
IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes - varl
http://ikamasutra.com/blog/
======
hef19898
Are we all going nuts nowadays? Really, to remove a product from your store
(which also happens to be a monopolistic sales channel) after it was there for
years and recieved several updates since without any dialog with the producer
of the product is bad style, really bad style.

Especially if the producer is willing to change the product to fit your
requirements.

Some time ago almost everyone agreed that Nokia failed also due to a lack of
developers for Simbia, do you really think treating developers with a proven
track record like that will do you any good?

I really hope that this issue is solved to the satisfaction of every party
involved and the app will be back soon.

Ah, and finally, if this was due to the "sexual content" the only thing left
to say is "brave new world". And that from a company that help to battle
SOPA...

~~~
blindhippo
Sadly, developers are stuck with Apple being our app approval overlord - and
Apple knows it.

There really isn't any competition in the app "market" because Apple is far
too big to really allow for it. Any and all of these smart phone platforms
need to be legislated to provide opportunity for different store fronts beyond
the platform provider.

Apple really is the 21st century Microsoft.

~~~
petercooper
Yep, and in Mountain Lion, it's coming to the desktop too.. I wouldn't be
surprised if Safari can only load approved sites by default in 10.9 at this
rate.

------
antirez
The problem is that "app approval" does not scale well, for a very simple
reason: it is hard. Applying guidelines like the ones Apple uses, requires a
_very skilled_ individual that is able to evaluate at the same time a set of
rules in a flexible way, and really understand if the app is good for the
apple store or not. You can do that if you have a team of 20. Finding 300
people doing this work very well is going to be very hard, and you need to pay
more as this must be people that at the same time understand design,
programming (if you read the rules thare are many that without understanding
of software are hard to apply), and at the same time able to find a good
balance between flexibility and severity. Not an easy task at all.

Maybe they could improve the process with the following schema:

* Instead of doing a single longer review, a few of your approval team will review the app briefly, and provide a score between 1 and 5 of "acceptability".

* If the score is 4 or 5, go forward. If the score is <= 3 send it to a more expert reviewer that will do an in depth analysis.

Optionally also discard the app if the average score is <= 1.5 if there are
problems with the "load" of the experts.

~~~
bambax
In this case the crux of the problem is that they're deleting an app that's
almost as old as the app store itself.

Curating content is almost impossible to do; app stores should limit their
reviews to exclude:

\- viruses

\- _blatant_ spam and copyright violations

and THAT'S IT. Assessing the quality of an app is what users' ratings are for
(and of course excluding adult content is just childish).

~~~
excuse-me
App stores should do what is good for their shareholders

Apple is trying to move from being the cool kids counter-culture creative
types alternative to the PC to being the corporate acceptable alternative to
the Blackberry.

A story about karmasutra apps or ifart in the WSJ could cause a CEO to change
their mind about allowing users to use their iPhone on the corp network.

And of course the best way of preventing such a story is, as we all know, to
make a big splash about banning such an app

~~~
chris_wot
And yet... There are still Karma sutra apps on the Apple network. And a LOT of
fart apps. If what you say is true, then why hasn't Apple removed them?

~~~
alexbell
The problem is the human element. If you are doing something that can in some
way be construed as going against the app store guidelines, eventually you are
going to get a reviewer who rejects/takes down your app. Even if other
reviewers knew that your app had been around for ever, you are eventually
going to run into one who doesn't, or feels it's his/her job to be as strict
as possible. There is very little consistency in Apple's process because of
this. The company I work for has had apps rejected for things we've done
literally about a dozen times before, and we certainly knew were border line
but we figured were OK because it had been allowed so many times before. But
eventually we run into a reviewer who for whatever reason, rejects something
that we've done tons of times before.

Overall I think Apple's process works, but the inconsistency is just
ridiculous. Especially when your releases are time critical.

------
spinchange
Sergey said that Apple and Facebook are a threat to freedom on the web, but I
submit that commercial 'app stores' like Google Play and Apple's AppStore are
the real threat. They have all the control and solely get to decide what is
acceptable or not (while reserving the right to change their mind later).
Google Play won't even let you rent a video from the store if it detects your
phone has been rooted. This sucks. We've gained all this freedom and control
with free software and the web, etc, and now we're going to give it all away
to these stupid commercial app stores.

~~~
AndrewDucker
I disagree regarding Google Play.

Appstore is a threat because if you want software on your Apple phone then it
is the only legal method.

But with Android you can install software from any app store you like, or
directly. Google provide an app store as a service, but it's only one of many.

~~~
michh
Until your carrier decides you don't need the ability to install non-market
apps and disables the option. Oh, and the phone in question is not yet rooted.
This is a matter of time if it isn't already happening. Google can do the open
and free dance all it wants but with the carriers standing between you and
Google...

~~~
Drakim
If a carrier is being evil I can switch to another carrier though. And if
enough people avoid carriers because they lock you in, they will take notice.

There is nothing like this for iPhone. You can't go to a different company
than Apple to buy your iPhone on different terms.

~~~
michh
I'm rather skeptical of this. Perhaps because I live somewhere where there's
only 3 different carriers and they all started capping mobile internet in the
same month. And they all dramatically raised prices in the same month. Etc.
For now, you're able to buy a vanilla Android phone from a third party, but
what happens when carriers start to only allow IMEIs sold through them or
their subsidiaries on their networks? Carriers have _way_ too much power right
now, partly because Google caved in and allowed them to butcher Android
phones.

We need to be vigilant as a lot of consumers don't really care about these
kinds of things.

~~~
Drakim
I'm not the most knowledgeable within mobile geekery, but couldn't you in buy
an android phone with no contract over the net and get a sim card for it?

~~~
winthrowe
The point regarding IMEIs was that if carriers get antagonistic enough, it
would be possible to change the blacklist that (some) carriers use for stolen
phones into a whitelist that disallows any third party phones.

~~~
fpgeek
Outside the US, governments take the promise of being able to take a SIM and
put it into an unlocked phone very seriously, so I'd say this is a strictly
local problem. In fact, I'd wonder how Deutsche Telekom's regulators would
react if T-Mobile (DT's US subsidiary, at least for now) started doing
something like this (that they probably wouldn't permit in Germany).

------
rbarooah
The fact that this happened on both the App store, and Google Play almost
simultaneously raises the suspicion that one of the less reputable competitors
lodged some kind of complaint.

~~~
datagramm
Very possibly. It could also be that someone at Google is watching what gets
taken down from the app store an following suit.

~~~
megablast
Why would they ever do that?

------
JohnnyFlash
The trouble is that the guidelines aren't black and white. They are somewhat
grey. This means that 2 reviews will rarely result in the same action.

I would argue the Kama Sutra is both historical and educational and not
sexually explicit at all. Perhaps a celebration of human bodies even, I don't
know.

It seems though that Apple particularly feel that its customers require a
squeaky clean filter to assess everything they access.

For cloned and low quality app's this is great! Restricting porn... I guess it
is a good thing. Kid's can browse the app store. However this grey area
between what is clean and what isn't is something they have never mastered.

It is really sad to see Google following this path of over-censorship..

~~~
rogerbraun
I think a guide to sex positions is as sexually explicit as it can get, it's
just not necessarily pornographic.

I also think that the argument that it keeps the store clean so kids can
browse it does not really work. Other online stores like Amazon don't have
this, you can search for and buy porn there and nobody is outraged. A much
better idea would be to give apps a suggested user age, so you could filter
the store.

------
netcan
slightly off topic.

Today I realized that my 3g plan is censoring adult content. I also listened
to a podcaster talk about renaming his podcast "talkings hit" to get passed
the itunes criteria. The paper had some silly fluff article about Facebook and
breastfeeding pictures. Youtube is stricter than TV on nudity (and laxer on
violence).

These were all little corners of the internet up until recently and it seemed
all right that they all have their own rules. Suddenly they pretty much _are_
the internet and soon the will be the computer.

I don't like it.

~~~
cubicle67
_Youtube is stricter than TV on nudity_

except for stuff like this (very NSFW just after the 8 minute mark)
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjRExyIBNM> which somehow is still there

[Edit - it's Penn & Teller on Taxes, part 3]

~~~
blahedo
With only 3,000 viewers so far, perhaps it's just nobody's complained yet?

------
phil
The crazy thing is the #4 paid app is this violent fantasy about shooting
people with a sniper rifle and that's apparently OK:

[http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/clear-
vision-17+/id500116670?...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/clear-
vision-17+/id500116670?mt=8)

The #5 paid app is a scam designed to confuse (check out the reviews):

[http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lock-my-
screen/id507265508?mt...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lock-my-
screen/id507265508?mt=8)

~~~
ricardobeat
That's really curious. The "lock-screen" app has a _Rated 4+_ indication, yet
it's actual ratings are 1-star. There's something fishy here, how come this
doesn't get the appstore lords' attention?

~~~
therealarmen
_Rated 4+_ refers to the approved age group, not average review rating.

~~~
ricardobeat
Ha.

------
pixelcort
There's a technological solution to situations like these: make a full screen,
offline capable, mobile web app.

Discovery and charging for your mobile web app or for content within it may be
challenging for the foreseeable future, but hopefully not forever.

Another issue is feature parity with native SDKs, which seems to be very
slowly narrowing each year.

Ability to produce performant apps is another area with very slow but greater
than zero progression.

For games, sure, go native and take advantage of the store discovery and
payment platforms, access to all the APIs, and performance.

For other kinds of apps like these, maybe mobile web apps are a better idea.

 __Edit: __clarification.

------
kodisha
Nice job Apple and Google, nice job.

If I were in charge, person who made the call would be out of job.

And if this was "company" decision, well, good luck to you all, and move to
Europe. We love brunettes here.

~~~
ovi256
Apple has consistently proven that they want the App Store to be squeaky
Disney family clean. So the fact that some apps went through the cracks was
pure luck.

~~~
kodisha
But why? WHY? What harm could come from app like this?

Please, assume that I'm 12 years old, and try to explain.

~~~
CodeMage
Here's an explanation I would offer to a 12-year old to explain Apple's
decision, but please bear in mind that it doesn't mean I _agree_ with it:

There are many people in the world who use technology, but are offended by
even the slightest sexual material. They might not have reasons for it that
you and I would agree with, but that's beside the point. The point is that
they can get very loud and insistent and they might go on TV saying that
"Apple distributes smut" and whatnot. Apple wants to avoid that kind of
hassle. There are different ways to do that, but the easiest for Apple is to
simply reject any content they think might cause them this kind of trouble.

------
gcheong
There really needs to be a way to sell outside of the apple appstore without
needing to jailbreak of your device. If the DOJ can sue Apple and the book
publishers over an apparent attempt to destroy competition in the retail
market, why wouldn't they be interested in how Apple is destroying developers'
ability to freely publish apps and consumers to have choices besides Apple in
the marketplace? How do we start a campaign to get them to look into this? Has
anyone tried to file a suit of any kind to address this problem to date?

~~~
rbarooah
Why not just buy an android phone?

~~~
DHowett
1) Notice that Google has removed this app too.

2) Carriers (AT&T) are known for disabling app sideloading.

3) Having to root your device presents the basic user with a major technical
hurdle, and in some cases, an outright impossibility.

If you're going to advocate as an alternative an entire platform you can't
guarantee freedom on, for freedom's sake, why advocate it?

~~~
rbarooah
I don't think I've ever advocated Android, but I am interested in why it
doesn't live up to the promise of being open.

When I see comments like the parent's the logic seems to be: "Android isn't
properly open, so let's sue Apple."

~~~
jw_
> Why not just buy an android phone?

> I don't think I've ever advocated Android

~~~
rbarooah
That wasn't advocacy.

I really wanted to know why the original commenter was talking about suing
Apple, instead of just buying an Android phone.

~~~
gcheong
Because there is a bigger picture here than just "buy a different phone" as
mobile computing becomes more ubiquitous. I think that having a single app
store on the dominant platform that everyone is forced to go through is akin
to having a single browser on the dominant OS. So in the end it's not about
suing Apple per se but if a suit against Apple were successful then the rest
of the market players would be forced to open up as well.

~~~
rbarooah
I'm not sure I see how a successful suit against Apple would have any such
effect.

Google would simply say "we're open already", and become the dominant platform
while Apple was reeling from the legal damage.

~~~
gcheong
I think it would be pretty easy for Apple to allow apps to be installed on
their devices without having to go through the app store. You can already
jailbreak to do this so the capability is there Apple just needs to allow it.
Not sure what legal damage you think they would incur except whatever they
would pay to fight the suit.

~~~
rbarooah
The legal damage would be the fact that each design decision they made around
the store would be under court scrutiny.

But so far, you haven't explained why this should be done given that Android
offers what you ask for. What's wrong with letting people decide for
themselves?

------
rev087
The app looks extremely well made, really a shame it has been pulled out of
the stores.

~~~
epaga
It IS well made. My wife and I got it about a year ago. It's password-
protected and very tastefully drawn. About 25% of the positions are virtually
impossible but pretty hilarious. :)

I'd have had no issue with Apple if they had simply not allowed it on day 1.
But to allow it to be hugely successful for such a long period of time (as in:
within the top 50 or so overall for months on end) only to pull it without
reason is horrifying to me as an app developer.

------
rkudeshi
I'm not a fan of these sort of apps but from the pics provided, it seems to be
made as tastefully as possible and without excessive "sexual allure" (ie.
titillating apps made for 13-year-olds to download without their parents
knowing).

(I'd say the 13 million "SALES" are also an indicator of quality but, Angry
Birds aside, there's no way a number that high was all paid downloads.)

~~~
blahedo
> _"(I'd say the 13 million "SALES" are also an indicator of quality but,
> Angry Birds aside, there's no way a number that high was all paid
> downloads.)"_

Are you sure? Why?

~~~
sp332
If that number isn't just iPhone sales, then it includes the free versions for
Android, Chrome, Roku, etc.

------
hsuresh
As a developer, i'd really think hard about developing a native app. I know
that some apps cannot go web based, but we need to push the boundaries of what
is possible with mobile browsers. I can't think of any other way of keeping
the mobile development open.

------
nextparadigms
Apple's app rejection policy seems as unpredictable as Google's account
banning.

------
JohnLBevan
Someone could start an App Approval business. Applications don't require
approval to go on to an app store / market place, but if the developers
submitted their code to one AppApproversLtd, those guys could review it for a
small comission, then upload it to the app store as a trusted application.
Though there's a slight conflict of interest (i.e. the person paying the
approvers is also the person sending the code) I believe it's in the
AppApproversLtd company's interest to do a good job since their business
depends on them giving a reliable evaluation / building up a good reputation.

Using that business model keeps flexibility in place, where users decide if
they want to risk trusting an unapproved app, or would rather go for an app
that's been approved by one of these companies (potentially incurring
additional cost if the developers passed the approval cost on to their users
rather than offsetting against advertising).

AppApproversLtd could offer different levels of approval / ratings - i.e. just
checking for malicious code vs. checking for polite error handling,
efficiently written code, best practices, impact on battery life, etc.

~~~
shadesandcolour
That would be fine but it doesn't solve any of the problems really. Apple will
still have control over their store. Google Play will continue to let you in
and then review if they get a complaint (at least I assume that's how they do
it). Ultimately I'm not sure that the business model will work. It only really
applies to Android and even then most people get apps through the marketplace.
Those people who want to side load apps most likely know the consequences or
know someone who does and decide whether or not to take the risk.

It seems analogous to running your website code through the W3 checker. It's a
certification that you did stuff right, but it doesn't stop most users from
going to your site if you don't have that little badge at the bottom.

------
whackberry
Google was able to portray an image of being good and free and transparent
early on in its existence. This image still lingers from their PR efforts but
the reality is that Google is one of the most agressive corporations out
there. Let's not demonize Google in particular, Sillicon Valley is brutal.
But, let's also make clear that Google isn't some nice old lady that does no
evil. Google spies on users just like Facebook, Google plays hardball with its
monopoly in web search like Microsoft played monopoly with their OS. Google
goes the whole nine yards in the Sillicon Valley dirty games and still these
articles all mention "Google is open" or "how could Google do evil". Google
has a PR team as good as or better than their programmers, that is a fact.

------
datagramm
A friend of mine that used to work at iTunes tells me that Apple always keep
the front page of their stores completely 'family friendly'. Maybe this
mentality is starting to filter down past the front page and result in a knee-
jerk rejection of anything vaguely adult.

------
alastairpat
Unless the title of the blog post has been changed since submission to HN, why
the editorialised title?

Edit: I've since learnt that that is actually the title of the post. It still
seems kind of sensationalist none-the-less.

~~~
_delirium
The title of both the HN submission and the blog post are "Apple Hates
Brunettes" at the moment, unless I'm getting some kind of cached copy?

~~~
alastairpat
Oh, my mistake - that is actually the title. Thanks.

------
ForrestN
Perhaps there should be an 18+ section that can be blocked by parents with a
password? If you have an out-of-the-box iPhone you can get any manner of porn
within Safari. Why shouldn't you be able to get real porn with a better
experience via an app?

------
victorbstan
Actually Apple doesn't hate brunettes, what they hate is the likeness to
reality that your brunette colored people are, where if you color the hair
like in your second example, the people become less realistic and more like
abstract icons; their hair being the exact same color as their body skin
(yellow and red). Doesn't take a genius to figure this one out, but then it
doesn't take a genius to write a bitching blog post either.

~~~
WiseWeasel
They haven't approved the update with the new graphics either.

------
septerr
Didn't know the app existed! Now that I know it did, I want it to be
available. Not settling for kamasutra+.

------
kodisha
Is it possible that Ikamasutra developer sue Apple and win in court?

~~~
mistercow
I think that really depends on what you mean by "possible". For all practical
purposes, it's pretty unlikely given the comparative legal resources of the
two companies.

~~~
wpietri
Exactly. In a lot of things in the US, you get as much justice as you can
afford.

------
septerr
Btw, ikamasutra.com can use a facelift. :/ It's kinda geocities looking right
now. You should make it more web 2.0.

------
StCroix
I hope that Steve Jobs, who happily credited himself as an openly adherent
member and ambassador of the counterculture that fought for ideas like this to
be acceptable in a then over-conservative society, is rightfully turning in
his grave.

~~~
mrich
Let's not act like he would have cared about this while he was alive. Apple's
products and services always place family-friendlyness over any kind of free
expression.

~~~
chris_wot
Steve Jobs was quoted as saying "those who want porn can get an Android". I'm
very much afraid you are wrong on this one.

~~~
StCroix
Yeah as I say, "I hope"... maybe even retrospectively from atop of his own
'iCloud'. Please read my comment as slightly tongue in cheek, I'm well aware
of his later-life stance on adult material.

~~~
chris_wot
I lol'ed at the iCloud reference :-) sorry, I didn't read the humour, should
not have been so abrupt!

------
gcb
Why people aren't building sites that work with everything and using the app
merely to authenticate? That will allow you to capitalize via the *stores but
not be hostage to it.

Some clueless people now will try to educate me that a native client is
better, even it not having bookmarks, several tabs, browser extensions, pitch
to zoom on every page, etc etc

------
huggyface
"In the process we also removed even more illustration details from the
Android version so it looked like the new iOS version"

That's a curious statement that makes you wonder which part of the story we
don't know (was this a case of pushing boundaries, seeing what they could get
away with?) It seems doubtful that we're hearing the full truth.

