I earlier today wrote about Saga issue 12 being banned from the App Store and how Apple was being inconsistent (and sometimes hypocritical) in its treatment of content within apps and therefore needed to update its parental controls. The assumption I—and everyone else made—was that Apple had banned Saga. The assumption the comic’s co-creator made was that this had something to do with the depiction of gay sex within the issue. It turns out pretty much everyone was wrong.

On the Comixology website, CEO David Steinberger revealed what really happened:

In the last 24 hours there has been a lot of chatter about Apple banning Saga #12 from our Comics App on the Apple App Store due to depictions of gay sex. This is simply not true, and we’d like to clarify.

As a partner of Apple, we have an obligation to respect its policies for apps and the books offered in apps. Based on our understanding of those policies, we believed that Saga #12 could not be made available in our app, and so we did not release it today.

We did not interpret the content in question as involving any particular sexual orientation, and frankly that would have been a completely irrelevant consideration under any circumstance.

Given this, it should be clear that Apple did not reject Saga #12.

After hearing from Apple this morning, we can say that our interpretation of its policies was mistaken. You’ll be glad to know that Saga #12 will be available on our App Store app soon.

All’s well that ends well, then, apart from the thorny issue that this kind of thing is going to keep on happening. People will make assumptions regarding what happened surrounding an Apple-oriented incident because Apple’s press centre pretty much never responds to request for comment. Similarly, developers will either self-censor or get censored because Apple’s rules are opaque and vague.

I certainly don’t think Apple should communicate in the manner that some hacks demand: “Tell us everything about all your future plans!” But that the company now essentially refuses to answer anything is part of the reason things like the Saga issue become so widespread, and the net result will be that lots of people read about ‘evil Apple censoring content’ but not necessarily ‘oh, that wasn’t Apple after all, but the comics distributor everyone was feeling sorry for’.

Update: On the basis of comments here and elsewhere, it seems I need to be a bit clearer about a few things. First, yes I got this one totally wrong. I fully admit that. Hell, the title of this post is “leaping to conclusions”, which is a bit of a pointer. Also, I updated both previous posts very obviously to state that Apple did not in fact ban anything.

Secondly, I also stand by the other point I made, in that when someone asks Apple a question, the fact a response is almost never forthcoming is a problem. I’ve been writing about Apple for 13 years now, and I’ve lost count of the number of press requests I’ve made. I recall maybe getting any response whatsoever perhaps a dozen times and literally once getting something beyond “no comment”. (This also seems a peculiarly non-US thing. For some reason, Apple’s much happier confirming or denying reports to US-based writers. In the UK, it appears much harder to get a response.)

Thirdly, this wasn’t a total loss, because it enabled me to formulate some thoughts on Apple’s parental controls that I’ve been meaning to get written down for a while. Regardless of who thought Saga should or should not have been on the store, such mature content points to the fact iOS could really do with a much simpler to activate but also much more granular ‘kid mode’ of some kind.

Still, when writing, I agree with those people who’ve argued—even when blogging—facts should be thoroughly checked. In this case, pinging Comixology’s PR too would have made sense, and I regret not doing so. Contacting press teams from all those involved is something I always do when writing for a commercial publication, and a blog should ideally hold itself to the same standard. For various reasons, this personal blog to me has usually been a home for more off-the-cuff trains-of-thought, and I’ve never considered this place particularly influential, given that its traffic levels aren’t very high.

Nonetheless, this incident has made me think considerably and very carefully this evening about how this blog will operate in the future and the kind of content it will carry; right now, I imagine there’ll be less ‘rushing to judgment’ and also ‘just less’. That should be good for everyone, in the long run.

Update: Comixology revealed that it had in fact self-censored and Apple put it right. I write about this in a new post that also talks about how Apple’s silence regarding the press isn’t helping matters these days.

Earlier today, I wrote about Apple’s latest slice of censorship. In short, a couple of small images of gay sex in an issue of Saga meant Apple banned the comic. Initially, I was undecided about the incident—Apple has recently been heavily criticised regarding kids getting hold of iOS devices and doing things with them that they shouldn’t. However, it turns out that previous issues of Saga have included similarly explicit images (just of straight sex) and so the company at best comes out of this looking inconsistent; at worst, Apple’s censorship appears to be homophobic.

Ultimately, if Apple comments (which isn’t likely), it will most likely revert to two of its common arguments when it comes to content for sale and what won’t be allowed past its gatekeepers:

1. Apple will “know it when it sees it” regarding what should or should not be censored.
2. Certain types of material are not fit for consumption by children and should therefore not be available within apps.

The first of those things is no longer good enough—not that it really ever was. Apple’s rules need to be more clearly defined. The second was always nonsensical, and is best summed up by Apple’s comments on rejecting the Endgame: Syria strategy title:

We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical app. It can get complicated, but we have decided to not allow certain kinds of content in the App Store.

Why are apps subject to more stringent restrictions than books? In the specific case of Saga, why is a comic within an app that includes a store subject to more stringent restrictions than a comic within iBooks (effectively also an app with a store)? It smacks of Apple not considering the long game and letting personal prejudices regarding app content (i.e. extreme violence = OK; porn = bad; political satire = very bad) get in the way of objectivity.

Most often, the argument then dovetails into the inaccurate but often stated reasoning that comics and games are primarily for children, and therefore apps in particular should be clean of such ‘evils’ as porn or ‘difficult’ humour/statement such as satire. But if the net result of this is people not being able to access certain types of content in apps, but being able to access it elsewhere—even in one of Apple’s own stores—it makes a mockery of any system Apple’s set in place, and it suggests one form of media is less important than another.

I think this all points to the fact Apple really needs to face up to iOS devices needing parental controls that are far easier to access and much more granular in terms of what they enable you to do. In iOS 6, a parent can visit Settings and go to General > Restrictions and disable a small number of Apple applications and purchase actions, along with defining content that has specific ratings applied. What’s needed in iOS 7 is a massive button that a parent can prod that in an instant blocks everything under a user-defined age limit. In addition to this, a more granular ‘kid mode’ could be implemented, building on the current Restrictions settings, providing the means for parents to enable/disable on a per-app basis. This should then be a top-level setting, not buried half-way down the screen in General.

I’ll be surprised if Apple does this, and as I’ve previously said, it still wouldn’t stop tat like the Daily Mail running stories about how ‘evil Apple traumatised our little baby’ when a kid gets handed an iPad that the parents didn’t bother to put into ‘kid mode’ first. However, it would make the tools for parental-based content management more prominent, and potentially enable Apple to relax a bit on what it allowed within apps. Without this, Apple merely continues to bury itself in terrible press, becoming a magnet for criticism surrounding inconsistent censorship, puritanical views, and, worse, homophobia—intentional or otherwise.

Update: Comixology revealed that it had in fact self-censored and Apple put it right. I write about this in a new post that also talks about how Apple’s silence regarding the press isn’t helping matters these days.

Issue 12 of mature comic Saga has been banned by Apple. It will not be for sale in Comixology’s iOS app, and will have to be purchased elsewhere. This is a minor inconvenience (not least given Comixology’s lack of on-device subscriptions), but the decision’s already being slammed as another example of overt Apple censorship, and some kind of proof that Apple will destroy the comics industry.

Rarely for me, I’m not sure what to think about this. Although I have the first trade of Saga, I’d not read the current issue on hearing about the story. To that end, I wasn’t sure exactly what Apple had a problem with, bar various websites reporting on “explicit gay sex”, and co-creator Brian K. Vaughan countering that this was actually “two postage stamp-sized images of gay sex”. Vaughan added:

This is a drag, especially because our book has featured what I would consider much more graphic imagery in the past, but there you go. Fiona and I could always edit the images in question, but everything we put into the book is there to advance our story, not (just) to shock or titillate, so we’re not changing s**t.

Vaughan also pointed out:

If all else fails, you might be able to find SAGA #12 in Apple’s iBookstore, which apparently sometimes allows more adult material to be sold than through its apps. Crazy, right?

Sort of. Although that does look like hypocrisy, and Apple does need to figure out a way to enable adult/mature content in the App Store, Tap! deputy editor Matthew Bolton pointed out the following on Twitter:

Apple declines to directly sell comic showing three penises ejaculating on someone’s face in a store currently being criticised for making it too easy for kids to buy anything. It continues to have no problem with you buying this content another way. Can’t feel outraged, sorry.

And this is the problem. People are outraged about issues relating to children using IAP and having access to content they shouldn’t via the App Store. Then they’re outraged by Apple performing any censorship on the App Store. Apple can’t really win. (And, no, multiple accounts wouldn’t be the solution, unless you really believe we wouldn’t then see a slew of the exact same stories but from parents who’d ‘forgotten’ to switch accounts before giving their iOS device to a child.)

The (not safe for work) preview of Saga 12 on CBR shows what all the fuss was about, involving two frames of gay sex on a robot character’s TV head. It’s really a bit ‘blink and you’ll miss it’, and having now seen it, I’d say Vaughan definitely has a point; in earlier episodes I’ve read (that are still available via the iOS Comixology app), depictions of sex were certainly a lot more obvious—although Apple might argue you never saw ejaculate. Others might then point out plenty of comics ‘approved’ by Apple show countless people getting blown to pieces in a shower of blood, and so banning a couple of tiny frames of man-on-man action (or men-on-man in the second) in an age-rated adult comic (17+) seems on the crazy side. (But, again, would a parental lock make any odds? People assume comics are for kids, and so I can imagine the Daily Mail screeching: “Horror as child sees penis in children’s comic on Apple iPad set to children’s account, WHY WON’T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?”)

So I’m more confused about this than anything and not really outraged, other than being outraged about not knowing what to be outraged about.

I hate you, Apple.

UPDATE: As Alex Hern notes on Twitter:

My big problem with it is the homophobic element. If Apple treated gay and straight sex the same, they’d just be prudish.

He links to another Saga (NSFW) image that’s, if anything, more explicit than the banned ones, and I now think Apple got this one wrong. This all rather smacks of Apple’s “we’ll know it when we see it” attitude to what’s allowed and what isn’t, but any suggestion of homophobia is hugely disappointing and also quite strange coming from a company that has strongly supported gay rights. That all said, perhaps if this were all pointed out to Apple, it’d just remove the issue including that second linked frame too.

Twitter user ‘superluminescence’ counters:

Apple’s policy seems pretty clearly equivalent to “what would get on TV”. Those images aren’t exactly grey area.

To some extent, that’s true, but then the image Hern linked to also wouldn’t be acceptable on television.

BOOM! For Windows IT Pro, Paul Thurrott tells it like it is, apart from the fact he doesn’t. In reality, he thinks he does, but instead fires out a whining IT’S SO UNFAIR defence of previous knee-jerk reactionism regarding his original thoughts surrounding Apple’s iPad.

Apple fan boys with fragile egos and long memories like to taunt me with some of my early quotes about the iPad—I referred to it as an “iDud” when it was announced in January 2010, for example—without respecting the fact that my writings about the devices got a lot more positive when I started using them.

Translation: I had an on-automatic, biased reaction to something I’d not even used, and now rather than say “yeah, I probably shouldn’t have done that,” I will instead brand those reminding me of this ‘fan boys’ with ‘fragile egos’. For the record, I’ve done the former, but I try hard to not do the latter. As an ex-MacUser hack reminded me, I slammed the original iPod. I also once dismissed the iPhone as a gaming platform. In both cases, I’d not when writing used the items enough, and my thoughts on them changed dramatically on doing so. Thurrott’s almost the same:

I guess it still confuses people on that partisan side of the world to realize that more experience with something can actually alter your opinion.

He’s right on experience providing the means for opinions to change, but I don’t think that really confuses anyone. What’s confusing is when you blame people for bringing up the fact you shouldn’t really have dismissed something with a smug quip without having experienced it. I’ll take my lumps on both the iPod and the iPhone. What I won’t do is brand someone a fan boy or say they’ve a fragile ego for pulling me up on writing the kind of crap that I absolutely shouldn’t be writing.

After quite a lot of “Windows got there first with tablets” and “the original iPad had lots of problems anyway,” he nonetheless concludes:

Sometimes first impressions really are wrong.

It’s a pity he didn’t also conclude that people bringing up poor writing churned out in the past aren’t necessarily fan-boys with fragile egos, but people pissed off that tech journos—and especially those with influence—too often form an opinion before experiencing what they’re writing about.

Fine. I’ve had enough. The bleating of idiot journos has beaten me down, the last straw being the WSJ piece on how Apple has to act more like Samsung if it wants to thrive. If we ignore profits, design, innovation, usability, clarity of purchase experience, and the app ecosystem, it’s pretty clear Apple is doomed. Therefore, here’s what it should do, in order to ‘thrive’:

• Fire the entire executive team and replace them with celebrities. Jony Ive’s essentially been doing the exact same thing for years now anyway and is just phoning it in. Therefore, why not add a little celeb pizazz from someone literally phoning it in? WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
• Instead of concentrating on one new model of iPhone, Apple should set fire to focus and embrace a Samsung-like mentality often referred to as “throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks”. If Tim Cook’s celeb successor isn’t on stage this summer revealing at least 160 new iPhones, each slightly different from the others, Apple will have clearly failed and won’t thrive. Usefully, consumers will then have real choice, between dozens of different iPhones that are barely possible to tell apart. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
• Apple’s long concentrated on carefully managing its market share growth, ensuring it makes profits. Price changes haven’t been reactionary, but looking at the long game. It’s pretty clear Apple’s got this wrong. This summer, Apple should announce a price-cut of at least 97 per cent across its entire range. The company could then use catchy slogans such as “iPhone: it’s now so cheap that even the WSJ can’t bitch about that”, although this would obliterate Apple’s profits in the process. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
• One of Apple’s biggest mistakes has been in not jumping on every possible tech bandwagon, churning out some new hardware and then rapidly abandoning it. The next keynote should be positively chock-full of new kit: an Apple television, some Apple glasses, an Apple watch, an Apple car, an Apple fridge, an Apple apple (edible tech that has an embedded version of Siri that makes helpful utterances such as “You have mail,” and “Rain is forecast this afternoon,” and “OH GOD PLEASE DON’T EAT ME I DON’T WANT TO DIE!”), because, well, WHAT COULD POSSIBLY ETC.

I think we can all agree that this would make for a fantastic new Apple that wouldn’t at all be a total disaster and would thrive!