If geeks love it, we’re on it

Apple app store bans sexy apps

Apple app store bans sexy apps

Tits are okay if you're a well known company!

Apple has recently started removing applications from the app store that the company considers to be “too sexy;” many highly popular apps have been removed without warning.

Phillip W. Schiller, head of worldwide product marketing at Apple said that, “It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable, as well as parents who were upset with what their kids were able to see.”

One company, On the Go Girls, which began submitting applications to the app store without incident last June, has had all fifty of its submissions dropped without warning. Its president, Fred Clarke, said that his company went from making thousands of dollars a day to nothing, and that many of the apps were extremely mundane. One of the many applications pulled featured a woman in a bikini cleaning the surface of the screen.

Apple has not concretely detailed what will and will not be allowed under the policy shift, but appears to be pulling anything that shows a woman in a bikini or lingerie—except for anything from a mainstream publisher. The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition app and the Playboy app are both still available for download.

When asked why those applications were still around, Mr. Schiller responded, “The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format.”

It will be interesting to see how rejected application makers proceed from here, and if any of them will turn to the less restrictive Android market for revenue.

Comments

  1. Ryder
    Ryder Completely ridiculous.
  2. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm The double standard is deliciously fucking ridiculous.
  3. sharkydart
    sharkydart "It's Outrageous, egregious, preposterous!"
    What a lame-ass excuse. Why don't they just get to the point and admit that Sports Illustrated and Playboy worked out some lucrative deals with them (Apple). All three stand to make bank if they have essentially monopolized the female form as viewed through Apple's devices (not counting indirectly via safari, dropbox, etc.).
  4. Clifford (w7f) You gotta love the two faced industry. I might agree with this if it wasn't for how did Snarkasm put it "double standard".
  5. Thrax
    Thrax Hi, Clifford. You should totally register. ;)
  6. Bandrik
    Bandrik I say, it would seem that the good blokes over at Apple are distinguished gentlemen that would never desire to see women portrayed as images of lust, oh no. That would simply be rubbish. Quite.
  7. Clifford (w7f) You talked me into it Thrax :D
  8. clifford_cooley
    clifford_cooley OK, I'm good to go now :D
    I found where I need to be for posting
  9. DrLiam
    DrLiam I personally think all these 'half-naked girls' apps are silly and are of no loss to the app store. Yet, I am strongly opposed to the suppressive nature of sexuality in our culture. So the question is, are these apps just part of a healthy sexual diet or degrading/perverted. Each case is unique I imagine.
  10. clifford_cooley
    clifford_cooley
    suppressive nature of sexuality in our culture
    When exactly did sexually become a part of our culture to be shared with everyone? Last I checked it was something shared among two people and has always been that way. Anyone who is happy at home with their spouse should not talk about sex with anyone other than their partner. It will only open the doors to cheating no matter how much you think you can control yourself. And the images make it harder to control your thoughts and conversations.

    Anyway right or wrong, thats how I feel.
  11. DrLiam
    DrLiam
    Anyway right or wrong, thats how I feel.

    And I'm sure there are a lot of people who agree with you including a lot of people within my family as well. I respect that.

    Yet I'm just saying I don't, and therefore I have a small problem with this move made by Apple. I'm just going to leave it at that though because I'm sure the Icrontic gods are not fond of political/spiritual/sexual debates.
  12. clifford_cooley
    clifford_cooley
    I'm sure the Icrontic gods are not fond of political/spiritual/sexual debates
    True, :)
    I said my say. I wasn't going to extend it further.
  13. mirage
    mirage Apple can sell whatever they want, it is their freedom and decision. But, when they restrict the apps on their devices with the apps from their store, this becomes imposing their decisions on everyone. There is the problem. I don't and won't have an IPhone/IPad/ITouch anyway.
  14. spin498
    spin498 Are they getting advice from the Aussies or giving it?
  15. _k
    _k Is anyone honestly arguing about how dressed/undressed these women are when you have access to the internet? Do you not download these apps from an online store?
  16. Thrax
    Thrax
    When exactly did sexually become a part of our culture to be shared with everyone? Last I checked it was something shared among two people and has always been that way. Anyone who is happy at home with their spouse should not talk about sex with anyone other than their partner. It will only open the doors to cheating no matter how much you think you can control yourself. And the images make it harder to control your thoughts and conversations.

    Anyway right or wrong, thats how I feel.

    slippery_slope.png
  17. clifford_cooley
    clifford_cooley Thanks for comparing me to the guy at the bottom of the slope. It's funny though that you showed a cartoon to prove how things are not getting worse when in fact you showed how they are getting worse. From a biblical stand point, I have nothing further to say, because honestly it will do no good. I'm out, see you in the next thread.
  18. QCH
    QCH to each his own... that's my motto. As long as no one is getting hurt I am happy to let people make their own choices. I have issues when another, be it a person, religion, business, or government, imposes their beliefs/ morals upon me. Double standards, partial enforcement, varing repercussions for identical actions... those things tick me off.

    If Apple want to be the Moral Police on their own store front. good for them but, by damn, they had better be consistent and ban all offensive material and not just those that do not make it money.
  19. Cliff_Forster
    Cliff_Forster
    Thanks for comparing me to the guy at the bottom of the slope. It's funny though that you showed a cartoon to prove how things are not getting worse when in fact you showed how they are getting worse. From a biblical stand point, I have nothing further to say, because honestly it will do no good. I'm out, see you in the next thread.

    Clifford, Don't let Thrax get to ya. Its hard for him, living his life a social misfit, a deviant in every possible way. ;) I mean, he run's Intel, freaking Intel, and only drinks wheat beer, seriously, the guy has serious issues. ;)

    I suggest we both pray for him....
  20. _k
    _k Can I pray to Dhumavati for him?
  21. GnomeQueen
    GnomeQueen
    Clifford, Don't let Thrax get to ya. Its hard for him, living his life a social misfit, a deviant in every possible way. ;) I mean, he run's Intel, freaking Intel, and only drinks wheat beer, seriously, the guy has serious issues. ;)

    I suggest we both pray for him....

    Hey, being a deviant in some ways isn't a problem. ;)
  22. CB
    CB
    Hey, being a deviant in some ways isn't a problem. ;)

    TMI!
  23. Cliff_Forster
    Cliff_Forster
    Hey, being a deviant in some ways isn't a problem. ;)

    Oh, and Clifford, I forgot to mention, he hangs out with Gnome Queen. Pray for our brotha Thrax, pray hard, and pray often so the good lord shall heal his twisted soul!!!
  24. GnomeQueen
    GnomeQueen MUAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH. I AM THE CORRUPTER.
  25. Cliff_Forster
    Cliff_Forster
    MUAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH. I AM THE CORRUPTER.

    Sex talk, save it for the bedroom! Be healed you vile temptress!!
  26. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm Wait a second. The allowance of interracial marriage, early-term abortions, and gay marriage are worse for the world?

    /me grabs some popcorn.
  27. Grimnoc
    Grimnoc
    mirage wrote:
    Apple can sell whatever they want, it is their freedom and decision. But, when they restrict the apps on their devices with the apps from their store, this becomes imposing their decisions on everyone. There is the problem. I don't and won't have an IPhone/IPad/ITouch anyway.

    ?

    Wait. So if I decide not to sell you something you would otherwise buy it's me who is imposing something on you?

    So we should be able to force individuals or companies to sell what we want them to?

    I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but that's what it sounds like you're saying.
  28. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm They're not selling the apps - they're (arbitrarily) preventing other people from selling their apps.
  29. QCH
    QCH
    Snarkasm wrote:
    They're not selling the apps - they're (arbitrarily) preventing other people from selling their apps.
    BINGO... :thumbup
  30. Koreish
    Koreish /me reaches over to snag some popcorn from Snark.

    I love this part.
  31. Grimnoc
    Grimnoc
    Snarkasm wrote:
    They're not selling the apps - they're (arbitrarily) preventing other people from selling their apps.

    And? It's their platform. Are you saying that Apple shouldn't have the right to sell what they want (or not sell) on their own platform?

    Should I be able to force my "right" to sell my fruit in your lawn? After all, you saying I can't see fruit in your yard but one of your friends can is just an unfair, arbitrary judgment against me.
  32. Garg
    Garg
    Grimnoc wrote:
    And? It's their platform. Are you saying that Apple shouldn't have the right to sell what they want (or not sell) on their own platform?

    Should I be able to force my "right" to sell my fruit in your lawn? After all, you saying I can't see fruit in your yard but one of your friends can is just an unfair, arbitrary judgment against me.

    I know it sounds unfair, but there are legal parallels here. For instance, you can't specify what kind of roommate you're looking for because of fair housing laws. I believe you're allowed to specify sex, but not race, occupation, age, etc. (I am not a lawyer). Not a perfect example, but I wanted to frame this within discrimination: What if Apple decided to ban apps that espouse gang culture because of violent implications? They might look racist. And they'd look hypocritical if they didn't ban all violent video games.

    Whether or not a distributor disallowing commerce with a particular agent (think I'm screwing up the terminology here) is unfair sort of depends on where you arbitrarily draw a line on the spectrum. It's obviously hard to agree on what is "offensive" material. People don't tend to care about the creator's "rights" if what they've produced is offensive enough.
  33. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm Apple arbitrarily deciding *some* adult-themed apps are impermissible is analogous to Windows telling you that you are not allowed to install Firefox on your computer. Hey, they sold you the operating system, they should be allowed to tell you what you can and can't install on it, right?

    You keep coming back to the idea that Apple is selling these apps. They are not. They are merely an aggregator that gathers apps in a distribution center and takes a cut of profits for doing that service. They have proclaimed far and wide that anybody can develop for the iPhone, and now are pulling the rug out from under many developers who obeyed every rule in the SDK while permitting "big name" content creators with the same theme and content to stay in the store.

    Imagine if Apple decided children shouldn't be exposed to religion before their parents had talked to them about it, so they removed all religiously-themed applications from the store? What about if they think politically-themed apps should GTFO?

    It's a thin line, and I'd be fine with it if it was uniform. The idea that they pimped an open marketplace, then took previously-approved apps off the market while similar variants remain is irresponsible and hypocritical when they could have just improved their parental controls and achieved a better result.
  34. clifford_cooley
    clifford_cooley
    Snarkasm wrote:
    They're not selling the apps - they're (arbitrarily) preventing other people from selling their apps.

    Question - Am I reading all this correctly?

    Apple is not selling these apps but they can still be bought and installed to the devices, just not through the apple store. I can see the upset if all the apps have to be sold through the apple store before they can be used.

    If I don't want to sell pepsi but stock all the other brands, that is my choice and the pepsi can be purchased elsewhere.
  35. BlackHawk
    BlackHawk Where else can you get apps for the iPhone/iPod Touch that does not involve jailbreaking? AFAIK Apple doesn't condone nor do they easily allow you to install 3rd party apps.
  36. ardichoke
    ardichoke I was under the impression that they didn't allow you to install 3rd party apps at all. Unless you jailbreak your IPhone (which is technically against the ToS, iirc) you can only install software through the app store.
  37. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm BH and Ardi are correct - there is no legal way to install applications outside of the App Store. Jailbreaking is the only way to get non-Apple-sanctioned applications on your device.
  38. DrLiam
    DrLiam I like Gargoyle's example a lot and I do believe it is very much like this comparison.
  39. mirage
    mirage
    Snarkasm wrote:
    BH and Ardi are correct - there is no legal way to install applications outside of the App Store. Jailbreaking is the only way to get non-Apple-sanctioned applications on your device.

    Or, buy another phone. Why is this obsession about IPhone? I don't understand at all.
  40. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm You don't. I don't. Lots of people here don't. Lots of people do. It's all personal preference.
  41. mirage
    mirage
    Question - Am I reading all this correctly?

    Apple is not selling these apps but they can still be bought and installed to the devices, just not through the apple store. I can see the upset if all the apps have to be sold through the apple store before they can be used.

    If I don't want to sell pepsi but stock all the other brands, that is my choice and the pepsi can be purchased elsewhere.

    I can see that you liked this banning idea a lot ;) It is interesting to see the alignment of two opposite poles of political spectrum when they agree on controlling the public (or, is this freedom of choice?).
  42. CB
    CB
    mirage wrote:
    Or, buy another phone.

    This is how I feel about the issue as well. I mean: sure it's unfair, but they don't have a monopoly on smart phones. If you don't like the way Apple does business, then take your money somewhere else.
  43. chrisWhite
    chrisWhite Just when I thought Apple was loosening up. Damn, this is so damn stupid.

    That said, personally I don't really care, I'm not sure why you'd want an app for this when you can fire up Safari and access just about anything.
  44. ardichoke
    ardichoke Until they decide to implement filtering of naughty sites in the iPhone browser. Because kids could see that stuff. THINK OF THE CHILDREN WITH 600$ SMART PHONES!

    just kidding of course. I doubt even Apple would pull a stunt like that.
  45. Bandrik
    Bandrik I remember Apple added a content filter that warns you if an app you are about to download contains content that may be inappropriate for users under 17 years of age. It will ask you to confirm you are of age to download such an application. For example, if I remember correctly due to some of the words in it, the dictionary.com app gave me this warning.

    So... what was the point of having a warning like this for "possible adult content"? I'm fully baffled.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!