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

[swb]

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

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?

[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.

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."

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

[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.

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.