Banned in Cupertino

CNET reviewer David Carnoy's book was rejected from Apple's App Store due to 'objectionable content.'

(Credit: Amazon)

Add one more headache for whoever is running Apple's App Store approval process: edgy books.

Books aren't a huge part of the App Store, but there are more than 600 titles for sale, ranging from classics to Japanese comic books. CNET's own David Carnoy has a new detective thriller out called Knife Music, but you won't find it on the App Store.

That's because when Carnoy enlisted a software developer to submit the book to the App Store, Apple rejected the book for containing "objectionable content," citing a clause in the iPhone SDK that states: "Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."

You've got two basic choices if you want to buy a book on the App Store; you can buy an application like Stanza or eReader and then download the books themselves from a Web site, or buy a book with self-contained e-reader software, which is how Carnoy's book was submitted.

In its rejection letter, Apple singled out the passage in question, which we actually can't print either. Let's just say it involves a teenage girl telling a detective that she overheard her friend asking a gentleman caller to "love me like you mean it," just with a slightly more emphatic verb.

Carnoy's developer, Alex Brie, believes Apple is checking for objectionable content using word-matching software, as it would be hard to believe that the company hired someone to read every book submitted to the App Store.

"Apple's staff shouldn't be allowed to refuse to publish works of literature based only on word matching. Even more, what would happen if I (a Romanian) would publish an ebook filled with Romanian obscenities? - would Apple's staff need to learn Romanian...and read the entire ebook...to make sure this doesn't happen?" he said in an e-mail.

Trying to determine the exact definition of terms such as obscene, pornographic, and objectionable is always a controversial issue. And Apple is within its rights to dictate what it will sell on its store.

Right from the start of Apple's decision to open the iPhone up to third-party applications, CEO Steve Jobs singled out "porn" as one of the things that would be prohibited from the App Store, but Carnoy's book, while racy in parts, would not be described as "porn" by any reasonable observer.

Apple's definition of "objectionable" has been questioned before. After initially balking, Apple finally relented to the extremely influential fart joke lobby last week and permitted applications such as Pull My Finger and iFart Mobile (ranked 3rd and 10th, respectively, among paid App Store applications at the moment) under what was described as a "Mature" section.

Joel Comm, the developer of iFart Mobile, said in an e-mail that he was told Apple had decided to rate his app "Mature 17+," and that would-be downloaders would have to certify their age before purchasing the application. But that wasn't the case when I tried to download the app Friday, and there is nothing in the description of iFart Mobile that indicates it is only suitable for those over 17. Nor is there any section of the App Store labeled as "Mature 17+" at the moment.

Once again, we're realizing just how overwhelmed Apple has become serving as the exclusive gatekeeper for iPhone applications without clear rules and regulations for its inspectors to follow--and developers to heed--in making calls about what can stay and what must go. Apple representatives did not return several calls seeking comment; as far as I can tell, Apple has never commented on the App Store approval process, six months after its debut.

Apple offers plenty of movies that a lot of people would consider "objectionable" over in the iTunes Store, but movies have a well-known and widely accepted rating system. (For what it's worth, Apple does not offer NC-17 movies on the iTunes Store.)

There is no such standard for rating books. Valuable pieces of English literature contain the word that appears to have killed the chances of Knife Music making it into the App Store. And equally well-regarded books have dealt with the subject of teenage sexuality in frank terms.

If Apple really wants to offer books on the App Store, it is going to have to strike a balance between a desire to keep out-and-out porn off the App Store while avoiding comparisons to a modern-day Anthony Comstock. Apple doesn't have to sell erotica if it doesn't want to, but simply rejecting books because they use one of George Carlin's seven favorite words is going to exclude an awful lot of literature.

[vagarob]

so apple allows R rated movies, just not books with the [the F word] in them. ok. that makes complete sense, or "it just works!"


[CNET editors' note: profanity edited out.]

[Philips]

+1

[Jonathan]

Didn't you know? No one reads anymore, so saith the anointed one: Steve "I'm-iGod" Jobs. So of course they will ban it. People don't need dem der fancy squiggly line things. I be edumacated from iTunes!

PS- Apple is run by a bunch of **********.

[anonymous_coward1010]

This is not newsworthy. The only reason it's even on here is because the author is connected with CNET. It's like you've never had a rejection letter before. Get a life. Get over it. Barnes and Noble doesn't sell the book. Why are you crying about Apple and not Barnes and Noble. And for the record, a "BOOK" consists of paper and ink. Downloads are not "books". CDs are not "books". Invent a new term and not some lame "e-book" or "cyber-book" thing. Like "Title". As the article correctly says, the store has 600 "titles" As for Apple's store - I support the right of businesses to pick and choose what to sell using any kind of discrimination they find appropriate and legal. Don't like it? Move somewhere else. You will not find more opportunities elsewhere though. The author does not get to pick and choose where their work will be sold. Especially a one-paperback publisher way way way down in NYT rankings. And here's another reality check There are 600 titles. So I guess that means Apple is "censoring" millions of titles? Get real folks. Anyone who thinks this is censorship really needs to move out of your mom's basement, stop wearing a tinfoil hat, and get a life. Get an education and learn about businesses *right* to make a brand identity by carrying only merchandise (in this case, "Titles") they feel is a good fit. And their right to use whatever legal means they feel is appropriate to achieve that mix. Don't like word scanners? Demand a law make them illegal - good luck with that, by the way. Am I in favor of word scanning? Not by itself ,no. But if Apple wants to only sell G rated material, well, that is their God given right. I run a small business and I would rather go get a 9-5 job than have someone tell me I was required to sell a certain product or that I couldn't choose which vendors to buy merchandise from. That's not American. Make your own app store. That's American. Go beat the bushes for other publishers and don't make a bunch of negative press like a spoiled little brat every time you get a rejection letter. That's American. Write another book, with word scanning in mind. Keep the edgy, keep the dramatic impact, you can still do that without using the 16 words. If you can't, you're not much of an author and I don't feel sorry for you.

[Mark_Anderson]

@anonymous

tl:dr

[nicmart]

Apple is the new Wal-Mart in its devotion to becoming the prurience cop. The Think Different crowd is more easily offended than the ladies who buy magazines at the supermarket checkout.

[Penguinisto]

Sure - because only prudes refuse to publish paedophilic fantasy, right?

[t3st3r`]

Think different means "think as we say or we will ban you" ;)

[t3st3r`]

> Sure - because only prudes refuse to publish paedophilic fantasy, right?
Does this excuses censorship? Why Apple have granted self a god rights and enforces new "the law and the order" while REAL laws are NOT forbidding content??? I'm preferring to be policed by police. Not by crap-makers from Apple! They're not looking like policemen so they're better just F#@k-off with their censorship. And I do not care if author related with cnet or not. I'm a decent and allowed to do everything permitted by laws. And f#$k the Apple if they are going to try to restrict me. I want them to be sued to the hell for their censorship attempts!

[Danofthebass]

News flash on Mr. Brie's comment, "Apple's staff shouldn't be allowed to refuse to publish works of literature based only on word matching."

If Apple were to refuse sale of an app because they thought the developers Mother was a shady character, then guess what? It's perfectly legal. What do you mean, "shouldn't be allowed to refuse"? The only way to disallow such a practice implies "requiring by law" that they DO sell such items, which last time I checked isn't the way a free market or society works.

What if a gun dealer decided to refuse sale of a weapon to a person that he for ANY reason deemed unfit to own a gun? Should he be punished by the law for refusing sale?

Capitalism works on both sides of the sale. First, a seller must offer a product for sale. Second, the buyer has the option to offer capital in exchange for the product.

[Renegade Knight]

Freedom of speech works on the third side of the sale. You get to rant about the rant and the orginal rant got to happen as well.

[pjhenry1216]

Thanks for elaborating on a point that was made much more succinctly in the article itself. There was an entire paragraph (albeit just 2 sentences) dedicated to the concept. I quoted the important sentence just in case you couldn't figure it out.

"And Apple is within its rights to dictate what it will sell on its store."

If you want to rant, at least do it in a more educated fashion. The guy was just commenting on how absurd that kind of filtering is for literature.

[t3st3r`]

> "And Apple is within its rights to dictate what it will sell on its store."
The only problem is that you cannot use any other stores with Apple devices. Long live the f#%king dictatorship, yeah.

[foocha]

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to criticise Apple for refusing to publish a word that cnet won't publisher either?

[thelemurking]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say NO here because you aren't paying to read this article. Now if you had to pay $1.99 to read and/or post here and they still continued to censor, then I would agree with you. I see it sort of like cable networks vs. ota broadcast networks. That's why there's a big difference between content on ABC as opposed to HBO.

[sanenazok]

Why does paying for it matter, one bit? The difference between cable and ota isn't a very good analogy. Ota is subject to more government control because it uses a public resource, and because the airwaves and is supposed to be used for the public good. Free websites, ahem are neither. Apple has a right to keep things out of its store. Would you force your local 5-n-10 to carry this book if the owner didn't want to?

[pjhenry1216]

Its different because C-NET isn't trying to create a place where you can come and buy books to read. They create their own articles and have their own rules for said articles. C-NET is *not* a store. They aren't selling third-party products. Its their own product and they have their own rules.

[sanenazok]

@pjhenry1216: I don't get the distinction: if I'm Apple or CNET or the corner book store, per you it's OK to put limits on what my employees publish, but not what my independent contractors publish? It makes no difference who's making the statement, as an owner I get to pick who speaks on my premises.

Just look at a public school. The principal gets to choose who is brought in to address the class. It doesn't matter if the person is an employee of the school district or a complete outsider, the school has say over who's doing the talking.

[t3st3r`]

> Isn't it a bit hypocritical to criticise Apple for refusing to publish a word that cnet won't publisher either?
If cnet bans my opinition I can express it on any other site. With same browser, same hardware and so on.
If Apple censors something... I'm out of luck. There is no "other sites". There is no other stores. And that's sucks!

[rvassar]

So you blast Apple for not publishing a book that you can't take direct quotes from?

[pjhenry1216]

Again... the comparison is ridiculous. You're comparing apples and oranges (pun not intended... well, ok, maybe a it was a little bit). C-NET creates its own content and is aware of its own guidelines and does not offer to sell third-party works. Also, you can easily go elsewhere for a similar article that will quote it. With the App Store, you're *required* to use the App Store to get applications. When you have a monopoly as such, strict guidelines are a little less ethical than if you were in a saturated market.

[rapier1]

Apple has every right not to publish something they don't want to. However, CNET has every right to take them to task for not publishing something, applying inconsistent standards, or a seeming lack of transparency in the process.

[t3st3r`]

> So you blast Apple for not publishing a book that you can't take direct quotes from?
Are you from Apple, dude?Or just a fanboy? Why censorship don't have to be blamed? I can quote on ANY site and if I do not like Cnet I can use any other. Not a case with Apple - I can not use anything except their store so in such case I'm out of luck.

[artistjoh]

There is also the International nature of Apple's business to consider here. After all Europeans and Australians generally are far less offended than Americans with anything mentioning body parts or natural functions. On the other hand, much of the Middle East seems to consider Americans extremely liberal in these things. It is impossible to please everyone, but I sure wish that the most conservative possible American prudery was not the standard used. After all, The Catcher In The Rye would have trouble being approved as things stand and that classic should be read by everyone. Salinger would be very upset with the censorship of the App store books.

[3rdalbum]

It's the APP store, not the book store. If Apple wants to get into the business of selling books, it should set up a book store system or add such support to iTunes. The iTunes music store already sells audio books.

[Renegade Knight]

They sell books? Sounds like a book store to me.

[kbrichard]

Isn't their bitten apple the biblical symbol for first copulation. The original sin. There entity is built around a logo that means If You see Kay.

[mathue_tax]

No, it's an ode to Alan Turing.

[sanenazok]

What a bunch of hoopla over nothing...hey newsflash there are plenty of places to buy this book, not everything takes place in the iWorld of Apple. Decisions like this is what you get if you accept the "we know what's best" Apple brand. Apple never presented itself as a free marketplace of ideas! It's a strictly controlled world and some people like it that way. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere.

[pjhenry1216]

Why do people get upset when someone points out a perceived flaw in a system? Yes, one could go elsewhere, but if you find a lot of advantages to one system, but theres maybe only one or two flaws, as opposed to other systems that are filled with flaws, why shouldn't you try and make your voice heard? Since when is it considered a bad idea for a costumer to want improved service for a product they may like, but have some issues with? Why is asking for improvement a bad thing?

[fault360]

Apple has the right to allow anything they want into their store. However books are far less graphic and suggestive as some of the music and things you see on TV today. Rap, RnB, and a lot of old Rock have a lot more themes and language used in them but if its in a book it cant be on in the store?

This may be why I stay away from Apple but I guess the same people who make quality laptops and machines are the same people who think Harry Potter should not be in library's. Since it deals with warlocks and they are enemies of god.

[canute69]

They absolutely have the right to include/exclude; fact - they have the responsibility [italicized] to do so, and I enjoyed (I shall call it right-mindedness of) the article calling it to our attention. But, then, the little dogs come with their name calling, to prove their own moral worthiness. Oh, no! we prove our own inability to govern others when we prove we cannot govern ourselves. Listen, just Merry Christmas to us all. And please remember it is a Birthday!

[pjhenry1216]

Fact: they don't have that responsibility. They've taken it upon themselves to do so. No one is forcing them.

[sanenazok]

@pjhenry1216: Still, since they have taken up the responsibility, they get to exercise it. Unless you mean to say that they should be forbidden from filtering the content of their store, which is ludicrous.

[Mr-Javaman]

Poor David Carnoy and Tom Krazit, sounds like you're all bummed that Apple has set some standards higher than you're used to having. There's plenty of places available for the literary freedom you look for: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=free+porn&aq=f&oq=

[DrtyDogg]

"Higher Standards" The book contained the word F---- and they banned it because of that. Higher standards would be not selling ANYTHING that uses that word, but there are thousands upon thousands of digital media items on iTunes that use that word.

[rapier1]

So basically you think that Catcher In The Rye is low brow literature and doesn't meet higher standards?

[Mark_Anderson]

LOL at Javaman.

[strykernyc]

Steve jobs = Hitler
Apple = Monopoly
Funny how ppl buy apple products base on their appearance and brainwash ppl who swear apple products are better LOL

[tacit]

Godwinned!

To call Steve Jobs "Hitler" in a day when there are still survivors of Nazi concentration camps living among us shows the most appalling lack of perspective I think I've ever seen.

[SteamChip]

Hitler never started an online download music store.

[PhaseDMA]

Would CNet care if this had happened to a non colleague? Of course not.

And who ever said they simply word match anyways? It is such a stretch to suggest they word match, and then read the content that gets flagged?

Maybe the book got denied because the quote is so unoriginal it made them cry. Foul language is just one of many objectionable pieces of content.

***Yes... I'm making fun of the author

Books with out major publishers shouldn't be allowed to SPAM the App store anyways.

[fault360]

The day an apple product goes on sale let me know...oh wait that's right they will never go on sale.

[inverse137]

Is there a point to that?

[Perry_Clease]

"Is there a point to that?"

No just a troll

[RobinQueens]

that is pathetic. doesn't apple sell gangsta rap in the music store?

[fault360]

I am pretty sure they do, take one of Nickelback's songs for example;

You're beside me on the seat
Got your hand between my knees
And you control how fast we go by just how hard you wanna squeeze

I mean really? We all know what he is trying to say here but since he does not the the words in a more upfront way that its alright? They hardly censor music since that's their cash cow. However the other products which do not sell much can be censored?

[Seaspray0]

At least they have the sense to allow Pull My Finger and iFart Mobile. Life just wouldn't be worth it without those bodily noises. I'm waiting for the bunus pluggin to iFart called iSniff... guaranteed to give that realistic effect for your friends and neighbors.

[MoriahJovan]

Oh, heck. This happened to me 2 weeks ago for the same reason.

http://moriahjovan.com/mojo/oh-tipper-where-are-you

[USArtboy]

This non-story boils down to one sentence:
"And Apple is within its rights to dictate what it will sell on its store."

Get over it.

[pjhenry1216]

Nothing wrong with asking them to make the store better. Its a flawed system. You may like it more than other systems, but its still flawed. Censorship as such will always be flawed. Who are they to tell me what I'm allowed to put on MY device? I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get something I want on something I own. I may own an iPhone 3G because it fit my needs better than others, but I'm still aware of the loss of rights involved with owning an iPhone. Why am I not allowed to do what I want with my device within legal limits? Why is Apple allowed to control how people use their own products?

There's nothing wrong with calling attention to this. Even if someone has the right to do something doesn't make it the best option and doesn't mean that it should automatically be accepted without question.