This is good in my opinion. The more the rejection, the more the developers will tend to flee away from arrogant Marketplaces like that of Apple's. It will also, in a way, probably force developers to try out other marketplaces like the Windows Phone Marketplace and the Google Play store.

Now, I do understand 500px is trying to create a uni-platform experience for its users, but now that 500px isn't allowed to publish their app, I'm sure it's only a positive sign for other market places. More and more developers will start (slowly, but surely) to neglect Apple's Appstore by default due to the fear of the ridiculous approval process and the uncertainty that their development efforts for the iOS platform may go a waste, because they have seen the history of popular apps like 500px and others.

There is a very thin line of difference between being an elitist and being a d*ck. Apple is making it clear to everyone that they are the latter.

> This is good in my opinion. The more the rejection, the more the developers will tend to flee away from arrogant Marketplaces like that of Apple's. It will also, in a way, probably force developers to try out other marketplaces like the Windows Phone Marketplace and the Google Play store.

People have been saying this for years, and it convinced me to make my Apps available on the android app store. The result, is a lot of messing around, and produced not much extra income.

Until Android starts to make the same sorts of money, which may never happen, this will not change.

Everything I've read to date suggests the Android user base is very different to the iOS user base. From a developer perspective, despite the enormous market share Android offers, it's users are reluctant to spend any money on software.

The iOS user base on the other hand seems to attract users willing to spend money.

I seriously doubt Android will be a viable platform for developers until this culture changes.

Just because the returns are lower doesn't mean it's not viable. There are plenty of Android success stories. Even Angry Birds makes more money on Android than on iOS last I heard.

One of the big challenges on Android is Google doesn't have many credit cards for Apps so right there non-free apps are in trouble. Android may have double the iOS market share but if they only have half as many credit cards their effective market share for paid apps is 1/4 their true market share. That's before you even look at customer demographics, etc.

An important category is apps which are not sold in the app store, and whose provider makes money in other ways, for example account subscriptions. 500px's is an example of such an app.

I'm more than willing to believe Android users on average buy less apps than iOS users. But that just means different business models will succeed there.

i m just backseat driving here, but the fact that paid apps sell less on android is damning evidence for devs to not migrate across (or target it as the primary platform).

A subscription based model is more demanding to maintain, vs a pay-once-app. You at least don't need a server to maintain subscriptions. Ditto with In app purchases (which also require you to maintain a server to keep track of who has paid for what).

For selling "just apps", subscription can definitely be not worth it. But a smartphone-app-centered business model is not the only thing that results in smartphone apps being made. My issue is with the general wording in the grandparent post, which seems to me to suggest Android isn't viable for all or most of developers overall.

If you're looking to reach users of your non-app-centric service that you're looking to provide a free app for, targetting Android is a no-brainer if your service is aimed at demographic groups in which Android has sizeable or even plurality user adoption. That's most of them, but not all.

Looking through apps on my devices (I'm one of the "cheap" Android users with zero paid apps), Flickr, Evernote, Mint.com, Opera, car2go, Skype, Starbucks, Kobo all stand out as quality apps that pay off for the developers in other ways.

One key factor people aren't taking into account is that there are non-phone versions of iOS devices, namely iPod Touches, which is a giant market that Android doesn't cover.

What's your app?

This is a fair question, and not downvotable imo, especially considering that john/megablast's profile is out of date.

There's a history of people who produce Android versions of their software which aren't anywhere near as polished as the iOS one. If that's the case, then of course nobody's going to pay for it.

If you have two versions which are more or less identical, that's different.

As you've framed it, it's a loaded question that assumes the author is a moron who somehow expects a half-assed port to produce equal returns. Reasonable people can presume he has an idea of the quality of his own Android app and managed his expectations accordingly and yet he was disappointed. This is not a new story nor does is contradict the vast majority of data points we have.

You're exaggerating my position, but yes, I've seen quite a few cases where developers have produced an Android app late and/or as an afterthought and, surprise, it hasn't done as well as the iOS version.

Here's one from 6 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5066305

I was curious about it for a bunch of reasons.

I'm curious if there's a high order pattern for apps that make more on ios than android and vice versa.

I'm curious if as much promotion went into the android app as the ios app.

I'm always interested in finding new quality android apps, and I enjoy promoting ones that I'm particularly happy with.

Oh, my Android apps are not as good as my iPhone apps, but they have about 70% of the functionality, and cost the lowest price you can set in the Android store, whereas the iPhone apps go for about $4 to $5.

Developers go where the users go (and pay). Until the Windows and Android stores start bringing devs the same type of money, it's still always worth it to "take the risk" of Apple's store.

The only way I see this changing is if users themselves cared about an app being pulled, and this app doesn't seem big enough for people to care (maybe if Instagram was taken down).

I recently decided to port some apps to Android and Windows 8 to lower my Apple only risk. Diversification is good right? It's been a really mixed bag so far. 1 of my apps is doing better than it's iPhone counterpart, the rest might as well not exist. [1]

[1] - http://www.entrelife.com/2013/01/case-study-of-android-vs-ip...

Thanks.

The interesting math is the intersection of "what app" and "what platform". Popularity of platform is played off with discoverability of the app on said platform.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing numbers.

Are you using something like Mono to share code among platforms or are you doing total rewrites for each port?

So far I've done native rewrites. Initially everything was designed specifically for iOS, so when porting I've just gone with native. I may consider some kind of cross platform option for the next completely new app. I haven't decided yet. (In general I think native is better, but there are obviously benefits to writing one version.)

Most developers go where users go, most of the time, until some of them have a reason not to. Luckily for those who don't always follow the money, demand sometimes follows supply instead of the other way around.

> Developers go where the users go

You are aware that, except in a tiny fraction of the world, users are going massively android, right?

Either your parent edited after your post or you conveniently skipped the '(and pay)' in your argument. I'd like to see some solid comparison of revenue numbers between Play store and Appstore. I'm pretty sure iOS would still come out ahead in that regard, until I get disproven on this. Of course I'm not saying that one should ignore Android, since this will quite possibly change in the (near) future, but still, from an economic standpoint it IMO still makes sense to target iOS first.

I didn't edit for the record.

Do you have experience distributing apps? While the pure numbers are massively Android, my personal experience is iOS will get you far more downloads, so either Android people are not downloading apps, the Android numbers are inflated by devices that use Android but don't lend themselves to apps, or it's just really hard to get an app noticed on the Play store.

It's probably fairer to say that "Developers go where the users are willing to pay". As I understand it, iOS currently wins hands down in that category.

How is this at all relevant? Publishing in one app store does not prevent you from publishing in the opposing one.

Services like 500px no doubt have both Android and iOS apps, and they will continue to do so as long as their customers (and potential customers) carry these devices in their pockets.

So long as hundreds of millions of people carry iOS devices, people will publish apps in the App Store in droves, regardless of how draconian Apple's rules are. This is entirely independent of how many other people use Android.

Previous poster is entirely correct, the power to enact change here is entirely at the hands of customers who buy Apple products. Developers have no leverage here, because everyone knows that so long as Apple keeps shipping tens of millions of tablets and phones every quarter, to wealthy people with high disposable income, devs will stay.

1. 500px ditched from Apple store

2. "Nice, more people will go away from Apple store"

3. "Developpers go where user go (and pay)" (ie iOS)

4. me: "user go Android".

5. you: "How is this at all relevant? do both"

Well, sure you can do both, but I was replying to the "user go Apple" claim above, so it is relevant, or?

There is a reality mismatch with Apple: they do nice tools, but the fact we hear about them a lot and almost all movies, screenshot, etc. seem to show only Apple products, do not mean that most users actually use Apple systems or products (except if "most users" means "most startup entrepreneurs and wealthy folks in SV")

The reality is, to be clear, that all but a tiny not representative fraction of laptops and desktops are running a version of Windows, and almost all but a small fraction of smartphones run a variant of Android.

I avoid Windows and I am not particularly found of Android, but I think not going Android is suicidal for devs, except if they do special elite or niche apps. I did not invent this myself, Fred Wilson said the same many time.

My understanding of the current state of affairs is that 'users who pay for apps' are still disproportionately represented on iOS. That is, there may be more users on Android, there are more potential customers on iOS.

I could be wrong, though - maybe that balance has started to shift?

I'm not going to argue about whether what they did was right or wrong but I am going to argue about why they make the decisions they do.

A company with a 475B market cap doesn't just do things to be "elitest and a d*ck". I often see these arguments that Apple does things just to be mean or evil but frankly, I think these are emotional responses. There is a more objective reasoning behind why they do the things they do.

From the beginning, Apple has been about presenting a certain "consistency of quality". They want people to equate an Apple product with a product that is free from worries. I get it. You may not agree with it, but I get it. This will naturally piss off 5% of the hard core users who want ultimate flexibility from their platform. But it will also make 95% of the people feel all snugly and warm that they don't need to worry about things like porn or viruses appearing on their device.

Again, I'm not arguing whether 500px's app measures up to "objectional material" or not. What I am arguing is that the reason why Apple removed the app is not because they're trying to be mean but because they have discovered that an app (whether it's had 1,000,00 downloads or 100 downloads) violates the "consistency of quality" that they are trying to present.

Frankly, the 8 year old version of me would have had no difficulty visiting the desktop version of the website and disabling safemode.

Or searching in safari. The fact that there is an actual web browser on there is what makes these removals so ridiculous.

Parents can disable Safari (and other browsers all have 17+ rating).

How are you supposed to turn on nudity without a browser?

> More and more developers will start (slowly, but surely) to neglect Apple's Appstore by default due to the fear of the ridiculous approval process and the uncertainty that their development efforts for the iOS platform may go a waste, because they have seen the history of popular apps like 500px and others.

I really hope this happens, but it seems so far that people are more than happy to put up with Apple's draconian App Store policies. We're not even talking about equal treatment - iOS apps continue to come out before Android apps, and Windows Phone apps often aren't even made.

I like Apple's draconian policy. Not all of their policy, but sometimes it's just appropriate for them to keep developers in line.

For example, about two years ago we released an app for a running event in our state. It used background GPS events to record the runners' locations on a map. Gave them stats and all that.

Apple rejected it because we didn't prominently warn users that background GPS could affect their battery life. This was a good change, that we would not have made, had Apple not reviewed our app.

Sometimes it feels like developers think they have an inherent right to pollute whatever platform they want with their apps, just because they can write code.

If anything, I think Apple is not strict enough. There's a lot of crap on the App Store. And I say this as someone who has had apps rejected a ton of times, and would seriously benefit from being able to include downloadable code and a JIT interpreter in my app (both disallowed).

I disagree with you here rgarding Apple Policy and GPS - one area that Apple has absolutely been failing for the last couple years is in their horrible policy regarding background GPS draining of the battery. Almost every time my battery goes to zero (in fact, I actually think it IS every time) - it is because of background GPS lighting up the radio and draining my battery. Lots of apps do this, and it is a blight on the iOS platform.

If windows mobile/blackberry come up with better policies regarding developers that would increase the quality of the applications, and reduce the amount of crap that the iOS developer engage in, then I suspect those platforms will start to pick up users.

Android = Ultimate Freedom, but you need to manage it. Apple IOS = Some Freedom to shoot yourself in the foot.

Like I said, I think Apple should be more strict with their policy.

I just thought it was nice that they actually checked our app, and told us to clearly warn our users about background GPS.

They've done this sort of thing a lot to our apps. One game we had still had placeholder art. They found it, rejected it, and told us to fix the placeholder art.

I also like that they reject outright if your app crashes during the review process.

Sadly, I think they have been getting more and more lenient as the sheer volume of App submissions increases.

>it seems so far that people are more than happy to put up with Apple's draconian App Store policies.

Devs are going where the market is. But where the market is will eventually change and Apple may be forced to open up to compete.

Like I said, I predict it will be a very slow change. You know how MySpace was once THE Social Network to be on, and when you weren't there, you would be looked down upon? Now, despite an epic re-design, nobody even talks about it, except for examples like these, perhaps. It could be the same case for Apple's Appstore, assuming they continue this painful trend of pissing off developers.

I don't think that analogy works very well. If anything, the App Store is more comparable to Facebook: despite all of its pitfalls and drawbacks, everyone is already so invested that switching seems impossible. Developers will go where the money is, and as long as Apple continues to sell millions of iDevices, most developers won't abandon a profitable platform.

Why do people keep bring up with this stupid Myspace argument ?

There are plenty of examples of market leading companies that have remained on top despite additional competition e.g. Windows, Office, Google Search.

of the examples you supplied, only windows fits, and it barely. MS Office beat the entrenched lotus 123, google beat yahoo. I can only think of one more that fits - Amazon - which hasn't been replaced.

It seems its more common for a first mover to be displaced than to remain...

Unfortunately until there exists another good way for people to get their apps onto iOS devices (not counting web apps) Apple will remain the gatekeeper of their garden. Windows Phone Marketplace or Google Play store don't do much good for someone wanting to release an iOS app.

Why do we continue to accept the Apple euphemism that their ecosystem is a "walled garden"?

There are much more accurate terms to describe the Apple ecosystem.

When governments do this, prevent their users from looking at fine art that happens to involve nudity, we don't call the society a "walled garden."

That isn't an "Apple euphemism." It's a pejorative term much older than the iPhone that Apple's critics apply to the Apple ecosystem.

The term has been appropriated.

John Gruber: http://daringfireball.net/2010/06/iphone_os_too_closed

Neven Mrgan: http://mrgan.tumblr.com/post/653708588/the-walled-garden

I think I first heard the term used in the context of technology on Observers.net in reference to AOL, but it's probably even older.

This is the same argument that has been used for decades for many problems. Like making gas $10/gallon to reduce dependence on middle east oil. It never works and is an unamerican argument. It's tantamount to saying Marx had it right all along. If this were 1950-56 i'm sure your argument would have been better received.

That said, what Apple did was ridiculous. Youtube, safari, chrome, Flickr etc etc all have the potential to show nudity. Big deal, the walls of the Uffizi are lined with nudity... Damn Puritans, we're still paying for their religious fundamentalism in this country.

It's telling that you want Apple to burn rather than improve.

Maybe 500px should think about making a great web app, to avoid being pulled out of the Apple Store. Everytime I'm fascinated by beautiful web apps with a great responsive UX. Something like Sun: http://pattern.dk/sun/

I think the 500px app shouldn't be too complicated running as a web app. As far as I can see, there's no big usage of iPhone hardware sensors which couldn't be easily implemented in a web app.

So maybe this is a way to go.

Meh. It sucks that businesses like 500px have to be a marter in a bottle necked distribution environment. Its amazing enough that they built a beautiful product that people want to use, found a way to get adoption and have cultivated such a passionate users base. Now they have to go solve a tangential business that wasn't part of their vision or expertise.

At the very least developers should make the Android app first, which would still have the potential for about as much userbase, and then make the iOS first, perhaps using this:

https://code.google.com/p/j2objc/

At least they wouldn't waste so much time just to get rejected from the beginning.

> due to the fear of the ridiculous approval process

It's not ridiculous and pretty easy to understand. No questionable content. No trying to be clever about the rules. No private APIs. I have been involved in over 20 popular apps on the store and not one has ever been rejected.

> their development efforts for the iOS platform may go a waste

Developers aren't stupid. The iOS platform is by far the largest and most profitable and will continue to remain so in the years ahead. And the fact is that iOS is a much simpler platform to develop and test for than the myriad of device combinations on Android.

Plus you're entire argument is tired. It has been around since the beginning of the store and will continue to be so long as Apple rejects apps.

And then you do something as seemingly innocent as querying the NSComputer image on a Mac, sending it over the network, and showing it on an iPhone, and Apple rejects you.

It's great that you've had no trouble, but please don't extrapolate that into a belief that there is no trouble.

It's not "using Apple's artwork without permission." There's a public API for obtaining this stuff, and all we did is send the result across the network. Note that Apple agreed with us... eventually.

You did essentially say that Apple's review process is not a problem as long as you actually follow the rules, which is simply not true.

The app was rated 4+, yet would show pictures of naked people

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:itunes....

I think trying to paint Apple as bad in this case is pretty crappy, as it's very clear what the different ratings mean and 500px didn't follow the VERY CLEAR list of what each thing means.

http://www.internetsafetyproject.org/wiki/apple%E2%80%99s-ap...

True nudity only belongs in 17+ in their system. 500px put it available for 4+.

4+, but only shows nudity if you go to the website in a browser, create an account, verify your age, then specify that you want to be able to see "mature" images.

Instead, the rationale from Apple and defended by you and others is that it is better to make the entire app 17+, and deny a whole raft of people the ability to use it, on the chance that they might do the above to "get around" the Apple rating system.

It's always insightful to see the hoops that are jumped through to defend Apple.

>Instead, the rationale from Apple and defended by you and others is that it is better to make the entire app 17+

Yes, then parents can give the device to children, turn on whatever restrictions based on those ratings, and have it work, even if the kid is trying to get around it by doing all those things.

This is not only intended to defeat 5 year olds, but 14 year olds.

If 500px would prefer to turn that switch off for everyone, then 4+ is possibly the correct rating. If they do not, then the correct rating is 17+.

The only people it prohibits from getting the app, by setting to 17+ are those whom have another person setting 17+ as inappropriate for that user.

You do know the web browser and pretty much any apps can be turned off in restrictions right? You can give the thing to a 4 year old, and the only thing you have to worry about is "will they break it" once you've locked it down correctly.

500px mislabeled their app, and as a result were allowing industrious young people who were otherwise restricted to find stuff like http://500px.com/photo/10228807 (Which I don't view as harmful PERSONALLY, but LOTS of people would find that inappropriate for a kid).

What's the rating on the iOS web browser? 17+? Presumably your hypothetical 4 and 14 year olds would have access to that too?

Although I notice that several web browsers in iTunes have 17+ ratings too, so at least they're consistent, maybe. According to https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mercury-browser-fast-web-bro...

  You must be at least 17 years old to download this app.
    Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity
    Frequent/Intense Profanity or Crude Humor
    Frequent/Intense Mature/Suggestive Themes
    Frequent/Intense Cartoon or Fantasy Violence
    Frequent/Intense Horror/Fear Themes
    Frequent/Intense Realistic Violence
    Frequent/Intense Alcohol, Tobacco, or Drug Use or References

update: did you actually look at the picture that you linked? I doubt a 14 year old is going to be harmed by it...

Any app that allows general web access must be given a 17+ rating. This includes any browser, as well as any app that happens to include an integrated browser for another purpose (e.g. a Twitter client that shows links in-app).

As for children having access to the built-in web browser, certainly not if their parents don't think full web access is appropriate for them.

I did look at the picture, and intentionally picked it for humor and inclusion in my permanent HN comment history. I don't think any 4+ year old would be harmed at it, but I also think the parents of many 4+ year olds wouldn't want them bandying it about, especially in very religious communities.

The iOS web browser has it's own on/off switch in restrictions.

> You do know the web browser and pretty much any apps can be turned off in restrictions right?

Please enlighten me as to how to restrict apps other than Safari, Camera, FaceTime, and iTunes, because that's all there is in that menu.

You restrict based on age ratings. That's the whole point of his argument.

You set the rating restriction, block the communication apps, Safari, and the kid cannot go download another browser and surf. If Apple goes lax on these ratings, then those parental controls stop working.

I just set my age restrictions to "4+", and was still able to open Chrome, Twitter, Flipboard, etc.

What I want is to be able to lock down certain apps so I can hand my device to my 4-year-old and know that he's not going to get into anything except the few games I have for him. Is that not possible?

My understanding it's the app store download and install that gets blocked, not the actual running of apps. That's when you see the age-restricted warning, not when you run the app.

An imperfect system for your use case, for sure. An example where multi-user iPad would be great.

The whole iOS ecosystem is design with one user per device in mind. Apple ID, single user, etc.

I get that, and it's a source of much frustration. The idea of buying an iPhone for your four-year old strikes me as lunacy. These things are marvelous at keeping kids entertained and quiet when you're waiting at a restaurant or checking out at the grocery store, and expecting that there will only be one user of the device ever is annoyingly myopic. It also occurs to me that if you're going to gate it at install time, the iTunes password already does that. Don't give the kid the password, she can't install anything that isn't approved.

There's a tremendous disconnect between how it should work and how it does work. If I want to put my device in "four-year-old mode", I shouldn't have to uninstall everything to get there.

Agreed. My guess is that we'll get somewhere closer to what you're looking at eventually. True focus of the company is very much in the personal device area, though.

However, they have started some work mainly focused on accessibility that might be good for this use. iPad only at the moment: http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/10/01/how-to-lock-the-ipad...

My above comment might get you there.

That said: I dislike the single user nature of the devices as well. I understand WHY they do it, but dislike it personally.

Also: iPodTouch costs about $200, which is the same as a handheld gaming handset from the likes of nintendo, etc, especially when looking at the different costs of games.

The password is not good enough, because multiple iTunes accounts can be on one device, and the kid could add a gift card to buy whatever.

The multiple accounts thing is a good point. I hadn't considered that, but it makes the "single user device" seem even sillier - why can I attach multiple accounts to a device that is otherwise completely inappropriate for multiple people to use at the same time?

I'm aware that the Touch is less expensive, but my argument is that "Just buy a separate device for your 4-year-old" is an insane line of reasoning, whether it's a $200 iPod or a $600 iPhone.

When doing MDM (which is the vast majority of my experience with this), they disappear after a couple minutes or a restart. Did some apps disappear?

They reappear after you up the rating again (and annoying lose folder position, which is why I didn't just turn it back on).

If Restrictions are less powerful than MDM, then you can STILL delete the apps on a child's device.

Chrome persisted through a full reboot of the device, despite App Restrictions being set to 4+. I was able to see it and open it after a full reboot. I'm testing on an iPod Touch running iOS 6.0.

I see Chrome appear and disappear for me (fresh install of chrome). I wonder what's up there.

Okay, I looked into it:

Chrome disappears and reappears when I toggle down to 12+

Twitter is (mis)labeled at 4+

I don't have flipboard on my iPhone.

It did take a second for them to disappear. I'm pretty sure a turning off and on will make them disappear. They reappear instantly.

You don't seriously believe that any age restrictions are able to prevent a 14 year from seeing whatever porn he/she wants? Or whatever else.

Sure, they might make the process a bit annoying, but in the end it's always possible to simply jailbreak the device. (not to mention that most 14 year olds know more about technology than their parents)

It will prevent a lot of 14 year olds, not all of them for sure.

Either way, Apples goal is to make the stock software prevent it.

Also: iOS6.0 JUST got a JB. 6.1 is about to drop

I am a realist: I think parents will often care. Many others won't.

Thanks for some common sense. Couldn't this be easily solved by releasing two apps with different age ratings? The 17 rated app could additionally require a login to their verification system if they want to have a complete database of such users. I don't see the problem.

Ok, but what you're really saying is its an app rated 4+ that has a mature images option. Yes its a little awkward that the settings to turn it on are only available via a website - but so what?

Parents who buy iPodTouches for their children instead of WiiU's want the parental controls to work. When their 6 year old shows their church friends boobies on their iPodTouch, they get mad and instead buy nintendo.

I agree. My point is that from Apple's perspective they have no interest in an apps internal age restrictions system. If it says 4+ it has to be 4+ for the life of the app.

Our society has this totally backwards.

First, to find nudity, you have to go out of your way on 500px. Is it there? Sure. But is a 4 year-old going to run across it without concerted effort? No. And if they do find it, will it really have a negative impact on their development? Highly unlikely.

Meanwhile, you can buy an app that will let you watch UFC fights[1]. It is rated 9+. In case you're wondering whether UFC would be appropriate for 9 year-olds, I refer you to a Google Image Search for the St. Pierre vs. Condit fight from a month or two ago (warning: graphic and bloody) http://bit.ly/VSwUAJ

Like I said, we have this totally backwards.

[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ufc/id534568162

I agree about the values of many Americans. I am not one of the people who who thinks boobs are particularly harmful.

That said, MANY PEOPLE who have dollars apple wants have those values. So they make a system so their devices get turned into something no more "dangerous" than a Wii/DS, and children get iPads and iPodTouches without parents worrying about corrupting their kids with nudity (again, their values, not mine)

If it was just a matter of being in the wrong rating category, it seems like it would make more sense for apple to just re-categorize it. Any insight into why they pulled the app instead of doing that?

IANAL but I'd imagine it is due to legal implications for Apple setting the rating. If Apple categorizes the app, it means they're essentially vouching for the app's capabilities. They need the actual seller to set the rating. That way if there's an issue, Apple isn't on the hook legally. They can wipe their hands and say "we just sell it, we don't vouch for the quality/integrity of the product".

Apple doesn't change ratings, or to my knowledge, any metadata about any of the apps.

By that logic, Safari should be 17+ only and should not be installed by default unless the user claims/proves that they are 17+. It's much easier to access nudity/porn via Safari. 500px's app required much more work, and contained "artistic nudity" not porn.

Safari can be disabled under parental controls for precisely this reason.

You're thinking of it backwards.

The device settings and parental controls are set BEFORE you hand the device to a child.

Restrictions are off by default.

It's up to the person with money to enable them before giving the device to the person, and periodically confirming they're still there.

I recently launched an App for the iPhone for the first time ever. And the approval process can be ridiculous.

In my case, my meditation app allowed the user to optionally measure their heart rate while meditating with a heart rate monitor.

When I submitted for the App Store, I had to wait a week to find out I'd been rejected because they didn't have a heart rate monitor to test my app. It works without it.

And never mind there are literally hundreds of apps which also incorporate the Bluetooth LE heart rate monitors. Apple wanted me to send them one, so I ended up overnighting them one, only to have them take another week to let me know they'd taken a look at my app, then approved it.

I agree, this marketplace approval thing sucks.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm actually glad they wanted to verify that your app worked as advertised before approving it. They should probably have peripherals on hand for testing though.

I wouldn't be - such apps are not regulated medical devices. Why should Apple be giving such things the okay? It adds an air of at least implied reliability for such tools, and that's probably not a good place for anyone to be in.

(Not to mention, at least for me, such tools have proven horribly inaccurate.)

I want to address your last comment, about heart rate monitors being horribly inaccurate for you.

According to a large body of research (http://www.polar.com/en/about_polar/who_we_are/research_inde...), the Polar brand heart rate monitors provide basically medical quality data.

Have you really tried one of the new Bluetooth LE monitors, and what sort of problems did you have?

It's vitally important to me, because my startup revolves around the rock-solid, years of research that have gone into developing these devices.

Thanks for letting me know.

Certainly, and it may actually be a red herring. I have a Polar and I believe it to be fairly accurate. My initial impression of a HRM-style app was the more gimmicky pseudo-pulseox LED flashlight and camera style. Apologies for the misleading!

There are other methods to tests apps. Perhaps Apple needs an anonymous but controlled 'approved beta test' group who willingly give their feedback and save everyone some time and grief.

>I agree, this marketplace approval thing sucks.

No what sucks is as a consumer having apps not do what they are supposed to.

Apple's process hasn't succeeded in substantially mitigating that problem.

"...have been pulled from the Apple App Store due to concerns about nude photos."

The horror. It's a blessing the web came along before app stores became trendy. Now at least there's a huge vibrant world outside the walled gardens.

> "...have been pulled from the Apple App Store due to concerns about nude photos."

Thank god the first-person shooter games are allowed to continue unhindered. We certainly don't want to jeopardize the future of our children by inculcating wrong behaviors.

Well, you can compare outcry that happens every time some violent movie is shown on TV compared to outcry that happened after J. Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction".

I think this kind of attitude is stupid, but that's the problem with society, not the Apple.

The sad part is that most parents won't bat an eye while Junior guns down his opponents, but they would be up in arms at the sight of a nipple.

That strongly depends on the country. In the USA, probably. Here in europe there is no problem showing naked breasts in the evening news, when relevant. However, the US finds mild nudity the most offensive thing ever. Back on topic: unfortunately Apple applies its US based rules on all content worldwide: I know an app by a huge broadcaster that got rejected based on nudity in an item on, I think, breast cancer. Which is no problem here at al, to show on national TV.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was done after some parent complained.

keep in mind that on a closed platform you need an approved app to access the web. If a closed platform like iOS would reach a dominant market share then the web would be an easy target (and a natural competitor)

I've never bought into whats so bad about a naked body. We all have one.

From what I understand people get scared/agitated about nuditity because it makes humans seem more a part of nature, savage, and wild. People want to think of humanity as on a pedestal above "beasts". Still, this is a very strange aspect of our society

I'm from Germany, and whenever I have US friends over, they're aghast when they see our newspapers or magazines or TV ads, where nude bodies are nothing special and nobody cares if a kids sees boobs.

On the other hand, violent media, like gore, or blood depiction, is explicitly forbidden. In games that were to be sold for minors, the publishers usually color the blood blue before releasing it on the German market.

I tend to think that we're more open with the creation of life (nude, sexual intercourse) versus of the destruction of life (killing, gore, blood). While it is exactly the opposite in the US. I've never understood that, especially given that the us is so religious - isn't religion all about cherishing and praising life instead of death?

I'd say religion is the main cause of such attitude in US.

While that could be a historical cause, these days it's actively part of the American culture. Interestingly there is almost a kind of hypocritical attitude. A lot of American culture involves sexualisation, especially involving celebrities; which often extends to kids in varies ways (fashion, magazines, music). Then parents also try to keep sex and nudity from their children, because they deem it will 'damage' them.

I'm pretty sure it's a combination of:

1. The view that the naked human body can be sexually appealing / a temptation, so it must be hidden to prevent temptation.

2. People not wanting to view the bodies of 'ugly' naked people.

3. Feeling a sense of vulnerability while naked.

Try the iFunny app, people post nudes of themselves to it every day. They also post Kik Me and other crap. It is supposed to be funny pictures only, but other crap gets through their filters. No removal from the App Store yet.

I wonder what a young Steve Jobs would have thought of his App store. The guy who went to India looking for spiritual enlightenment.

Forcing a certain level of quality is fine. Protecting users from scamware is also fine. Apple goes far beyond this. They nanny the user and force upon them what Apple perceive is right and wrong.

I got my first iMac 5 years ago and I thought Apple were awesome and innovative. Now I just find them overbearing. Like success has lead to the corporate types making decisions instead of those that originally drove development and change.

I have an iPad for testing. I avoided getting a new Apple computer in favour of a Linux computer. First time I turned on my latest computer i felt somewhat liberated being away from an Apple logo. Looking back I had the same feeling firing up my Mac for the first time. I felt free of a virus filled Windows and I remember thinking that the future had finally arrived.

Its interesting how feelings and perceptions change.

The impression I got at some point was that the reason for the absence of nudity or porn in apps sold on the iOS app store was not to nanny what users do with the device, but rather that Apple/Steve Jobs did not want to be the purveyors of nudity or porn in the same sense that if I owned a news stand I wouldn't want to sell magazines that promoted racism. I can see where the strictness of the current app store in that regard might be in line with the uplifting side of spirituality. Having said that, I'll add that I think there are things about the app store that don't fit with that quest for spiritual enlightenment.

This is not about money, unlike the Microsoft/Dropbox IAP quarrel. iOS has been a PG-rated nanny 5 years ago when you bought your iMac.

If typical corporate types were making decisions, they would probably see a lost opportunity and reverse Apple's stance on porn - having millions of credit cards on file would be a perfect base to start selling adult content.

> The guy who went to India looking for spiritual enlightenment.

Buddhism can be incredibly prude, though I am not familiar with the kind(s) of Buddhism that one would find in India.

A few years ago, I was in a big box store and overheard a young (~10y/o) child and his mother picking out a new video game. The kid excitedly picked up a box and asked his mom if he could get that one. She checked out the cover, then started reading the rating.

"Rated 'mature' for sexual content? No way!"

"Aw, man! Ok, how about this one?"

"Rated 'mature' for extreme graphic violence? Well... ok."

That's because violence is not relateable. When people see violence, they don't think, "Hey, I want to do that!" But when they see sex, they do.

When I see images of awesome looking food, I think "Hey, I want to try that!"

Same with pictures of people sky-diving, drinking, racing in fast cars, etc.

All of these things can be pretty dangerous, in fact far more dangerous than having sex. Better start the bans!

In the USA, they put disclaimers on skydiving and racing cars. Stuff like "don't try this" or "at your own risk" or "these are professionals, this is dangerous" etc. Also tobacco and alcohol companies are prohibited from advertising to minors.

Interesting theory. Alas, many cannot see the difference between sex and naked body.

Lack of video games is hardly going to prevent a kid of that certain from realizing that the opposite seems a bit different all of a sudden.

These bans are puritanical, not pragmatic.

The woman was right. Depictions of sex have huge individual and cultural repercussions. Depictions of violence have little to no effect on all but the most borderline of individuals.

Porn can really make your life worse. Violence on TV ain't going to.

Most video games, even rated 'mature' for 'strong sexual content', have nothing to do with porn. It means you might see a nipple, and there might be a few seconds of more or less implied sex at some point.

That you consider this worse than, say, playing a dude running around cutting people's heads is quite interesting. But I think it's more a cultural thing than a scientifically rational one.

This sounds more accurate to me: Depictions of sex have little to no effect on all but the most borderline of individuals. Depictions of violence have little to no effect on all but the most borderline of individuals.

Interestingly enough maybe you should read your own links before drawing what you think are exact conclusions in your original post. From the wikipedia article:

Pornography's effects on crime and domestic violence have been inconclusive. Some studies support the contention that the viewing of pornographic material may increase rates of sexual crimes whereas others either suggest no effect, or conclude the liberalization of porn in society may be associated with decreased rape and sexual violence rates.

It loos like that, like violent video games, some people are simply predisposed to being effected from an external source. The hard thing is knowing whether the effected people would have presented the effects outside of any external influence. How's that for a lesson in learning?

I didn't say anything about crime. There are all sorts of things that make your life far worse without causing crime: fast food, credit card debt, laziness. Unsurprisingly, many of them are sexual; promiscuous sex and adultery can ruin your life and the lives of those around you even without STDs.

In a nutshell, I didn't say "porn causes sex crimes," which would have been untrue and silly. I said that sexualized media has major detrimental life effects. And the links that I provided back that up. Keep your kids away from porn. It will hurt them in the long run. Violent video games aren't going to have any effect.

This isn't an awful decision just because Apple pulled it, it's an awful decision because Apple was finally starting to get a better PR stance from not hell banning apps for trivial bullshit on a large, public scale.

It is an awful decision though, rules being applied inconsistently across the board again.

Oh look, one of these stories again. Why do people keep building on this pile of shifting sand?

500px's business model isn't based around an iOS app. It's supplemental to their service. View your comment in the context of the following headline:

  Apple Pulls iOS Flickr App from AppStore

Building an App for iOS isn't the same as basing your business model around playing in someone else's sandbox.

Because unfortunately, the shifting sand is made of gold :(

Now consider, how many apps have been accepted vs. apps rejected. Google does not even offer an option to sell apps where I am.

Google's store is not the only way to get code onto Android phones (which is why I bought one, after rejecting iPhones).

Or, really, people build on this pile of sand because it's more valuable than not doing so. There is enough money to be had in the iOS ecosystem that even when you take into account the risk of being dinged for something stupid like this, it's still an expected net gain for many people to release an iOS app.

You missed the obvious reason:

Money.

Lots and lots of money.

Well I was going to write: Time to pull safari

But then I checked tech crunch's comments and it seems that I would be very unoriginal. Same goes for any of the other apps mentioned...

So to trump them all:

Time to disable the internet!

Apple's response has always been: if you want content on iOS that we don't allow, make a web app. The App store is not a public place; Apple only puts things there that they like.

Which in the larger scheme of things is a moronic position because the same device they are trying to keep pristine and pure through their app store can be used to see dirty things through the Web. We know what Apple has always been responded to these arguments with - what we are pointing out is that is that it is extremely douche-y to take such a position.

And what strategic purpose does it serve Apple by "not putting things it doesn't like" in the App Store?

Apple doesn't want an app in the app store. Apple bans the app from the app store. Flawless victory! It's par for the course with Apple: unusual strategy, perfect tactics.

With all due respect, that's some priceless apologist BS. You still didn't outline the fucking strategic goal being served here with this "perfect tactic". If the course is to stay a major dick in the software world, then yes it is par for the course. But that doesn't make much business sense - does it?

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "strategic goal". Maybe it's something mushy, like they want to make users feel more confident about what they're getting when they go to the App Store. Or maybe it's just about making metric boatloads of money!

Apple's MacOS runs on a very limited set of hardware. iOS runs on even less hardware. There are very few customization options for the hardware - the iPhone only comes in black or white, for example. And they decide what apps to sell on iPhones. Apple constantly makes decisions that their customers have to live with, sacrificing individuality or personal determination to suit some self-styled tastemakers at Apple.

The result? They have more money than Microsoft and Google combined! I don't buy Apple stuff, I just don't care for it. But to answer your question: yes, it obviously makes "business sense".

The same page that allows parents to disable the install/use of apps with too high a rating also allows them to disable Safari.

A quick look shows any number 500px browsing apps still on the store. But they're all rated 12+ or 17+.

Which makes me wonder if 500px didn't mark their app accordingly? Or perhaps they used to, but then switched it to a lower rating thinking their 'safe search' toggle was sufficient?

We were called by Apple to let us know; they specifically told us to completely block even artistic nudes. Although I'm not sure of their stance on photos of Michaelangelo's David (see: http://500px.com/photo/765271). I'll have to get someone on the phone over there.

(NSFA warning: Nipples)

Just to be clear, I was wondering about some other circumstance -- perhaps naively -- because I thought Apple had seen the error in this sort of nonsense, so I wondered if there was some other explanation or consideration.

If Apple is indeed getting back into the game of selective, uneven enforcement of their guidelines, it's a monumental fuck-up.

> If Apple is indeed getting back into the game of selective, uneven enforcement of their guidelines...

This never stopped. Selective enforcement is a policy that they enforce, and have freely admitted to.

"a monumental fuck-up." - no pun intended, I'm sure ;-)

Why doesn't the Bing app have to adhere to these same restrictions?

because the app store restrictions are guidelines how to please Apple, not rules. Apple can let hard porn through the app store and block letterpress if they like to.

Maybe Bing is just a more important strategic partner than 500px

You submitted an ad with tits in it to an -American- broadcast network and asked them to run it during kids cartoons. They said no. Enjoy your free press.

(Seeiously though: love your service)

500px was set to 4+. See the above link from me showing the google cached result.

I think 12+ would have probably let them be okay, but I could see apple requiring 17+

It was marked 12+, as the default experience for any new users is "Safe".

http://i.imgur.com/GESYvRs.jpg shows 4+ and a reviewer who said it wasn't safe.

This isn't the first time Apple do it. They've already removed Chan Elite [1] and every other 4chan's browser based on the same concern (and those were tagged as 17+ applications).

I wonder how Apple chose which apps are out, and which apps stay in.

Opera mini and Chrome are browsers, it's extremely easy to find porn with those. Yet they still are in the store.

Reddit has several subreddits for porn, and yet there are several application in the store that allow you to browse it.

This is just getting ridiculous.

[1] http://legendarysoftwarelabs.com/2012/06/13/chan-elite-is-go...

> I wonder how Apple chose which apps are out, and which apps stay in.

If the process is in any way similar to the review process then it's just about luck. If you're lucky you get a reviewer who isn't too strict about the rules and lets your app through. If you're not so lucky you get one who will apply the rules like a robot.

This is fairly absurd, any app that allows user generated content (including, dun dun dun, Safari) allows young precious eyes previously untouched by the horrors of boobies to be exposed so dangerously.

Still, this is a bit like writing a twitter app and then being sad when they flip their API on you.

Apple runs the game, they get to set the rules. If that bothers you, don't make iOS apps. I imagine if enough people did that, they may get the message.

Didn't you know? This just the walled garden protecting you from viruses! Without the walled garden you might have picked up an STD from that nude photo! </sarcasm>

[ Someone should post a bunch of sensationalist pieces about how Safari allows you to view nude photos, all of them insinuating / claiming that Apple supports the porn industry. If Apple wants to take some ultra-conservative view, let's hold their feet to the fire on it. If no app is allowed to possibly show a nude body, let's apply that to all Apps. ]

This is just silly. How does Apple justify pulling this vs Flipboard/Currents?

They don't have to justify it.

That's the danger of mandatory locked-down app curation.

I would assume that someone made a complaint to Apple, which then forces Apple to take action and investigate - at that point there's likely a procedure that they need to follow mandated by Apple's Legal department for how it gets handled.

Apple is "forced" to do no such thing, any more than a parent can't sue Comcast because her son found a nude picture on the Internet.

Someone is better friends with Apple? Possibly Facebook?

Exactly. NSFW content (and a hell of a lot worse) is instantly accessible via any of the Reddit apps. Why not pull those too?

Alien Blue is also listed as 17+.

Was 500px's app?

It was 12+, because default experience is always 'SAFE ON'.

Can someone upload a nude photo and not flag it as a nude? Do you guys check this before it gets published?

If not, Apple might not care that the default is "Safe On" when someone can either disable it easily (outside of iOS's parental controls), or the tagging is inconsistent.

Yes they can. Although there are special tools to discourage non-tagged or improperly tagged photos.

We don't check, but our community self-monitors and reacts very quickly (few minutes at most).

Well, you can see Apple's side of this, no? You're basically saying that you don't deserve the mature, "internet app rating" because your users as usually pretty quick at flagging things or that you have a safe default to catch the rest (which can be turned off by creating a 500px account and just turning it off). Both of these subvert Apple's built in parental controls and I'm guessing that's exactly why this happened. If there's a chance of mature stuff, you have to set your rating correctly.

Everyone already got all bothered about this ages ago. Apps that had built in web views had to set a mature rating because a user could then surf the web even if Safari was disabled.

I guess this comes down to what they've asked (yet?) of you. Can you resubmit the app with a higher age-restiction?

500px's app in the google cache was 4+

This was rated safe for 4+ year olds. Flipboard is not.

Why don't they pull the Chrome app because I can turn the default safe search off and search for porn?

Chrome is already listed as 17+, presumably for this very reason.

What was the 500px app's rating?

12+

What about non-nude porn? Images that people find gratifying, but don't involve naked women?

This is pretty good for 500px. I had never even heard of them before, and now they're going to be all over the Internet. I just downloaded the ISO500 app, which apparently they acquired, and which is still available on the App Store.

And so the purist American norm is forced upon the rest of the world.

Yes I know I can buy a different phone, but that's not the point. It's about a company deciding for me what my morals should be.

Now this is getting too much. Apple should be putting some sensible reviewers there. I wander what kind of people take such steps.

Additionally, "we also received customer complaints about possible child pornography", what kind of bozos report such things.

Dear Apple, Chrome and Safari let me access porn too easily, I just need to follow following steps: 1. Open Safari 2. Tap address bar. Then tap s,e,x,.,c,o,m keys and press return. 3. PORN!

OMG, now will you block Safari as well!

Here are the facts:

The app had a +4 rating which apple defines as "Apps in this category contain no objectionable material." Did 500px honor this rating? No.

Also, they shouldn't have been surprised. The review right on their iTunes page lists a complaint about nudity. I think if the app was properly rated Apple should put the app back up.

http://i.imgur.com/GESYvRs.jpg

Funnily enough, Apple had their own snafu with app store searches for lewd words showing up kid's apps like Disney's apps: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/11/15/dirty-wor...

So anyone can use the web browser on their iOS device to view nude photos on the 500px website, but they can't download the app and view them via that? It's a bit ridiculous really. Are they going to start blocking websites they dont approve of as well?

The point is, if I have set my son's iOS device to block Safari as well as apps rated as mature, then he won't be able to do either.

If 500px's app was rated 12+ because it's default was 'Safe On" (according to one of 500px's owners: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5099607), and my son can just toggle a "Safe On" switch in the app, it side-steps my parental controls.

Does apple restrict html5 mobile sites in safari? Seems like the best bet is to build as much in the website and use the app if certain native functionality is needed ...

I've never used this app. But assuming I'm an adult and want to use an Apple device to show my penis to other adults with Apple devices, why should Apple care?

Unrelated - but did TC switch off Facebook as their commenting system? This is their first post where I see Livefyre comments instead of Facebook.

I'm sure they can just resubmit with an M-17 rating.

I hope the App Store reviewers look over the Safari app. You can do the same thing, but there's no default safe search!! Scandalous!

It's funny how this comment comes up in this discussion.

It's not about Safari also being able to surf porn sites, it's about Apple wanting to protect the integrity of their parental controls.

If I've disabled mature apps as well as Safari on a child's iOS device, should I now worry that they can see mature content using 500px? Those parental controls are there for a reason and rely on accurate ratings for apps.

Yes, sucks that everything with web access gets a mature rating, but you must see how that's the point, right?

Safari is disabled on the same screen install of apps that allow nudity is disabled on (General -> Restrictions).

500px rated their app 4+, when their app should have been 12+ or 17+ by appstore rules.

I bet they'll look back at this in a few months and think the publicity they are getting was the best thing for their business.

Wait, so no artistic nudes but minors can send each other pictures of their genitalia via SnapChat?

Thanks for sharing these great tips. I always find it difficult to come up

Tumblr is rated 4+ and is full of animated GIFs of hardcore pornography.

Uh oh, watch out Tumblr.

As of 4:27 PM MST I can still find this app in the app store.

This is exactly why I use my phone in airplane mode.

this made me laugh pretty good. thanks!

This is beyond ridiculous. And I know that what Apple is doing doesn't breach any laws, but imo it should be illegal in the same way that MS bundling IE breached anti-trust laws.

Personally I'm going to try Android when it comes time to replace my iPhone.

You can't get angry at someone else for not letting you sell stuff in their store. https://xkcd.com/1150/

The problem is not the store rules. The problem is that the store is made mandatory.

I don't sell apps. I own a piece of hardware. Apple restricts the software I can run on the hardware that I own.

We would all be better off if Apple did not do this.

What's with the racist mentality?

Well you have no idea how much shit and limits I have to go through because of these sickos.

Apple announces mobile photo sharing app in 3, 2, 1...

So Apple wants to compete in this space, and 500px is an active threat. The wonders of a closed ecosystem.

Assumes facts not in evidence.