Apple censors a dictionary app
This is just getting ridiculous.
John Gruber at Daringfireball.net points to the latest example of an iPhone application being stymied by Apple's App Store approval process. In this case, it's a dictionary app called Ninjawords (so called because ninjas are "smart, accurate, and really fast") that was rejected three times over the course of two months, mostly because "objectionable" words could be looked up and found in the dictionary's search function, Gruber reported.
It's a new version of an old story, but one that almost seems like a parody of the byzantine process of getting an app past the guardians of the App store. Here's how it went down, according to Matchstick software's Phil Crosby, one of the developers of Ninjawords, as told to John Gruber.
The first version, submitted May 13, was rejected because it crashed when run on the iPhone 3.0 OS beta. Crosby said it was fixed and resubmitted before being rejected again weeks later because it contained vulgar language, that could "be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod Touch users."
It's been established that Apple is squeamish when it comes to so-called "objectionable" content. Earlier this year an e-book app was rejected because it carried a link to "The Kama Sutra," and CNET's own David Carnoy wrote a book called "Knife Music," whose electronic version was initially rejected from the App Store for containing a scene with graphic language.
But the Ninjawords app isn't like an e-book where you have to read the whole thing to get your money's worth. This is a dictionary, a reference guide, where one has to actually look up the word in question to see it and be possibly offended by it.
Matchstick apparently played ball and tried to remove as many offensive words as it could, according to Crosby. When it submitted the application again--this time a whole new app, thus losing its place in the approval line--it was again rebuffed because more words deemed inappropriate by App Store screeners were discovered by looking them up.
Eventually the application was approved, but scrubbed clean of objectionable words and even then it was slapped with a 17+ rating, which will get filtered out by OS 3.0's parental controls. Essentially, the message from Apple, or at least an overzealous App Store approval team, is that iPhone or iPod Touch owners over 17 years old need to be told what kind of words they're allowed to look up on their Apple device.
Of course, the App Store is Apple's domain, and it can dictate what kind of content it wants to sell. But the inconsistent way in which the rules are applied--see here, here, here, and here, for starters--is bordering on the surreal.
Erica Ogg is a CNET News reporter who covers Apple, HP, Dell, and other PC makers, as well as the consumer electronics industry. She's also one of the hosts of CNET News' Daily Podcast. In her non-work life, she's a history geek, a loyal Dodgers fan, and a mac-and-cheese connoisseur. E-mail Erica. 
Think you can update the article Ogg - I figured the developer was just looking for a headline (and it worked, obviously)
http://i.word.com
(http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=chock-full&ia=luna)
(http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=chock-full&ia=luna)
-BMF
It is clear by your comment that you are anything BUT wise...
how? he makes a god point. Apple is essentially performing censorship and deciding FOR iphone/ipod touch users what it is appropriate.
-------------------------
yup just like walmart they are.
Bing ZuneVista
That said, I never thought I'd see the day that Apple's own actions would show themselves as being *PC*. Gee, and all this time they've been telling us they were MAC.
(snicker)
;-)
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=*****&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=13.544511,39.418945&ie=UTF8&ll=59.101565,-3.279419&spn=0.022963,0.07699&z=14&iwloc=A
"Censorship" is one of those political buzz words that gets attention. People and organizations "censor" themselves and others all the time for various reasons. This article's author is a hypocrite and so are the posters who vilify Apple for its app store policies.
I notice you were quick to call me names but you seem reluctant to address my challenge to the author of this article. If the words that were removed from the app and the 17+ rating are so offensive to you lets see some courage on your part. Reply with some of the words and lets see if the C|net filter lets them through. Then I might reconsider your "over the line" comment. Until then you're just as much a hypocrite as the author.
Why don't you challenge APPLE to list the words that THEY found offensive? It's not like Erica was in Cupertino saying "Rejected" to the app. It was Apple. You call the folks here hypocrites because they won't list the words that APPLE (not CNET) found objectionable? Please, spare us the "Ohhh, you broke my little iPhone's itty bitty heart" song and dance.
With that having been said, Apple does have the right to do what it wants with the App store that it owns. Apple just needs to keep in mind that if the folks who buy their products aren't happy, eventually they'll move on to others who will make them so.
It's a DICTIONARY for crying out loud!! How can you say certain words aren't allowed in a dictionary? It's not hypocritical at all for CNET to have an editorial policy that prohibits certain words but to also be critical of someone who censors a DICTIONARY!! If it were labeled a kids dictionary, that would be one thing. Or an electronics dictionary, etc.
So what if "objectionable" words can be looked up. Of course they can, if first tell the dictionary what those words are so it can look them up, because IT'S A DICTIONARY.
It's also not like the software goes, "Hey, you look like a nice person. Want to know what f**k means?".
Come on.
Don't you love defending obvious trolls?
When I looked up the "S" word synonym for feces it suggested the British spelling, ending in "e". When I chose it said that it was a spelling variation of the USA spelling. It had the USA spelling as link, but when I clicked on it I got a message that there was no definition for that word in the dictionary. It also had links to several slang terms for feces, but when clicked it the app just reloaded the page with the British spelling. Furthermore when I typed in the four letter "S" word it suggested ****list and ****less, but would not load any definitions for them.
It listed and defined the 3 letter "T" word for breast.
Disclaimer: I am not a prude about typing out these words, but I am complying with CNET's terms of use.
Essentially, the message from CNET, or at least an overzealous Erica Ogg, is that CNET posters need to be told what kind of words they're allowed to use.
... is bordering on the surreal.
LOL!
- by C0mmanderB0nd August 5, 2009 3:00 PM PDT
- I fail to see how they couldn't just make a ninja dictionary website if "ninja" words are so important to them.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (64 Comments)And how many more shameless plugs can Knife music get......