Why is Apple pulling blue.. er, porn.. er, "adult" content from its App Store? Is it to cleanse it ahead of the launch of the larger-screen iPad? Is it a sudden fit of blue-stockinged horror at the sight of what Gok Wan would term ladies' "bangers"?
Apple announced the change (to developers) in an email last Friday: "We have decided to remove any overtly sexual content from the App Store, which includes your application," the letter from the iPhone App Review department reads. "Thank you for your understanding in this matter. If you believe you can make the necessary changes so that [app name] complies with our recent changes, we encourage you to do so and resubmit for review."
Why? Why why why? And what is "overtly sexual"? The vagueness of the phrasing is annoying iPhone developers, who would like to know why the criteria for getting an app approved in the iPhone App Store have changed yet again. Getting an app approved - and getting it to stay approved - sometimes seems less like moving goalposts than being Harry Potter chasing the darting, elusive golden snitch in a game of Quidditch.
What is clear is that hundreds of apps that incorporate, um, bangers and so on have been removed from the store. And now Phil Schiller, Apple's vice-president of marketing, has sort-of explained why to the New York Times.
"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," Schiller told the NYT.
OK, Mr Schiller, that's helpful. Um - by the way, why can one still get Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue [although the swimsuits stay resolutely on - CA] and Playboy [where they don't]?
At this point things get a little more slippery. "The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format," he said (of Sports Illustrated, though the logic must also apply to Playboy).
So - well-known company's breasts good; startup never-heard-of-ya company's breasts bad. And stay with us, because we have fully-clothed breasts bad too. (Update: or not. stay tuned.)
The move hasn't exactly pleased, or made sense to, developers or commentators.
John Gruber, whose Daring Fireball blog reflects and links to plenty of developer reaction, comments:
"I don't see how it's anything other than hypocrisy to say that Time Warner can have an app showing swimsuit models and others cannot. I totally understand Apple's desire to keep the App Store free of flat-out or even borderline pornography. I do not think it's wise to remove/ban R-rated content, though — isn't that exactly what the 17+ rating is for?
"But to allow Sports Illustrated and Playboy to publish it and others not? That's bullshit."
However at the WSJ-owned AllThingsD blog, Kara Swisher suggests that it's a storm in a teacup:
"For anyone with even a passing knowledge of Web history, this practice [of hypocrisy over sexual content] has been all too common.
She explains:
"AOL, which I dubbed "The House Sex Chat Built" in my first book about the once popular service, drastically cut back on its sexually controversial stuff, as it moved to the mainstream. In fact, it even considered doing a separate gated business that dealt with racier online fare.
"Perhaps Apple will do this, creating an area of the App Store that is much more clearly blocked and less accessible. And perhaps not. After all, it is Apple's App Store and not subject to collective decision-making by those who think it a basic right to swipe clothes off a lady on the iPhone."
Well, OK, but it gets weirder. A maker of real swimsuits has found their app removed from the store: "Designer swimwear retailer Simply Beach, based in the UK, was removed from the iPhone and iPod touch App Store last Friday - and received the same "overtly sexual" email as other folk.
It's one thing to say that you don't want to have "overtly sexual" content in your store. However it makes no sense to ban non-sexual swimwear companies while allowing overtly sexual content such as Playboy. It's not just hypocritical - it's contradictory, absurd and quite possibly puts Apple in a position where it could get sued for unfair restraint of trade and misrepresentation. That's not smart. Especially not when it has a "17+" category of apps which warn people.
Is the problem that the strait-laced Americans can't bear to see search results that hint at sex and sexuality? (The Americans are so strange: a fabulous First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, and then a madly restrictive approach to such speech.) Then why not check the age of the person using the store (you need to have a credit card and give a birthday, surely?) and only provide age-appropriate apps?
Truly, it's a strange story which is only going to get more heated in the weeks ahead.
Update: we've now heard from the developer of the Swim Beach app and the company itself that the app has been reinstated "without any accompanying communication". The developer, Andrew Long of Exploding Phone, writes: " It can take a little while for application status changes to propagate their way into the app store which is probably why you couldn't see it last night." The same seems to have happened to the Daisy Mae's Alien Buffet application, which was out, and then returned. See below for a video of Ms Mae at work.
Meanwhile, if you're a developer who's got an app in the Store that's been banned (or reinstated), we'd love to hear from you - email me (charles.arthur@guardian.co.uk).
(Weds 1020am GMT: Post updated with new information, some tweaks to style.)
