"Apple has reversed their policy". If I've heard it once, I've heard it a million times. Actually, I google'd those words and found 994,000 results, so that's not an exaggeration! Apple has had enough of the 'bikini' apps and has begun removing such apps from the App Store.
I must admit, I am a bit conflicted here. As a father, it can be frustrating seeing 17+ apps when doing searches or browsing the App Store. Those apps obviously sell, but that pushes other apps down in the rankings, making it harder to sell. As a developer of family-friendly apps, this is also frustrating because it means less "exposure" (pun intended) for my apps!
On the other hand, I would hate to be a developer who purchased rights to images or even hired models, developers, etc., only to have my apps pulled because Apple changed their mind. As a developer, this sends a chilling message, that we cannot assume the rules are fixed. While developers must obey Apple's rules, they can change them at any time. It's their store, and their iPhone or iPod, so what they say goes. But antitrust laws and 'Restraint of Trade' are serious matters. However, it's doubtful that any politician wants to put their reputation on the line to defend soft-porn apps.
We hear stories all the time about developers who quit their day job because of their success on the app store. Indeed, I am one of those success stories. Fortunately, my apps are not necessarily controversial. But then again, Apple decides what is acceptable.
I believe the correct solution would be to put all of the 'bikini' apps in their own category, and require some age verification before browsing such apps. For a recent school project, my daughter needed to search for images on the Internet. We used Yahoo image search's 'Safe Search' mode and it would be easy for Apple to adopt the same system in the App Store.
Apple has made a lot of money from those apps, and boasted about the 140,000 apps, many of which they have now banned. Is this about Apple's reputation or bottom line?
What do you think? Is Apple acting too heavy-handed? Is it their store so it's their choice and developers concerns are irrelevant? Should a compromise be reached, where such apps can have their own section? Will this impact Apple's revenue or sales of devices? Will the result be a flock of developers to Android, Windows Phone System 7 and other platforms?
greetings Todd: indeed, a
greetings Todd: indeed,
a 17+ area would be just fine. not sure if there's one or not already as i haven't been in the AppStore for a very long time.
however, it's not just the bikini-type apps that are an issue - in fact, i don't really have a problem with them beyond the fact that almost all of them are basically slideshows, mostly made with stolen images - but also the super-low quality of so many apps in terms of content and quality.
i suspect that few developers license images or hire models to make these apps. as i mentioned in my posts, there's been a huge concern about the source of these images since most of them appear to have been snatched from the web or scanned from magazines.
i've even been hearing information that the concern over copyright is the real reason why Apple has moved in this direction. HOWEVER, people who have followed the rules may also get penalized. For example, will this rule also apply to the annual Sports Illustrated calendar? that's pretty innocuous, but may ended up tainted with the same brush. then again, maybe if they can prove they own the copyright, they won't have a problem.
as for apps which you use your fingers on the screen to target and squeeze certain parts of female anatomy so that you can make those parts bounce or one where you can get your iphone to make loud body function sounds - pretty juvenile and trashy. at least someone at Apple corrected the error where an app which allowed a baby to be shaken to death was removed from sale.
as to the issue of 'chill' aka rule changes, well that is indeed a whole other situation and not necessarily related to crappy or illegal content. still, i think that most developers creating quality content (non-crap, non-porn, non-cloned) are not likely to fall afoul of Apple's rules, even if they alter them from time to time.
A symptom of a greater problem
The problem with these apps is that they take advantage of our base nature that men want to see sexually arousing material. We lose some of logical abilities when that happens, and people want to take advantage of that. The other thing is that sexual material is so taboo, few organizations want to partake in it. I.E. most apps on the app store are by irreputable outfits trying to make a quick buck or direct you to a website or ad that can make a quick buck. They are probably fly by night organizations or international so can't be touched easily. I believe apps by Sports Illustrated and Playboy are given exceptions not because of the content, but because they have boku bucks to back their app postings, and because they are backed by reputable organizations that have power push back at apple if they were banned.
The loss of most of these apps is no major concern. However, that daisy mae game that came out, while might be less tasteful to some, was a real game with real rules with a cute gimmick. Banning it I think was a mistake.
As a society, if we didn't take this material so seriously, then this whole controversy wouldn't matter. It wouldn't have quite the same power and therefore there would be no censorship concerns.
Good points. I don't mind
Good points. I don't mind the decision as much as the lack of communication and consistency. For example, Playboy is okay, but Hooters is not. iJiggles is okay but Wobble is not.
Businesses are being created, people are quitting their jobs to develop iPhone apps (myself included), and there is a lot riding on the whims of Apple. Apple has a monopoly on the App Store and this highlights the problem with that. If Wal-Mart doesn't want to carry a musician's work in their stores, that musician has other options. Perhaps that's why far more graphic music and videos are indeed available on iTunes... Apple has competition from Amazon, MP3.com, Wal-Mart, etc.
Will any politician come to the defense of such apps? Not likely. Will Apple turn down Sports Illustrated (a.k.a. Time, Inc.)? Also not likely. So where is the line drawn, and if Apple is going to give zero warning when they change their policies, it becomes harder and harder to justify being a one-platform developer. First they came for the bikini apps, and I didn't object because I didn't care for bikini apps. What's next?