Here's something that should
help Trent reach a level of moderate contentment. Although we already knew that Apple was expanding its parental controls with
iPhone OS 3.0 into the realm of TV shows, movies and App Store apps, a report today about the rejection of Makayama's Newspaper(s) app provides a good example at the ramifications of such alterations. According to
iLounge, it was rejected due to a picture of a topless woman under the section for UK-based tabloid
The Sun. The accompanying letter suggested a resubmission once 3.0 (and subsequently the parental controls) go public, which we take to mean that the questionable content will suddenly be okay for the App Store once it's behind the appropriate age gate. We won't know for sure until everything falls into place, but sounds like this is one part of the submission approval process that'll soon end up much less frustrating for developers.
[Via
9 to 5 Mac]
posted May 4th 2009 8:51PM
This is a good thing I think. With more controls, they will allow more apps into the market. That doesn't mean that this is the best solution, but it is definitely a better option then the one that they have right now.
Peter Epstein
http://www.thewebwar.com/apple
Does that mean that they'll start selling Porn with a rated M tag......
South Park app FTW
who cares- kids shouldn't be playin with iPhones - want an iPhone kid? go and get a job.
back to the NBA playoffs.
sausage?
iPhone looks exceptionally good in this photo.... I must commend Apple's minimalist design with the big screen filling the space from side to side... is it impossible for HTC to do that? I mean even the Touch HD has a bit too much rim around the screen..
You cant even type the words Fuck or Shit on the iphone...oh, yeah you can correct it so it will display but the next day it will revert right back to trying to not allow it. Really thats insane.
"Jesus!" I for one don't want to see any apps or games that take the Lord's name in vain. There should be an iPhone's Catholics-R-Us store for those that don't want to see or hear moral pollution. I don't want my children to watch things like "gold-toothed thugs" and "booty" and "rump shaking." Not all of us grew up in Compton.
@ Pacman
"How the hell is that any different than several other devices like the Playstation or the Wii or Xbox? I can't play Gears of War on a Playstation. I can't play Mario on an Xbox. The only reason Apple is different to you guy is because you guys HATE APPLE. Admit it."
That was never the debate. Exclusivity to a particular platform is commonplace.
The debate is that if one store refuses to stock, say, a new Manhunt game for the 360, you can still go to another shop that will stock it. If Apple refuses to accept this Manhunt game for the iPhone, you can't go to another store to buy that iPhone app.
It's not black and white enough an issue to say, with complete clarity, that this system is right or this system is wrong because the App Store is not the only example of this model, although it is arguably the only one (to my own feeble mind) that tries to foist moral values upon its userbase. The 360, PS3 and Wii have their own online stores that operate like the App Store, but (maybe excepting the Wii) they do not arbitrarily exercise a responsibility over what constitutes 'adult' content and what doesn't.
This debate could go on forever, but my personal opinion is that I find Apple's approach patronising. I'm not stupid, and I'm not the only one who isn't. I, and others, can decide for ourselves what we believe is suitable. There's still a line that has to be drawn (hardcore pornography and downright tasteless, like the baby shaker app) but it certainly shouldn't be the meandering squiggle Apple likes to draw instead, where the most harmless and useful app can be rejected while something unbelievably atrocious gets on the store instead.
Hopefully these parental controls solve the issue. Let us decide what our children can't see.
The reflection doesn't match the main picture. The reflection is of Beck's Sea Change album.