Watch TechCrunch Disrupt Live (Startups Presenting Right Now) »
Apple, There’s Pornography On My iPhone. The App Is Called Safari. You Made It.
by MG Siegler on Feb 23, 2010

Apple’s hypocrisy with regard to the App Store is something I know well. Several times last year I wrote about Apple allowing apps like “Asian Boobs” and upskirt apps into the App Store while rejecting things such as satirical apps that mocked public figures. It was ridiculous. So you might think I’d be happy that Apple is now rejecting and removing sexy apps from the App Store as well. But actually, the hypocrisy is much worse now.

Problem number one is that while Apple is removing most of these sexy apps from the App Store, it’s not removing all of them. So who gets to stay? Big publishers like Sports Illustrated and Playboy. In fact, not only is Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit 2010 app not being removed, it’s being featured in the App Store. Both it and the Playboy app clearly violate the new rules of the more prudish App Store, yet they get to stay. Why?

As Apple VP of Worldwide Product Marketing Phil Schiller explained earlier to the New York Times, it’s because they’re well-known companies known for that content. Yet, he also cited women being upset about feeling degraded and parents being upset about kids having access to sexy apps as the main reason Apple is cracking down on them. The omission of the fact that parents probably also don’t want their kids downloading the Playboy app, or that some women might also find the Swimsuit app degrading is laughable.

Now, are some apps worse than others with regard to sexy content? Of course. But Apple has removed over 5,000 apps and counting under these new rules — surely some of those would likely be considered less offensive then the Playboy app. Further, this is creating the ultimate gray line when it comes to what is and what is not permissible in the App Store. For example, what if there’s a smaller publication also known for nude pictures that wants to make a lingerie app? Will Apple reject or accept that? Is there a certain circulation threshold one has to have to be considered “well-known” in Schiller’s words?

Problem number two is that Apple is breaking a golden rule: don’t take away what you’ve already given (in this case, to both developers and users). Apple has not always allowed these sexy apps in the App Store. But at some point over the past several months they changed their minds and apps like “Asian Boobs” started getting accepted. Why did they do it? At the time, the thought was that with the new parental controls in the iPhone OS 3.0, they could leave it up to parents to decide what their children can or cannot download/use.

Apple was probably happy to let another huge rush of apps into the store, while yes, generating revenue off of them. Meanwhile, this spawned a wave of developers who were making these types of apps. Several of those developers have reached out to us over the past few days basically saying that Apple has just destroyed their businesses. Again, businesses that these people would not have created without Apple approving these apps in the first place. Apple giveth, Apple taketh away.

Problem number three is related to number two. I fail to see the reason that Apple built parental controls into the iPhone OS if they weren’t to be used for situations like this. Why even bother? For games with violence? Please. I’m all for kids not having access to mature content if their parents are against it, but that’s exactly what these controls are made for.

So why is Apple making this big change that is pissing a lot of people off if they have this safeguard in place? Clearly, they must not trust it. But if that’s the case, why not remove the explicit content from iTunes? After all, the parental controls for apps are in the exact same place as the ones from music, movies, and TV shows.

Problem number four is perhaps my favorite one. Apple is going through all this trouble of removing these apps, and creating more work in scanning for the next sexy apps to reject, when built into every iPhone and iPod touch is not one, but two huge entry points for explicit material — and both are apps made by Apple themselves. The first, I alluded to above: iTunes. There are no shortage of films and TV shows with nudity and sexual content (along with violence and everything else) that are available on iTunes for purchase on the device. The same is true for explicit music.

But the second app is far worse: Safari. Each iPhone and iPod touch has a web browser that is more than capable of accessing any site on the web with a few clicks. This includes sites with hardcore pornography, or anything else a teenage kid can dream up. Apple is going through all this trouble to block sexy apps (which have never contained nudity, by the way, just sexy pictures), when they offer one of their own that makes it much easier to find far more sinister content.

Of course, if they removed Safari, it could well destroy the iPhone. So they’re not going to do that.

The sad truth is that while everyone can clearly see Apple’s hypocrisy here, it’s unlikely to matter. Just as with all the hoopla over the Google Voice app rejection, this too will blow over. As long as people keep voting for Apple with their pocketbooks, Apple will continue to do as it pleases, hypocrisy or not.

The lesson, I suppose, is that killer products give you carte blanche.


This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.


Comments rss icon

    • That’s exactly the reason why I like TechCrunch. It f**ks the noobie policy-makers left-right & center.

      And yeah, this is trending right now :-)

      Cheers, Lemon!


      • indeed, “There’s Pornography” is trending globally on twitter right now. excellent.

        • But, Don’t make Apple go the China way. Leave it at this.

          • For China there is the Dalai Lama :-)

            Reported it on ma Asia blog

            “Social technologies” rock like nothing else :D


          • Delusional Seigler - February 23rd, 2010 at 9:20 am UTC

            Seigler. You’re delusional. Take a hike you sick MF.

          • Seigler is having withdrawal reactions.

          • “The sad truth is that while everyone can clearly see Apple’s hypocrisy here, it’s unlikely to matter. Just as with all the hoopla over the Google Voice app rejection, this too will blow over. As long as people keep voting for Apple with their pocketbooks, Apple will continue to do as it pleases, hypocrisy or not.”

            —I agree, but its like the other meaning of that statement will be, “As long as you’re the type of company that dominates, then you’re unstoppable and every decision you make is ALWAYS RIGHT” In this case, Apple is like following the foot-steps of Goog.

            What happened to the, “Do No Evil Policy Now?” Lol.. Oh well, this move will only make people want to shift on Android, seeing it having tons of adult-related apps. Details:

      • So there’s your solution:

        “Of course, if you’re still looking for ’sexy’ content on your iPhone, you can still find plenty of nudity in iTunes (Apple has no problem selling R rated movies). Or you could just pop open Safari.”

        Lol, obviously Apple is just using this as an alibi to kick all of the 3rd party app developers (those small-time app developers) so they can monopolize their App store to a further notch.

        Oh, well thise move is an iFail, considering that the Android App store is very generous to adult-related Apps, they even have a porn-shop to flaunt! lewl:

      • You have to be a complete moron for building a business on top of apple’s app store. Can’t you see they’re just trying to get free work from good developers before stonewalling them and stealing their ideas? On top of taking 30% of revenue just because they can? What’s stopping that number from going to 60% tomorrow and 90% next month?

    • This really has very little to do with porn and a lot to do with Apple’s attitude toward its partners.

      Imagine if you will…Apple creates a new product for reading…..books. This new product just happens to compete with an IPhone app…and furthermore, they like the design used in one of the book reader apps, so they just simply…copy it.

      All of a sudden, these book reader apps are all in violation of the app store rules and must go…and the look and feel of the new native app is just like one of their partne…er…victims.

      Now, if I’m not mistaken, this has already happened and Apple paid no consequences for it.

      In a business environment such as this you would have to be STUPID to develop a single app for the IPhone platform at any expense to yourself. This is what killed the first iteration of Mac and it will eventually kill the IPhone. Just watch….

      In one year’s time, most of the new apps added to the app store will have little to no real functionality…it’ll just be a device full of watered down junk apps.

      • You are assuming/imagining/predicting too many things!

      • @Bart. You’re saying that Apple’s banning these sexy apps because it’s about to launch its own soft-core product?

        • I don’t think it’s what he said, but Tell you what i think. I think Apple is looking at the iPad as the saviour of the magazine industry. Now looky looky here, Playboy and Sports Illustrated? Just “accidently” happen to both be magazines… Hence the “well known publisher” piece of BS excuse. They’re just putting out a red carpet for some of their future partners. So what if it’s red with the blood of smaller Apps?

          I also think they knew exactly how absurd this will all seem but couldn’t care less cuz, like MG said, they’re on top of the world right now and they seem to think they can do whatever they want and people will keep buying whatever they produce.
          This will probably work for the short run, but not for long. “You can piss off some of the people some of the time, but you can’t piss off alot of the people alot of the time.”

          In the business world, your dignity and integrity are perhaps your most important assets. Apple is throwing those to the wind, thinking their assets are a piece of code and some patents on pinching.

      • When Steve Jobs came back to Apple, one of the first things he did was murder the companies that had legally licensed the Mac OS (pre OS X) and producing, in some cases, superior hardware to Apple. I know, I had one – an expandable tower system that had no Apple counterpart.

        And stealing the IP for the iPad book reader? Why is anyone surprised? Read iWoz, Wozniak’s autobiography, for details on Jobs’ outright lying and theft from Woz on a pre-Apple project they worked on.

    • Ill stick with Android as well.

      Something interesting about this. Since they are “pushing” SI and Playboy maybe those companies purchased exclusive rights to be the only smut on the app store? I honestly think that this move is more money motivated than morality motivated. We all know Apple has no morality already but they are quite motivated by money. By eliminating all the other smut SI and Playboy have a much larger customer base now.



    • The Android Market has been already overrun by low quality app developers pushing these same lame soft-porn apps. The clutter in the Android Market is one of the reasons I ditched it.

      I’ll stick to the App Store, thanks.

      Although I do think that Apple could easily just create a 17+ category and allow users to view/hide it in the Settings.

  • True. People don’t care about these apps as much as they care about having a great product

  • apple appstore is like a communist now.doing everything that they deem necessary without any real explanation.

    • Apple is fascist, not communist. They do what they want, when they want, and everyone else is “uncool.”

      • Why would anyone compare a company to a right wing political ideology?

        Wait, do you live at Apple corporate headquarters in Cupertino. Are you being held against your will? Is your only access to the outside world an iPhone?

        if so respond: help help I’m being repressed!

        Oh the horror

        /end sarcasm/

        • Fascism isn’t “right wing”. It is simply one species of totalitarianism and as such lies squarely in the same space as communism.

          • WTF do you even know what your talking about? Fascism is often associated with radical right wing ideology. You’re outwardly denying a commonly known fact. Stfu.

          • Technically communism in its purest sense is not totalitarianism, its utopianism. Soviet Communism was more like a kind of fascism that anything else.

      • Agreed. Unlike communism, Apple claims that you can get rich by making apps for the iPhone. If Apple were communistic, they would say, “Help us build the platform together”. Than again, I know enough Apple fanboys that would do it souly to help Apple.

        • Source? I’ve never heard Apple ever say you “could get rich.” I have seen reports of people GETTING rich from popular, quality apps, however. I don’t think I’ve EVER seen or heard a single word from Apple about it.

        • Reading such ignorant and closed-minded comments really makes me fell ill. Why are some people so pessimistic and against Apple? Remember, it’s just your interpretation/opinion. That doesn’t make it fact. Maybe Apple isn’t evil. Maybe they are.

      • @Phil

        Fascism is indeed a right wing ideology. Drop the ridiculous conservative talking points made popular by Jonah Goldberg and read Umberto Eco’s characteristics of fascism. He, unlike, Golberg, actually was born in fascist Italy. He is also, unlike Goldberg, an intellectual heavyweight with few peers.

        Hitler’s regime hunted down and murdered those associated with liberalism, from new age writers and artists to avowed communists.

        Spread your nonsense elsewhere!

        Note: Sorry for the off thread comments, everyone. I just have to respond when I see this particularly absurd attempt at historical revision.

    • First of all, you don’t know what fascism is. Second they did explain it, you simply don’t like the explanation.

    • What AAPL is doing isn’t facism or communism in my opinion (those are both, somewhat, economic theories), but merely authoritarianism (chumps taking it upon themselves to know better than everybody else what everybody else needs to do).

  • If there’s porn in your Safari browser and you are offended by it, I think you need to have a talk with yourself, not blame it on Apple.

  • Johnny Worthington - February 23rd, 2010 at 3:25 am UTC

    What crap. Walmart doesn’t sell porn but I can find and watch it on the TV I buy from them if I try hard enough.

    Sorry, this one’s a bit of an over-reach

    • is that the ‘guns don’t kill people’ argument then? i think you missed the point. and it would be significantly hard to get porn on a tv you just bought from a store – you’d either have to buy a dvd player and the porn, or buy cable and the porn. with safari you just load it up and go. just like an app that apple is so quick to ban now — except those aren’t porn.

      • Johnny Worthington - February 23rd, 2010 at 5:42 am UTC

        But you are essentially holding Walmart responsible for what ever their customer decideds to play on that TV and that’s a stretch.

        Apple, a company, has the right to sell or refuse to sell any product at any time, just like a brick and mortar store. If Apple doesn’t want to sell porn apps then they don’t have to.

        Sometimes users have an over-inflated sense of entitlement.

        Go picket WalMart

      • This has to be the worst article from you MG. If you want porn, fine, have at it. No one wants to see the App Store overrun with “iBoobs”. People complain enough about Fart apps, don’t need MORE crap apps.

        Go to Android’s crap store or get a girlfriend to all the complainers.

  • I could not disagree more.

    There is a huge difference between allowing porn on Safari and allowing Apps with porn content. That difference makes your comparison pointless:

    People know that when using a Web Browser then they access website OUTSIDE of the realm of the handset manufacturer or network provider. The APPLE brand is therefore not associated with those sites.

    Allowing porn on the App Store that is a controlled environment will associate Apple to porn. And that’s something Apple does not want.

    It’s marketing 101.

    • Pictures of women in swim suits or lingeie is not porn, or all the clothes catalogues would be on the top shelf and going to the beach would require you to be over 18.

      Apple is quite happy to be associated with something that is far closer to real porn, actual nudity, they sell it over itunes.

    • Sorry Vincent, but the Wobble app that was removed by Apple did not contain any “porn” either – users had to obtain naughty photos to use with it on their own. Apple had no association with what people chose to do with it on their own – just like Safari. It was wrong to remove Wobble and many other apps like it.

      • You are mixing it up. Apple doesn’t control the Web through Safari. Safari is just a medium used to access the Web. What you do on Safari is your problem. On the other hand, every app in the App Store is checked by Apple. So, if something is wrong, it will be blamed on Apple (for approving it) rather than the user.

    • I think the main problem is the “controlled environment” part. I want a well-functioning market place for apps for my iPhone, not Apple’s control or censorship.

    • I agree. Apple can do whatever it wants in its own store. The argument that the App store is the only store for the iPhone also misses the point that Apple created it and they can do whatever they want with it. If you don’t like the iPhone, buy a Nexus One. Also, the Safari argument is silly. It’s a freakin’ browser… Whatever you do with it is your choice. Eventually Apple will not be the only one with a major software applications store on a popular smartphone… if this type of thing comes back to haunt them so be it. IMHO this is a smart move on Apple’s part. Thanks.

  • Apple? Killer app? Not! Apple is for those who can’t think/do for themselves.

    • I couldn’t agree more. I seriously think that iSheep are a hive mind. Go Linux!

    • So normally this would be the part where I would be arguing with you and pointing out that a lot of really smart people use Mac’s myself included.

      BUT. This is becoming more and more true by the day. Apple has targeted the “stupid” people in the marketplace which I think is a mistake. The iphone and the “personalized help me im a sheep” service you get in the Apple stores now is a perfect example of this.

      Apple is forgetting about their core market who have put them into the place they are now. If they keep dumbing down MacOS and the iPhone to appeal to the mass market they risk driving many of us to other platforms. I already refuse to own an iPhone because of the Vendor and App lockdown. The more I see Apple go in the wrong direction with products like the iTampon the less of my money I want to give to them. When it comes time for my next hardware refresh I may consider a system with Linux or Windows 7 instead.

  • I guess with regard to point 4 the big difference is that the apps are solely for prurient reasons, whereas iTunes and Safari are not built purely for prurient reasons.

    If the upskirt and boob apps can do anything other than upskirts and sexy pics, then they are on a par with Safari and iTunes. But the primary purpose of iTunes is playing your music. The primary purpose of Safari is web browsing (and, Avenue Q be damned, the internet is not just, or even mostly, for porn).

    I’m not sure Apple will ever be able to win this one. If they eventually capitulate and allow anything and everything on, relying on the parental controls, then no doubt at some point in the future the cry of “won’t somebody please think of the children” will go up, and Apple will receive another kicking.

    Frankly, in a tussle between annoying an opinionated non-tech public, and annoying tech-people, the smart money is to annoy the tech people. There’s less of them, and they are usually highly dismissive of Apple anyway.

    • OK, so you’re saying that if I were to create a primary music app that ALSO shows sexy girls with boobs, that it would get approved? Fail.

  • Actually MG, your last argument is your weakest (a violation of the rules of persuasion).

    With apps, Apple explicitly let the apps into the store as a gatekeeper. So from a PR perspective, Apple must accept accountability for the smut in the store. With Safari however, it is the user who decides to go look for smut. Apple has nothing to do with it.

    And that is apparently the nub. This is about Apple’s positioning and PR. It has been said that they’re trying to brand the app store as a family-friendly place so grandma and soccer mums can buy iPads and iPods in peace.

    Yes there are ludicrous double standards at work here (if grandma doesn’t like iBoobs, why would she like Playboy?), and it is callous and arbitrary to allow apps in one minute and ban them the next. But Apple has the right to choose its perceptual positioning.

    In the end, the market will decide.

    • true but your point reinforces something else. if apple were really worried about the content, they would make safari and app that needs approval too – and it would be banned based on the content tied to it (the internet).

      • You have to admit, there is clear disparity between Safari and a smutty app.

        Apple could very well say about Safari what ISPs say about their internet connections: “We provide access to the internet. It doesn’t mean we condone what you do with that access.”

        But who knows, maybe we’ll see iNetNanny from Apple in the near future to answer all of our questions.

      • Oh please, get off your horse, because you are up to your nose in horse poo.

        The internet is a widely accepted place of caution for parents. It is a known quantity already. You are attempting to throw up a straw man argument here but it doesn’t work with parents.

        You must be new here.

      • Not true. Just because a company doesn’t do EVERYTHING it could to stop/ban something doesn’t mean it can’t do SOMETHING.

        There is a middle ground amongst “do nothing” and “hypocrite” and “do everything.

      • MG! I have to agree with Etrigan. You had a good article going along till you reached Problem 4. There you lost it. I am a very big fan of your articles, but I have to say that I wasn’t expecting you to mention stuff (in Problem 4). May be you got carried away..

        Apple doesn’t control the Web through Safari. Safari is just a medium used to access the Web. What you do on Safari is your problem. A similar argument can be said for iTunes. If your argument is right, then the movies listed in iTunes have been shown in theaters/TV. If you say they sexual and violent content and Apple should ban them. Then, the same movies could be banned from being shown in theaters/TV!

        Now, every app in the App Store is checked by Apple. So, if something is wrong, it will be blamed on Apple (for approving it) rather than the user. Playboy and Swimsuit Illustrated (SI) were not removed. Almost everyone knows that these are companies with class. Their apps didn’t have a clothed woman waiting to be stripped to her undergarments by swiping on the screen. See the difference. The 5000 apps banned and the above two cannot be even compared. They are entirely two different things.

        Also, you said people can access porn through Safari. Most porn video sites use Flash I guess. So, you wouldn’t be able to access them on Mobile Safari anyways! :P

        • Now, every app in the App Store is checked by Apple

          The author is questioning that control and censorship only my friend.

          And also come out of your cave, lot of porn sites have already support one of the H.264, MPEG-4 in .mp4, .m4v, .mov

          • @ Bobby

            I was merely trying to say that MG was wrong in comparing apps in App Store to Safari. Yes, I agree that Apple controls and censors the App Store. It’s their product and they are free to do whatever they want to. If you do not like, simply move on rather than waste your own time trying to change it.

            In my opinion, for every 1 person who wanted those crap apps, there will be at least few more who didn’t.

            As for your cave comment, well, I am not sorry my cave is not full of porn videos!

        • Actually, Apple implicitly approves every website that Safari can go to. It is about 10 lines of code to add white list functionality to Safari. Safari is just an app, just as the App Store is. Both give you access to other pieces of software. It’s just that Safari doesn’t currently have any restrictions, whereas the App Store does.

          I do think it is hypocritical, but I’ve felt this way about Apple for a long time. So it’s not surprising to me. In fact, I suspect that if the iPhone/iPad become more popular they will happily throw web standards out the window and focus on iPhone friendly touch websites, that work to the detriment of all other devices.

  • There’s a lot to love about the iPhone, but my conscience is getting too loud to ignore. Think I’ll take a look at Android. My iPhone might have to sit in the corner until it realises what it’s done wrong.

  • The author of the article sounds like a developer of one of the sexi Apps. I personally think that any kind of limitation to those contents is a progress. Good for Apple.

  • Next up: Web filtering on iPhones with no opt-out!

    But hey, why stop there? With Apple planning to port the iPhone OS onto other devices, soon all Macs will be Web-filtered, too!

  • I understand that the writers at TC don’t like the change. Is it impossible to appreciate that Apple has valid concerns that you simply don’t agree with? A few of the “most popular” lists in the app store were getting overwhelmed with these apps, and I don’t mind Apple saying that they don’t want to run that kind of store. Unlike two years ago, there are many other options for developers. If the Android market wants to be the king of soft porn and boob apps, fine.

    Overall, I think this posting about Safari shows the lack of maturity of the author, and I really don’t like saying that as I have respect for the TC guys.

    • Think iPad. Apple doesn’t want all these people visiting the App Store for the first time (grannys, trannys, and nannys alike) and seeing flesh apps clogging the “Most Popular” list.

      On the one hand I’m not sure they CARE what is being purchased. I am far more sure they care HOW it appears to the app buying public at large and they didn’t like the trending or its potentially embarassing impact on iPad launch.

      I suspect there will be some sort of “new way” this will be done after the iPad is launched and the media hoopla dies down. And, yes, adult ratings will probably become a walled off garden to itself (if I had to guess).

    • Good point – a few of the “most popular” lists were being “overwhelmed” because like it or not, those kinds of apps were *popular* and although they may not be for you or I, obviously many people did in fact enjoy them and were buying them.

    • I so agree with you Ed! It was so irritating with those crap apps hogging most of the Most Popular lists. I am glad Apple removed them. And yeah, MG’s argument about Safari/iTunes was lame, pure lame!

    • There are changes in technology that techcrunch fails to appreciate is that these devices are now ubiquitous and in the hands of 7 or 8 years old kids. I know that most of you need your porn just about everywhere on every device, but apple appreciates the fact that his is not mobile computing, but a general unrestricted lifestyle convergence device. It is everything, and for the iphone to blow it over a few porn apps is just dumb. They are Coca Cola as they branch out from pure technical consumers. When you develop a device that provides enjoyment to everyone, you have to make decisions to reach a wider audience. They should just offer some type of real age verification to enable access to the more XXX level apps and not censor them outright.

  • These restrictive moves will do more for the iPhone’s competitors than any advertisement could possibly do.

  • I believe, in a way, this has something to with with the fact that most of those apps are so awfully designed and having photos of half naked ladies on the iTunes store wouldn’t look so good.

    I feels like Apple is not handling this very professionally but come on, it’s not like those developers were doing rocket science behind those apps!

    This would be a BIG DEAL if apps like the Opera browser is banned.

  • This is why there’s no Flash support. No Flash = no Redtube.

  • What I don’t get is why everyone is so surprised. Apple has never given two shits about their customers, why would they start now? They obviously let those ops through because of the initial surge in revenue: they got 30%. Once the sales slow down, they ban them again, and suddenly it’s a great PR move.

    • Are you new to the App Store? If not, you should have noticed that these crap apps didn’t slow down! They were consistently among the Most Popular apps in the App Store. Please stop making uninformed arguments.

  • Gee, mod this post -5 FLAMEBAIT.

    This publication used to be about more …

  • what annoys most is apple’s hypocrisy and lies .. its like when they suddenly decided to push web standard and the HTML5 ..

    the author has put 4 valid problems caused by apple’s idiotic new policy, I dont think any of apple fanboys (who hang on steve job’s left nut) can actually give a valid justification that makes sense to that ..

  • I can only speak for the german appstore, since that is where i am located: the list of latest apps was completly taken over by low quality “sexy” apps.
    I like it very much that apple got rid of them all at once.
    Of cause leaving playboy and xyz in is a bit strange, but easy to understand considering they want to take over magazine distribution next.

  • Porn on safari doesn’t make the app store look like a 15 year old’s “secret drawer”

  • Sports Illustrated and Playboy can stay because “they’re well-known companies known for that content”.

    I’m sure TC readers could suggest Apple some other company that is well-known for ‘that’ content. ;-)

  • There’s so much injustice in the world nowadays. Children are starving, dictators are destroying nations and wars are harming innocent people.

    But no. You decided to fight for your right to porn.

    Real noble of you, Siegler. Real noble.

  • This is why most of the world hates America. You guys just do what the fuck you like and always force your “morals” and “values” down everybody’s throat. 90% of the world couldn’t give two fucks what you can get in the APP store. Only in America.

  • Indignation is Lame - February 23rd, 2010 at 4:58 am UTC

    Oooh… indignation. Uh, ever heard of biting the hand?

    “The lesson, I suppose, is that killer products give you carte blanche.”

    No killer products = no TechCrunch.

    I think the most interesting question here is what would motivate Apple to such levels of hypocrisy? Oh wait, to answer that question we have to look to the comments section… thanks droiddoes!

    Flame off, man, flame off. Maybe you should just title your entries, “Apple DIE DIE DIE”.

  • And the sum up is ‘is that killer products give you carte blanche’? I think the lesson is ‘limiting the free use of your product pushes consumers to the competition’.

  • The real question that MG left unaddressed is whether or not this bothers him enough to ditch his iPhone. MG, you switching to Droid/Palm/BlackBerry?

    If not, this is all much ado about nothing. Complain all you want, but you still mail a check in to AT&T every month to support this business model. If you have made the calculation that owning an iPhone is worth putting up with these practices, that’s great, but please don’t pretend to be indignant about it when you still use the device.

    There’s this great thing in America called a free market. If you don’t like Big Macs, don’t eat at McDonald’s. If you don’t like frappuccinos, don’t go to Starbucks. And if you don’t like the App Store, don’t use an iPhone. The only way Apple is ever going to think about changing this policy is if people that are angry about this stop buying the devices. Until then, who cares.

  • this “hoopla” is funny. it’s as if all the owners of chevies were outraged that the radios on fords didn’t receive fm radio. the owners of fords didn’t care because all their cars came equipped with XM satellite… but that didn’t keep the chevy owners from screaming and writing articles. i think you’ll find that the outrage among actual iPhone owners is about zero.

  • If you’re using an iPhone or iTunes, you’ve already agreed to Apple’s Terms of Service.

    If you don’t like Apple’s policies, you don’t have to agree to Apple’s Terms of Service. Just click “Decline” when you install or upgrade iTunes.

    It’s that simple. End of story.

  • What about proxy filtering? that has always been the solution for blocking porn/ starting censorship on web browsers.

    I guess the point is no nudity in apps, not that I trust jobs with what I would like to see on My device that I paid and now own,is that I understand that growing old and unhype might make you a controlling schizo on the verge of building a nuclear refuge from where to disable all the hardware that you sold me until I bow to your greatness and let all your creations rip anew hole in my wallet and poke my soul with apples inhumanness.

    I guess the saying is strong with this one.

    You like apple? how you like Dem apples!.

Leave Comment

Trackback URL
Short URL