After removing nearly 5,000 sex-themed apps from the iTunes App Store, Apple was rightfully called out for implementing what to many was an obvious double standard. While scores of nameless developers with risque apps were given the boot, explicit and racy apps from well known entities such as Sports Illustrated and Playboy were curiously left untouched.
After removing nearly 5,000 sex-themed apps from the iTunes App Store, Apple was rightfully called out for implementing what to many was an obvious double standard. While scores of nameless developers with risque apps were given the boot, explicit and racy apps from well known entities such as Sports Illustrated and Playboy were curiously left untouched.
Seemingly aware of the hypocrisy, Apple’s Senior VP of Marketing, Phil Schiller, took to the New York Times yesterday to explain Apple’s head scratching stance regarding what apps are permissible and which apps are not.
First, Schiller pointed out that developers were beginning to saturate the app store with an increasing number of adult oriented apps – as evidenced by the thousands of apps that were subsequently removed. That being the case, Schiller said that Apple was getting an increasing number of “customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable.” Also voicing their displeasure, according to Schiller, were large numbers of parents who expressed concern at what their children were able to access and put onto their iPhones and iPod Touches. “We obviously care about developers,” Schiller stated, “but in the end have to put the needs of the kids and parents first.”
On first glance, that makes sense, but who are we really kidding here? The iPhone and iPod Touch both come with the Safari web browser prominently displayed in the home row of apps, and the material available on the Internet is far more worrisome than what one can find on the iTunes App Store.
Still, customer complaints don’t really explain why Apple decided to selectively remove iPhone apps from iTunes. On that note, Schiller stated why apps from Playboy and Sports Illustrated were left unscathed: “The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format.”
So let me get this straight. Completely nude photos from Playboy are acceptable while women in bikini’s from a no-name developer are not? Come on, Apple. How about some consistency!
To be fair, a lot of the removed apps were nothing more than link bait apps meant to make a quick buck using racy titles with little to no content. Sifting through thousands of apps and figuring out what’s okay and what isn’t was clearly not a top priority for Apple – so eliminating everything in one fell swoop seems to have been their reflexive response. Apple, of course, can trust that Playboy and Sports Illustrated, despite their racy content, aren’t taking advantage of consumers. This, of course, doesn’t condone Apple’s actions, but might serve to explain their inconsistent behavior.
Apple of course wants to keep developers happy, and some are speculating that Apple’s recent move will do a lot to discourage iPhone developers. I may not agree with Apple’s recent app removals, but I sincerely doubt that it will have any affect whatsoever on iPhone development. After all, and maybe I’m stereotyping here, but I don’t think the truly talented, gifted, and innovative developers are hard at work coding apps that display pictures of girls in bikinis.
