Phil Schiller comments to The New York Times’s Jenna Wortham regarding Apple’s recent decision to remove sexually titillating apps from the App Store. I like how The Times uses the adjective “blue”. (I also love how The New York Times has published an article mentioning an app named “Dirty Fingers”.) I used “porno” the other day, but that’s clearly not just what’s been removed. I think the best adjective to describe what’s no longer allowed is “sexy”. The problem, though (in addition to the fact that saying “sexy apps are not allowed” sounds silly), is this:
Indeed, a Sports Illustrated application tied to its annual
swimsuit issue was still available for download on Monday, as was
one from Playboy.
When asked about the Sports Illustrated app, Mr. Schiller said
Apple took the source and intent of an app into consideration.
“The difference is this is a well-known company with previously
published material available broadly in a well-accepted
format,” he said.
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.
★ Tuesday, 23 February 2010