The Truth Behind the Forbidden Apple iPhone Apps

According to dozens of news outlets, including Fox News, the Apple iTunes Application store has a few thousand fewer apps this week. Apple has decided to ban over 5,000 applications that have been deemed too "sexy" or inappropriate by the the maker of the iPhone and the iPod Touch. Starting late last week, thousands of applications simply ceased to be listed in iTunes, and software developers received notices that their applications were in violation of the iTunes Store standards. Even though these applications were previously approved, they have suddenly become objectionable.

Some of the recently banned applications include the Wooble iBoobs application and the Yoga4Dudes Yoga application. Both of these applications, were pulled without warning and without compensating iPhone and iPod owners who have previously purchased the applications. The Wobble application featured no actual content, instead it allowed users to add a motion sensitive "wobble" to a photograph, and the Yoga4Dudes application featured movie clips of women doing Yoga in bikinis. Interestingly, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit application and the Playboy application are still both available via iTunes. Somehow, those two applications are appropriate where the other 5000 are not.

In a New York Times article, head of product marketing, Philip W. Schiller, commented on the ban. He stated, "It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable, as well as parents who were upset with what their kids were able to see." According to Schiller, women are concerned about females in bikinis doing yoga, but not females in bikinis posing for photos or prancing in a Playboy Centerfold. Personally, I think this reasoning behind the ban is bogus, but there is a more plausible and reasonable answer - the iPad is coming.

No one really cares if a person watches sexy movies or browses "wobbly" images on a tiny iPod Touch or iPhone screen. After all, if you are more than two or three feet away, it is impossible to tell what a person is actually doing on an iPod Touch screen. On the iPad, with its 9.7 inch screen, those same images would be a virtual billboard for "wobbly iBoobs". An iPad owner sitting on a bus or a subway would be flaunting whatever "objectionable" content s/he might be enjoying. With such a high profile, flagship computing appliance coming, Apple feels the need to control what content people associate with with the Apple brand. They feel completely justified in censoring their users to ensure that the Apple name appears spotless. So, why the Sports Illustrated and Playboy application have not been censored? Easy - they have pockets deep enough to sue to have their development and advertising costs recouped.

Personally, I did not own, nor do I want any of the banned applications on my iPhone, but there is a principle at stake here. Who truly owns an iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad? Is it the person who purchases the hardware or is it the person who deems what content is approved to be loaded on the device? If I spend a few hundred dollars on a computing device, I should have the final say on what applications are stored and what information is viewed. It would appear that Phillip Schiller and Steve Jobs do not agree. They seem to feel that Apple's brand name and corporate image are more important than your first amendment rights, a developer's income, and the money that you spend on applications.