In order to try and appease people who were all concerned about Apple approving iPhone apps with, say, porn on them or something, while still sort-of allowing such tomfoolery, Apple recently introduced an age-based ratings system for apps to restrict certain types of content from the eyes of young-uns. So, assuming you made the potentially foolish decision to give your 7-year old an iPhone, you can restrict him or her from buying and installing apps that have, say, a 9+ rating.
One wonders, however, how Apple comes to these ratings. Especially considering that certain apps seem to have ratings that just don’t jive. An example of this is the New York Times iPhone app. All this app does is deliver the news. And yet, here’s what Apple has to say about the content of the NY Times app:
That’s right folks: apparently, the real world is just completely unsuitable for 11 year olds. And uhm, when the hell has there EVER been nudity on the New York Times?! Let alone, of course “realistic violence.” REALLY? I’ve never really browsed the stories there to see blood and gore just leaping out from the articles. Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough.
Most importantly – and this has also been pointed out time and time again, but it bears repeating – assuming someone younger than 12 has been given an iPhone of their very own (and have I mentioned what a stupid idea this would be?), and has been blocked from getting the New York Times app, there is still absolutely nothing stopping them from opening up Safari and browsing the very same content off NY Times’ mobile web site.
So, what exactly was the point of this nonsensical rating exercise anyway?
I do realize that in the end, this whole age restrictions crap is just BS to appease overly-conversative, overprotective morons who insist that Apple should be everyone’s nanny and police the content on the App Store. But giving the New-York-freakin’-Times restricted ratings? C’mon!