News

Bloomberg Columnist Advocates Apple Sell iPorn

Tuesday, April 11th, 2006 at 8:50 AM - by Staff

Apple should add an adult entertainment section to the iTunes Music Store (iTMS), and cash in on the huge revenues generated by the Internet porn industry, says Bloomberg columnist Mark Gilbert. He sees the addition of adult-oriented videos as a natural extension of the already successful music and video download service Apple provides.

Music downloads outsell videos at the iTMS, and pornography is just the ticket to bring video sales up in line with music. At least in Mr. Gilbert's eyes, that is. He sees a ripe opportunity for Apple to snatch some of the US$20 billion adult video market.

He also notes that several companies already sell erotic content and the software to load it on your iPod, and says "Apple may as well grab some of that revenue for itself."

To date, however, Apple has maintained a reputation that doesn't typically see its name spoken in the same breath with Jenna Jameson. Mr. Gilbert's thoughts? "IPod [sic] porn, desirable or not, may prove an irresistible temptation to a more profit-hungry Apple."

30 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

vasic said:

member since 09 Aug 2005 with 278 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:53 am

While he is probably right in that it would be a huge revenue boost (nothing like porn to make easy money), I would be very surprised if Apple went that way. So far, their image has been exceptionally clean (can anyone say Disney?). It would be a huge risk to soil it selling controversial content.

Quote this post ↓

DrD said:

member since 28 Apr 2003 with 41 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:01 am

This seems a remarkably short sighted financial view which would IMHO harm Apple in the longer term. The ethos that is projected from apple is that they care about the whole user experience from advertising to using their product. Promoting pornography is exploitative both of the individuals featured and of users, so would easily be portrayed as Apple not caring for it's users which is an image it has worked hard to promote. It would certainly not help Apple in the education market either. I think Vasic's comments comparing the idea to Disney promoting porn is a good analogy.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:09 am

Honestly, do you think the hard work and dedication not to mention the image Steve Jobs has worked so hard to uphold would lower his standards to make an easy buck? I could just see the headlines and critics: "From Co-Founder of Apple to Steve bl*w-Jobs, Next on Geraldo." Please. Let's leave the porn industry to the professionals and let Apple do what they do best.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:24 pm

The French Maids and Campus Ladies podcasts are racy enough for the iTMS.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 1001 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:25 pm

And while Apple's at it, maybe they should offer crack with the iPod Nano. This would allow them to easily reach price points of $500 or more, without the need for additional bulky packaging.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:26 pm

In addition to all the previous comments, the education market so highly valued by Apple would be lost. Envision a scenario of citizens complaining to school boards about buying computers from the "porn" company. Not only is this view short sighted but it is just plain wrong.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:29 pm

BTW Disney is by no means "clean" as what people believe. They do plenty of R and NC-17 movies, and much can be considered porn. Just they have the common sense to release it under a subsistary company.

Look at "Princess Mononokee".. It was BOUGHT by Disney.. But who did the actually release? Why? Because Disney wasn't give leaway to recut the movie to remove the blood and "non-children friendly material."

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:24 pm

Talk about a brand a-bomb. What a moron.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:02 pm

This is a disgusting suggesting. Pornography is insulting to human dignity. When to people make love, it is to be a special time when they share themselves with each other. When that privacy is broken, then the intimacy is broken and the sharing between two people becomes sharing with others as well. That is not what God designed sex to be. The author of this article should publicly apologize for putting such filth on the Bloomburg site. Besides, pornography is part of the culture of death. Apple has an interest in the future. With masturbation, contraception, and abortion, our future is snuffed out and sex is used for anything but children. That is no way to encourage a future generation of humans who, among other things, will buy Apple computers. This author is really short sighted and offensive.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:44 pm

Guest wrote:
This is a disgusting suggesting. Pornography is insulting to human dignity. When to people make love, it is to be a special time when they share themselves with each other. When that privacy is broken, then the intimacy is broken and the sharing between two people becomes sharing with others as well. That is not what God designed sex to be. The author of this article should publicly apologize for putting such filth on the Bloomburg site. Besides, pornography is part of the culture of death. Apple has an interest in the future. With masturbation, contraception, and abortion, our future is snuffed out and sex is used for anything but children. That is no way to encourage a future generation of humans who, among other things, will buy Apple computers. This author is really short sighted and offensive.

*barfs*

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:54 pm

Guest wrote:
This is a disgusting suggesting. Pornography is insulting to human dignity. When to people make love, it is to be a special time when they share themselves with each other. When that privacy is broken, then the intimacy is broken and the sharing between two people becomes sharing with others as well. That is not what God designed sex to be. The author of this article should publicly apologize for putting such filth on the Bloomburg site. Besides, pornography is part of the culture of death. Apple has an interest in the future. With masturbation, contraception, and abortion, our future is snuffed out and sex is used for anything but children. That is no way to encourage a future generation of humans who, among other things, will buy Apple computers. This author is really short sighted and offensive.

What is offensive is you telling the world what sex should be. It is none of your concern what people do with their own sexual lives, and you certainly have no place to pass judgment on those who choose to view sex differently than you very narrow "sex is only for children" world view. One would think that Song of Songs would have taught you that, since you are so sure what "God designed sex to be." It is you who ought to publicly apologize by calling those who disagree with you the purveyors of the "culture of death." The analyst was simply stating that Apple could make a lot of money by selling porn via iTunes. How is that in any way offensive? And why is Apple responsible for the morality of future generations?

Apple sells computers and music online. Their only responsibility is to do that well and make money for their shareholders while doing it. If porn can help them do that and not affect their present business, then that is exactly what they ought to do.

Quote this post ↓

LaurieF said:

member since 15 Jun 2001 with 3545 posts, TMO Forum Mod, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:19 pm

Apple won't do it. It's not part of its (hard-)core business.

[Roll up. Roll up. Get your crap jokes here.]

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:25 pm

Anyone else find it pretty hysterical that The iPod Observer, whose articles are invariably rife with myriad typos and grammatical missteps on a daily basis, made it a point to disclaim fault (by noting "sic") for the oh-so-egregious spelling of "IPod" (i.e. capitalized) in another publication?

Quote this post ↓

LaurieF said:

member since 15 Jun 2001 with 3545 posts, TMO Forum Mod, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:29 pm

No.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:25 pm

The Apple + Porn angle works for me. After all, it's the fruit that started the whole sin game, no?

Quote this post ↓

Pashtun Wally said:

member since 18 Dec 2001 with 145 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:18 pm

No.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:26 pm

well even if apple doesn't do it someone will make BILLIONS off it. Vivid already gets my $30/month for unlimited movies & podcasts (that my wife and I BOTH enjoy "using"

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:15 am

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
This is a disgusting suggesting. Pornography is insulting to human dignity. When to people make love, it is to be a special time when they share themselves with each other. When that privacy is broken, then the intimacy is broken and the sharing between two people becomes sharing with others as well. That is not what God designed sex to be. The author of this article should publicly apologize for putting such filth on the Bloomburg site. Besides, pornography is part of the culture of death. Apple has an interest in the future. With masturbation, contraception, and abortion, our future is snuffed out and sex is used for anything but children. That is no way to encourage a future generation of humans who, among other things, will buy Apple computers. This author is really short sighted and offensive.

What is offensive is you telling the world what sex should be. It is none of your concern what people do with their own sexual lives, and you certainly have no place to pass judgment on those who choose to view sex differently than you very narrow "sex is only for children" world view. One would think that Song of Songs would have taught you that, since you are so sure what "God designed sex to be." It is you who ought to publicly apologize by calling those who disagree with you the purveyors of the "culture of death." The analyst was simply stating that Apple could make a lot of money by selling porn via iTunes. How is that in any way offensive? And why is Apple responsible for the morality of future generations?

Apple sells computers and music online. Their only responsibility is to do that well and make money for their shareholders while doing it. If porn can help them do that and not affect their present business, then that is exactly what they ought to do.

The author was not telling people what sex should be. He was saying what GOD designed sex to be. Furthermore, if you read carefully, the author did not say say that sex was ONLY for children. He was just lamenting the fact that many people seem to use it for "anything but children." That is the culture of death. Calm down and read their post again. It actually makes a great deal of sense.

Quote this post ↓

LaurieF said:

member since 15 Jun 2001 with 3545 posts, TMO Forum Mod, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:31 am

Many of us are not interested in having children. But it doesn't stop us having sex. To be celibate is not natural. It may be a moral issue for you, or for the original anonymous raver, but it isn't for everyone. You probably aren't interested, but I had a vasectomy a few years ago to preclude having children. There's nothing unnatural in that.

I have gone back and re-read the post. I have re-read yours as well. It makes sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me.

Culture of death? Idiocy.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:08 am

rotfl, I don't

LaurieF wrote:
Many of us are not interested in having children. But it doesn't stop us having sex. To be celibate is not natural. It may be a moral issue for you, or for the original anonymous raver, but it isn't for everyone. You probably aren't interested, but I had a vasectomy a few years ago to preclude having children. There's nothing unnatural in that.

I have gone back and re-read the post. I have re-read yours as well. It makes sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me.

Culture of death? Idiocy.

the most hilarious line I have seen is "There's nothing unnatural in that" typed by a man who paid money to have a doctor break his perfectly healthy reproductive system.

Quote this post ↓

LaurieF said:

member since 15 Jun 2001 with 3545 posts, TMO Forum Mod, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:19 am

Again you're making assumptions from your own biased point of view. I'm not going to go into the reasons for my vasesctomy - it's none of your business - but your phrase "perfectly healthy" sticks out like dog's balls.

Whether or not it was perfectly healthy - shrug, I'll never know - is irrelevant. But the fact that you think it was important to say "perfectly healthy" having never met me nor knowing nothing about me, that by extension you obviously consider contraception to be an unnatural thing, colours everything you say.

Contraception in its mechanical form (condoms, barrier creams, caps, vasectomy etc) is natural. You can argue as much as you like, but it is. Forms of contraception have been used in most societies for thousands of years.

I would argue, from my perspective, that pornography is natural as well. It's not my cup of tea (as a friend of mine is wont to say, "So what's wrong with a little kiss, then?"), but I won't generally make judgements about what other people do in their private lives. There are of course limits to what should be allowed. Furthermore those people whose only sexual gratification is through pornography have grabbed the wrong end of the stick. But as long as no-one is harmed, and as long as they get a little true pleasure out of it, I don't care.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:17 am

LaurieF wrote:
Again you're making assumptions from your own biased point of view. I'm not going to go into the reasons for my vasesctomy - it's none of your business - but your phrase "perfectly healthy" sticks out like dog's balls.

Whether or not it was perfectly healthy - shrug, I'll never know - is irrelevant. But the fact that you think it was important to say "perfectly healthy" having never met me nor knowing nothing about me, that by extension you obviously consider contraception to be an unnatural thing, colours everything you say.

Contraception in its mechanical form (condoms, barrier creams, caps, vasectomy etc) is natural. You can argue as much as you like, but it is. Forms of contraception have been used in most societies for thousands of years.

I would argue, from my perspective, that pornography is natural as well. It's not my cup of tea (as a friend of mine is wont to say, "So what's wrong with a little kiss, then?"), but I won't generally make judgements about what other people do in their private lives. There are of course limits to what should be allowed. Furthermore those people whose only sexual gratification is through pornography have grabbed the wrong end of the stick. But as long as no-one is harmed, and as long as they get a little true pleasure out of it, I don't care.

okay. it's perfectly natural to break sex. who is afraid of sex? the one who has sex and is willing to accept the natural result - children? or the one who hides from the power and natural effects of sex by breaking it?

sex is pleasure - but not only pleasure. it's like eating. eating is pleasure - but it also does other things. well, some people in ancient Rome would feast on good food, then puke so they could eat some more. they were just using food for pleasure and not accepting the natural results (a full belly that tells you to stop eating.) using contraception is the same thing - reducing sex to mere pleasure. God designed men so they are fertile all the time. Women are NOT fertile for most of each month. So not every sexual encounter results in children. In fact, the vast majority of sexual encounters do not result in children. But neither should sex be closed off from children.

There is another way to avoid children if your life requires it. It's NOT the rhythm method. It's called "NFP" (natural family planning) It very accurately determines when the woman is not fertile, which is more than 3 weeks out of each month. On those several days she is fertile, the couple can choose to abstain from sex. This way, there is nothing manmade used to avoid children. They are simply finding out the woman's own natural rhythm and not having sex on those days when she is fertile. Now THAT is natural. No plastic, no chemicals, no surgery.

For more info on truly natural birth control just Google "creighton method" or "natural family planning"

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:05 pm

Quote:
The author was not telling people what sex should be. He was saying what GOD designed sex to be.

Even worse. To claim to know the mind of God in any way is just plain absurd in any context.

Quote:
Furthermore, if you read carefully, the author did not say say that sex was ONLY for children. He was just lamenting the fact that many people seem to use it for "anything but children." That is the culture of death.

Gee, it seems as though a society which favors war and carpet bombing is the purveyor of the "culture of death." Not those who choose to masturbate to porn.

Quote:
Calm down and read their post again. It actually makes a great deal of sense.

I'm calm, but when people try and get me to "drink the cool-aid" because they're absolutely sure of what God wants from all of us I tend to get testy. No one can claim to know what God designed anything to be, period. And this is assuming tthat there is a God at all.

Quote this post ↓

LaurieF said:

member since 15 Jun 2001 with 3545 posts, TMO Forum Mod, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:17 pm

I hate ideology. I despise it in all its forms. I despise those who declare war on other countries and commit their soldiers to fight in those countries based on a concept that it is possible to fight a concept (terrorism) than an entity (a true enemy). I despise those on the other side who think all followers of a religion (Jews) and their supporters (USAians and British) are evil and don't deserve to live.

In short, I despise those whose world view is limited and can't consider that others have views that are valid. I reject utterly that followers of a religion should have an interpretation of their religion that impinges on my freedoms and activities, or at least think that they have the right to do that impingeing.

Naturally I wouldn't consider that I should impinge on their freedoms, because that wouldn't be Christian.

Quote this post ↓

Intruder said:

member since 07 Jul 2004 with 3144 posts, TMO Mac Specialist, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:18 pm

Methinks we have strayed a long way from the topic here.

Anybody care to get back on topic? Anybody?

Quote this post ↓

LaurieF said:

member since 15 Jun 2001 with 3545 posts, TMO Forum Mod, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:31 pm

In a way, I don't think we have strayed. Any discussion/argument/fisticuffs about pornography/eroticism/sexuality will always revolve, for good or ill, around morality. And with morality will come proclamations about whether one group or the other should be allowed to enforce their concepts on another; or at least the limit of that enforcement.

Were Apple to provide restricted content on iTMS, the problem would be in ensuring that minors not be able to download it. What they should be allowed or not allowed to watch, I am not going to attempt to decree. Again being subjunctive, where adults are concerned I neither know nor care what content is available; that should be a concern of Apple's in concert with the relevant censorship authority, not one that a particular unelected unrepresentative group should be able to dictate or directly influence.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:31 am

Guest wrote:
Even worse. To claim to know the mind of God in any way is just plain absurd in any context.

Dude, He told us what's on His mind. It's called Revelation and you can find it in Scripture and Tradition. Nobody can fully know the mind of God - and nobody here is claiming to. But God has consistently taught us what sex is. 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ became man and died for our sins. While walking the earth as a man, He founded a community - a Church - which He called His own body. That is how unified it is with Him. Before He died, He appointed Peter to be the rock of this Church. To this day, the Pope exercises the teaching responsibility of Peter, and never in all 2,000 years has the Church changed it's teaching on marriage, sex, contraception, or masturbation. It is folly to start innovating and thinking such things are suddenly allowable. They have not been allowable in all of history, and they never will be. They are objectively wrong.

Guest wrote:
Gee, it seems as though a society which favors war and carpet bombing is the purveyor of the "culture of death." Not those who choose to masturbate to porn.

I don't know of any society who "favors" carpet bombing. I do know of some brave soldiers who accept the sober and unfortunate duty of going to war to keep the world free from dictators and mad men - like Saddam Hussein who had "rape squads" where he would have the families of man raped if the men did things like wrote something bad in a newspaper that he did not agree with. And I respect and thank our soldiers for doing a tough and grueling job, putting their lives on the line for freedom.

Guest wrote:
I'm calm, but when people try and get me to "drink the cool-aid" because they're absolutely sure of what God wants from all of us I tend to get testy. No one can claim to know what God designed anything to be, period. And this is assuming tthat there is a God at all.

God Himself founded a Church and explained His unchanging truth to that Church. There is a God, and we can know how he wants us to live. You can start here: http://www.vatican.va or http://www.ewtn.com for a little more low-key introductions

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:36 am

LaurieF wrote:
I hate ideology. I despise it in all its forms. I despise those who declare war on other countries and commit their soldiers to fight in those countries based on a concept that it is possible to fight a concept (terrorism) than an entity (a true enemy). I despise those on the other side who think all followers of a religion (Jews) and their supporters (USAians and British) are evil and don't deserve to live.

In short, I despise those whose world view is limited and can't consider that others have views that are valid. I reject utterly that followers of a religion should have an interpretation of their religion that impinges on my freedoms and activities, or at least think that they have the right to do that impingeing.

Naturally I wouldn't consider that I should impinge on their freedoms, because that wouldn't be Christian.

In the dictionary ideology is defined as "a system of ideas and ideals" and "ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group or individual." Since you seem to have your own system of ideas and ideals, it's a little hard to believe you despise ideology in all its forms.

Quote this post ↓

LaurieF said:

member since 15 Jun 2001 with 3545 posts, TMO Forum Mod, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:15 pm

"The" dictionary"? And the only definition? Well, ideology as a political sense, and the ideologues who practise it, is what I was referring to. Here's a further definition: "the set of beliefs by which a group or society orders reality so as to render it intelligible" - and I would add: "to themselves".

The ideologues who have a political point of view and blindly or (in my opinion) disingenuously try to enforce that point of view on the world are not being honest with themselves or with anyone else.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:13 am

LaurieF wrote:
"The" dictionary"? And the only definition? Well, ideology as a political sense, and the ideologues who practise it, is what I was referring to. Here's a further definition: "the set of beliefs by which a group or society orders reality so as to render it intelligible" - and I would add: "to themselves".

The ideologues who have a political point of view and blindly or (in my opinion) disingenuously try to enforce that point of view on the world are not being honest with themselves or with anyone else.

You have just as many political views as anybody. And if your belief is that people shouldn't care what other people think - then why are you here arguing with them? Your logic ends up contradicting itself.

1.) you say "everybody's opinion is right" if that's how they feel, and 2.) they say "everybody's opinion is not right"

You validate them - and they cancel out your opinion. In other words, you and they can't both be right. So your position is not tenable.

Now here is the correct position: some things in life are "objective" (can NOT be changed) and some are "subjective" (which means they CAN be changed). God has spoken to us through Scripture and Tradition. The Catholic Church teach you the limits of objectivity and subjectivity. For example, lying is objectively wrong - but if the liar has a mental disease which causes them to lie, then subjectively speaking, they haven't done anything wrong because they didn't have free will. And so on.

The Catholic Church can answer the deepest questions of your soul about what it means to be a human being, why we are here, and where we are all going. Christ is the answer to all of those questions, and His wisdom is found most fully in the Church.

God bless you, and Happy Easter!

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.