Gruber’s got analysis of the brand-new App Store policy that states “no titillating apps”. His theory is that the App Store is now seen by Apple as an extension of Apple’s brand itself.

Any theory about what Apple’s up to has to accommodate the wrinkle of Playboy, Sports Illustrated, and Victoria’s Secret getting to keep their apps, while other well-meaning (and well-performing) developers just get the rug yanked out. I always got the impression that the lowest form of the scantily clad app just had images ganked from some unlicensed source, and Apple’s profiting from that is just as illegal as the developers doing the ganking. SI won’t ever pull that - whether or not the pictures are sexy or not, they offer assurances about their product that smaller developers don’t or can’t.

But maybe copyright is something that was already being reviewed, and the latest push removed apps that already had their content checked (how?) for violations. And if that’s the case, then I line up perfectly with Gruber on it.