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!

No Playboy App For iPad, After All

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the you'll-need-to-go-on-a-safari-for-that dept.

The Media 140

tsamsoniw writes "The rumors that a Playboy app would appear in the Apple App Store were greatly exaggerated. Playboy plans to offer an online service through which subscribers can access past and current issues of the nudie mag — and per Playboy, it will be accessible via Safari and support iPad features (whatever that means). But if Playboy does come out with a native app for iPad, all the nudity will be censored. That should be just fine for the legions of people who indeed read the magazine for the articles. This really shouldn't be a surprise, though: If Apple insists on 'protecting' users of its high-priced gear from pixelated naughty bits in a graphic-novel version of classic literature, it certainly won't let users access the full monty. It's a shame, though: If Apple's customers want access to that sort of content, Apple should allow them to get at it via a native app instead of suffering a potentially buggier, less secure browser-based experience."

cancel ×

140 comments

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

You mean even Hef (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34961218)

Can't get it up? His App that is.

Re:You mean even Hef (5, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961334)

And remember, you paid extra for the blocking of any nudity in apps! Well, other than the web browser of course. But aside from all the porn in the world, you're getting the porn blocking you paid for!

Re:You mean even Hef (4, Funny)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961674)

Apple does not "block" porn, they just refuse publishing porn themselves. Sure, there is that tiny deal about them not supporting any other distribution methods, but thats a different matter. Truth be told: I would not install a pornographic application on my iPad or iPhone if you put a gun on a kitten's head (if it was my head I'd install and delete it once the gun wielder was arrested.)

The web provides all the porn I could need, and it displays magnificently in the iPad, touch screens are easier to clean than the mouse or the keyboard too!!

Re:You mean even Hef (2, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961722)

What's "porn"? What makes Playboy pornographic but not Eyes Wide Shut?

Until Apple answers this question, no publisher of anything beyond nursery rhymes can safely do business with them.

Re:You mean even Hef (0)

xwizbt (513040) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961748)

What utter bollocks you spew: this idea of 'safely' doing business is bizarre and new to me. Tell me about your 'safe' business practices, and I'll listen and nod, then let you loose into the lions' den. Go for it, Mr. Safe Business: I'm going to be charging to sweep up your remains.

Re:You mean even Hef (4, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961794)

"Safe" meaning your company can afford to spend months or even years developing a title for publication, with confidence that it will not be arbitrarily rejected by Apple for reasons which are inconsistent with policies under which other applications and media have previously been approved.

Re:You mean even Hef (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34963928)

The idea that it's not "safe" to develop for iOS is absurd.

Re:You mean even Hef (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961982)

Lion's den you say... http://www.lionsdenadult.com/ [lionsdenadult.com]

You had to see that coming, right?

Re:You mean even Hef (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34963020)

Consider alcohol and drug abuse as an option in life.

Re:You mean even Hef (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962640)

What's "porn"? What makes Playboy pornographic but not Eyes Wide Shut?

Is that the international version or the US censored version of the movie?

Re:You mean even Hef (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34962668)

AFAIK Apple is selling the uncensored edition that was (finally) released in the US a couple of years ago.

Re:You mean even Hef (2, Informative)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961800)

touch screens are easier to clean than the mouse or the keyboard too!!

Too much information.

Apple remains in control through non-free software (4, Interesting)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961850)

Apple does not "block" porn, they just refuse publishing porn themselves.

Apple maintains the ability to "kill" (Apple's term) software users install on their own Apple hardware. Apple maintains the control they need to decide on a case-by-case basis who gets to run what program. Apple retains the power to make it hard for any user(s) to watch porn through an application. How Apple uses this power may change over time, denying some users access to an app but allowing others. Apple can apply this power with absolutely no legal ability for the user to gainsay Apple's power, predict who is denied what, or understand for what reason someone was denied complete control of their computer.

We would not stand for this control in any other medium. It should not be up to anyone but the owner of the device to exert control over what they wish to read or run.

Re:Apple remains in control through non-free softw (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962232)

And with the case screw thing, Apple="New Hitler"?

Re:Apple remains in control through non-free softw (3, Insightful)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962462)

Completely off topic since this was just about the concept of blocking porn (if they were, they have the power to filter it through Safari.)

But you intrigue me, I had never heard of apple deleting apps from users devices, nor have I heard of them alloing some users to run software that others are not allowed to run.

Can you list links and examples of remote app deletion and apps that are not allowed to be used by certain consumers?

We would not stand for this control in any other medium. It should not be up to anyone but the owner of the device to exert control over what they wish to read or run.

Agree, but why people do this mess over the iPhone but not over video game consoles? They are even more closed and have been around longer. There do are a few groups working on their jailbreak but you don't hear the huge accusations against THOSE manufacturers. What makes Apple any more evil than Nintendo, Sega (in their day), Sony and Microsoft in the gaming department?

Re:Apple remains in control through non-free softw (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962608)

Agree, but why people do this mess over the iPhone but not over video game consoles? They are even more closed and have been around longer. There do are a few groups working on their jailbreak but you don't hear the huge accusations against THOSE manufacturers. What makes Apple any more evil than Nintendo, Sega (in their day), Sony and Microsoft in the gaming department?

For a number of reasons. The primary one is that Nintendo, Sega, Sony and Microsoft didn't and don't try to portray their devices as all inclusive. No one buys a 360 to surf the net, Microsoft doesn't push the Xbox as an alternative to a computer or claim that their device is perfect for tasks other than gaming. No one buys a Wii to type up documents and Nintendo doesn't market it that way, they market it as a game console. But Apple and their fanboys seem to think that an iPad is essentially a replacement for a laptop for most tasks and not a crippled machine at twice the price of a laptop. They seem to think that it does everything one could ever want with no room for improvement and rather than expanding their line, addressing user concerns and removing the walled garden, Apple (and their fanboys) instead prefer to claim that users really have no problems with them and that what they are doing is some task that they shouldn't do in the first place. A game console is marketed to do one thing, play games, just like the Kindle is marketed to do one thing, to read books. The iPad is marketed to do anything you want to do on a laptop and fails at that goal and is naturally taking backlash because of it.

And "a few groups" working on jailbreaks? The Wii has a thriving homebrew scene with many, many applications and creative programs. And while Nintendo does release a yearly update to block homebrew, it is generally worked around within a few days and you can go back to playing with no loss in functionality. Not only that, but there is full documentation to use Wii hardware with standard PC bluetooth hardware. The 360 has a small homebrew scene but it is limited mostly by Microsoft's banning of people with modified 360 consoles on Xbox live and is, quite honestly, used mostly for warez than legitimate homebrew when compared to things like the DS, PSP and Wii homebrew scenes. Most people don't criticize MS for their stance for a number of reasons, first off the Xbox live marketplace is pretty open and the other fact is that it is their services you are accessing and it is their right to choose to allow you on there or not. The PS3 though is a different story, there has been a number of developments, a number of patches and a number of features Sony has removed from the PS3 simply to thwart homebrew and Sony has been fairly and justly criticized for their actions, but again, Sony never marketed the PS3 as anything more than a blu-ray player, game system and media centre, however, they did market it as being able to run alternate OSes and when Sony removed that feature, many users I believe in the EU were able to get their money back because of Sony's fraudulent advertising.

Re:Apple remains in control through non-free softw (1)

bm_luethke (253362) | more than 3 years ago | (#34963038)

The primary reason is one of intended use. Smart phones are are billed as a do anything be your central media device. It sucks to then find out that they deny some things based on *content*. One can usually understand why a smart phone isn't going to play DVD's, not so much that you can't get a playboy magazine because the person who runs the smartphones company thinks you shouldn't be watching that. Further it is apps that a good number want to do and find they can't so it is something they notice. When they (and I include all the smart phone makers - this isn't apple centric) market them as general purpose computing devices that happen to make phone calls people expect them to be general purpose computers.

Game consoles are, well game consoles. When they do other things - like watch movies or surf the internet - that is generally a plus. It's rare someone looks and say "Gosh I wish I could do that on this thing but they will not let me". Few complain that they can't reflash their Blu-ray players, TV's, microwaves, non-smartphones, and most other appliances.

Some will always want to hack around on them, but for the most part being able to run Linux on a PS3 is a irrelevancy to all but a handful of PS3 owners because that isn't what you purchased the device to do. You purchase a smart phone to have a portable computer that makes phone calls.

Re:Apple remains in control through non-free softw (3, Informative)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34963124)

But you intrigue me, I had never heard of apple deleting apps from users devices, nor have I heard of them alloing some users to run software that others are not allowed to run.

Can you list links and examples of remote app deletion and apps that are not allowed to be used by certain consumers?

While I do admit I haven't heard of any times Apple has remotely deleted Apps (yet), they have admitted [pcmag.com] that they built in a back door in iOS that will allow them to do just that.

Re:Apple remains in control through non-free softw (5, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962760)

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Android Market have the same authority. They can remote kill an app just as easily, no?

http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/06/exercising-our-remote-application.html [blogspot.com]

Re:Apple remains in control through non-free softw (4, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962904)

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Android Market have the same authority. They can remote kill an app just as easily, no?

http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/06/exercising-our-remote-application.html [blogspot.com]

Not only that, but it can remotely delete apps you've purchased off your device, too. Apple's rejected apps, removed apps, etc., but they've never used that power to delete or stop apps from running that you've already bought. Even if you bought an app that was later deleted, iTunes doesn't stop you from reinstalling that app on any iDevice you own. Hell, even iDOS is back in the App Store (with the warning to "not update" for those who purchased it before).

But it's OK when Google does it, and not when Apple says they can do it but hasn't (yet). Just like it's evil when Amazon does it.

Heck, we don't even know if iOS can even do remote deletions. The only capability that comes close is CoreLocation's ability to disable apps, but that only works for apps that use CoreLocation to begin with. Then again, maybe all it does is the app's ability to get anything other than fake GPS data...

Re:Apple remains in control through non-free softw (0)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34963988)

Apple maintains the ability to "kill" (Apple's term) software users install on their own Apple hardware.

As does Google (and Mozilla, for that matter). In fact, Google and Mozilla actually *have* both employed their kill switches. Apple has never done this. Their curated store has made it unnecessary, in spite of having significantly more apps to deal with.

Apple maintains the control they need to decide on a case-by-case basis who gets to run what program. Apple retains the power to make it hard for any user(s) to watch porn through an application. How Apple uses this power may change over time, denying some users access to an app but allowing others.

And what makes you think any of those "mays" are even remotely likely? What possible reason would Apple have to do any of those things?

The truth is, there is no such reason. You're simply making absurd claims because it's the only way to make the "kill switch" scary enough for a sane person to give half a shit about.

Apple can apply this power with absolutely no legal ability for the user to gainsay Apple's power, predict who is denied what, or understand for what reason someone was denied complete control of their computer.

That sentence is absolutely false.

We would not stand for this control in any other medium.

Which is why CBS is required to broadcast any program I want them to, and DVD discs don't have region codes, and digital cameras don't have water sensing dots, and stock stereos in cars don't have proprietary connectors, and TiVo doesn't have the ability to remotely erase recorded shows, and movie theaters don't disallow outside foods, and Google doesn't have the exact same kill switch and the exact same control over their own Android Marketplace and they have *actually* done the thing you are trying to scare people by saying that Apple *might* do!

It should not be up to anyone but the owner of the device to exert control over what they wish to read or run.

And with few exceptions, that's the case with iOS.

Re:You mean even Hef (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34961902)

rather than tell us about your tendency to masturbate, maybe you could let us all know why it is that people like you seem to defend apple, whatever it is they choose to inflict on their poor gullible users, or attempt to inflict on the rest of us.

what kind of identity issues, in your particular case, led to the sorry state that you're in...?

oh and btw, if you defend apple continuously then it kind of invalidates your opinion on things a bit. funny how that works isn't it!

Re:You mean even Hef (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34962272)

Aww he will come bawing asking you to stop ad hominem attacks. Thats what amateur apple sales reps are programed to do.

I can't use a product with such a lame user base.

Re:You mean even Hef (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962328)

Apple does not "block" porn, they just refuse publishing porn themselves.

s/porn/nudity/g

Re:You mean even Hef (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962438)

Apple does not "block" porn, they just refuse publishing porn themselves.

They know their target audience has no interest in seeing naked women.

Re:You mean even Hef (4, Insightful)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962470)

Apple does not "block" porn, they just refuse publishing porn themselves.

They know their target audience has no interest in seeing naked women.

They know their target audience gets easy access to the real thing. :P

Re:You mean even Hef (3, Funny)

green1 (322787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962526)

They know their target audience has no interest in seeing naked women.

They know their target audience gets easy access to the real thing. :P

so.... their target market is women who own mirrors?

Re:You mean even Hef (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34961976)

And remember, you paid extra for the blocking of any nudity in apps! Well, other than the web browser of course. But aside from all the porn in the world, you're getting the porn blocking you paid for!

I know this is a joke and the mods missed it.

To mods: Since when is a web browser not good enough for porn?
When people turn their noses up at web based porn, Apple and their app store wins. You can stick a fork in the web, it's done.

Re:You mean even Hef (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962620)

Since the iPad doesn't have flash it breaks the formatting of many sites and requires an "app" to get them to work halfway decently.

Re:You mean even Hef (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34962060)

"web browser of course"

Bonk. Wrong answer, someone (?cough?) told me that most adult sites use flash.
So one is completely block out...

Re:You mean even Hef (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34962110)

If I wanted to pay money to not see women nude I would go grocery shopping.

wrong device (1)

mdemonic (988470) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961244)

They should rather release it for the nintendo 3d thing

Re:wrong device (1)

boreddotter (1836042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961378)

You think Nintendo will allow nudity on their devices?

Re:wrong device (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961480)

You think Nintendo will allow nudity on their devices?

Every company but Apple just loves nudity.

Re:wrong device (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34962002)

It not as if people can't still access websites or load their machines full of pictures/videos to their liking.
Digital picture frames are much cheaper though.

Mac-like photo-booth effects might help people do twisted things with the cameras.
(profile view, effect where one side mirrors the other... stand up, figure out how to make a "V")

Which is more water resistant, an Android phone or an iPhone?
Videochat shower to shower... "can you see me now?"

Save some money on bandwidth and take a real human out... Some things don't need to be commercialized.

Re:wrong device (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34962202)

You think Nintendo will allow nudity on their devices?

Every company but Apple just loves nudity.

Tell that to lucas arts.

http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/maniac.html [crockford.com]

Re:wrong device (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962224)

Well, clearly you haven't seen some of the games they sell in Japan for the DS...

No Comment (1)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961258)

When asked for comment, outgoing CEO Steve Jobs replied, "I would cut off the more disreputable parts of the body, and use the space for playing fields."

iPad Features (5, Funny)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961264)

and support iPad features (whatever that means)

It means:
- It will be locked down.
- Touch interaction with 'models' will be disabled.
- Page turning will be forced on a 20 second timer to ensure users don't get too 'excited'.
- All images of screwing will be replaced with 'pentalobular interaction'.
- Steve Jobs will read the articles via a quaint brittish accent TTS engine.
- All images will come with an accompanying 'I'm Offended!' reporting link.
- All nipple shots will be replaced with miniature Natalie Portman faces.

Re:iPad Features (5, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961322)

All nipple shots will be replaced with miniature Natalie Portman faces.

With or without hot grits?

Natalie Portman (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34961510)

Naked and Petrified!

Re:iPad Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34962614)

All nipple shots will be replaced with miniature Natalie Portman faces.

With or without hot grits?

It's optional... that satisfies the requirement of "customization" to be able to advertise it.

Re:iPad Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34961946)

> All nipple shots will be replaced with miniature Natalie Portman faces.

At first I thought that said:
All nipple shots will be replaced with miniature Natalie Portman fæces.

you can already get porn on iCrap (2)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961266)

Skyfire browser for flash and to avoid being directed to the pay mobile site instead of the free desktop one
a few apps are private browsers to hide your history from your wife
some websites support idevices directly

#1 is the best and is a deal at $1.99 or $2.99

Re:you can already get porn on iCrap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34962292)

pornhub? Fully mobile, html5 video, free content ( enough, you need a library of pron, DIY). Or google mobile porn and you'll either find a lot of good sites or get infected. Either way you'll be busy for a while.

Proofreading needed (3, Funny)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961272)

"But if Playboy does come out with a native app for iPad, but all the nudity will be censored." -- sentence failure!

Re:Proofreading needed (2, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961310)

I think they meant to say, "But if Playboy does come out with a native app for iPad, all the butt nudity will be censored". There, I fixed that for ya... simple word transposition.

Buggy Browsers? (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961276)

I'd trust a general-purpose web browser to be more secure and less buggy than some made-up "app" any day.

Re:Buggy Browsers? (2)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961704)

I'd trust a general-purpose web browser to be more secure and less buggy than some made-up "app" any day.

But then you probably have actually used an iPhone.

Re:Buggy Browsers? (1)

tsj5j (1159013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34963012)

+1.

I'm rather annoyed at how many app developers are creating poorly-written, advertisement-filled versions of their web pages taking no advantage of being native at all. *glares at newspapers*
I'd much prefer a platform-neutral, mobile version of the web page that will at least work for other OSes such as Android, WebOS, etc.

Re:Buggy Browsers? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#34963752)

Indeed. We access our banks through web browsers these days, so the suggestion that the web isn't safe and reliable enough for a girlie mag is rather ridiculous.

The real reason that publications would prefer to have a native app than a web app is left unsaid: It would give them access to the App Store shopping cart. Easy one click purchasing for the millions of people that have accounts.

FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34961296)

But if Playboy does come out with a native app for iPad, all the nudity will be censored.

Web app? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961300)

Seems to me that what they're describing is a web app, which someone can save to the home screen just like any other iPad app. Unless the app needs to do something particularly special with hardware, sound, 3D animation, the camera, etc. (which I can't imagine this sort of app doing), the only significant distinction between that and a native (store) app is the payment model.... (And the language it's written in, of course, but a user doesn't see that part.)

Much ado about nothing, methinks.

Re:Web app? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961374)

The Playboy Archive [playboyarchive.com] requires Silverlight to see anything useful (the articles, natch). Hard to see how that's gonna work on the pad. Maybe they'll make a special edition since the stuff on the website is just a teaser to get you to plunk down some cash.

Re:Web app? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961632)

Silverlight would be just as much of a nonstarter on iOS in a native app, though.

Re:Web app? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34962038)

There goes how much of your potential viewers? Well, that will teach them to go with Silvershit!

Re:Web app? (1)

northTbone (1976238) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961814)

Maybe this has some other advantages I haven't seen mentioned, like the possibility of being used on Android or other mobile platforms? If its on the web, it should be accessible to more than just iPad users.

Re:Web app? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34961832)

Probably Sencha Touch: http://www.sencha.com/products/touch/ [sencha.com]

You'll need a webkit browser like Chrome or Safari to see the examples.

Indeed (2, Insightful)

Errsher (1771244) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961332)

Thank God for Apple, no need for those pesky Parental Controls when Steve Jobs our Lord and Savior is watching over the flock.

its just good marketing (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961338)

it makes parents feel comfortable buying their kids iPads and iPhones

now you don't have to like this marketing ploy, and you don't have to like the rationale behind the parent's thinking. but you have to admit it works, it brings in the $, and that's all that matters

Re:its just good marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34961896)

But it fails quite miserably since your kids can still get shit loads of porn through the browser.

Re:its just good marketing (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961954)

i didn't say it was good TECHNOLOGY, i said it was good MARKETING. there's a difference between perception and reality, and that difference can result in people buying your product over another one, even though, technologically, the reasons for why you justify your choice simply don't exist. "i bought the iPad because its safer for my kids." yeah, bullshit. but EFFECTIVE bullshit

Re:its just good marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34963582)

i didn't say it was good TECHNOLOGY, i said it was good MARKETING

... which, in fact, works very nicely as a summary of everything Apple's done for the past decade or so :-).

Re:its just good marketing (1)

S77IM (1371931) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962300)

it brings in the $, and that's all that matters

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is about 3/4 of what's wrong with our society.

  -- 77IM

Re:its just good marketing (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962836)

it makes parents feel comfortable buying their kids iPads and iPhones

now you don't have to like this marketing ploy, and you don't have to like the rationale behind the parent's thinking. but you have to admit it works, it brings in the $, and that's all that matters

It's basically summarized in Apple's approval guidelines - kids use iPhones and iPod Touches these days, and parents don't always set the parental controls correctly, which make them just as useless as the V-chip and other parental control technology.

It's also why kid-friendly consoles like the Wii and DS have to use the awful friend code system and such gimped connectivity - it adds just enough difficulty that parents don't worry about evils of online gaming, perceived or real.

And yes, it makes Apple and Nintendo a LOT of money.

Microsoft will have an interesting time since Kinect is perceived as kid-friendly, but Xbox Live isn't.

Potentially buggier, less secure? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961354)

native app instead of suffering a potentially buggier, less secure browser-based experience.

Care to explain what it even means? I mean, sure, any app X is potentially buggier than some other app Y (possibly except when Y is ATI Linux proprietary driver). But why would web apps be specifically buggier than native, and how is it any less secure? If anything, it seems to be more secure to me - native app means running native code on your device, while web app means running sandboxed JavaScript.

Re:Potentially buggier, less secure? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961434)

If you're writing straight to the built-in APIs, it's a lot harder to write an app in JavaScript than in Objective-C. Specifically, it's a lot easier to make mistakes when you're hand-coding all the DOM manipulation yourself instead of relying on widget toolkits that do the heavy lifting for you.

Of course, that argument goes away as soon as you use a decent JavaScript toolkit.

As for less secure... well, there's no keychain in the browser, for one, which probably isn't a big deal for something like this, but I could see somebody arguing that the lack of a keychain is a security disadvantage.

Neither of those is a very good argument, though.

Re:Potentially buggier, less secure? (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962736)

This is what dashcode is for. Nothing to see here, move along...

Re:Potentially buggier, less secure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34963726)

You probably never write code with object-c, only with javascript..

Re:Potentially buggier, less secure? (1)

anti-NAT (709310) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962756)

Care to explain what it even means? Poster has been drinking the Steve Jobs iPad Kool-Aid. Surely you knew that native apps were naturally less buggier and more secure - Steve said so.

Buggy? (1)

bmuon (1814306) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961360)

"Potentially buggy" version? Web developers everywhere are outraged

It's Playboy, not Hustler... (4, Insightful)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961370)

This is bizarre. Playboy is R-rated, not NC-17, and Apple already distributes music that carries the [EXPLICIT] tag. Hell, they sell and rent Fast Times at Ridgemont High [imdb.com] , and there's nothing you can see in Playboy that's not in that movie, and nothing they say in Playboy that's not in American Pie [imdb.com] .

Re:It's Playboy, not Hustler... (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961402)

This is bizarre. Playboy is R-rated, not NC-17, and Apple already distributes music that carries the [EXPLICIT] tag. Hell, they sell and rent Fast Times at Ridgemont High [imdb.com] , and there's nothing you can see in Playboy that's not in that movie, and nothing they say in Playboy that's not in American Pie [imdb.com] .

Dunno about that. Apparently this month's edition has 43 year old Pamela Anderson showing off her poetry.

Do Not Want.

Re:It's Playboy, not Hustler... (1)

Stihdjia (1870316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962616)

Excuse me, did you say poetry?

Re:It's Playboy, not Hustler... (0, Offtopic)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961654)

It used to be necessary for the US Government to hire people who were known as "Kremlinologists," people who had spent years studying the history and culture of the Soviet Union and observing the politics and processes within the Politburo. Their role was to assist in formulating policy related to an utterly alien and intimidating foreign power, impermeable and mysterious to the rest of the world, yet strong enough to destroy civilization on a whim. Shrub's secretary of state, Condi Rice, was an example of someone who was trained in this line of work.

Now, Kremlinologists are no longer in demand, but it seems that it's necessary for major ISVs and publishers to recruit "Applepologists," people who are skilled at reading chicken entrails, tea leaves, tarot cards, and gossip sites to forecast the company's reaction to the submission of a given app. Will the same guidelines used for music and film be applied to Game X or Magazine Y? If not, which guidelines will apply, and which will not? Which camp is likely to be in favor with Jobs and Cook at the time the product is likely to be ready for submission -- the batshit-loony puritans who rejected a dictionary for "not being family friendly," or the anonymous contingent of progressives who would have given Playboy the green light to announce their iPad app? What are the odds that the rank-and-file employees will force change from the bottom, once they realize that they aren't really in a "worker's paradise" but a prison made of increasingly-lofty rhetoric and decreasingly-lucrative stock options?

Of course, we all know how successful Rice and the other Kremlinologists were at predicting the fall of the Soviet Union and understanding what would come next. Can anyone guess what will happen when Jobs finally leaves for good?

It's obvious there are two cultures within Apple, one dominated by intellectuals and geeks and the other dominated by Mormons or something. Which one will gain the upper hand?

Re:It's Playboy, not Hustler... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34962330)

I'd mod you up if /. allows me to use my mod points to mod in Apple threads (it seems I can use them anywhere but Apple stories). When did /. entered in the payroll of Apple?

Re:It's Playboy, not Hustler... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34962478)

If you've already posted a comment somewhere in the story, whether as AC or otherwise, it won't let you moderate anywhere else. This is inconsistent, though -- many times I've been able to post as AC and moderate later, then have the moderations undone when I make another AC post.

You'd think Slashdot would notice that no major site on the Internet works this way, including the ones with more effective moderation than Slashdot.

Re:It's Playboy, not Hustler... (1)

jeff4747 (256583) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962654)

I'm guessing you haven't bought a copy of Playboy recently. They decided they needed to 'keep up' with the Internet a while ago.

Re:It's Playboy, not Hustler... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34963338)

I've wondered what the ratio is of guys who find naked-woman-is-being-naked erotica enough for their "needs", compared to guys who require far more explicit material. I honestly suspect the ratio's around 70/30. (Frankly when looking at naked women I don't want ANY images of males impinging on my optic nerves, particularly images of male genitalia. Yeesh.)

And thousands of geeks... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961458)

...start reading up on rooting the ipad.

Re:And thousands of geeks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34962072)

Butt first, try and get those damn screws out of the casing...

Just to be clear (5, Insightful)

tsman (1980532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961492)

So once again: Gore, Murder, Violence, Beheading, Rape - Acceptable Breasts, Buttocks, Genitals, i.e...The Human Body = Unacceptable /sigh

Re:Just to be clear (2)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961778)

I think you may have missed some punctuation between Acceptable and Breasts. That must account for the Troll mod, I can't see any other reason for it...

Re:Just to be clear (1)

tsman (1980532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962070)

Yes, my mistake. Thank you for the edit.

Re:Just to be clear (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962364)

Don't forget that saying certain words is also unacceptable....

Re:Just to be clear (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962378)

Another thought: "curse words" are bad, but actually placing a curse on someone is fine. People wish drastic and graphic misfortune on others, but so long as they do it with the established acceptable phrasing, then no one bats an eyelash. I think someone lost the key point somewhere.

Idiot: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34961524)

> suffering a potentially buggier, less secure browser-based experience

Why is a webapp potentially buggier, less secure?

Re:Idiot: (2)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962750)

Because it supports my anti apple ranting, thats why. Lalala I can't hear you. *covers ears*

woah woah.. (1)

laktech (998064) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961562)

"Apple should allow them to get at if via a native app instead of suffering a potentially buggier, less secure browser-based experience" mmm kay, that's a leap.

Re:woah woah.. (1)

Fast Thick Pants (1081517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961892)

Leap? It's complete BS. Native apps are fine for things that require high-performance graphics (like games) or that need lower level integration with a device's sensors (like a camera app, a paint program, GPS stuff). For displaying text (sorry, "articles") and images, a browser-based experience is very much what I'd prefer, be it playboy or slashdot.

And "less secure"? Good lord what a reservoir of hogwash. I'll tell you what's less secure: Unnecessarily adding an additional piece of software on your machine that processes arbitrary content from the internet.

(okay, it's Friday night, enough slashdot -- I'm heading out to get a lapdance now... not particularly secure, I know, but then it does require low-level integration with my sensors...)

Re:woah woah.. (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962644)

Or you know if the actual site has you using something like Flash, Java or Silverlight it isn't going to be viewable on the iPad through the browser since great leader Jobs doesn't think that people need useful stuff like that.

Re:woah woah.. (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962758)

Dashcode + html5 h.264 video = near enough to native without worrying about security in your app. Security being looked after by safari. People bitching are android shills who have no idea.

2nd Tablet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34961812)

I guess the "early adopters" will need an iPad (Betamax) and another tablet (VHS) :-)

iPad features... (3, Funny)

DamnStupidElf (649844) | more than 3 years ago | (#34961906)

"pinch" to zoom, indeed...

Not tonight dear ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34962012)

... I'm on the iPad.

did you hear that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34962700)

As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror... ...and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

booo timothy (1)

Jenming (37265) | more than 3 years ago | (#34962882)

booo timothy

Do I care? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34963460)

I can find any porn (from straight missionary to stuff that makes you wonder if you've zapped into a parallel universe) for free at any time.

Who cares what Apple is allowing on the App store?

Do I really need porn in a 10 inch window, or is that *way* too loaded of a question? :-) We have reached the promised age of 3D, 1080p-orn on 70" screens in surround sound.

I'm serious about that parallel Earth thing. I saw porn last week where the number of people and number of genitalia just didn't add up right. :-(

Noooo! pixelated nip is sin! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34963818)

pixelated nip? really? Really? REALLY?

So, It's PG rated if we simply pixelate nip?

What if we just cut the digital middleman and just let kids watch strippers who have pixelated nip paint or something... that would be awesome.

What part of open don't you get? (1)

gig (78408) | more than 3 years ago | (#34963836)

The HTML5 API is the open iOS API. That is where all the nudity is. It's unmediated. It's perfect for Playboy. The iPad features are touch events and WebKit enhancements.

The Cocoa API on iOS is managed so that it is an alternative to anything-goes HTML5. Yes, you can shop at App Store with freedom from porn, because you can't get away from it on the Web. Yin and yang. Balance. Choice. I know it is unfamiliar totalitarian nerd like the original poster, but luckily there is at least one company giving users what they want instead of what nerd dogma says they are allowed to have.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>