Okay, the situation surrounding the App Store and its approval process continues to get weirder and weirder.
As you may have heard, an application featuring nudity first appeared in the App Store yesterday. Today, that app was removed, which everyone presumed was a move by Apple. But the developers said that the removal was its own doing because its servers were getting slammed with picture requests. Then more applications claiming to have nude photos started appearing. And now Apple is apparently saying none of these apps will be allowed in the App Store. But that seems to contradict its own rating system that now clearly allows for nudity.
This makes no sense. To the point where I’m not sure there is anyone actually in charge of all of this for Apple. Instead, I’m starting to think this whole system is run by a group of people, all with different thoughts on the approach Apple should take with apps. And none of whom seem to communicate with each other very well.
Here is Apple’s statement to CNN earlier today:
Apple will not distribute applications that contain inappropriate content, such as pornography. The developer of this application added inappropriate content directly from their server after the application had been approved and distributed, and after the developer had subsequently been asked to remove some offensive content. This was a direct violation of the terms of the iPhone Developer Program. The application is no longer available on the App Store.
But the app was clearly labeled on its App Store page with a 17+ rating that said the app contained “Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity.” Those are not the developer’s words, those are Apple’s words.
And a few developers have now told me that there is an area in the app submission process to designate if your app contains nudity — hence the need for a 17+ nudity label, which again, Apple offers.
So why pull this app? The reasoning seems to be that the developer wasn’t honest upfront that the app would contain nudity. But then why would it have the nudity warning attached to it? Is it possible that Apple approved some of the nudity but then the developer was trying to push something like hardcore pornography into the app? Maybe, but I haven’t heard any reports of that — just that it featured pictures of topless women. And from its statement, it would seem that Apple doesn’t want any nudity, period.
And if that’s true then why are there other apps out there claiming to also have nude photographs in them, that are getting approved as well? Some are even touting it in the title of their apps. Yet Apple isn’t rejecting them.
So, either we have a situation where for some reason Apple has app warning labels that it never intends to use, and has app screeners that are once again doing a sloppy job watching submissions. Or, there are no clear-cut rules for what should be allowed when it comes to this in the App Store.
I’m definitely thinking it’s the latter, given what we’re seeing.
It’d be one thing if Apple didn’t have a rating that accounts for sexual content, but it does. So clearly it expects some apps to have “”Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity” in the store. But according to its statement, it won’t allow for them.
And further, Apple allows for plenty of movies that contain all kinds of nudity to be in iTunes. You can even now download those directly to your iPhone. Why are those okay, but apps of that nature are not? I’m repeating myself, but it makes no sense.
The App Store approval process has basically been a joke for much of the past year. I was hopeful it would get better now that parental controls are a part of the iPhone 3.0 software. Apparently, I was wrong — it looks like it’s getting worse.
We’ve reached out to Apple for further clarification on this. I’ll update if we hear back.
[photo: flickr/arbo]
[thanks Chris]
instead of competing with the iPhone.. Palm should have just made the pornPhone… they would have had a killer built in marketshare right out of the gate apparently
Ultimate Porn App = iPhone browser
Apple is ridiculous to try and police the app store. Just uncork it, make developers sign a waiver releasing Apple and “caveat emptor!”
very very good application.
Actually… A small group of people are in charge of the App Store… They run it like any other division inside of Apple, only they’re a lot more secretive, and “shy.”
It’s Apple Store guys… They’ll do what they want.
I was speaking with some iPhone developers at WWDC the other week, and they were very much of the opinion that there are distinct personalities behind the approval process. Seemingly, if you get one of the cool guys, your app will sail through the process. If you get one of the anal types, youll either get your app rejected or wait nine months before it gets approved. A couple of the guys had submitted an app, had it refused, then resubmitted it, only to see it immediately approved. The whole process smells strongly of amateurism.
I’ve heard not entirely dissimilar things myself. Thanks James.
Sounds like when I took the road test for my driver’s license.
I guess all of my music apps have had the anal reviewer/s. Damn frustrating!
Wouldn’t the anal types be more willing to approve porn apps? Just sayin’.
Very interesting indeed. Apple’s statement on CNN is obviously intentional. However, I don’t think the app store selection process is very fair.
Think about it, their are 50,000+ apps in the app store. Many of them end up being fluff—apps no one uses—but they, just like every other app have to be approved. To deal with all these submissions, there are a bunch of people screening the apps.
So, in general, app rejection is very arbitrary and based on a single persons decision as opposed to the overall policy/belief of Apple. It has to be this way. Apple as a company can’t look at each and every app.
On the other hand, when there is a popular app that receives a lot of attention for its rejection, people begin to question what is ultimately a single persons judgment. Eventually, the apps get looked at more closely.
In the case of this app, I think it’s a difficult issue. This app isn’t new. It is simply an update to an older application. I think it would have been hard for them to seamlessly submit the app for review, mark it as 17+ and call it a day.
Plus, the developer could be telling the truth; it would make a lot of sense. News about his app exploded across the internet last night. Imagine how much traffic his servers would get as a result of all the press.
Yeah, I thought I knew what was going on earlier. Now I have no clue.
That’s appropriate, but nonetheless there are guidelines, and different people must be trained in following common guidelines; this is clearly no happening, and there is too much space for personal arbitration.
May be some people are running this store.Porno applications are not allowed on Apple so these people are trying to get more attention of Apple….
Well we have been involved in the app submission process and it has taken on average about 6 weeks to get an app out there.
I highly doubt that there is anyone out there who is in charge of approving apps.
Apple should definitely try to make the whole process more streamlined and efficient.
Since when does nudity == porn? Was Jaws a porno? I get that boobies are bad, but they’re not inherently pornographic. I would suspect that Apple chose their words very specifically, and they mean explicit content won’t be allowed.
Remember, the app store is international. Some cultures/countries have very different views.
Ok, so why can I also rent and view movies like American Psycho on the same phone, through an apple store (iTunes) but boobie pics in an app are bad? This is just goofy pandering.
Yeah. I agree with you. It is really ridiculous, given the app store is the only (supported) method to get an app on the phone. People in America should be free to use whatever apps they want.
Exactly, another point I’ve made in the past, though not here. You can rent a huge number of movies that show much worse stuff than apps like this. And you can easily browse to a number of sites with much, much, much worse stuff than this on the iPhone’s browser. Don’t really see the point in banning all these apps, it’s just a weird double standard.
actually, i’ll add that in.
err… isn’t pornography 18+, not 17+?
Not sure what the 17+ thing is about, I assume the same thing as NC-17 for movies.
To be fair I do think there is a distinct difference between nudity and pornography…..
Yes, but Apple used the word to describe an app with topless women.
thank you android
I actually think this seems reasonable. An app is approved based on certain content and then the content changes so the app ise pulled (and presumably submitted for re-approval). It doesn’t matter that it will most likely be re-approved under current guidelines, it needs to be re-examined and re-classified in light of it’s current content. This seems to me to be a more sensible process than approving an app and then allowing the developer to change the content afterwards to anything they like. That would seem to set a dangerous precendent.
Right, I”m not disputing that part. I’m disputing that Apple says no pornographic apps are allowed, implying this was one, but it has a rating set up for nudity, and this app featured nudity.
I bet Legal has gotten involved and since the applications themselves contain the nudity or pornography Apple does not want to breach the “selling pornography” line. As for purchasing / downloading movies; I’ll bet someone like Netflix has already set the legal precedent for downloading.
May be some people are running this store.Porno applications are not allowed on Apple so these people are trying to get more attention of Apple….
Very interesting indeed.
Apple’s ratings are based on the content descriptions developers give them, in various categories: Cartoon or Fantasy Violence, Realistic Violence, Sexual Content or Nudity, Profanity or Crude Humor, and so on, and finally two important categories: “Prolonged graphic or sadistic realistic violence,” and “Graphic sexual content and nudity.” (Note that the capitalization is different for these two, suggesting that they were added by somebody else.) Anyway, if you check either of those last two, whether as Infrequent/Mild or as Frequent/Intense, your app has to be tagged as NR (Not Rated), NOT as 17+. NR apps are not allowed. If you check one of those buttons, iTunes Connect says, “this content will not be sold via iTunes.”
So frankly there’s nothing inconsistent here. The app snuck in because the developer did not check those buttons, and tagged it as 17+ app. But clear it does have “graphic sexual content and nudity” so it is prohibited. But Apple didn’t know that until the real content went live. Probably the developer hid the Good Stuff until the app was live, so they could get a lot of press, and then sell their app on Android or Palm or the Cydia store. Just my opinion.
But the app featured topless women, how does that move it from “Sexual Content or Nudity” to “Graphic sexual content and nudity”? Nudity is nudity, and Apple has a rating for it. So if it’s going to reject all of them, why have the rating that is outwardly visible to the App Store?
good application,It’s Apple Store guys… They’ll do what they want.
FYI – Approvals for cover art in the music store are quite uneven. Responses on the essentially the same cover art can vary widely depending upon which anonymous rep’s inbox the given title lands in. The App store appears to be run likewise. Lower level unnamed staffers apply general guidelines, etc.
All this talk about pornography: Nudity is not always pornography….
I would totally understand if Apple allows apps with nudity, but not allows apps with people shagging around (which would be pornography). That is a separation that makes total sense to me.
So I am not quite sure about the confusion here? Or am I the only one with this opinion??
Okay, but this app had topless women. Apple used the term “pornography”
Actually, you don’t know what was in the application. From what I saw, there was full frontal nudity, AND the developer was requesting that people submit porn. This was right in the iTunes App Store’s content.
I think apple used the term pornography to indicate pornography, which WAS in this application.
As a developer of iPhone apps, I must admit I’m fairly disillusioned by the whole process. My first app was rejected four times, understandably, before being accepted, and each time reviewers came back after about five days with some feedback.
My second app was rejected twice, each after about a five day period. That was was 45 days ago, at which point Apple forgot about it, and my app has been in review ever since. They seem to be stalling. I received an email saying “We encountered a file corruption issue with your submission.”
And then a few weeks later…
“Your application is requiring unexpected additional time for review. We apologize for the delay.”
And then…
“…Each application submitted to Apple has different capabilities, features, and complexity, which means that individual review times vary. Once the application review process has been completed, you will receive an email notification….”
The last one was a week ago. Still waiting, Apple! Please don’t let it be nine months…
The sloppy job is referring to modest nude pictures as “pornography”. This isn’t Valleywag…is it?
Again: Okay, but this app had topless women. Apple used the term “pornography”
MG, you keep repeating this phrase:
“this app had topless women. Apple used the term “pornography””
Why not articulate where the difference in terms lies for us? To me, porn is content designed to incite sexual excitement in the viewer. Nudity can be used in the service of making porn, but doesn’t have to be which I think you’re appreciating but applying rigidly.
Steve Jobs has returned to working at Apple — Jobs says he will make the executive decision within the next 48 hours — and the App team will be purged, and replaced –
We are developers and the situation is even more strange. We have 3 apps pending with bikini girls and we do have direct contracts with the copyright owners – well known professional photographers. Our Apps – who are PG rated – gets rejected because of 3 pics which the examiner at Apple doesn´t like. We had them removed and re-submitted just to get another rejection for 2 different photos from the same set. We removed them just to get a week later another rejection with another photo which was not detected the previous rounds!! After removal and re-submission 4 weeks ago, we never heard from Apple since.
Well, so far a “normal” story. Here is the ugly taste. Some of the very same pictures found they way into some apps in the store and it seems Apple doesn´t care.
“Apple will not distribute applications that contain inappropriate content, such as pornography. ”
And what else is innapropriate besides pornography? Nudity? All everyone wants is that Apple clarifies this mess and here they are again making it even worse.
How can they hope to have more people developing for the iPhone with all this crap going on? You have to pay $99 just to get an App there and still risk having it rejected for some reason they don’t even mention.
Whenever i see these news I am utterly confused. Would some American who actually holds the beliefs that sex is bad explain to us why they think so and why is the whole “no sex” cause one worth fighting for ? Also, why is this a focus of attention that is so much more effective than, say, fighting depiction of human violence and murder ? The first appears to be such a consensus that it truly boggles the mind.
I don’t get it at all, so I am asking for an honest answer from people who actually hold these beliefs.
The Gatekeeper is in charge . . . or is it the Keymaster . . . . hmmm . . .
As an iPhone developer I can tell you catagorically we had an app knocked back for a technical issue, changed nothing and then it was magically approved. Conversely we have another absolutely fantastic app unlike anything in the store and completely within the guidleines – and 2 months on no word. Finally we have a swimsuit app commissioned by a large media co. which leaves all these crappy no-name bikini apps (with their low-res images stolen from the web) in the dust. Waiting time to date 23 days!
At the end of the day Yes it is Apple’s store but I think it only fair that they be CONSISTENT in their rulings.
Sounds like the app review team is channeling Wacko-Jacko.
When you have small number of people making the decision as to what is acceptable or not for the masses, this is bound to happen.
it’s not that it had nudity, it’s that it has nudity and non-static content. it’s okay for the appstore to approve leisure suit larry for +17 purchase, it’s not okay for them to approve a swimsuit model catalog, and end up with explicit spread speculum shots…
they just want to retain control of the content that does appear on their platform
If you think these guidelines are onerous and difficult to navigate, you should try delivering content via SMS or MMS to the non-iPhone toting population in the US. The carriers take an even more prudish stance on “inappropriate” content, which has seen campaigns involving anything from bikinis to abortion clinic locations get barred from the network.
MG, we know the app store sucks. Even totally unsuspicious apps like a word game gets rejected.
the growing Android market has much less problems, but the option to sell apps is not yet open to international sellers
What a great question! “Who Exactly Is In Charge Of The App Store? Anyone?”
We need more clarity on this. Hey maybe no one is incharge and its just an automated rejection process (Doubt it)!
Anyway, free apps anyone??? no porn or nudity apps though :-( http://www.appgiveaway.com
Also, check out what’s happening with phonegap-based apps: http://www.read...iphone_apps.php
I’m currently experiencing Apple’s inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary approval process first hand. Our new app Line2, which will allow a person to add a second phone line with separate VM, history, and contacts to their iPhone, was rejected on Wednesday. I appealed the rejection and even got a response from Apple EVP Phil Shiller himself, but he supported the decision.
Here’s what transpired: Line2 offers a 30 day free trial, and then requires a monthly subscription of $14.95/month for unlimited US/Canada calling and cheap internatonal rates. (The calls go over cellular – so you don’t need to connect to wifi to use it. ) Apple rejected it, citing section 3.3.3 of the T&C, whcih says that no features or functionality can be enabled outside of the iTunes system. But our free trial version is identical to the subscription version. Basically Apple wants their 30% of our subscription fee.
On the surface that seems understandable, but our app is really just an additional way to tap into our hosted PBX system, which offers many other features (like multiple line support, auto-attendant, etc) that are all included in the $14.95. Apple’s demand for a share of our revenue, which is primarily for services NOT provided on the iPhone, is totally unfair.
Additionally, it is inconsistent with other approved apps which do require outside subscriptions, such as XM radio, Direct TV. Also, as reported here in techcrunch, Google Voice is going to provide a consumer version of what we offer in their app, which will also require payment for international minutes outside of the iTunes system. Is Apple going to reject that? With Eric Schmidt on their board? Doubtful! Yet if they approve that but don’t approve Line2, then they are truly being arbitrary and providing unfair competive advantage in a purely arbitrary manner.
Still hoping to get Line2 approved – its a very valuable tool – particular for business owners and entrepreneurs who want to keep their business and personal lives separated on one phone – but its clearly going to be a battle.
I’d be interested to see if other posters can cite additional examples of this seemingly arbitrary behavior, and whether any folks have suggestions on how I might get Apple to change their mind.
Apple fan boys make me life. they will justify anything apple does.
if it was banned by a non-apple company then everyone would have been jumping up and down in anger. since its apple doing ut so it must be cool to do. lame isheeps.
YESTERDAY: The iPhone is GOD!
TODAY: The iPhone SUCKS!!
TOMORROW: The iPhone is AWESOME!!!
NEXT DAY: The iPhone _________ !!!!
————————————-
Moral of the story: Make up your damn minds.
This article is about the App Store approval process.
Clearly, the iPhone has been and continues to be “AWESOME!!!” or no one would be writing this many articles about it to begin with…
MGZ
MG –
As a developer, I’d like to share some of my team’s experience with you.
About two months back you featured a story about our first app, PrudeBox:
http://www.crun...ight-year-olds/
It was approved by simply changing the image assets around to look more… queer? Surprisingly enough the app has been quite successful (we’re even giving it away for FREE until Sunday 6/29). With that said we’ve developed about six other apps since. Two of those applications keep getting rejected from the App Store. We simply cannot figure out why. It’s another soundboard application that has good/evil quotes to annoy or satisfy your significant other (no cursing or explicit insinuations involved, read more about it here: http://www.alka...-to-talk-again/).
After being denied for the third time, we decided to wait until iPhone OS 3.0 was released and submit it with a 17+ rating. And what do you know – we get denied once again – for the same reason as every other time before: Explicit and offensive content.
It was brought me to the very real conclusion — parental controls are just smoke and mirrors. PG-13+ content will *never* be allowed in the App Store until the “Explicit and Offensive content” clause is removed from the Developer T&Cs. Under that assumption, you can plan on never, ever having PG-13+ content grace the App Store (for more than a day – given past experiences with ‘Baby Shaker’ and ‘Hottest Girls’).
I’m sure any other developer on here can lament with the fact that the App Store approval process will seemingly never get better.
Whoops.. forgot to include (above) the link to the free PrudeBox app we’re giving away: http://bit.ly/prudebox
It should be funny to note that the developer’s website seems to have disappeared, along with every other application he wrote on the app store. Apparently not the app itself has stopped working.
So… I think a lot of people got punked $1.99 yesterday. Fun, yes?
My app Bailout Bucks featured no nudity at all, yet I was rejected 3 times due to (1) pictures of live politicians and the like (2) then dead ones and names like John Hancock (3) then mentioning iPhone 3.0 right before WWDC. About to try again…
Okay, clarification to many:
Topless women falls under “softcore pornography”, which means, porn. No question asked.
Also, apple will soon change the app store rating description for 17+, the will removed the word, pornography, since pornography is banned.
Second, if you don’t like Apple’s app store approval policy, do me a favor: iPhone and iPod touch is not the right device for you. Also, a mac may not be the computer you might want to own. It’s Apple’s call in the end, no questions asked.
Third, if you are under contract, technically, it’s not your phone, but at&t’s. You are simply borrowing the phone, and simply paying back the phone for ownership via $199 and $299 initial fee, followed by monthly fee in the at&t bill.
Finally, at&t gets the ultimate say in the apps in the app store. Apple does the review part, at&t does the final call, since many of the iPhone is used on at&t’s network.
Wouldn’t Palm be the likeliest choice for porn apps?
So, I’m one of the leading developers of Japanese “dating-sim” games, porting Japanese games to English (jlist.com is our website). I’d *love* to be able to consider even making a non-adult version of one of my games on the iPhone, but Apple’s schizophrenia on the subject has me not wanting to bother. What a shame that they can’t make up their mind.
How can “GOOD IN BED” be a app thats approved…. Its also kinda sexual even though there are no bikini models…. If apps like iSutra gets rejected these apps sud also not be allowed in store….
http://itunes.a...821394&mt=8