No Nudity: Playboy's iPhone App To Test Men's 'For The Articles' Excuse

from the seriously?--no-boobies? dept

Looking back, I think I saw my first Playboy magazine when I was roughly ten years old or so. That would put us somewhere in the early 90's. My friends and I stopped on our way to school and huddled around each other, all trying to get a glimpse of the in-depth article on Operation Desert Storm and it's long-reaching implications for the Middle East, American foreign policy, and the rest of the world. No...wait...now I remember. We wanted to see the naked girls, because these were the days before wide internet adoption would put roughly all the porn at everyone's fingertips and President Bush's name still made us giggle (it kind of still does, actually). That said, amongst older generations, you would occasionally hear the laughable excuse from men that they wanted their Playboy magazines so they could read the articles, I suppose because Time Magazine, The New Yorker and Newsweek didn't exist (psst! They did!).

Well, now it appears we'll get something of a test for that excuse, with Playboy releasing a mobile app for Apple's app store, which of course had to nix all the nipples and vaginas to get it past the tech company's Quaker-like regulators.
This winter, the company, long barred from Apple's digital storefronts because of its pornographic associations, will package a nudity-free version of its content together for the launch of its first iPhone app, featuring lifestyle tips, articles from the magazine and, of course, photos of beautiful women.
Those beautiful women will be clad in lingerie, under Apple's strict no boobies policy. Now, here's why this probably won't work. Nobody is going to download this app to see women in lingerie. There's a couple of reasons for this. First, we've long been able to get that elsewhere. Victoria Secret has an iOS app, after all. Also, there's that handy browser option for viewing all the images one could want on the internet. As for the articles, we have a couple of problems. Jumping into the news content business this late in the game and having success in it would require really compelling articles. The good news is that Playboy still has this. The bad news is that all those people who claim their allegiance to Playboy for their articles are full of crap. As the article summarizes:
So, mobile readers will have to actually read Playboy for the articles, with a little lingerie on the side. This could totally work. What could go wrong?
The answer, of course, is everything.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    scote, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 3:09pm

    Wait, Playboy has articles?

    Playboy has articles? Who knew?

    I'll bet you could replace all the text in Playboy with Lorum Ipsum and sales would be the same...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 3:32pm

      Re: Wait, Playboy has articles?

      To be fair, nobody really cares about the nudes either in this day and age. Why would a man pay money to see a horse-faced woman with obvious breast implants when he can just find better porn for free on the Internet or just get a girlfriend (no offense to guys who are into horse-faces with fake boobs)?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 3:53pm

      Re: Wait, Playboy has articles?

      Back when magazines were still relevant, I actually did read Playboy for the articles. I swear. I went elsewhere for my porn. Also, the public library here carries braille versions of Playboy -- no photos of any kind, of course -- so I'm clearly not the only one.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 4:39pm

        Re: Re: Wait, Playboy has articles?

        Actually because of the popularity of the magazine, due to the nudes, they had the money to hire the best writers. I remember having a subscription in the early 90's and sure of course I looked at the pictures first but after that I read the articles and those were great.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 4:50pm

          Re: Re: Re: Wait, Playboy has articles?

          One of my favorites from that time was Bruce Feirstein's Real Men Don't Eat Quiche.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 3:17pm

    Hold it...

    " Quaker-like regulators."

    Seriously?

    You have to disparage the Quaker religion? Are you telling me that Ben Franklin, playboy and innovator, is crazy for getting laid more times on Sunday than his Catholic brethren, equates to Apple's view that nudity doesn't happen?

    I mean... Why we gotta diss our Forefathers like that? The brotha be down with kites and lightning, making money, buildin' hospitals for the public and keeping church and state separated.

    And now we gotta go and misrepresent on him. Brotha Tim, that be ill yo...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      PRMan, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 3:46pm

      Re: Hold it...

      As a Quaker who has read Ben Franklin's autobiography, I can assure you he is no Quaker.

      And yes, we are offended by being compared to Apple's content police. I totally would have allowed "Phone Story".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 3:25pm

    If playboy.com will still work in the browser, what's the point?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 3:52pm

    And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked

    Imagine what the world would be like if all computing platforms were walled gardens.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Lutomes (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 3:59pm

    You know what, I probably would get the playboy app to read the articles.

    Mostly because I wouldn't buy a playboy magazine because of all the nudity, but want to read the articles BECAUSE people always joke about the articles.

    Don't get me wrong I'm no prude, I just prefer my nudity viewed via an incognito tab in the browser.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    martin, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 4:12pm

    For a start, suggesting that a group of people you dont consider yourself part of, is "full of crap", is unprofessional at best.

    Second, since the app market is not quite new, Playboy probably had an app that wasnt approved, so now they replace the nudes with lingerie stuff. Why do you thing that "everything" could go wrong? And why is the fact that there is already one app that has lingerie the reason that there should not be a second?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Feb 22nd, 2013 @ 1:35am

      Re:

      First, if you want professionalism, don't go to an opinion blog. Tim is a well known writer here with a talent for snark and irreverence. If you don't like that, go elsewhere.

      Second, you're completely missing the point of what he's saying. There are a huge number of apps featuring woman in lingerie, and other non-nude states of undress. Playboy probably did have a previous app that wasn't approved, but by taking away the nudity, that also takes away a chunk of their market. Why would a Playboy fan look at a cut-down, censored app when he can just open Safari and look at any nudity he wants - including Playboy's own content on their site? That's the question.

      "Why do you thing that "everything" could go wrong?"

      COULD go wrong. He might be mistaken and it might not. However, he's explained the reasons it failed upfront if it does indeed fail.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 4:32pm

    These articles are missing the pictures that help keep the reader interested. Especially the centerfold. =P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DOlz, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 4:33pm

    I don't know what this says about me

    The first thing I always checked out in Playboy was the cartoons going from back to front. After that I checked out the other ahem images and did spend considerably more time checking out the lines.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 4:37pm

    Articles?

    You guys know Playboy has naked chicks, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    McCrea (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 5:17pm

    I read it for the comics.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Akari Mizunashi (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 6:27pm

    Wife: "So, did you get the new Playboy app?"
    Husband: "No. I only read Playboy for the pictures."

    Meme coming soon to an internet near you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:10pm

    "...nix all the nipples and vaginas". Vaginas? Playboy? I think you're confusing Playboy with Penthouse or Hustler.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 9:50pm

    Wait, Playboy still exists?

    I assumed it died out ages ago.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Gregg, Feb 22nd, 2013 @ 8:28am

    I won't support censoring.

    I don't agree with censoring, either allow the whole thing or not at all. Playboy is not a Porno magazine and frankly no more harmful than the thousands of modeling photo's or advertisements in Elle, Cosmo or other fashion magazines.

    Also

    I can get Playboy through Zinio and look at the whole magazine via browser on my Playbook or PC. I looked at the iPad app a while ago, and even though there are good articles and stories available, not getting everything just doesn't cut it. It's not an issue over if the articles good or not, as they are, but the magazine content is about men and men's sexual nature, whether it's images, articles, comics or advertisements. Removing most of the sexual content basically neuters the magazine for the iPad.

    There are apps in the iTunes store that have nudity and there are loads of women's magazines that show partial or full nudity, so why would Playboy be censored?

    Don't waste your money on getting it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This