Apple App Store No-Skin Policy May Drive Users to Jailbreak

February 23, 2010 - By Justin E. Gehrke

Apple had Better Control by Approving the Skin that Got in

February 23, 2010 – Last week, Apple made public its decision to purge it’s huge App Store of what they consider to be “overtly sexual” content. The change doesn’t just apply to applications submitted in the future. It also applies to ones that are (or were) currently available. Beginning last week, developers began receiving notices from Apple, notifying them that some applications would be taken down. What are the new content guidelines, and will they actually reduce the amount of control Apple exerts over iPhone development?

Though there hasn’t been a formal announcement in a change in policy, most sources indicate the following things will pretty much keep an App from being admitted to the App Store, which is estimated to have up to 56 million paying customers (remember that detail later) on a regular basis:

As with any news of this type, one’s personal interpretations, moral standing, etc. obviously influences what content they feel falls into the areas mentioned above. Instead of digressing into an argument on society’s ethics, let’s focus on the potential repercussions that Apple, as a company, may feel by pursuing this course of action. First and foremost, it is Apple’s right to determine what is allowed in or remains part of the App Store lineup. It isn’t as though Apple will refuse only mature content Apps. (At this point, no one is sure if they are going to let the Opera Browser App into the store.)

The potential problem for Apple, though, is the distinct possibility (or inevitable eventuality) that the makers of Apps in the “Sexually Overt” category will be driven to third-party app providers, like Cydia and Rock Your iPhone, who will surely be happy to host them. Resulting availability via these “unapproved” third-party app provider sources, may actually cause more iPhone owners to consider jailbreaking their iPhones.

Now, if Apple didn’t care about jailbroken iPhones, this wouldn’t be a problem. Since they keep “fixing stuff” and “updating the code”, though, with each subsequent release, it is obvious they do care…a lot. Fortunately for the jailbreak crowd, the process continues to evolve and be achieved by well-known, third-party developers, like the iPhone Dev Team and Blackra1n.

Another unfortunate result of increased jailbreaks is the fact that, since most “normal users” cannot easily do it themselves, they will turn to a local geek who will do it for free or, in sad cases, pay $150 to a local store or service who will, in turn, illegally profit from the situation. Once it is jailbroken, the user will have access to unauthorized applications. Those available in Cydia or Rock Your iPhone, which have free App Store equivalents available, might not be of concern. Those that have paid equivalents in the App Store, though, stand to lose out on potential profits, since the user now has it free, cheaper, or, at a minimum, from another source.

With all of this being the case, why would Apple make a knee-jerk decision that actually increases the chances of an iPhone owner going down this unauthorized road? As mentioned before, its there store. They can admit, stock, or kick out whomever or whatever they choose. What Apple definitely wants to avoid, though, is assuming the role of the “moral policeman” and risking customer alienation. This consideration becomes increasingly important with the continuous development and release of smartphones that get a little bit closer to the iPhone, in terms of style, functionality, etc.

Instead of shutting them out, altogether, Apple should consider (a) setting limits on the amount of skin, innuendo, etc. and (b) segmenting a portion of the App Store in such a way that secondary and separate authentication is required to browse, purchase, and install Apps with mature content. Setting it up this way could require the user, upon iTunes account setup, to set a secondary password for access to areas with apps that include mature content. Alternatively, it could be set up to block that area, altogether. For adults who don’t want to see that type of content, they would exercise their constitutional right to choose by avoiding the area altogether.

If Apple needs proof of the potential problem they may be creating, they need only remember the words of the former Thomas Jordan Jarvis, U.S. Senator and North Carolina Governor (1836-1915), who was a vehement supporter of a movement one might recall from high school, called Prohibition:

“We have seen the evil of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in our midst; let us try prohibition and see what this will do for us.”

We see how the prohibition thing worked out for the U.S. Government. So, it seems Apple should have nothing to worry about after all, right?