Did Apple reverse its stance on nudity for Playboy? (update: No, it didn't)

Did Apple reverse its stance on nudity for Playboy? (update: No, it didn't)

Summary: So, Steve Jobs goes on medical leave and Apple begins allowing nudity into the App Store? Does Steve know about this?

SHARE:
TOPICS: Apple
74

Hugh Hefner tweeted that full uncensored issues of Playboy magazine will become available on the iPad in March.

Wait, what?!

Sure, Playboy already has a $0.99 iPhone app in the App Store, but it contains no nudity. The Hef tweeted the news:

...and went on to tweet:

So, Steve Jobs goes on medical leave and Apple begins allowing nudity into the App Store? Does Steve know about this?

Engadget confirms that the iPad app will include the magazine contents in all its glory.:

From its very first issue in 1953 to its latest incarnation, the full catalog of Playboy Magazine is coming to the iPad this March. And not only that, it'll be faithful to its original form by arriving to your Apple slate uncensored.

I suspect that the timing of the Playboy for iPad launch has something to do with the new subscription billing API that Apple is developing for newspapers and magazine publishers. With it you'll be able to "subscribe" to a given publication from the iPad app and a pre-set amount will be automatically charged to your iTunes account at a daily/weekly or monthly interval. News Corp's The Daily is believed to be the first app to use the new plumbing.

But forget about all that for a second, what's up with the nudity? Is this an official change in policy by Apple? For now, no one's talking...

Update: I changed the "porn" references because "nudity" more accurately describes the content of Playboy.

Tip: MacRumors

Update 2011-0120: Playboy uncensored won't be a native app any time soon. Turns out it's only creating a new "Web-based subscription service" that'll be "iPad-compatible," according to Playboy spokeswoman Theresa Hennessey. Hef should be ashamed, if such a thing is possible.

My favorite line about the obvious publicity stunt goes to PC World's JR Raphael:

So yes, it appears Apple's App Store will, in fact, remain porn-free. Good thing, too: Otherwise, it might have become incredibly easy for people to find photos of naked ladies on those Internet-enabled devices.

Or, as Steve famously said: "Folks who want porn can buy and (sic) Android phone."

"Consider the source" indeed.

Topic: Apple

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

74 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • OMG

    BOOBIES!

    Wow, I can finally get porn on my iPad. Oh wait, there are already hundreds, if not thousands, of legal free alternatives that work on my iDevice already.

    Pass
    samalie
    • RE: Did Apple reverse its stance on porn for Playboy?

      @samalie Yes, but you'll get giant airbrushed boobies and no stretch marks...

      Except the ones around Sonofasailor's mouth.
      Ron Burgundy
      • Wah! Wah! @deusX Wah!!! homo joke! Wah!

        @Ron Burgundy <br><br>Way to go, Cyberidiot. you change uid's but maintain the same consistent idiotic, hypocritical message. Bravo.

        And DeusX, you better get all high and mighty on your soapbox and tell Ron what an idiot he is for spewing such vileness.

        His remarks offensive and putrid.

        And Ron, er, um Cyberidiot, you have constantly blasted others for making homophobic references to you, yet you make the same comments to others.

        While hypocrisy can be corrected, your idiocy, however cannot. You are stuck with that.
        SonofaSailor
      • RE: Did Apple reverse its stance on porn for Playboy?

        @Sonofapolesmoker No one cares loser...you're Trickytom3, I figured that out yesterday by your explosive rant in the Apple section, same cursing, same insults, same childish outburst.

        Go change your name and come back again later LOSER.
        Ron Burgundy
      • what rant? provide a link please.

        @Ron Burgundy

        I have found that usually TrickyTom3 is right, especially as it pertains to idiots like you.
        SonofaSailor
      • RE: Did Apple reverse its stance on porn for Playboy?

        @Ron Burgundy : of course, you're getting Photoshoped T&A. Nobody wants to look at the real stuff, out side of a t**ti bar.

        The world is much better with some airbrushing (which ironically wastes no air) and some smudging here and there.

        Alas, people should stop calling Playboy porn, or else any Michelangelo or the whole sixteenth chapel would be X rated.
        cosuna
      • RE: Did Apple reverse its stance on porn for Playboy?

        @SonofaSailor You are truly blind...you can't even see your own rants you're so delusional.
        Ron Burgundy
      • RE: Did Apple reverse its stance on porn for Playboy?

        @cosuna
        Sixteenth chapel!? Awesome. <3 Internet.
        zedubal
      • of course apple changed its stance - they realized

        the money they were losing by excluding porn.
        but once Cook (the guy who looks like a child molestor) looked at the numbers then BOOM - porn is back at Apple!

        because they really do care about the money - oops - I mean the end user!
        Ron Bergundy
      • At least your beginning to shed light on yourself...

        @Ron Burgundy <br><br>I'm sure the rest of humanity looks @ Cook and sees a man. You look at him and see child molester.<br><br>It's starting to make sense...the trauma you were subjected to as a child certainly explains your multiple personalities.
        SonofaSailor
      • RE: Did Apple reverse its stance on porn for Playboy?

        @Sonofasailor

        You're a pathetic idiot and a tool. Nowhere did I say anything about Cook being a child molestor, but I'm sure he'll be interested that you insinuated that on these boards and would like to see your accusation. I've screenshot your response and sent it to him, hopefully you'll be sued into oblivion for defamation of character.
        Ron Burgundy
      • RE: Did Apple reverse its stance on porn for Playboy?

        @cosuna Umm? No one wants to see real T&A? Speak for yourself buddy... I feel like the only sort of person who would say that has never seen the real thing in person before.
        snoop0x7b
      • Are you really that stupid???

        @Ron Burgundy

        Not only do you not understand what other people write, but you don't understand what you yourself wrote???

        I wrote "You look at him and see child molestor"

        After you wrote:[i]
        "but once Cook [b](the guy who looks like a child molestor)[/b] looked at the numbers then BOOM - porn is back at Apple!

        because they really do care about the money - oops - I mean the end user!

        Ron Burgundy
        01/19/2011 11:06 AM" [/i]

        As far as you sending stuff to Cook or anyone else @ Apple...I wish you would. That might give them a look into the types of idiots that make up Apple's zealout fanbase.

        what else ya got, wonderboy?
        SonofaSailor
    • RE: Did Apple reverse its stance on porn for Playboy?

      @samalie

      iDevice, eh? So that's what they're calling it these days ;=))
      codougd
    • RE: Did Apple reverse its stance on porn for Playboy?

      @samalie Playboy is certainly not porn, IMO.

      There is nothing pornographic in the display of human form.

      When you have more than one person, performing sex acts, that is when it becomes pornography.
      lelandhendrix@...
  • porn?

    a naked woman is not the same as porn. even in prudish lala land. we know that jason has to use the word porn in the same headline with apple (though of course a 5 year old knows that the playboy magazine is not porn) for his usual shameless click baiting but to all the commenters here: please look up the definition of porn first and then come back to leave us your inspiring take on the topic. thanks.
    banned from zdnet
    • enlighten us

      @banned from zdnet

      (update: I changed the "porn" references because "nudity" more accurately describes the content of Playboy.)

      First nudity, then what? Where do you draw the line? <br><br>i.e.: If Playboy is fine, then what about Penthouse? Or take it a different direction, what about adult-related stories? Text only? Playboy is fine, but explicit prose is not? Why?<br><br>It's a slippery slope...<br><br>- Jason
      Jason D. O'Grady
      • RE: Did Apple reverse its stance on porn for Playboy?

        @Jason D. O'Grady

        To quote Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: "I know it when I see it."
        msalzberg
      • Family guy had it right

        @Jason D. O'Grady
        To quote Peter Griffin: "What's the difference between art and pornography?"

        Answer: A government grant!
        otaddy
      • RE: Did Apple reverse its stance on porn for Playboy?

        @Jason D. O'Grady
        You could try looking in the dictionary. There is a difference. Pornography is generally defined as depicting erotic behaviour; while nudity is generally defined as lacking of conventional covering.

        Granted I am making an assumption on the content of the magazines based on what was in them back when I was in college (no, I'm not going to buy new issues to verify). But at the time, Playboy contained nudity without the erotic behaviour - it was no worse than seeing sculptures and paintings in a museum, just using photography as the medium instead of a brush or chisel. The other magazine you mentioned, Penthouse, would show nudity with sexual contact and highly erotic poses. So I would say no, that one would still be in violation of the rules that Apple has placed on content.

        Granted also, I know people who lump all nudity into the porn category - perhaps you are one, that seems to be the case here. I understand different people have different labels for the same thing sometimes; but please accept that not all will use the same label as you.
        DBEvans