Do Not Want.
Yesterday the New York Times Business section ran a story about how Apple is pulling the plug on iPhone apps featuring sexually suggestive content.
“It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable, as well as parents who were upset with what their kids were able to see,” [Apple head of marketing] Mr. Schiller said.
You may recall that one of those complainers was SarahMC, who almost a year ago posted about the creepy, objectifying and racist “Cute Asian Girls” app.
“At the end of the day, Apple has a brand to maintain,” said Gene Munster, an analyst at Piper Jaffray who keeps a close eye on the company. “And the bottom line is they want that image to be squeaky clean.”
I don’t think it’s about “squeaky clean”; I think it’s not wanting the iPhone to be the go-to device for degrading sexist “entertainment.” Women–including a few of us Harpies–are loyal iPhone users, and not wanting to piss off half your consumer base is common sense (Something for other companies to consider before next year’s Superbowl.)
“I’m shocked,” said [app developer] Mr. Clarke, who said the company had not had a problem with its applications since the first one went on sale last June. “We’re showing stuff that’s racier than the Disney Channel, but not by much.”
If we’re going to split hairs like that, I’ll point out that Clarke’s sexxxy wimminz apps are not outright wank material…but not by much.
Clarke also wants you to know that it’s hard out there for an app pimp:
Mr. Clarke said his company had been earning thousands of dollars a day from the App Store.
“It’s very hard to go from making a good living to zero,” he said. “This goes farther than sexy content. For developers, how do you know you aren’t going to invest thousands into a business only to find out one day you’ve been cut off?”
Boo fucking hoo. Welcome to free market capitalism, pal. When you make a tasteless product that offends people, you risk losing the market for your product. Next time try making an app that’s useful for something other than helping dudebros get their jollies.
Another app developer called Apple out for applying a double standard:
“Sports Illustrated still has an application available. How come that hasn’t been pulled?”
Indeed, a Sports Illustrated application tied to its annual swimsuit issue was still available for download on Monday, as was one from Playboy.
When asked about the Sports Illustrated app, Mr. Schiller said Apple took the source and intent of an app into consideration. “The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format,” he said.
He has a point. Personally, I find Sports Illustrated Swimsuits and Playboy to be marginally less exploitative, but ultimately, SI and Playboy are providing the same wank-y erotic “entertainment.” Their apps should be pulled too. If Apple is going to apply the “no sexually suggestive” standard, they must apply it to well-known brands as well as the independent developers. While they’re at it, I hope they dump Cosmo’s Sex Position of the Day” app as well, which is ostensibly aimed at women.
At any rate, this development was a pleasant reminder that enough individuals complaining about creepy misogynist shit can turn the tide against the creepsters. Usually I don’t think we should applaud corporations when they’re obviously just acting in their best interests, but in this case I give Apple credit for taking the negative feedback to heart.
[i]At any rate, this development was a pleasant reminder that enough individuals complaining about creepy misogynist shit can turn the tide against the creepsters.[/i]
That’s what I’m choosing to take away from this. Yes, it’s aggravating to listen to a bunch of dewds whine about losing their right to make money off exploiting women, but it’s worse to listen to them crow about being able to do so and dismiss any criticism on the grounds that “the market sets value” and “wimmens don’t understand business / the real world”.
Ladies: 1, Rape Culture: hmmm, my keyboard doesn’t seem to have an infinity key.
Isn’t it funny that Clarke compares his product to Disney Channel stuff? Many others have complained about that too:
http://graphjam.com/2009/11/30/funny-graphs-wholesomeness-disney/
I am unmoved by Clarke’s crocodile tears. He’s hardly set back to zero, and I bet that right now he’s working on a way to port his app to another platform so he can rebrand it as “The HOTHOT WIMMINZ that Apple DOESN’T WANT YOU TO SEE!”
@Bitterly Books: I bet that right now he’s working on a way to port his app to another platform so he can rebrand it as “The HOTHOT WIMMINZ that Apple DOESN’T WANT YOU TO SEE!”
You’re probably right. There are other platforms where you can download apps you can’t get at the App Store and that’s likely going to become the go-to place for the skeevy apps.
Still, I’m glad Apple’s saying they don’t want the sexist shit on their site and they won’t help developers make money off it anymore. Taking a stand is important, IMO. Will that ultimately mean fewer downloaded skeevy apps? It’s hard to tell. But the fact that the developers are freaking out over lost revenue would indicate they’re worried they won’t be able to sell their product as successfully.
This was on the news last night. I was on the couch and said “its about time” and BF got all huffy. “So you’re in favor of censorship now?” was his response. And then about how I get all pissed when the Christian wingnuts try to censor things but when I want to censor something its ok. As usually, I couldn’t articulate why it was different. Just sat there, teary and feeling stupid. Again.
@ImtheMarigold: Ugh. Sorry.
Point out to your BF that it’s not censorship to quit selling an unsuccessful product. Apple thinks these apps are a marketing FAIL and doesn’t want their company linked to them anymore. That’s capitalism, not censorship.
I had a similar conversation with a dude at the Superbowl party, who, when I fumed about how misogynist the ads were, said, “Well waddya want? For the government to censor them?”
I looked him in the eye and said, “No, I want consumers like you to tell corporations it’s not okay to sell products by demeaning women.”
Silence ensued.
I agree with you that Apple taking an official stance on the issue is something to be happy about. Developers cobbling together quick programs for easy money are going to shift their focus away from skeevy apps now that barriers to entry have been erected.
I think whether or not skeevy apps stick around is going to depend on market forces; they may be able to make up for fewer sales by raising the price and branding it as some kind of rare, desireable extra that you can’t get through “normal channels.”
I honestly have mixed feelings about this. I think the ads are skeevy and people shouldn’t buy them, but Apple has a history of banning things from the app store for not great reasons (eg because Google’s a competitor of theirs, so they ban Google’s apps) and that somehow makes this seem less principled. Not that I think they shouldn’t do it, but I guess I wish Apple didn’t have such a trigger-happy finger on the banhammer because the combination makes them seem authoritarian in general and not for any sort of good reason. Also I can almost guarantee you that when these apps start being sold for android, Google won’t do anything about it because I think they’d consider not banning things as part of “don’t be evil”. The idea that anyone should be able to say or sell anything, no matter how offensive, is one of the unfortunate libertarian parts of liberal doodism, I’ve found.
Go Becky Sharper… you do your namesake proud!
@ImtheMarigold: it might help to memorize some good retorts… or have some written as notes. People have different skills. Coming up with a quick rebuttal is usually hard, so make up for it by being prepared. You know your BF… get some stuff ready for his normal junk.
@baraqiel
“The idea that anyone should be able to say or sell anything, no matter how offensive, is one of the unfortunate libertarian parts of liberal doodism, I’ve found.”
People CANNOT say whatever they want. There is a law that says if you say something derogatory and false about someone they can sue you for libel.
People can TRY to sell whatever they want… but they need a market to do so, and it has to be legal. The market place is made of of many different people. If there are enough people that say objectiving and degrading women will keep them from using your products… that is their right to do so.
Boycotting grocery stores that sold non-union grapes( to help Cesar Chavez get living wages for migrant workers) was one way. Telling corporations what you don’t like is another.
Baraquiel – it takes activism to change society and make it better for the next generation. Go Girl!
Also I can almost guarantee you that when these apps start being sold for android, Google won’t do anything about it because I think they’d consider not banning things as part of “don’t be evil”.
Right on, weird stuff is already available on my Hero (HTC droid phone), more everyday. To me Walmart falls eventually like Sears did, and Apple eventually to Google.
Freedom of speech has boundaries.
Freedom to make money off of other people and that includes sex and misery has always happened and people always find loop-holes. It’s education to the current and future generation to not find it ok or “none of my buisness” that will help everyone in the long run. And that starts at home or in small tiny conversations.
Standing up for good practice is always in. Shutting up and just watching never helps. At least personally that’s what I’ve found.
Some people like sexually suggestive material and I don’t think that makes them bad feminists just because they are into this kind of stuff. The Victorian attitude towards sex among some here is disturbing.
Can’t you just not buy it if you don’t like it? Must you insist that no one else buy it also? Not long ago it was mainly the right-wing that wanted to regulate our sexual thoughts and needs.
Some people like sexually suggestive material and I don’t think that makes them bad feminists just because they are into this kind of stuff
No one said it did. Try again.
The Victorian attitude towards sex among some here is disturbing.
No here has expressed any attitudes about sex–Victorian or otherwise. Try again.
Not long ago it was mainly the right-wing that wanted to regulate our sexual thoughts and needs.
No one here proposed regulating anyone’s sexual thoughts or needs. Try again.
Can’t you just not buy it if you don’t like it?
Of course. I can also tell the company I don’t like it. When enough people do that, the company makes a decision that a product is a failure or a liability. That’s what happened here: free speech meets the free market.
@charlemagneinsweats – Okay, let’s recap. Who made the choice to ban the apps? APPLE. Who has sole control over what is sold in the app store? APPLE. Who is preventing you from buying porn apps? APPLE.
I’m reading the Gizmodo thread about this right now and it’s full of this same bullshit reasoning. This is a basic part of capitalism. As a consumer, I have exactly the same power as any other consumer. I can buy something; I can refuse to buy something; and I can tell a merchant that I would buy their product except for [x condition]. If the merchant decides my money is more important than keeping [x condition], that is the merchant’s choice and I’m out of luck. If you don’t like Apple not selling porn, why don’t you call them and tell them that you’re not going to buy any apps or any Apple hardware unless there are little games where you can make boobies bounce in the app store?
Part of the issue here is that Apple knows they have the porn app audience pretty much on lock as a consumer base — young male tech geeks are going to be tech geeks and buy their product, there just isn’t a comparable product with android yet to take up too much of the market share. Apple has to work to get non-techy people (disproportionately women and parents) interested in their product, so they’re willing to cater to them. But tech geeks have the exact same consumer power that everyone else does. If they don’t like the way Apple runs their store, they can stop shopping there.
Oh, and @ocean_breeze — I agree with you. My personal opinion is that the apps are skeezy but the way to solve that is by social censure of people who make/buy them, not by Apple being authoritarian. But that doesn’t change the fact that they have a right to be as authoritarian as they damn please about their own store.
@baraqiel
Oh I agree fully. Apple is free to do as they wish as much as we all are. But it was nice that they listened when some people had comments to give them. Most often a big company won’t (unless they have lawsuits coming).
@ImtheMarigold: Also, it’s not actually censorship unless it’s the government doing it. In a free market economy, Apple is free to do pretty much whatever they want with regards to their own product. That’s the retort I usually use for comments like that.
The far right wing often uses the mantra of “free market capitalism” to justify a slew of anti-competitive positions. Some initial research seems to indicate something going on which, semantics aside, was a lot closed to censorship than it was to showing class. These days those who censor prefer to use phrases like “edited for content”. A couple of blogs with a different perspective were one over at the Cult of Mac blog entitled: Too Hot for iPhone: Apple’s Puritanicle Sex Crusade Bans Swimwear Retailer’s App. A blog post at the National Coalition against censorship opined that: “We can now add swimwear catalogs to the list of controversial iPhone apps, which already includes a Kama Sutra ebook, NIN, and the dictionary.After the FCC relaxed the rules regarding media consolidation the decreasing number of people who run the corporations who make, own, or control the digital spectrum, the airwaves, the media, and the devices have increasingly controlled what gets seen and heard. In an era where anti-trust laws have become a joke, we should not blithely forgo fundamental liberties based on the arbitrary whims of a few to the detriment of minorities. The digital spectrum is leased from the people (the real people, not prosecutors) . I recognize, of course, that unenlightened sexist prurience has been used to promote sales within the bath-water of patriarchy, but it has been rumored that Apple has had second thoughts about throwing out innocent babies with that bath-water.
@Sissy Panty Buns: I’m confused. Do you want to look at tits on your iPhone, or not?
Sorry for any late night html errors in the previous (Feb 27th) comment. (Oops!).
@ Bitterly Brooks: Obviously, but I don’t blame you and would not be insulted if you felt compelled to show yours although I’m more of a bottoms in panties person than a breast ogler, don’t own an iPhone, and would much prefer that women are the ones doing the looking and sharing of thephotos of my panty-clad bottom on their iPhones. You might have also surmised that I have a touch of O.C.D. with respect to censorship versus free press and like to surf through posts like the one by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Challenging Media Bias and Censorship Since 1986
I like the idea that so long as it’s labeled for what it is, we should be able to share, report and publish our thoughts while there remain audiences who have not been brainwashed into sheeple and can learn. I haven’t tried to make the photos of myself modeling ladies full brief panties into a polished YouTube video, but they’re released and you are free to try if you want. Getting back to the question of tits on an iPhone: I’m due for a new set of silicone falsies. Maybe I should convert a falsie to hold an iPhone in my bra as all the prudish nonsense gets laughed off the blogoshpere. I could do without having Apple, Google, Yahoo, MySpace, Facebook, or any corporate mogul deciding which swimsuits are okay, which lingerie is okay, and staking out the majority of the internet for use by underage brats. Let the teenies and prudies get their own filtering softwear. I could have done without the disappointment of the farts have been censored out of the Mel Brooks movie “Blazing Saddles” (the gas from eating beans got “edited for content”. Then again perhaps it would be those reading this who are laughing. at me not wanting my own pantied bottom censored.
@Bitterly Books: Aren’t you glad you asked?
No.
Im happy the question was asked! That entertained me for a good hour!