Apple bans Page 3 from iPhone app
But firmware 3.0 may see Sun return
An iPhone newspaper browsing application that saw The Sun banned by Apple because of its Page 3 content could be granted a reprieve - thanks to the impending release of firmware version 3.0.
The 59p Newspaper(s) app was approved for sale by Apple last week. It lets iPhone or iPod Touch owners read from a selection of "the 50 best" national and international papers.
The Sun was originally intended to be one of those 50, but its presence was “removed by Apple”, according to the developer, Makayama Media. Apparently, the Mac maker did not feel the tabloid’s infamous topless shots of buxom blondes and brunettes to be appropriate for iPhone owners.
When Apple announced last week that downloads from its App Store has topped one billion, it confirmed that “the iPhone OS 3.0 release will also add... expanded parental controls for apps”.
It transpires that Apple told Makayama that it “would be appropriate to resubmit your application for review once this feature is available”, allowing punters to decide for themselves what content they see in their papers.
So the assumption is that if The Sun makes it into Newspaper(s) as a result of firmware version 3.0’s expanded parental controls then the floodgates will swing open for more people to submit raunchy iPhone apps. ®
COMMENTS
Repeat after me:
- Boobies are bad (unless you are minor still suckling on one)
- Violence and gore and bloodshed is good.
- Boobies bad.
- Bloodshed good.
Makes you a well-adjusted earthling.
Paris, because I've seen her boobies. Not much to take home, but OK to carry for a little while.
@Jimmy Floyd
When it comes to children, decency around children, and especially obscenity (not implying Page 3 is obscene, more the former), free speech/press runs into problems. It's the same reason bookstores are allowed to decide not to allow Playboy and the like in their stores and not be railed for free press issues.
@Jimmy Floyd
"I'm curious: why hasn't some infuriated iPhone developer thrown the relevant amendment (first?) of the US constitution at Apple claiming censorship?"
Because it's not censorship. Only a government can be a censor. The Sun is still available to anyone who wishes to ... err ... read Page 3.
On the other hand, I won't purchase anything from a company that thinks it can decide what I am allowed to do. I am an adult, as is anyone capable of entering into a contract (by law). It's not up to Apple (or any other company!) to decide what my daughter might be allowed to do. Rather, as her parents, it's my Wife & I's job. Or was, she's over 18 now. Thank gawd/ess :-)
On the gripping hand, when the Wife's iPhone contract expires, we're not renewing it. It'll go into the box on the top shelf of the office closet, joining the dozen or so other phones that she's tried over the years. Eyecandy does not equate to usability or usefulness. Our day-to-day phones are nearly 10 year old Nokea 5185s ... Nothing has even come close in usability & durability, to say nothing of battery life.
You have the right to arm bears ... or something
I'm curious: why hasn't some infuriated iPhone developer thrown the relevant amendment (first?) of the US constitution at Apple claiming censorship?
'Cos T & Cs notwithstanding, that's what it is.
(Incidentally, you'll only see me with an iPhone hitting it with an ice-hockey stick and claiming I thought it was a puck...)
Eh?
Page 3 is probably the least offensive thing in that bloody rag!
