Apple’s Sexy Skin Policy Revealed

Today we salute Michael Burford of Headlight Software for his crowning achievement of figuring out WTF Apple is thinking. Yup … Michael is one of the few developers who actually made sense of Apple’s biggest joke … Section 3.3.12 of the iPhone SDK Agreement.

rejected33 For those of you not familiar with Section 3.3.12, it is Apple’s safeguard to reject apps which contain objectionable content. It reads, “Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive, or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.)” … ok, fair enough … using common sense, these guidelines are reasonably clear and straightforward.

But Apple continues with a wildcard … “Applications must not contain other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod Touch users” … and thus the bullcrap begins = Apple’s Reasonable Judgment.

Mak6nikxprocess In reality, Apple’s reasonable judgment is similar to a 3-year old hopped up on a cotton candy sugar high. Completely out of control, shaking hysterically, bouncing off the ceiling and uttering pure nonsense. “Uh, uh, uh, shake a baby until it dies … APPROVED” – “Uh, uh, uh, kill puppies … APPROVED” – “Uh, uh, uh … flying hot dogs … DENIED”. Step away from the cotton candy Apple – your reasonable judgment objectionable! And that’s why Michael is so impressive … he actually made sense out of Apple’s hysteria.

You see Michael recently released the Poker vs Girls app [iTunes] … a very well made iPhone game of strip poker. Of course strip poker with no skin would be sacrilege. But with Apple hopped up on cotton candy … who knows if they think sexy skin is objectionable. Judging by the Hot Girls, Sexy Ladies Of SHOW, Peekababe and Sexy Girls apps (all in the Top 50 Paid Entertainment apps) – “Uh, uh, uh … sexy skin … APPROVED”. But no slam dunk for Michael’s Poker vs Girls … dude got bounced as Apple claimed some of the app’s sexy skin photographs were  objectionable …

PVG-acceptable-list11

pvg-rejected-photographs22

Huh? … approved pictures … rejected pictures … WTF? Like we said … Michael knows WTF as he reveals in this blog:

People Taking Off Clothes Or In Their Underwear Is OK,
But Pretending To Take Off Underwear Is Not OK.

Well Michael … congrats … you figured out the great Apple WTF mystery. Good luck on the upcoming male version of your app … Poker vs Boys … we look forward to your bulging crotch revelations and guidelines.

June 10, 2009 | Filed Under Games 

Comments

  • ash

    they seem to have eased up on this since released the ratings ready for the 3.0 launch, as we had our 'Babestation Sexy Presenters' app approved yesterday with “naughtier” pics than those rejected above

    feel free to check it out: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/…

  • ash

    they seem to have eased up on this since released the ratings ready for the 3.0 launch, as we had our 'Babestation Sexy Presenters' app approved yesterday with “naughtier” pics than those rejected above

    feel free to check it out: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/…

  • ash

    they seem to have eased up on this since released the ratings ready for the 3.0 launch, as we had our 'Babestation Sexy Presenters' app approved yesterday with “naughtier” pics than those rejected above

    feel free to check it out: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/…

  • JabbaJaw

    Lol… I really don't see the point of teh rejection:)) Some people are just to religious and forget about the true nature of the human being.
    __________________________________
    Online Casino Blog

  • thanks for sharing. I think they must use google more.

  • thanks for sharing. I think they must use google more.

  • Haha, they are all acceptable:P