Wait, So The iPhone's Browser Can Access The Sun's Page 3… But If Another App Does, It's Obscene?

from the please-explain dept

Trent Reznor already did a wonderful job explaining Apple’s hypocrisy in rejecting the NIN iPhone app because you could stream some content from The Downward Spiral, which Apple found objectionable… even though you could buy the same music via the iTunes store. However, reader Yakko Warner points us to a similar case as well. Apparently, Apple has rejected an app that pulls in newspaper content from many newspapers because some of that content includes the famous (or infamous) “Page 3” from The Sun, in the UK, which is normally filled with images of topless women. But, of course, anyone with an iPhone could just as easily use the web browser to surf right over to the website for Page 3 and see the exact same photos. So why is it suddenly “objectionable” when the very same functionality comes in a separate app?

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: apple, the sun

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Wait, So The iPhone's Browser Can Access The Sun's Page 3… But If Another App Does, It's Obscene?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
35 Comments
:Lobo Santo says:

Re: Re: Re:

That link’s not even objectionable. The only people where you work which would object are the “moo cows” with that ‘skinny bitches don’t deserve to live’ attitude and the “self-righteous stuck-up catholic bitches” who believe that any fun involving people must be wrong (though they never complain about machine-on-machine sex!)
If you want porn, go find porn. Page3 is not porn.

Anonymous Coward says:

Actually, Trent’s example is a good one, but the latter is not.

In Trent’s example, iPhone apps and iTunes both come from Apple. Why would Apple block the content from on Apple source when it is available from another Apple source.

In the latter example, the iPhone app is blocked, but internet content available from any device with a web browser is not.

The point that iPhone is arbitrary in their content filter isn’t lost on me. Just that only one of the two examples is good in demonstrating the argument.

Yakko Warner says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well, if “all” they were doing were blocking Page 3, yeah.

But what they’re doing is rejecting a whole application because it can access Page 3 (or rather, because it accesses a site that contains “Page 3”).

I mean, how is this app different than a browser for newspaper sites? And it gets banned because one of those newspapers that a user might choose to read contains content someone might find objectionable?

On those grounds, they might as well categorically reject any application that retrieves and displays content from anywhere on the internet. πŸ˜•

Anonymous Coward says:

This is always going to be a problem when you’re dealing with closed systems. Apple cannot just open up the app store to anyone that wants to post apps, because people would post malicious apps. Now, if the user had full control over their phone this wouldn’t be a problem because they could fix the problem themselves. But Apple (or really any phone except for I assume the G1) doesn’t give the user enough control to fix problems like that unless the hack the phone.

I’m not completely unsympathetic to Apple though on this. Do we want phones to turn into computers where you need to install anti-virus software and popup blockers and have to reinstall every few months? Some people may want that freedom (and they’ll be smart enough not to install the FRE3 pr00n! app), but I suspect they’ll migrate to the G1 anyhow.

The infamous Joe says:

Re: Re:

I always find it funny when someone refers to jailbreaking an iPhone as “hacking”. I’m sure it’s technically correct, but in my mind “hacking” is something more difficult than clicking a few buttons and following a few on-screen (timed so you can’t mess it up) instructions.

I know, I bring nothing to the table. πŸ™‚

Trevlac says:

Re: Re:

“Apple cannot just open up the app store to anyone that wants to post apps, because people would post malicious apps.”

That simply isn’t the case. For all of us out there with jailbroken iPhones, Cydia or Ice now, has some great source servers for wonderful applications and modifications to the iPhone. Yet no malicious code. I chalk it up to the same reason hardly anyone writes malware for Apple or *NIX based operating systems in the first place.

And by the way Apple, until you DO give me full control over the device I purchased, I’m keeping it jailbroken. And get rid of that arrogant “killswitch” on your apps.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop Β»