If you have been following “the news” in the past couple of weeks, you know that Apple’s always controversial App Store approval process has been shockingly in the news a lot. The only difference between this and the normal shenanigans? There are a variety of developments that have already massively changed the face of the App Store and will transform the nature of what some believe is the iPhone’s greatest asset. So what’s changed? We’ll detail that after the jump – but if you’ve spent fifteen good minutes on the App Store in the past couple days – you likely have already noticed some of the changes.
1. Sexual Content – Apple removed over 5,000 Apps for “Overtly Sexual Content” from February 17-20 according to MacRumors/AppShopper. This constitutes 3% of the total apps in the App Store. The much publicized crackdown seemed generally consistent, although some apps still featuring content that was banned in other’s (Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Edition) managed to survive. The majority of criticism seemed directed at the widespread nature of the crackdown, specifically that things would pass in a G-rated movie were banned? The end result cause a brief PR nightmare as Apple gained the reputation for being the porn police, Apple’s official responses seemed to indicate they were responding to large customer complaints:
We asked Apple what had prompted the change. “Whenever we receive customer complaints about objectionable content we review them,” Apple spokesperson Trudy Muller told Ars. “If we find these apps contain inappropriate material we remove them and request the developer make any necessary changes in order to be distributed by Apple.” Apple declined to give further details about the nature or number of complaints it had received.
Marking head Phil Schiller also commented:
Philip W. Schiller, head of worldwide product marketing at Apple, said in an interview that over the last few weeks a small number of developers had been submitting “an increasing number of apps containing very objectionable content.”
“It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable, as well as parents who were upset with what their kids were able to see,” Mr. Schiller said.
The most interesting part of the story comes from a blog post from developer Jon Atherton (the guy behind Wobble) After posting the following list of what is believed to be the expanded, non-official rules regarding sexual content:
1. No images of women in bikinis (Ice skating tights are not OK either)
2. No images of men in bikinis! (I didn’t ask about Ice Skating tights for men)
3. No skin (he seriously said this) (I asked if a Burqa was OK, and the Apple guy got angry)
4. No silhouettes that indicate that Wobble can be used for wobbling boobs (yes – I am serious, we have to remove the silhouette in this pic)
5. No sexual connotations or innuendo: boobs, babes, booty, sex – all banned
6. Nothing that can be sexually arousing!! (I doubt many people could get aroused with the pic above but those puritanical guys at Apple must get off on pretty mundane things to find Wobble “overtly sexual!)
7. No apps will be approved that in any way imply sexual content (not sure how Playboy is still in the store, but …)
In the follow-up post Atherton highlights the similarities between Apple’s “new” rules and AT&T’s rules regarding mobile apps. He then makes the daring assertion that Apple might be complying to AT&T? (This sound seriously screwed up regarding most people’s views regarding that relationship) Whatever the case, Atherton’s list and commentary points out that Apple likely has a long way to go before making the rules consistent. Furthermore, it highlights the even larger hypocrisy that images that would be acceptable on any television show or print media format are banned from the App Store?
It’s unclear what the total impact of the move will be, but 3% of the App Store’s content is a fairly sizable move. The impact on some developers might be devastating, as some will lose all of their portfolio. What will be interesting will be to see foremost where the line is exactly according to Cupertino – something that will likely remain unclear, particularly given the aforementioned Sports Illustrated case. Second, will the developers whose apps mainly focused around (to say it plainly) boobs be able to create new apps without boobs, while maintaining the same success.
We have to raise the logical question: why was this banned? If your five year-old is running around with an iPhone (or an iPod touch), you might want to reconsider your parenting methods. Furthermore, if they have an iTunes account – there are plenty of songs (and music videos) that contain significantly worse images and content. Secondly, what about all the first-person shooters? Is violence next? If you accidentally stumbled accross iBoobs – your search terms are probably off or you should look in the mirror? Did you watch the Oscars last night? On broadcast televsision we had a refernece to a hand-job, a bunch of drunk people accept awards and a couple of Nazi/Jew jokes (they were quite good though…) If you want to live in a 19th century world, you should probably reject 21st century technology and not punish the rest of this, and this comes from someone who has three pages of Apps – the most controversial being a Craps game. Lastly, there is an app called Safari built on to every iPhone and iPod touch – if you want hardcore porn of any type – it’s much quicker and likely cheaper via that option. Look, we didn’t have any apps that we had downloaded suddenly removed from the App Store, but we also don’t like the idea of 5,000 apps getting suddenly pulled because a few people are angry. If we were a developer or a porn addict… who knows how much longer this rant would have gone.
2. Cut Out the Cookie Cutters – Perhaps we should first define what a “cookie cutter” app is: one that replicates one of the built-in features (mainly Safari) in a (usually) very specific manner. Like the “sexual content” case above, there is a large group of apps that would definitely fall in this broad category as well as a group of apps that could depending on how one choses to interpret the rules.
Do these apps hurt anyone? Probably not. Do these apps help people? Yeah, probably. The scope of the crackdown (if it came) could be quite incredible. One must ask whether Google’s Mobile App would be included or does the one unique feature outweigh the six features that would be cookie cutting. What’s important to note is that unlike the above, Apple is blocking, not banning; and according to TechCrunch:
Unlike the ’sexy’ app ban that took place a few weeks ago, when Apple gave developers no options to keep their apps on the store, over the last month the company has been reaching out to at least a few app building services to suggest what they should be doing.
Similar to the “porn” crackdown, a couple of companies would likely be devastated. Plenty of companies have emerged (TechCrunch mentions Appmakr) specializing in this type of App and if a crackdown were to go into effect – one would have to assume a couple of companies would disappear. Eric Litman (CEO of Medialets) had the following to say:
This is the ongoing balance point between encouraging innovation and growth on one side and wanting to tightly control user experience on the other. Apple wants iPhone apps to be superior to Web experiences because they are extremely sticky and drive people specifically to buy the iPhone over competing smartphone platforms. Apps that are too simple or largely indistinguishable from the Web, other apps or particularly other apps on other platforms send the message to end users that the iPhone app ecosystem might not be particularly special.
TechCrunch claims, “Overall, this will almost certainly result in a better experience for users as they have to deal with fewer spammy apps.” We are unsure. Perhaps it’s because we don’t trust Apple? We don’t really believe that the removal of all these Apps would make our “experience” any better and anyone that can read descriptions and look at screenshots we’d imagine would likely be in the same boat.
3. No More Stupid Apps - Atlantia Software tried to make an app that quacked like a duck and Apple thought it lacked a purpose. Now, do we think it has a purpose? Debatable, we aren’t exactly duck obsessed. Anymore then iFart Mobile? Nope. Did it deserve the following:
Dear Atlantia Software LLC,
We’ve reviewed your application DuckPhone and we have determined that this application contains minimal user functionality and will not be appropriate for the App Store.
If you would like to share it with friends and family, we recommend you review the Ad Hoc method on the Distribution tab of the iPhone Developer Portal for details on distributing this application among a small group of people of your choosing or if you believe that you can add additional user functionality to DuckPhone we encourage you to do so and resubmit it for review.
Sincerely,
iPhone App Review Team
We don’t think so. That nice letter from Apple got some nice commentary by Nick of Atlantia Software and we think the following is deserved:
This is a line I had hoped would not be crossed, but sadly it has been. I’m not sending this email because the world will be deprived if they can’t experience this application, but rather, in hopes that some or all of you will publish this story so that the public at large continues to hear about the ridiculous behavior of Apple in matters such as these. As time goes on, this platform is becoming more of a burden on developers, this will in turn lead to talented people moving on to more open platforms. In the end, the customer loses, and I sincerely hope Apple will realize this.
Would we download DuckPhone? Nope. Have we downloaded iFart Mobile? Nope. Are there plenty of apps that would follow into this category that contains “minimal user functionality” in our opinion? Yes. See points #1 and #2 about who gets to draw the line. (More on this later…)
4. Sweepstakes Apps - While Apple was busy banning boobs from the App Store, it was allowing one part of Vegas to find its way back in, sweepstakes and giveaways. Since we haven’t mentioned iFart Mobile enough, we’ll do it again. Joel Comm, the guy that created that wonderful app, discovered the following while all the strippers were getting told to put their clothes on:
3.3.17 Your Application may include promotional sweepstake or contest functionality provided that You are the sole sponsor of the promotion and that You and Your Application comply with any applicable laws.
Apple logically has avoided these apps for legal problems, as the App Store is global and few laws governing giving away iPods is not-so universal. It’s likely that there will be a flood of new apps that fall in this sweepstakes/giveaway category. Will it make-up for any of the app categories that are being removed? No. Will there be more spam? Yes. Do we really care? Nope.
5. Wi-Fi Finders? - Last week Apple suddenly sent letters to developers responsible for apps that actively for Wi-Fi networks. Cupertino’s reason: “private framework.” The impact on the App Store? Little. Yet, The Register summed it up nicely:
It’s possible that this is just part of Apple’s ongoing tidying of the iTunes store, enforcing rules more stringently, but we can’t help wondering if the “private framework” is one that won’t be available on the iPad and Apple is trying to get as much compatibility as it can before the iPad is launched.
So, what’s changing. It’s pretty simple. Apple is trying to clean up the App Store. Why? Not because of loss of profits, not because of copyrights, but rather for users. The irony, do we think users are in favor? Hell no.
Props to TechhCrunch for being massively on top of these stories.
(Images courtesy of AppShopper.com, Eurocosm, ImageShack & PokerOnAMac)
