iPhone 3G + $9.95 a month = lots of iPorn

Last year, Playboy made the original iPhone sexier with iPlayboy, a package of Playmate-featuring wallpapers and photos for the Apple handset. But what if sexier is still not sexy enough?

It's self-explanatory, really.

(Credit: iRoticNet)

Taking advantage of the new iPhone 3G's fast mobile-data connection, iRoticNet today announced plans to premiere an adult video destination designed specifically for the iPhone 3G.

The company said it would offer a huge amount of content from dozens of studios at a much lower cost than other services. For about $10 per month, subscribers will get unlimited access to hundreds of full-length movies and more than 1,000 clips. Now that's a lot of pornography.

The service is available worldwide to anyone who can legally view adult material. It's also compatible with the original iPhone. However, iRoticNet recommends that due to the lack of 3G speed, users of the original iPhone would probably want a Wi-Fi connection.

Personally I am not surprised by this new offering. Currently, mobile adult content is a $1.7 billion business, and considering the ubiquity of the phone, this is just inevitable. By the way, when I volunteered to write about this, my co-worker Joseph Kaminski--a longtime iPhone owner--immediately asked, "Are you trying to get a free subscription from this blog?" Well, that sounds like a good deal, but I really need to be able to get an iPhone 3G first.

[sarb2008]

Wow man if your using this service then you've are in need of definite therapy. Really on a 3.5 inch display, i hope it;s true when i say people aren't that desperate yet.

[GeneOdyssey]

Wow porn links from the front page of cnet. Thanks guys! I'm sure a concerned parent somewhere will appreciate it.

[_Ben_]

Well pretty soon you'll be using your nun chucks on a wii for other things...like holding your wii wii

[_Ben_]

Well pretty soon you'll be using your nun chucks on a wii for other things...like holding your wii wii

[accountable89]

@ GeneOdyssey: Wow can't miss an opportunity for snarky sarcasm can ya? Exaggerate much? So there's a link that mentions one aspect of delivering content that HAPPENS TO BE porn and THAT'S a porn link? Since you seem to imply you're NOT a concerned parent, then leave it to one of them to be smart enough to discern an actual porn link -- links that connect to a porn site. Whew toughie there!

[jmpvir]

ok this is not going to happen because steve jobs said no ponography apps r allowed and other interesting thing is iRoticNet if u separat iroti cnet the last part is "CNET" ahahahah thats so bad for cnet

[jmpvir]

ok this is not going to happen because steve jobs said no ponography apps r allowed and other interesting thing is iRoticNet if u separat iroti cnet the last part is "CNET" ahahahah thats so bad for cnet

[second_2_nun]

This is awesome!!!

[bigmc6000]

Well you see it's not actually an "app" - it's just a webpage that's specifically designed to fit on the iPhone's screen. Apple can't really do anything about that. I don't expect there to be any iPhone commercials saying "hey, you can even watch pRon on your phone" but at the same time there's nothing they can do to stop it...

I do agree that this is maybe pushing the envelope a little bit for CNet and would recommend having a separate section from stuff like this (i.e. not the main page). It just comes across as, let's be honest here, a little tasteless...

[GeneOdyssey]

You're probably used to porn links and dont' seem bothered by that, but cnet is visited by hundreds of thousand non-geek people looking for consumer reviews. I don't see why anything porn needs to be stamped on the front page, all for the sake of iphone 3G hoopla. I've been a cnet visitor for many years and this definitely needs to be stashed somewhere else. Whether it's an actual URL link present or not in the article, it doesn't take a genius such as yourself to guess what the URL for "iroticnet" is. That is a link, clickable or not. Bad taste cnet!

[crisdecuba]

I agree with GeneOdyssey. I found both the title (the play off of the "g-spot" term) and content of the article (essentially publicizing a porn app) to be inappropriate for this site. I understand the desire to be clever with titles and wanting to include all iPhone news, but this must be weighed against the full audience of such articles (my 13 yr old brother, for example, visits this site often).

[mcdonnr]

I think you both need to grow the **** up. You're on a website that's dedicated to technology, and like it or not, technology is not always used in the most savory of ways. If you don't approve, don't read... it's pretty simple. Don't accuse CNet of having "bad taste" because they cater to their target audience. People like me, techs, are 99.999% of the people that read this site, and we find this kind of stuff interesting. Not because we're all looking at porn all the time, but because it's an interesting article. People like you, the "**** I'M GONNA FREAK OUT BECAUSE IT MENTIONS PR0N OH GOD PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" are in the absolute minority, here and elsewhere on the internet.

[slayyer]

That's freaking cool! nobody uses a cell phone for actually making calls anyway, do they?

[FinalJenemba]

Oh for crying out loud. What is wrong with this country when you cant even mention the possibility of porn without everyone freaking out. Its not like they replaced the red cnet ball with a boob. And to crisdecuba, sorry to break it to you, but your 13 yo brother is already watching porn.

[crisdecuba]

Haha what is wrong with this country when a person can't disagree with the content of a site without everyone freaking out with cries of "Oh for crying out loud." But in all seriousness, I understand the point you're trying to make: that CNET didn't go "too far" (an example of which, you say, would be the CNET ball as a boob). I disagree - I know personally the negative impacts of porn on both the makers and the viewers. It is this knowledge of its impacts that leads me to object. This isn't freaking out - it's a dissenting opinion, as worthy of being heard as your own.

[crisdecuba]

Haha what is wrong with this country when a person can't disagree with the content of a site without everyone freaking out with cries of "Oh for crying out loud." But in all seriousness, I understand the point you're trying to make: that CNET didn't go "too far" (an example of which, you say, would be the CNET ball as a boob). I disagree - I know personally the negative impacts of porn on both the makers and the viewers. It is this knowledge of its impacts that leads me to object. This isn't freaking out - it's a dissenting opinion, as worthy of being heard as your own.

[make_or_break]

CNET is pwned by CBS now; complain to them if you have a beef (er, a poor choice of wording, given the company). I'm sure National Amusements (CNET and CBS's parent) will take you seriously...as long as you don't mention the words "wardrobe malfunction"...

[iPhotographer]

$1.6 billion dollar industry. How many people are so desperate for porn that they'll pay money so they can squint at their tiny mobile screen to see some action. Talk about desperadoes.

[wwhateverrrr]

Addiction can make you very desperate. Especially for the 13 year old boy whose parents have blocking software on the computer. The Iphone (or really anouther internet enabled smart phone) makes a new source for that child to access porn. I wish cnet had not put this content on there page. I could probably handle it if it wasn't a front page article. I know that one user choosing not to visit there site will not make a difference but out of principle I will no longer be visiting the site.

[wwhateverrrr]

Addiction can make you very desperate. Especially for the 13 year old boy whose parents have blocking software on the computer. The Iphone (or really anouther internet enabled smart phone) makes a new source for that child to access porn. I wish cnet had not put this content on there page. I could probably handle it if it wasn't a front page article. I know that one user choosing not to visit there site will not make a difference but out of principle I will no longer be visiting the site.

[paul.saulnier]

At first thought, this type of article seems to be on the egde of what's acceptable. But let's be realistic, most young internet visitors are surfing porn long before they're surfing cnet!

[dodgeman007]

i wonder how long its going to take for this company to get sued because a child registered and now has porn on his/her cell phone and is 10 years old, how are they going to verify age of the user holding the phone. i wish i had a child so i could sue the pants off this company.