Comments on: FAIR REJECTION: “fitness video” (with huge breasts)

By: adam

adam — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:37:44 +0000

@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.

By: JBinFla

JBinFla — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:09:23 +0000

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?

By: Chris Danielson

Chris Danielson — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:47:42 +0000

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.

By: adam

adam — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:33:44 +0000

@AppDev

Thanks for the correction – good to know.

By: AppDev

AppDev — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 07:53:49 +0000

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.

By: HR_19

HR_19 — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:49:10 +0000

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.

By: Gina DiStefani

Gina DiStefani — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:00:03 +0000

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.