That is an incredibly neive view which has been proven wrong many times over.
Exposure to pornography early on in life dramatically increases the chance that person will be affected by things like sexual addiction, or gravitate towards extreme views in the same vein like incels.
Testosterone is a very powerful drug, and young brains need protecting from explicit content if we want to bring up mentally healthy males in our societies.
As long as it continues to conform to the technical requirements of supported phones on the platform. I can see the reasoning behind wanting to remove it if it's using some API that is not supported in any of the OS's Apple supports, as it's bad UX for their users. That doesn't look like it's the case here though.
The reasoning given by the authors of the article (who are weirdly pro apple and anti this dev) seems also a bit weird
> There is no value to Apple recommending an app that no one else has downloaded for months, since the market has already demonstrated the app no longer has a perceived value to the App Store. Removing it is a better option for Apple than keeping it around and wasting consumer attention, with a high likelihood of it not being bought anyway.
Usually the justification is far more stupidly malicious: Apple instigated a blanket policy that works for 90% of use cases, and this guy fell into the 10% of "Alive, not very popular, but still has value on the app store". Apple being apple, just decides the cost benefit of making exceptions is not worth it and tells the dev to f-off.
Also the comments on that article are pretty rich:
> I get the idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I also get that maintaining a level of security and quality in the App Store could require the vendor to provide evidence that they are giving the app a review at least once every three years. If there are no problems, change the date on the splash screen and submit it as an updated app. If that then passes Apple's review, the clock is reset for another three years. This doesn't seem like an unreasonable quality assurance measure.
You mean like the $100 a year that this dev pays to have the developer account to keep the app on the store? What is that money going to, if not for re-review of stuff like this?
The thing no one’s reporting here is that, on Apple mobile platforms, the way that Apple handles new device aspect ratios is to prebake some kind of shim or new ratio or whatever for it into a given release of Xcode, and then between WWDC and iPhone Launch Day, Apple goes on an App Store purge cycle threatening to evict apps that don’t rebuild with the new Xcode. So, this event is a very-high-likelihood signal that new device aspect ratios are due in the fall.
None of this is intended to express favor or disfavor for their methods — I haven’t formed an opinion yet — but hopefully it provides the missing context that most folks don’t have.
That would be fine if they would communicate that to the dev. Doesn't sound like that's what happened here.
> He says Apple "has not provided clear justification for this removal." Granted, Apple does have a history of not being great with developer communications, but this time it seems more clear-cut. This is especially true when that sentence continues to say that Apple cited "only" its policy for removing apps deemed "obsolete" or "outdated." This shouldn't apply to the game in question because it is still fully functional and compliant with current standards, Riva claims.
Well, it’s more about the origin of the farmers than anything else. If they where American or European farmers, you can be sure NPR would mark them as the villains of this story.
reply