them by simply being Playboy. Second, it's pretty clear that Apple is working closely with magazines right now to get the subscription model right.

In either case Apple would apparently be giving Playboy preferential treatment.

You state this like it's some bad thing. Apple always asks a few respected members of whatever industry they are going into to help them get it right. They did this with music, with video, with iOS apps. And they are doing this now as well. It's very rational.

Which wouldn't be -entirely- surprising, given Apple's recent re-iteration that they're not fond of apps from publishers that simply link people to the online content where the user then has to pay for the subscription - thus skirting Apple's desire to take a good chunk of advertising income / subscription fees by running this through their infrastructure.

It's difficult to say how much the 30% revenue plays a role in these sorts of decisions. Apple spends a lot on keeping the stores and the infrastructures running smoothly (watch how fast that 10 billion download counter is spinning, and that doesn't even count upgrades). But more to the point, every time there is a decision like this which benefits Apple financially outside of their core profit models, their decision also tends to add far more value to their core product than it generates in direct revenue. On the topic of magazine subscriptions specifically, just like the rest of the store, the iOS platform benefits immensely by being absolutely simple. If you have to manage your subscriptions individually with each magazine (or each publisher) it's going to be inefficient and people who would otherwise like to subscribe will not due to the hassle involved. On the other hand, if it all goes through the very same login and credit card that you use to buy music, tv, films, apps, books, etc., then it's going to be just as easy as those things, and people will be more likely to make use of it. This also provides a significant value to the consumer over Android, which has almost no unifying feature at all (something which geeks love, but consumers hate).

So I really doubt that 30% is the primary motivating factor here. Apple sold over 60 million iOS devices since late September. Their core profit center is in hardware. If they can bolster the value of their hardware, that's gotta be their primary goal. If they can make some extra cash along the way, that's great, but I suspect the motivation is to use that cut primarily to cover operating costs and invest in expansion, so that they essentially get their "value multiplier" that is iTunes (many geeks hate, but consumers love) for free. It's absolutely brilliant, and their numbers from yesterday prove this out.

Re:Playboy isn't Porn (5, Funny)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931370)

Playboy is when I want to whack off and feel classy

Hot Damn. (5, Funny)

Petersko (564140) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930248)

It's damned hard to masturbate while trying to trying to balance a netbook. The iPad is the right tool for the job.

Re:Hot Damn. (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930376)

but at least it wipes clean easily.

Now comes the question, will it be an interactive application?

Seriously though, it will be hard keeping others who claim to be in a similar business off the store.

Re:Hot Damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930582)

Now comes the question, will it be an interactive application?

Now comes the question, will it be a

comes the question

comes

Re:Hot Damn. (1)

CaptScarlet22 (585291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930452)

I've been practicing with youporn. I should be in tip-top shape with my iPad when Playboy hits.

Re:Hot Damn. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930518)

This is why these silly "tablets" will never displace desktops or even netbooks.

This is yet another reason you need your hands free to manipulate other interfaces while computing.

Re:Hot Damn. (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931248)

This is why these silly "tablets" will never displace desktops or even netbooks.

This is yet another reason you need your hands free to manipulate other interfaces while computing.

That is correct, they will not displace desktops, they will be the desktop.

Re:Hot Damn. (1)

tooslickvan (1061814) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930740)

It's supposed to be hard; that's how the tool works.

Re:Hot Damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931174)

You should check out the PadPivot on Kickstarter! This product should help you keep both hands free ;)
http://kck.st/gmzC2U

FTA (1)

Slack0ff (590042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930264)

looks like it's time to buy an ipad... for the articles...

The Perfect Combo (1)

SteveHeadroom (13143) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930350)

Not only will the iPad's screen be great for viewing the pages of Playboy, it's easy to clean up afterwards!

Re:The Perfect Combo (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930484)

If it were a real iPad, you wouldn't need to clean it up anyway, especially if it were the super-absorbent kind.

I Wish America Hated Censorship (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930404)

I really wish Americans valued the freedom of others to make personal choices, even if those choices are ones they wish others would not make. I really wish there were more people that hated white power literature, but would raise hell when big companies presumed to refuse to let them make an individual choice about buying it or not. I really wish it wasn't good business for Apple, Amazon, Walmart, etc. to censor and limit the content they sell in order to cater to busybodies that don't want other people to have the opportunity to make choices the majority does not like. I wish we were living in the freedom loving, individual rights valuing country a subset of our founding fathers envisioned.

It's great that people have decided playboy isn't so bad or something, but I don't really care. I wish, instead, people were pressuring Apple to become common carriers of content, dedicated to being neutral and letting users choose for themselves.

Re:I Wish America Hated Censorship (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930628)

or in other words..

If you seek prosperity for the iPad and Apple in general, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Jobs, open this gate. Mr. Jobs, Mr. Jobs, tear down this wall(ed garden)

(If you dont get it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_down_this_wall [wikipedia.org] )

Re:I Wish America Hated Censorship (2)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930934)

or in other words.. If you seek prosperity for the iPad and Apple in general

Sadly, no. Apple and the other big companies censor content because that makes them the most money, in their estimation. Heck, Walmart censors music they sell in the states, but not in most of the EU. Why do you suppose that is? It's because they're doing what the public wants because that makes them the most money.

No, my post was lamenting that what makes the most money, what the public demands is some level of censorship, because they don't value individual choice as much as they value making sure their kids and parents and random people, are not free to make choices that run counter to their beliefs. The US does not value free expression and individual choice, which is why big companies are doing what they're doing.

Re:I Wish America Hated Censorship (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931316)

If you seek prosperity for the iPad and Apple in general

Because Apple's "walled garden" has severely hampered Apple's prosperity...

Re:I Wish America Hated Censorship (1)

redemtionboy (890616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930926)

Actually, I highly support social censorship as opposed to government enforced censorship. Now granted, in this case that the force is highly misdirected and makes a huge deal out of something that shouldn't be, but at the same time it shows the very power that the proletariat possesses. These corporations typically enforce such censorship upon themselves for the same reason basic cable tv censors itself, because this is what the general populace wants. Unfortunately, this power is seldom realized by the individual, because as individuals, we feel powerless. But this power is all we need to control corporations. We vote every day with the power of our dollar.

Re:I Wish America Hated Censorship (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931098)

Actually, I highly support social censorship as opposed to government enforced censorship.

I find the lack of respect for individual choice reflected by such censorship deeply saddening. Individuals should be given the right to make their own choices, even if the majority disagrees. That belief is the foundation of the concept of "freedom" which is often mentioned in political speeches but not valued by society, yourself included apparently.

But this power is all we need to control corporations. We vote every day with the power of our dollar.

This isn't really true, since corporations can legally lobby congress and spend money on media to get their puppets elected. Those politicians then pass laws that restrict our choices. When there is only one or two companies you can buy a needed service from, and both use the same behavior, your voting with your dollar is useless; your strategy wholly impotent. We voted with our dollars against the incompetent expensive mess that is domestic car manufacture, look how well that worked out.

Re:I Wish America Hated Censorship (0)

redemtionboy (890616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931384)

Where am I saying that individuals can't make choices? If I don't want a corporation to push certain material for whatever reason, be it too violent, immoral, or what not, then I don't support it. I am in no way saying that an individual who wants that content can't get it. They will just have to go somewhere else to get it. And you say that corporations can lobby congress and eliminate our choices, but what very few situations is anything like that even close to happening, and even then, my point is that we don't realize this power enough. If we as a society realized this power, no government official would be free to take such action, and no evil corporation would be able to lobby to gain such control. Rather than fighting an impossible battle that we're currently fighting, we should be pushing for people to wake up and realize their power as consumers.

And they ban my clean apps (1)

blindbat (189141) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930432)

So I make clean apps that they ban and then they allow this?

They banned my apps that allow people to share *moderated* clean photos (mostly of peoples faces). WHY? Because children's pictures were in it!

I also had to appeal to get them to allow my other photo app with clean photos:

Photo Hash [apple.com]

So I had to completely redo my website [headthirst.com] and objectives but, hey!

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Re:And they ban my clean apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930556)

Nice Slashvertisment.

Re:And they ban my clean apps (1)

blindbat (189141) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930766)

I think you confused my comment with the front page :)

Re:And they ban my clean apps (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930666)

So I make clean apps that they ban and then they allow this?

You think that your app is somehow on a level playing field with Playboy or any other major corporation? Good luck with that.

Re:And they ban my clean apps (1)

blindbat (189141) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930706)

No, but the point is the banning is completely arbitrary. They *claim* it is based on one thing, but the reality is something else. Just annoyed at the whole thing right now.

Re:And they ban my clean apps (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931348)

So I make clean apps that they ban and then they allow this?

Is your app a magazine? No.

WHY? Because children's pictures were in it!

I agree it's a pretty stupid ban (based on your description), but you can't not see a huge difference here.

WARNING (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930436)

If you use someone else's iPad and see this app. Set down the iPad and wash your hands well.

Re:WARNING (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930542)

Well, at least the pages won't stick together any more.

Wow, they weren't kidding about that guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930438)

One day with Jobs away, and look what happens!

He's doing this to put pressure on Apple. (1)

JustShootMe (122551) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930470)

Likely he hasn't even talked to Apple about it. But now that he's made the announcement, if Apple rejects the app, they look like the bad guys. Hefner may be a creep, but anyone who can get tens of women to service him each night is no idiot.

Re:He's doing this to put pressure on Apple. (2)

Yoik (955095) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930840)

Even more likely he has only signed a contract with the developers, and hasn't a clue whether it will get approved.

The development group's salesman was, no doubt, very enthusiastic and certain of the approval, but they get paid approved or not :-). Gratz, sales guy! Sounds like fun to work on.

iJizz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930480)

That is all

Wow, Apple moves boldy into the 1950's (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930544)

Next thing you know, they will allow us to use curse language.

Re:Wow, Apple moves boldy into the 1950's (1)

ginbot462 (626023) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931040)

It's been there for while ... RTM!

curses [apple.com]

Reminds me of a joke (4, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930554)

Winston Churchill and a socialite at a party:

Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

I'll only subscribe... (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930578)

if I can get the articles-only version.

Wonder how much PB is paying for this. (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930588)

Its the only explanation as to why swim suite catalogs are verboten but Play Boy is OK.

Re:Wonder how much PB is paying for this. (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930722)

I'm sure it's just a web "app." Not available in the app store. With HTML5 offline storage, you can even download content and read on the go.

I'm an iPad and I'm highfalutin (2)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930606)

I only look at airbrushed pussy

- Sir Grandiloquent Highfalutin, Count of Hypocrisy

Playboy?? (4, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930636)

You think with a name like iPad they would serve up Playgirl

/rimshot

Re:Playboy?? (2)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930752)

You do realize the overwhelming majority of Playgirl buyers are male, don't you?

Re:Playboy?? (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930908)

You do realize it was a joke, don't you?

How about that poll ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930668)

I wonder what the response to the previous poll would look like now ?

screen size? (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930764)

Not big enough for Elaine Reynolds or Cynthia Myers.

omfg!!!! pr0n on the apple products! (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930800)

Why, whoever heard of such a thing? Maybe only the people who ever clicked on the Safari button and googled for "iphone porn."

For anyone whose formative years occurred before the internet or BBS era, I'm sure it must seem strange to think that the general reaction of young men to playboy would be "yawn, quaint." And then the question is whether the quaintness is in the nature of the content or in actually paying for it.

Good start... (1)

steelersteve13 (1372165) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930806)

I'm waiting for Club International. (sarcasm intended)

Troll (0)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930830)

Boy, there are 4-5 instances of pure troll isolate in the summary. Sad.

App? (5, Informative)

jorisk (231393) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930866)

While the article talks about an 'app' for the iPad, Hugh never wrote about an app. To be more precise he wrote "Big news! Playboy--both old & new--will be available on iPad beginning in March." http://twitter.com/#hughhefner/status/27551318994325504 [twitter.com]

In later tweets he refers to 'Playboy on iPad', again without the word 'app'.

Based on earlier rumors we will either see a new Magazine store for the iPad (with subscriptions and a different policy) or Hugh is just making headlines by announcing a plain old HTML version optimized for iPad.

Why is there an app for that? (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930946)

Why is there a need for a new app for view a particular magazine?

If I subscribe to the paper version of Playboy, I don't need to get a new mailbox.

Shouldn't there be one app for viewing periodicals, and you just add a magazine or newspaper to a subscription list in that app?

For folks who use the iPad as an eReader, do you need to install a separate app for each book?

Re:Why is there an app for that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931088)

Shouldn't there be one app for viewing periodicals, and you just add a magazine or newspaper to a subscription list in that app?

There is, but that app won't give the periodicals enough of your information to make them happy, so they all create their own viewers so they can collect whatever information they want about their subscribers.

Re:Why is there an app for that? (1)

seebs (15766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931112)

Depends a lot. I have the B&N nook application (because I have a nook), and that reads B&N nook books. I have Stanza, which reads any old epub, and I have the Apple book application, which I don't think I've even looked at yet.

There have been attempts to make "publication-reading software", but they tend to charge enough extra that publishers figure they'll make more selling their own app.

And yes, some books are sold as separate apps, specifically because that lets them get paid per reader without worrying about someone else's involvement.

People are still figuring out how to match this to business models.

Not to put to much emphais on it but... (1)

umask077 (122989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931072)

OK. We are Internet people. 99% of us have seen the worst porn there is out there floating around the net. By comparison I would call playboy art not porn. Its nude, Not lude. Their is a big difference.

Just my two cents. Wondered why the android was selling more units. I guess Steve Jobs had it pegged.

So I can get pr0n on my droid? (1)

pseudorand (603231) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931168)

Wait, you're telling me I can get porn on my android phone? Sweet! Why didn't anyone tell me about this earlier.

I'm not sure what Steve was thinking when he said that though. He's probably not really sick. They just asked him to step down because his big mouth sunk iPhone sales.

Kindle? (1)

andy1307 (656570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931358)

When can I get it on the kindle. I only read the articles so the iPad playboy isn't really for me.

So what? (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931380)

I can get Flickr on it now. Flickr has EVERYTHING I would want.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?