Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple's Schiller Responds To iPhone Dictionary App Fiasco

Posted by Soulskill on from the not-so-sinister-after-all dept.

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."

8 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Re:surprise by Bredero · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  2. Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Nothing new by davester666 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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).

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Nothing new by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  3. Back atcha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:would someone please tell me by Chyeld · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

  5. What?? by 4D6963 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  6. Re:OKAY by StellarFury · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.