Apple, It’s Time to Delete Safari From the iPhone

It took only a few hours: Apple has banned ForChan from iTunes, a perfectly innocent, web-based, dedicated image browser for the iPhone. Its only sin: It could display porn. Well done, Apple. Let’s delete Safari now.

ForChan could connect to any image board web page and show pictures. Photos of dogs, cats, birds, food, cars, planes, flowers, scenes of summer, winter, and fall, or anything in between. Anything including boobs and buttocks:

It didn’t promote porn in any way. It didn’t have any ads for porn. Its icon was plain. Its explanatory text was perfectly innocent. And yes, while the developer mentions that it could be used to browse pictures of fully naked girls—and has some boards with that kind of pictures—the app itself is not a “porn app.” Actually, you had to click a few times in the web before getting to the smut. There was no magic “Show me the tits” button.

In fact, ForChan only has two options: Browse page after page of images, or enter a new URL to access a new web server containing different images.

Sounds familiar?

Yes, exactly the same as Safari. Enter any porn web site address in your Safari URL field, and you will instantly get connected to porn. Hardcore picture after hardcore picture, wet video after wet video, all the perversions imaginable, no niche left untouched.

So why is Safari in the iPhone? Is it because web-browser porn browsing is socially accepted, leaving the ultimate responsibility in the individual using the web browser—often with a convenient privacy mode?

If that’s the case, why delete ForChan from the iTunes Store? It’s a web browser too, no matter how image oriented it is. Apple is not selling porn in the Store when somebody purchases ForChan. They are selling a generic browser, just like the built-in Safari is. One that can only display images, any kind of images, just like the built-in Safari does.

Apple includes Safari with no restrictions because, at the end of the day, it is your responsibility to use your web browser according to your own set of moral and social rules. You can write a new web address and access Fleshbot instead of Gawker. Your action, your choice. Nobody is going to go to Apple and accuse them of selling a porn app because I can access porn with the iPhone. And nobody can possibly accuse Apple of selling porn by making ForChan available in their app store.

So why retire it? Just because we highlighted that it can be used to browse porn. So here’s a hint, Apple:

Time to delete Safari.

Porn Browser Sneaks Into iPhone’s App Store (Updated)

forchan2_thumbNo porn’s allowed in Apple’s App Store, but a clever developer has managed to flash some flesh through an image-viewing app.

Called forChan, the app specializes in viewing image boards on the web. The app comes preloaded with images of nude dogs, but with a few tweaks you can customize the app to view naked ladies.

The steps, provided by iPhone app review site Krapps, are as follows:

Step 1: Download forChan
Step 2: Via your iPhone, visit iHustleApps.com/iPhone and press the “forChan” button
Step 3: Select one of the 15 “adults only” categories
Step 4: Copy the displayed URL to your clipboard
Step 5: Paste the URL in the Store URL section of forChan

And just like that — bow chicka bow wow — you’ve got porn! (We’ll spare you the screenshot since we trust you’ve been educated in human anatomy.) Though you could forego all these steps by simply launching Safari and loading a porn site.

Regardless, it’s not easy to sneak nude images into the App Store. Previous apps containing nudity, such as BeautyMeter and HottestGirls, quickly vanished after receiving press attention. When Steve Jobs introduced the App Store on June 9, 2008, porn was at the top of the list of content that would not be allowed in apps.

“There are going to be some apps that we’re not going to distribute,” Jobs said. “Porn, malicious apps, apps that invade your privacy.”

Updated 2 p.m. PDT: forChan is no longer in the App Store. That was fast.
Download Link [iTunes]

See Also:


iTunes Movie Rentals on the Way?

This article was written on September 10, 2007 by CyberNet.

It appears as though movie rentals from iTunes are on the way! This is one of those things that just makes sense for Apple to do. They already sell movies on iTunes, and they sell Apple TV which they promote as "iTunes to Apple TV, wire free," so why not rent movies to make Apple TV and their iPods capable of playing movies that much more appealing?

The image below is what you’ll see if you were to use iTunes problem reporting system, and this is where Apple slipped-up to reveal movie rentals. All you have to do is view your account purchase history, click to report a problem, and then click on a purchase that you made and you’ll notice all of the problems you could report for renting a movie like "did not receive," "accidental purchase," "duplicate purchase," "wrong version," and "Bad Metadata."

itunes rent a movie

I’d also assume that Apple would rent movies that are formatted appropriately for iPods, especially with their new line-up of iPods capable of watching movies. This would definitely be a good move for Apple because many people, including myself, prefer to rent movies instead of buy them. And if Apple could offer some type of subscription service like what Netflix or Blockbuster are able to offer, well then it’s just icing on the cake!

Souce: WinBeta.org

Copyright © 2010 CyberNet | CyberNet Forum | Learn Firefox

Related Posts:


Appsaurus: A Smarter Recommendation Tool Than App Store Genius

4226074886_01e3da408e14226074142_5fa65a2ced

Let’s face it: The iPhone’s “Genius” recommendation tool for finding apps is mediocre at best. Fortunately a startup cooked up something better. It’s called Appsaurus.

You “train” Appsaurus into understanding you better by tapping apps on a list that you like; you swipe to remove those you dislike. Every time you tap an app you might like, a new list pops up with possible recommendations. You keep tapping and deleting apps until Appsaurus grows familiar with your preferences. The app breaks its learning process into “Evolution Stages”; the final one is “All-Knowing.” It doesn’t end there, either: It keeps learning with each app you select or ban.

I had some time to test drive Appsaurus and found a few gems after tapping through. To me, an even more useful feature is the ability to perform a custom search for a type of app you’re looking for based on a search term and category. From there on, Appsaurus narrows down the lists based on your criteria, and you find recommendations the same way — tap apps you like and swipe those you wouldn’t consider.

Appsaurus is a slick-looking app, and it’s better than Genius. The App Store’s Genius tool makes recommendations based only on the apps currently installed on your iPhone, and it spits out a pretty bland list of recommendations, from my experience.

Appsaurus’ approval can be considered a triumph. In November, Wired.com published a story documenting a major risk of developing for mobile platforms controlled by larger corporations: You can be easily squashed if you inadvertently compete with the giant. Software development house Hello, Chair was an example. The team of three was working hard on an App Store recommendation tool called Appsaurus, but Apple beat them to the idea by releasing App Store Genius in September.

Put yourself in Hello, Chair’s shoes, and you’ll face some tough questions. Do you keep moving forward with Appsaurus? Is Apple going to reject the app since it does something similar to a built-in iPhone feature (as the company has done with apps that “duplicate functionality” of the iPhone)? Ultimately, is it wise to continue competing with a giant?

Hello, Chair opted to finish Appsaurus and submit it. Apple did, in fact, reject the app a number of times: The initial submission of Appsaurus pulled information from star ratings and user reviews to help make recommendations, but Apple is extremely protective of that data and wouldn’t allow it to be used in the app.

Finally, after a series of confusing phone calls with Apple and tweaks to Appsaurus, the app showed up in the App Store on Monday. And, albeit a compromise, the end result is still pretty sweet. It’s available in the App Store for $1.

Download Link [iTunes]

See Also:


Ford becomes first automaker to offer HD Radio with iTunes tagging

If you thought the automakers would be leaving CES to the TV and PMP makers, Ford would like to have a word with you. A few words, actually. Aside from announcing that in-car WiFi will be available next year, the iconic blue oval is today calling itself the first car manufacturer to offer factory-installed HD Radio with iTunes tagging capabilities. Slated to become available on select 2011 Ford models sometime next year, the implementation will enable listeners of HD Radio to “tag” songs they like via a single button press; from there, the song information will be logged within the radio’s memory, and up to 100 tags on Sync can be stored until an iPod is connected to suck them down. Once that data hits the iPod, users can then preview or purchase them conveniently through iTunes. There’s no word yet on pricing (we’re being forced to wait until CES), but we’re guessing it’ll demand quite the premium.

Continue reading Ford becomes first automaker to offer HD Radio with iTunes tagging

Ford becomes first automaker to offer HD Radio with iTunes tagging originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments

Subscriptions Could Be Apple’s Second Attempt to Conquer Video


Apple is planning to offer television subscriptions over the internet, according to multiple industry sources, and so far CBS and Walt Disney are considering the idea.

The subscription service would involve allowing customers access to some TV shows from participating networks for a monthly fee, anonymous sources have told The Wall Street Journal. The subscription content would presumably be integrated into the iTunes Store and iTunes-compatible hardware. Though Disney and CBS are rumored to be interested, the companies have not officially commented on their plans.

Assuming the rumors are true, a subscription model would be Apple’s second major move to seize the digital video market. The Cupertino, California, company introduced the Apple TV in 2007, which stores and plays video content downloaded through iTunes. However, Apple has repeatedly referred to the Apple TV as a “hobby,” implying the product has not made a serious dent in the entertainment market.

Also, the iTunes Store’s offering of video content pales in comparison to competitors’ catalogs. In March, Apple reported the iTunes Store had accumulated 40,000 downloadable TV episodes and 5,000 movies. Around the same time, Netflix, which offers a rental service in addition to streaming-video hardware, had amassed 100,000 DVD titles and 12,000 choices of streaming content.

Apple’s rumored subscription strategy, if successful, could reshape the TV industry by offering a compelling (and cheaper) alternative to the pricey bundles sold by television providers. However, it will be tricky for Apple to get TV networks on board, said James McQuivey, a Forrester analyst who focuses on the consumer video market.

“It’s very hard to walk into these folks’ door and say, ‘I’m going to deliver revenue to you,’ when in the past few years they haven’t been able to do that,” said McQuivey, in a phone interview.

How could Apple persuade networks? The video-subscription strategy could work if Apple implements a streaming model, McQuivey said. That would involve allowing iTunes customers to stream TV shows without downloading them straight to their hard drives.

Studios typically prefer streaming technology over direct downloads. Streaming video is not only difficult to pirate; it also enables studios and networks to track their success. With streaming video, they can insert dynamic advertisements, create interactive experiences that can be measured, and report on success of promotional campaigns and content strategies.

McQuivey added that Apple could possibly offer to handle the bandwidth for streaming TV shows so that a subscription service could cost networks next to nothing.

“Apple could say, ‘We’ll pass revenue to you, and we won’t burden you with a single drop of cost,’” McQuivey speculated.

That would be a plausible gesture, since Apple is currently building a 500,000 square-foot data center in North Carolina, which could handle the bandwidth required for streaming video. The corporation also recently acquired Lala, a music streaming service, whose infrastructure could be shared with video.

However, McQuivey noted that streaming is getting “dirt cheap” thanks to technological innovations, and it’s poised to get even cheaper — so Apple will have to think hard about how to sell the idea of a subscription service to enough networks in order for the model to ever come into fruition.

TV networks will be especially defensive against Apple, in light of the corporation’s takeover of the digital music market. For the first half of 2009, iTunes-purchased songs accounted for 69 percent of the digital music market; Amazon is in a distant second with 8 percent. iTunes also accounts for 25 percent of the overall music market — both physical and digital — according to research firm NPD Group. iTunes is slowly chipping away at CD, still the most popular music format with 65 percent.

“You can’t get away with that in the video industry because they watched what you did, Apple, with music,” McQuivey said. “[TV networks] are going to be looking for short-term deals and offering no exclusive for content. It’s going to be difficult for Apple.”

See Also:

Photo: niallkennedy/Flickr


Disney and CBS interested in Apple’s subscription-based iTunes TV idea?

Disney and Apple — now, where have we heard about these two mingling in content related activities before? Sure enough, whispers of a potential tie-up regarding a $30 per month TV service for iTunes are turning into more of a gentle roar, with The Wall Street Journal reporting today that both CBS and Walt Disney Company are “considering participating in Apple’s plan to offer television subscriptions over the internet.” Naturally, this comes from those ever present (and perpetually undisclosed) “sources,” but considering that the outfit just shelled out for Lala, we wouldn’t put anything past it. As the story goes, CBS is considering offering up content from CBS and CW, while Disney could include programming from ABC, Disney Channel and ABC Family networks; details on the purported program are obviously still under wraps, but we know that both of these guys would be looking for some sort of monthly compensation in exchange for access to their lineups. Whatever the case, it’s being bruited that Apple could complete licensing deals and introduce the service sometime in 2010, so we’ll be keeping an ear to the ground for more.

Disney and CBS interested in Apple’s subscription-based iTunes TV idea? originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:08:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  sourceThe Wall Street Journal  | Email this | Comments

iPhone’s App Store Gets Less Spammy in iTunes

convert
Over the weekend Apple rolled out a visual makeover for its App Store page in iTunes, placing emphasis on photos previewing the apps and allowing less space for textual descriptions.

The redesign increased the size of the photos and trimmed down on the amount of words that appear in the “Description” field that developers used to pitch their apps; the descriptions are now limited to two lines. Before, app descriptions could display several lines, and many developers used the opportunity to fill the space with line after line of buzz words, capitalized letters with asterisks and so on to help the app gain attention.

There’s a “…More” button to view the full description of the app, but we doubt most consumers are going to click on it. We’re willing to bet most people just lightly scan the description and spend more time looking at the images anyway when determining whether they want the app.

Long story short, the iTunes App Store got less spammy, which most consumers will likely enjoy. Will some developers complain? Probably. But that’s nothing new.

Via ZDNet

See Also:


Is Apple Taking the Internet Seriously Now?

Apple’s always been a particular kind of company, obsessed with experiences, controlling them, end to end. But those they’ve always been centered around the traditional desktop. Until Apple bought Lala. Is Apple taking the internet seriously now?

By “taking the internet seriously,” we mean, in one sense, getting more serious about “the cloud,” which is a digital yuppy euphemism for “stuff stored on honking servers out there somewhere that you access over the internet.” A few things—a few acquisitions, really—make us think Apple is eyeballing the internet in a new way as means of service. And we don’t mean in the sorta kinda way they run MobileMe, which has been, at first, a flop and now, decent if it were free like all the Google stuff is and not $100 a year.

• The biggest piece is Lala. It remains to be seen how radically Apple uses it to transform iTunes, but the potential for a complete upheaval of the current iTunes model is enormous. Right now, you buy stuff on iTunes, download it to your hard drive, and sync it to your iThing through a rubbery white cable. A LalaTunes would be re-oriented around the web: You buy and manage songs over the web, and could stream your library anywhere, like to other computers, to your phone, directly. You can buy the streaming rights to a song forever, for 10 cents, rather than download it. And if this new, de-centralized iTunes is indeed embedded all over the web, it would become the de facto way to listen to music on internet, the same way Google is just how you search.

• Apple tried to buy AdMob, before Google did. AdMob is a mobile advertising company, formerly, one of the biggest. They sell ads, on the internet, for mobile phones. Apple might’ve wanted it as a defensive move to keep it away from Google, but just as likely, Apple wanted a slice of the mobile advertising revenue that’s simply going to explode over the next couple of years, much of which is being sold for the iPhone.

• A somewhat shakier rumor is that Apple’s is thinking about buying iCall, not just for the fitting name, but because they’re a VoIP company. If Apple’s really diving into the internet stuff, an internet calling service makes some sense. Also, though unrelated, it’s interesting that after Apple blocked the app Podcaster for being iTunesy, it later released the functionality it provided, and Apple’s complaint about Google Voice and other GV apps, were that they “duplicated” functionality.

Apple’s dabbled in internet services for a long time—you know, .Mac and MobileMe, with its storage and syncing and photo services—but in the future, you’ll probably mark the iPhone as when the internet really started to matter—despite the fact that Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer wasn’t horribly off-base when he said “the internet is not designed for iPhone.” The phone is evolving to rise to the challenge, from both inside out and outside in. Remember how limited the iPhone felt before apps? Before it became a real internet thing?

The defining conflict of personal computing for the last two decades has been Apple vs. Microsoft, Mac vs. PC. Today, it’s a three-way battle: Apple vs. Microsoft vs. Google. Steve Ballmer’s been mocked for years over his obsession with Google, manifested through Microsoft’s blind pursuit of search marketshare, but his single-mindedness looks far less loony today. It’s funny, actually, that Microsoft has been entirely absent from Apple’s recent collisions, which have all been with Google: Maps, voice, mobile advertising, music, executives, phones, etc. Microsoft doesn’t even enter the picture here, at least from Apple’s perspective. And these fights are all about the internet or mobile services.

Which is illuminating. Microsoft has had their lunch chewed, swallowed and spit back into their faces on mobile, on digital music and on, um, the internet. They let all of those things, which they were in a serious position to dominate, pass them by. Windows Mobile is hosed. Zune HD is amazing, but far too late. Google owns over 70 percent of the search market, and people are still abandoning Internet Explorer in droves after Microsoft let it rot for years. Microsoft, with its OS on 90 percent of the world’s computers, obviously has much more to lose than Apple if the OS becomes truly irrelevant.

Apple probably doesn’t want to be Microsoft. Complacency breeds extinction. And it’s clear that things are continually shifting away from the traditional desktop (or laptop), to the internet. I’m not saying Apple’s abandoning OS X and MacBooks and we’re going to all wake up in the puffy cloud tomorrow, but anybody who thinks things aren’t going in this new terminal-client direction, where OSes and hardware don’t matter is blind or stupid or in denial. I mean, it’s already here in some ways. (Uh, just look at Google.) A model that stays tethered to the traditional desktop is like tying a weight around your ankle and trying to fly by flapping your arms.

An Apple that’s seriously focused on the internet could be a curious thing. Apple’s all about ecosystems that flow and work together. Would it be a walled garden in the clouds? Or would it be open, you know like people seem to think the internet should be? (I think of how Nintendo transitioned Mario from 2D to 3D with Super Mario 64. It was totally Mario, but something completely new.)

Whatever the case, it’s hard to imagine Apple not taking the internet and internet-based services more seriously than ever—butting heads again and again with Google, the new Microsoft (of the internet) shows at least that much. We’ll have to wait and see what that really means, though.

How Lala and the Web Will Make iTunes Even More Powerful

We’ve been wondering what a Lalaized iTunes would look like, and we weren’t too far off: The WSJ says iTunes is evolving into a web-centric model, making the biggest music store in the world that much more powerful.

You won’t need software anymore to buy songs from iTunes. iTunes will just be on the web—you’ll be able to buy and listen directly, through search engines or other sites, much like you can with Lala now. Or if you’re not familiar with it, think about the way Amazon is embedded on the internet, and imagine that for music, through iTunes. It’s a kind of ubiquity would make the biggest music store in the world even more influential and intractable, a fact that’s not lost on record labels.

It’s an uprooting of the entire iTunes model: Not only would you buy songs and manage your iTunes library through the web, iTunes could shift to having a serious streaming component, away from “download to own,” as Apple’s been evaluating the impact of Pandora and Lala on iTunes, though the WSJ is more tentative on this point.

Also, you may very well be able to put your music in the cloud. Essentially, you would own right to listen to the song anytime and anywhere, not just the digital file you downloaded. There’s also a chance that Apple will use Lala’s ability to scan your current music library, match it up with the files on their servers, and give you access to the songs you already own anywhere via its servers.

Two mildly tangential points: Lala Chairman Bill Nguyen appears to be heavily involved in the new effort, making joint calls to the labels with Apple’s Eddie Cue, indicating it’s a classic Apple tech-and-brains acquisition, and the WSJ backs up the previously rumored $80 million pricepoint, saying Apple paid $85 million for Lala.

This whole iTunes revamp could happen as early as next year, although there’s expected to be some pushback from a music industry already cowed by Apple’s strength. But Cupertino’s been keeping the major labels on life support for so long, there’s just not much they can do about it. [WSJ]