Serious question: so what? The case you seem to be making in your comments is that it's irrational for all of us to be looking askance at this definition of "obscenity," but it's always been subjective, legally speaking. If we accept "controversial and potentially offensive" as obscene, that's a really broad definition, and I think it's worth pushing back on.
Obscenity is always going to be subjective. When it comes to what Apple is willing to sell in their store, it is their idea of obscenity that applies. At this point, I think they have made their stance clear enough that both you and I understand what gets apps banned.
I suspect what you and the others really want is for Apple to be bound by some kind of common carrier status that prohibits them from exercising their own judgment in what apps they publish. If you actually want that, you should say so. Arguing that Apple should have to publish apps it finds obscene just because the apps don't match your own definition of obscenity IS irrational. Well, strictly speaking, perhaps not irrational. Let's say shitty.
> I suspect what you and the others really want is for Apple to be bound by some kind of common carrier status...
Not just no, but "Hell no". What folks want from Apple is for their reviewers to behave like professionals. Professionals would provide a reasonably consistent, non-capricious application of the App Store rules. The current situation can be described roughly as:
"Your app will be de-listed if some app reviewer got up on the wrong side of the bed. The reviewer will point to a randomly selected clause in the TOU as the justification for the removal. You will be unable to get your app back in the App Store unless you have a large amount of social clout, or another reviewer who really dislikes the first one decides to override their decision. There are no guarantees that this process will not recur an unlimited number of times in the future."
This is not a good foundation on which to build a business relationship.
Could you attempt to use all the apps that aren't pulled, and the $X,XXX raked in monthly by folks from App Store revenues as counterexamples? Yes. Do those things negate my point? No.
They are consistent enough that I and most other developers have no trouble telling whether something is likely to get removed for being too offensive. The people that find their criteria capricious and unprofessional do things like ask "what about the New York Times app? They report on bad stuff!"
I'll fold up my reply to both of your replies to my comments here.
> They are consistent enough that I and most other developers have no trouble telling...
You and your cohort must have some pretty powerful psychic powers. :) You should sell Apple App Store Guideline Compliance services. You'd make a mint.
