5 ms·

This is absurd. Apple isn't insulting anyone. what apple has done is what apple should have done long ago. That is, they have made the app store more usable by

This is absurd. Apple isn't insulting anyone. what apple has done is what apple should have done long ago. That is, they have made the app store more usable by removing the thousands off "iBooble", "Bikini Girls", etc apps from the store so that people who want to actually find apps for their phones don't have to wade through as much trash. These apps were overwhelming the already terrible app store so much that they often appeared 5+ times in the top 25.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
gojomo 17y ago
There is a bit of contradiction in your argument that these apps were so popular that they hid the apps people really wanted. 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.)
jasonlotito 17y ago
First, if they appeared 5+ times in the top 25, the maybe that's a sign that their users want those apps. Secondly, it sounds more like a problem with the app store then with the applications offered. If the app store is displaying information you aren't interested in, then that's Apple's problem. They didn't solve the problem. The App Store's ability to show you apps hasn't improved. It was the easy way out.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  If the app store is displaying information you aren't interested in, then that's Apple's problem. They didn't solve the problem. Actually, for some set of their customers, they did. Not every adult is interested in buying softcore pornography.
  - jasonlotito 17y ago
    No, they didn't solve the problem. They removed a consequence of a problem, but the problem still exists: a poor app store.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      The problem defined by the parent comment was "the app store is displaying information you aren't interested in". For the set of users that are not interested in "iBoobs", etc. the App Store no longer displays that information. I thought that by quoting it was clear that was the problem I was referring to, and not something as vague as "a poor app store". 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.
      - jasonlotito 17y ago
        No, the problem had a consequence. They merely removed the consequence of the problem. The problem still exists. 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.
  - silencio 17y ago
    I'm not interested at all in most of the Sports apps. I'm also not really interested in most of the Medical apps. Et cetera. Apple's not going to get rid of those, they're not as offensive to people, right? 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!)
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      Read what I wrote again. I said adults because presumably all of these applications were already age limited to adults. The thing is, as I said, not all adults want softcore pornography. Hence, for that set of users, the App Store just got better. 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.
sdurkin 17y ago
Why not just have an "adult" section that doesn't show up on the Top 25, or only shows up when you opt-in? That seems to be a better solution than arbitrary censorship.
- silencio 17y ago
  I agree, and I don't know why people don't see that Apple can totally have a half-hidden Adult category that requires you to login with your Apple ID and confirm your birth date before being able to view it in the dropdown list, with no mention whatsoever of the existence of the category on the main app store pages even if you're logged in. 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.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

gojomo 17y ago

There is a bit of contradiction in your argument that these apps were so popular that they hid the apps people really wanted. 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.)

jasonlotito 17y ago

First, if they appeared 5+ times in the top 25, the maybe that's a sign that their users want those apps. Secondly, it sounds more like a problem with the app store then with the applications offered. If the app store is displaying information you aren't interested in, then that's Apple's problem. They didn't solve the problem. The App Store's ability to show you apps hasn't improved. It was the easy way out.

GHFigs 17y ago
If the app store is displaying information you aren't interested in, then that's Apple's problem. They didn't solve the problem. Actually, for some set of their customers, they did. Not every adult is interested in buying softcore pornography.
- jasonlotito 17y ago
  No, they didn't solve the problem. They removed a consequence of a problem, but the problem still exists: a poor app store.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    The problem defined by the parent comment was "the app store is displaying information you aren't interested in". For the set of users that are not interested in "iBoobs", etc. the App Store no longer displays that information. I thought that by quoting it was clear that was the problem I was referring to, and not something as vague as "a poor app store". 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.
    - jasonlotito 17y ago
      No, the problem had a consequence. They merely removed the consequence of the problem. The problem still exists. 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.
- silencio 17y ago
  I'm not interested at all in most of the Sports apps. I'm also not really interested in most of the Medical apps. Et cetera. Apple's not going to get rid of those, they're not as offensive to people, right? 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!)
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    Read what I wrote again. I said adults because presumably all of these applications were already age limited to adults. The thing is, as I said, not all adults want softcore pornography. Hence, for that set of users, the App Store just got better. 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.

sdurkin 17y ago

Why not just have an "adult" section that doesn't show up on the Top 25, or only shows up when you opt-in? That seems to be a better solution than arbitrary censorship.

silencio 17y ago
I agree, and I don't know why people don't see that Apple can totally have a half-hidden Adult category that requires you to login with your Apple ID and confirm your birth date before being able to view it in the dropdown list, with no mention whatsoever of the existence of the category on the main app store pages even if you're logged in. 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.