Well, it's being brought to their attention, let's see what happens. I predict it will be pulled. I don't agree they endorse what's in their store. I have a po

Well, it's being brought to their attention, let's see what happens. I predict it will be pulled. I don't agree they endorse what's in their store. I have a policy of doing up my fly. If I walk around all day with it down, I am not endorsing nudity. I may not have noticed. Once someone brings it to my attention, if I leave it down, we have an interesting question. Until then, it's an oversight. Endorsing it would be a statement from Apple suggesting it is acceptable material. Until then... We have wheels turning. I am in favour of bringing it to light and reminding Apple about their own policies. I am in favour of criticizing the App Store process as bing error-prone. But I wouldn't say they endorse this app, I would say they endorse an imperfect approval system that relies on individual judgment calls that must inevitably cause a small number of apps in compliance with the terms and conditions to be denied access to the store and a small number of apps that are in violation of the terms and conditions to be allowed into the store until someone points out the error. I don't have the exact link, it may have been this incident from 1993: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-01/business/fi-62768_1_williamson-county http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-01/business/fi-62768_1_w... My recollection is that Apple was given the "compromise" option of denying same-sex benefits to employees in the jurisdiction in question but turned that down and decided to locate elsewhere. Update: Another link http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/texas/1993/Texas.County.denies.Apple.taxbreak http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/texas/1993/Texas.County.denies.Ap...