The removal of 500px from Apple's App Store raises questions over review
equity, fairness and API functionality.
![]() |
Apple deletes app for 'porn' -- what it means |
When Evgeny Tchebotarev started the day, he wasn't expecting to end up
spending so much time fielding calls from the media. Tchebotarev is the COO and
co-founder of 500px, a popular photo site and community for professional and
amateur photographers.
Yet that's exactly what happened after Apple removed the 500px app from the
App Store. After more than 16 months in the App Store and over 1 million
downloads, a routine app update had unintended consequences.
On Monday night, Tchebotarev tells Mashable that he received a call from
Apple. There was a problem with 500px. Like many other apps with photo
communities, including Tumblr and Flickr, some of the photographers who use
500px use it to take photographs that contain nudity — not pornographic images,
but nudity nonetheless.
According to Tchebotarev, Apple reps told him that it was too easy for users
to find nude photos using the app. As a result, the app was in violation of
Apple's content policy and would be removed from the App Store. Tchebotarev
offered to make the necessary changes to the app to comply with Apple's rules,
but it was too late. As of Tuesday morning, 500px was gone from the App
Store.
A few hours later, TechCrunch reported on the story. Other outlets followed,
including CNET, MacRumors and The Verge. Soon, the story was viral.
The general reaction from both 500px employees and app users was disbelief.
For one thing, 500px actually makes it difficult for new users to browse or
search for nude photos. A user who signs up using the app can't see those types
of photos; instead, he or she must log in through their desktop, and turn off a
safe-search setting.
For another, 500px is hardly the only app that could potentially expose users
to nude images. Web browsers — including Apple's Safari — can display nude
photos of all types. Plus, the aforementioned Tumblr and Flickr apps are much
easier to use to track down nudes. To add insult to injury, while 500px is gone,
a dozen apps that use 500px's API and replicate the functionality of the
official app are still available.
Then, Apple released its own statement on the matter. It said:
"The app was removed from the App Store for featuring pornographic images and
material, a clear violation of our guidelines. We also received customer
complaints about possible child pornography. We've asked the developer to put
safeguards in place to prevent pornographic images and material in their
app."
This statement was confusing to Tchebotarev and other 500px execs because it
was the first any of them had heard about complaints regarding "possible child
pornography." Apple never mentioned that to the company before pulling the app,
Tchebotarev said.
He added that 500px has made the necessary changes to its app, and
re-submitted to the App Store. With any luck, the app will be back in the store
very soon.
Normally, this is where the news story would end. But what the 500px incident
showcases, however, is that although more than four years have passed since the
App Store opened, Apple's app-review process is still occasionally hampered by
incongruities and unclear policies.
App Rating Fairness
My initial guess was that 500px was removed for not having the correct
content rating. Apple assigns content ratings to apps to give users an idea of
who the app is suitable for.
A rating of 4+ means that there is no objectionable content in the app; a 9+
means there might be cartoon violence; a 12+ means there may be infrequent or
mild sexual content/nudity and mild violence; and a 17+ means the app may
contain heavy violence and mature themes.
These content ratings can be arbitrary at best. Tumblr has a rating of 4+
despite the fact that it's very easy to find hardcore pornographic images using
the tag search function within the app. Third-party web browsers such as Chrome
and iCab have 17+ ratings because they can be used to access any site on the
Internet (assuming it doesn't use Flash).
Before Monday's incident, 500px had a content rating of 4+. Tchebotarev told
me that the copy of the app in the submission queue has a rating of 12+.
Based on feedback he's heard from other developers, Tchebotarev's theory is
that Apple's review team (a team that is notoriously overworked) doesn't always
check to ensure that apps have the proper content rating. Instead, it takes a
series of complaints or a particularly conscientious review-team member to force
an app to change its rating.
This makes sense to me. Still, I'm utterly unsure how Tumblr, of all apps,
has managed to avoid even a 12+ rating.
What About APIs?
Another issue raised with the 500px case is the role of an API within the
app-review process.
Apple initially said it was going to pull Pulpfingers' ISO500 app from the
App Store. 500px acquired Pulpfingers (and ISO500, by extension) last month.
As of this writing, ISO500 is still in the App Store, and doesn't appear to
have been pulled.
It wasn't clear why ISO500 was going to be removed, but some pundits worried
that it was because the app uses 500px's API. The API allows read-access to the
site and search, including, presumably, access to nude photos.
This opens up an interesting question when it comes to third-party apps that
use 500px's API, such as Flipboard. Flipboard can do virtually everything the
official 500px and the ISO500 apps can do (at least, as far as displaying
content), so would it be at risk?
Right now, that seems unlikely, but it does raise some interesting questions
that few of us have considered over the years: Is an app that plugs into another
app's API going to be rated based on the functionality of that API?
It's unclear.
Waiting For a Resolution
At the time of this writing, 500px is still missing from the App Store. While
I fully expect the app to appear within the next day or two, I can't help but
feel empathy for the startup caught in the middle of this.
What do you think of the latest App Store hijinx? Let us know in the comments
below.
This post represents the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of
Mashable as a publication.
No comments:
Post a Comment