So the truth is finally out as to why Apple purged the App Store of all those "naughty" apps. It wasn't because of complaints from women and/or the easily offended — it was because Apple itself was embarrassed about them.
At least that's the argument posited by John Gruber on his Daring Fireball blog. Pointing out that high-end (and "respectable") app makers like Playboy, Victoria's Secret, and Sports Illustrated survived the "St. Valentine's Massacre," Gruber theorizes that the cheesier, sleazier entries were targeted BECAUSE of their cheese/sleaze factor:
Apple sees the App Store as an extension of the Apple
brand. That‚Äôs why flat-out pornography has never been and never will be
allowed. You can walk into a Barnes and Noble and buy a copy of Maxim,
but you won‚Äôt find a copy of Hustler. Not because Hustler wouldn‚Äôt
sell, but because selling pornography goes against the Barnes and Noble
I think what Apple was getting squeamish about wasn‚Äôt the sexy apps
themselves, but the cheesiness that the sexy apps (and their prominence
in best selling lists) was bestowing upon the general feel and vibe of
the App Store. One thing I wasn‚Äôt aware of before the recent crackdown
was the degree to which these apps were seeping into various
non-entertainment categories. E.g., like half the ‚Äúnew‚Äù apps in the
‚Äúproductivity‚Äù category featured imagery of large-breasted bikini-clad
In other words, public perception was the issue. If the first thing users see when entering the App Store is a slew of slapdash, lowbrow "naughty apps," a lot of people aren't going to want to come back.
In the meantime, Apple has quietly backslid on its original moral stance and, for example, allowed Wobble to sit at the grownup's table again.
Welcome to the United States of Hypocrisy.