Filed under: Internet, Apple, iPhone
Apple's double standards keep "too sexy" app out of iTunes store
It's fine for Apple to have policies about what kind of apps they will and won't approve for sale on iTunes. It's their platform, after all, so they've got every right to decide what gets put on the store's virtual shelves.But I need some help with this one.
You've seen those pens with the sex kitten in the barrel? Tip the pen and giggle like a schoolboy as her clothes go floating away. They're harmless, and hardly what most people would classify "excessively sexual content."
So if you were to, say, turn that concept into an iPhone app it would be equally harmless, right? Apparently not.
Peekababe, we're told, was rejected on precisely those grounds. Check it out for yourself on YouTube. Now convince me that the images presented are in any way more lewd than, say, the lyrics of 2 Live Crew. Seriously.
If I can buy Me So Horny or any of their other tracks with less publishable titles in the iTunes store, how can Apple justify banning an app for images that you can find in any Sears catalog or plastered in the front window of a Victoria's Secret?
It's time for some consistency, Apple. If you allow audio tracks laden with lyrics that compete with scenes from a Vivid Video release in the iTunes store, it doesn't make sense to block an app that amounts to a slightly rude bachelor party favor.
Thanks for the tip, Tom!
Get a WordPress.com Blog
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
KarlW said 3:27PM on 4-14-2009
I know it's fashionable to slate the AppStore approval process these days, and in lots of cases, Apple deserves it.
This is not one of those cases. There is a clear rationale in blocking that app. They key word is "excessively".
Perhaps Apple needs to filter which apps people can see and download based on parental preferences. Right now, it's only possible to enable or disable the store, yet the individual apps have an age rating. Allowing parents to set the types of content they want their children to be exposed to is probably the best solution in terms of giving developers freedom and being responsible on Apple's part.
These sort of limitations need not exist for digital stores. It would make sense for Apple to take advantage of that.
Reply
Lee Mathews said 4:00PM on 4-14-2009
But Karl, how is it ok to NOT allow this app but still sell audio content that is FAR more explicit?
If anyone can offer a solid explanation, I'd love to hear it.
nidx said 3:52PM on 4-14-2009
those images seem a lot less explicit than hooters calendar girls slider puzzle which is available in the app store
Reply
Alex said 4:33PM on 4-14-2009
Music is generally accepted as an art form. Applications aren't as of yet. Right or wrong, artists are given the benefit of the doubt by people at times when those who seek to make $$$ aren't.
Reply
wrabbit said 4:39PM on 4-14-2009
@KarlW: WTF are you talking about? There are bikini girls apps - how is this any different?
Apple is known for completely assanine "approval" process. Most likely they have a bunch of interns who's only job is to filter the apps and they just use their own concepts of decency and such, instead of using any clear guidelines.
Possibly it's not even a bunch of interns, but rather a bunch of monkeys trying to write Shakespeare, and every time a vowel is hit, an app is approved, but for consonants it's rejected.
The way I see it, the only kind of filtering that should be happening here is for clearly illegal material, and maybe adult material - copyright infringement, hate speech, stuff like that. As for adult content, personally I think there's no reason to block it completely, just have an 18+ category that's only accessible by persons of appropriate age. However, I'd be fine with blocking it if it was based on well established film and movie standards, instead of the whims of some right-wing religious conservative intern.
Reply
john.mclearran said 7:57PM on 4-14-2009
Having been to a 2 Live Crew concert I can honestly say that its not Art. It may be hilarious to watch but definitely not art. The term Art has been skewed many time in the years past.
For example you can go to a museum and look at nude "art" yet when someone creates an application that playfully removes clothing its considered indecent. Why?
Today we have more information available at our fingertips than ever before. So why use old standards that do not reflect the current age?
Does this fall into the "Ethics" category?
I mean when the pilgrims left England it was because they were tired of the "prudes"... Didn't Family Guy have an episode on this? lol
Reply
Martin-T said 8:03PM on 4-14-2009
You are asking for rational thinking in a world that allows 13 year olds to attend bloody hack 'em up movies but, heaven forbid they see a mother breast feeding in public.
Reply
Abscissa said 10:26PM on 4-14-2009
If there weren't so many iWhores, none of Apple's asinine crap would matter anyway.
Reply
plonk420 said 1:45AM on 4-15-2009
ITT we post really really dirty available-on-iTunes tracks? (not necessarily rap)
Melleefresh (ft Deadmau5) - Hey Baby / After Hours (both on youtubes)
Reply
danK said 6:35PM on 4-15-2009
Karlw fyi Matin T could not be any more correct about his assessment.
You can kill, destroy, hack, take the heart out of the chest of your opponent, and much more, and this is okay to be extremely violent, but don't show a breast, that may mess up someone's mind.....ok !!!???
In Europe kids see breasts all their lives, it is part of their culture to see nudity and not to make a big fuss about it. This app seems to only show girls in their underwear...... where is the sin? and by the way, it seems to be rated for 13+ ages .....so what is the problem with Apple?
Reply
boston7878 said 7:41PM on 4-15-2009
plenty of other apps show as much "sexuality" as this app!!! biggggg deal!
we see that everywhere, even in our TV commercials, this isnt going to mess anybody up. everyone is wayyy too uptight about wut gets approved to apple. lighten up ppl! its just a girl! i checked out this app & its hot!!! i really hope apple just approves it already
Reply
Jess L. said 12:02PM on 4-16-2009
what a hot app!! my boyfriend is going to love this lol
Reply
Bill Gibson said 4:14AM on 4-17-2009
How about not allowing it on the grounds of "objectification of women"? Viewing a human being as an object is probably worse than any "indecency" reason.
Plus, the app is rediculous and stupid. Some fat 50 year old guy can move his finger and, woops, there goes the clothes... kinda? And, hey, what's this? I can move my finger up and down and make the clothes go back and forth. Nifty!
They should also reject the app for pointlessness.
Reply
danK said 3:15PM on 5-03-2009
Bill if it was pictures of guys would you like it better???
You dumb intellectual -- you probably object to Maxim, Playboy and other disgusting magazines that show gorgeous sexy women.
No relation to Mel Gibson of course....Just stay in the closet and let others be