The smut is back on the table

So, Apple are allowing naughtiness back on their App Store, hey?

What a turn up for the books. At We Love Mobile Towers we are delighted with this fine move.

Because we are part of the dirty mac brigade? Well, not publicly.

The issue here is that, when Apple made that epoch defining move into the mobile world, they provided something that we mobilists had been screaming out for.

Stability

A platform that has fixed rules, that has standards, that has an entire ecosystem all set up and ready to go. No being mucked around by the operators, no settings guff, no shifting ‘standards’ quagmire, and just one screensize.

It finally allowed all those budding mobile service creators to produce what they wanted, and proved that there was huge steaming piles of genius out there, producing mobilised, virtual farts, booze, sick and wobbly bits.

And it was good.

However, when Apple suddenly got all puritanical, the whole community went a bit quiet. Apparently, if an app shows less skin than Jessica Simpson in the (PG rated) Dukes of Hazzard, then it is too risque for the (young, hip, largely male) audience. If an app shows a man wearing top to toe lycra, then Apple is strangely aroused, and so we must suffer.

..and people got worried. If lycra smothered men are not allowed, does that mean that the Olympics will be no go? What about when a footballer takes off his top in a fit on excitement when he scores a run (or whatever they do) in the World Cup? Does that mean that Sky will be banned? And why is it that the naughtiest of all apps – Playboy and Sports Illustrated – were immune?

The stability went. The boat rocked. The developers started considering how popular Android was becoming…

..and Apple saw sense. They backed down, and the naughtiness oozed back on to the App Store.

Well done Apple, and welcome back iWobble, iBlush Babes, and all the others.

To misquote Voltaire – I might never actually look at your app, but I’ll fight to the death for the right for you to produce it.