8 ms·

IKamasutra: Apple Hates Brunettes

355 points by varl 14y ago

rev087 14y ago
The app looks extremely well made, really a shame it has been pulled out of the stores.
- epaga 14y ago
  It IS well made. My wife and I got it about a year ago. It's password-protected and very tastefully drawn. About 25% of the positions are virtually impossible but pretty hilarious. :) I'd have had no issue with Apple if they had simply not allowed it on day 1. But to allow it to be hugely successful for such a long period of time (as in: within the top 50 or so overall for months on end) only to pull it without reason is horrifying to me as an app developer.
kodisha 14y ago
Nice job Apple and Google, nice job. If I were in charge, person who made the call would be out of job. And if this was "company" decision, well, good luck to you all, and move to Europe. We love brunettes here.
- ovi256 14y ago
  Apple has consistently proven that they want the App Store to be squeaky Disney family clean. So the fact that some apps went through the cracks was pure luck.
  - kodisha 14y ago
    But why? WHY? What harm could come from app like this? Please, assume that I'm 12 years old, and try to explain.
    - patd 14y ago
      Let me try: your parents are paying for your iPhone and they don't want you to have a Kama Sutra app :)
      - kodisha 14y ago
        So, let me try to figure this out: Kama Sutra - not ok. Killing people app[1] - ok. ??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8gAdb2N7Po http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8gAdb2N7Po
        spacemanaki 14y ago
        This is not a new problem in US entertainment and media. Compare the behavior of Apple with the MPAA ratings board which treats violence and sex in a similar manner, rating films which depict violence with an "R" while effectively censoring films with certain kinds of sex scenes with "NC-17" ratings (in case you aren't familiar: films rated "R" will be shown in most movie theaters but many if not most theaters choose not to show "NC-17" films). See the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" for more. I have no idea where this comes from, if it stems from some kind of deep rooted puritanical culture, but it's not exactly unique to Apple's app store.
        rimantas 14y ago
        I still cannot wrap my head around this. My brain just switches off when I try to think how did we come to this when nudity (and of course sex) is taboo, but killing people is OK. The fact that I don't even see any discussions about this baffles me even more.
        spacemanaki 14y ago
        There is discussion about it, among both the gaming and film industries. See my sibling comment to yours and the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" which is from 2005 IIRC. They delve into it quite deeply, even looking at why some sex scenes are given the deadly NC-17 (spoiler: the MPAA doesn't like gay sex and sex where the woman is enjoying it) and comparing the kinds of violence in films that are rated differently. I remember one especially biting criticism from a comedian or filmmaker who basically argued that we have it backwards with the ratings for violent films, and instead should rate certain war movies so that younger people actually CAN see them, and rate other, "fantasy" violence higher so only adults who can discern the difference can see them. I think the example was "Saving Private Ryan" which is rated R, but in this new scheme would be PG-13, because it depicts war realistically. The James Bond movies, which are PG-13 because they have no gore, should be rated R, because the violence in them is depicted unrealistically: with no consequences, with effortless skill on the part of the killer, and with clear cut "good and evil" roles. I'm sure I'm butchering this argument, but I found it to be an extremely compelling one, if a bit too optimistic that this would ever change. In games, see the recent article on Jonathan Blow that was posted to HN, called "The Most Dangerous Gamer". There's definitely a related discussion among certain game makers about violence in games.
    - CodeMage 14y ago
      Here's an explanation I would offer to a 12-year old to explain Apple's decision, but please bear in mind that it doesn't mean I agree with it: There are many people in the world who use technology, but are offended by even the slightest sexual material. They might not have reasons for it that you and I would agree with, but that's beside the point. The point is that they can get very loud and insistent and they might go on TV saying that "Apple distributes smut" and whatnot. Apple wants to avoid that kind of hassle. There are different ways to do that, but the easiest for Apple is to simply reject any content they think might cause them this kind of trouble.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
    - rmc 14y ago
      Some people do not like sex, and do not like people enjoying sex, and do not want to "promote" (i.e. talk about) sex. Ergo anything that implies that normal people can be healthy and happy and want to have sex threatens this world-view.
  - nlc 14y ago
    Considering the app has been in the top paid apps charts for years, it probably wasn't a crack that let it in.
antirez 14y ago
The problem is that "app approval" does not scale well, for a very simple reason: it is hard. Applying guidelines like the ones Apple uses, requires a very skilled individual that is able to evaluate at the same time a set of rules in a flexible way, and really understand if the app is good for the apple store or not. You can do that if you have a team of 20. Finding 300 people doing this work very well is going to be very hard, and you need to pay more as this must be people that at the same time understand design, programming (if you read the rules thare are many that without understanding of software are hard to apply), and at the same time able to find a good balance between flexibility and severity. Not an easy task at all. Maybe they could improve the process with the following schema: * Instead of doing a single longer review, a few of your approval team will review the app briefly, and provide a score between 1 and 5 of "acceptability". * If the score is 4 or 5, go forward. If the score is <= 3 send it to a more expert reviewer that will do an in depth analysis. Optionally also discard the app if the average score is <= 1.5 if there are problems with the "load" of the experts.
- plasma 14y ago
  I don't agree that its a super hard job and that's why this problem has occurred. Surely the review team should hear the iKamasutra's concerns and realise that the app has been in use for years already, and that the sudden reason to reject it is confusing and obtuse.
  - ErrantX 14y ago
    What you are saying boils down to "Surely it's obvious that...". Of course, the problem there is that it's not obvious to a non-trivial number of people. Who apparently in this case work in Apple's review department. The most obviously idiotic things often look perfectly sensible from "inside", or from a singular perspective.
    - triblib 14y ago
      But like any big organization, there are likely idiosyncrasies that have bubbled and been allowed to continue just because, "that's the way things are." For example, the whole iphone4 antenna thing was surely seen by many people...but it's likely that someone at top said, "It's passable" and everyone else on the team learned to just accept it. Just because lots of people recognize a big problem doesn't mean that all efforts have been made to rectify/smooth it out.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
JohnnyFlash 14y ago
The trouble is that the guidelines aren't black and white. They are somewhat grey. This means that 2 reviews will rarely result in the same action. I would argue the Kama Sutra is both historical and educational and not sexually explicit at all. Perhaps a celebration of human bodies even, I don't know. It seems though that Apple particularly feel that its customers require a squeaky clean filter to assess everything they access. For cloned and low quality app's this is great! Restricting porn... I guess it is a good thing. Kid's can browse the app store. However this grey area between what is clean and what isn't is something they have never mastered. It is really sad to see Google following this path of over-censorship..
- ErrantX 14y ago
  I've always thought the keyword is "explicit" for which the most relevant definition is probably: "described or shown in realistic detail" I had the iKarmasutra app and it was great; slightly coy and fun, but detailed enough to understand how each position worked. The images were tastefully drawn with the same emphasis. But the detail couldn't be described as "realistic" I don't think you even need to argue the historical/educational angle.
- rmc 14y ago
  I would argue the Kama Sutra is both historical and educational and not sexually explicit at all. Perhaps a celebration of human bodies even, I don't know. The problem is that there is no one objective definition of seuxality explicit. "I'll know it when I see it" is almost as good as you can get.
- rogerbraun 14y ago
  I think a guide to sex positions is as sexually explicit as it can get, it's just not necessarily pornographic. I also think that the argument that it keeps the store clean so kids can browse it does not really work. Other online stores like Amazon don't have this, you can search for and buy porn there and nobody is outraged. A much better idea would be to give apps a suggested user age, so you could filter the store.
- huggyface 14y ago
  I would argue the Kama Sutra is both historical and educational and not sexually explicit at all. What does "sexual explicit" mean? It is quite explicit about sex -- it is wholly concerned with sex. However the app in question is not the historic Kama Sutra. It is a list of sexual positions, and by their own admission, with some subtle between the lines commentary, they seemed to be pushing boundaries on what graphically was allowed.
rbarooah 14y ago
The fact that this happened on both the App store, and Google Play almost simultaneously raises the suspicion that one of the less reputable competitors lodged some kind of complaint.
- datagramm 14y ago
  Very possibly. It could also be that someone at Google is watching what gets taken down from the app store an following suit.
  - megablast 14y ago
    Why would they ever do that?
- netcan 14y ago
  disreputable sex educators?
- scythe 14y ago
  I'm bored, so let's run the numbers: the elapsed time between removal from the App Store and removal from Google Play is 23 days, at a point where it had been simultaneously in the App Store and the Android Market for ~450 days (I don't know the exact number), which gives us P = 23 / 450 = 0.05 -- where the null hypothesis is that removal happens at random -- for this within 23 days of each other, and that's on the edge of statistical significance (you usually set alpha = 0.05). So maybe something weird happened.
- gcheong 14y ago
  Maybe Playboy decided they wanted to publish a Kamasutra app?
hef19898 14y ago
Are we all going nuts nowadays? Really, to remove a product from your store (which also happens to be a monopolistic sales channel) after it was there for years and recieved several updates since without any dialog with the producer of the product is bad style, really bad style. Especially if the producer is willing to change the product to fit your requirements. Some time ago almost everyone agreed that Nokia failed also due to a lack of developers for Simbia, do you really think treating developers with a proven track record like that will do you any good? I really hope that this issue is solved to the satisfaction of every party involved and the app will be back soon. Ah, and finally, if this was due to the "sexual content" the only thing left to say is "brave new world". And that from a company that help to battle SOPA...
- blindhippo 14y ago
  Sadly, developers are stuck with Apple being our app approval overlord - and Apple knows it. There really isn't any competition in the app "market" because Apple is far too big to really allow for it. Any and all of these smart phone platforms need to be legislated to provide opportunity for different store fronts beyond the platform provider. Apple really is the 21st century Microsoft.
  - petercooper 14y ago
    Yep, and in Mountain Lion, it's coming to the desktop too.. I wouldn't be surprised if Safari can only load approved sites by default in 10.9 at this rate.
- waqf 14y ago
  The problem "nowadays" (meaning, with business models like Apple's or Google's) is that common sense is an expensive commodity compared to the opportunity cost of making one arbitrary decision or another on an individual app. And the legal system just hasn't yet caught up enough to keep them in check. They're the robber barons of our age.
spinchange 14y ago
Sergey said that Apple and Facebook are a threat to freedom on the web, but I submit that commercial 'app stores' like Google Play and Apple's AppStore are the real threat. They have all the control and solely get to decide what is acceptable or not (while reserving the right to change their mind later). Google Play won't even let you rent a video from the store if it detects your phone has been rooted. This sucks. We've gained all this freedom and control with free software and the web, etc, and now we're going to give it all away to these stupid commercial app stores.
- klez 14y ago
  For Apple this is a problem since the app store is the only source of software for non-jailbroken iphones. Regarding Android, we can always use another marketplace, but then the problem would be security and good quality apps. And so we would again be at square one. Does anybody have another idea?
- AndrewDucker 14y ago
  I disagree regarding Google Play. Appstore is a threat because if you want software on your Apple phone then it is the only legal method. But with Android you can install software from any app store you like, or directly. Google provide an app store as a service, but it's only one of many.
  - rmc 14y ago
    Yes the fact that you can add extra apps is better than the 'our way or the highway' approach of the apple app store, but defaults matter. 99% of people think the play store/app store/android market is the only way to do it. You remove it from there, it's gone.
    - zalew 14y ago
      http://martingryner.com/on-alternative-android-app-stores/ http://martingryner.com/on-alternative-android-app-stores/ "In first week, Number Game got about 360 downloads on Google Play. By that time, Number Game on SlideMe had been downloaded about 700 times…in 3 days. SlideMe is the number 1 source for Number Game downloads adding over 100 on better days. If you also happen to update your application and get to “updated” section, you could pick up as much in few hours. SlideMe has less applications than Google Play, but a huge user base. Also it has a decent review process (it didn’t take 2 eternities like Amazons) and the best developer interface. If I had to choose just one market to publish my apps on in the future it will be SlideMe, not Google Play."
acidblue 14y ago
Why doesn't the title mention Google also? Shouldn't it be "IKamsutra: Apple and Google hate Brunettes". Do people get more clicks on this site when the attack one company and not another? Yeah, I am a fanboy, but still... People have to remember that the App Store has nothing to do with "Freedom of Speech". Every retail outlet decides what products they wish to sell. They all have buyers that decide which products will compliment or negatively impact their reputation. I do believe Apple owes the makers of IKamasutra an explanation, even if it is short, like: "Company A provided us sufficient information to warrant removal of your software", or "Updates to your software made it too explicit and violates the App Store guidelines". It guess its just too costly to do this or something. This does suck for someone that has had something out there for a long time and now its gone. Perhaps it wasn't another company, and the reviewer just thought "Not another one" and that was it. I haven't searched, but I wonder how many of these apps are in there? Even the App Store (TM) guidelines mentions Kama Sutra apps: "Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them, such as fart, burp, flashlight, and Kama Sutra apps." The other funny thing is that the next statements also says: "If your app is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps." So, I suppose you screw yourself by blogging and telling everyone. Biting that hand that feeds isn't always a good thing. But, there is also this: 'Apps containing pornographic material, defined by Webster's Dictionary as "explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings", will be rejected' So, perhaps getting closer to actual people and not the original crude wood carvings is an issue. I'm surprised these app ever made it in with that clause. The Kama Sutra fits this.
datagramm 14y ago
A friend of mine that used to work at iTunes tells me that Apple always keep the front page of their stores completely 'family friendly'. Maybe this mentality is starting to filter down past the front page and result in a knee-jerk rejection of anything vaguely adult.
StCroix 14y ago
I hope that Steve Jobs, who happily credited himself as an openly adherent member and ambassador of the counterculture that fought for ideas like this to be acceptable in a then over-conservative society, is rightfully turning in his grave.
- mrich 14y ago
  Let's not act like he would have cared about this while he was alive. Apple's products and services always place family-friendlyness over any kind of free expression.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Steve Jobs was quoted as saying "those who want porn can get an Android". I'm very much afraid you are wrong on this one.
    - vacri 14y ago
      Isn't that exactly what mrich is saying? Family-friendly over porn? I remember reading a quote of Jobs where he said 'no-one wants porn on their phone', when clearly porn is popular enough that plenty of people do.
    - StCroix 14y ago
      Yeah as I say, "I hope"... maybe even retrospectively from atop of his own 'iCloud'. Please read my comment as slightly tongue in cheek, I'm well aware of his later-life stance on adult material.
      - chris_wot 14y ago
        I lol'ed at the iCloud reference :-) sorry, I didn't read the humour, should not have been so abrupt!
    - lucian1900 14y ago
      He even, very ironically, said iOS gives you freedom from porn.
gcheong 14y ago
There really needs to be a way to sell outside of the apple appstore without needing to jailbreak of your device. If the DOJ can sue Apple and the book publishers over an apparent attempt to destroy competition in the retail market, why wouldn't they be interested in how Apple is destroying developers' ability to freely publish apps and consumers to have choices besides Apple in the marketplace? How do we start a campaign to get them to look into this? Has anyone tried to file a suit of any kind to address this problem to date?
- rbarooah 14y ago
  Why not just buy an android phone?
  - DHowett 14y ago
    1) Notice that Google has removed this app too. 2) Carriers (AT&T) are known for disabling app sideloading. 3) Having to root your device presents the basic user with a major technical hurdle, and in some cases, an outright impossibility. If you're going to advocate as an alternative an entire platform you can't guarantee freedom on, for freedom's sake, why advocate it?
    - rbarooah 14y ago
      I don't think I've ever advocated Android, but I am interested in why it doesn't live up to the promise of being open. When I see comments like the parent's the logic seems to be: "Android isn't properly open, so let's sue Apple."
      - jw_ 14y ago
        > Why not just buy an android phone? > I don't think I've ever advocated Android
        rbarooah 14y ago
        That wasn't advocacy. I really wanted to know why the original commenter was talking about suing Apple, instead of just buying an Android phone.
hsuresh 14y ago
As a developer, i'd really think hard about developing a native app. I know that some apps cannot go web based, but we need to push the boundaries of what is possible with mobile browsers. I can't think of any other way of keeping the mobile development open.
pixelcort 14y ago
There's a technological solution to situations like these: make a full screen, offline capable, mobile web app. Discovery and charging for your mobile web app or for content within it may be challenging for the foreseeable future, but hopefully not forever. Another issue is feature parity with native SDKs, which seems to be very slowly narrowing each year. Ability to produce performant apps is another area with very slow but greater than zero progression. For games, sure, go native and take advantage of the store discovery and payment platforms, access to all the APIs, and performance. For other kinds of apps like these, maybe mobile web apps are a better idea. Edit: clarification.
nextparadigms 14y ago
Apple's app rejection policy seems as unpredictable as Google's account banning.
rkudeshi 14y ago
I'm not a fan of these sort of apps but from the pics provided, it seems to be made as tastefully as possible and without excessive "sexual allure" (ie. titillating apps made for 13-year-olds to download without their parents knowing). (I'd say the 13 million "SALES" are also an indicator of quality but, Angry Birds aside, there's no way a number that high was all paid downloads.)
- xyzzyz 14y ago
  Imagine all the titillating books 13-year-olds can read in a public library without their parents knowing! Seriously, though, there are much better sources of porn out there than books and sketchy non-explicit monochrome drawings, and kids are well aware of them.
- blahedo 14y ago
  > "(I'd say the 13 million "SALES" are also an indicator of quality but, Angry Birds aside, there's no way a number that high was all paid downloads.)" Are you sure? Why?
  - sp332 14y ago
    If that number isn't just iPhone sales, then it includes the free versions for Android, Chrome, Roku, etc.
JohnLBevan 14y ago
Someone could start an App Approval business. Applications don't require approval to go on to an app store / market place, but if the developers submitted their code to one AppApproversLtd, those guys could review it for a small comission, then upload it to the app store as a trusted application. Though there's a slight conflict of interest (i.e. the person paying the approvers is also the person sending the code) I believe it's in the AppApproversLtd company's interest to do a good job since their business depends on them giving a reliable evaluation / building up a good reputation. Using that business model keeps flexibility in place, where users decide if they want to risk trusting an unapproved app, or would rather go for an app that's been approved by one of these companies (potentially incurring additional cost if the developers passed the approval cost on to their users rather than offsetting against advertising). AppApproversLtd could offer different levels of approval / ratings - i.e. just checking for malicious code vs. checking for polite error handling, efficiently written code, best practices, impact on battery life, etc.
- shadesandcolour 14y ago
  That would be fine but it doesn't solve any of the problems really. Apple will still have control over their store. Google Play will continue to let you in and then review if they get a complaint (at least I assume that's how they do it). Ultimately I'm not sure that the business model will work. It only really applies to Android and even then most people get apps through the marketplace. Those people who want to side load apps most likely know the consequences or know someone who does and decide whether or not to take the risk. It seems analogous to running your website code through the W3 checker. It's a certification that you did stuff right, but it doesn't stop most users from going to your site if you don't have that little badge at the bottom.
kodisha 14y ago
Is it possible that Ikamasutra developer sue Apple and win in court?
- mistercow 14y ago
  I think that really depends on what you mean by "possible". For all practical purposes, it's pretty unlikely given the comparative legal resources of the two companies.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    Exactly. In a lot of things in the US, you get as much justice as you can afford.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
alastairpat 14y ago
Unless the title of the blog post has been changed since submission to HN, why the editorialised title? Edit: I've since learnt that that is actually the title of the post. It still seems kind of sensationalist none-the-less.
- _delirium 14y ago
  The title of both the HN submission and the blog post are "Apple Hates Brunettes" at the moment, unless I'm getting some kind of cached copy?
  - alastairpat 14y ago
    Oh, my mistake - that is actually the title. Thanks.
- blindhippo 14y ago
  Well, their product has been unjustly removed from both Google and Apple stores. I'm surprised the blog post isn't filled with more negativity towards both companies - the "sensationalist" title suits the content and tone perfectly.
ForrestN 14y ago
Perhaps there should be an 18+ section that can be blocked by parents with a password? If you have an out-of-the-box iPhone you can get any manner of porn within Safari. Why shouldn't you be able to get real porn with a better experience via an app?
netcan 14y ago
slightly off topic. Today I realized that my 3g plan is censoring adult content. I also listened to a podcaster talk about renaming his podcast "talkings hit" to get passed the itunes criteria. The paper had some silly fluff article about Facebook and breastfeeding pictures. Youtube is stricter than TV on nudity (and laxer on violence). These were all little corners of the internet up until recently and it seemed all right that they all have their own rules. Suddenly they pretty much are the internet and soon the will be the computer. I don't like it.
- llimllib 14y ago
  Yesterday, Facebook wouldn't let me post a link to a pirate sports video stream, so they're censoring based on copyrights too.
- cubicle67 14y ago
  Youtube is stricter than TV on nudity except for stuff like this (very NSFW just after the 8 minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjRExyIBNM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjRExyIBNM which somehow is still there [Edit - it's Penn & Teller on Taxes, part 3]
  - blahedo 14y ago
    With only 3,000 viewers so far, perhaps it's just nobody's complained yet?
  - 4ad 14y ago
    Youtube restricts pornography not nudity.
- grecy 14y ago
  > Youtube is stricter than TV on nudity (and laxer on violence). In your country. sigh Many, many developed nations allow swearing, violence and nudity on TV at all times of the day.
whackberry 14y ago
Google was able to portray an image of being good and free and transparent early on in its existence. This image still lingers from their PR efforts but the reality is that Google is one of the most agressive corporations out there. Let's not demonize Google in particular, Sillicon Valley is brutal. But, let's also make clear that Google isn't some nice old lady that does no evil. Google spies on users just like Facebook, Google plays hardball with its monopoly in web search like Microsoft played monopoly with their OS. Google goes the whole nine yards in the Sillicon Valley dirty games and still these articles all mention "Google is open" or "how could Google do evil". Google has a PR team as good as or better than their programmers, that is a fact.
septerr 14y ago
Didn't know the app existed! Now that I know it did, I want it to be available. Not settling for kamasutra+.
septerr 14y ago
Btw, ikamasutra.com can use a facelift. :/ It's kinda geocities looking right now. You should make it more web 2.0.
huggyface 14y ago
"In the process we also removed even more illustration details from the Android version so it looked like the new iOS version" That's a curious statement that makes you wonder which part of the story we don't know (was this a case of pushing boundaries, seeing what they could get away with?) It seems doubtful that we're hearing the full truth.
gcb 14y ago
Why people aren't building sites that work with everything and using the app merely to authenticate? That will allow you to capitalize via the *stores but not be hostage to it. Some clueless people now will try to educate me that a native client is better, even it not having bookmarks, several tabs, browser extensions, pitch to zoom on every page, etc etc
victorbstan 14y ago
Actually Apple doesn't hate brunettes, what they hate is the likeness to reality that your brunette colored people are, where if you color the hair like in your second example, the people become less realistic and more like abstract icons; their hair being the exact same color as their body skin (yellow and red). Doesn't take a genius to figure this one out, but then it doesn't take a genius to write a bitching blog post either.
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  They haven't approved the update with the new graphics either.
phil 14y ago
The crazy thing is the #4 paid app is this violent fantasy about shooting people with a sniper rifle and that's apparently OK: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/clear-vision-17+/id500116670?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/clear-vision-17+/id500116670?... The #5 paid app is a scam designed to confuse (check out the reviews): http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lock-my-screen/id507265508?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lock-my-screen/id507265508?mt...
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  That's really curious. The "lock-screen" app has a Rated 4+ indication, yet it's actual ratings are 1-star. There's something fishy here, how come this doesn't get the appstore lords' attention?
  - therealarmen 14y ago
    Rated 4+ refers to the approved age group, not average review rating.
    - ricardobeat 14y ago
      Ha.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
hef19898 14y ago
Bought it today!

355 points by varl 14y ago

rev087 14y ago

The app looks extremely well made, really a shame it has been pulled out of the stores.

epaga 14y ago
It IS well made. My wife and I got it about a year ago. It's password-protected and very tastefully drawn. About 25% of the positions are virtually impossible but pretty hilarious. :) I'd have had no issue with Apple if they had simply not allowed it on day 1. But to allow it to be hugely successful for such a long period of time (as in: within the top 50 or so overall for months on end) only to pull it without reason is horrifying to me as an app developer.

kodisha 14y ago

Nice job Apple and Google, nice job. If I were in charge, person who made the call would be out of job. And if this was "company" decision, well, good luck to you all, and move to Europe. We love brunettes here.

ovi256 14y ago
Apple has consistently proven that they want the App Store to be squeaky Disney family clean. So the fact that some apps went through the cracks was pure luck.
- kodisha 14y ago
  But why? WHY? What harm could come from app like this? Please, assume that I'm 12 years old, and try to explain.
  - patd 14y ago
    Let me try: your parents are paying for your iPhone and they don't want you to have a Kama Sutra app :)
    - kodisha 14y ago
      So, let me try to figure this out: Kama Sutra - not ok. Killing people app[1] - ok. ??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8gAdb2N7Po http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8gAdb2N7Po
      - spacemanaki 14y ago
        This is not a new problem in US entertainment and media. Compare the behavior of Apple with the MPAA ratings board which treats violence and sex in a similar manner, rating films which depict violence with an "R" while effectively censoring films with certain kinds of sex scenes with "NC-17" ratings (in case you aren't familiar: films rated "R" will be shown in most movie theaters but many if not most theaters choose not to show "NC-17" films). See the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" for more. I have no idea where this comes from, if it stems from some kind of deep rooted puritanical culture, but it's not exactly unique to Apple's app store.
      - rimantas 14y ago
        I still cannot wrap my head around this. My brain just switches off when I try to think how did we come to this when nudity (and of course sex) is taboo, but killing people is OK. The fact that I don't even see any discussions about this baffles me even more.
        spacemanaki 14y ago
        There is discussion about it, among both the gaming and film industries. See my sibling comment to yours and the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" which is from 2005 IIRC. They delve into it quite deeply, even looking at why some sex scenes are given the deadly NC-17 (spoiler: the MPAA doesn't like gay sex and sex where the woman is enjoying it) and comparing the kinds of violence in films that are rated differently. I remember one especially biting criticism from a comedian or filmmaker who basically argued that we have it backwards with the ratings for violent films, and instead should rate certain war movies so that younger people actually CAN see them, and rate other, "fantasy" violence higher so only adults who can discern the difference can see them. I think the example was "Saving Private Ryan" which is rated R, but in this new scheme would be PG-13, because it depicts war realistically. The James Bond movies, which are PG-13 because they have no gore, should be rated R, because the violence in them is depicted unrealistically: with no consequences, with effortless skill on the part of the killer, and with clear cut "good and evil" roles. I'm sure I'm butchering this argument, but I found it to be an extremely compelling one, if a bit too optimistic that this would ever change. In games, see the recent article on Jonathan Blow that was posted to HN, called "The Most Dangerous Gamer". There's definitely a related discussion among certain game makers about violence in games.
  - CodeMage 14y ago
    Here's an explanation I would offer to a 12-year old to explain Apple's decision, but please bear in mind that it doesn't mean I agree with it: There are many people in the world who use technology, but are offended by even the slightest sexual material. They might not have reasons for it that you and I would agree with, but that's beside the point. The point is that they can get very loud and insistent and they might go on TV saying that "Apple distributes smut" and whatnot. Apple wants to avoid that kind of hassle. There are different ways to do that, but the easiest for Apple is to simply reject any content they think might cause them this kind of trouble.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - rmc 14y ago
    Some people do not like sex, and do not like people enjoying sex, and do not want to "promote" (i.e. talk about) sex. Ergo anything that implies that normal people can be healthy and happy and want to have sex threatens this world-view.
- nlc 14y ago
  Considering the app has been in the top paid apps charts for years, it probably wasn't a crack that let it in.

antirez 14y ago

The problem is that "app approval" does not scale well, for a very simple reason: it is hard. Applying guidelines like the ones Apple uses, requires a very skilled individual that is able to evaluate at the same time a set of rules in a flexible way, and really understand if the app is good for the apple store or not. You can do that if you have a team of 20. Finding 300 people doing this work very well is going to be very hard, and you need to pay more as this must be people that at the same time understand design, programming (if you read the rules thare are many that without understanding of software are hard to apply), and at the same time able to find a good balance between flexibility and severity. Not an easy task at all. Maybe they could improve the process with the following schema: * Instead of doing a single longer review, a few of your approval team will review the app briefly, and provide a score between 1 and 5 of "acceptability". * If the score is 4 or 5, go forward. If the score is <= 3 send it to a more expert reviewer that will do an in depth analysis. Optionally also discard the app if the average score is <= 1.5 if there are problems with the "load" of the experts.

plasma 14y ago
I don't agree that its a super hard job and that's why this problem has occurred. Surely the review team should hear the iKamasutra's concerns and realise that the app has been in use for years already, and that the sudden reason to reject it is confusing and obtuse.
- ErrantX 14y ago
  What you are saying boils down to "Surely it's obvious that...". Of course, the problem there is that it's not obvious to a non-trivial number of people. Who apparently in this case work in Apple's review department. The most obviously idiotic things often look perfectly sensible from "inside", or from a singular perspective.
  - triblib 14y ago
    But like any big organization, there are likely idiosyncrasies that have bubbled and been allowed to continue just because, "that's the way things are." For example, the whole iphone4 antenna thing was surely seen by many people...but it's likely that someone at top said, "It's passable" and everyone else on the team learned to just accept it. Just because lots of people recognize a big problem doesn't mean that all efforts have been made to rectify/smooth it out.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

JohnnyFlash 14y ago

The trouble is that the guidelines aren't black and white. They are somewhat grey. This means that 2 reviews will rarely result in the same action. I would argue the Kama Sutra is both historical and educational and not sexually explicit at all. Perhaps a celebration of human bodies even, I don't know. It seems though that Apple particularly feel that its customers require a squeaky clean filter to assess everything they access. For cloned and low quality app's this is great! Restricting porn... I guess it is a good thing. Kid's can browse the app store. However this grey area between what is clean and what isn't is something they have never mastered. It is really sad to see Google following this path of over-censorship..

ErrantX 14y ago
I've always thought the keyword is "explicit" for which the most relevant definition is probably: "described or shown in realistic detail" I had the iKarmasutra app and it was great; slightly coy and fun, but detailed enough to understand how each position worked. The images were tastefully drawn with the same emphasis. But the detail couldn't be described as "realistic" I don't think you even need to argue the historical/educational angle.
rmc 14y ago
I would argue the Kama Sutra is both historical and educational and not sexually explicit at all. Perhaps a celebration of human bodies even, I don't know. The problem is that there is no one objective definition of seuxality explicit. "I'll know it when I see it" is almost as good as you can get.
rogerbraun 14y ago
I think a guide to sex positions is as sexually explicit as it can get, it's just not necessarily pornographic. I also think that the argument that it keeps the store clean so kids can browse it does not really work. Other online stores like Amazon don't have this, you can search for and buy porn there and nobody is outraged. A much better idea would be to give apps a suggested user age, so you could filter the store.
huggyface 14y ago
I would argue the Kama Sutra is both historical and educational and not sexually explicit at all. What does "sexual explicit" mean? It is quite explicit about sex -- it is wholly concerned with sex. However the app in question is not the historic Kama Sutra. It is a list of sexual positions, and by their own admission, with some subtle between the lines commentary, they seemed to be pushing boundaries on what graphically was allowed.

rbarooah 14y ago

The fact that this happened on both the App store, and Google Play almost simultaneously raises the suspicion that one of the less reputable competitors lodged some kind of complaint.

datagramm 14y ago
Very possibly. It could also be that someone at Google is watching what gets taken down from the app store an following suit.
- megablast 14y ago
  Why would they ever do that?
netcan 14y ago
disreputable sex educators?
scythe 14y ago
I'm bored, so let's run the numbers: the elapsed time between removal from the App Store and removal from Google Play is 23 days, at a point where it had been simultaneously in the App Store and the Android Market for ~450 days (I don't know the exact number), which gives us P = 23 / 450 = 0.05 -- where the null hypothesis is that removal happens at random -- for this within 23 days of each other, and that's on the edge of statistical significance (you usually set alpha = 0.05). So maybe something weird happened.
gcheong 14y ago
Maybe Playboy decided they wanted to publish a Kamasutra app?

hef19898 14y ago

Are we all going nuts nowadays? Really, to remove a product from your store (which also happens to be a monopolistic sales channel) after it was there for years and recieved several updates since without any dialog with the producer of the product is bad style, really bad style. Especially if the producer is willing to change the product to fit your requirements. Some time ago almost everyone agreed that Nokia failed also due to a lack of developers for Simbia, do you really think treating developers with a proven track record like that will do you any good? I really hope that this issue is solved to the satisfaction of every party involved and the app will be back soon. Ah, and finally, if this was due to the "sexual content" the only thing left to say is "brave new world". And that from a company that help to battle SOPA...

blindhippo 14y ago
Sadly, developers are stuck with Apple being our app approval overlord - and Apple knows it. There really isn't any competition in the app "market" because Apple is far too big to really allow for it. Any and all of these smart phone platforms need to be legislated to provide opportunity for different store fronts beyond the platform provider. Apple really is the 21st century Microsoft.
- petercooper 14y ago
  Yep, and in Mountain Lion, it's coming to the desktop too.. I wouldn't be surprised if Safari can only load approved sites by default in 10.9 at this rate.
waqf 14y ago
The problem "nowadays" (meaning, with business models like Apple's or Google's) is that common sense is an expensive commodity compared to the opportunity cost of making one arbitrary decision or another on an individual app. And the legal system just hasn't yet caught up enough to keep them in check. They're the robber barons of our age.

spinchange 14y ago

Sergey said that Apple and Facebook are a threat to freedom on the web, but I submit that commercial 'app stores' like Google Play and Apple's AppStore are the real threat. They have all the control and solely get to decide what is acceptable or not (while reserving the right to change their mind later). Google Play won't even let you rent a video from the store if it detects your phone has been rooted. This sucks. We've gained all this freedom and control with free software and the web, etc, and now we're going to give it all away to these stupid commercial app stores.

klez 14y ago
For Apple this is a problem since the app store is the only source of software for non-jailbroken iphones. Regarding Android, we can always use another marketplace, but then the problem would be security and good quality apps. And so we would again be at square one. Does anybody have another idea?
AndrewDucker 14y ago
I disagree regarding Google Play. Appstore is a threat because if you want software on your Apple phone then it is the only legal method. But with Android you can install software from any app store you like, or directly. Google provide an app store as a service, but it's only one of many.
- rmc 14y ago
  Yes the fact that you can add extra apps is better than the 'our way or the highway' approach of the apple app store, but defaults matter. 99% of people think the play store/app store/android market is the only way to do it. You remove it from there, it's gone.
  - zalew 14y ago
    http://martingryner.com/on-alternative-android-app-stores/ http://martingryner.com/on-alternative-android-app-stores/ "In first week, Number Game got about 360 downloads on Google Play. By that time, Number Game on SlideMe had been downloaded about 700 times…in 3 days. SlideMe is the number 1 source for Number Game downloads adding over 100 on better days. If you also happen to update your application and get to “updated” section, you could pick up as much in few hours. SlideMe has less applications than Google Play, but a huge user base. Also it has a decent review process (it didn’t take 2 eternities like Amazons) and the best developer interface. If I had to choose just one market to publish my apps on in the future it will be SlideMe, not Google Play."

acidblue 14y ago

Why doesn't the title mention Google also? Shouldn't it be "IKamsutra: Apple and Google hate Brunettes". Do people get more clicks on this site when the attack one company and not another? Yeah, I am a fanboy, but still... People have to remember that the App Store has nothing to do with "Freedom of Speech". Every retail outlet decides what products they wish to sell. They all have buyers that decide which products will compliment or negatively impact their reputation. I do believe Apple owes the makers of IKamasutra an explanation, even if it is short, like: "Company A provided us sufficient information to warrant removal of your software", or "Updates to your software made it too explicit and violates the App Store guidelines". It guess its just too costly to do this or something. This does suck for someone that has had something out there for a long time and now its gone. Perhaps it wasn't another company, and the reviewer just thought "Not another one" and that was it. I haven't searched, but I wonder how many of these apps are in there? Even the App Store (TM) guidelines mentions Kama Sutra apps: "Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them, such as fart, burp, flashlight, and Kama Sutra apps." The other funny thing is that the next statements also says: "If your app is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps." So, I suppose you screw yourself by blogging and telling everyone. Biting that hand that feeds isn't always a good thing. But, there is also this: 'Apps containing pornographic material, defined by Webster's Dictionary as "explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings", will be rejected' So, perhaps getting closer to actual people and not the original crude wood carvings is an issue. I'm surprised these app ever made it in with that clause. The Kama Sutra fits this.

datagramm 14y ago

A friend of mine that used to work at iTunes tells me that Apple always keep the front page of their stores completely 'family friendly'. Maybe this mentality is starting to filter down past the front page and result in a knee-jerk rejection of anything vaguely adult.

StCroix 14y ago

I hope that Steve Jobs, who happily credited himself as an openly adherent member and ambassador of the counterculture that fought for ideas like this to be acceptable in a then over-conservative society, is rightfully turning in his grave.

mrich 14y ago
Let's not act like he would have cared about this while he was alive. Apple's products and services always place family-friendlyness over any kind of free expression.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  Steve Jobs was quoted as saying "those who want porn can get an Android". I'm very much afraid you are wrong on this one.
  - vacri 14y ago
    Isn't that exactly what mrich is saying? Family-friendly over porn? I remember reading a quote of Jobs where he said 'no-one wants porn on their phone', when clearly porn is popular enough that plenty of people do.
  - StCroix 14y ago
    Yeah as I say, "I hope"... maybe even retrospectively from atop of his own 'iCloud'. Please read my comment as slightly tongue in cheek, I'm well aware of his later-life stance on adult material.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      I lol'ed at the iCloud reference :-) sorry, I didn't read the humour, should not have been so abrupt!
  - lucian1900 14y ago
    He even, very ironically, said iOS gives you freedom from porn.

gcheong 14y ago

There really needs to be a way to sell outside of the apple appstore without needing to jailbreak of your device. If the DOJ can sue Apple and the book publishers over an apparent attempt to destroy competition in the retail market, why wouldn't they be interested in how Apple is destroying developers' ability to freely publish apps and consumers to have choices besides Apple in the marketplace? How do we start a campaign to get them to look into this? Has anyone tried to file a suit of any kind to address this problem to date?

rbarooah 14y ago
Why not just buy an android phone?
- DHowett 14y ago
  1) Notice that Google has removed this app too. 2) Carriers (AT&T) are known for disabling app sideloading. 3) Having to root your device presents the basic user with a major technical hurdle, and in some cases, an outright impossibility. If you're going to advocate as an alternative an entire platform you can't guarantee freedom on, for freedom's sake, why advocate it?
  - rbarooah 14y ago
    I don't think I've ever advocated Android, but I am interested in why it doesn't live up to the promise of being open. When I see comments like the parent's the logic seems to be: "Android isn't properly open, so let's sue Apple."
    - jw_ 14y ago
      > Why not just buy an android phone? > I don't think I've ever advocated Android
      - rbarooah 14y ago
        That wasn't advocacy. I really wanted to know why the original commenter was talking about suing Apple, instead of just buying an Android phone.

hsuresh 14y ago

As a developer, i'd really think hard about developing a native app. I know that some apps cannot go web based, but we need to push the boundaries of what is possible with mobile browsers. I can't think of any other way of keeping the mobile development open.

pixelcort 14y ago

There's a technological solution to situations like these: make a full screen, offline capable, mobile web app. Discovery and charging for your mobile web app or for content within it may be challenging for the foreseeable future, but hopefully not forever. Another issue is feature parity with native SDKs, which seems to be very slowly narrowing each year. Ability to produce performant apps is another area with very slow but greater than zero progression. For games, sure, go native and take advantage of the store discovery and payment platforms, access to all the APIs, and performance. For other kinds of apps like these, maybe mobile web apps are a better idea. Edit: clarification.

nextparadigms 14y ago

Apple's app rejection policy seems as unpredictable as Google's account banning.

rkudeshi 14y ago

I'm not a fan of these sort of apps but from the pics provided, it seems to be made as tastefully as possible and without excessive "sexual allure" (ie. titillating apps made for 13-year-olds to download without their parents knowing). (I'd say the 13 million "SALES" are also an indicator of quality but, Angry Birds aside, there's no way a number that high was all paid downloads.)

xyzzyz 14y ago
Imagine all the titillating books 13-year-olds can read in a public library without their parents knowing! Seriously, though, there are much better sources of porn out there than books and sketchy non-explicit monochrome drawings, and kids are well aware of them.
blahedo 14y ago
> "(I'd say the 13 million "SALES" are also an indicator of quality but, Angry Birds aside, there's no way a number that high was all paid downloads.)" Are you sure? Why?
- sp332 14y ago
  If that number isn't just iPhone sales, then it includes the free versions for Android, Chrome, Roku, etc.

JohnLBevan 14y ago

Someone could start an App Approval business. Applications don't require approval to go on to an app store / market place, but if the developers submitted their code to one AppApproversLtd, those guys could review it for a small comission, then upload it to the app store as a trusted application. Though there's a slight conflict of interest (i.e. the person paying the approvers is also the person sending the code) I believe it's in the AppApproversLtd company's interest to do a good job since their business depends on them giving a reliable evaluation / building up a good reputation. Using that business model keeps flexibility in place, where users decide if they want to risk trusting an unapproved app, or would rather go for an app that's been approved by one of these companies (potentially incurring additional cost if the developers passed the approval cost on to their users rather than offsetting against advertising). AppApproversLtd could offer different levels of approval / ratings - i.e. just checking for malicious code vs. checking for polite error handling, efficiently written code, best practices, impact on battery life, etc.

shadesandcolour 14y ago
That would be fine but it doesn't solve any of the problems really. Apple will still have control over their store. Google Play will continue to let you in and then review if they get a complaint (at least I assume that's how they do it). Ultimately I'm not sure that the business model will work. It only really applies to Android and even then most people get apps through the marketplace. Those people who want to side load apps most likely know the consequences or know someone who does and decide whether or not to take the risk. It seems analogous to running your website code through the W3 checker. It's a certification that you did stuff right, but it doesn't stop most users from going to your site if you don't have that little badge at the bottom.

kodisha 14y ago

Is it possible that Ikamasutra developer sue Apple and win in court?

mistercow 14y ago
I think that really depends on what you mean by "possible". For all practical purposes, it's pretty unlikely given the comparative legal resources of the two companies.
- wpietri 14y ago
  Exactly. In a lot of things in the US, you get as much justice as you can afford.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

alastairpat 14y ago

Unless the title of the blog post has been changed since submission to HN, why the editorialised title? Edit: I've since learnt that that is actually the title of the post. It still seems kind of sensationalist none-the-less.

_delirium 14y ago
The title of both the HN submission and the blog post are "Apple Hates Brunettes" at the moment, unless I'm getting some kind of cached copy?
- alastairpat 14y ago
  Oh, my mistake - that is actually the title. Thanks.
blindhippo 14y ago
Well, their product has been unjustly removed from both Google and Apple stores. I'm surprised the blog post isn't filled with more negativity towards both companies - the "sensationalist" title suits the content and tone perfectly.

ForrestN 14y ago

Perhaps there should be an 18+ section that can be blocked by parents with a password? If you have an out-of-the-box iPhone you can get any manner of porn within Safari. Why shouldn't you be able to get real porn with a better experience via an app?

netcan 14y ago

slightly off topic. Today I realized that my 3g plan is censoring adult content. I also listened to a podcaster talk about renaming his podcast "talkings hit" to get passed the itunes criteria. The paper had some silly fluff article about Facebook and breastfeeding pictures. Youtube is stricter than TV on nudity (and laxer on violence). These were all little corners of the internet up until recently and it seemed all right that they all have their own rules. Suddenly they pretty much are the internet and soon the will be the computer. I don't like it.

llimllib 14y ago
Yesterday, Facebook wouldn't let me post a link to a pirate sports video stream, so they're censoring based on copyrights too.
cubicle67 14y ago
Youtube is stricter than TV on nudity except for stuff like this (very NSFW just after the 8 minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjRExyIBNM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjRExyIBNM which somehow is still there [Edit - it's Penn & Teller on Taxes, part 3]
- blahedo 14y ago
  With only 3,000 viewers so far, perhaps it's just nobody's complained yet?
- 4ad 14y ago
  Youtube restricts pornography not nudity.
grecy 14y ago
> Youtube is stricter than TV on nudity (and laxer on violence). In your country. sigh Many, many developed nations allow swearing, violence and nudity on TV at all times of the day.

whackberry 14y ago

Google was able to portray an image of being good and free and transparent early on in its existence. This image still lingers from their PR efforts but the reality is that Google is one of the most agressive corporations out there. Let's not demonize Google in particular, Sillicon Valley is brutal. But, let's also make clear that Google isn't some nice old lady that does no evil. Google spies on users just like Facebook, Google plays hardball with its monopoly in web search like Microsoft played monopoly with their OS. Google goes the whole nine yards in the Sillicon Valley dirty games and still these articles all mention "Google is open" or "how could Google do evil". Google has a PR team as good as or better than their programmers, that is a fact.

septerr 14y ago

Didn't know the app existed! Now that I know it did, I want it to be available. Not settling for kamasutra+.

septerr 14y ago

Btw, ikamasutra.com can use a facelift. :/ It's kinda geocities looking right now. You should make it more web 2.0.

huggyface 14y ago

"In the process we also removed even more illustration details from the Android version so it looked like the new iOS version" That's a curious statement that makes you wonder which part of the story we don't know (was this a case of pushing boundaries, seeing what they could get away with?) It seems doubtful that we're hearing the full truth.

gcb 14y ago

Why people aren't building sites that work with everything and using the app merely to authenticate? That will allow you to capitalize via the *stores but not be hostage to it. Some clueless people now will try to educate me that a native client is better, even it not having bookmarks, several tabs, browser extensions, pitch to zoom on every page, etc etc

victorbstan 14y ago

Actually Apple doesn't hate brunettes, what they hate is the likeness to reality that your brunette colored people are, where if you color the hair like in your second example, the people become less realistic and more like abstract icons; their hair being the exact same color as their body skin (yellow and red). Doesn't take a genius to figure this one out, but then it doesn't take a genius to write a bitching blog post either.

WiseWeasel 14y ago
They haven't approved the update with the new graphics either.

phil 14y ago

The crazy thing is the #4 paid app is this violent fantasy about shooting people with a sniper rifle and that's apparently OK: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/clear-vision-17+/id500116670?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/clear-vision-17+/id500116670?... The #5 paid app is a scam designed to confuse (check out the reviews): http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lock-my-screen/id507265508?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lock-my-screen/id507265508?mt...

ricardobeat 14y ago
That's really curious. The "lock-screen" app has a Rated 4+ indication, yet it's actual ratings are 1-star. There's something fishy here, how come this doesn't get the appstore lords' attention?
- therealarmen 14y ago
  Rated 4+ refers to the approved age group, not average review rating.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    Ha.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

hef19898 14y ago

Bought it today!