There is one panel in the comic which does not contain any explicit or implied nudity that's censored, but which is still obviously sexual. I've no idea if blacking this panel out was Apple's idea and is consistent with other policies, or if the creators just decided to play it safe. And Apple's content regulation policies have never been consistently enforced, subject to individual reviewers' interpretations of what's kosher. (A particularly good reason why they should drop this process.)
Apple deserves much legitimate criticism over content regulation, but this article isn't an example of that.
Here's the iPhone dev agreement: http://www.eff.org/files/20100302_iphone_dev_agr.pdf
The only pertinent section I can find is:
"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."
Which, in matter of fact, does not prohibit nudity, but rather anything Apple thinks its users might be offended by. Nudity is in fact allowed. We can surmise this from the approval of "Fabulous nude paintings puzzle", and dozens more like it.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fabulous-nude-paintings-puzzl...
Stranger still, "iGirl uncut", where you can "Blow her, shake her, touch her and more", must not be obscene, objectionable, or pornographic.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/igirl-uncut/id300462216?mt=8
I agree with you: the panels are sexual. But Apple's policy clearly allows them to ban whatever the hell they feel like. When the enforcement of that policy is wildly inconsistent, it looks a hell of a lot like unjust content regulation to me.
As for the article's claim of homophobia, I don't have the grounds to claim the reviewers who censored this app were motivated by anti-gay sentiment, but I also wouldn't be surprised.
This is the sort of reverse thinking that makes no sense.
You've made a judgement there about the person who made this decision; in my mind there is no data on whether the reviewer has homophobic motives, but there is certainly data to show you've decided he/she probably is.
This is bad anti-think.
I'd argue the fact that the kiss is not blacked out is pretty solid evidence this was not motivated by homophobia.
EDIT: it was unfair to suggest Aphyr made a judgement. What I really meant is that bringing the suggestion of homophobia into the matter, with no grounds (which is what the article does) is counter-productive and damaging. I shouldn't have jumped on Aphyr to make that point :(
I apologise for insinuating you were judging (I agree that was uncalled for) but I think it's important nowadays that homophobia is never brought into these conversations unless there is obvious influence in such a decision.
It's counter productive to the whole equality battle.
It's consistent with their policy ... anything that many regular users find objectionable.
Talking about baning apps for the good of the iOS platform is one thing, baning actual content is another. I've lived a short period of time under a totalitarian regime ... nobody was homophobic as nobody talked about it, and content censorship was done for the good of the citizens. Not a good country to live in.
And I really don't get what's with all this protecting of children ... they have a curios nature, and if you don't educate them properly no amount of censorship will stop them from finding / getting what they want. Hiding stuff away doesn't work ... even if it does, it's only short-term as they are going to find out from their friends anyway.
Apple, you suck.
There appears to be nothing to suggest the fact that this is two men has anything to do with the censorship. Therefore suggesting it does derails the issue in the first place and propagates the remaining discrimination problem.
There is no homophobia in this issue (at least based on the information currently available) so those bringing it in are doing so for their own purpose (and generally they are doing untold damage to their own cause EDIT: I should point out this is a cause close to my heart also).
And I really don't get what's with all this protecting of children...
Agreed entirely.
Ha, yes. Well, you know what I meant. Not to be confused with I know it when I see it. :)
http://gizmodo.com/5562802/the-latest-examples-of-apples-stu...
Scroll down to see the example from the Apple-Approved Kick-ass comic, which did feature nudity as well as (hetero) sexual acts.
Apple seem to be on some content policing crusade which is ill judged IMHO, but it's fairly obvious why this is censored.
As davidedicillo pointed out, he attempts to work this into an anti-gay angle by pointing out how a comic book not directly reviewed by Apple (it is downloadable through a comic store app) containing more explicit heterosex was not similarly censored, which is about as airtight an analysis as you might expect from Fox News. He literally has nothing else to base his anti-homosexual conclusions on.
I do think Apple is fundamentally misguided in its attempts to regulate content, and they're only going to dig themselves into a deeper hole by doing anything beyond adopting ratings and age blockers. But unfortunately this article is a yet another example of anti-Apple hysteria fueled sensationalism.