[tdm911]

I had wondered if Apple had removed them simply because the apps were of such low quality. This would explain why Playboy, Sport Illustrated etc are still present.

The cheap 'boobs/babes/bikini' apps constantly filled many slots in the top app lists, yet most seemed to be simply a collection of images and as such, their ratings were very, very low. They seemed to have no real content that wasn't freely available on the web.

Looking at the ones that were high in the top free app lists, they were simply 6-8 images of women in bikinis with ads attached.

[jvdh]

Did you even bother to read the linked article?

[tdm911]

Yes and then decided to give my take on it, much in the same way Gruber has given his take on it.

Neither of us know for sure why Apple did what they did.

[jvdh]

It would have behooved you to say that you agreed with what John Gruber said, instead of just paraphrasing what he said:

"I think what Apple was getting squeamish about wasn’t 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’t 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 “new” apps in the “productivity” category featured imagery of large-breasted bikini-clad women."

[elai]

It wasn't about app spam, or the ton's of other similar apps that happen to not be sexual wouldn't still be there.