A few days ago, I’d heard rumblings of yet another porn app being rejected by Apple, but I didn’t think much of it since that’s nothing new. But then, a friend of mine sent me a link to a video that showed off the app, so I took a look.
The guy behind the app, multidisciplinary visual artist Luciano Foglia, says it doesn’t violate Apple’s terms. It has no pornographic or erotic images, it simply alludes to eroticism. Here’s the video:
After watching that demo, I’m not quite sure what to think. It certainly is erotically allusive, but is it pornographic? Porn is generally considered to be something designed to provoke sexual arousal. While this app doesn’t use the traditional imagery associated with porn (i.e. naked people), it could be argued that its purpose is indeed to arouse, in which case Apple would be right in rejecting it.
Then again, it could be argued this is an artistic app that only provokes such thoughts in those who choose to see it that way.
Either way, it’s a head-scratcher.
Marc Venot
March 23, 2012 at 12:57 am
“in which case Apple would be right in rejecting it.” no, Apple is in its rights to do whatever it wants.
Chris C.
March 23, 2012 at 1:26 am
Marc Venot wrote: ““in which case Apple would be right in rejecting it.” no, Apple is in its rights to do whatever it wants.”
Which is exactly why I would NEVER buy an Apple product… Who are they to dictate what their users are allowed to install on their equipment?
As for the app being pornographic… Puh-lease! There’s way more risqué stuff in the National Gallery… As for its ability to arouse… You got to be kidding me!
My opinion? Just another example of Apple’s bigotry and of the growing global disease of Political Correctness…
russellmcormond
March 23, 2012 at 12:23 pm
When the MPAA puts a rating on a movie, they aren’t censoring it.
If a traditional retailer decides not to carry a particular title, that too is not censorship.
But Apple lobbied for, and obtained from technologically illiterate politicians, an anti-competitive tie between their App store and devices which they manufactured (but do *NOT* own). This government protection of this tie is a big-government manipulation of the market which requires some oversight. It is not valid to claim that this is a matter of consumer choice as choices for one type of product should not be tied to choices in another market: that is why we have competition/anti-trust laws, to protect from this type of market harm where consumer choice is ineffective and free markets are disabled.
Apple shouldn’t be allowed to have it both ways: falsely claim to just be a retailer, while being the beneficiary of a tie between unrelated product lines which remove choices from anyone who inadvertently made the bad choice to purchase one of their products/services.
Note: Like Chris C. I am not a customer of any Apple product or service. That said, their government lobbying still harms me so I oppose Apple not as a “consumer choice” but as a political opponent. Unlike Apple, I respect basic concepts of capitalism, free markets and property rights and will continue to fight their attacks on these concepts.