Apple Reconsiders, Approves NIN iPhone App

gyrogeerloose writes "According to MacRumors, NIN's iPhone application has been approved. Trent Reznor has reported via his Twitter account that the now-approved app was resubmitted without modification, which suggests that Apple reconsidered their initial rejection. This should really come as no surprise to anyone who follows Apple news since it follows the company's typical pattern of handing potentially controversial iPhone apps, especially when it concerns high-profile rejections."

Comments

I dont get it

[think_nix]

tfa:
"the band's own application was rejected due to "objectionable" downloadable content that wasn't housed within the app itself."

I mean it is their own content they are distributing so "NIN/Reznor" are ok with it. So why was this rejected in the first place ? I dont own anything with an i, but how many other apps out their download offsite content? Quite a few I am sure?

Re:I dont get it

[Red Flayer]

I dont own anything with an i

Oh yeah? Then how'd you type that, smartypants?

Re:I dont get it

[Sir_Lewk]

Copy/Paste.

Re:I dont get it

[Red Flayer]

Copy/Paste.

You young kids with your "Copying" and your "Pasting". In my day when a key on our keyboard broke, we learned to live without it. And our non-adjustable CT-syndrome-causing keyboard was in the case with the monitor and the CRT, and we liked it that way.

In retrospect, it sure made WASD games a pain in the ass, though. AAAAAAAAAA *move left dammit* AAAAAAAAAAAAAA *argh, died again!*

Re:I dont get it

[mauthbaux]

As I understand it, the "objectionable" was referring to the lyrics in the music rather than fear of infringement by the copyright holder.
Quoting from Engadget because I can't find the nin.com post:

As posted by Trent himself in response to Apple's rejection eMail:

...I'll voice the same issue I had with Wal-Mart years ago, which is a matter of consistency and hypocrisy. Wal-Mart went on a rampage years ago insisting all music they carry be censored of all profanity and "clean" versions be made for them to carry. Bands (including Nirvana) tripped over themselves editing out words, changing album art, etc to meet Wal-Mart's standards of decency - because Wal-Mart sells a lot of records. NIN refused, and you'll notice a pretty empty NIN section at any Wal-Mart. My reasoning was this: I can understand if you want the moral posturing of not having any "indecent" material for sale - but you could literally turn around 180 degrees from where the NIN record would be and purchase the film "Scarface" completely uncensored, or buy a copy of Grand Theft Auto where you can be rewarded for beating up prostitutes. How does that make sense? You can buy The Downward Fucking Spiral on iTunes, but you can't allow an iPhone app that may have a song with a bad word somewhere in it. Geez, what if someone in the forum in our app says FUCK or CUNT? I suppose that also falls into indecent material. Hey Apple, I just got some SPAM about fucking hot asian teens THROUGH YOUR MAIL PROGRAM. I just saw two guys having explicit anal sex right there in Safari! On my iPhone!

Come on Apple, think your policies through and for fuck's sake get your app approval scenario together.

Later in the threaded discussion, Trent clarifies his position with this little gem:

Everyone - let me be clear. I love Apple products and as goofy and out-of-touch as their app approval process / policy is, I will still use them because they work 1000X better than the competition. This is not a debate, it's a fact. The iPhone is THE most elegant, modern smartphone at this point in time and it's perfect for what we want to do with the NIN app - except for the ludicrous approval process, and that's what I want to draw attention to.

Android is cool, but nobody has an Android phone. Blackberry is OK but the hardware is inconsistent and WinMo straight-up sucks balls. If Apple doesn't get it together, we will most certainly make it available to the jailbreak community. I didn't invest in this app to see it languish on the sidelines from an idiotic policy while this tour is in full swing.

The nin.com front page currently has a link to download the app for those of you who are interested in it.
Disclaimer: I'm not associated or affiliated with Engadget, the above quoting was simply convenient for posting purposes.

Re:I dont get it

[rAiNsT0rm]

I fap to midget porn using this little app called "Safari" and there was no warning at all that I could be subjected to such horrors, and hairy palms.

Re:I dont get it

[Propaganda13]

Copy/Paste.

You young kids with your "Copying" and your "Pasting". In my day when a key on our keyboard broke, we learned to live without it. And our non-adjustable CT-syndrome-causing keyboard was in the case with the monitor and the CRT, and we liked it that way.

In retrospect, it sure made WASD games a pain in the ass, though. AAAAAAAAAA *move left dammit* AAAAAAAAAAAAAA *argh, died again!*

U yung k1ds wth ur "C0pyng" and ur "Past1ng". N my day when a key 0n teh keybard dn't wurk, we learned 2 l1ve wthut et. And r un-adjustable CT-syndr9me-causng keybard was n teh case w/ the stuff, nd we l1ked 1t that w4y.

And thus leet came 2b

Re:I dont get it

[grausamaffe]

tfa: "the band's own application was rejected due to "objectionable" downloadable content that wasn't housed within the app itself."

I mean it is their own content they are distributing so "NIN/Reznor" are ok with it. So why was this rejected in the first place ?

You hit the nail on the head. Apple is arbitrarily rejecting apps by attempting to use the access to "objectionable" content defense. As many others here have pointed out, Safari will give you access to much more "objectionable" content than the NIN app. Apple's acceptance/rejection policy reminds me of something...hmmm Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Re:I dont get it

[Hatta]

I always wondered what the big deal was about his music anyway.

The richest, deepest, most complex and powerful polyphonies composed since Bach, that's what the big deal is. I've owned The Downward Spiral since 1995, and I still hear things I haven't heard before.

Re:I dont get it

[swb]

And I've owned my lawn mower since 1999 and still hear things I haven't heard before.

Re:I dont get it

[Hatta]

I wouldn't be surprised if Trent had a lawnmower sample in there somewhere.

Re:I dont get it

[Glove d'OJ]

ALT+0105 on the keypad. Recreate any ASCII character with simple numbers.

Re:I dont get it

[navyjeff]

I don't want to trigger a flamewar, but there are two extensions for Firefox that enable keyboard commands to make it just like your favorite text editor/quasi operating system:

Firemacs
Vimperator

or if you want to go the full monty: Conkeror
(unrelated to a famous red squirrel)

No mention of parental controls?

[Red Flayer]

Egads, that was a terrible summary.

The decision to approve the app had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it was a high-profile app. They didn't reconsider just because Trent Reznor, with his celebrity status, bitched and complained and tried to Streisand the rejection.

They approved the app this time around because now the iPhone will have parental controls to filter objectionable material (included in the beta of 3.0).

Seriously, that's the biggest part of the whole deal with the NIN app, and it didn't get mentioned at all in the summary.

Re:No mention of parental controls?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would make sense if 3.0 had been released. So far Apple has told people to re-submit objectionable apps for release with 3.0, but they don't get to the store before the release.

Re:No mention of parental controls?

[0xdeadbeef]

They approved the app this time around because now the iPhone will have parental controls to filter objectionable material (included in the beta of 3.0).

So what you're saying is, because of Trent Reznor, Apple implemented parental controls in the week between the initial rejection and the application being accepted.

Wow, I had no idea he had that much influence. Trent Reznor is God.

Re:No mention of parental controls?

[Red Flayer]

So what you're saying is, because of Trent Reznor, Apple implemented parental controls in the week between the initial rejection and the application being accepted.

Correlation != causation, dammit.

There could be some other factor that caused both events.

Like, say, the aliens who assume human form who have impersonated both Steve Jobs and Trent Reznor (to say nothing of Manny Ramirez or Dennis Hopper) have a diabolical plan to get millions of people to download their thought-control software via NIN downloads over the iPhone.

Re:No mention of parental controls?

[PopeRatzo]

The decision to approve the app had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it was a high-profile app. They didn't reconsider just because Trent Reznor, with his celebrity status, bitched and complained and tried to Streisand the rejection.

So, not an high-profile app, but an high-profile submitter? Sorry, but the point remains, if Trent Reznor had not been involved, raising the profile of the app, it would not have been approved.

Thank god Apple had the wisdom to make themselves the gatekeeper of all iPhone apps. Who knows what kind of damage may have been done if the NIN app had been approved without this charade. Thanks, Apple, for keeping iPhone users all over the world safe.

Re:No mention of parental controls?

[santiagodraco]

Hmm, wrong.

First off you have NO idea why it was reconsidered. You can speculate all day long, but it's pure speculation.

Second 3.0 is in beta and is NOT released so it has no bearing on the "legal protection" Apple might have from it's parental controls. If that was the reason or concern you can damn well bet Apple would have waited until 3.0 is released before approving the app.

They reconsidered on the merits of the app and the validity of the initial rejection itself, nothing more.

Re:No mention of parental controls?

[Red Flayer]

You don't get meta-humour, do you?

I do when it's, you know, actually funny.

Modding a humorous post "insightful" is not an example of meta-humor, for all values of "sense-of-humor" that are not drawn from the null set. Modding a post complaining about an insightful moderation "insightful" -- now that would be meta-humor.

Re:No mention of parental controls?

[foo fighter]

More likely the mod was trying to do you a favor. You don't get karma for funny mods, but you do for insightful and informative. The mod really liked your joke and gave you karma for it, and you've basically turned it down.

Not quite unchanged

[dazedNconfuzed]

The app update was rejected because "The objectionable content referenced ... is 'The Downward Spiral'.".

According to Reznor's app developer "we removed the song 'The Downward Spiral' from the server, hoping to appease apple and get this bug fix through."

Re:Not quite unchanged

[Minwee]

So, has Apple responded by removing 'The Downward Spiral' from iTunes, so that iPhone users would not be subjected to objectionable content?

Huh. I guess not.

Re:Not quite unchanged

[Fahrvergnuugen]

No, because unlike iPhone apps in OS 2.X, iTunes music & video content has parental controls.

Parents can prevent their children from downloading objectionable music / video from iTMS, but there is currently no such provision for applications.

Parental controls and ratings for apps are coming with iPhone OS 3.0.

Re:Not quite unchanged

[Fahrvergnuugen]

Yes. If you actaully look in the store you'l see that its called S*********rs, Inc and the uncensored versions say Explicit in red letters next to them.

There is a whole panel in the itunes prefs called "Parental" which contains a series of checkboxes and drop downs for building a content restriction matrix by rating.

Lemme make sure I understand

[MyLongNickName]

You buy a product. Apple then tells you what you can and cannot put on your product? If you really wanted an app on your phone, and it was not available at the Apple Store, would you be able to get it anyhow? Or are you out of luck?

And why in the hell would anyone buy a product where the company gets to treat you like a five year old?

Re:Lemme make sure I understand

[stokessd]

You can write your own app and install it on your own phone (that includes compiling somebodies app that you download from the net), but you have to be a developer to get the appropriate keys to push it to your phone. You can't get an executable from the net and download it to your phone either.

There's also an ad-hoc distribution method where you can share 5 copies of your app with others, but they too have to be registered and there's a key exchange process. so you can't just hand out the app or install just any app.

Neither method is particularly easy, both methods require that you have an intel based mac.

The obvious solution if you don't like Apple's walled garden method is:

1) don't buy one - but you lose out on what is really a very nice phone and internet gadget

2) jailbreak - then you truly own it, but things can and do break and generally don't work as well as with an non-jailbroken phone (in my experience, your mileage may vary).

Sheldon

Re:Lemme make sure I understand

[maxume]

Have you walked through a Wal*mart? Ever?

They do a huge amount of business selling products that treat the user like a five year old (and many of those products aren't even intended for five year olds).

Re:Lemme make sure I understand

[MyLongNickName]

Ah, so Apple users are basically Wal-Mart shoppers. Thanks for the insight.

Re:Lemme make sure I understand

[stokessd]

I forgot to add, in addition to having to use an intel mac, you also have to pay to be a developer, $99 a year... Not sure how or if that translates to other countries.

Sheldon

Re:Lemme make sure I understand

[flahwho]

And why in the hell would anyone buy a product where the company gets to treat you like a five year old?

Apple is acting more and more like Microsoft

Re:Lemme make sure I understand

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because there's big bucks in pandering to the Narcissistic and Borderline Personality disordered population, which may comprise as much as 1/5th of the nation's populace. People that're effectively children (pre-teen/teen) in parts of their intellectual development. They tend to have VASTLY lowered impulse control, which leads to them spending money all over the place.

Re:Lemme make sure I understand

[0xdeadbeef]

3. Change Apple's behavior by
  a.) Educating people on how they're being controlled by Apple and making them ashamed of it
  b.) Making the hypocrisy of Apple's marketing message synonymous with the brand itself

The key point is that Apple "treats people like a five year old".

Re:Lemme make sure I understand

[syzler]

There's also an ad-hoc distribution method where you can share 5 copies of your app with others, but they too have to be registered and there's a key exchange process. so you can't just hand out the app or install just any app.

Actually you can share up to 100 ad-hoc copies of the app with others. They do not have to be registered as iPhone developers. There is not a key exchange between the developer and the end user. The end user, however, does have to provide the unique device ID of their Apple device. The App developer then adds the device as an allowed device in the developer's provisioning profile.

To install the app, the end user installs the developer's provisioning profile on the device as well as the application.

There is an exchange, but it is not as complicated as the end user having to generate a key and submit it to the end-user

With that being said, I really wish I could just distribute compiled versions of my apps to friends without having to maintain a list of their current device IDs.

Re:Lemme make sure I understand

[aetherworld]

No, not really. You have to pay to have your application in the iTunes store. You can develop applications all you want but once you want to distribute them through the store that Apple builds and maintains you have to pay an annual fee. Which, in my understanding of economics, is actually fair.

Also, I kind of understand why Apple doesn't have much incentive to port Xcode to Windows and/or Linux. You are, however, free to do so yourself, if you manage to do so without reverse engineering it.

And, if you're well versed in ObjectiveC, there are things like WinChain which allow you to build the native iPhone toolchain on Windows (or Linux if you prefer).

So please, for the love of the rest of us, don't spout any populistic crap in the future which has no relation to reality.

Re:Lemme make sure I understand

[tepples]

1) don't buy one

What alternatives to iPhone and iPod Touch would you recommend for a U.S. resident? Are BlackBerry phones any better?

Re:Lemme make sure I understand

[Hijacked Public]

a.) I've had 5 or 6 iPods, now have an iPhone, and I have an Macbook Pro.

Feel free to begin the education process, I'll let you know when I begin to feel ashamed.

Re:Lemme make sure I understand

[Anonymous Coward]

You actually *do* have to be enrolled in the iPhone Developer Program, and pay the annual $99 fee, to be able to test your own application on your own phone, as crazy as it sounds.

Yes, you can develop and test your application on the iPhone simulator on your own computer for free - but putting it on the iPhone requires paying Apple for the priviledge.

Because otherwise there wouldn't really be anything stopping anybody putting whatever software they want on their iPhone - just use XCode to build it yourself and there you go.

But you can't. Unless you jailbreak it.

One of the reasons I decided to go for a Nokia E71 rather than an iPhone. It's not a perfect phone by any measure, and the iPhone has a better web browser, but I'll be damned before I let some silly company force me to pay them for the priviledge of putting my own software on my own phone.

Re:Lemme make sure I understand

[mrsquid0]

> And why in the hell would anyone buy a product where the
> company gets to treat you like a five year old?

Because Apple knows best. I am a little surprised that we have not turned over much more control of our lives to Apple. They make such cool hardware.

Re:Lemme make sure I understand

[guyminuslife]

You shame your Clan, Yokoto. There is but one honorable solution left for you.

I shall expect to see you at dawn, the blood still warm on the white of your Macbook. We will give you a hero's burial, and the dignity of your family's domain name shall remain intact.

We were brothers, once...

Re:I was going to write an app

[stokessd]

I have a trivial little app that I made and it took apple about two weeks to approve it. Maybe it's because it's a simple app, or maybe things have been improving.

Sheldon

App store approval is completely random

[homb]

You have to understand that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with Reznor or NIN.

Apple's approval system is COMPLETELY RANDOM, and depends on:
- a set of vague rules
- who is testing your product

There have been countless examples of apps rejected, resubmitted unchanged and accepted.

I have in fact gotten the perfect proof: I developed an open-source app. I submitted the app on day 0 and at the same time released the source code in its entirety under a BSD license.
On day +7, the app was rejected because the tester couldn't log in, supposedly. On day +8, I resubmitted. On day +10, the EXACT SAME app was approved on the app store with slightly different graphics. Some guy had taken the source, compiled and submitted a few days after me.
I went and bought (yes, the guy sold the app that I was giving away for free) the app, and noticed that it had all the issues that my app had, and he hadn't changed the code one bit.

To add insult to injury, my app got rejected another TWO times before finally being approved on day +35.

Conclusion: the App Store approval is completely random within a vague framework.

Re:App store approval is completely random

[Cathbard]

I'm going to bookmark this post as a perfect example of why one should use gpl. Thanks.

Re:App store approval is completely random

[2short]

If he had used GPL, the other guy would have to offer the source for download somewhere, but otherwise could do exactly the same thing. Also, thanks to Apple, that source would not actually let others use the app for free; they'd still have to pay the other guy to get it on their iPhone.

If you don't want others using your code, don't release the source.

Re:Ehm... where's the content?

[djupedal]

Apple sent an email to developers yesterday that stated "All apps must be compatible with iPhone OS 3.0

Millions of iPhone and iPod touch customers will move to iPhone OS 3.0 this summer. Beginning today, all submissions to the App Store will be reviewed on the latest beta of iPhone OS 3.0. If your app submission is not compatible with iPhone OS 3.0, it will not be approved."

Some developers had reported balky uploads over the last 24~48 hours that went fine when retried am 5.7.2009. My guess is there was a hold on the background process for a short time until the updated process per any 3.0 goodness could be implemented. It is easy to imagine this carrying back for more than just a day or so. I had one app put on 'extended' review on 5.1 that went in for approval on 4.26 - I've since reworked the related binary under SDK 3.05 and placed it back in the queue. Big deal...life goes on.

Apple May Not Have Reconsidered....

[ToasterOven]

IMO, chances are more likely that Apple did not "reconsider" the decision. Trent resubmitted the app to the App Store, so a completely different reviewer saw the app and probably didn't find anything wrong with it, and therefore approved it. The approval process for the App Store thus far seems to be subjective to the individual reviewer's whims and requirements, in addition to the (very vague) standards set by Apple. So when Trent initially submitted the app, reviewer A found the Downward Spiral reference to be potentially objectionable -- maybe his or her kids only listen to classical -- and when he submitted the second time, reviewer B saw nothing in the app that was an issue -- their kids probably listen to NIN all the time -- and approved it.

Re:Apple May Not Have Reconsidered....

[v1]

Also considering the complaints Apple had been fielding awhile ago, Apple probably hired a lot more people for their review staff, and that increases the chances that your app will be reviewed by a more "lax" reviewer.

I don't think we'll be seeing it anytime soon, (wikileaks please?) but I'm sure Apple starts them out with a simple checklist of "absolutely not allowed" that if the app has any of that, it's rejected immediately. Beyond that, there's probably a second list of more subjective test, things like the baby shaker "in bad taste", profanity, pornography, etc. Anything borderline is bound to get rejected or approved depending on who reviews it, as long as there are some subjective criteria.

And there's always going to be an occasional "oops" of something getting approved that really should not have because it flagrantly violates one of the absolute rules.

Apple has a pretty simple way to fake more consistency in their approval process. When a dev submits an app, remember who the reviewer was. Now, any additional submissions by that dev will always be reviewed by that same reviewer. Resubmit it 10 times and you're probably going to get rejected every time, because it's the same reviewer.

I've always thought...

[Chris Snook]

...that Trent could use a warm blankie.

Bow down before the one you serve...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're gonna get what you deserve.

Apple still doesn't have it together.

[Gary W. Longsine]

Many, many development shops which don't have the enormous global soapbox of Trent Reznor and NIN are still getting shafted explicitly and anally by Apple's backward app approval policies. They don't respond to our emails. They don't tell us why. iFlinger.

Rant and Whine

[apuku]

I don't think of myself as an Apple fanboy, but I have bought lots of Macs over the years (starting with a Lisa 2 with MacWorks waaay back in 1984 - I'm old, too). I tend to like most of Apple's products, but the app store sucks, at least for developers.

First of all, you have to submit your app and wait an indeterminate amount of time (usually a week) for it to be approved presumably by some semi-trained monkey-boy. Then there's the whole release date fiasco that costs you sales unless you know about it.

But the worst part, is the freakin' rating system: rate-on-delete? YGTBFKM! And the ratings show up in the 'App store' app, but not in iTunes? And your competitors come along and give you the lowest rating and you have no recourse. Or the luser who didn't read the app description - it's enough to make a BOFH's head explode! I mean, my calculator app may not be great, but it's not crap. http://ghostwood.org/software/ (sorry about the shameless self-promotion).

Anyway, I understand where Trent's coming from - which, come to think of it, is a scary thought.