Apple bans boobs, babes and bikinis from App Store

Apple bans boobs, babes and bikinis from App Store
Developer Jon Atherton, who is behind the popular application Wobble (which doesn’t actually include any sexual photos), also spoke to an Apple employee, and posted this list of rules to his blog based on what he learned:

• 1. No images of women in bikinis (Ice skating tights are not OK either)
  
• 2. No images of men in bikinis!
  
• 3. No skin (he seriously said this)
  
• 5. No sexual connotations or innuendo: boobs, babes, booty, sex – all banned
  
• 6. Nothing that can be sexually arousing!!
  
• 7. No apps will be approved that in any way imply sexual content

5000 iPhone apps have been kicked out of AppStore due to the new rules

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jEikXsT22RY5kyjwLvJFQ3w-dnIQ
www .techcrunch.com/2010/02/20/app-store-rules-sexy/

Posting in P&R since morality and religion go hand in hand

 

I never liked Apple but with these new rules, I am almost sure that I will never have a reason to visit their store.

 

LMAO. New, I love the post, but if you think Apple's newly discovered morality has any ties to religion, I'd bet heavily against it. Apple's agenda has always struck me as starkly liberal, mostly because of the nearly religious following they have in leftist academia. Outside of religious adoration for their own image, I highly doubt anyone in Apple would have the first thing to do with anything related to real organized religion. The company defines the word "smug", from its upper management to its low paid and devout sales people who work in the Apple stores. They even out-smug the annoying red-head on the "Progressive" auto insurance commercials, and she sets a high high bar. (Who the hell besides Zibby would buy from a company called "Progressive" anyway).

Apple makes stupid rules like this for two reasons.
1) They can. They so completely control their application development and deployment environments that they can effectively operate as judge and jury preventing an application's deployment for any issue, be it the presence of visible titties, to their own desire to create a competing product.
2) Their liberal desire not to offend anyone.

I personally love reading stories like the one you linked because they reaffirm my opinion that they haven't learned a thing from the ass kicking they got from Microsoft when they produced the world changing Macintosh and implemented the exact same idiotic policies. They were busy bragging and bullying while I and thousands of other interested parties were sitting at the first Microsoft Windows Developers conference as they practically begged people to build whatever they could for their platform, titties or no. This time, it looks like the ass kicking is going to come from either Google or the Intel/Nokia partnership.

 

I LOL too on new's post and his automatic conclusion that "this must come from religion".

But why the long explanation Obamanation? you could have just told him: "because its better for business, not morality or religion", there is a better chance he'd understand your point.

Sorry for my grave ignorance on U.S. politics, but who is the guy in your avatar? I liked mohammed better

 

He is known as "The Architect". He is the guy who managed to get George W. Bush elected for two consecutive terms despite his known drunk driving incident, cocaine use, and unpopular invasion of Iraq.

Karl Rove

 

The Architect has a similar profile as K. Star......It is true, when you've seen one blank face the others do appear to look the same.

 

I certainly do not think so

 

It's a bit over the top. What about apps like women's volleyball? I forget what it was called but my sister had it. They were in bikinis.

No sex, meh, do what you like - but no skin whatsoever? Bah!

 

I don't know why the volleyball ladies have to show so much skin all the time.

 

I'm glad they done this. The iphone is a serious device. if you can't manage to go a few hours without having a wank over some mildly arousing imagery in a public toilet go buy a nokia.

 

but why should apple 'control' what people can or cannot have on their phones ?
If Saudia Censors Porn than you find it bad , how come it is OK when Apple does that?

 

That's the message I got too. Its just strange that Apple is the one sending it. Jobs is a loon.

Wow New, two quotes in one day I actually agree with. I think hell may have frozen over.

 

Apple don't control what you can have on your iphone. They control what you can download from their app store.

Apple are no more censoring porn than the library is. They aren't saying you can't watch it, they are just saying you can't get it from them. That's not censorship.

 

I disagree. The Apple store is the only source for Iphone applications that will run on non-jailbroken Iphones. Sure you can watch porn you download from a website onto your iphone, or make your own porn with the video camera, but what apple can control, they censor. If I want to play a nice strip poker game someone built for the Iphone, I will never be able to do it unless I violate my licensing agreement and jailbreak my iphone (which I did the day I bought it).

 

And if you want to get porn from the library, mcdonalds, the dry cleaners or a pet shop you can't, that's not censorship, it's just them deciding what they feel they should provide people with. Apple have decided that they don't want to provide, through their app store, sexual material.

 

It isn't as simple as that. The content on the app store isn't produced by Apple. If you are an Iphone owner, you have no alternate means to get applications onto your phone, by their design. Your option is to throw your IPhone away and buy a Droid, Maemo, or Blackberry.

It is analogous to buying a home in a neighborhood that controls the cable television access and prohibits satellite dishes from being mounted. The neighborhood association then decides to block every last porno channel, though they provide high speed internet so you can download your porn online. What they have control over is more than what would be controlled in most other neighborhoods, and they censor what they control. Of course in this example, those who control the neighborhood would have to coincidentally be in the cable TV content business as well.

Perhaps the homes in the neighborhood are nice. Perhaps the neighborhood is safe. It doesn't change the fact the neighborhood association is trying to control all television media content so they can profit from it, and then decided to use their power to become some sort of strange morality police as well. It should be all the encouragement people need to pack up and move to nicer neighborhoods that don't try and control you, as they become available and affordable.

 

A more accurate analogy would be to subscribe to a cartoon channel and then complain that they don't provide porn. Providers of a service get to decide what that service is.

 

Absolutely wrong, as evidenced by the anti-trust lawsuit filed, and easily won against Microsoft. Microsoft's service was an operating system (Windows). They used their service to make sure the other services(word processors, spreadsheets, internet browsers) they offered had an unfair advantage running on that platform. The courts in both Europe and the United States determined that Microsoft was "censoring" the competition out of existence. The result was the breaking up of the company by the federal government.

Apple's service is a handheld device and associated operating system. They are doing EXACTLY the same thing Microsoft did, with less subtlety. Microsoft claimed an open environment and screwed over those who deployed successful applications there. Apple makes no such claims about openness, but the effect is the same. They've also reached beyond simply censoring the competition, and crossed over into censoring skin exposure. It isn't an anti-trust issue yet because the Iphone doesn't own 98% of the marketplace like Microsoft did with Windows. It doesn't make the behavior any less annoying. The point we seem to consistently agree on is that consumers have the choice not to deal with them.

 

Because it's difficult to spike the ball in a burqa?

Seriously though, why question it? Just appreciate.

It's not OK. Communists, Islamists, and Apple (Google too!) are just variations on a theme -- jerks who think they have a right to control other people.

 

obamanation you clearly failed to understand what anti-trust legislation is about. For instance, anti trust legislation isn't able to make microsoft provide porn if they don't want to, just like it's not able to make apple provide it.