Apple's Schiller Responds To iPhone Dictionary App Fiasco

beef curtains writes "Phil Schiller, Apple senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, responded by e-mail to a blog post discussing Apple's rejection of a dictionary app. If Schiller's e-mail is to be believed, it offers an interesting perspective on this whole issue. He said, 'The issue that the App Store reviewers did find with the Ninjawords application is that it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable. ... The Ninjawords developer then decided to filter some offensive terms in the Ninjawords application and resubmit it for approval for distribution in the App Store before parental controls were implemented. Apple did not ask the developer to censor any content in Ninjawords, the developer decided to do that themselves in order to get to market faster. ... You are correct that the Ninjawords application should not have needed to be censored while also receiving a 17+ rating, but that was a result of the developers' actions, not Apple's.' PC World has an article summarizing the drama-to-date, the blog post, and Schiller's response."

Comments

surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple Haters. The GOP Wingnuts of the computer world. Do they ever get tired of being wrong?

Re:surprise

[Bredero]

Because a dictionary getting any age rating is a good idea how?

Re:surprise

[interkin3tic]

They were partially right though:

From TFA, a quote by the president of the company making the dictionary

17+ ratings were not available when we launched, which means at that time, it was simply not possible for our dictionary to be on the App Store without being censored. Given the options of censoring or sitting on the side lines while our competitors ate our lunch, we chose to launch.â

Re:surprise

[4D6963]

Keeping dictionaries away from children is always a good idea. Nothing good ever came out of letting children use dictionaries.

Re:surprise

[PPalmgren]

How old is the youngest IPhone user you've seen? For me its 15. No elementary school kid needs to be running around with a $100/mo bill and an expensive phone. By 12, most kids already know these words. Who is this censorship for?

All this is beside the point that this kind of stuff should not be censored in a dictionary anyway. The sheer idiocy of this fiasco amazes me.

Re:surprise

[dotgain]

Just FYI, the iPod Touch is pretty much an iPhone minus the Phone, GPS and Compass*, and can run most of the same apps without any monthly cellular cost.

*I've probably left a couple of inconsequential things out, it doesn't matter.

Re:surprise

[dotgain]

... inconsequential things such as the Camera. [red face] but you know I mean.

Re:surprise

[bonch]

Apple Lovers. The DNC Moonbats of the computer world. Do they ever get tired of being blind?

(P.S. Are you enjoying Obama's plummeting poll numbers?)

Re:surprise

[interkin3tic]

How old is the youngest IPhone user you've seen? For me its 15. No elementary school kid needs to be running around with a $100/mo bill and an expensive phone. By 12, most kids already know these words. Who is this censorship for?

It's for two groups of people: parents groups who might protest this despite it being quite far from a real issue as you pointed out, and Apple's PR department that would rather nip it in the bud than face what is apperantly impossible: trying to sell a product through parents to their kids while telling the parents that they're responsible for being parents rather than the product.

Re:surprise

[mrjohnson]

Uhm, but it's a dictionary... You have to search for fuck to find the definition of fuck in the first place!

Re:surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out George Soros and fluoridation.

Re:surprise

[sbeckstead]

Your problem is that you probably don't live near enough or don't know the wingnuts that ARE requiring this kind of censorship. Sadly your education and intelligence are sufficient to realize that this kind of censorship is both useless and offensive to the rest of the sane thinking world. But since the bible belt does have a lot of people in it and we want their money too...

To date I fail to see any average good done by any religion in the world. At one time or another they have impeded the development of civilization, technology or social interaction on a less than war like level. But if that's your thing, go right ahead and practice. I'm tired of having other peoples standards and morals shoved down my throat.
Such is the world we live in.

Re:surprise

[sbeckstead]

Schadenfreude becomes you.
But seriously can't we just get along. pardon gagging there for a second.

Re:surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

...with a $100/mo bill...

Everyone seems to quote this number but every time I look at my bill it's only $75. Did I con AT&T or what!?

Re:surprise

[PopeRatzo]

I don't think you people realize just how close we came to having an app on iPhones that contained vulgar words.

Disaster was narrowly averted.

These things start innocently enough. A dictionary, for example, that defines the word "crap" and includes a phonetically-spelled pronunciation. Before you know it, iPhone users will be using those words, and then it's a straight path downward to public displays of affection between members of different races, laughter at fat people in stretch pants, and ultimately universal health care for everyone.

This is how societies are destroyed. I'm sure if you were to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, you would see that this is how it happened. And where is Rome today? "In Italy" you might say, but I mean the spiritual Rome of civilized behavior, regular bathing (for the upper classes) and great philosophers like Plato and Jesus.

Don't scoff. You look like you're getting ready to scoff, so just...don't. I mean it. I've had enough of you scoffers.

Re:surprise

[PopeRatzo]

See, you scoffed and upset me and I didn't close my html tag.

This is what happens when vulgar words are potentially displayed on an iPhone.

Re:surprise

[TapeCutter]

Yes you do need to search and I don't believe Apple when they say they have done this.

Anecdote: When my daughter was in HS she came home one day and said her teacher told her that swear words are not in the dictonary. I grabed the family dictionary (a large 1980's Macquarie hardback). We looked up the word "fuckwit" and found it had a one word definition of "nincompoop". From that day forward my brother-in-law has been known to my kids as uncle nincompoop.

Re:surprise

[TapeCutter]

Morals?

Re:surprise

[node 3]

Because a dictionary getting any age rating is a good idea how?

Apple isn't doing this because they think children shouldn't read dictionaries. In fact, any person of any age can run a 17+ app. The only limits are:

1. Parents can lock them out.
2. You get a warning, so that if you become offended, it's your own damned fault, not Apple's.

From Apple's point of view, this has nothing to do with dictionaries, it has to do with having an age rating system to begin with. Once you have such a system, and if the system is based, in part, on "vulgar" words, then dictionaries containing such words end up with an appropriate (under the rating criteria, at least) rating.

The only way to really end this whole mess is to do away with age ratings altogether, which is incompatible with Apple's intent for concerned parents (read: repressed fuckwads) to be able to buy their products without fear that it may despoil the minds of their children.

Ratings systems like these are inherently problematic, but given that, Apple really did act reasonably in this situation.

Re:surprise

[MeNeXT]

There were no parental controls when the app was submitted and there was no indication of a release date for parental controls.
 

Parents need to raise there children! Don't give the child a credit card and make sure you know what they load on the ipods. If for any reason anyone here thinks that parental controls will stop children from accessing inappropriate content then I have news for them... I have yet to see parental controls work. What parents need to do is raise their children. Yes I am a parent of three and all three are capable of bypassing the parental controls on almost all the devices. Because they can read!

 

When I was young ALL of this material was available. P0rn is not new. Dictionaries were always available. Encyclopedias had pictures. This is just the tame stuff. Talk to your child and communicate with them. Teach them how and what is important. Don't ever expect technology to do your job.

 

As for Apple. They have no explanation as to why they refused so they are inventing an excuse. Hindsight is 20/20 and Apple is offering a plausible explanation unless you ask yourself this. If the developer was told that it would be approved in 30 to 60 days why would the developer spend extra time and money correcting something that will be corrected?

 

Nothing prevented Apple from posting parental warnings on iTunes on "adult" material. Children are not issued credit cards therefore children should not have an iTunes account!!!! Therefore a parent is required to make the purchase! If Apple was concerned about the clients "children" they had every means possible to WARN the potential client that it contained ADULT material. If Apple is so concerned about the children then why don't they setup a children's iTunes store? Apple is not the peoples keeper and if you believe Apple's excuse then they are doing a horrible job because what I can get on my iPhone and my children's iPod, parental controls or not, is a lot worse than a few vulgar definitions. I am pretty sure most of us can too.
 

Re:surprise

[MeNeXT]

Just FYI, the iPod Touch is pretty much an iPhone minus the Phone, GPS and Compass*, and can run most of the same apps without any monthly cellular cost.

*I've probably left a couple of inconsequential things out, it doesn't matter.

YES but you need a credit card to buy on the iTunes store. Credit Cards are not issued to minors. Minors cannot purchase apps. If Apple was so concerned about the children it would have created a children's iTunes. If you can think of a simple solution to the children problem why can't Apple? Parental controls is an excuse to save face. I love Apple products it's just the Apple attitude that I can't stand. Unfortunately this is coming more and more from corporate America. For some reason corporate America believes that they still own the products they sell and the DMCA confirms it.

Re:surprise

[node 3]

As for Apple. They have no explanation as to why they refused so they are inventing an excuse. Hindsight is 20/20 and Apple is offering a plausible explanation unless you ask yourself this. If the developer was told that it would be approved in 30 to 60 days why would the developer spend extra time and money correcting something that will be corrected?

Apple would never, ever tell some random developer when their next OS is coming out if it's not yet public knowledge. It's likely not even their high-profile customers were told the date until the WWDC keynote.

Your main theme here is that parents need to be more responsible. Well, the age rating system gives them a tool to help them do just that! For fuck's sake, what do you think the age rating system is for in the first place?

Any such system is going to be problematic, given the subjectivity involved. But given that Apple has chosen to go with an age rating system, their actions are fully consistent with that decision.

Re:surprise

[shutdown -p now]

Other smartphone developers don't seem to have such problems.

Oh, and I even know why. Because they don't have a single application store that they fully control (and thus bear responsibility for) as the sole method of distributing and obtaining applications.

Re:surprise

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I might agree with you if I knew what "good" means.

Or how to read.

Re:surprise

[lukas84]

Credit Cards are not issued to minors.

There are Visa/MasterCard preload cards available here that anyone of any age can get. I'm quite sure a similar offer must exist in the US.

Re:surprise

[Fred_A]

Because a dictionary getting any age rating is a good idea how?

You don't want kids to find out that Apple actually is a fruit.

Re:surprise

[SlashWombat]

The truth is he used it to decipher many of the emails he had in his in tray ... It shocked him so much that he decided dictionaries were a bad thing. (He probably concluded that the dic part was rude in its own right!

Apple users are after all religious users of technology. (Otherwise, they would be Luddites!)

Re:surprise

[M-RES]

As an Apple user I bless thee child, for thou art correct. In the name of the the father Steve Jobs, the Son Phil Schiller and the Holy Ghost Jonathan Ive.

In the beginning Woz created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness of big blue was upon the face of the dos. And the Spirit of Woz moved upon the face of the machines. And Woz said, Let there be light: and there was a happy startup chime, a little smiley Mac and light form a tiny glowing screen. And Woz saw the little smiley Mac, that it was good: and Woz divided the light from the dos. And Woz called the light a Mac, and the dos he called the evil IBM compatibles. And the evening and the morning were the first all night LAN party...

Re:surprise

[TheRaven64]

Parents need to raise there children!

Is the fact that you posted this in an article about a dictionary an attempt at irony?

Re:surprise

[DrgnDancer]

I was just about to point that out. Lots of kids have little cards that their parent load their allowance on these days. Saves worry about losing the money or it getting stolen by older kids, etc. Also allows parents to see where the money was spent. I do tend to think that this whole thing is rather silly, and Apple is being a bit high handed, but the credit card argument is bunk. There's about a dozen version of prepaid or debit type cards that kids have these days, and all work like a "credit card" to the iTunes system.

Re:surprise

[DrgnDancer]

My household has two of the things and our bill is only like $105. Not sure where these numbers come from.

Re:surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite is the definition of fuck-off in my unabridged Webster's dictionary:

"To leave forthwith. Usually imperative. Usually considered obscene."

I'm working from memory, so the quote may be slightly inaccurate.

They did put it in the front in a section called "addenda." So you won't find it if you just go to the main part of the dictionary.

Re:surprise

[Lars T.]

How old is the youngest IPhone user you've seen? For me its 15. No elementary school kid needs to be running around with a $100/mo bill and an expensive phone.

Exactly, they are supposed to run up their $200/mo Jamster bill with a cheap and most of all open phone!

Re:surprise

[Lars T.]

YES but you need a credit card to buy on the iTunes store.

NO, you don't. You don't even need one to get an iTunes Store account. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2731

Re:surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, in fact we had better not teach them to read either, just in case they do manage to get a dictionary. Words are dangerous, any parent caught teaching their child to read should be locked up. After all, we must think of the children!

Re:surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

If you get offended it's ALWAYS your own damned fault.

All about branding

[SomeJoel]

If they'd been called PuppyWords, then I'm sure the approval process would have been much easier.

Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple didn't force him to censor the app. The developer "voluntarily" did it. Of course, it was his only option if he wanted to get it published...

Re:Nothing new

[Kumiorava]

Published before the parental controls were implemented... it's a big difference. I don't agree with parental controls, but some people do and to keep those people in peace and using the service we all have to tolerate some inconveniences.

Re:Nothing new

[Brian Gordon]

I call "rejecting every uncensored app" forcing him.

Re:Nothing new

[davester666]

The problem with this is 2 things.

1. He was given an either-or situation. Either self-censor the dictionary, including some helpful "examples" from the app store reviewer, OR wait an unknown period of time for Apple to implement a new rating level. Effectively, he was told he had to censor the app if he wanted it in the app store in any foreseeable timeframe.

2. The specific examples the developer quoted as being objected to by the reviewer included 'standard' swear words, and not just so-called 'urban slang' that Phil mentions in his response. And these exact same words are already in existing dictionary apps in the app store, with MUCH lower rating levels (Dictionary.com is rated 4+, and includes the specific example words the app reviewer listed).

Re:Nothing new

[bmo]

Parental controls for dictionaries is stupid on its face.

Yes, just what we need, parents denying the use of dictionaries to their children.

Good troll. 10/10 Would Rage Again.

--
BMO

Re:Nothing new

[mattack2]

Go to any elementary school and you'll see student dictionaries, which are essentially the same thing.

Re:Nothing new

[Nemyst]

I don't get the point of parental controls. Either the parents use the iPhone and seldom give it to their children (the purpose of a cellphone is to have it always at hand, no?), or the phone is already the child's device. In the former case, the probability of the child finding the app, opening it and discovering naughy words (and if he/she is 7 or above, he/she probably knows them all already anyways) is very small. In the second case, the parents probably don't even know how the iPhone works, let alone how to activate parental controls.

Parental controls only work when the children and the parents use one device often, such as a TV box or a computer.

Re:Nothing new

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

No, the difference between "student dictionaries" and regular dictionaries is not primarily one of cenorship. The difference is in expected educational level of the user - the definitions are simplified, the technical pronunciations are replaced with easy to follow examples, etc. Sure, most slang terms aren't included, but that's far from the primary difference as it was here with Apple.

Re:Nothing new

[sbeckstead]

2. The specific examples the developer quoted as being objected to
The specific examples the developer let you see I'm sure there may have been others, we will never know.

Re:Nothing new

[Dahamma]

Yeah, but it's a bit different when the "dictionary" is, for example, Webster's vs. Urban Dictionary. I don't remember seeing the definition of a "Cleveland Steamer" in the former...

Re:Nothing new

[sbeckstead]

Until King James, bibles were written in Latin and the common man could not see the word of god he had to take the priests word for it. Masses were only performed in Latin. Censorship has been a part of human existence for our centuries. You think this is unusual.

Re:Nothing new

[sbeckstead]

The parental controls are only sort of for the phone, the ipod portion on the other hand.

Re:Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

More exactly, the developer says he didn't know when the promised OS upgrade that enabled parental controls would be released (turned out it was about a month) and wanted the dictionary in the App Store ASAP. Which seems a reasonable decision in terms of cash flow, and in this particular case led the developer (under some financial duress, no doubt, if the examination was so protracted) to self-censorship.

Apple needs to get App Store reviewing organized on a professional basis. I'm sure the explosion of developer interest caught them off-guard and the current system just grew.

Re:Nothing new

[chromatic]

Until King James, bibles were written in Latin....

Except for the work of people such as John Wycliffe and Martin Luther, for example, both of whom preceded James I of England.

Re:Nothing new

[sbeckstead]

granted, I wasn't sure of the time line and was too lazy to look it up.

Re:Nothing new

[Roger W Moore]

Published before the parental controls were implemented... it's a big difference.

Not if you don't know when those parental controls will be published and have no recourse if they are delayed. Besides in order to look the word up you actually have to know it first so it is hardly exposing them to a rude word that they have not already seen is it?

Re:Nothing new

[bmo]

What you're missing is that the Unabridged dictionary in the local library isn't NC17 and has all the "bad words" that led Apple to refuse the app. Anyone can use it as long as they can turn a page or read. No, wait, I take that back. If you cannot do either, any librarian will help you if you are visually or physically disabled regardless of age.

Also, you can browse the Urban Dictionary from any iPhone, as it is on the web.

I find it disheartening that anyone would classify a whole dictionary as "adult only" because it contains the word "screw"

--
BMO

Re:Nothing new

[bmo]

To follow up on myself:

In my elementary school, there was a big unabridged dictionary ready for use by anyone,

In my local 3 room public library, the unabridged dictionary was in the Children's/Young Adult room.

In the local library down the road from me, the unabridged dictionary is in the Reference section and does not have a giant "NC17" sign on it.

In Apple's world, there would be armed guards around all three.

Pure bloody-mindedness.

--
BMO

Re:Nothing new

[dirk]

There very well may have been other examples that were sent to the developer. That doesn't change the fact that those standard swear words were sent to him as at minimum part of the reason it was being rejected. These words are not objectionable in the other dictionary applications, so why were they sent to the developer as examples of objectionable content?

Re:Nothing new

[FlyingSquidStudios]

And not counting the fact that the old testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament was originally written in Greek... and it remained in Greek for the Greek Orthodox Church. And, of course, the Coptics translated it into their Egyptian language pretty quickly too...

Re:Nothing new

[node 3]

In Apple's world, there would be armed guards around all three.

No, there'd just be a sticker that says "Rated 17+" and if your parents wanted, *they* could bar you from reading it, not Apple.

Re:Nothing new

[node 3]

1. He was given an either-or situation. Either self-censor the dictionary, including some helpful "examples" from the app store reviewer, OR wait an unknown period of time for Apple to implement a new rating level. Effectively, he was told he had to censor the app if he wanted it in the app store in any foreseeable timeframe.

Which came to pass almost two months ago!. The app didn't even end up on the store until one month after iPhone OS 3.0 was released.

This story popped up over the last week. Ninja Words does not need to be censored. Any censoring is completely voluntary. What's worse, the story was originally portrayed as "Apple said we had to censor the dictionary and accept a 17+ rating!", which is downright false.

It did make for a big news cycle over the past week, though. I suppose it served its purpose, as everyone in these parts now knows about the Ninja Words dictionary app.

2. The specific examples the developer quoted as being objected to by the reviewer included 'standard' swear words, and not just so-called 'urban slang' that Phil mentions in his response. And these exact same words are already in existing dictionary apps in the app store, with MUCH lower rating levels (Dictionary.com is rated 4+, and includes the specific example words the app reviewer listed).

The App Store review process sucks. There's nothing unique in this story about that. But the whole censorship angle is rubbish.

Re:Nothing new

[node 3]

There very well may have been other examples that were sent to the developer. That doesn't change the fact that those standard swear words were sent to him as at minimum part of the reason it was being rejected. These words are not objectionable in the other dictionary applications, so why were they sent to the developer as examples of objectionable content?

Because Apple's App review process sucks. That doesn't make the original story true, however, which was that Apple required them to submit a censored version. All they said was submit it as a 17+ app, and it will be available when iPhone OS 3.0 is released (which happened about 1 month after they first submitted the app, and 1 month before the app even made it to the app store.

Re:Nothing new

[davester666]

This story popped up over the last week. Ninja Words does not need to be censored. Any censoring is completely voluntary. What's worse, the story was originally portrayed as "Apple said we had to censor the dictionary and accept a 17+ rating!", which is downright false.

This is true. Now, today, it supposedly would be permitted into the store without "needing" to be censored.

But two months ago, when the developer submitted the application, the reviewer wouldn't approve the app without the app being censored, and the reviewer couldn't tell the developer when OS 3 was going to be released (it's unlikely the reviewer knew when OS 3 was going to be released, and Apple wasn't telling anybody).

And these reviews take time, and it's unlikely that the review process goes faster if you're app gets rejected a bunch of times. If anything, the reviewer will spend more time making sure not 1 bad word would slip through. Right now, we don't know when the app was last submitted to the app store, only that it was recently approved.

Meanwhile, the competition, which contained at least some of the words that the reviewer claimed were objectionable, was already selling in the app store (for example Dictionary.com with an age rating of 4+).

Re:Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you definitely shouldn't be able to release an app that searches the Web because I hear there are a lot of sites that have material inappropriate to children.

And you definitely shouldn't be able to develop a text editor because someone might use it to read stuff that is inappropriate.

Re:Nothing new

[node 3]

Everything you're saying, in an apparent attempt to refute my post, is about the app approval process being terrible. Let me quote from my post to make things simpler here...

[me]: The App Store review process sucks. There's nothing unique in this story about that. But the whole censorship angle is rubbish.

Unless you're trying to say that Apple required the app be censored, there's no need to argue.

Re:Nothing new

[babyrat]

In the second case, the parents probably don't even know how the iPhone works, let alone how to activate parental controls.

Couldn't the parent and the child each have their own iPhone? I know Apple is pretty strict about their hardware, but last I heard it was not limiting one iPhone per family.

Re:Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, you knew it was going to be bad but you had to look it up

Frig there are some sick people in this world........

At least it's not as bad as 2 girls 1 cup

Re:Nothing new

[davester666]

> Unless you're trying to say that Apple required the app be censored, there's no need to argue

That's what I'm trying to say.

Given that the developer had no information on when OS 3 was going to be released, as Apple was keeping it a secret, and that the app reviewer said the app wouldn't be approved unless ( specific words were censored from the app ) OR ( ( OS 3 was released ) AND ( rating level for App was set to 17+ ) ), the only reasonable choice for the developer (IMHO) was to censor his app.

Now, in hindsight, knowing that OS 3 was released a month or so later, maybe waiting that month would have been better. But the developer had no way of knowing because Apple was intentionally NOT telling me that. From a business perspective, that's a choice between:

a) wait indefinitely, with no income, until another business does something, before you can make any money. And they won't tell you when they will do that 'something'.
b) do some work, and after a semi-determinate time frame, make some income

As a small developer/shop, which option would you pick? IMHO, it would be suicide to pick option a.

As for the app both being censored AND being 17+, I'm sure the developer was just trying anything within his power to try to get his app approved ASAP. And it STILL took a whole MONTH for Apple to approve his app, AFTER OS 3 with it's 17+ rating was implemented AND with the dictionary being censored.

And it would not surprise me at all if he 'uncensored' the dictionary, resubmitted it as a bug fix version (still rated 17+), and have it rejected again by Apple, even with the conditioned quoted by Phil being met.

Re:Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

cenorship

I see you have been denied a dictionary by your parents...

Re:Nothing new

[JonJ]

In Apple's world, there would be armed guards around all three.

Uhm. No. In Apple's world, a parent should be able to say "you aren't allowed to read that book". That's essentially what parental controls is, controls from the parent. Of course it's easier to disobey in real life, but the idea is the same. Your comparison to armed guards are nonsense.

Re:Nothing new

[pjt33]

You're on /., so of course you wouldn't have problems with the word "screw", but normal parents don't want their children to grow up to be naval engineers.

Re:Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint). But that's missing GGP's point, because the ordinary European in the Middle Ages didn't read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or Coptic.

Re:Nothing new

[node 3]

>Unless you're trying to say that Apple required the app be censored, there's no need to argue

That's what I'm trying to say.

Apple did not require the app to be censored. Period.

Now, in hindsight, knowing that OS 3 was released a month or so later, maybe waiting that month would have been better. But the developer had no way of knowing because Apple was intentionally NOT telling me that. From a business perspective, that's a choice between:

a) wait indefinitely, with no income, until another business does something, before you can make any money. And they won't tell you when they will do that 'something'.
b) do some work, and after a semi-determinate time frame, make some income

THERE YOU GO. THEY HAD A CHOICE! You can't say they were required to censor, then say they didn't. If they had a choice, they were *CLEARLY* not required to censor the app.

As a small developer/shop, which option would you pick? IMHO, it would be suicide to pick option a.

Amazing. Had they chose option A, their app would probably have been released a month earlier than it did.

And it would not surprise me at all if he 'uncensored' the dictionary, resubmitted it as a bug fix version (still rated 17+), and have it rejected again by Apple, even with the conditioned quoted by Phil being met.

Doubtful. 17+ exists for this very reason.

But, again, Apple did not require the app to be censored, that was a completely voluntary choice of the developer.

Re:Nothing new

[davester666]

>But, again, Apple did not require the app to be censored, that was a completely voluntary choice of the developer.

Yes, by that standard.

"You can either remove these specific words, OR you can go out of business (which was the other option he was given)".

"You can say whatever you want, but if the gov't doesn't like it, you'll get shot". I guess this also isn't censorship, because it's your choice.

Re:Nothing new

[davester666]

> Amazing. Had they chose option A, their app would probably have been released a month earlier than it did.

Maybe. Except you can only say this because both the app submission and OS 3 being released BOTH happened in the past. When the app was initially submitted, OS 3 had not been released, and there was NO PUBLIC INFORMATION ABOUT WHEN IT WOULD BE RELEASED. Since the vast majority of humans are not gifted with the ability to see the future, it is not reasonable to basically say he was stupid for not being able to.

Re:Nothing new

[davester666]

> Doubtful. 17+ exists for this very reason

Um, you can't say this either, because Apple is still rejecting applications for objectionable content even when they are marked with the 17+ rating. Right now, the ONLY way to know whether it will pass or not, is to actually put it through the black hole of app submission.

Re:Nothing new

[TheRaven64]

Maybe it's different in the USA, but the school I went to at an equivalent age to US elementary school had several dictionaries in each classroom. There was usually one big dictionary, typically the OED, and smaller ones aimed at children. These all contained swear words, although they were quite old so didn't include definitions of a number of more modern slang terms. The definitions in the child-oriented dictionaries were easier to understand, but there was no censorship.

Re:Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't agree with parental controls, but some people do and to keep those people in peace and using the service we all have to tolerate some inconveniences.

"Have to"? Why do we "have" to tolerate intolerance? Fuck those cunts. If they aren't going to respect my beliefs, I don't see why I should respect theirs.

Re:Nothing new

[Haeleth]

There's a translation of the Gospels and much of Genesis into Old English. They precede the KJV by about 800 years, or roughly half the length of time between Christ and James I. That's quite a time line mixup!

Wycliffe then comes along about halfway between that and James I. And there are quite a number of other translations before the KJV.

In short, the Bible has been being regularly translated into English for about as long as Christianity has existed in England.

It's true that the Church has often tried to discourage laymen from interpreting scripture for themselves. But the picture you paint -- of a Church continuously actively trying to ban non-Latin Bibles -- is simply a fabrication, invented in more recent times when it became politically expedient to spread such beliefs.

Re:Nothing new

[Dahamma]

Hey, I agree that by putting a general web browser like Safari on the iPhone (and having no parental controls for it besides disabling entirely) the whole thing is rather pointless.

But what I find even more pointless is reading your comments, since you clearly did not RTFA, and your arguments have almost nothing to do with the truth of the situation.

1. Apple is NOT censoring any sort of dictionary you could find in your local library, unabridged or not. Your examples are totally misleading, just like the original misunderstanding that started the whole debate.

Contrary to what you reported, the Ninjawords application was not rejected in the App Store review process for including common "swear" words. In fact anyone can easily see that Apple has previously approved other dictionary applications in the App Store that include all of the "swear" words that you gave as examples in your story.

2. Your statement that an unabridged dictionary in your library contains the same terms as a site like Urban Dictionary, or that Apple rejected it for a word like "screw" is completely incorrect.

The issue that the App Store reviewers did find with the Ninjawords application is that it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable. A quick search on Wiktionary.org easily turns up a number of offensive "urban slang" terms that you won't find in popular dictionaries such as one that you referenced

You may have had an argument if you had actually read the original article, and stopped to think for a second before posting. I might have even agreed with you, because, like the article author, I'm not convinced that Wiktionary needs to be rated 17+. But instead you just decided to repeat the same FUD that was started by the first Daring Fireball post (for which the author stood corrected...)

Just shows, sometimes misinformation can be worse than no information.

Re:Nothing new

[Lars T.]

IOW you are complaining that some of Apple's app reviewers don't check if an app can be made to display the word "fuck".

Re:Nothing new

[Lars T.]

>But, again, Apple did not require the app to be censored, that was a completely voluntary choice of the developer.

Yes, by that standard.

Oh, by the standard that saying "You are too tall to do this, but an alternative will soon be there" actually forces someone to chop off their legs.

Re:Nothing new

[Lars T.]

You forgot to mention the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint). But that's missing GGP's point, because the ordinary European in the Middle Ages didn't read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or Coptic.

Mostly because they couldn't read or write any language.

Re:Nothing new

[Lars T.]

It seems easy enough that even a parent can do it: http://www.ehow.com/how_4527941_iphone-tips-parental-controls-restrictions.html

Re:Nothing new

[canter]

Exactly. That quote actuallly made me angry. If i brandished a knife and demanded your wallet, most people would call me a "mugger". This boob would use the excuse, "I didn't MAKE you hand over your wallet, it was your decision". Its not even a rational defense.

Its nice to see that someone defending his company's indefensible action is now "the new fact of Apple".
This is just disgusting on so many levels.

Re:Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the fact that before the printing press, any bible was prohibitively expensive kept vernacular bibles out of the common man's hand. The church was still the major consumer of bibles, and they insisted on the Latin version.

would someone please tell me

[Anonymous Coward]

what slang words were actually in question?
it sounds like it's not just george carlin's seven words you can't say on TV.
details?

Re:would someone please tell me

[Chyeld]

The dictionary was based on Wiktionary. So I would imagine it could quite possibly contain the fabled seven words and many others. Regardless, it's disingenuous to say that you aren't censoring apps and that the developer did it voluntarily, when the actual truth is you were rejecting the app and the developer had the choice of waiting for an undetermined amount of time (till you actually implmented the partenal controls) or 'self-censoring'.

That's like saying, "No, we didn't force a confession out of him, we just kept hitting him till he felt like talking."

Re:would someone please tell me

[Anachragnome]

Ok, I got mod points, but damned if I couldn't figure out if I should mod this +1 Insightful or +1 Funny, for it is precisely both.

Re:would someone please tell me

[Anonymous Coward]

I concur and thank you for modding the parent up.

Re:would someone please tell me

[sbeckstead]

Only it's more like we just kept ignoring him until he felt like talking...

I don't get it...

[Jugalator]

A dictionary corrects misspelled words, it doesn't write them.

Re:I don't get it...

[thefringthing]

Technically, a dictionary lists the definitions of words. It assumes you already know how to spell them.

Re:I don't get it...

[edalytical]

Technically, a dictionary maps the definitions to words. What good would a "list" of definitions be? You need a way to look them up.

Re:I don't get it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. The good ol' two-column table. 3 if you have the word type!

Re:I don't get it...

[beelsebob]

Technically, a dictionary maps the words to definitions. You don't look up "according to the facts or exact meaning of something; strictly" and then go "ah, the word I wanted was Technically".

Back atcha

[Anonymous Coward]

It provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable.

words I often find upsetting and objectionable:

censorship
groupthink
DRM
paternalism
authoritarianism
proprietary
patronizing

Thus I have an Android phone. Though it had to be rooted too. But at least when I try to install a program, it asks for my permission rather than the other way around.

Re:Back atcha

[emj]

You can't answer calls with the SDK on Android. Just saying android is at least 50% of those words.....

Schiller is a shill...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

But don't worry, he wouldn't be lying this time...

Rating

[sonicmerlin]

The program also included a feature that crippled the "suggestion" function in such a way that made it was impossible for someone to look up a vulgar word unless they knew what that word was and typed it out in its entirety. Shouldn't that be enough to merit acceptance? Free speech anyone?

Re:Rating

[weilawei]

True, it couldn't spontaneously appear on your screen. But, to play devil's advocate, you could imagine a situation with a small child (whose parents love jimmy enough to buy him an iPod Touch) typing in a swear he overheard one evening. He might not have known the meaning before but now he does. On the other hand, if the kid is bright enough to want to look stuff up, are we to ban young children from bookstores and libraries?

Re:Rating

[sbeckstead]

Free speech? he has the right to say but they have the right to not publish it. How does that apply. I don't think that phrase means what you think it does.

Waiting on Android Handsets to be the norm.

[memoriesofgreen]

All these negative Apple iPhone stories are just fuelling the fire. I've been playing with Android on my recent phone. I bought a HTC Hero two weeks ago and can't find any fault with it. If you've ever held off smart device development then I would encourage you to get in the the Android stack.

I would like to be able to comment on the Apple development process but I can't really.

There is something that feels 'so right' in having access to all parts of the device that I've bought which makes Android so appealing.

Cause and Effect

[Aladrin]

The developers may have 'chosen' to censor their work, but only because it was the only way their work could exist at all. That's still censorship.

Apple claiming that the developers chose to do it is like saying someone chose to jump in front of a bullet that was aimed at their child. Yes, they chose to... But it's hardly their fault.

Re:Cause and Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, let's all read the summary before modding this one up - the developer chose to censor the words so that they could get the app up before Apple could get parental controls implemented. Shiller states that the words were more objectionable than common swear words, and so needed to fall into the 17+ category. The developer could have waited for parental controls to be implemented, or they could choose to filter the most objectionable terms manually - there was a clear way forward in both cases.

Whether or not the dictionary truly contains words worthy of an NC-17 is a separate argument.

Re:Cause and Effect

[bonch]

The developers may have 'chosen' to censor their work, but only because it was the only way their work could exist at all. That's still censorship.

Did you even read the post? That's not what happened.

Re:Cause and Effect

[PCM2]

The developer could have waited for parental controls to be implemented, or they could choose to filter the most objectionable terms manually - there was a clear way forward in both cases.

And the way forward was censorship, in both cases.

Seriously -- "objectionable"? Who decides? In this case, it is Apple who decides. Apple is acting as the censor, by denying the application access to distribution unless its developer agrees with Apple's position on morality/language/offensiveness/etc. Never mind that in order to see the definition of a word in the dictionary you have to look it up in the first place -- Apple wants the app developer to agree with Apple's position on principle, and ensure that even people who might want to look up such words would not be able to.

Or, look at it from a business perspective: Apple claimed that the dictionary could not be distributed because it contained words that would not be included in the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, etc. So essentially, Ninjawords' competitive advantage is the very thing that makes it undistributable. It's better, so it gets denied. Apple is protecting the interests of existing dictionary publishers at the expense of the little guy.

Or is there some other explanation where Apple's actions look justified? Cuz you haven't given it to me so far.

Re:Cause and Effect

[mkiwi]

Yes, they chose to... But it's hardly their fault.

To add to the people picking this statement apart: Yes, it is the parent's fault for jumping in front of a bullet to save their child. They made the conscious decision to do that and ignore their own safety, therefore they are at fault.

Whether or not it was a rational decision is a different matter-- it probably was the best decision they could have made.. But your analogy just doesn't work. [/pendantic]

Re:Cause and Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: pedantic

thx

Re:Cause and Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

pendantic?
[/pedantic]

Re:Cause and Effect

[blackraven14250]

I believe alot of the words are included in their own (OS X) dictionary, not only making them censors, but enormous hypocrites.

Re:Cause and Effect

[babyrat]

Or is there some other explanation where Apple's actions look justified?

How about "it's their store, they can sell what they want?"

or should we complain that the christian book store should be selling nudie magazines because they sell other books?

I'd even hazard a guess that it is covered in their guidelines that the developer received before he even started writing the app for the iPhone.

Re:Cause and Effect

[shutdown -p now]

How about "it's their store, they can sell what they want?"

The question wasn't for an explanation of how Apple's actions are legal - we know that they are. The question was about Apple's actions being justified - and they clearly aren't in this case.

or should we complain that the christian book store should be selling nudie magazines because they sell other books?

No, but I don't see why a Christian book store should ban all books which ever mention sex or even hint at it - especially when it's not the purpose of the book. After all, they'd have to ban the Bible if they went for it.

And, most certainly, if said Christian book store already sells one nude magazine (because its publisher is the owner of the store), it has no moral standing to refuse to sell others. In this case, the application was held back from the store for doing exactly the same thing as several other applications that were approved.

Re:Cause and Effect

[LearnToSpell]

How about "it's their store, they can sell what they want?"
or should we complain that the christian book store should be selling nudie magazines because they sell other books?

There are alternative places to get nudie magazines.

Re:Cause and Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe alot of the words are included in their own (OS X) dictionary, not only making them censors, but enormous hypocrites.

It sounds to me like Apple is trying to implement some form of parental controls for iPhone apps, which would give parents control over the content their children see. Kind of like how in Mac OS X an administrator can turn on parental controls for a regular account which can then be used to limit the content that the user account can see, including, if the administrator so chooses, the "naughty words" in the Mac OS X dictionary.

At least in Mac OS X, Apple is not being a censor; Apple is giving parents the ability to censor, which is not the same thing. So, no, Apple is not being hypocritical (at least not in this specific instance).

Re:Cause and Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Which would be fine if their store wasn't the only one they allow iPhone users to shop at.

Not a proper response

[Serious Callers Only]

'The issue that the App Store reviewers did find with the Ninjawords application is that it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable. ...

I'd like to see Schiller respond to the developer's allegation that the reviewers sent screenshots of specific common swear words - fuck, etc. explicitly typed in by Apple employees.

Schiller's denial is so vague as to be a non-denial - note he doesn't actually specifically say which words they were rejected for, just hints that this was really quite a dirty, unsavoury dictionary and had no place on a nice store like ours. His implication does contradict the message sent to the developers, which homed in on quite common words which belong as slang in a normal dictionary.

Much like the Kama Sutra rejection, this brings home how farcical Apple trying to be gatekeeper and arbiter of taste on the app store really is. They should give up now before their reputation sinks under the weight of their hypocrisy - every week I hear of a new stupid and arbitrary decision by their app store reviewers.

The Google Voice one was worse than this though - at least these guys got a reason which made some sort of sense.

Re:Not a proper response

[interkin3tic]

Much like the Kama Sutra rejection, this brings home how farcical Apple trying to be gatekeeper and arbiter of taste on the app store really is. They should give up now before their reputation sinks under the weight of their hypocrisy - every week I hear of a new stupid and arbitrary decision by their app store reviewers.

Looking at the parents group response games like beer pong or "Madworld" got on the wii, I have a little sympathy. Neither game was marketed at kids. Parents groups seemed more upset with Nintendo than the publishers, citing reasons that boiled down to "OMFG, KIDS PLAY THE WII, HOW COULD YOU NOT CENSOR THIS NINTENDO?!?"

Granted, doing stupid things to avoid upsetting stupid people is stupid, but they are a company, not an organization dedicated to freedom of expression. They'd be reasonable to think that if they don't maintain some standards, parents groups would fly off the handle, boycott it, and they'd be losing out on their most profitable market: kids. It's somewhat positive that at least now they would have published it rather than just quashing it forever.

Naturally, the real solution should be parents acting like parents, but naturally pigs will fly before these groups put responsibility on their members.

Re:Not a proper response

[swillden]

Naturally, the real solution should be parents acting like parents, but naturally pigs will fly before these groups put responsibility on their members.

Are you a parent?

I am, and in many of these cases I think the parents *are* acting like parents when they complain. I know many slashdotters live in some fantasy world where parents are able to monitor their children every waking hour, but it's not reality. Parents have a lot of stuff to do, and even those who don't work still need time to clean the house, buy the groceries, make dinner, change the oil, mow the lawn, etc. Of course, I have no sympathy for parents who buy M-rated games for their kids and are then shocked to discover that it contains content that's inappropriate for their six year-old, but as a parent I really appreciate all the parents who put up a stink and got the rating system put in place.

Likewise, I think it's perfectly reasonable for Apple to limit the sort of content in their app store. I think the rating system is a better way, but in the absence of the rating system, I don't think it's inappropriate to refuse apps that contain profanity.

Re:Not a proper response

[Anonymous Coward]

I beleive the words Apple object to are "freedom", "rights" and "value". These are obviously dirty, and unsavory.

Re:Not a proper response

[e9th]

--
Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can oppose safety.

Aren't your post and your sig at odds with each other?

Re:Not a proper response

[schon]

Are you a parent?

I am.

in many of these cases I think the parents *are* acting like parents when they complain.

No, they're not, they're acting like children when they complain.

I know many slashdotters live in some fantasy world where parents are able to monitor their children every waking hour, but it's not reality.

OK, so now we know that you're not just a parent, you're a bad parent.

Because if you were a good parent, you wouldn't want to be monitoring your children every waking hour, nor expecting someone else to do it for you.

Being a good parent involves teaching your children your values so that you don't *have* to monitor them.

Re:Not a proper response

[blackraven14250]

He probably never connected the dots.

Re:Not a proper response

[interkin3tic]

I am, and in many of these cases I think the parents *are* acting like parents when they complain. I know many slashdotters live in some fantasy world where parents are able to monitor their children every waking hour, but it's not reality.

I know that, everyone knows that. And I had hoped that everyone would realize the folowing: if something is a concern to you, like your kid reading dirty words in a dictionary, then you should deal with it yourself, not make everyone else deal with it.

I know you have a lot of chores to do, but it takes about 5 minutes to do any one of a number of things to remedy the situation on your end:
-take the Ipod away from him
-trust him not to download it
-don't give him a credit card
-don't give him the password to itunes
-talk to him about dirty words
-realize he already knows them
-wash his mouth out with soap if he uses them

The world doesn't have a responsibility to sanitize itself because you have issues with what your kid sees reguardless of how much free time you have.

Re:Not a proper response

[swillden]

The world doesn't have a responsibility to sanitize itself because you have issues with what your kid sees reguardless of how much free time you have

You say that as though I'm the only one with an issue, but I'm not. In fact, there are a lot more of us than there are of you -- and actually, odds are that when you become a parent, you'll join the gang.

It makes perfect sense for companies to cater to the people with the money, and that, whether you like it or not, is me, not you.

Re:Not a proper response

[swillden]

Being a good parent involves teaching your children your values so that you don't *have* to monitor them.

Certainly it does. And by the time they're teenagers, if you've done a good job, that works. With younger kids, it makes a lot more sense to simply keep some stuff away until they're able to understand it.

Re:Not a proper response

[swillden]

-- Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can oppose safety.

Aren't your post and your sig at odds with each other?

Nope. Children are one thing. Responsible adults are quite another. Children need to be protected. As they grow up, as they learn their way around the world, you back off. If you do it right, by the time they're grown up they don't need protecting any more, because they can take care of themselves.

Re:Not a proper response

[swillden]

He probably never connected the dots.

There is no connection. See my response to the GP.

Re:Not a proper response

[Anonymous Coward]

You think parents should be giving children younger than teenagers iPhones?

Re:Not a proper response

[msuarezalvarez]

You simply cannot be saying that hiding words from kids does them any good, can you?

Re:Not a proper response

[e9th]

As you said earlier, parents can't constantly monitor their children. But if society is responsible for protecting children when their parents aren't around, we wind up with things like internet content filters and absurd television broadcasting standards.

Re:Not a proper response

[msuarezalvarez]

It is sad to see into what your attempt at a reasoning degenerated :/

Re:Not a proper response

[interkin3tic]

You say that as though I'm the only one with an issue, but I'm not. In fact, there are a lot more of us than there are of you -- and actually, odds are that when you become a parent, you'll join the gang.

Your argument is that more people think censorship is good.

That's fine, but it isn't, and you're still just shirking your responsibilities.

Re:Not a proper response

[Serious Callers Only]

as a parent I really appreciate all the parents who put up a stink and got the rating system put in place.

As a parent do you honestly believe you can control whether your children are exposed to words like fuck? Do you let them access the internet? Do you really think they won't have access to it or hear these words in the playground?

I guarantee your children will have encountered the word before they reach the age of 10 - why not educate them and explain that in most contexts these words aren't appropriate instead of trying to blind them to the normal activities of humans?

Parents let their children play violent games where enemies are torn limb from limb, and yet shrink from allowing them to see nudity or profanity - it's insane. Swear words are never going to hurt anyone.

Likewise, I think it's perfectly reasonable for Apple to limit the sort of content in their app store.

It would be reasonable if Apple were reasonable in their decisions, but they have been decidedly unreasonable, and are also using this kind of cover to ban apps they think are competitors to their own. They're abusing their power in this domain and need to be told so in no uncertain terms. I'm considering leaving the platform as a result.

Re:Not a proper response

[Serious Callers Only]

You say that as though I'm the only one with an issue, but I'm not. In fact, there are a lot more of us than there are of you -- and actually, odds are that when you become a parent, you'll join the gang.

Really, what makes you think that you are in a majority?

How can you possibly hope to control whether your children are exposed to these words?

I assume to be safe you have torn out these pages in any dictionaries in your house, and disconnected the house completely from the internet?

How about their friends in the playground, have you eliminated any you think might be borderline and allowed to read a dictionary by their parents?

Wouldn't it be better to read about them in a dictionary and understand they are vulgarities, rather than to hear them without understanding?

Re:Not a proper response

[weicco]

Yes. I closed both my children in opaque, sound proof boxes. Now they can't see or hear anything that might harm their fragile little minds. First I thougth to give them couple of toys for fun but then I realized how sexually offensible they are! Even rattler reminds me of my wife's vibrator and I don't want my children to have anything like that on their mind. Then I thought about teddybears but let's face it, Winnie the Pooh looks so gay.

I'm sure they're going to thank me when they get 18 which is the legal age here.

Re:Not a proper response

[kc0dby]

I'm sorry, but if you have a kid that for some awful reason, you've given an iPhone, and they are looking up dirty (F$#K!) in a dictionary app, and they are not of the age when they are hearing it on a daily basis from their peers anyway (11) then:

1. You have already failed as a parent. Please have your children report to the nearest hospital in Nebraska. Do not bring them there, they can safely traverse the distance- you cannot. A major meth incident is about to go down, and an infant can probably dodge strangers better than bullets. At least you can be confident that in 20 years, they'll have the knowledge and resources to ensure you don't get eaten by rabid animals. And frankly, you'll probably need the help.

or....

2. You are an uber-geek, your kids are probably uber-geeks. There's nothing you can do about it. Send them on the pilgrimage to Nebraska, and they'll end up starting a colony on Mars. Probably best to just let it go. They can handle a few dirty words- and still school the heck out of their peers. Congratulations- you'll never have to take the blame for a serial killer, and you'll be happy to take the credit when they nab the Nobel Prize.

So come on people, let's let evolution take its course. One dictionary at a time!

Re:Not a proper response

[shutdown -p now]

Likewise, I think it's perfectly reasonable for Apple to limit the sort of content in their app store. I think the rating system is a better way, but in the absence of the rating system, I don't think it's inappropriate to refuse apps that contain profanity.

I am almost certain that your kids already know the meaning of, and suitable circumstances for the use of, all the profane words that Apple was complaining about finding in this dictionary. At least, remembering my own childhood days, I know that we knew a lot of that kind of stuff far earlier than our parents figured that out. And I was a geeky, somewhat antisocial kind of guy - others have learned earlier than me.

What??

[4D6963]

Blackadder said it best :

Samuel Johnson: Ah, I see you've underlined a few (takes dictionary, reads): `bloomers'; `bottom'; `burp'; (turns a page) `fart'; `fiddle'; `fornicate'?

George IV: Well...

Samuel Johnson: Sir! I hope you're not using the first English dictionary to look up rude words!

Edmund Blackadder: I wouldn't be too hopeful; that's what all the other ones will be used for.

I Call Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Schiller's response is an attempt to evade the issue that Apple censored the application in the first place. Turning around and trying to claim that the developer censored themselves after being censored is an expert spin, but complete bullshit nonetheless.

Upset reasonable people???

[MartinSchou]

Obviously the dictionary he's using has a rather different definition of reasonable people than mine does.

Mine says reasonable people aren't upset by words, especially the ones they write themselves. Reasonable people also have no expectation of going through life without encountering something they might find offensive, as they know that that idea itself is offensive to some people.

Why can't we, as a group, start using the names of idiots like that as slang for 'offensive' things? Like ...

Schiller - verb: To use ones tongue to clean a toilet bowl.
Intelligent Design - noun: The act of writing ones name in faeces.

Re:Upset reasonable people???

[radtea]

Mine says reasonable people aren't upset by words, especially the ones they write themselves.

Or in other words: fuck that shit.

Is there an app that lets you read Shakespeare's plays on the iPhone? What's its rating? Amongst other juicy terms, that fine old English word, "cunt", appears in Henry V (in the language lesson scene.)

Do these so-called "reasonable people" object to that?

Re:Upset reasonable people???

[sbeckstead]

I don't see the words thou shalt be reasonable anywhere in this bible...

Re:Upset reasonable people???

[radtea]

Lamely replying to myself: Yes, you can get Shakespeare for your iPhone from the App Store.

Misogyny, racism, torture, obscenity, cannibalism... And for all of that, one of the outstanding pinnacles of Western culture.

So what's the problem with a dictionary again?

Re:Upset reasonable people???

[selven]

The Holy Bible Written By God Almighty Himself is 100 times worse than Shakespeare.

Re:Upset reasonable people???

[Lars T.]

Obviously the dictionary he's using has a rather different definition of reasonable people than mine does.

Mine says reasonable people aren't upset by words, especially the ones they write themselves. Reasonable people also have no expectation of going through life without encountering something they might find offensive, as they know that that idea itself is offensive to some people.

Apple isn't worried about reasonable people - are you going to pay the bills when the unreasonable people sue Apple? No? The shut the fuck up.

Moderators: go ahead, and prove me right.

Attn: Phil Schiller

[Anonymous Coward]

How about responding to that Apple keyboard firmware vulnerability from Black Hat? Does Apple have a patch for it yet?

Fuck Apple

[Legion303]

Break out the smelling salts, I think I just saw the word "piss" in Ninjawords!

The Oxford English Spellchecker

[imtheguru]

What?

Why isn't Apple addressing a consistency issue

[weilawei]

The majority of the ongoing debate over the App Store is that the reviewers seem whimsical or even downright malicious and inconsistent in their ratings, rejections, and reasons for rejection. You can't eliminate malice, but you can seriously reduce incompetence by making it a more open process. The developers here will (likely) be familiar with practices such as code reviews and bug tracking. In this instance, if Apple were to have provided clearer information, to replicate all of the issues they felt were present in the dictionary, this might not have been blown up into the situation we have now. While the dictionary would still have been censored in the interest of pushing it to market as soon as possible, it would have been a more precise change (as opposed to blindly self-censoring). Apple probably isn't responsible for reviewing applications in minute detail for each an every swear word--but establishing an issue tracking system opens a communication channel with established ways of resolving conflicts and receiving feedback. Apple appears to be moving toward a more level treatment of applications, but they have a long way to go and plenty of great options. Also, is this NinjaWords app by the same people as the NinjaWords website?

Safari the next app to be rejected?

[Black Pete]

If the dictionary app was rejected on the basis that it proved access to dirty words, does this mean that Safari is the next to go? After all, it only provides access to the entire Internet, where I'm sure a few dirty words and even porn could be found.

Re:Safari the next app to be rejected?

[Anonymous Coward]

omg! what an original post! nobody on slashdot has ever before made the connection between safari being a browser and being able to look up stuff that's not allowed on the appstore. I nominate you for the noble prize!

Re:Safari the next app to be rejected?

[bonch]

The app didn't "provide access." It contains its own local copy. People really need to read the fucking article.

Re:Safari the next app to be rejected?

[PCM2]

And that's different...how? Is the RAM of my iPhone somehow "soiled" because the bad Mr. App Store allowed doo-doo words to get on it? The application would work the same whether it stored a local copy or not.

Re:Safari the next app to be rejected?

[Serious Callers Only]

The app didn't "provide access." It contains its own local copy. People really need to ____ ___ _______ _______.

And? A local copy is so much more dangerous right? Much more dangerous than all those local copies of Shakespeare or the Bible, which contain all manner of atrocities and swearing too. Those should be censored too, just in case.

PS Sorry, your post has been redacted - think of the children and concerned parents. We'll be bringing this innovation to all text views in the OS soon, it's the logical next step!

reasonable people?

[jjeffries]

"words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable"

These are not reasonable people. These are people looking through a dictionary in order to be offended.

Fuck those people. Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfuckers.

Re:reasonable people?

[sbeckstead]

Quite right, tits does not belong on that list!

BFD

[thenextstevejobs]

Sounds useless anyway.

I downloaded some apps for awhile, but now there's only two that I actually ever use. RSS reader (Byline) and Twitter client (Tweetie).

It's pretty daunting these days to look for things on the App store. It's choked with crap. I am glad they didn't bother posting this thin, useless app

It's pretty tiring reading all these iPhone owners crying about how their device is locked down. Apple is not a monopoly. Their vertical model seems to be turning out fairly usable, innovative products. Please don't fuck this up. My phone has never crashed and I'd like to keep it that way

Apple does some cool stuff for OSS. Check this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clang . Not to mention making a reasonably UNIX compliant operating system. (Disclaimer: I don't currently have any other Apple products besides the phone.

Re:BFD

[Sir_Lewk]

Not to mention making a reasonably UNIX compliant operating system.

It's not just "reasonably UNIX compliant", it is officially UNIX. (Disclaimer: I hate Apple about as much as anyone could and don't own any of their products, but still give them credit where due ;))

To Recap

[Aim Here]

I apologise in advance for the bad language but in the interests of having a complete public record on Slashdot, here's a list of the words and phrases that Apple censors from their iPhone dictionaries:
---
Reality Distortion Field
egomaniac
vendor lockin
exploding iPod
making unfreedom hip
iCon
backdated stock options
Lisa
fanboyism
---
There you go. I feel dirty now, and shall wash my keyboard out with soap.

Re:To Recap

[Anonymous Coward]

There you go. I feel dirty now, and shall wash my keyboard out with soap.

Ah, I see, a fellow Model M user ;)

Only If...

[Nom du Keyboard]

the Ninjawords application is that it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable.

Only if you look them up, fool!

Need a Better Reply than E-Mail

[Nom du Keyboard]

So there's a question about the authenticity of this e-mail. Yeah, it's hard to verify by itself. What the Apple guy should have done is respond by a link to a YouTube video of him reading his e-mail aloud. That might authenticate him a bit more firmly. I'm sure he could make one easily from his MacBook since it just works.

Oh, wait, YouTube is a Google site!

Re:To Recap-Don't Forget...

[Nom du Keyboard]

here's a list of the words and phrases that Apple censors from their iPhone dictionaries:...

Don't forget: Newton.

I'd Mod you Insightful+1, but now I've gone and posted here instead.

So how about the Safari Application?

[fluch]

Does Safari need a 17+ age limit to be used? Will it be removed from the iPhone and iPod Touch? From Mac OS X? It can access even darker places outside there in the virtual world! Oh my godness! :-O

Re:So how about the Safari Application?

[velen]

Very good point. Do parental controls disable Safari?

Re:So how about the Safari Application?

[RedK]

Yes it does. Parental controls are able to completely disable Safari access.

This post made from Haiku

[Anonymous Coward]

all macfags and winfags can suck my dick and enjoy my hot load in their mouths

captcha: renewing

In-store censoring

[quacking duck]

Canadian App store users, try this: search for "redskins" As in the Washington Redskins NFL team.

In each of the resulting 7 or so apps, each of their descriptions has Redskins censored, i.e. "R*****ns."

(Non-Canadians can verify this by downloading either Pandora Box or AppMiner apps, which download app lists for each country separately, and setting them to use Canadian currency)

Native American sensibilities is one thing, but censoring the name of a recognized sports team is pretty damn ridiculous. This raises a question: what was the process for getting it censored, and who demanded it be censored?

Re:In-store censoring

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadian App store users, try this: search for "redskins" As in the Washington Redskins NFL team.

In each of the resulting 7 or so apps, each of their descriptions has Redskins censored, i.e. "R*****ns."

...

Native American sensibilities is one thing, but censoring the name of a recognized sports team is pretty damn ridiculous. This raises a question: what was the process for getting it censored, and who demanded it be censored?

The process? Someone sent smoke signals to Apple that said they were heap big angry and going on the warpath.

Who did it? Why the redskins did it son, the redskins.

Sad state of affairs

[BinaryX01]

The world is in a sad state if a grouping of words could be so upsetting...

Also, I do not believe that there is not a human left alive on the face of the planet that has not heard a "swear word" Almost every language has the equivalent of fuck. Anyone over the age of ten has heard the word from someone other than a relative and most of those people have had the inclination to use the word.

OKAY

[Shivetya]

but can I zing the next person who decries the fact the parents are not being responsible for the activities of their children?

Parents cannot win here; Slashdot or the world in general. Because on one hand we have people who pummel them for every inaction and then turn around and berate them for any infraction their kid does.

Parental Controls do not affect those who do not use them. They however do affect what those of use responsible enough to adhere to a self described sense of morals but live in a world where such control is considered an infringement on some mysterious right thereby imposing such control on us outside of our domain.

In other words, either provide the means necessary for parents or anyone in general to filter the content relevant to themselves or those in the protection else suffer the decisions of others over the content you have available.

Parents would have an easier time if people quit moving the line.

Re:OKAY

[bmo]

Nice false dichotomy there.

There is a difference between putting parental controls on dictionaries and on places like 4chan.

--
BMO

Re:OKAY

[StellarFury]

Parents would have an easier time if more of them did their jobs. No disrespect to your parenting skills, personally - I have no idea how you parent your children, and won't pretend to - but "parents cannot win" because most of them suck at their job or refuse to do it, and have persistently cried to the government or third-parties that "it's hard" and to "do it for them." So even the good parents can't win.

Parental controls DO affect people who don't use them. What the fuck do you think the FCC is? The ESRB? The MPAA Ratings Board? That shit is, in essence, "parental controls." They say what gets sold or shown where.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think these organizations shouldn't exist. But they overstep their bounds all the time, and yes, I'm going to blame overprotective, whiny parents just as much as I'm going to blame puritanical religious zealots or stodgy politicians or whoever else is busting down freedom of expression.

Re:OKAY

[hedwards]

I thought placing parental controls on dictionaries was what caused places like 4chan.

Again the rumination article link

[Lars T.]

Is there anything new in the article not copy-pasted from Daring Fireball? Apart from the adds, I mean.

Re:Again the rumination article link

[grrrl]

Agreed! Post the link to the guy who actually wrote about this thoughtfully, and who, you know, GOT THE ACTUAL EMAIL from Schiller. His name is John Gruber and he writes Daring Fireball. And maybe mention him in the summary ??~?~!?

WTF

[mshaver]

The full American Heritage Dictionary app has all of the seven deadly words (and more) stored on the ipod/iphone with audible pronunciation available with net access. Obviously there are different standards for different sources of apps.

Words are Dangerous!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember everybody....
Words are dangerous.

We can have games like Mafia Wars that glorify murder and crime for profit, but some things like common words for natural bodily functions or depictions of the human form are somehow "objectionable".

This is a peculiar puritanical society we have.

And yes, I am a parent. I'd prefer my child to not grow into an adult with a bizarre fetish triggered by a cultural taboo against healthy human behavior.

A Game Idea

[DynamiteNeon]

I just realized that making a game out of this would be fun. Steve Jobs could be the level boss and if you defeat him, your app gets accepted into the app store.

I wonder if it would be accepted.

I know how to create apps, but I don't have time for it this weekend so I'm putting it out there. Get on it Slashdot. Someone write this now.

nice advertising

[Odinlake]

I have no idea what ninjawords is about (sounds completely irrelevant to me) but it sure got some serious exposure out of all this.

Full of iShit

[kiddailey]

Dear Steve and Steve:

Seriously, this is beyond ridiculous:

* Anyone can receive e-mail that contains profanity and porn. Please remove MobileMail.app from everyone's iPhone.
* Anyone can access or stumble upon profanity, porn and more while web browsing. Please remove MobileSafari.app from everyone's iPhone.
* Anyone can download and purchase songs full of profanity and sexual references. Please remove the iTunes Music Store from everyone's iPhone.

Until you remove those three apps as well, it's obvious that you're full of iShit.

Then what do you believe in

[msimm]

To date I fail to see any average good done by any religion in the world.

Then what do you believe in if you don't believe in yourself?

I'm not religious myself but I fail to see a belief system that really addresses the underlying philosophic and moral dilemmas and some people need comfort or answers, for those people faith might work.

We need a philosophy renaissance to specifically address the needs we've so far only successfully addressed with religion.

Re:Then what do you believe in

[mwvdlee]

the needs we've so far only successfully addressed with religion

And what needs would those be?

I can't think of any "need" which can ONLY be addressed with religion.

Re:Then what do you believe in

[EsbenMoseHansen]

the needs we've so far only successfully addressed with religion

And what needs would those be?

I can't think of any "need" which can ONLY be addressed with religion.

The need to built pointy buildings unused for 6 out of 7 days?

Re:Then what do you believe in

[msimm]

And what needs would those be?

The need to believe that your aren't a spec of dust on a tiny insignificant rock in a meaningless sea of matter made out of the dying energy of some ancient Big Bag.

Or the need the believe the love you feel carries weight similar to the emotional turmoil you might feel inside at a loved ones passing.

Because we really live for such a short time and we'll probably never get to experience a single thing again.

You, like every other sane person either shut it out or sublimate it and if you do the latter you've probably found some form of religion.

Re:Then what do you believe in

[sbeckstead]

And what needs would those be?
The need to believe that your aren't a spec of dust on a tiny insignificant rock in a meaningless sea of matter made out of the dying energy of some ancient Big Bang.
You are simply a spec of organized carbon/nitrogen on a tiny insignificant rock. Who put you there or why are irrelevant.

Or the need the believe the love you feel carries weight similar to the emotional turmoil you might feel inside at a loved ones passing.

Bullshite

Because we really live for such a short time and we'll probably never get to experience a single thing again.
This much is certain

You, like every other sane person either shut it out or sublimate it and if you do the latter you've probably found some form of religion.
Sorry to disappoint you but no not really. And no no religion here. Staunch self determination and accepting responsibility for my actions

I may have overstated my position by saying the no good has come of religion. It did make rules designed to keep a society alive in a desert environment.

Everything after those rules were about power over your fellow man. Religion is politics with a guilt kicker. A huge club to hold over everyone's head.

The Christians invented the devil and hell to make things a bit more grim and because it is hard to hold someone when you can only look forward to oblivion until the messiah shows up. After their messiah showed up they needed a bigger club.

Of course this only speaks to the judeo-christian religions. The Budhists have a completely different tack and are more driven by internal power than external they seek more to rule themselves than others. The Hindus on the other hand have quite a bit of violence and contradiction in their pantheon but the same type of thing they seek power over themselves and others through the auspices of gods. Shinto I don't really know enough about to speak to. The separation between a philosophy and religion blurs in others. So some religions have produced a bit of good but the judeo-christians have quite a lot of pain, death and terror to answer for before their good can be counted.

As to morals, a good philosophy can account for those and a certain amount of civil contract can be added to the mix and you can have a completely non-religious society with quite good morals. One man's morals are another's trash anyway. Hammurabi had quite a good code that was not really based on religion, in fact it was so good that we still use a good bit of it today in both US and British common law.

I guess the silly fuck...

[hyades1]

Isn't conversant with the OED.

No one agrees?

[Confuzzled]

I know slashdot is big on the groupthink, and apple is evil yadda yaddah, but has anyone bothered to look up words and see the different treatment of them?

• fisting, versus fisting
• rim job, not in dictionary.com.
• fucktard, not in dictionary.com.
• cumbucket, not in dictionary.com

Now I'm not saying that words per se are bad things (they're not, although I personally prefer to keep them out of regular usage for impact), but I can see how this dictionary might include many more vulgar words and expressions than a regular dictionary. I can also see how a parent could object to their kids downloading a dictionary with such an extensive ouvre of modern vulgar slang.

Let's say you're a parent, and your 10 year old (yeah you spoiled them a bit by buying them an iPhone, whatever, they did their chores, got good grades and are working it off mowing the lawn) asks you if they can download a dictionary app. Would you not be a little concerned if the dictionary was so heavy on modern swearwords? Would you expect this from a "dictionary app"? Wouldn't you expect that the urban dictionary app have a bit of a warning that it might be really offensive, racist, etc.?

Sure they'll learn all these things in due time, but I don't think innocence is such a horrible thing that needs to be stomped out. Kids should allowed to be kids.

Re:No one agrees?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is absurd.

If my 10 year old child doesn't know how to use a dictionary online, there is no way I am going to buy him/her a 4-600 dollar cell phone. Furthermore, if I trust my kids to use the internet on their own, and have bought them an expensive cell phone with required internet access, they won't need my permission to download a free dictionary.

I don't see how parents can be so irresponsible as to buy their children things that they demand not to be used.

Looks like an old, "nice", USSR

[cualexc]

I'm really tired of "parent's / big brother's controlled" blips on TV shows, now dictionaries, what else, what is the reason - perfectly brain washed society, no "bad" words, gender / racial / religious / whatever "tolerant" dictionaries and at the end "official" vocabulary can be reduced to simple binary (yes/no)?

it is curious indeed how quickly apple responds

[Agram]

I think the very fact Apple responds to these kinds of seemingly silly kinds of claims and does so with minimal delay is very much telling of how thin of a line Apple treads with their business model.

The purpose of a dictionary...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is to let me know that those are vulgar words, if I didn't know them before. To a non-english speaker it is not obvious that crap is a synonim for poop.

Dave Chappelle had it right

[HalAtWork]

I don't give a shit, I want to know what ALL words mean, not just some of them. And as always, "words are only as offensive as the context in which they are used" - Dave Chappelle

Guh, Chris Rock

[HalAtWork]

Misquoted, that was Chris Rock obviously.

Apples own dictionary app returns offensive words

[david_craig]

From TFA:

The issue that the App Store reviewers did find with the Ninjawords application is that it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable. A quick search on Wiktionary.org easily turns up a number of offensive "urban slang" terms that you won't find in popular dictionaries such as one that you referenced, the New Oxford American Dictionary included in Mac OS X.

I'm sorry, but Apples own dictionary app that will return the definition of the words "cunt" and "nigger", and I don't think there is anything more offensive.

Well ain't that special

[Lars T.]

Not only did the developer censor himself all in the name of the almighty Dollar, he also sells a $2 app that does nothing but query Wiktionary.

A lot of debate over nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys if you so need to look up the definition of MoFo use safari on your iPhone it ships with it no need to install anything else.

I am a broadcast TV and media industry professional of more than 20 years and frankly all this gibberish about censorship is a joke.

From where I see it Apple is THE only communication device manufacturer ON EARTH with ANY kind of media and communications ethos or strategy. It is the most open accessible media strategy I know of.

For example the DRM you all moan about Apple has now ended. Apple was always against DRM (if you read up a bit) - it was just a strategy to help the record companies understand the business model for online music and it has been extremely successful.

Let's site some other examples of free and open media. Podcasting for example made accessible and common place largely due to Apple's influence. Now millions of people worldwide downloading millions of podcasts every week. Masses of free information from universities, news organisations, businesses etc.

Final Cut Studio - revolutionising the industry I work in as we speak. Bringing a much more affordable and accessible broadcast video edit system to anyone who has a message or a story to tell. 1/10th the cost of any of it's competition and frankly a better system.

Every single mac that ships has an edit suite on it - iMovie, iDVD, Garageband etc. 15 years ago a Journalist would have sold their grandmother to have such powerful tools on a consumer device.

This is clearly not a company interested in censorship - choosing if a single app is appropriate for kids to have delivered to their ipod/iphone - is not censorship. GET REAL.

Stop whining. Have a look at the bigger picture. :-)

Doo-doo words?!

[Anonymous Coward]

If the app in question is indeed based on Wiktionary, then it's full of goodies like: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez

Sadly, dirty sanchez is not in dictionary.com or m-w.com, so kids stranded with those conformist sources (or their printed equivalents) are missing out!!

The Real Fiasco

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read your column last night about the Ninjawords dictionary application I immediately investigated it with our App Store review team to learn the facts of what happened.

Let me start with the most important points - Apple did not censor the content in this developerâ(TM)s application and Apple did not reject this developerâ(TM)s application for including references to common swear words. You accused Apple of both in your story and the fact is that we did neither.

Ninjawords is an application which uses content from the Wiktionary.org online wiki-based dictionary to provide a nice fast dictionary application on the web and on the iPhone. Contrary to what you reported, the Ninjawords application was not rejected in the App Store review process for including common âoeswearâ words. In fact anyone can easily see that Apple has previously approved other dictionary applications in the App Store that include all of the âoeswearâ words that you gave as examples in your story.

The issue that the App Store reviewers did find with the Ninjawords application is that it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable. A quick search on Wiktionary.org easily turns up a number of offensive âoeurban slangâ terms that you wonâ(TM)t find in popular dictionaries such as one that you referenced, the New Oxford American Dictionary included in Mac OS X. 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.

The Ninjawords developer then decided to filter some offensive terms in the Ninjawords application and resubmit it for approval for distribution in the App Store before parental controls were implemented. Apple did not ask the developer to censor any content in Ninjawords, the developer decided to do that themselves in order to get to market faster. Even though the developer chose to censor some terms, there still remained enough vulgar terms that it required a parental control rating of 17+.

You are correct that the Ninjawords application should not have needed to be censored while also receiving a 17+ rating, but that was a result of the developersâ(TM) actions, not Appleâ(TM)s. I believe that the Apple app review teamâ(TM)s original recommendation to the developer to submit the Ninjawords application, without censoring it, to the App Store once parental controls was implemented would have been the best course of action for all; Wiktionary.org is an open, ever-changing resource and filtering the content does not seem reasonable or necessary.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

Phil Schiller

[Jewbird]

No more AnonymousCoward. I'm pissed. Phil Schiller obviously has no clue what's going on. Bring in someone who understands that every aspect of the App Store is broken and how to fix it and FIRE THAT INCOMPETENT GOD-DAMNED FUCK ALREADY. Hell, I'll do it if they can't find anyone else. Matthew 23:24

Re:Phil Schiller

[Jewbird]

Hell, just Matthew 23.