Sometimes one has to shake the head in wonderment.
Excerpt from a New Matilda article:
Apple's portable devices like the iPhone and the iPad are unlike laptop or desktop computers in that new applications can only be obtained through Apple's centralised App Store, a global marketplace for mobile applications and content. For an application to be available in the App Store, it must first be reviewed by Apple. The set of criteria on which the applications are appraised are not quite clear. According to Apple:
"Applications may be rejected if they contain content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, sounds, etc.) that in Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory."
While many applications get rejected for solid technical reasons, there are some recent controversial examples of applications that have fallen foul of these content rules.
The restrictions on "objectionable" content, for example, have led to several dictionary applications being rejected on the grounds that they contain obscene entries. And an electronic book reader was rejected because, among thousands of titles, it gave users access to the Kama Sutra.
The introduction of an adults-only category for applications eased some of these restrictions in that dictionaries were no longer censored — but any content more adult than a picture of a bikini-clad model is still unlikely to be approved.
No comments:
Post a Comment