Apple breaks App Store silence
In an extremely rare move, an Apple executive has publicly commented on the App Store approval process as it relates to a controversial dictionary application.
Apple's Phil Schiller, seen here at Macworld in January, commented on the App Store approval process this week--a move that seems to be unprecedented.
(Credit: James Martin/CNET)Apple's Phil Schiller, senior vice president of worldwide marketing and last seen playing the role of Steve Jobs at Apple events this year, e-mailed John Gruber of Daring Fireball to comment on the approval process of Ninjawords, a dictionary application that was initially rejected from the App Store because it supplied the definition of several dirty words. Schiller blamed the snafu on poor timing, saying that Apple never directly censored the application but felt it deserved a 17+ rating, which wasn't formally available as an option until parental controls were released along with the iPhone 3.0 software in June.
Ninjawords draws on Wiktionary.com for its definitions, Schiller said, which means it offers up a few more choice words than the folks at the Oxford English Dictionary have gotten around to including. "Apple rejected the initial submission of Ninjawords for this reason, provided the Ninjawords developer with information about some of the vulgar terms, and suggested to the developer that they resubmit the application for approval once parental controls were implemented on the iPhone," Schiller told Gruber via e-mail.
The developer of Ninjawords isn't exactly mollified by Apple's reasoning. "Apple may slap a 17+ rating on our app and wash their hands, saying 'you're not required to censor your app', but at the same time, they're putting a great deal of pressure on us to do so. Who wants to be the only illicit dictionary on the App Store?" said Phil Crosby of Matchstick, which created the application. Crosby and Gruber noted that several other dictionaries in the App Store contain language that some may find objectionable yet are not required to carry the equivalent of an R movie rating.
But while the debate over Ninjawords will rage on, what's perhaps most significant is that Apple has directly commented on its decision-making process regarding the approval or rejection of a specific iPhone application. As far as I can tell, Apple has never done this in the year-plus history of the App Store, with the notable exception of Baby Shaker. But even then, Apple didn't explain the reasoning behind its decision to approve an application it eventually called "deeply offensive."
Perhaps now that the FCC is taking a closer look at the Google Voice debacle, Apple will now start to finally give developers and iPhone users some specific input on the criteria it uses to approve or deny iPhone applications. To this point, the process has been a black box, frustrating developers time and time again.
Gruber credited Apple with perhaps waking up to the reality that at some point, the App Store approval process went off the rails. "That Schiller was willing to respond in such detail and length, on the record, is the first proof I've seen that Apple's leadership is trying to make the course correction that many of us see as necessary for the long-term success of the platform. The improvement I consider most important is a significant focus on fairness, consistency, and common sense in the App Store review process," he wrote.
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. 
stop censoring the app store, it's completely pointless!
Not even cool to joke about.
I agree with usualsuspect - censoring the app store only makes Apple appear to be a bunch of overzealous idiots playing the part of our moral police.
Don't buy "baby shaker" or whatever that app is if you don't like it. But once censorship starts, big brother will tell you what you can and can't do.
Of course they do. That's not censorship - that's their right as a company.
Now, back to Google Voice...
You would defend this company if they raped your wife and killed your family I swear.
I'll say it again, just sell "my" iphone to someone else. I don't need one.
And in closing I'll say this: If Blackberry or RIM has or ever had a brain in their collective head, they'll allow me to buy the apps I want and not censor them.
That's ALL!
And you call me the shill lmfao.
You would defend this company if they raped your wife and killed your family I swear."
@monkeyfun14--And you would damn Apple no matter what the explanation or situation. What exactly is your point? Try switching that judgmental pendulum over your way for once.
Oh the irony! I can pull up 4chan on my iPhone, but a dictionary gets banned!
Look at the timing. They were rejected BEOFRE OS3 came out, which means they were looking for approval in the "child proof" days of the iPhone.
All they had to do was resubmit. But they didn't WANT to resubmit. Instead, they wanted PUBLICITY so they went to the press, even though OS3 had been out for over a month and their app would be approved without issue.
And now their reason has changed: "we don't want to be the only 17+ dictionary on the market."
A. Why not? Won't you get more notoriety and publicity that way (which is what you want).
B. Why are you complaining? You chose to charge money for an application that farms an open and FREE website, then repackage it for iPhone, and now you don't like that your plan has backfired? Cry me a river.
Anyone who would support this app is a fool. Why not go directly to the wiktionary and look up the words yourself? "There's an app for that" it's called Safari... ;)
The fact that this case actually garnered a response from Apple greatly helps us understand just a little bit more what the man behind the curtain is thinking. And finally just because it is Apple's right to decide what can and can't be distributed in the app store doesn't mean they won't cave to public pressure to change their policies especially if the facts of inconstancies portray them in a negative light.
Or Apple can compromise and make all apps that access user generated content restricted to 17+. That means SMS. safari, mail, skype, etc.. I guess we will only have unrestricted access to endless fart apps and the weather... provided you don't check the forecast for any obscene city names.
There were some apps that came out AFTER OS3.0 going for a the 17+ rating and they got pulled because they showed *** prepare yourself *** boobies! OH GOD I KNOW! How horrible!!!! Why would anyone ever want to see female nudity on their precious little Jesus phone?
I love my iPhone, but Apple makes some retarded moves when it comes to apps sometimes...
I could understand an app that threw up a ton of offensive words 'in your face' style being banned (or now rated).
But it's a dictionary, which reminds me of the Black Adder (UK TV show) dictionary episode.
"I hope that you are not using this first English dictionary to look up rude words." (yes it's always happened ;)
Can see why they don't want to allow everything, obviously only regulation or overwhelming pressure from customers would make them open up the app store to direct competition to their own money making services. Also as they are distributing these apps they are probably open to law suits for selling unsuitable products, and could be even more complex when you take into account the number of countries they operate in.
Considering the number of apps on the store and the variety of the software available I think most people are quite happy with what there is and would only be slightly annoyed by the stuff they can't get.
Also I seem to have read that quite a few app were finally approved, even if they had to change a few things first. It seems more OTT journalist jumping on the Apple bandwagon.
Apple is within their rights to do as they want in terms of allowing or not allowing apps into their app store. There is competition - BlackBerry, Palm, Windows Mobile. If you don't like what Apple is doing, don't buy or use their products.
Are people that offended by TEXT?
Many developers make the suggested changes and then resubmit. Some with success, others without. In *this* case, the developer explicitly provided content through their app that was in conflict with language in Apple's developer agreement. The company *knew* and *agreed to* the terms when they signed up as a developer, yet included the content anyway.
Laying ground rules is Apple's right. Agreeing to abide by them is the developer's choice. Ignoring the ground rules and expecting the outcome to be in their favor, is unrealistic.
Now that ratings and parental controls are in place, it will be easier for this process to move ahead.
And it seems to have worked.
I don't respect publicity ******, myself.
Who wants their dictionary listed as an adult app come on now.
That would be ideal of course but I think there are always going to be some exceptions that come up which couldn't have been thought of when writing the rules. So yes, although clear cut rules would be great, I don't think it will ever happen as there are too many possibilities Apple probably wouldn't think of.
No idea where you got that idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech
When are you going to turn into a respectable news organization? I'll bet Apple would have told you the same thing...if you'd bothered to ask. Instead, C|Net prefers to run stories with inflammatory (possibly defamatory) headlines about Apple to draw in clicks.
Sounds like a good marketing niche to me. Suck it up you WATB and just add parental controls which can easily be turned off by the user. This is just a developer whining publicly to get some attention.
http://gizmodo.com/5325539/apples-chickensh*t-approval-process-has-gone-too-far
and they don't have a big sticker saying 17+ on them
- by codevalley August 6, 2009 7:31 PM PDT
- In one side, Microsoft is struggling with their Windows, where they have been forced to remove their own applications from it, like the IE and Windows Media Player, in the other end, Apple is behaving in the worst possible manner and just killing off apps which they don't like???
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Farthing Haypenny August 7, 2009 7:47 AM PDT
- When you are considered "cool" the rules don't apply to you. You play by your own rules, and you don't let any nerdy puke freshmen get in your way.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (72 Comments)How many days would it last, if Microsoft tmrow says, only apps from their shop can be used in Windows? People would call it undemocratic. Why not for Apple??