It is, for the first time in history, a garden of pure ideology.
...so y'all have hopes of disposing of the status quo of being able to take your daughter shopping without having to explain to her why those three men in the picture were filling all holes on that nice lady?
Speaking as someone who has no issue with porn, and who has shamelessly rubbed a few out to some in my day, I've got to say that being able to point mobile Safari anywhere I want to, and to sync pictures and movies if I'm so inclined, is sufficient for me.
Not having porn in the App Store is no more a blow against high hopes for the internet than is not having porn at overstock.com.
The right analogy is your daughter being unable to find porn when she actively and deliberately seeks and want it because some authority deemed it immoral and banned its production.
This is not what I expected from Apple and not what I want for the future.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the_top_100_search_term...
...and that if a parent busts their child searching for it and finding it, the puritan parent is as likely to go after the store as they are to deal with their child.
Allowing porn apps into the store is a messy business proposition. I'm only surprised it didn't get shot down sooner. Not expecting the same policy from any brand of their magnitude is naïve.
And, I have to say, desiring to have porn distributed as executable code is a crazy thing to wish for. I wouldn't even trust it in a sandbox. No industry abuses APIs more than those guys.
And that is one of the dangerous slopes we can see. It's not the store owner's responsibility to educate the kid - that's what parents are for. And the puritan parent has no right to prevent my kids from getting what I allow them to get.
And it's not only about porn. Apple must clearly draw the line it will not cross. Today it's porn, emulators and anything that's cross-compiled. A cartoonist was blocked already (and unblocked after that). Would a network anonymizer be allowed? For how long?
Of all apps, only a small fraction of them would end up being porn - present approval process could still happen. Adult content would also be segregated into an adult store - with separate authorization processes so if puritan parents decide to make it difficult for their offspring to get porn, difficult it would be.
And, most of all, this is not about porn - it's about the notion of a walled garden as being desirable. It's, like someone mentioned, that garden of pure ideology.
Jobs, now, is the Big Brother on the screen. It's up to us to wield the hammers.
That directly contradicts this:
Adult content would also be segregated into an adult store
You can't operate an adult store and avoid it becoming associated with your brand. Unless it has no customers - in which case: why operate it?
Or farting applications.
Among the tech-geek demographic the iPhone is already associated with farting applications. It's a common way to deride the quality of apps at the store when someone gets their knickers in a twist about the reasons Jobs gave for section 3.3.1 - and that's just a current event.
Imagine running an adult store for a decade. People talk. People read. Hiding an adult store behind an individual's preferences would not prevent word from getting out.
I guarantee you that if Disney tried to run a triple-X store in the way you suggest that knowledge of it would get out and it would cause an enormous shit-storm.
Everything any customer experiences that fires a neuron linked to your name or your logo or your products is associated with your brand.
There is no pink iPhone with mouse ears. There is no "Hello Kitty" special edition.