FAIR REJECTION: “fitness video” (with huge breasts)
Did you know you can be rejected for the mature / adult content of your application *icon*?. Sadly, this one is also a great example of some of the laughable, self-serving appeals that Apple have to put up with from the … less reasonable … app-developers.
Put yourself in my shoes:
You are a developer. You decide to branch out into the fitness category. You build an app featuring an extremely popular YouTube broadcaster [who happens to wear push-up bras and reveal LOTS of cleavage in her videos]
This particular trainer’s defining feature is her abdominals, so naturally you make the app’s icon an image of her abs.
[...and then you complain bitterly when Apple says that a 4+ age rating is too low]
Emphasis mine. Judge for yourself, here’s the image the developer used:
Go on, admit it – the first thing you noticed was the woman’s *abs*, yes?
It’s an interesting point – the developer claims that Apple never looked at the app itself – they rejected it on the icon alone. IMHO, it’s a totally fair rejection, but it’s something to be aware of if – like the developer in question – you’re flirting with using Sex as a sales technique:
Is the icon sexy? Of course, I chose an icon I thought would catch the eye, … and drive downloads
Developer thoughts
Well, of course Apple’s in the clear on this one. I normally wouldn’t feature a “yes, it was clearly going to be rejected”, but the combination of icon-only rejection, and a great example of a whining developer made it interesting enough IMHO.
The developer felt aggrieved that Apple insisted on a 12+ rating if they continued to use that icon (NB: screenshots of the app suggest this icon if anything under-presents how much cleavage is in display during the videos).
Guess what folks? Apple rejected this app because they, apparently, found the icon to be… well, at the very least, not all ages.
…
The best I can tell is Apple finds a clothed woman lifting weights to be obscene, by some utterly bizarre definition of obscenity.
…
I’ve emailed the review team asking them to kindly approve the app ASAP rather than keeping it in the queue for 10 more days.
…
I’m not sure if they object to a woman exercising, or if they simply feel that the female body should be covered head to toe to hide its shameful vulgarity.
So, if you find yourself wondering one day “what’s taking them so long? Why has Apple not even started reviewing my App yet? What can be keeping them busy?”, at least some of it is dealing with situations like this one…
December 4th, 2009 at 3:00 am
Yes. You can also get rejected for simply having a certain *word* in the name of the app. Mobitouch’s Orgasmatron app was rejected because it had orgasm in the name. What’s next, banning books based on the cover?
We changed the name then Apple said the *sound* the model makes in the app was offensive. It’s the sound of a woman having an orgasm, which is sold freely in iTunes songs BTW, sans explicit warning. Jungle Fever by the Chakakas, anyone?
Developers will leave the platform for Android if Apple is successful at becoming taste maker for the world.
December 4th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
The developer is on the opposite end of the spectrum from Apple. Apple knows that LOTS of kids use their iPhone and iPod touch, and they don’t want to have to risk dealing with any complaining parents, nor do they want to encourage inappropriate things before children. I’d like to ask that developer, “Would you show porn to a child?” If he’d answer “no,” then obviously a woman’s body should be covered. If he’d answer “yes,” then I hope he never procreates. It’s not about the obscenity (or lack thereof) of a woman’s scantily clad body, but rather that there is a time and place, and the place is the bedroom with your spouse, not on a phone that children use. That’s one practice I like from Apple, is a sense of modesty, although they do still allow apps that are nothing but girls in bikinis to be in the app store, but at least they don’t allow nudity.
December 5th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Uh, yeah that app was in the top 25 fitness apps for months, with the same icon posted above. Eventually Apple agreed with the dev and the app was approved unmodified.
So this post is a little stupid. It wasn’t a fair rejection, even in Apple’s eye, as they eventually approved it.
December 5th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
@AppDev
Thanks for the correction – good to know.
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Is there such a thing as a fair rejection? I suppose there is when the application contains malware or acts as some sort of virus might. Otherwise, there is no fair rejection. Apple’s treatment of the development community will only leave it in 2nd place after Android finally get’s some good hardware to run on.
December 25th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Really bro? A woman mid section fully clothed (see above image of “offensive” pic). Of you call that pornography you are the sicko that I hope never procreates. It is sad there are apps with nothing but scantily clad women who’s sole purpose seems to be for teenagers to oogle (us adults are hardly excited by that stuff). Then to see some nice abs in an entirely appropriate usage to be denied and you call it okay? Seriously do you have morals that make sense or just stick your finger in the air and see which way the wind was blowing?
December 26th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
@jbinfla
1. Please buy a dictionary and look up the meanings of “pornography” and “fully clothed”, you appear to be a little confused.
(although don’t google for “fully clothed”; that happens to also be a euphemism for certain sex practices)
2. I thought I was pretty clear in pointing out the problem: I have no personal issues with pornography, but I do have issues with disingenuously claiming innocence when you blatantly made a deliberate and cynical use of sex to sell an app.
Sex sells. We know this. I have no problem with that – but *Apple* has declared strict rules against it.
But if you break obvious the rules in an obvious way you are in a very different situation to those developers who accidentally break rules that are undocumented, or inappropriate.