5 ms·

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 th

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.
- silencio 17y ago
  The only way the app would have been age limited for viewing and downloading was if the app was rated accordingly and parental controls were active. Otherwise anyone can see them, logged in or not, on the storefront (of all places!) in one of the top 10 lists or something. Anyone could have downloaded it as well, with only a warning about the application rating at download (you know, the same warning you see on apps with any user-generated content, adult rated or not). It didn't need to be like that. 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.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    The only way the app would have been age limited for viewing and downloading was if the app was rated accordingly and parental controls were active 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.
    - silencio 17y ago
      > 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. 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.
- jasonlotito 17y ago
  "Read what I wrote again...Hence, for that set of users, the App Store just got better." 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.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    I said they didn't solve the problem. You said they did. 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.

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.

silencio 17y ago
The only way the app would have been age limited for viewing and downloading was if the app was rated accordingly and parental controls were active. Otherwise anyone can see them, logged in or not, on the storefront (of all places!) in one of the top 10 lists or something. Anyone could have downloaded it as well, with only a warning about the application rating at download (you know, the same warning you see on apps with any user-generated content, adult rated or not). It didn't need to be like that. 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.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  The only way the app would have been age limited for viewing and downloading was if the app was rated accordingly and parental controls were active 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.
  - silencio 17y ago
    > 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. 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.
jasonlotito 17y ago
"Read what I wrote again...Hence, for that set of users, the App Store just got better." 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.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  I said they didn't solve the problem. You said they did. 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.