iNanny cracks whip

Right after Apple made us ridicule their sorry quest for a mobile “bring-up” loser, Phil Schiller has gone and blabbed a bunch of 1984 crap to the Times, which he foreshadowed back in November. It’s awesome.

See, just over the last few weeks the world has gotten really Naughty. Schiller himself has blushed at

an increasing number of apps containing very objectionable content.

Oh my! Let’s just hope Schiller was not forced to evaluate each and every one, in private. Apparently this is a Unique Crisis:

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.

Now hold on a sec, Mr. Schiller. Women have been known to disagree with each other on many things, including what is too degrading (?) or objection-able. It’s a little iffy to completely ban products based on what you say the women say. And those parents, maybe you should tell them about the famous “parental controls” you now build into everything?

We obviously care about developers, but in the end have to put the needs of the kids and parents first.

Much like it has always been necessary to ban racy items from bookshelves, computers, and the internet because some anonymous prude in the employ of a private business was offended/aroused.

But what about Sports Illustrated’s beloved mainstream pr0n—which (some) women have been objecting to for ages—is there some kind of special, or double, standard in place to protect our big old-media brands?

The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format.

Well that’s a relief. S.I. is just appropriately degrading to women.

On the other hand if you want a software platform that isn’t run like a bought-off nursery, there are alternatives.