Friday, January 21, 2011

Apple Turns Down Playboy

iPad-wielding prudes, take heart: Apple is holding tight to its "no nudes is good nudes" policy and has no intention of letting girly-magazine purveyor Hugh Hefner soil the pristine Apple App Store with a filthy native app for viewing uncensored past and present issues of Playboy.
That news might come as a disappointment, though, for on-the-go oglers who were titillated by reports of an iPlayboy app on the way. That news was spawned by none other than Hef himself via Twitter: "Big news! Playboy -- both old & new -- will be available on iPad beginning in March." A follow-up tweet asserted the issues would be uncensored.
It ain't quite so; it turns out Playboy is going to roll out a service through which users can access the Playboy archives via the Internet -- a move that falls under the category of too little, too late for a publishing company whose value has dwindled from $1 billion in 1999 to around $210 million today. Per Playboy, "The service will be iPad compatible and will utilize iPad functions." The functions aren't clear. Touch, perhaps?
Additionally, Playboy plans to create a native app for the Apple App Store through which users can access censored versions of Playboy. Reportedly, the magazine contains articles, along with risqué jokes that presumably are acceptable, in Apple's view, for its customers to consume.
This comedy of errors marks the latest chapter in Apple's vain and self-defeating effort at playing protector of the masses. The company has two choices: It can accept the fact that some of its customers do, in fact, want to view exposed body parts on their devices, whether it's full-frontal nudity or a pixelated naughty bit in a graphic novel version of classic literature. Whatever the case, Apple can help meet the demand by letting providers create native apps to give users a smooth, nonbuggy, and possibly more secure viewing experience. That, after all, is the point of offering native apps rather than delivering everything through browsers.
The other option -- and it looks like Apple is sticking to this road -- is to continue blithely disregarding customer demands in an ongoing display of misdirected sanctimony. Apple is telling customers, "You might want a certain type of perfectly legal content on a device you bought from us, and there might be companies that are willing to present you with that content in a format that is optimized for that device. Sure, you can still view it on the device via our Safari Web browser, which does support the Web version of the content. It just won't look as good. So there."

Seriously? What's the difference if someone is looking at a Playboy app on his iPad vs. looking at Playboy in an iPad browser?  Again Apple shows that they simply do not care about their customers. Why not give them the better experience of an app?  It must be some kind of test, "Let's beat them down again and see if they come back..... wow, they still like us,,,, suckers."


  1. "What's the difference if someone is looking at a Playboy app on his iPad vs. looking at Playboy in an iPad browser?"

    In the first case, Apple would be actively approving and profiting from reselling controversial content. In the second case, Apple is simply allowing uncensored access to the web.

    We in the USA live in a backward culture dominated by sexually repressed puritans. Apple has likely decided that it would rather not face backlash from the ignorant churchgoing masses who take their marching orders from the pulpits. I suppose its cowardly, but Apple obviously feels that its shareholders are best served by not becoming a boycott target for the religious right.

  2. Funny, I dont see any bible-thumpers boycotting the Android market and I;ve seen plenty of porn-type apps there. I haven't downloaded them so I don't know how raunchy they are but...

  3. Apple simply serves as a better high-profile target (just ask Greenpeace who routinely picks on Apple, even though other companies have similar or worse ecological practices).

    Because there are numerous sources of Android apps, coordinating an anti-porn attack against the Android community would be harder. It only works if you can get press coverage. For better or for worse it is proven that mentioning Apple is a sure-fire way to get your message out.

    This is the price Apple pays for it's success.

    Do you really think Apple's policies are determined by prudes within the company? Clearly Apple knows which way the political wind is blowing and have made a deliberate choice not to piss off the self-rightious puritans who have political sway.

    Based on their recent spectacular quarterly report, they can afford to risk pissing you (and the other haters) off.

  4. it's plain and simple: apple is kid friendly and porn is not. it's important to note this however: amazon sells porn. amazon has an iPhone app. in this app, houngan find dildos, fleshlights, and nudism movies which are just disguised kiddy porn. search amazon app for nude.

    in the app store, you find apps like how to give oral sex, how to achieve female orgasm, an other nc-17 content level apps.. just nothing x rated.

    in the end-- the browser.. gives the idevice all the porn it needs.. in fact android users should give apple a big "hand" for being the reason why better-than-desktop porn sites like lubetube and mofosex exist in all their one-handed, h.264 goodness.