Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
WATCH: Shredding On The Google Guitar!
Apple's new rule for the iPhone app store: "no skin!"
When Apple pulled a selection of apps featuring scantily clad women and other sexy themes from the app store late last week, it wasn't quite clear whether there was a new policy in place, or if the wanton deletion of apps bare flesh was just the crazy whim of some employee. Well, a couple of days and a whopping 5,000(!!!) removed apps later, we have an answer. When I say "we," I don't mean developers and app store customers generally, I mean one particular developer who asked Apple what was going on and got a detailed response. And when I say "an answer," I mean a list of policies that were articulated by an Apple representative to that one developer, not a new list of rules published in the official developer documentation.
Bearing all that in mind, here's what we know. Apple gave the developers of Wobble -- that totally tasteful app that makes any part of a photo jiggle when you shake your phone -- the following list of guidelines about sexually provocative content in the app store (the commentary in parentheses is from the developers):
1. No images of women in bikinis (Ice skating tights are not OK either)
2. No images of men in bikinis! (I didn't ask about Ice Skating tights for men)
3. No skin (he seriously said this) (I asked if a Burqa was OK, and the Apple guy got angry)
4. No silhouettes that indicate that Wobble can be used for wobbling boobs
5. No sexual connotations or innuendo: boobs, babes, booty, sex – all banned6. Nothing that can be sexually arousing!! (I doubt many people could get aroused with the pic above but those puritanical guys at Apple must get off on pretty mundane things to find Wobble "overtly sexual!)
7. No apps will be approved that in any way imply sexual content (not sure how Playboy is still in the store, but ...)
If these are Apple's real guidelines, they're asking the employees who review apps for approval to make some calls that even the US Supreme Court has historically had trouble with. "Sexually arousing" to whom? And we know the rule can't literally be "no skin," so how much is too much? These rules raise as many questions as they answer, and I hope Apple drops this campaign against sex as quickly as it dropped some of the other unwritten rules of the app store.
Meanwhile, as Paul Carr pointed out in his brilliant TechCrunch non-column this week, who needs 99 cent bikini apps when your iPhone comes with Safari? A browser lets you see plenty of men and women without the swimsuits, absolutely free.
Meanwhile, as Paul Carr pointed out in his brilliant TechCrunch non-column this week, who needs 99 cent bikini apps when your iPhone comes with Safari? A browser lets you see plenty of men and women without the swimsuits, absolutely free.
Comments
10
Subscribe to commentsAndrewFeb 22nd 2010 9:56AM
Apple goes middle-east?
sailorFeb 22nd 2010 9:57AM
Whatt no summer Olympics, no gymnastics, swimming, diving. I didn't think Jobes was an Islamic fundamentalist. When Google allowed censorship in China to make a profit, to the detriment of the Chinese people, Jobes got righteous. Censorship chills free thought and art. He needs to read the Constituionin. Watch APPL dive.
Sebastian AnthonyFeb 22nd 2010 10:10AM
I love your ambivalent 'men and women without the swimsuits' -- men in swimsuits are pretty scary. The Speedo... *shudder*
do.ronFeb 22nd 2010 11:50AM
What about foreskin? JK, thats why I love OpnMarket for WinMo.
PatrickFeb 22nd 2010 11:53AM
I'm always surprised at people who scream "censorship" in situations like these (i.e. making comparisons to Apple "going Middle East, etc). It's simply not an applicable argument here.
Apple is a PRIVATE company, not a GOVERNMENT. Apple isn't saying that Mr. iPhone-Owner-Perv can't access all the porn he wants. Apple is saying they believe having porn or pseudo-porn in the App Store they own/control is less beneficial to the company than having it there.
Believe me, if 50% of the App Store profits and 1% of the complaints were coming from pseudo-porn apps, then Steve and company would very quickly look the other way. But that's not the case. I'd guess it's probably more akin to the opposite. 1% of the profit and 50% of the complaints.
I don't blame them one bit for making this move.
kojo87Feb 22nd 2010 2:12PM
i don't think anyone is saying that they CAN'T do this. like you said they are their own private company and can do whatever they want. but there is a pretty valid argument that this is a stupid move. when you look at this and the Flash on iPad debacle it seems pretty clear that Jobs and Co have a pretty strong agenda as to what you can see on their devices. i guess if you don't have a problem with that good for you. keep drinking their koolaid
Jeff HesserFeb 23rd 2010 8:58AM
same flavored kool-aid apple has been serving for a solid decade plus now - cherry.
hazardFeb 22nd 2010 3:19PM
This move by Apple may prove quite significant. I'm sure MS would have no problem jumping in bed with pornographers. Maybe this is the leg up the WinMo store has been looking for. Pornography has has a long history of helping tech become successful.
gwangiFeb 22nd 2010 4:19PM
So much for the Suicidegirls app.
Nancy NallyFeb 22nd 2010 6:16PM
I'm wondering how they'd explain issuing those guidelines (and pulling from distribution thousands of other apps that violate those guidelines) while the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition app is still being distributed? It clearly violates what they say are their new guidelines.