Re:Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
by clawrencewenham on Monday April 12, 2010 @06:44PM
(#1260616)
They have been. Remember they expurgated all of the "sexy" apps a couple of months ago?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
by donaq on Monday April 12, 2010 @09:46PM
(#1260961)
Is iFart still there? If so, I call bullshit.
Re:Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
by clawrencewenham on Monday April 12, 2010 @10:31PM
(#1261023)
They killed "shake the baby", they didn't kill iFart. You try figuring out where to draw the line. But there is no doubt that they are culling apps for their content; "weeding" so to speak.
With 3.3.1 Apple is trying to control the overal UX. They can't reject bad music from the iTunes Store, but they can enforce basic encoding standards, so the music doesn't sound like crap for reasons other than the artistic content.
When they removed the "sexy" apps they were using a rule that could be made specific and enforced consistently. The picked adult content because of the peculiar standards that humans (and especially Americans) have when it comes to sex.
Or maybe it's really difficult to phrase a definition for "college humor".
Re:Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
by pohl on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:20AM
(#1261701)
Don't forget that a hypothetical rejection of iFart would have to be backed by legalese from the TOS. What phrasing would you suggest they add? (Alternatively, quote the existing clause you would have them invoke.)