Apple has famously thrown many apps out of the iTunes Apps Store, because they were “too racy”. Steve Jobs makes no apologies for this, even having gone so far as as to state that he believes “his users want to be protected”.

But there’s no standard being divulged, official or otherwise. If you show women in bikinis in your App you could find it banned, but it might get through. And last I checked, nobody thought women in bikinis were “naughty” . . . at least not in the United States. And oh yeah, that matters too because what you see in the App store differs depending on where you are.

Google’s fallen into this trap, as well. Last month I told you about some advertising that Google had rejected for being “too racy”. I suppose the fact that I’ve seen these commercials on (regulated) broadcast television when (unregulated) Google had rejected them is odd enough, but it’s their own internal lack of standards that’s far more puzzling; Google accepts and runs ads that are way more “racy” then the one CougarLife was trying to get through. Maybe, as I suggested then, Google suffers from some sort of misogyny (and one again, if such circumstances exist I offer big props to über-Googler Marissa Mayer).

So what’s up with this?: The Sun, a UK-based tabloid owned by News Corporation, has published an iPad App. That App is a reproduction of the newspaper. That newspaper regularly includes pictures of bare breasted women. And the App has gone through Apple’s censorship process and made it to the iTunes App Store.

There’s a piece of me that wants to go all conspiracy theory and tell you that News Corp and Apple have a buddy-buddy relationship that made getting this App, one that could just as easily been deemed pornographic under Apple’s previously demonstrated “standards”, approved. And let’s be honest: there probably was a component of business nepotism involved.

But the lesson here is this: business change isn’t something that “is”; business change is something you make happen. In context, The Sun might have gotten their App published even without a close relationship between its parent company and Apple.

And just as perception is reality, context is . . . everything.

I don’t mean the medium-sized wildcat kind of cougar. Google has no issue with those. I’m talking about the kind that walks on two high-heeled legs, wears expensive designer clothing, and likes what she likes.

Google has rejected advertising for the Cougarlife.com web site. Their explanation is that they don’t carry ads that aren’t family friendly, and that Cougarlife’s ads cross the line. But there’s a clear conflict between Google’s statement and their practices.

The question is . . . why? Follow this link and you’ll get a run-down of the story complete with video examples illustrating the issue . . . and I just don’t get it. Is Google in the business of policing obscenity? Have they decided that society needs censoring? And if so, why are they being selective about it?

Maybe Google’s become so important in their own minds that the misuse of the word “Cougar” offends them; remember that in context cougar has traditionally referred to middle-aged or older women who “prey” on younger men. Cougarlife was founded by a very young woman and has bent the cougar definition a bit.

Or maybe, with the exception of über-Googler Marissa Mayer, everyone at Google aspires to be a sugar daddy and their sensibilities are offended. Or maybe Ms. Mayer herself had an issue with the idea!

I’d have thought that even at the hugest of companies—and Google certainly qualifies there—by now business change that recognizes sexual equality . . . at least this kind of sexual equality . . . would be a given.

Now if only I was young enough to be a target for the ladies of Cougarlife . . .

Or you can buy one competitor’s product to become more of a force against another competitor. While not strictly coopetition, Google enacted yet another business change last month when they bought DocVerse.

DocVerse is a great idea, and I applaud the guys who built it if for no other reason than it was a pretty obvious acquisition target. The Internet-based document collaboration service lets you share Microsoft Office files with others and work on them on-line, and Microsoft should have been smart enough to buy it before Google did.

Sadly, Redmond has fallen behind Palo Alto in forward thinking, and it somehow didn’t occur to Microsoft that buying DocVerse would have been cheaper than doing all the Office Online development themselves, and even more importantly would have kept this jewel out of Google’s hands.

Remember that the name of the game on the Internet is keeping people engaged as long as possible in as many ways as possible, and Google already has people giving up on Microsoft Office in droves, in favor of storing and working on their documents “in the cloud” using Google Docs. DocVerse adds to that dominance and renders much of Microsoft’s work on the about-to-be-launched online version of Microsoft Office look like a waste of time.

Where’s the coopetition angle? Google is:

• using Microsoft Office’s heretofore dominant position in Office documents creation for their own gain
• making a success out of a small company by acquiring DocVerse
• giving anyone who can write further extensions to the system an opportunity to do so that Microsoft doesn’t make nearly as easy
• extending their reach as the world’s largest advertising agency

Business Change comes in many forms. Coopetition — knowing when to join with someone instead of trying to beat them — is a business change that can be used effectively by both the large and the small.

Are you practicing coopetition? Let The Answer Guy show you how.

The truth is, they don’t. When you watch a program on Hulu it carries advertising. Hulu sells those ads and some of the revenue from them goes to the owners of the programs.

It’s Coopetition at its best. And last week Comedy Central decided they didn’t want to play the coopetition game any more. They’ve pulled The Daily Show and The Colbert Report from Hulu. You can still watch the programs for free over the Internet, but now you’ll have to come directly to the Comedy Central website.

Just as putting the programs on Hulu was a business change, media companies taking the shows back and selling their own advertising is a business change, too. Wasn’t that fast?

It makes sense for big companies to do this. Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, one of the largest media companies in the world. They have a sales force in place, so why pay Hulu to sell ads (the question is rhetorical)?

Remember, though, that Comedy Central produces their own programming. One company makes the show, owns it, and broadcasts it over their network.  Generally, networks buy the right to air programming produced by others, who retain ownership rights and need companies like Hulu to do sales at the next level.

Business Change is situational, and often time-constrained. The people who watch Comedy Central’s programming might not like having to make an extra stop to find it, but going to another website is really no different than changing channels on your television. And Comedy Central wants you to program them in directly.

Let us keep you up on these business change issues without having to make an extra stop at Answer Guy Central. You can have updates sent to you automatically through the Answer Guy Central iPhone App, or  the Answer Guy Central RSS Feed.

Aside from the value that old axiom has with keeping young children in line and in school, it carries a business change lesson, too, and I’ll phrase it as another old saw: if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.

Henry Blodget is one of new media’s superstars, and with his business pedigree he has the right to boast. But Henry’s made a mistake this morning in looking at the words of Bo Peabody and laying them out as an example of business sense. And Henry had better be wrong, because his own business will fail otherwise.

Peabody made a large fortune selling early social networking company Tripod to early search engine Lycos in 1998 and has been a venture capitalist since then. And he’s arguing that Facebook and Twitter are doomed to failure. I really do want to agree, but here’s why that’s wrong:

Many earlier Internet properties were never monetized. That includes Tripod, and it includes Lycos and the many other search engines that you’ve likely never heard of. Facebook is making serious advertising revenue. Twitter is . . . going to.

Bringing up the other side of this: advertising revenue isn’t enough.

That argument falls flat when there’s ENOUGH ad money. Sure it’s harder to survive on just advertising revenue in the narrowcasting era (just ask the big television networks), but Facebook and Twitter are about as broad as you can reasonably ask for. Remember the Kim Kardashian / Super Bowl / Paid Twitter story? Look at the numbers again.

Remember that Google was nothing but an advertising company for years, and the other things they are adding that create revenue are just now happening. If Facebook and/or Twitter and/or whomever can get big enough and generate enough ad revenue, there’s no reason to consign them to the same junk heap as Mr. Peabody’s examples.

Today’s Business Change Lesson is this: you will repeat history if put lipstick on your pig. And both Facebook and Twitter could still turn out to be examples of exactly that. But if you see new ways to do business and carry them out, business change will make for real success.

AT&T has sued Verizon. No big deal; these guys slug it out in court on a regular basis. This time, it’s about the advertising Verizon is doing for their 3G network, which is the faster set of connections that make doing things like surfing the internet on your smartphone a tolerable experience. Verizon’s 3G network is quite a bit larger than AT&T’s 3G network. The ads are actually pretty clever, playing off how much fun using an iPhone isn’t when you’re in the wrong location.

AT&T thinks Verizon is being mean unfair. Verizon, responding to that claim, has actually altered their ads to be specific about what their map comparisons mean.

As a technology guy AND a one-time-and-somewhat-unappreciative-of-the-way-that-company-works Verizon employee, I’m actually impressed that they bothered changing the words they were using in the early versions of the ad.

Let’s be clear: the maps say what Verizon wants them to say, and conveniently leave out some facts. But the facts that are depicted are accurate. So AT&T decides the best way to get at them is a LAWSUIT?

Preposterous. And one more example of what happens when people try to resist business change.

Fight war with every weapon you have. And make no mistake; business is war. But don’t fight when you’re wrong; it just makes you  look bad. And helps the other guy.

Sure, it’s a small poll, conducted on people in only one country. And it’s a relatively small country at that. But it turns out that people who download music from sources other than officially sanctioned ones also spend more money on legitimate music downloads than people who don’t pirate music. Presumably, the same theory applies to people who download movies.

Wait, it gets better: You know how DVRs (or TIVOs, for those of you who have adopted the brand name as vernacular) were going to bankrupt TV studios because they’d lose the ability to sell advertising? Turns out that’s wrong, too. DVRs, TIVO, and the such have actually increased the money TV studios get from advertising.

Business Change at its finest. And great examples of how easy it is to miss change coming if you get too wrapped up in “the way things are”. Friends, there is no “the way things are”.

I’ve written about how badly the media business misunderstands new media and business change a few times before: Track back, if you like by reading this, or this, or this. The evidence has been piling up for a few years, and now the matter is starting to really come out: if you don’t keep up with change, you’ll miss it. I guess that explains why studio and label executives have such short careers. They just don’t know their own businesses.

Drop your ego at the door and make sure you know yours. Managing business change is where your success comes from.