Posted By: TommyCarlier | Aug 5th @ 4:14 AM
page 1 of 2
Comments: 48 | Views: 908
TommyCarlier
TommyCarlier
I want my scalps!

Ninjawords: iPhone Dictionary, Censored by Apple

I don't know what kind of crackheads review submissions to the iPhone AppStore, but you just don't censor a dictionary. How does this make sense?

Maddus Mattus
Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda

It seems Apple doesnt like potty mouths!

 

It's their house and they can do whatever they want, I am justing waiting for the EU to step in. Neelie are you reading this?

I noticed you had to evade the dirty word filter here ...

This website/forum isn't a dictionary.

 

 

Dovella
Dovella
Go Microsoft !!!!!!!

rhm
rhm

Neither is an iPhone app, it's content on a corporate platform.

It's still a dictionary, and it's idiocy on Apple's part. Yes, they have the legal right to do this. It is their platform, and their rules. However, with rules like this, they may find themselves with out customers for their platform.

JeremyJ
JeremyJ
The pioneers would be appalled!

I am thinking that Apple needs to look up in a dictionary the meaning of the word dictionary.  You don't censor a dictionary ever.  That really defeats the whole purpose of the dictionary.  I am starting to find the word Apple offensive... maybe they should remove that too. Tongue Out

figuerres
figuerres
???

and any "word" that starts with an "i"  ?? Smiley

 

By that logic nothing is anything. It's all just atoms, maaaaan. Smiley

 

Maddus Mattus
Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda

and electrons!

Harlequin
Harlequin
http://twitter.c​om/TrueHarlequin

I don't know...are there any legal doctrines against this kind of thing? I think countries do have censorship laws to prevent things like this, don't they?

Sven Groot
Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

I don't know about in other countries, but in the US censorship laws are about what the government can't do, not about what private entities can't do.

rhm
rhm

I think you'll find the care-factor is close to zero among normal people.

Harlequin
Harlequin
http://twitter.c​om/TrueHarlequin

Just hope this story goes viral then. Then hopefully that can reverse this kind of crap. I think once some Apple higher-ups hear about this more the manager in charge of this stuff will get called upstairs for a chat. This is a dictionary, this isn't an app where you shake your iPod Touch and boobs bounce or you shake a baby to death.

Really? Because there's an awful lot of complaints surrounding this stuff. Nearly everything online about the App Store is negative, and because the echo chamber is not always a reliable indicator for "normal people", everything I've heard IRL follows suit. People who barely know what an iPhone is have discussed incidents like "shaken baby". The Apple lunacy on acceptance criteria for the app store certainly seems to be talked about by "normal people", and I can't see how it will do anything but eventually impact sales.

Bass
Bass
www.s​preadfirefox.c​om/5years/

The FCC might get involved. There is talk of extending net neturality to the mobile Internet, mostly as a response to crap like this. Although in theory that would probably mean an ISP, eg. AT&T can't block apps. But I don't know how Apple would fit into the picture.

rhm
rhm

So people chat about stuff they've read on non-technical news sites (like the shaken baby story which was particularly retardedly reported). How does that factor into the decision of "I'll buy a nokia or a Samsung phone instead because then at least I won't have an app store to worry about"? (and yes, I know Nokia has an app store, but only in the same way they are places you can download Windows Mobile apps from, i.e. it's a checkbox item rather than something people actually use). I don't see anyone who owns an iPhone getting rid of it for the barrens that is other phones and as my office is gradually filling up with iPhone owners, the only reasons I hear for not getting one are the same as always: Cost and size.

 

And since you mentioned the shaken baby story... Was that bad that it was allowed on the app store to begin with or bad because Apple bowed to media (yes, media not customer) outrage and removed it? Would it be allowed now if it was adult rated? If not, are games like Silent Hill or Resident Evil going to be allowed?

 

Some people want everything not child-friendly banned, some people want nothing banned, but most people have 'opinions' on what should and shouldn't be allowed on a case by case basis and the problem with that is that there isn't some big committee working on approving these apps, there one (probably minimum wage) employee with a set of guidelines that can't possibly cover every eventuallity (since it's hard to quantify "will this cause a media frenzy?" as a rule that a minimum-wager can apply). For example, people say it's OK at have swear words in a dictionary app because all dictionaries have those words in them and we let children use them. But it wouldn't be OK to have them in other software like a game were the character swears whenever they get hit or whatever. How do frame a guideline for that other than saying "no swear words except for dictionaries"? To write that rule and rules like it, you'd have to anticipate every kind of app that's ever going to be written.

 

Ultimately Apple does have the right to control what apps they publish on criteria that applied equally (just like Nintendo did for many years not allow blood and gore in games). And of course mistakes are sometimes going to be made because or the way approvals are handled when there are tens of thousands of apps instead of a few per month. I trust they'll sort most of them out in the long run, but if you think there would be any less fuss if Apple just made it a free-for-all and allowed people to publish whatever they liked, which is the only viable alternative, then you're mistaken.

Bass
Bass
www.s​preadfirefox.c​om/5years/

What irks me about this, is to first get your app "denied", you first have to make it. You might spend tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars writing some cool iPhone app, only to have Apple deny it.

 

In a case like that, I think Apple should be liable for damages. Let them deny whatever they want, but they have to compensate the authors of who's intellectual property they block from market. Maybe that will keep them a little less trigger happy.

rhm
rhm

I guess if you think it's been unfairly denied you could sue them, but good luck with that. The developer agreement includes plenty of vague clauses which allow Apple to deny almost anything, but there's still the legal principle that it should be applied reasonably. If developers have a good case (such as a similar app that was not denied despite apparently breaking the same rule) and Apple refused to change their minds, you could sue.

 

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of complaining about the app approval process (and other business issues to do with the app store) among signed developers. It's just the idea among the general nerd community (many of who, it's safe to say have reason to spread dissent), that any of this will lead to imminent demise of iPhone is just laughable. People have to realise that the tech media writes about these app rejection stories because they have to write about something and the popularity of the iPhone means it gets more coverage than everthing else put together. It's not a reflection of what people generally care about though any more than the stories on the evening news really represent what's important to the average person in the street. By taking part in the doom and gloom in forums people are just being sheep and playing along with the idea that it matters and frankly the whole subject is really really boring now.

W3bbo
W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

Microsoft's app store will also require their approval for applications, they're going to have to play this game right.

 

And before anyone says "but you can get apps from elsewhere for WinMo" I may remind them that operators can (and do) lock-down WinMo phones to require all programs are signed by the operator first.

I had a Palm, once upon time. There was this non-Palm controlled web site where I could purchase software for my device. It did unbelievably well, selling many applications and making Palm owners very happy.  Really, that Apple reality distortion that they are somehow better because they have an App Store that's really just a way for them to apply vendor lock-in won't survive bad press over idiotic decisions about whether or not some app gets into the store.  I work in an office as well, and there certainly was a lot of people buying iPhone's and those that didn't were mostly about cost (size? really?). Now I'm seeing more and more folks not all that happy with their iPhone for other reasons, incuding this app store nonesense, who are considering switching to Android or Pre.

 

The problem with shaken baby was the sheer idiocy. Declining other apps that were much less offensive but accepting this one was stupid. Just as stupid was removing it, or denying other applications because someone might be offended. (BTW, customers were upset as well, which is why the media got involved.) Having a rating system is better, but you'd better be good at figuring out how to rate things. A dictionary being rated 17+ is idiocy. If you're going to control things to this degree, you'd better have very clear and reasonable guidelines that are applied. Banning a dictionary because it has the word "screw" in it is obviously stupid.

 

You're appologizing for Apple here makes so little sense to me. Do you honestly think any reasonable person would have applied a "no swear words" policy to a dictionary? Sure, if that's the policy, your hypothetical minimum wage grunt would be unable to OK the application, but if there were no way for that employee to bump the application up to a higher level for consideration, then Apple failed big time. And this reasoning doesn't explain how shaken baby got into the app store.  You run a risk when you, for lack of a better word, censor content, but it happens all the time, for good reason, with only rare "outrage" over the censoring. So, why is Apple doing so badly?

JeremyJ
JeremyJ
The pioneers would be appalled!

I think the real problem is that there is no way to make guildlines to cover everything.  They are far too worried about their image.  What would people think if someone had an "adult" app on their iPhone... oh the horror!

What they should really do is allow just about any app as long as it doesn't crash the iPhone or contain viruses.  That way they can just make an adult section in the app store.  They could even have an option to hide that section of the store for people with children.

page 1 of 2
Comments: 48 | Views: 908
Microsoft Communities