Register Log in

Infinite Loop / The Apple Ecosystem

Apple VP attempts to explain double standard for risqué apps

Apple's Phil Schiller has addressed the issue of the recent purge of sexually …

Apple recently began purging over 5,000 "overtly sexual" apps from the App Store after customer complaints caused Apple to reverse a policy that had allowed such apps to be approved. The New York Times recently asked Apple's SVP of worldwide marketing, Phil Schiller, to explain the reasoning behind the decision, and he says that it's all about the children. However, there might be a double standard if you are an "established brand" such as Playboy or Sports Illustrated. The uneven application of constantly changing standards is a problem for developers and users alike, and continues to be a thorn in Apple's side.

Originally, Apple tended to fall on the side of banning anything from the App Store that had sexual overtones, including e-book reading apps that could potentially access a text-only version of the Kama Sutra. Apple extended Parental Controls to the App Store with iPhone OS 3.0, and the policy became more lenient on apps that were rated 17+. However, it was later discovered that children could access apps that sometimes had salacious descriptions and screenshots, even if they couldn't actually buy them.

Apple began requiring that all screenshots be acceptable for a 4+ rating, then later blocked screenshots that didn't match the age rating in Parental Controls in iTunes (as they were in the on-device App Store app). Despite these changes, Apple also began a wholesale campaign to purge "overtly sexual" apps from the App Store altogether, citing "numerous complaints" from customers.


Many people agreed with the change, including a number of Ars readers, noting that thousands of similar sexual-themed apps "clogged" the App Store, especially the "lifestyle" and "entertainment" categories.

However, it seems an exception might be made for well-known sources such as Sports Illustrated or Playboy. When asked specifically why Sports Illustrated's app, which features images from its swimsuit issues, was allowed to remain, Schiller said that the source and intent were deciding factors. "The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format," he told NYT. It's worth noting, though, that much of swimsuit issue material is very similar in content and intent to a number of the apps that were taken down, even if the presentation is less crass.

Developers unsurprisingly object to giving large companies special treatment. "I think every developer has the right to publish their work regardless of whether they're 'well-known' or not," developer Craig Hockenberry said via Twitter. "My fear is that an App Store full of 'big players' is going to be a pretty boring place. Innovation tends to happen with smaller developers," he explained.

The double standard resulted in an app from an online swimsuit retailer, which showed pictures of models wearing the items for sale, getting cut from the App Store while a similar app from Victoria's Secret still remains. (UPDATE: AppleInsider reports that the app in question, Simply Beach, was quietly reinstated today by Apple with no notice to the developer.)

The problem isn't even that Apple considers the source or the intent or is interested in making sure the App Store is a friendly place for kids and parents. The problem is that all its various unpublished policies of what is acceptable and what is not are applied unevenly and at times arbitrarily. From a developer's point of view, there's no reliable way to know beforehand if an app will cross one of Apple's invisible lines or not.

There are two much simpler ways for Apple to address apps that contain explicit or otherwise objectionable material that should satisfy every party involved, including Apple, developers, children, parents, and other App Store users. Apple could improve the Parental Controls and its associated ratings to classify any apps that might cross the line to a specific category, such as "adult." Then allow those apps to be filtered from browsing and search results. Parents can limit what their kids might see, and those that object to such apps can simply be none the wiser to their existence.

Alternately, Apple could allow users to load apps from any source, as Google allows on Android. The App Store then becomes a place for those that prefer a curated, vetted source for apps, and users that don't mind walking on the wild side can look elsewhere. Parental Controls could even have an option to prevent "side-loading" third-party apps.

"We obviously care about developers, but in the end have to put the needs of the kids and parents first," Schiller told the Times. We believe it's possible for Apple to address everyone's needs without summarily rejecting "overtly sexual" content, or creating confusing, arbitrary policies about what content is acceptable and what is not.

Expand full story

You must to comment.

Need to register for a new account?

If you don't have an account yet it's free and easy.