NYT – Apple Responds

What a crock of s**t 
(not the article in general – I’m talking about the quote below)

Apple have lost any credibility that they had – this is just BS.

“When asked about the Sports Illustrated app, Mr. Schiller said Apple took the source and intent of an app into consideration. “The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format,” he said.”

So it’s ok for a well known company to produce and display adult material to our children, but not ok for somebody to show cartoon pics of a female body

This is wrong on so many levels – I bet the parents of kids who view the Playboy App screenshots will be much happier that the bare arse is shot by a playboy photographer!

These images are allowed by Apple in the Playboy App:
comehither cleavage bare arse in playboy app

And this one is not:
wobble-ad-itunes-v01 What makes it worse is that a LOT of people now think that the store is a safe place for their kids to go to without supervision – it just isn’t because Apple have applied their guidelines unevenly.

Look at the comments on the Playboy App, people hate it – also note that the ratings system has been frozen for several days now, it still shows the same numbers as it did a few days back. That’s probably linked to the page numbers that are also frozen they show how many Apps have been deleted.

Update – Techcrunch just picked up the story

20 thoughts on “NYT – Apple Responds”

  1. It shits me when Apple disappoint me because I really do like their products and for the most part their behaviour is something I support. Too often though I am seeing examples of inconsistent application of rules and now, withdrawal of previously accepted rules. This is not considerate or respectful behaviour towards their developer community who are helping them make some of their remarkable profits.

    It would be interesting to see if you renamed the app and removed any mention of girly wobbly bits and removed all pictures of girls, maybe have a close up picture of a cat’s face and make its eyes wobble, and see if you can get it listed again. Or will Wobble be scared now for ever because of its previous promotional use?

    I don’t know why they don’t simply create an R rated section as it really is hypocritical when you can get music with filthy lyrics, movies with sex and violence, I hope it works out for you and good luck with Android, I’ll never buy one but if I was a developer I’d jump on that bandwagon as well as Apple.

  2. As a developer that has had a few bikini girl apps removed, I’m not even that upset that Apple has a new policy. But it was very poorly handled and giving developers a few weeks of notice to make adjustments would have been the right thing to do here. An apology to developers from Apple would also be nice.

    What really does bother me is the amount of BS coming from Mr. Schiller and Apple – it makes me, as a developer, less enthusiastic about doing business with them and I no longer view them as a “trusted” partner.

    So what really is going on here? Still trying to figure that out…
    Obviously, Apple has some special deal going with Playboy, Sports Illustrated, etc. and it’s probably iPad related. My guess is that Apple really wanted to them on board for the iPad with digital magazine content… and it’s possible that perhaps they arranged an exclusivity deal, where in exchange, all competing content was to be removed from the App Store. And all the “overtly sexual content” BS is just something to tell developers and the public. This is all just speculation, so who knows… but I still believe we are not getting the real story from Apple and don’t appreciate all of the BS they’re throwing around.

  3. I’m disgusted by Apple’s behaviour. I hope to see their revenues drop. I was thinking of buying a MacBook and an IPhone. No more.

    They are acting like a bunch of hypocrites. It’s time to teach them a lesson or two about competition, correctness and fair play. Next time you are buying something choose wisely. We have to kick them in the *ss with two weapons: our wallet and the media.

  4. I had purchased “Wobble” and removed it with the intention of putting it back on my iPod Touch someday in the future. It seems that the application is no longer listed in iTunes among the list of applications that I had already purchased.

    Do I understand correctly that Apple is not only prohibiting new sales of the application, but is also prohibiting existing owners from re-installing it? If so, I would expect that Apple would be offering credits to those customers. Is there some aspect of all of this that I’m missing?

  5. And so the few dictate what the many get to see, and play with. I personally found Wobble mildly amusing and definately low level offensive. But that’s pretty irrelevant, after all, I don’t need to buy it, and am getting pretty tired of people limiting my life to their tastes. That 25% really, really need to chill out a bit and get some tolerance in their lives.

  6. You really don’t get it, do you? It’s not about “protecting the children”, it’s about not filling the app store with content that is degrading to women. In case you didn’t realize, a lot of people who buy iPhones are women, and a lot of women find apps like the ones you publish offensive, not because they are “puritans”, but because they’re sick of the ubiquitous sexual objectification of women. When Phil Schiller explained why Apple dropped the apps, the first thing he mentioned was “It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable”.

    Try publishing some beefcake apps and you might find Apple less likely to pull them. At least then you would have a more convincing argument.

  7. I for one am glad that the majority of the trash apps have been removed. I was getting tired of wading through teen and milf photo collection apps to find REAL apps that required some effort and consideration.

  8. I hope to have the app back in the store today, however you should be able to reinstall the app from iTunes.

  9. Are you saying Apple is less likely to pull “beefcake” apps because men wouldn’t get totally wound up about something so insignificant? ie Not one man would object to it, or are you saying Apple is only worried about what women think, or that you support there being one rule for men and a different one for women???

    Get a grip lady – if you think breasts are sexual organs you need to go look at the manual, they just happen to be bits of flesh that hang in front of some women – and this App made them wobble around. It’s not about sexual objectification – it’s about making pictures of women do amusing things – you know for a laugh… something you might do if you weren’t so uptight.

    If men have boobs, the Wobble makes them jiggle too – in that case it’s not sexual is it? It’s probably just plain funny…

    Oh – and Apple is the one saying that they are “protecting the children” not me.

    Stop taking the world so seriously and you might enjoy it a bit more.

  10. Since you say “glad that the *majority* of trash apps”; what you really mean to say is that you wish Apple had come up with a way that classified stuff efficiently, so ALL of the apps that were deleted didn’t have to be removed.

  11. First off, I’m not a lady. Regarding a beefcake app, I’m just saying it’s telling that all the sexy apps in the app store (except for 1 playgirl app) are all about showcasing women. Maybe if it weren’t so incredibly lopsided, it wouldn’t be so easy for women to complain about the app store being degrading. Also, men would probably be less likely to complain about it since they don’t have to deal with being sexually objectified on a daily basis in every billboard, magazine, commercial, website, iPhone app, etc. It’s just a thought.

  12. So when we’ll we be able to get Wobbles again?? I just bought an iPhone last week, just to get this program and the day I get it Apple pulls this crap.

  13. But “Wobble” contained absolutely no sexually-suggestive content. If the user decides to load a sexually-degrading image, that’s the prerogative of the user. One of the pictures that I had in “Wobble” was a closeup of a flower that made a neat effect when “wobbled.”

    Wobble is no more sexually suggestive than software used to viewing images or movies – both of which are available on the iPod Touch and iPhone. The iPod music player can be used to play sexually graphic songs. The video player can be used to play sexually graphic videos, and the image viewer can be used to view sexually graphic pictures. Moreover, the built-in Safari web browser can be used to access sexually graphic websites.

    Apple’s censorship measures are hypocritical in the extreme.

Leave a Reply