Comments on: Apple’s App Store, Porn & “Censorship”

By: Don’t Like Apple’s “Censorship” of Apps Content? Use Your iPhone or iPad Browser!

Mon, 05 Jul 2010 18:33:44 +0000

[...] the point I was trying to make a few months ago in a heated exchange over Adam’s post on Apple’s App Store, Porn & “Censorship”: Although Apple restricts pornographic apps, it does not restrict what iPhone (or iPad or iTouch) [...]

By: Sex Toys

Sex Toys — Thu, 27 May 2010 09:59:05 +0000

I think Apple wants a really boost of money that's why sometimes they considered those apps which is intended to porn because when it comes to porn a lot of money will be involved.

By: Adult Sex Toys For Less

Adult Sex Toys For Less — Thu, 27 May 2010 04:59:05 +0000

I think Apple wants a really boost of money that's why sometimes they considered those apps which is intended to porn because when it comes to porn a lot of money will be involved.

By: More Zittrainian Nonsense about “The Death of the Open Web”

More Zittrainian Nonsense about “The Death of the Open Web” — Sun, 23 May 2010 21:03:45 +0000

[...] setting on my phone to allow me to install apps from anywhere on the Internet. Indeed, porn-lovers can install their own porn-app marketplace (MiKandi) to access adult apps that wouldn’t be allowed in the [...]

By: MiKandi

MiKandi — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:46:50 +0000

Thanks for the shout out, Adam!

While we don't all agree with Apple's decision, MiKandi applauds Apple's efforts be more clear with developers regarding mature content.

Since Apple's announcement, we've gotten a ton more new developers registered on our portal, and many more expressing their interest to port their newly banned iPhone apps to Android. So we're excited to see what they publish on MiKandi.

By: Apple, Content Platforms & Editorial Discretion

Apple, Content Platforms & Editorial Discretion — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:45:54 +0000

[...] about Apple’s moves to restrict pornographic content in the Apple Apps Store. (see: “Apple’s App Store, Porn & ‘Censorship‘”) It received a surprising number of comments and featured a back and forth between me [...]

By: xue

xue — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:56:49 +0000

Everywhere you go now you find that the ugg boot has become the latest fashion new arrival cheap trend. now days it seems that you can not walk pass any window display of any shoe or fashion clothing store with seeing a pair of these trendy boots in them. it does not matter where ever you are in the world you will find ugg boots. these boots are both hot and trendy and certainly do not need to be worn in cold weather only. many people have found, that one pair of ugg boots is not enough.

We have been seller of UGG Boots for many years.Our customers are satisfied with our products as we offer the real UGG Australia Boots:
*100% authentic sheepskin for unrivalled comfort
*soft genuine sheepskin heel padding
*cushioning insole,flexible fabric-trimmed midsole.
*Lightweight molded EVA traction outsole
*Free shipping
*One week to your door
*If you dont like what youve received, simply return it! site:uggmax.com

By: xue

xue — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:56:33 +0000

Legend has it that "ugg" is short for "ugly" - so, "ugg boots" apparently meant "ugly boots." For decades, "ugg" was generic term used for sheepskin boots made in Australia.The word was so commonplace that it was found in Australian dictionaries, and ugg boots were also known as "ug" or "ugh" boots. But in the United States, when people refer to "UGG boots," they're usually talking about the boots made by Deckers Outdoor Corporation, the parent company of "UGG Australia."So if you're traveling the world and talking about footwear, it's good to know that when the term "ugg boot" is used, it could be referring to an Australian-made sheepskin boot, or a popular brand name boot.
We sell authentic UGG Boots in our website for many year.We offer the best service and favourable price.People all aound the world buy our products do not pay for the shipping,we charge it!

Our UGG Boots have the advantages below:
* 100% authentic sheepskin for unrivalled comfort
* genuine twin-face sheepskin for refreshing comfort
* have a molded EVA light and flexible outsole designed for amazing comfort with every step.
*You can wear them up or style them folded down

Welcome to buy UGG Boots in our website,we offer the UGG Australia boots are all
with top quality!site:mbt4sale.com

By: xue

xue — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:56:25 +0000

When heard of winter, cold may come in your mind at once.if you are ready for the coming of winter,you should never be afraid of it.it is not difficult for us that if you protect your feet well,you will fell warm and comfortable.so you should get several shoes help you spend the cold winter.UGG Boots can be done.for many individuals,ugg boots provide the perfect insulation and comfort for the winter months.ugg boots are both warm and comfortable.these two factors are extremely important,no matter what amount of time you are going to be spending out in the weather.ugg boots are made out of a material that is water resistant, meaning that no water,and no cold air,can get into your boots.they will keep in the warmth of your feet,because of their outer shell and their inner linings. once you slip your feet into a pair of these boots,they will be warm and toasty until it is time to take them off.you will be able to take advantage of the great warmth that ugg boots offer.e-uggs.com

Welcome to buy UGG Boots in our website,we offer the UGG Australia boots are with top quality:
features genuine twin-face sheepskin for refreshing comfort
feature a soft foam insole covered with genuine sheepskin
have a molded EVA light and flexible outsole designed for amazing comfort with every step.
you can enjoy free shipping worldwide in our website.
1 week delivery to your door
sometimes you can get a special discount from our company by email
Our customers are always satisfied with such kind of UGG Boots and our high service!-http://www.footwearmbt.com/

By: xue

xue — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:56:19 +0000

The original ugg boots is not a brand name but an age old sheepskin boots generic term for this style of australian-made sheepskin boot. in Aussie slang, the ug name is short for “ugly.” in terms of comfort, however, the ug boot is a thing of beauty.Ugg boots are a popular brand of boot for women,and children.just as the chairman of australian ugg said, australian ugg is a good choice. once wearing it, you will be reluctant to take it off and be fascinated by its originality, reliability and extremely luxurious comfort. this is the art brought by boots. ugg boots make young beautiful girls and handsome boys very confident.addugg.com

Our website have many fashion styels of UGG Boots for women and children.

We provide many advantages as below:
free shipping
hidden costs
professional customers service
secure processing,plus
*we dont hassle you on returns.if you dont like what youve received, simply return it!

UGG Boots must be you best choice!-http://www.addugg.com/

By: xue

xue — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:56:14 +0000

We have been exporter of UGG Australia Boots for many years,our product are all authentic.Welcome to buy any boots of them in our website,we charge the shipping fee.
We just take 7 days to deliver the products to your door.
As everyone knows,UGG Australia Boots in australia, and many other countries as well, ugg boots also ug or uggs are a style of footwear that has been used generically for well over a hundred years.Everywhere you go now you find that the ugg boot has become the latest fashion trend.uggsmax.com

Our UGG Australia Boots are all with top quality:

*100% authentic sheepskin for unrivalled comfort
*flexible molded EVA outsole
*Insole features a genuine sheepskin sockliner that naturally wicks away moisture and keeps feet dry
*Wool blend knit uppers with suede heel guards
*Approximate Shaft Height (Uncuffed): 14.5"
*By UGG Australia;Imported.-http://www.uggdress.com/

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 20:23:54 +0000

Ryan, that's a great point. I agree that the DMCA hasn't prevented these tools from being created and distributed. And you're right that we can't be sure what a post-DMCA iPhone app market would look like.

However, what the DMCA has clearly done is discourage reputable companies and organizations from developing third-party iPhone technology. The threat of liability didn't prevent Cydia from coming on the market, but I suspect it has made it harder for Jay Freeman to raise the capital he might need to make it a mainstream product. Similarly for Jon Johanssen, who is working to build better interoperability tools.

Most users aren't interested in running "hacker" tools. They'll only install software if it's produced by a reputable company. The DMCA pushes these tools into the grey market, which doesn't prevent the "bad guys" from using them, but it does subtly discourage ordinary users from doing so. I think Apple is happy to have these companies around as long as they remain at the margins of the marketplace. The threat of litigation helps keep them there.

Finally, it's important to remember the Bastiat point about what is seen and what is not seen. There may be entrepreneurs out there who would like to create iPhone-related apps but have been dissuaded from doing so by the threat of litigation. We'll never know what those innovations might be, and how much value is being destroyed by keeping them off the market.

By: Ryan Radia

Ryan Radia — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 20:11:46 +0000

Tim, as much as I despise the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, I'm not so sure the iPhone app store would be much less controversial even if DRM circumvention technologies were legal. I say this because in practice, the DMCA seems to be pretty easy to get around from a user's perspective, and 'illegal" circumvention software is widely available online for nearly every major platform, including the iPhone.

I'm not an iPhone owner, but it's my understanding that it's not too complicated to jailbreak an iPhone and install third-party apps on it. While Apple has declared Cydia and similar unlicensed iPhone app stores to be illegal, nearly a year after Cydia's launch, it's still up and running (right?) even though Apple presumably could have taken Cydia to court. My guess is that Apple realizes that trying to stop jailbreakers is a losing battle and isn't too worried about a handful of iPhone owners running rogue apps. Also, even without the DMCA, Apple can still implement technological countermeasures to prevent jailbreaking and deny the warranty of iPhone owners who've tampered with the OS.

By: Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:48:06 +0000

Yes, in one sense I agree. And, because we are talking about mobile phones here, a subscription, contract, and billing account are already in play. So, at least in theory, that should make a solution like that a little easier.

Of course, not all web content or online apps are rated, so that's something either Apple will need to start doing or work with others to come up with a standard. Eventually this could happen. But even if it does, Apple may STILL take steps to block access for "NC-17"-like content if they feel it's not right for their platform. Again, as I note before, content IS rated in the gaming industry and yet all 3 console makers refuse to allow "AO" (adults only) rated game content on their consoles. They do this even though their consoles all include chipsets that allow parents (like me) to block video game and movie content according to the metadata included in media played on those devices. Basically, the game console makers don't want their to be any chance that the really edgy stuff might be seen by kids. And I have a feeling that will be Apple's position going forward, too, even if they do devise ratings and parental control solutions.

By: harperlieblich

harperlieblich — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:52:40 +0000

Some of the apps that got pulled where exercise apps that showed women in workout clothes. This kind of thing is worth reporting on because it's a factor on both customer and developers decision to get involved in the iPhone ecosystem. Of course it's Apple's prerogative but that doesn't make the discussion any less relevant.

By: Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:17:59 +0000

You say... "Really? Apple doesn't limit my ability to run pornographic apps on my Mac. Is Apple catching hell from its customers over that?"

It's a fair point, but the two contexts are somewhat different. Apple doesn't control the Wild West of the Web that you can access through your browser while using your Mac. But filters and other screening/monitoring tools were developed to help deal with that problem. When it comes to the walled garden of content that Apple does control, however, it has a different level of control and responsibilities. That is exacerbated in the mobile environment where (a) Apple has even more control over the device in question and (b) kids who have them can access content more ubiquitously away from their parent's control. This is why some device makers intentionally cripple hardware that has a broader audience that includes many children. Again, the complaint people are lodging against Apple in this case is nearly identical to that which some critics have levied against video game console and software developers for not allowing "AO" games on mainstream gaming devices. I discussed some of these issues in this old essay:

http://techliberation.com/2008/03/17/video-game...

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:09:20 +0000

I guess I don't see how it's an "entitlement mentality" to want to run the applications of my choice on a gadget I paid good money for. Also:

If Apple didn't, there would be hell to pay with the huge number of customers who don't want that stuff available on their phones.

Really? Apple doesn't limit my ability to run pornographic apps on my Mac. Is Apple catching hell from its customers over that?

By: Apple apps restriction « In the Palm of Your Hand

Apple apps restriction « In the Palm of Your Hand — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:06:13 +0000

[...] people on both sides of the argument. There are well written justifications for why Apple is allowed to do what it did. There are attacks on what is considered a scary [...]

By: Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:02:15 +0000

Again, Tim, I have no problem with people raising legitimate complaints about Apple's over-zealous ways when it comes to managing devices, applications, or whatever else. However, some of us who do not like Apple products or services for that reason vote with our wallets and take our business elsewhere and don't cop the sort of entitlement mentality all too many people have out there about what they should have access to on various devices or platforms.

Part of what I am responding to here is the way people completely blow things out of proportion when it comes to what they can get on their iPhone. I mean, seriously, over 100,000 apps available in 77 countries with billions of downloads... that's not a bad track record. And, again, I say that as someone who is not an Apple fanboy. And, yet, in this case we once again have people raising bogus Zittrainian corporate Big Brother fears about a very narrow sliver of content--porn--that is widely available elsewhere. What, exactly, is so "scary" (as Kincaid put it) about Apple self-regulating in this way? If Apple didn't, there would be hell to pay with the huge number of customers who don't want that stuff available on their phones. (For similar reasons, video game platform developers refuse to carry any adult-oriented content on their consoles.) And, again, that would lead to serious pressure for government to regulate online content.

Finally, even in the absence of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, Apple would still likely take steps to block 3rd party apps that violated their terms of service. I can appreciate your point about how the law in this case should not be used to facilitate that process, but Apple still has other ways to try to thwart applications they do not approve of on their device/platform. Again, not saying I approve of those games, but that's their choice.

By: lrd555

lrd555 — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:45:18 +0000

There’s a really simple solution for this: Make a category for NC 17 apps-- for adults only requiring some kind of certification via credit card or something like that.

Everyone wins and the racy is stuff gets to compete in its own category.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:42:16 +0000

Well, we could start by repealing the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions so I have the option to use third-party app stores.

Beyond that, what I think should be done is that private-sector media outlets like TechCrunch should write articles criticizing Apple when they behave badly. Adam doesn't have to agree with those criticisms, of course, but Adam seems to feel it's somehow beyond the pale to criticize Apple's policies.

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:32:40 +0000

As a consumer, Tim, I agree with you—which is why I kept chugging along on my clunky old Windows Mobile Phone for several years after the iPhone came out, just waiting for a more open platform and the right phone. When Verizon began offering the Droid in November, I pounced on it—and haven't looked back since. Problem solved.

So I'm not sure what you think should be done here. Should Apple not have the right to be open? Again, I hear you that you don't like their policy and you think it may invite regulation, but should they be forced to accept your model of openness? I certainly hope you'd agree with us that those who would argue that the First Amendment somehow restricts Apple here because the app store has become a kind of "public forum" are just trying to turn a shield against government into a sword by which government gets to go around imposing a particular set of policy preferences on private actors.

By: NotTellinYou!

NotTellinYou! — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:59:00 +0000

I love this people going on and on and on, when this is no different than going into say Target! You won't find magazines of "Bikini Babes" but you will find Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. You won't find porn but you will find CD's with "Mature Lyrics", and games with "Mature Content".

Look, the fact is this stuff has NEVER made sense from the movie ratings system to the situation at 7-Eleven to the above at Target. But that's just the way it is! Get over it!

The issue is worse for Apple in that unlike 7-Eleven or Target there is no cashier that can verify, or is supposed to verify, age. So you give your kid an iPhone and then what?

What's really sad is all these people that I guess can't meet a real girl in a bikini and have to get an app to see them. Here's a free clue! Go on line, download all the bikini girls you want, thousands if you like, load them into iPhoto and sync! There! You have more bikini girls than you ever imagined!

Problem solved...and I didn't even charge you 99 cents!

By: Eoin

Eoin — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:45:49 +0000

Good article. I am amused by the HateBoys who tend to say

1) Apple is engaging in internet censorship, and then go on to say
2) Apple is only 8% of the market ( or < 20% for smart phones). A good deal less of all phones, of course.

So which is it? It is possible for a monopoly provider to engage in something akin to - but not exactly like - Government type censorship but it is not possible for a minority player to engage in censorship. Period.

Were MicroSoft to ban a technology from WIndows it would have a large ripple effect. The dominance of the OS market by MS means that people have to buy Windows to get all the software they need easily ( by that I mean in shops, online, not by doing a linux install). I prefer OS X but I have recommended Windows to some relatives precisely for that reason, they need to be sheep because everybody else is. Of course MS have done something similar by forcing it's suppliers to install IE and other applications, the dominance of most of Microsoft's application suite is due to it's monopoly.

Banning flash from the iPad, or iPhone, or banning porn from either has no effect on anybody because the consumer can easily shop elsewhere. ( Not that any phone software distribution model - with the exception of the Android model - is open, and we'll see how long Android's policy lasts, probably until the first major network outage.)

In other news Border's bookstores does not sell porn. But the sex shop down the road does. Anti-Border's hateboys not complaining about borders and their "censorship" policy probably because they realise in this case that they can go elsewhere.

The logic is the same with the iPhone, which comes with an App Store attached.( Even then, technical people can get over that by jail breaking. So you can have app porn, but Mom cant, but she probably doesnt want it.)

The same nonsense, as I have alluded to, gets the HateBoy's knickers in a twist about Flash - a non-standard beloved by nobody except Flash devs - a plugin which routinely accelerates my CPU to 80-100% on pages which are doing nothing more than blinking some rubbish on the top right of my screen. I get less cpu hogging from games.

However if you love Flash dont buy the iPhone, or the iPad. You still buy a Mac, flash runs on 100% of Desktop OSes. Clearly this is not the same as MS banning Flash.

Despite the reality of this situation, the lack of anything that could effect anybody who didn't want to be affected - the clear and obvious FUD of it all - hateboys are running around the internet waving their hands in the AIR SHOUTING INANITIES ABOUT CENSORSHIP AND HOW APPLE IS LIKE NAZI GERMANY AND COMMUNISM ALL MIXED INTO ONE.

The rules on the App Store have always banned erotic, or porn content. It is in the agreement. Apple, or rather ( I suspect) individual testers on the App Store relaxed their policy on what that meant by allowing some partial nudity, and then it snowballed. Now they have re-clarified but it was always there in black and white. There really is nothing to see here, except hateboy fanaticism.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:03:44 +0000

Third, you haven't addressed my point about Apple -- as a market leader -- likely needing to self-regulate some of the edgier stuff in the App Store to head off actual censorship.

Adam, this is another reason why Steve Jobs's control-freakery is a bad idea. If the iPhone were an open platform and people were allowed to install non-iTunes-Store apps on their iPhones, then no one would be complaining about Apple's iTunes store policies. Apple could be as censorious as it liked and customers who were dissatisfied would have other choices. After all, there are pornographic apps available for Mac and Windows, and no one is pushing for FCC regulation of those platforms. But when Apple sets up a single app store that everyone has to use, that store becomes a tempting target of regulation.

By: WilhelmmReuch

WilhelmmReuch — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:08:18 +0000

The examples of banned apps I have seen hasnt been much sexual or even pornographic. More tacky with a degrading view of women.

Moreover Aple has only banned it from showing up in their store. It is not banned from the iphone - just use the Safari browser to visit as many porn sites you want.

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 05:13:38 +0000

Fair enough, Pete, but as Adam notes in his response to Tim, the word "censorship" gets tossed bandied about pretty freely in these debates. For example, my Google search for turned up 800,000+ hits and 200+ news hits.

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 05:08:36 +0000

I suspect part of the reason for this is that, if Apple did allow porn apps, they'd also be expected to build in special controls intended either to let parents block their children from accessing porn apps OR to somehow age-verify users before allowing them to access adult apps. While those might be good features to include, they're probably also very difficult to implement from a technical matter. So it's not hard to understand why the easier solution is simply to ban porn apps.

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 05:04:42 +0000

The point of my post above was that I do understand why, as a practical matter, it's a real inconvenience for a porn-lover not to be able to get a porn app on the iPhone. I think we can have a legitimate debate about what Apple needs to do to make this limitation transparent to its customers. But, as I noted above, users now have lots of choices for other platforms that either allow apps stores with porn (e.g., Google's Android) or simply those that support Mobile Flash. Again, the practical importance of the apps store from a user interface perspective will diminish significantly when mobile Flash comes out this year for the various mobile OSes (except Apple, sadly) because users will be able to watch porn video through their mobile browser without needing a porn-specific app. (Of course, it's still possible that an app might handle scrolling through photos better.)

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 05:04:00 +0000