Slashdot Mirror
Apple Balks, Finally Relents, At Possible User Queries of Dictionary App
Geoffrey.landis writes with a snippet from CNET reporting another example of offputting treatment at Apple's App Store: "'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.' PCWorld also reports the story." Note that the app was eventually approved, but only after a few go-rounds and changes.
So now I'll just have to Safari to look up the meanings of dirty words.
Does anyone actually care about these apple app stories?
Users and devs both know what their getting into, when they jumped on apples' locked down platform.
Everything that followed was inevitable.
Is the solution to censor the applications to which adults have access, or is the solution for parents not to give expensive iPhones to their immature children ?
Pirates work at the Apple App Store.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
If you RTFA, it says the app wasn't approved until the 'objectionable' words were removed from the dictionary. And then it was slapped with a 17+. But I'm a charitable fellow, so I'll give Apple the benefit of the doubt and assume that the 17+ rating was a dadaist statement on literacy and education in 21st century America.
some people still think about the children.
Absolutely. Don't want a kid hearing anything objectionable! In the interests of reaching this wonderful, Utopian, and completely achievable goal, I suggest we also ban children from all other sources of possible profanity, such as:
using the Internet,
playing video games,
watching TV,
going outside,
being around strangers,
being around their parents and other relatives, and
being around all other children, those vile little deviants.
Could someone please explain Apple's rationale for their extremely conservative (and stupid) position on keeping everything suitable for a 6 year old? Why not let everything in and have parental controls if they're so concerned? I mean you can surf porn sites with the built in safari browser, so they should allow all 'look up' type apps with that same rationale, or ban safari or censor its web access.
I'm surprised they haven't banned Brushes because you can draw naked ladies with it.
Well, in any case, my iPhone is still slated to be pounded into ground glass as soon as my contract is up. Pretty much had it with the thing.
Who appointed Apple to be the legal guardian and nanny of iPhone users? Are they going to block internet access to http://dictionary.com/ because you can look up words like "motherfucker" there too?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
From TFA ,"The list of omitted words includes some which have utterly non-objectionable senses: ass, snatch, pussy, cock, and even screw."
There is just so much crap involved with the app store, when the FTC come down on Apple it will be well deserved, unless they manage to bride their way out.
Apple isn't just the new Microsoft. Apple is the new Mary Whitehouse and Thomas Bowdler.
Alright, inquiring minds want to know just who at Apple looked up all these words to see that they were actually in this app in the first place? Who has that dirty little mind to look up all these naughty words -- and is still allowed to work at bright shining, purer than Ivory Soap Apple?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"Apple requires you to be 17 years or older to purchase a censored dictionary that omits half the words Steve Jobs uses every day."
I support the FairTax www.fairtax.org
Exactly.... I want my child to see as much of the world as possible. Look at the starving kids in Africa, look how stupid that guy looks when yelling profanities (and watch how I better handle the situation), look at the "gross" and "objectionable". And read every damn book that has ever been banned.
The only way to raise a properly educated, informed, and morally "good" kid is to introduce them to the horrors of the world and let them decide what actions and materials are best for their life. If they have never seen the bad, they cannot appreciate the good.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
Wow, dozens of comments so far on this one and I'm the first smug G1 owner to point out how open the Android system is. Did I mention it was open? open, open, open
If Apple were to get away with censorship, and no one complained, who might follow Apple's example? Maybe the Bing-a-lings who run Microsoft? And, if no one objects to MS censoring what MS customers can see on the net, then who is next?
Yeah, I know, lots of people don't buy the slippery slope arguments. Buy it or not, give it some thought.
The developers who are fighting Apple on this are doing us all a service, believe it or not.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
someone could enter 8008S on it, think of the children!
Exactly.... I want my child to see as much of the world as possible. Look at the starving kids in Africa, look how stupid that guy looks when yelling profanities (and watch how I better handle the situation), look at the "gross" and "objectionable". And read every damn book that has ever been banned.
That's all good, but... goatse?
I am the author of the until recently reasonably successful application Dictionary. Apple required censorship to allow Dictionary to be posted. This was back in December 2008. The full text of the rejection notice was:
"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."
The screenshot provided with the rejection notice should the same type of words as in the OP. Again, words you had to search for to find.
More recently, Apple decided that because Dictionary provides uncensored access to Wikipedia, it must carry a 17+ rating. The text in this case was:
"Dictionary allows unfiltered access to Wikipedia, which includes frequent mature or suggestive themes. Applications must be rated accordingly for the highest level of content that the user is able to access."
As an app developer, this kind of behavior on Apple's part is very frustrating. Apple have fallen off their rocker, IMO.
This summary is way too forgiving!
Apple went crazy with this one, far more than they have before.
The summary says: "Note that the app was eventually approved, but only after a few go-rounds and changes."
Yeah, the few go-rounds and changed included *Completely removing* words apple didn't like, including the word "ass" among other things.
Note that the developer already went out of their way on the very first version of the program to prevent offensive words from coming up as suggestions for other things - i.e. typing "fuc" did not bring up "fuck" as a suggestion, you had to already know a profane word in order to see its definition.
Apple still rejected it even with those modifications, and didn't approve it until certain words were completely removed, including fuck, shit, etc AND the developer had to give their program a 17+ age rating!
This goes beyond apple's normal bullshit into a whole new level of bullshit.
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
Reposted from the story site:
shbc123 says:
Wed Aug 05 13:24:53 PDT 2009
Re: Apple Screws Up Again, Censors iPhone Dictionary App
Should Apple not also censor what music can be placed on iPods? If they're truly doing this to maintain the sanctity of their phone, how can they justify allowing objectionable music on their music players - what music is able to be placed on iPods should also be dictated by Apple. What about on their computers themselves. Why don't they prohibit any objectionably programs to be installed on their Macintosh computers? Perhaps the next release of OS X should implement another level of parental controls - Apple controls, which would supersede parental controls.
And then there's the claim that they reject certain apps because the provide features similar to ones already built in. Forgetting the fact that the user has already purchased the device, why can't a user decide for themselves who's implementation of a given feature they prefer? Following the same logic as above, why doesn't Apple police Macintosh applications? Firefox? Forget it, it provides functionality that's already available in OS X in the form of Safari. And again, what of their iPods. Why doesn't Apple police music available on their music players? So you want to listen to Pearl Jam AND Sound Garden? Sorry, Apple has determined they're too similar so you'll have to choose one.
I'll admit to never being much of an Apple fan, but I must say I've really enjoyed my iPhone. But this nonsense must end. If it doesn't by the time my AT&T contract is up, I'll be shopping for a nice new Android phone. Thank you Apple. My first experience as a customer is quickly turning sour.
I have downloaded the Xcode development environment, and lately I've been working on a cool idea for an iPhone app. The more stories I read like this, though, the more I'm wondering whether or not I want to bother.
I've already been jerked around by Apple in regards to this. I have a coworker who, when he found out that I can develop software, agreed to pay for my enrollment in the dev program in exchange for helping him out with some coding. So he bought an enrollment package for me, we filled out the info, and the next day, I got an e-mail from Apple saying that because my application and payment information didn't match up, I had to provide them a notarized copy or a government-issued photograph to prove I am who I claim that I am. I sent them back an e-mail saying that I didn't feel comfortable providing them my personal information, that nowhere in the terms I agreed to did it say that such documentation was required, and that if they want to send me a letter or call my phone to verify my information, I'd welcome the opportunity to do so. They have yet to reply back, so tomorrow, I'm probably going to ask for my coworker's money back and just register myself under my own company's name instead.
So developer-to-developer, I can't help but wonder, is it worth it? Sure, there are stories around of people making a million bucks off of $0.99 apps, but the kind of stuff I have in mind is niche-oriented, and I don't plan to be a millionaire; it's more of a hobby than anything else.
I have an iPhone and I love it, but I don't like the thought that I can't install stuff that I might want because Apple says so. I really don't like being jerked around as a developer and told what other people can and can't run of mine that I write, especially when there's no danger of causing the system to crash or anything like that.
I can't help but wonder if Apple keeps jerking developers around like this if eventually they'll give up and move on to another platform. Apple is customer-focused, and that's great, really, it is. But at what point will they realize that they need developers on board too, just as much or more than we need Apple?