Why Apple’s New Ban Against Sexy Apps Is Scary | Hacker News Reader

Why Apple’s New Ban Against Sexy Apps Is Scary

techcrunch.com

21 pointsalexandros23 comments

A lot of us saw this coming. In my opinion, the reason is not really that Apple wants to ban sexy apps, it's more than they want to keep the AAAA Big Boob apps out of the store. Those style of apps have really been becoming a problem, and it's clear that Apple was going to do something about them sooner or later.

This is probably just the first step of several they are going to take to keep a certain class of developer out of the store without seeming discrimnatory.

We've been informed by a reviewer already that if your company is releasing apps for other people, then this action is under internal review already. They are trying to get rid of a lot of spam apps and if they can get rid of the appmakr style apps, then they will get rid of a lot of them.

Also, they are tightening the "app has no utility" restrictions according to the reviewer, meaning that apps will start getting rejected a bit more based off some apple criteria that the app is not very useful.

For app store ppl who had more than 500 apps pulled, see this thread: http://www.iphonedevsdk.com/forum/business-legal-app-store/4....

And for the developers affected by the ban, see this thread: http://www.iphonedevsdk.com/forum/business-legal-app-store/4...

Whatever you think of sexual material, I think it's bad for Apple to have a vague stance.

Whatever their policy is, they should clearly tell us what it is, so we know what we're getting into if we decide to develop an app, or buy an iPhone. If they had actually answered TechCrunch's question, I would have been a lot happier no matter what answer they gave.

They might have a point, but TechCrunch has had an anti-iPhone tinge ever since Arrington publicly denounced the iPhone for the Google Voice app issue. Their contrast in tone between iPhone and Android articles should be a source of embarrassment for any blog that cares about journalism.

To my mind, the Google Voice app issue was a very poignant example of why being anti-iPhone makes sense. It showed that you cannot even in principle distribute an app for the iPhone that Apple does not like. While individual carriers may lock down their Android handsets, Google has no such veto power on the Android platform.

I don't think it's just TechCrunch, I'm seeing a lot of Anti-Apple reporting lately, while earlier everyone was within the reality distortion field.

But, just because they, or some other blog, is now anti-Apple does not make it biased like an earlier pro-Apple bias did not make it biased.

Because their bias, or perceived bias, does not conform to your own bias, it's not fair to call it an "embarrassment".

Moreover, TC is a blog, and not a news media. It's writers are bloggers and not journalists. So, there shouldn't be any expectation from them to be neutral or objective.

Edit: Actually it's funny, whenever I post a comment even slightly negative of Apple or defensive of an anti-Apple post/comment, my post is modded negative. And people expect others to be unbiased.

I take careful note of anyone's biases, even the people I deal with in regular conversations face-to-face. Bias here by definition means systematic skewed reasoning. It's of course TC's prerogative to be biased, but I'll dismiss its analysis to the extent that it is.

Techcrunch is trying to equate this to an ISP censoring pornographic material. Apple it just not that kind of commodity carrier. While a small portion of the content Apple offers is exclusive, most of it can be had elsewhere. If you don't like their policies, you are free not to use their service.

Funny, because I didn't mention ISPs once. Did you bother reading the post?

I did read the post, and I did notice the words "gatekeeper" and "censorship". Going from there to "ISP" requires a leap, but not a very large one.

Actually, that is a quite large leap. The article refers to being a gatekeeper in the markets controlled by Apple, such as the iPhone/iPad and the iTunes movie service. They are now in the content business big time, and are pushing further with book licensing on the iPad, so the word censorship applies quite well to them denying access to content they don't like.

They are the gatekeeper in the markets tied to their devices. However, there are many other competing devices and content providers. They are not the universal arbiter of all content streaming into your life.

If Apple doesn't carry a movie you want to watch due to whatever policies, you can buy a different phone from a different company or stream it on NetFlix or whatever. On the other hand, if your ISP won't let you download a movie over your connection because of their policies and they are the only ones who provide service in your area, that is a much larger problem. That is the distinction I was trying to make and the one I think this article overlooks.

In some ways the problems with Apple's model go far, far deeper. If devices like the iPad become the norm, then that enables the machinery of censorship at a much tighter level than any ISP could ever dream of. The old standby of using Sneakernet (you know, burning a disk and walking it to the post office) no longer makes any sense in the world with Apple as a gatekeeper. That makes it very scary when Apple starts flirting with this kind of censorship without even defining the terms.

I agree this would be bad if Apple significantly strengthened their position but I think the market would push back if it really got bad. People love their porn.

I think you're right on that, but it worries me that it hasn't happened yet. The iPad is a rather large step towards strengthening their position, and the backlash has been, at best, minimal.

A slightly smaller leap then going from a Apple App Store to Wal-Mart. There are other outlets, smart phones, and the things still has a web browser.

“The products suck! There’s no sex in them anymore!” --Steve

TechCrunch's outrage is increasingly absurd.

Tired.

TechCrunch. Apple = new bad. Google = new bad. Unless it's Android, in which case, Google = new good. Except for Buzz, which is Google = new bad, although we use it now, so Buzz = new good. Why do I go back? I like reading semi-literate comments.

Wow, it's almost like good and bad are situation-specific. Well I never!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP2h1gJcsHU

Indeed they are. Very astute of you to notice. My point being that TC deem what is good or bad based on the direction the wind is blowing. Buzz was downright nasty, now you can follow them on it.

So you're saying that someone (individual or organization) should choose an opinion and stick to it forever, even in light of facts, policy changes etc?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com