Which begs the question: how well-known do you have to be, exactly, for Apple to decide your content is OK? To that, there isn't an answer. Phil Schiller, Apple's vice-president of marketing, made the rather weak claim earlier this year that the reason they were allowed – and others were banned – was that they came from "a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format". "Would an app of images of famous classical art nudes be acceptable? Will the big names be treated more leniently than the smaller ones? There was at least an outward appearance of a double standard involving Playboy and Sports Illustrated in the iPhone App Store when Apple's rules were tightened earlier in the year." Montgomerie thinks Apple is perfectly within its rights to decide what it lets through – but also that the fault line will grow. But it was a strange collision of sensibilities. After an outcry, Apple backed down and approved the app.
There has been collateral damage, though: last year, Apple initially turned down Eucalyptus, an app written by the British developer Jamie Montgomerie, because it provided access to out-of-copyright books via the net – including the Kama Sutra. More likely is that Apple is setting itself – as in so many ways – at an opposite pole to Google, which as a search engine can always be accused of being a gateway to pornography and objectionable content.īy contrast, Apple controls exactly what appears on its App Store to make that match the clean lines of its products and adverts, it needs to enforce a "clean" approach to content. Yet it seems unlikely he would manipulate the entire content strategy of a $240bn corporation simply to ease his home life. Is that the clue? In his current marriage – now in its 19th year – Jobs, 55, has three children (plus a grown-up child from a previous liaison). Porn is just fine! And I think my wife would agree."Įven though it was past 1.30am, Jobs shot back within minutes: "You might care more about porn when you have kids. The only clue is in another email sent to Tate, who threw down the challenge: "I don't want 'freedom from porn'. He is a Buddhist, but most of all a capitalist. Jobs is famed for sweary tirades at staff which would leave Malcolm Tucker bug-eyed. It is not clear where this thread of Puritanism comes from within Apple. that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic or defamatory."īut the closer you look, the more this looks like the "freedom" found in Lord Farquaad's kingdom of Duloc in the film Shrek – a carefully maintained facade which, given that the iPad includes a web browser, cannot help but let the monster of porn and donkey of defamation clatter in, no matter how hard you try to keep them out. Apple points to section 3.3.17 of its developer agreement: "Materials. In the last few months, it has banned an app with political cartoons (by a Pulitzer-winning cartoonist – though it quickly relented), and a gay travel guide to New York (too much skin, and an unflattering caricature of Sarah Palin). It is not only porn that seems to trouble Apple. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Jobs, an archetypal Democrat, replied in a tone that sounded as though he was channelling George W Bush: "Yep, freedom from programs that steal your private data. Revolutions are about freedom," Tate wrote. Tate, annoyed by an iPad advert calling it a "revolution", challenged Jobs: "If Dylan was 20 today, how would he feel about your company?.
In an email exchange with Ryan Tate, a writer for the Gawker website, Jobs set out his stall very clearly. That's a place we don't want to go – so we're not going to go there." You can download porn, your kids can download porn. In April, he told a press conference: "You know, there's a porn store for Android. Jobs has made his thoughts on the topic very clear twice this year.