Apple approves 'Baby Shaker' for App Store
Updated 1:25 p.m.: Apple has pulled Baby Shaker from the App Store.
If you needed any further proof that Apple's App Store approval process is horrifyingly out of whack, consider one of the latest additions to the App Store: Baby Shaker.
A successful game of Baby Shaker, now available on the App Store.
(Credit: Screenshot by Tom Krazit/CNET)A company called Sikalosoft is currently selling a $0.99 iPhone application called Baby Shaker, as of Monday. The object of Baby Shaker is to stop the incessant crying of an infant pictured on screen by violently shaking the iPhone, at which point two red "x" marks appear over the baby's eyes. "See how long you can endure his or her adorable cries before you just have to find a way to quiet the baby down!" reads the sales pitch for Baby Shaker.
Jennipher Dickens, who founded a nonprofit organization in 2007 after her son Christopher was injured from being shaken by his father, brought the new application to our attention after reading about it on Krapps, an iPhone application review site. I downloaded it from the App Store this morning to verify it existed and worked as described.
"As a mother of a child who was violently shaken at 7 weeks old, causing a severe brain injury, and the founder of a national organization for Shaken Baby Syndrome prevention (as well as the communications director for a national organization helping children with brain injuries), I don't have to tell you how much this horrifies me!!!" she wrote in an e-mail.
When the App Store was first announced in March 2008, Apple said it would vet every single application submitted to the App Store and approve or reject applications based on its internal standards. So, as Apple approaches the one billionth download of App Store applications, let's review what Apple has decided you're allowed to do, and what you're not allowed to do, with iPhone applications.
You are not allowed to have swear words in your application.
You are not allowed to develop applications that could potentially harm existing or future Apple businesses.
You are allowed to develop applications that break App Store rules if you work for one of the most important companies on the planet, whose CEO happens to sit on Apple's board of directors.
You are allowed to simulate infanticide.
Apple representatives did not respond to requests for comment on Baby Shaker.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
I am not all that concerned about the apps approval. If you do not like it... do not buy it. If it cost Apple money in complaints or boycotts, what ever then Apple will remove it. What bugs me is someone sick enough to actually code and create such an application... then actually find it funny to submit it for sale.
> Almost certainly the person who reviewed the app has no children
> and a immature, sick sense of humor and thought the app was
> funny so they let it pass.
This is unsupported, wild speculation; a guess, not "almost certain." Isn't it possible that the person who reviewed the app has some respect and understanding of free markets, and decided to let the consumer decide whether or not the app is funny or worth buying? It's irrelevent whether the reviewer himself thought it was funny.
Any business person understands this. An ice cream vendor doesn't include a flavor because he thinks it tastes good. He includes it if he thinks consumers might buy it.
Anyway, there are many more apps we now need to question. Can you believe that Apple also offers a murderous app called "Hangman"?! This sick and disgusting piece of violence, disguised as a simple "word game," lets a user simulate an execution, hanging an anorexic human being by the neck till he chokes to death. "Hangman" is a horrific and dangerous game... for those of us who have difficulty distinguishing an imaginary game from reality.
Stuart
Rock-a-bye baby, in the treetop,
When the wind blows, the cradle will rock,
When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall,
And down will come baby, cradle and all.
It's obviously apple's fault, though. Because there are no sick and twisted games for any other platform than the iPhone, right?
Ever visit the Adult Swim game site?
Oh, wait...
Whether it was or was not such an exercise, the result is the same: Apple's approval priorities are a bit out of whack.
In any case, Apple will need to pull this one down immediately before the press runs with this and it becomes a PR nightmare.
Wow.
Do I think it's in bad taste? Yes. Do I question the character of a person who buys/uses this app? Yes. Do I think it's Apple's problem? Absolutely not. As far as I can tell, it doesn't violate any of the App Store's rules.
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
"Just because Apple sells it doesn't mean they support it anyway."
That right there is the point- they have a process to approve or deny any application submitted. This application went through that process (which could be random darts on a dart board, lucky throw of the dice, or whatever) that Apple set up and it was approved. Apple takes a 30% cut of the money made from this application.
This means they do very much approve and endorse the application. THAT is the problem they face here. This will force Apple to either redress the way they do application processing or face some serious PR issues.
"Don't like it, don't buy it" is saying look the other way when you see something horribly wrong and disgusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It's amazing how people just don't get it. NO ONE GOT HURT. In fact, it's more accurate to say "it's saying look the other way when you see ART that you find horribly wrong and disgusting."
I wouldn't ever buy this myself, but that doesn't mean I think it should be banned outright. Explain how killing people in other games is more right than shaking a baby until it stops crying and gets a red 'X' over each eye in this game is.
Not exactly the sort of image Apple would want to have, I would think. :\
Perfect example of how broken the approval process is.
Just... wow. What were you thinking, Apple? How could you possibly condone this?
- Terry
Twitter: TCHayes
How about an app called, "KILL ALL JEWS" ? Again, if Baby Shaker is allowed, then you have to allow all of it by that same logic.
Yes, it's all in bad taste. It *is* legal. But if Apple leaves this one in, expect it to be brought up anytime someone mentions Apple- you know, the company that approves of murdering children for fun and profit. That's how it would be spun and Apple would be hard pressed to deny it when the app is right there in their own Appstore. The press would love to keep bringing it up again and again.
You yourself call it "legal", so I don't get the issue... besides the social/moral aspect that it is wrong and can lead to something illegal. No I don't like the app so I won't buy it... amazing theory huh?
A game in which you are simulating political assassination is not illegal. It's just in very bad taste.
A game in which you kill babies is similarly in bad taste.
These sorts of games are indeed legal.
You are not forced to buy the app at all- and that isn't the point at all. The point is that Apple approved of the application and its content. How they approved it is another matter that they will need to address likely.
It's not a good position for Apple to be in at this point.
I think any kind of threat to the President or his members part or in whole is illegal. Hate crimes are also illegal. Shaking a baby is not illegal, at least until physical harm is done -- or if seen by others to where they believe harm will happen.
Uhhh...Hello? Didn't they make a whole movie about the assination of George W. Bush? How come that was not ILLEGAL?
"Shaking a baby is not illegal, at least until physical harm is done -- or if seen by others to where they believe harm will happen."
You seem to be saying that it's only illegal if it causes harm or others see it. So if I punch you in the face but don't leave any bruises or cuts and no one saw me do it, then I can't be arrested for assault, right?
Besides that, physical harm occurs the instant a baby is forcefully shaken because its head rotates about the neck uncontrollably since infants' neck muscles aren't well developed. This violent motion slams the back and forth within the skull, rupturing blood vessels and nerves and causing bruising and bleeding to the brain.
Also, shaking a baby is classified as child abuse, which is most definitely a crime. If you shake a baby and are caught, you will be arrested.
Sadly there are people that find a need for such apps.
nudity = terribly unacceptable
graphic violence = OK
Thems the rules, just ask any of the major networks.
Killing people = OK
Naked = no
hasn't there been enough studies to show that video games do not lead to violence? I don't see how the baby shaker app is any different... it's not like we have a massive teenage army of Halo 3 kids running around shooting everyone, so I doubt we will have bunch of tweens putting down their phones to rush and shake the baby.
of course you wouldn't know that by reading the article, which talks about how Apple did wrong but gives the game's creator a free pass.
Apple also sells songs with explicit language on the iTunes store. Some of that music promotes bad stuff! Shock and horror.
The point the author was trying to make, badly, was that Apple has standards and they let this one slip by. Oooo, crime against humanity. Once it was discovered, Apple pulled it! No hypocrisy, just an initial mistake corrected?
I am reminded of how Apple denied an application that would play Family Guys clips stating that the content was offensive, however they sell the full episodes containing that same 'offensive' content in the iTunes store.
Double standards, anyone?
- by monkeyfun14 April 22, 2009 12:38 PM PDT
- This is absolutely horrible.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (102 Comments)