Apple has pulled BeautyMeter—the iPhone/iPod touch app that allowed users to upload pictures of themselves for others to rate—after a 15-yo girl published this picture showing her bare breasts and pubic hair.

Charlie Sorrel at Wired argues correctly that Apple will be damned with 17+ apps no matter what:

The problems for Apple are clear. By setting itself up as a guardian of the store, Apple can't win. Any time a controversial application is approved, or non-allowed elements are snuck into an application post-approval, Apple is blamed. If these apps are pulled ahead of time, Apple is called out as an evil censor.

Any application that allows you to upload pictures and share them could be used to do exactly the same. So where should Apple stop, then? Should they ban any app that can be used to publish pictures or videos? Shouldn't the developers—and the users—be responsible about this and not Apple.

The problem for Apple is probably not a legal one, but one of public perception, with people and mainstream assuming that—just because it runs on the iPhone—it is Apple's app.

Nutters are furious over a new Apple application which allows teenagers to access softcore pornography via the popular iPhone.

Dubbed 'iPorn' it is the first time the country's one million iPhone users can view such images with an application approved by the computer company.

The Hottest Girls package, which costs £1.19, is a 17-rated version of an older application that used to offer bikini and lingerie shots.

Previously users have been able to download softcore content from the web on to the iPhone but this is the first time such images have been available with Apple's permission.

The application is rated for those aged 17 and over, although this relies on teenage iPhone users telling the truth about their age when they sign up to the App Store.

Parents in the know can set controls on the new iPhone3GS that will stop the app appearing.

Miranda Suit, co-founder of the nutter group MediaMarch told MailOnline she was appalled: We are very concerned about the mainstreaming of pornography. It is being packaged in a tempting way and will be disastrous for youngsters who are not equipped to deal with such content. And what about the growing number of sex addicts? I know of cases where they are trying to avoid certain films and magazines, but now even their phone will be a risk for them. We urge the Government to look at the affect pornography has on children and vulnerable adults.

The application was amongst the first approved for a new 17 rating introduced to the iPhone Store.

However all is not clear as the Hottest Girls app was later removed from the App store sparking off stories that Apple have changed their mind in response to bad press.

Even later it was reported that the developer had asked for the App to be removed due to high demand on servers.

No doubt the situation will become clearer later

Update: Apple, Rotten to the Core

27th June 2009. See article from theregister.co.uk

Apple have now come out as he censorial villain of the piece. By yesterday afternoon Apple was telling CNN:

The developer of this application added inappropriate content directly from their server after the application had been approved and distributed ... This was a direct violation of the terms of the iPhone Developer Program. The application is no longer available on the App Store.

But it's not just Hottest Girls that has disappeared from the Application store - other titles from the same publisher have also been exorcised including Hottest Guys and Send Flowers.

Even the developer's web site (now) contains no reference to any of the applications or the accompanying fuss, so Apple has managed to ensure that iPhone users can download applications freely without fear of encountering a rouged female nipple, for another day at least.

The recent discussion concerning the ESA's desire to have its rating organization, the ESRB, evaluate game content for the iTunes App Store brings a number of questions to mind:

Why?

Despite its present chaotic nature, the App Store is a rising star in the game space. Getting in on the ground floor would be a coup for the ESRB. Apple has a lot of money, too, and the ESRB is paid a fee by the developer/publisher for each game it rates.

ESRB is a non-profit organization funded by the revenue generated from the services we provide the industry. Given our highly discounted rate for lower-budget games, rating mobile games is not a financially attractive proposition; however we believe making ESRB ratings available for those games would serve consumers well. Parents are already familiar with ESRB ratings and find them to be extremely helpful in making informed choices for their families.

Apple’s integration of ESRB ratings into its parental controls for iPhone games would afford parents the ability to block those video games that carry an ESRB rating utilizing the same tool they are being offered to block video content that has been rated by the MPAA or carries an official TV rating. It’s about giving parents the same ability to do on the iPhone what they are being offered with other entertainment content and can already do on game consoles and other handheld game devices.

What would it cost?

I asked the ESRB what it costs a developer/publisher to have a typical console game rated? Would the cost to rate an iPhone game be less? Mizrachi said:

Our standard fees for getting a game rated cover the costs of providing that service. However, to make accommodations for lower-budget product like casual and mobile games, several years ago we introduced a highly discounted rate - 80% less - for games that cost under $250,000 to develop. We believe most iPhone games would likely be eligible for the discounted rate.

Who would pay for ESRB to rate App Store games?

Not the creators of $0.99 games, for the most part. They are apparently not making significant revenue. Apple has a deep pocket, of course, although they are not the creator of the games for sale on the App Store. Perhaps the larger industry players such as EA, Namco, etc. would foot the bill for their games. They are already accustomed to dealing with the ESRB.

Apple has reversed its decision to reject the e-book reader app Eucalyptus from the App Store on the basis that it can access an English translation of the Kama Sutra. The change came after a hopefully embarrassed Apple representative contacted the developer directly to discuss the issue.

The Apple representative asked Eucalyptus developer James Montgomerie to submit a build of Eucalyptus without any filtering in place, and, as of late Saturday, that version is now available for purchase from the App Store for $9.99.

The third version of Hot Dog Down A Hallway, Metaversal Studios' only iPhone app, has been rejected by the App Store. Apple ludicrously cites explicit content as the reason for its decision. Metaversal Studios is unconvinced by the label, as the game, despite its suggestive name, has previously been given a low age rating of nine and up by the App Store. The developer's Interactive Director, Dave Laundry, believes the iTunes censorship policy is a mystery.

Hot Dog Down A Hallway v1.1 is still available from the App Store for $1, but will likely be removed.

Reading old stories about Apple inanity

Based on article from guardian.co.uk

A British-made iPhone program has been banned by Apple - because it 'could' allow people to read the Kama Sutra.

Eucalyptus, a book reading application developed by Edinburgh programmer James Montgomerie, allows users to download and read thousands of classic titles from the library of Project Gutenberg, the respected website that hosts out of copyright books.

But after repeated attempts to get Eucalyptus onto the iPhone's popular App Store, Montgomerie was told that his application was being rejected because one of Gutenberg's books happens to be Sir Richard Burton's 1883 translation of the famous guide to sex.

In a series of emails, Apple told Montgomerie that allowing access to the Kama Sutra meant that the program contains inappropriate sexual content, in violation of the rules for iPhone software.

Of course the same title is already accessible through a number of other popular ebook applications for the iPhone, and even through the handset's web browser.

Montgomerie told the Guardian that although the situation has left him frustrated, it will not put him off developing for the iPhone. As a temporary solution to the problem, he has submitted a new version of Eucalyptus to Apple which specifically blocks the Kama Sutra - and says he hopes that bureaucracy will not get in the way this time: I would like to think that someone, somewhere at Apple would realise just how flawed the whole approval process is, and do something to change it. It does seem like it could be a lot better without having to spend too much extra money on it. They could make the whole thing a lot more pleasant.

Apple has banned an iPhone app, Me So Holy, which allows users to replace Jesus’s face with their own.

Me So Holy is the latest in a line of apps that Apple has rejected, causing industry pundits to accuse Apple of becoming both a nanny and tastemaker for the app store.

The application has been branded by Apple as objectionable and has been rejected from its app store.

Apple keeps a censorial grip over its iPhone which one of America's top-selling smart phones. It has proven itself more than willing to censor a broad range of content it finds morally questionable from violence to sexual themes. The latest example of Apple seeking to help guide its customers' moral decisions came when the company rejected an application update from Trent Reznor, for an app for his band Nine Inch Nails.

Apple said the app was unacceptable because it came with profane music clips from NIN's groundbreaking album The Downward Spiral. Some note the curiousness of Apple's ruling, given that it happily sold the album on iTunes.

Now, at last, Apple has let its objections go away in the end. It has reversed its stance and said that Reznor can have it all, when it comes to his app update. Reznor happily Twittered the news to his fans.

While, it’s good to see Apple looking to re-evaluate its rules surrounding how it polices its app store empire, it’s also somewhat troubling, according to some, that Apple is developing a habit of rejecting applications on questionable grounds and then approving them after criticism. Many say that Apple's selective and haphazard censorship demonstrates an inability to logically regulate its content, something which threatens the viability of the iPhone's app platform.

Apple may put News International's nose out of joint with its definition of 'obscene', after rejecting a newspaper-reading iPhone app for reasons of rudeness.

Newspaper(s), an application that renders content from the world's newspapers, was rejected by iTunes because it included the UK's Sun newspaper - complete with topless Page Three girl - on the grounds that it violates the iTunes policy on obscene content.

But the Sun reckons it's a family paper, and takes accusations of pornography-pushing very seriously indeed.

According to a report on iLounge the publisher of Newspaper(s) was recommended to resubmit the application once OS 3.0 is released, after which a suitable category will be available, but instead decided to remove the offending newspaper from the app.