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

Fri, May 8th 2009 9:58am — Mike Masnick

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?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: app store, arbitrary, iphone, page 3
Companies: apple, the sun

35 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Weird Harold's former #5 fan, 8 May 2009 @ 10:04am

Must. Not. Click. Link.

(until I get home, anyway)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan, 8 May 2009 @ 10:11am
  
  Re:
  I'm not going to click the link to see, but should it be marked NSFW somehow? I'm prone to just clicking things sometimes without reading all the nearby text, since I like to see source articles.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger, 8 May 2009 @ 10:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    A phrase like "which is normally filled with images of topless women" doesn't qualify?
    
    I got to ask, Apple is so worried about this on the iPhone, do they care that much about all the other Apple PCs? Do they block offensive content threw the Safari browser?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo, 8 May 2009 @ 10:54am
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lickity Split, 8 May 2009 @ 11:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      must be nice to work for your folks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Easily Amused, 8 May 2009 @ 2:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    it's not objectionable, they show no skin on the front page (not even censor bars), you have to click further to see any funbags.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2009 @ 10:12am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 8 May 2009 @ 11:07am
  
  Re:
  Why would Apple block the content from on[e] Apple source when it is available from another Apple source[?]
  
  Money?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2009 @ 11:14am
    
    Money?
    Well of course, money. :) But they can't say money, now can they?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pangolin (profile), 8 May 2009 @ 11:11am
  
  Re:
  Actually this one does make sense. Block a "free" version of the song so you can SELL a version. NIN block makes sense for Apple but not for the reason they gave.
  
  Blocking page3 is silly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Yakko Warner, 8 May 2009 @ 11:34am
    
    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. :?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Scooper, 8 May 2009 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re: NiN vs Apple
  clearly, Apple loses revenue if it allows the sale of apps that allow users to stream songs, that otherwise they would buy through iTunes.
  I bet it is that simple.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Owen, 8 May 2009 @ 10:14am

It's about controlling your competition.
So, I guess Apple is the new Microsoft, I always wondered how long it take...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ima Fish, 8 May 2009 @ 10:50am
  
  Re:
  "I always wondered how long it take..."
  
  I knew exactly how long it would take. Immediately after it obtained a dominate position in a viable market.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2009 @ 10:46am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The infamous Joe, 8 May 2009 @ 3:41pm
  
  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. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trevlac, 9 May 2009 @ 9:01am
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish, 8 May 2009 @ 10:48am

So who was the moron at Apple who decided to follow Wal-Mart's lead in protecting the world from naughtiness?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 8 May 2009 @ 11:09am

Blah Blah Blah
Thanks for the link to Page3. It's now a 'web app' on my iPhone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The infamous Joe, 8 May 2009 @ 3:42pm
  
  Re: Blah Blah Blah
  What you did there, I see it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Troy A. Wilson Sr. (profile), 8 May 2009 @ 11:16am

Simple question
If I buy an iPhone, isn't it MY phone? Don't I get to decide what is objectionable content by not loading that app or going to that website? When did Apple become my parents? After all, I'm 44 years old. I think I can make a few decision for myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt, 8 May 2009 @ 11:19am
  
  Re: Simple question
  If I buy an iPhone, isn't it MY phone?
  
  No, absolutely not. You're essentially renting it from Apple. Sucks, don't it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Poster, 8 May 2009 @ 11:45am
    
    Re: Re: Simple question
    Yes, it does.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple in Wonderland, 8 May 2009 @ 11:19am

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

Of course! What's so hard to understand about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird Harold's former #5 fan, 8 May 2009 @ 11:21am

If you want porn, go find porn. Page3 is not porn.
I'm still not clicking on it. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2009 @ 11:41am
  
  Re:
  I know why. cuz there there is no kiddie porn?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2009 @ 11:23am

Moral watchguards
This kind of inconsistency is inevitable when someone sets themselves up as the moral watchguard of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headbhang, 8 May 2009 @ 11:30am

Fuck Apple
I love my iPod to bits but... Fuck Apple and its greedy double standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pegr, 8 May 2009 @ 11:51am

And Apple backed down from the NiN thing, BTW
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/08/0424253
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overstressed Admin, 8 May 2009 @ 11:57am

Good to be the Admin
I clicked on the link...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cixelsid, 8 May 2009 @ 12:10pm
  
  Re: Good to be the Admin
  It is good link.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2009 @ 2:18pm
    
    Re: Re: Good to be the Admin
    When I looked at the link, it winked back.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2009 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: Good to be the Admin
  Bookmark.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mojo, 8 May 2009 @ 2:53pm

Of course none of us have seen the app, but if it had a big, flashing pink button somewhere that said "DOWNLOAD THE TOPLESS PAGE 3 GIRL" I can see how it might be considered spotlighting porn.

As people have already learned, *subtlety* is the key to getting around the Apple censors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pete Braven, 9 May 2009 @ 4:49am

It's Obscene?
Oh great,.. next we'll have some idiot saying that babies must be blindfolded while breast-feeding? :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]