Quantcast

Is Apple Displaying a “Puritan” Double Standard?

Reactions to Apple Pulling Over 5,000 Apps Without Warning

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:
[ Technology]

Update: According to reports, Apple has "quietly reinstated a shopping app from a beachwear retailer that sells bikinis."

Original Article: Apple has dominated tech headlines this week, as the company has created quite an uproar by unexpectedly removing over 5,000 apps from its App Store. The apps removed have been deemed "too sexy", but much of said uproar has been more about Apple’s definition of sexy, and its double standard. Apps containing women in bikinis and even workout clothes have been eliminated while apps from Playboy, FHM Magazine, and the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Issue have remained available, and even promoted on Apple’s App Store home page.

Do you agree with Apple’s decision to pull some "sexy" apps, while leaving others? Tell us what you think.

After much of the ruckus had been raised, Apple SVP of Worldwide Product Marketing Phil Schiller talked to the New York Times, saying, "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." He also indicated that the difference with the Playboy, Sports Illustrated apps, etc. were that they were from well-known companies that were already available in "well-accepted" formats.

Obviously, the developers of such apps that have been pulled are not happy. It’s not hard to understand their beef, as many of them have likely put a significant amount of time and money into creating and maintaining their apps, only to have them yanked without warning (other than the emails they got from Apple as they were being pulled). Apple’s reasoning for allowing the well-knowns only adds fuel to their fire.

Apple reviews apps on a case-by-case basis. "Whenever we receive customer complaints about objectionable content we review them," Apple has said. "If we find these apps contain inappropriate material we remove them and request the developer make any necessary changes in order to be distributed by Apple."

Some have raised the question: why is Apple suddenly going "puritanical" (one of the apps was removed because of a cartoon character in a bikini)? They have blocked apps in the past, but just to yank so many that have already been accepted into the store seems like a sudden change in attitude. Is it coincidence that the company is readying the release of its much-publicized iPad device, which will run apps from the app store?

iPad

Many think these two things are strongly connected, and some even consider Apple’s choice to pull "sexy" apps to be a "smart business decision." For example, PC World’s Jeff Bertolucci writes:

As for the iPad, it’s clear that Apple will position its new tablet not only as a consumer device for the home, but also as an educational tool. Software developers are already designing interactive textbooks for the iPad, according to reports. Again, Apple must squash the impression that the App Store is a haven for smut to increase the odds of classroom sales. A few negative news stories about wobbly-boob apps could very well spur many school districts to think twice about adding the iPad as a study tool.

Bottom line: The porn purge is a smart business move on Apple’s part, even if it appears prudish to outsiders.

Beyond the classroom, Apple may be worried families will be less likely to purchase the iPad as well. The company’s comments regarding complaints from parents seems to suggest this very notion.

Not all complaints have come from concerned parents though. Even some developers have complained about apps such as those which have been removed. "Developers have been making similar complaints to Apple, but their concerns are also related to the volume of sexually-themed apps, which can represent as many as a third of the apps in certain iTunes App Store categories," says InformationWeek’s Thomas Claburn. "The spam-scale proliferation of these apps ends up making other apps less discoverable."

Others have pointed out, however, that there is plenty of R-rated content available through iTunes in the form of both movies and music, and Apple is keeping that stuff around, although that likely goes back to the same point Apple made about "well-known" and "accepted" sources. Many have also pointed out that users can always go to the web browser on their device and access all kinds of "nasty" stuff, but Apple doesn’t own the web, so unless Apple wants to start censoring the Internet, it is going to have a hard time keeping "sexiness" off its devices, even from lesser known sources. Apple can’t control that though, but it can control its own App store, and it is doing so.

Meanwhile, Google’s Android Market is growing significantly, and is currently in second place behind Apple’s App store in mobile application stores. Google has a significantly greater percentage of free apps as well, which could continue to fuel its growth. Perhaps another question is: can Apple afford to yank so many apps at a time when its competition is becoming greater than ever in the mobile space? Apple’s controlling "Puritanism" could come back to haunt it, despite its apparent motives. Evidently, that’s a chance the company is willing to take.

Do you think Apple is making the right decision by pulling all of these apps? Will Google benefit? Share your thoughts here.

Is Apple Displaying a “Puritan” Double Standard?
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • http://www.googleandblog.com/ Michael Martin

    This just continues to add onto a developer or even user mind if they want to lock themselves in with the iPhone.

    Android regulates from the users rather than a politburo.

    Spam or excessive porn apps get pruned out by user flagging and voting which then gets Google’s attention to review within 3 days and then remove.

    Also The Android Market is kept on its toes to from becoming as cess pool of apps as it allows competition by allowing apps to be sold/provided elsewhere – essentially an open market system rather than Apple’s closed garden setup.

    • Chris Crum

      I don’t suspect Google has too big a problem with Apple’s move.

  • Yamaha

    >>>Many have also pointed out that users can always go to the web browser on their device and access all kinds of “nasty” stuff, but Apple doesn’t own the web, so unless Apple wants to start censoring the Internet, it is going to have a hard time keeping “sexiness” off its devices, even from lesser known sources.

    Just because there is “nasty” stuff on the web doesn’t mean “all nasty stuff is now OK and no holds are barred” and we should have it on our phones, in the office, through our emails, at school and super saturated throughout our society.

    • Chris Crum

      That doesn’t really explain why its ok to have a Playboy app, but not one with far less-revealing images just because its lesser known. If anything, people (including kids) are more likely to go to a more well known brand anyway, because it’s what they’ve heard of.

  • Guest

    Clearly, Apple is showing that they have a morals. However, they can be bought if you have enough money.

    • Chris Crum

      Isn’t that the opposite of morals?

  • Dennis Hayes

    Corporate vs. Individuals

    More and more, the people with the money (corporations) are controlling and affecting more and more aspects of our lives. Some kid in a basement in Indiana can create a “sexy” app and all he hopes for is some money from the sales. The mags like Playboy can (and probably do) kick back some of their sales bucks to Apple and then write it off as advertising, marketing, or branding.

  • http://www.business1directory.com business1directory

    I am not surprised in what Apple are doing I think they are untouchable BUT they are not For example I used to own an Apple iPhone yes it was good but now there are just as good mobile phones out there for example the HTC HD2 is just brilliant phone OK I am a bit biased as I am proud owner of it. So come you manufactures it’s up to you to nock Apple of the top it will happen

  • Guest

    Just goes to show that Apple is only in for the money. They got what they could from these apps, then when public scrutiny was applied, they feared backlash and cut those developers. Hopefully, the developers will file suit and end up owning Apple.

    Steve Jobs pulling apps that are not quite the standard people want, even though they must want them since they were popular on the app store, is about the same as Hitler burning books he disagreed with.

    Maybe Jobs will be seen in the light of Hitler when all this is done…… makes one wonder- is Jobs the Antichrist?

    • Chris Crum

      I don’t think I’d go so far as to compare the man to Hitler.

      • Guest

        No, but it would be fair to remind all the people who don’t like apps getting pulled from the store, that if apps weren’t monitored for some degree of quality, you’d have all sorts of malware floating around and if you said it’s okay to block malware but not intellectual content, you’d still get the jerk who would abuse that by publishing the I (heart) Hitler app just to jack you around.

  • Danilo Gurovich

    It’s their store, they can do what they want. Frankly, I was wondering what they were going to do and I applaud their efforts at killing off all the porn spammers out there. Is it perfect? No. It’s a start. They did what they did and now they’ll refine it from there.

    Take a deep breath and move on.

    • http://www.sciencelives.com ScienceLives

      Who said anything about spammers being banned? I thought the article was talking about apps being removed because of questionable content, ie. partial nudity etc. Maybe I missed something? That would be a whole other issue.

  • Fran

    To each their own. I dislike a lot the attitude Apple has taken, and surely as developer I would be quite angry.

    I find it somewhat funny the excuse of “playboy and others are well known for what they do”. Wouldn’t it make more sense to add and adults only section?

    Happy me, no need for those kind of products or services. Neither for apple.

  • James P

    There are times when I have considered an buying Apple product, then something always happens to remind me why I shouldn’t, and this is a fine example. Nice enough stuff, but they don’t want you to own it!

    • http://awfulshow.com Nerraux

      They’re not eliminating the app from the face of the earth, they’re removing it from their store. If you really need the “ThrobRodQuickFist” app, you can still go to ThrobRod.com.

  • MikeyB33

    I have always been a big freedom speech and press, but we really need a separate Internet for adult content. But parents still need to monitor and restrict their children’s access to the web.

  • http://awfulshow.com Nerraux

    It’s their store, they can do what they want. You can’t tell Borders they have to expand their porn section so every fetish is represented. FYE isn’t required to maintain a ‘barely legal’ section.

    Apple doesn’t have any way to regulate the ages of the people downloading anything from iTunes, and they really should figure that out. I don’t want 13-year-olds downloading our show, but I know they do. I prefer to be on iTunes since it is the biggest distribution channel available, but I would have no objections to being relegated to an “over 18″ section.

    But in the end, it all comes down to parents. If you’re not monitoring everything your kid has access to online, it’s your fault. Would you drop your kid off in NYC with some money and tell him/her to meet you back at the drop-off spot in 3 days? If not, then don’t let them do anything online un-monitored. At least in NYC there’s a chance they wouldn’t get molested.

  • Guest

    I think it’s fine to uphold standards for apps that Apple endorses. Their reputation is on the line, and frankly, porn is about to take over the media-world anyway…If Playboy creates a tastfully-designed app, and it’s access is restricted to adults, and a small developer chooses smutty material for their apps more widely accessable, Apple has every right to say what’s acceptable, and what’s not. Freedom of CHOICE on Apple’s part.

    • http://www.sciencelives.com ScienceLives

      Smutty? I thought the article said the types of apps that were banned were the ones with women in bikinis for example? Do me a favor and stay away from the beach!!!

      Apple may be exercising their freedom of choice not to allow these apps, but they are greatly restricting the freedom of choice of their users, based on Apple’s definition of “morals”.

  • Guest

    Yes, it is. I get so annoyed at managers (and self-important portions of the public) abusing the term “morality” in this context. As if the Human physique is somehow immoral, distasteful, and/or “evil”. Typical hypocritical pseudo-puritanism -synonymous with circa 1950 ‘brand America’. It’s Apple’s partners which are the controlling factors here. And as more and more amoral theocratic-run corporations control America’s skewed perception of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, these types of restrictions will continue to wreak havoc on our nation’s psyche; Made more frustrating when witnessing Europe’s self-image, self-worth, and freedoms excel -surpassing our own.

    As someone poignantly pointed out, in the U.S., money is the face behind morality. Yet, considering Apple’s [Jobs'] leaning to the left, it’s sad to witness such a blatant move in the right-wing McCarthy-esque direction.

    Talk about a brand’s diluted downfall.

  • http://www.sciencelives.com ScienceLives

    This is a bad move on Apple’s part. A large portion of the internet is made up of adult sites and risque sites like bikinis, erotic poetry, etc., and a large portion of internet users visit those sites. If people don’t want to access, or don’t want their kids to access “sexy” apps, they can be categorized in a separate section of Itunes with an 18+ warning page, and, here’s a thought, parents can monitor and control what their kids are downloading – it’s not like the kids have a credit card anyways. A user can access hardcore porn sites on an Iphone using a web browser, and as someone else pointed out, can purchase songs on Itunes with explicit lyrics (with an explicit label on them) or other risque videos etc. Banning sites because someone out there finds a bikini offensive seems very narrow-minded. Iphones are not just for children, adults use them too, and Apple is alienating a lot of consumers who want that type of content and the companies that want to provide it. They are catering to a few self-righteous people who think they should decide what is “moral” for the rest of society, and it’s not something that is easy to define. I just hope there aren’t any art apps out there with the statue of David on them – they’ll be next to go.

  • http://www.centralsurvival.com Guest

    I want to make two comments here. The first is that Apple kept the apps from “well-known” companies that were in “well-accepted” formats. My question is were these companies born “well-known” and “well-accepted” or were they given exposure to become that way? Is Apple taking the safe route and not giving the smaller developers a chance? I understand that it is Apple’s store and they can do what they want. Are they only in it for the money?

    My second comment is that I am amazed that a large percentage of posters are smart enough to figure out new technology but do not seem to be able to formulate a coherent sentence. Please take a moment to read what you have written before posting it for the entire world to see. No one really expects you to use perfect grammar and punctuation but at least try to make it understandable for the reader.

  • LOW-CASPER

    I find this funny, Apple can’t even keep a control of there phones for a week after releasing a new update (that supposedly improves what ever they say when really it’s just another attempt to block hackers).
    They have finally produced a product that the hacking community has taken interest in. They can try to block all the content that they want, but the fact of the matter is that kids can hack there iPhone in a few simple clicks and get what ever they want from places like Rock, Cydia and Installous App stores/communities as well as many others.
    Welcome to the real world Apple you have been pwnd!!!!

    As far as there move on the Apple Apps store it boils down to parents doing there job. Talk to your kids, have a relationship with them and teach/advise/share with them.
    Have a content blocker on the store like DVD/BlueRay players. The iPhone will let you block the apps store from being accessed. Expand on those methods like make an adult only section and put a parent control option on it. Of course these methods will only keep the kids out that are really too young to have the device in the first place and don’t know how to use a computer.

    Good luck with that Apple….the Nexus One is the way to go anyway. ;o)

  • http://techgurlz.com Techgurl

    As a parent I’m concerned about my kids ‘stumbling across’ material that is inappropriate for them, but at the same time I accept my responsibility to provide, you know, parenting. Supervison and monitoring are part of the job. I think Apple is overreacting a bit to the alarmist control freaks who think they must dictate public morals. How hard would it be for Apple to move all objectionable material into a category called, “Adults only/18+”?? The material that developers worked so hard to create and market could still be available, but with some filtering that allows smart consumers (is there any such thing?) to steer clear of anything they might find objectionable, or make it easier for parents to monitor what their kids are accessing.

  • http://bloketoys.co.uk Guest

    The problem is that Apple’s main target audience are young, dynamic, opinionated, and free-thinking. Apple completely ignore the very basic fact that the larger percentage of their customers will now view Apple as just another corporate monster, happy to punish, restrict and control, while supporting the big boys and their considerable wealth in every available facet.

    Well done Apple, you’ve successfully dropped the cloak of “cool” and revealed yourself to be the hideous lovechild of Mary Whitehouse and George Bush.

    Apple has lost a fan here. I don’t want to support a hypocrite company.

  • Brad

    Sorry but iTunes cards can be purchased with cash nearly anywhere. A child does NOT have to have a credit card to buy music or apps in the iTunes store.

    “parents can monitor and control what their kids are downloading – it’s not like the kids have a credit card anyways.”

    Apple is going for the almighty dollar, that is the only reason Sports Illustrated and Playboy are ok to them.

  • Guest

    I think Apple should redesign their logo, removing the bite from the side of the apple. We know what that Biblical Adam and Eve apple biting business really symbolizes.

    Plus, of course, Apple itself is a synonym for a charming female body part. Can’t have that, let’s rename the company to some like-shaped produce without sexual connotations. Like, “Pumpkin”?

    Playboy apps? Imagine if the kids saw that stuff and became less doofus than their parents about sex. They already are in regards to the computer, or the DVD deck, but that’s OK, the DVD deck is more important than sex, right? Just imagine what would happen if Pop had to ask Johnny about giving Mom the big O’s as well. The kid sure knows the terrain better, the last time he was camping in there for 9 months…

    OK, admit, the only reason why you don’t want the kids to see sex is so that they don’t laugh themselves silly who bad you are at it. That’s why some men want virgin brides, too, in primitive societies – a glorification of ignorance. Except… the most sexual organ is the brain, actually. So for truly consistent innocence, don’t just put a taboo on sex, that pervo brain will still be getting its jigglies. Ban all thinking! That’s the only way. When looking for an innocent Significant Other, go for the one that says: “Honey, I’m a total brain virgin. I never had even a single thought in my life. I’m so innocent, I haven’t even tried if I have a brain.” Kinda like how Congress behaves. There’s your model of innocence.

    Three cheers for Apple for brightening up our day with something this hilarious. The kids mostly won’t join in on the debate, they are too busy arranging some real sex online at www… heck no, I’m not telling you where. The last thing I want is my Pop to read this and stumble into me there. Let him play with his iPhone instead, maybe he figures it out how to use it without asking me, finally.

  • Guest

    If you don’t like women in bikinis don’t download the app. I am against any censorship like this.

  • http://www.ellefagan.com Elle Fagan

    Apple said, according to your article, that they were NOT attempting to moralize , but merely to respond to complaints from their public – and, using that sliderule would explain the skewed logics in the choices of content removed.

    So this makes me wonder, in these modern times for “spin” , etc., if the bigname companies, whose content was NOT removed, aren’t paying folks to complain about their competitors. It IS a competition, you know. But Apple states it is NOT trying to be an arbiter, only responding to its customers in compliance with normal customer service guidelines.

    …………………………………………………………………………….

    Philosophically ( if you care to share my thoughts – you said “tell me what you think” ) -

    Cyberspace is a bit like the Wild West – it’s one of its charms – and it’s been exciting, so far, to see ‘law and order’ and ‘civilization’ take hold in Virtual-Land. And, just as in other realms, growth is a mess, with zigzag-y forays into it all, with lots of opinion and mixed results and odd choices, sometimes. I think we are supposed to love it all and do our part in it! :-D

    I am a big fan of Apple, and my Mac is my alter-ego, but this action on Apple’s part must be tagged “newbie” work, if the goal was to optimize the content that is available in the main.
    Still, if it gets into the whole idea, it’s a good thing.

    Online life is like everywhere else – it’s about personhood.
    Enjoying full freedom and feeling safe to do so is a dichotomy, but it is what we go after in all realms.

    If they want to get into tempering content, then it is best to use the personhood sliderule.
    Celebrating our sexuality, however we express or choose not to express it, is part of the miracle of our humanity. Whenever the sexual or moral content demeans the personhood, it has gone over the line and is no longer a celebration but a danger.

    I do not believe that Apple is appointing itself an arbiter of morality in their recent action.

    I just wish they WOULD moralize a little bit – the sex and violence has gone over the line, most definitely, in a way that may be hazardous to the very existence of quality life for all mankind.
    BECAUSE in no previous time has such material been so readily available to so many, and so quickly and affordably. The Halloween things going on all year long should tell us something , loud and clear. And saying “kids” instead of “children” – as has been done ‘way too much in the past twenty years – says even more. DANGER!

    We get the life we make – online and offline.
    This past 30 years has seen an explosion of the basics that will save us all for the Third Millennium, and when so many things , involving so many of us – past , present and to come – are emergent, it is always messy – some things get way out of hand, and it will show that we have things focused better when a few of these very dangerous extremes get cleaned up a bit, without repressing the freedom to breathe in it that we must have for healthy evolution in it all.

    God bless anyone who has real power and responsibility in such matters!

    Will history note Apple’s “moment” here? Probably not to any great extent, but it may note how the practical pressures maybe achieved something accidentally good. If nothing else, it got Chris to publish about it and the rest of us to talk about it and that, alone , is very good thing! :-D

    elle fagan

  • Noddy

    I believe Apple needs to be consistent, not conflictant. Either sex is in, or sex is out. Who gives a rat’s arse if the content is by a “well known” adult entertainment company like Playboy, or from a back-yarder named John Thomas. The bottom line is either the stuff is offensive and accessible by kids, or it’s not! If it’s offensive, chuck it ALL out. If kids can access the stuff from John Thomas, they can access the stuff from Playboy. Q.E.D!

    This move stinks strongly of financial, rather than moral motives. ie. Keep the stuff that pays them a lot of money while chucking the small operators out on their ears to appease the angry mothers. a Ridiculous sentence passed by a partial judge, who is obviously on the adult entertainment industry Payroll.

    Get it right Teddy!

  • Adsense Publisher

    Personally there is an untapped market in the adult industry that would make the Apple store gobs of money. Just in the R rated category alone they could make bank, but in the X rated industry the sky is the limit.

    Anybody who starts making adult applications (R rated and X rated) for the iphone might not get apple’s approval, but still will get people to buy it and install it nevertheless. All this does is cut Apple out of the profits, which I don’t think any adult application developer would mind at all.

  • Dale

    Well I am glad to see that at least Apple is trying to keep it’s platform clean. Sure you can’t completely wipe all of it out… but I’m grateful that they are working in that direction. Good job, guys.

  • http://www.sketch3d.co.uk SKETCH3D

    I think Apple’s move to censor some applications is sensible. Magazines like Playboy, FHM etc can be found on the supermarket shelves, so this isn’t content unique to Apple. I could imagine that perhaps the applications pulled from the apps store may have been a bit more than just cartoon characters in bikinis. I don’t know how the app approval system works, but I imagine that the testers don’t have time to fully check every aspect of the software being posted.

    Using the iPad/iPhone etc as a business tool could only be discredited if the content is generally not of a high standards.

    Still if someone really wants to find that kind of stuff they can still find it on the web.

  • http://www.mandarichmodels.com Boudoir Photography

    We had our app pulled “BoxScore Babes” I understand a change in TOS or your policy but apply it to all of the apps including Playboy & SI swimsuit.

    Tony

  • Tony Free

    Apple is being less and less appealing, as they wield their power. They can take off apps without any review process, they won’t use Flash on their mobile devices as it competes with their own video/game offerings (oh no, wait sorry, it’s because Flash is ‘buggy’).

    They are also inconsistent. There is a game on there where you can throw people out of the Titanic into lifeboats. Can you imagine that being allowed if it was the Twin Towers? Lots of people died on the Titanic, and it’s not a game. However Apple continue to host it. Double standards completely.

  • http://www.macexpert.com Russ Alman

    The App Store does flash a warning at your when you are about to download an app that is deemed not suitable for under 17 audiences. Wouldn’t it make more sense to add parental controls to the iPhone OS so that parents can choose to block these apps from kids phones?

    Personally, I’m not planning to use my iPhone or iPad for iPorn, but to me this seems to be a freedom of speech issue. Why should these devices be treated differently than other computers?

    Isn’t it ironic that Apple, the “renegade” computer company that ran the famous 1984 ad, is now practicing its own version of Doublespeak?

  • Carlos

    I believe that Apple has the same standards as Tiger Woods, they say one thing but do another as natural as it can be. They are both hypocrits!

  • http://www.eresummit.com Breckenridge

    You want to make money from sex then you are going to hell. Sorry guys but Apple is doing the right thing here and they should also remove all sexual apps regardless of well known or unknown publisher.

  • Guest

    The first pictures taken with a camera were of naked women.
    Motion pictures invented? Naked women in motion.
    The VCR put porn theatres out of business because they allowed the, uh, “appreciation” of pornography in the privacy and comfort of one’s home.
    The internet? Well, I understand at one time in the early years 50% of it was porn.
    What’s it down to now? 49%?

    People (young men especially) don’t change, and even though technology evolves the demand remains.
    Apple should stop being the gatekeeper of content and find a way to provide what people want.

  • Guest

    Glad to see Apple moving in a supportable business direction. Apple’s early childhood education positioning and their recent decision are compatible business choices for Apple, too.

    Per this discussion, loaded with expected ubiquitous entry-level consequence-lacking “free speech”/bu$ine$$ arguments, please consider this: One of my children was abducted and damaged by a stranger, and another was raped by someone in a position of trust (different city, different generation). Everyone in ALL families (perp’s and victim’s) was impacted by some happy free-speech content producer. The suffering, shame and grief lasts a lifetime even with therapy, and often spans generations.

    Someone most certainly did have the speech freedom and bu$ine$$ financial incentive to produce the “adult” content, but the real cost and the real risk to individuals and society is rarely considered or carried by the “free speech” politically-correct or soft & hard content production executives. I still haven’t seen any content providers or content resellers step up to pay for therapy or legal fees, but maybe our family was simply missed in their well-established program for responsible monthly payments to victims. No wait, content providers don’t plan for that, do they?

    Then again, maybe the statistically predictable results of this kind of content and delivery of the content is OK if it isn’t –your– child, grandchild, sibling or family that catches the expected percentage. Unfortunately, last time I looked there’s been a rather noticeable increase in consequence stats with technology options for “free speech”/bu$ine$$, so even with Apple’s recent direction it really is only a matter of time until more really understand the rest of the fuller story that costs blood money after all that “free speech” and bu$ine$$ profitability is long past.

    I’m glad Apple is at least heading in the right direction and I wish the best for everyone if they have not yet been directly impacted by content associated with horrid statistical consequences (even one is really one+one+family of both+generations too many).

  • Guest

    well as we all know apple is getting a backhander from the other companies involved enuff said.

  • http://revoltage.net jon

    exactly Russ Alman! they would just need to put some kind of parental control, or reinforce the notice that “you have to be 18″. if they’re scared that these apps are too numerous and make the other apps harder to find, they could simply put them in a new category where they don’t get in the way.
    idiots! why not remove apps that make an allusion to alcohol? like the iBeer thing? or blood!why not take away the apps that show blood??
    it’s funny how in our society people have come to be so scared (and I mean Scared) of a naked body.

  • http://www.happyendingonline.com Adult Toys for cheap

    is issing out on huge market segment if they continue to ban these apps from the app store.

    • Adult Toys for cheap

      *missing

  • Guest

    The fact that all the apps pulled were from smaller independent publishers, while those with glaringly similar content from large publishers speaks to a core profit motive and inherent inequity that should be alarming, and cause for advocacy of stronger and clearer commitment to equal application of standards. People (or consumers as we are now considered by business and government) will only have choice if they exercise it. Given the state of our current markets with so much vertical integration, huge monopolies with competition among only a few players, and limited choices, the exercise of consumer power becomes easier, more significant, but costlier. We can choose not to buy, but that also means we must choose to do without. They bet we won’t do without. The data shows they’re right. So ultimately we can’t whine when we don’t get our way.

  • Guest

    for sure I agree with Apple in removing those Apps

    Let’s Fight it at all for Our God

    • Guest

      Phil Schiller from Apple should decide that if Apple are going to make a moral stand for integrity then he should finish the job. Don’t let money be a determining factor in what does and doesn’t get pulled. If Apple thinks some content is not suitable (soft porn etc.) then they should stick with that stance and remove everything of that nature, even those from well-known companies like Playboy etc. No doubt there are marketing objectives here also with the impending iPad release and what will be readily available on that device or not. However I am all for Apple making a positive moral stance by saying no to specific content. It would be great to think this was being done for the benefit of its application end-users, particularly minors, and not just as a marketing ploy.

  • http://www.flexoweb.com snt

    Can’t they have those apps under adults only section? They may be making a lot of money from PlayBoy and other popular ones. Apple is a crooked company which obviously has a cult following.

  • Guest

    Boy! is this Chris Crum a really crummy writer or what? children’s story books, that’s what u should be writing!

  • al rotundo

    fuck steve jobs, fuck apple, fuck the iphone. anyone who buys one is an idiot.

  • Rockman

    Apple made the right call here and others will likely follow. Google does the same thing censoring content on sites they control or cooking search results (remember the Bush/Obama campaign search discrepencies?).

    Problem here is that soft porn in an exercise app or game could catch some folks by surprise. Playboy and other channels are quite clear with their content so anyone exposed on those channels should not be surprised by what they find.

    My bigger concern is that the action was prompted by women who found the content objectionable. Instead of reacting to a vocal minority, Apple should apply consistent standards, classify apps accordingly, and filter on that basis such as with an “adult” section. However, in the case of children accessing this material, responsibility rests with the parents.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Pornography-Available-to-Kids-on-IphoneItouch/306617891343?ref=mf The iPhone Porn Lady : )

    I have been fighting for Apple to reconfigure the App Store since January. That said, don’t read too much into that. All I have ever asked is that Apple create a password protected category for adult material so that kids (who do you think the iPod Touch among others are marketed to) don’t have to be exposed to titles like “Dirty Sex Dares” and ‘Adult Sex Life”. I have never ONCE asked for the “adult” material to be removed. Just separated so that only age appropriate use is available.

    I have done an interview on ABC and 3 radio interviews (one a national program). I never wanted to be known as “The Porn Lady” but I feel that SOMEONE has to put enough pressure on this company to be responsible.

    I own an iMac, a Macbook, we have 3 iPhones in the family and an iPod touch. I am not a hater. I just want Apple to act responsibly and let our children be children for as long as possible. Check out my website if you want to help. I’ll be posting our next move tomorrow and it’s a big one.

    Take care all,

    Toni