UPDATED: Is Apple Preparing To Add An ‘Explicit’ Section To The App Store?

By Craig Grannell (6:31 am, Feb 24 2010)

Over the past few days, Cult of Mac has closely followed Apple’s divisive decision to remove “overtly sexual” apps from the App Store. Some apps caught in the purge (such as videogame Daisy Mae and swimwear retailer Simply Beach) have been reinstated and others have not (notably iWobble). Although some welcome Apple’s puritanical stance, others (including this writer) claim Apple is being hypocritical in allowing Playboy and Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue to remain on the App Store, despite similar (and, in some cases, even less “overtly sexual”) apps being banned.

A developer writes to us and says this might all be academic soon: “Looks like Apple are adding a category called Explicit to the App Store,” he says, providing the following grab:

UPDATED: Is Apple Preparing To Add An ‘Explicit’ Section To The App Store?

The developer adds: “It’s available for selection when adding a new app to iTunesConnect although I can’t see any sign of it in the actual App Store yet.”

Update: We’ve since been contacted by two sources that claim the category is gone. However, the information we posted earlier was independently verified by a number of other sources, some of which supplied other images, for example: Macworld, Recombu, 9to5Mac and MacRumors. Either Apple removed the category after it got widely reported after we broke the story or it’s only visible to some developers.

Update 2: The developer who originally contacted us says: “I can confirm that the category has been removed from iTunesConnect. Not sure what Apple was doing!”. Gizmodo corroborates this, quoting a developer who spoke directly to an Apple rep, who said that while the company is considering an explicit category “it’s not going to happen anytime soon”. Then again, knowing Apple’s back-and-forth approach on this subject over the past few days, it may well show up over the weekend. Make up your mind, guys.

12 comments »

About the author

Craig Grannell is Cult of Mac's designer and an occasional contributor. He also runs iPhoneTiny.com, a Twitter-driven reviews site for iPhone apps and games. Follow Craig on Twitter @CraigGrannell and visit his website, Snub Communications.

(sorry, you need Javascript to see this e-mail address)| Read more posts by Craig Grannell.

Posted in iPhone Apps, News, Top stories |

http://ihbs.co.uk Ben
good step, but it wont solve the problem of those irritating boob apps scattered all over the top 25 lists
pidriu
i think itsa good idea
http://www.snubcommunications.com Craig Grannell
@Ben: I’d be amazed if ‘explicit’ apps weren’t a) banned from the top-selling lists, and b) banned from devices with parental controls involved.
Of course, the next shit-storm will be down to what Apple considers ‘explicit’.
Don Pope
This is very good. It makes it easy to filter by “Explicit” to find my porn.
Andrew
iTunes hmm..,. I’ll bet this is for music which have used the â€œExplicitâ€ tag on lyrics for years. Mandated I think and or a voluntary mandate by the music industry
Chris12163
Good article. I hope this is the case for Apple since they got rid of many of the overly sexual apps. I think they should leave the plyboy app and all that since their the MAIN sexual apps and wouldn’t look good if they got rid of them. Adding a Explicit catergory may be cool but I’m really not sure that’s a good idea since many users of iPhone and itouches would have sexual/porn apps, especially kids but I hope parents get and focus on their youngsters with parental control. I would love a explicit game though :)
Phil
This category is simply not there. Photoshop job.
http://www.snubcommunications.com Craig Grannell
@Phil: See my update. Since we broke this story, the information has been corroborated by several other major Mac news sources, some of which have provided images supplied by developers.
zato
“Although some welcome Appleâ€™s puritanical stance, others (including this writer) claim Apple is being hypocritical ”
Well who would have guessed that this anti-Apple propaganda site would find something to complain about. Let’s see what your bosses at Microsoft do when they have a real App store.
http://www.snubcommunications.com Craig Grannell
Bwa? That really is the most insane comment I’ve read these past few days—and there has been plenty of crazy.
Still, I guess I’ll have to think long and hard about my ‘anti-Apple’ stance, while I shut down my iMac and take my iPhone with me for the night.
http://alastairs-place.net alastair
I don’t think they’re being hypocritical or puritanical, actually. IMO you’re looking at it from the wrong angle.
Apple is worried about its *brand* being associated with pornography. In the case of things like Playboy, it isn’t worried because everyone knows that Playboy is Playboy and Apple is Apple, but an awful lot of people are too ignorant to understand that Apple isn’t the author of the apps on the App Store. Indeed, there have even been misdirected lawsuits as a result, targeting Apple for something a third-party application did.
I think if you look at things from this perspective, Apple’s actions make a whole lot more sense.
Charli
yes alastair you are correct in some ways. Also even as merely the distributor, Apple would be party to any Obscenity suits regarding said apps. so even if you discount the basic “it is their store they can sell or not sell what they want” truth, the legal risk is there as well. Which is why it appears they yanked all possible offenders and are reviewing those that were not also app spam for possible reinstatement. Something that was possibly in the cards from the start by the pissed off developers failed to mention cause raising ire is more fun and if they failed the retest would hopefully push some folks into jailbreaking and buying the apps directly (where they would get 100% of the money so win for the devo)