The problem that is continuously happening in our society is the blame factor. as those of us who respect individuals' rights to choose what content we want to view on our devices or on the web, sadly, there are those amongst the human race who deem content they do not agree with as "inappropriate" "disgusting" and like to sue companies like Apple and other distributers for such content. I wrote a blog about this a few months ago when Apple took away the "adult content" apps and this was done for one reason alone, threat of a law suit. They replaced the "approved" content and recategorised it but I have to say I don't blame Apple. They of course are protecting their own butts from yet another law suit. When a company is doing well, they are huge targets for "do gooders" threatening law suits about the tiniest thing. Sad to say, that the parent population does not help the situation. Apple's yes/no click to prove you're old enough frankly does not work. Anyone can say how old they are and the fact that any paid content must be used with a credit card, I.E. you have to be 18 to have one of those, Apple assumes parents are responsible enough to parent lock their child's computers. Apple has a certain responsibility but so do those people who have minors using their electrical equipment. Its a shared responsibility but sadly, apple's put in enough restrictions as they possibly can without being detrimental to the user's experience and yet still people are complaining about content in their stores. Developers in turn have a responsibility to rate the apps or content and on the whole, i'd say they do and with each app travelling through the approval process, this is a rare occurrence. But if Apple did allow some content, especially content that could offend, the law suits would come tumbling in. Doesn't anyone else recall the comic that was slandered for some depiction of Mohammad a few years ago. The fact of the matter is, what else can Apple do? Only so much insurance can cover you for law suits. A level of business sense has to be brought in. Too many people want to pass on the responsibility to companies and in the same sentence, don't want restrictions placed upon them. So if Apple is to survive all of the potential law suits, legal advice would have urged them to keep out apps that could potentially land them in hot water.
Sad but its the facts On 18 Apr 2010, at 19:58, Rob Lambert wrote: > This is rather surprising, that they would do this. Regarding the 18+ thing, > there are apps that won't download unless you consent that you are not a > minor. Unfortunately, that requires a simple yes/no click, but at the same > time, it's after your password, so that's some layer of protection...but i > don't know. > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Joe Plummer <joeplum...@tds.net> wrote: > Well this is a law suit waiting and begging to be picked up and they will > win it. This is going against the your US right as a citizen. Called Freedom > of speech and Freedom of Press! So I think this is why Apple changed it mind > This is like saying you can surf the internet but here is where you can go > and read and this it. This is not right for adults. Now for children under > the age of 18 this might have some value. So they I think should say yes you > can have it on the store but because of the nature of the app you need to > have some kind of age verification. But this is my thoughts and I been > around the legal system a long time. > > > > Sign, > Joe Plummer ( JP ) > joeplum...@tds.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > [mailto:macvisionar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ch...@q.com > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 12:48 PM > To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > Subject: Fwd: Apple regulating news and political content??? > > I got this and thought it would be of interest to some n the list. Not > sure what I think yet. > Carolyn > > > Mark Fiore's job is making fun of political figures. And he's > actually quite good at it, according to the Pulitzer Prize Committee. > > Earlier this week it named him the winner of the Pulitzer Prize in > editorial cartooning, but Apple rejected an iPhone app containing Fiore's > cartoons in > December. The reason? Apple said applications that ridicule public > figures are not allowed. > > That presents a problem for Fiore, and all editorial cartoonists and > political satirists who'd like to submit their work to the App Store for > that matter, > because, well, that's what they do. > > Luckily for Fiore, the Nieman Journalism Lab took up his cause and > wrote about his app's rejection. A day later Apple relented, and on Friday > asked Fiore > to resubmit. The New York Times reported Friday afternoon that Steve > Jobs himself called it "a mistake that's being fixed." That's great for > Fiore, but > not every political satirist is a Pulitzer winner who can get > publicity for his app's unfair rejection. > > So what does that mean for the future of news or editorial products > on the iPad and iPhone? It's safe to assume that quashing political satire > isn't Apple's > goal here. But it's a legitimate concern for the journalism > community that to be featured on the App Store they have to submit their > news content to a > company unafraid to exercise what sometimes seems like arbitrary > control. The thinking goes, what if Apple finds a headline offensive? Or > what if there's > an unfavorable article about Apple itself even? That's not to say > Apple would do that, but its inconsistent handling of App Store submissions > sets a troubling > precedent. > > The rejected-then-unrejected brouhaha surrounding Fiore's cartoon > app, and others like it--the Mad Magazine artist's Bobble Rep app comes to > mind--also > illuminate the central issue facing Apple with the App Store right > now. The company's decision to tightly control what is and is not allowed on > the iPhone > or iPad has led it to develop a review process that is not > sustainable. > > Having individuals look at each one of the hundreds of thousands of > apps that pour into the App Store and accurately and consistently police > them for both > technical and content issues is impossible now and will only be more > so as the App Store inevitably grows. The solution would be to have clear, > stated > rules of what can or can't be put on the App Store, but that's not > what Apple has chosen. And that gray area is what scares developers who put > a lot of > work into their apps, and who could be rejected outright for some > subjective problem an App Store reviewer has found with that particular app. > > Which brings us back to the news issue. The problem of Apple's lack > of transparency with App Store rules and tendency toward control is > compounded by Apple > luring the print news industry to the iPad. It's a device that > (rightly or wrongly) is being praised as a way to save print publications. > And that control > inevitably raises new questions about Apple's relationship with > newspapers, like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal for example, > that are putting > their content on the App Store via paid applications. > > The Columbia Journalism Review has issued a call to media companies > not to get too cozy with Apple. Writes Ryan Chittum: > > Look, let's face it. The iPad is the most exciting opportunity for > the media in many years. But if the press is ceding gatekeeper status, even > if it's > only nominally, over its speech, then it is making a dangerous > mistake. Unless Apple explicitly gives the press complete control over its > ability to publish > what it sees fit, the news media needs to yank its apps in protest. > > Yes, this is that serious. It needs to wrest back control of its > speech from Apple Inc. > > The CJR then points out the obvious: newspapers and magazines > wouldn't put itself under the influence of the government like this, so why > is a corporation, > especially one with control-freak tendencies like Apple, any > different? > > If the iPad does become a significant revenue source for print > publications who turn their newspapers or magazines into iPad apps, it is > logical that it > could be harder for them to stand up to Apple. > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
