Wobble is NOT overtly sexual

Yep, no content – it ships without any pics at all – how can it be overtly sexual, people use their own pics.

To all those that want their apps censored… I have no problems with that really – If Apple decided on a standard and published it we’d be ok… If they stuck to it!!

They have changed their standards, but they don’t actually say what those standards are now, nor what those standards were before! No guidelines provided at all!

There are almost a million people who own the Wobble app, who now cannot get an update if Apple releases a new O/S that breaks the app they OWN. This happened with the update to 3.0 and we released a patch, now we wont be able to do that in the future.

If Apple approved it already and people bought it, why should they be penalized, and more importantly to me – why should we – Glentwood has invested quite some time and money in this app, and it was approved over a year ago!!

Maybe Apple are changing their standards to comply with rules in other countries that they have just opened up their App store to? Maybe we’ll only be able to show a woman if she is wearing a veil??

12 thoughts on “Wobble is NOT overtly sexual”

  1. This is wrong in so many ways.

    Fundamental principles don’t seem to matter to Apple. Here are some.

    Not in a strict sense, but in spirit:
    1. Nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law). You can change guidelines, you can’t punish people that bought apps or developed apps before those guidelines were in place.

    In a strict sense:
    2. The principle of subsidiarity (there are at least two meanings of this principle). Applicable here is: the same goal (protecting costumers from overtly sexual content) could have been reached with (far) less intrusive measures.

    In a strict sense as well:
    3. The legal principle of equality. The allowed Playboy content (etc.) should make this self-explanatory.

    Now principles 1 and 2 are principles for governments and are not applicable in civil law. And yet, they say a lot about ‘good and bad’, about what is deemed ‘right’ and what not. Principle 3, is, in most countries, applicable in all relevant relations (government – citizens, citizens – citizens) and, most likely, Apple could be held accountable for this.

    4. As far as Europe is concerned and as long as Apple don’t apply the same rule to Playboy and others, the decision is likely to be contrary to the obligations laid down in European competition law. See for instance the old article 82 EC under c (now known as article 102 on the treaty of the European Union).

    Apart from ‘law’ it’s also scary that Apple now define ‘skin’ or even ‘a hint of a woman’ as ‘overtly sexual’. When ‘skin’ or a non-explicit drawing of a female is regarded as ‘overtly sexual’, then what is the message exactly? That our skin is a sin? Back to the Middle Ages.

    This is not the first time Apple think that they’re above the law. The ‘creative’ company that I used to love so much seems to be dead in every way. And, alas, not in the least part as a technological advanced company. Mmm that’s OT, so I leave it at that. I’m still dependent on their OS for the software I’m running. Luckily in Europe it’s not against the law to run their software on non-Apple hardware (Apple’s EULA is non binding here)…. this issue is going to be the final drop. It used to be ‘buy’ Apple, now it’s ‘bye’ Apple.

    To the developer: good luck.

Leave a Reply