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...
- Apple Takes Heat For Software Lock That Prevents iPhone 7 Home Button Replacement By Third-Party Vendors
- DOJ Argues For iPhone Hack Secrecy By Contradicting Statements Made By The DOJ
- PayPal Kills Canadian Paper's Submission To Media Awards Because Article Had Word 'Syrian' In The Title
- FBI Releases A Stack Of Redactions In Response To FOIA Request For Info On Its Purchased iPhone Hack
- Single Choke Point Problems: Apple Removes NY Times App From Chinese App Store After Chinese Gov't Complains