by Mike Masnick
Thu, Jun 11th 2009 11:34am
The near total arbitrariness of Apple's iPhone morality police continues... We've already noted how odd it is that certain apps got rejected -- such as an eBook reader that users might, possibly be able to read the Kama Sutra with, because it provided access to the public domain library at Project Gutenberg. Never mind the fact that the same content could be accessed easily via a browser -- such as the included Safari browser on the iPhone. However, other apps seem to get through with no problem. Dave Title notes that Apple apparently had no problem with a Suicide Girls' app that allowed users to "strip" women down to their underwear simply by flipping the phone. It's a silly meaningless app (and doesn't contain any actual nudity), but it does make you wonder. Why is one app potentially harmful according to Apple's morality police, while the other is perfectly fine?
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Why Apple Removing The Audio Jack From The iPhone Would Be A Very, Very, Very, Bad Move
- Beijing Regulators Block Sales Of iPhones, Claiming The Design Is Too Close To Chinese Company's Phone
- FBI Won't Tell Me How Much It Paid To Break Into Syed Farook's iPhone, Saying It Might Jeopardize Its Investigation
- Apple, Arbiters Of Art, Say Game About Surviving The Gaza Strip Isn't A Game, Even Though It Is
- DOJ Drops Other Big Case Over iPhone Encryption After Defendant Suddenly Remembers His Passcode