Apple insult their customers, women, free speech
tech-no-media.com
tech-no-media.com
To address your usability concerns, Apple could have just fixed search results, perhaps removing these apps from 'top' lists or segregating them into a 'red light district'. Then the store would be 'usable' both for people who want these apps, and people who don't. (Usability does not require prudish censorship.)
Actually, for some set of their customers, they did. Not every adult is interested in buying softcore pornography.
You may disagree with the method, but to say this does not solve a problem for a set of users is just ignorant. The problem was doing X, and now it no longer does X. I don't see how anybody can not consider that at least a partial solution to the more general problem.
I understand what you are saying. I just think the 'solution' was lazy, shortsighted, and doesn't help Apple consumers in the long run, and doesn't solve the problem.
It's not about the audience or who doesn't want to be part of that audience. It's about the idea that some people are just so offended at these apps being so popular they can't bear to let their kids potentially access them (oh, did we totally just gloss over the parental controls and ratings? oh why yes we did!)
What Apple is assuming is that the set of their users who categorically do not want softcore pornography is larger than the set that do, and that removing themselves from the business of selling and distributing softcore pornography will be a net gain.
The same is probably not true of any other distinct class of applications.
Apple could have had an opt-in verification-required category for adult apps that only shows up at the bottom of the dropdown list of app categories and nowhere else only if you are signed into your verified account. They could have improved ratings and parental controls to satisfy parents and educators. Then the kids going to schools that want to use iPads for education don't have to see these, and the adults that don't want softcore porn in their face won't have to see them either.
Instead, Apple just went and removed these apps (well...not even all of them. nice double standard going on with SI and Playboy still on the app store...). That, I think, was a mistake.
This would seem to bolster my argument. The only way to not see them as an adult was to declare oneself a child. Whatever you may think of people who are categorically disinterested in these applications, this is not a good way to treat users. I know you're not saying it was fine the way it was, I just think it underscores the importance of a solution that fits in prevailing social mores. There are some things that people expect not to see unless they are specifically looking for them. That would seem to lead into the idea of segregating that stuff into a "back room", but as I explain below, I think that only follows if the retailer wants to sell that content in the first place.
Apple could have had...
What you and many others seem to avoid is explaining is why you believe that putting these applications in a ghetto would be preferable to simply not selling them at all. That Apple is demonstrably willing to go without them would seem to undermine such arguments. If they don't want to sell porn-like apps, why should they devote resources--any resources--to developing such a ghetto, classifying things which should and should not belong in that ghetto, verifying adult status through some unspecified system, ensuring the accuracy of that verification system, dealing with the complaints of ghetto-ized developers, complaints of developers afraid of being ghetto-ized, complaints of developers who wanted to get into the App Store via the ghetto but where rejected, complaints of adult users shafted by the verification system, complaints by users who don't think there should be a ghetto in the first place, complaints by users who thing the ghetto should include X, Y, and Z, and complaints from people who just like to complain. And this on top of an App Store review process that has borne criticism for inconsistency and delays from the start.
Again, why would they bother expending the resources to support something they don't appear to want to do in the first place? It may be that Apple is making a mistake that will hurt them in the long run, but it's not clear to me what they would get out of ghetto-izing that is in line with their aims.
Please understand that that is the problem with some of the arguments supporting what Apple did. The problems they list that are apparently now gone for adult content is still there for all the other apps. Just saying. :p
> What you and many others seem to avoid is explaining is why you believe that putting these applications in a ghetto would be preferable to simply not selling them at all.
Why? Because there are adults that don't want to see it at the same time there will be adults that do. By the app store rankings of some of the apps that were pulled, some of them were very very popular and are no doubt huge moneymakers for the developers and for Apple. I can't tell Apple that they should approve or reject content on their own store, but if there is not insignificant demand and Apple was profiting off these apps, why not? Presumably a "ghetto"/back room will be preferable to nothing at all or doing nothing at all for all parties negatively impacted (Apple, developers) and an acceptable compromise to the complainers.
> That Apple is demonstrably willing to go without them would seem to undermine such arguments
I don't know, for a few hours yesterday the new "Explicit" category on iTunes Connect seemed to say that Apple's first reaction was to pull apps, then their second was to do exactly what I suggested in my posts on HN about a separate category later, either because of the backlash and concerns from pulling apps, or because they're trying to figure out how to satisfy everyone ;)
> If they don't want to sell porn-like apps, why should they devote resources--any resources...
Who says Apple doesn't want to sell them? Schiller didn't come out and say that, he said that they pulled them because of complaints. Apple doesn't want complaints. If Apple didn't want to sell them, they would never have approved those apps to begin with. Apple will lose money no matter what if they pull adult content, or they leave it up there and face the wrath of parents and others that won't buy devices as a result. On the other hand, a "ghetto" for adult apps will probably work for everyone involved. It won't be as nice as being on the rest of the store, but not much adult content on the internet in general is out in the open, as opposed to behind some kind of age verification/login wall (see: lots of porn sites, youtube), and I'd honestly be surprised if some adult content distributor was whining about naked women not being next to Plants vs. Zombies and Navigon GPS apps if the alternative is not being on the store at all. Why should Apple devote resources otherwise? Oh, I don't know, they've chosen that position themselves and are failing hard at their inconsistency, and they're already doing it with all the apps on the store now (or else face removal/rejection/inability to even submit your app). Developers also pay for it via a yearly fee. :P
Which is another point. If they're going to pull all sexual content from the store but allow SI and Playboy to stay on there, and they're going to keep on insisting on those 17+ ratings for apps with UGC regardless of in-app content, that makes no sense.
So, I think the "why" is because Apple is still a business. They have working parental controls and ratings that just need refined. They have an app store that needs refined too. If they can successfully pull all that off, complaints about explicit content in the top 25 list and complaints about no explicit content at all will likely minimize into oblivion. And it seems that these alternative ideas are definitely something they're considering right now.
Which is different from what you were saying. I said they didn't solve the problem. You said they did. Now you are saying that you really said the App Store just got better, which is completely different.
Yes, the App Store got better for you. However, the problem (as the person you responded to made reference to) still exists. The App Store is still crappy in displaying things you are interested in. They didn't change anything in that regard.
The problem still exists.
I did not say that they solved the problem for all users. I said that "for some set of their customers", they did in my original post and reiterated that in my second post by saying "for that set of users". The set of users I am referring to is "adults who are not interested in softcore pornography".
I apologize if it is unclear that by "some set" of customers and "that set" of users, I was referring to a set other than the whole set of all customers.
My intent was to demonstrate that Apple's actions have not adversely effected all users equally and introduce the idea that considering the parties who have benefited is worthwhile, because realizing that consequences are not a binary good/bad is essential to understanding complex problems. I could have taken this further in my original post. My mistake.
Additionally, I did not mean to suggest that the general problem of displaying information that doesn't interest a user had been solved. Frankly, I can't imagine a complete solution that does not involve technologies which don't exist. The App Store, as I see it, can never perfectly display only information the user is interested in, so I did not think this is what was meant. In that sense I was conflating "solution" with "improvement", much as one might say Hacker News is a "solution" to finding interesting things on the web, even though it is not perfect, does not work equally well for all users, and makes some effort to exclude softcore pornography.
This could have been clearer had I quoted the sentence that followed in your original post, where after saying "They didn't solve the problem.", you say "The App Store's ability to show you apps hasn't improved." If there is any confusion between "solving" the problem and "improving", it began in your post. Nevertheless, I could have been clearer that I meant the problem had been mitigated and not truly "solved", and then only for the set of users I was indicating. I am not a perfect poster.
Yes, the App Store got better for you.
At no point was I referring to myself as an effected user. I have never in my life used the App Store. I do not and never have owned an iPhone or iPod Touch. I do not own any functioning Apple products.
That seems to be a better solution than arbitrary censorship.
I also don't know why people don't realize that Apple has parental controls and ratings for apps already both in the store and on the devices. They can piggyback on those to restrict adult apps even further.
Furthermore, the comment you replied to is mentioning a problem that is rampant in the entire store, which prompted Apple to do things like banning developers with thousands of near-identical apps (that I'm sure we can agree is abuse) and creating another category for books (remember those idiots that would upload 99 cent public domain ebooks?). Apple can improve the storefront in general to make it more optimized for searching/viewing applications, not music or movies.
Clearly these apps are popular and Apple needs to stop judging apps based on content (only rating, not judging) and just screen for security/stability purposes.
You can argue about whether it's intelligent or not for Apple to do this, but it's certainly well within their rights.
The "you can look at porn in your browser" thing is getting really old and stinks of the time when Apple was all "webapps should be good enough (on the iPhone)!" back in 2007. Yeah, that sure worked out well.
What, like non-adult apps are all examples of mindblowingly good developer talent and design?
There are unbelievably awful apps on the store that got past the review process (can you even call that a review process anymore? riddled with issues and reviewers actually not opening apps...) that are crash happy, ugly as sin, useless and more. Where's the problem with adult content that makes that more likely to happen?
> Apple intends the iPhone/iPod/iPad to be something that everyone on the planet owns.
It's called ratings and parental controls. It's called Apple can redesign the app store. It's called requiring an Apple ID with credit card and birth date to see adult-rated apps in their own hidden category.
Apple already sells softcore porn/erotica in the form of many TV shows and movies, and already sells explicit songs. People can still use browsers and other apps to gain access to adult content. If people are happy enough with parental controls/ratings for that, what's the deal with apps? Apple can fix this on their end instead of removing all these apps.
> Like every decision Apple makes, this has everything to do with business
The business behind the top 10/25/50 list in any category is tantamount to a lot of money.
> It's the same reason they review every app.
Too bad Apple suffers from indecisiveness and a lack of consistency. That's the problem here. As I've mentioned many times on HN before, the bigger issue is that Apple was okay enough with these to review and approve them and to come up with ratings and controls for apps, but then on a whim decided to pull them - and wasn't even consistent there. What's next? It's definitely their marketplace and their device, but a growing number of developers will become discontent, and Apple will suffer without them.
But I have to protest to the headline: This has nothing to do with free speech.
You bought a piece of hardware tied to an editorial process that you don't control. If that bothers you, learn from your mistake and move on. If it doesn't, good for you, but don't complain once it does.
Tying this sort of luxury problem to something as serious as free speech is an affront to those who live in fear for the live and livelihood of themselves and their families because they dare to speak their mind.
In this case, the author has characterized Apple's operation of Apple's own store as "almost Stalinian" and "completely unacceptable in a democratic country" without any argument to support this. Pointing out that it is within Apple's rights is a counter-argument to the argument that was actually made, not merely a dismissal of it as inarguable.
"Pointing out that it is within Apple's rights is a counter-argument to the argument that was actually made, not merely a dismissal of it as inarguable."
This wasn't a point, and has no bearing on the arguments being presented.
I quoted part of the article in which the author argues that what Apple has done has no place in a democratic country. I do not understand how that is not easily refuted by the fact that in this democratic country, Apple is well within their rights to do what they have done. I see one of two possibilities: 1) I have misinterpreted the passages I have directly quoted. 2) I have failed to detect the argument(s) you're referring to.
1) is plausible, but unlikely. 2) is plausible, but your response to my question does not give me any reason to believe that is the case.
The conclusion I'm left with is the one I started with: that this article is simply a poor piece of criticism.
For most programmers an extra line of SQL could have fixed this so I don't know why apple is using this ass backwards approach.
It's definitely within their right, but surely we can complain about it.
In my analogy, the bottle would have been an application. The App Store (the restaurant) contains applications (the alcohol), not the phone. The phone would be, I suppose, the "world". After all, if you abandon that phone, the rules of that world do not apply.
The analogy strains at this point anyway: In my jurisdiction, and most others that I've lived, restaurants by law only sell alcohol in open containers, which you can only consume on site. You can't take it home with you. I know it's not the same everywhere, but it's hard to draw a consistent analogy when the thing being analogized to doesn't behave the same way everywhere.
On the other hand, maybe that is apt.
Bad choice. Google has the same policy on adult applications in the Android Market. Not sure if they enforce it or not. They certainly do block some applications such as wifi tethering apps. Android is not a good choice if you want a fully open platform.
Anyway, though it made sense to do something about the proliferation of these apps, just removing all of them was a stupid move, for both developers and users, given that there are obvious and easy technical solutions.