Apple Just Says Yes To iPhone Smoking Game

ZosX sends along a puff piece from Wired's Brian X. Chen: "Apple on Monday approved Puff Puff Pass, a $2 game whose objective is to pass a cigarette or pipe around and puff it as many times as you can within a set duration. So much for taking the high road, Apple. The game allows you to choose between smoking a cigarette, a cigar, and a pipe. Then you select the number of people you'd like to light up with (up to five), the amount of time, and a place to smoke (outdoors or indoors). And you're ready to get right on puffing."

Comments

Good

[C0R1D4N]

I would prefer Apple not to choose my morals for me.

Re:Good

[wbren]

The problem is not that Apple is making moral decisions about which applications to allow in the App Store. The problem is their ever-changing, wildly inconsistent approval guidelines. This application might get approved while other seemingly identical applications might get rejected. That's the real problem: developers simply have no way to know which way the App Store approval process wind is blowing on a given day. I wouldn't have such a bone to pick with Apple if they just picked a position and stuck with it consistently.

Re:Good

[Cryacin]

Yes, you're right. Look like they need to go out and buy a new Magic 8-Ball.

We all knew it was going to wear out sooner or later.

Re:Good

[sbeckstead]

Preference noted.

Re:Good

[wbren]

And just to clarify, I believe people should be allowed to run third-party applications on their iPhone without having to go through the App Store (or jailbreaking). I'm just saying that the inconsistency is what really bugs me. If they want to sell a G-rated phone, that's fine with me. Advertise it as such and enforce that policy consistently, but don't blame me when I take my business elsewhere. As a matter of fact, I'm switching to an Android-based phone on Thursday.

Re:Good

[uniquegeek]

The point (on here) is that Steve was really proud / pretentious / narcissistic that they do exactly that. He takes a swipe at others for being lowbrow.

(This whole thread is going to be a "shades of grey" argument, anyways.)

Re:Good

[pitchpipe]

Won't they ever think of the children?

Hypocrites

Re:Good

[bsDaemon]

You just gave me really good idea for an app... a magic 8 ball that uses the accelerometer on the iphone, and all of the answers relating directly to whether or not your app will get approved for the app store. Unfortunately, I doubt that this app would get approved for the app store, either. oh well.

Re:Good

[ZosX]

Here! Here! For moral support I just look to our leaders in washington.......

Re:Good

[Cryacin]

Hey, you never know... they might use your app to approve your app!

Then sue you to kingdom come.

Re:Good

[DJRumpy]

The app was approved but with an Adult rating: Apple rates Puff Puff Pass 17+ for “Frequent/Intense Alcohol, Tobacco, or Drug Use or References.”

Their approval rules aren't 'wildly inconsistent'. They are consistent within context of the app, meaning if the app in question goes down one of the questionable paths like mature content, duplicates core functionality, or questionable content, then it is possible it will be banned. They aren't just randomly selecting apps outside of those areas. The only 'vague' one is the 'questionable content', and there you're stuck with Apple's definition of questionable, rather than your own, but that's a risk you take and it's laid out clearly in the agreement the types of apps that would be at risk.

About the only real oddball judgment I can recall is when they started removing 'pointless' apps like the fart apps. One could argue that those fall under the 'questionable content' rule. Basically, if a notable number of people might find your app objectionable due to content, it is removed. Mark Fiore's iPhone app was removed because it "ridicules public figures".

Per the Developer Agreement: "Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory."

These aren't 'wildly inconsistent' or anything of the sort. The rejected apps fit within the criteria and are judged on a per app basis. Go there, and risk being rejected.

You don't cut your car's brake line, and then complain when your breaks don't stop as expected.

Re:Good

[icannotthinkofaname]

The app was approved but with an Adult rating: Apple rates Puff Puff Pass 17+ for “Frequent/Intense Alcohol, Tobacco, or Drug Use or References.”

And they don't have an "18+: There Might Be a Nipple Somewhere in This App" rating? What makes this sort of adult material different from other sorts of adult material, aside from the developer agreement?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Nipples would fall into the Adult category, and depending on the taste level of nipple, possibly considered 'porn' and banned. This isn't obscene, pornographic, or defamatory, but because it does depict Tobacco Use, it was rated adult (17+).

Re:Good

[fractoid]

And they don't have an "18+: There Might Be a Nipple Somewhere in This App" rating? What makes this sort of adult material different from other sorts of adult material, aside from the developer agreement?

Puritanical moral hang-ups more suited to a Sharia state than a capitalist democracy?

Re:Good

[nacturation]

Their approval rules aren't 'wildly inconsistent'. They are consistent within context of the app, meaning if the app in question goes down one of the questionable paths like mature content, duplicates core functionality, or questionable content, then it is possible it will be banned.

Almost all apps showing sexy, non-nude pictures? Banned.
Playboy app showing sexy playmates? Approved and featured on iTunes.

No inconsistency there.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on whether the state or private entities are enforcing them.

Re:Good

[fractoid]

The point (on here) is that Steve was really proud / pretentious / narcissistic that they do exactly that. He takes a swipe at others for being lowbrow.

Mr. Jobs has made an entire career on pretension. There's a reason that Apple evokes so much rabid zealotry from the otherwise computer-agnostic arty types. Just look at the way he boldly announces products' limitations and disabilities as strokes of design genius (and then later, even more astoundingly, announces re-enabling basic functionality as 'groundbreaking new features' - witness the iPhone's recent addition of multi-tasking, and the "you can't fit a netbook in your pocket" campaign with the release of the iPhone and iPod Touch, then the backflip to "bigger is better" with the release of the iPad). In the art world, you can go an awfully long way on "you're just not insightful enough to understand the vision", and these schmucks don't realise that it doesn't carry over into technical areas.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I would prefer Apple not to choose my morals for me.

Less succinctly. I want them to add sucking a cock to the game and I want these nervous little pantywaists to fuck themselves in the heart with a white hot First Amendment.

It's bad enough they want to have special demerits for snuff movies, rape, murder, etc -- and they also want to restrict distribution of "cruelty to animals, but now they want special ratings for showing smoking. What next -- rating for cross looks between parents behind their children's backs?

Re:Good

[BasilBrush]

And they don't have an "18+: There Might Be a Nipple Somewhere in This App" rating?

Yes they do. For example the Playboy app is rated: 17+ Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity.

What makes this sort of adult material different from other sorts of adult material

Fundamentally, whether Apple thinks selling it devalues their brand or not. Same as any other brand name store.

Re:Good

[dudpixel]

Hey, you never know... they might use your app to approve your app!

and all other apps thereafter.

wait...are you SURE you haven't already submitted it?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. While Playboy is often considered 'tasteful' men's entertainment, something like Big Titty Mommas would not.

Re:Good

[dudpixel]

You don't cut your car's brake line, and then complain when your breaks don't stop as expected.

you had me wondering what your post was all about, until the very end. I was reading it just wishing you'd explained it in terms of a car analogy...

and there it was.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear bsDaemon,

Please remove your idea at once as it infringe on our patent for process approval.

Sincerly, Steve.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Any sufficiently-dominant corporation is indistinguishable from a government.

Re:Good

[TheABomb]

Then go Android and be treated like an adult. If you want to think for yourself, you're not in Apple's demo anyhow.

Re:Good

[Kristoph]

There is an app for that ...

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fortuneball/id285537465?mt=8

Re:Good

[Kristoph]

Another company tried that - Microsoft - and look where that's gotten us.

]{

Re:Good

[grasshoppa]

That's kind of the core of his argument; their judgement on "objectionable content" is what he is calling in to question. He is charging that their definition varies ( which it does ).

But as you say, those are the rules. If you want to play in Apple's sandbox, you play by their rules. If you want to play in a completely free sandbox, where you don't have to worry about app rejection, well, there's a place for that too ( android ).

Re:Good

[biryokumaru]

Ever notice how people remember posters by their sigs and not their names?

I don't know about you, 3*11^2*1811, but I remember people by the prime factorization of their UIDs.

- 2*7*58733

Re:Good

[plover]

You just gave me really good idea for an app... a magic 8 ball that uses the accelerometer on the iphone, and all of the answers relating directly to whether or not your app will get approved for the app store. Unfortunately, I doubt that this app would get approved for the app store, either. oh well.

"Outlook not so good."

That magic 8 ball is right again!

Re:Good

[Cryacin]

I'm under NDA.

Re:Good

[nacturation]

I didn't say it did. And upon re-reading my post, I should have made my intent clearer by ending it instead with "No... no inconsistency there at all".

Re:Good

[xQx]

I disagree. The problem is Apple is making moral decisions about which applications to allow on the iPhone. The App Store is only a problem because it is the only way developers can sell their products to customers with the iPhone.

The real problem is: developers and their customers are no longer free to make independent decisions about what is acceptable and unacceptable trade, and the people who are making the moral decisions were neither elected nor accountable for their actions!

Re:Good

[awshidahak]

The real problem is: developers and their customers are no longer free to make independent decisions about what is acceptable and unacceptable trade, and the people who are making the moral decisions were neither elected nor accountable for their actions!

Ah, but you see, the customer is free to make his own independent decision about what is acceptable and unacceptable trade. He is in the same way that he elects those who make the moral decisions. The customer elects by choosing to purchase, or not to purchase. If the customer doesn't purchase, new decisions must be made at apple.

Re:Good

[mwvdlee]

Well, the difference is that naked people aren't likely to harm you, "Frequent/Intenste Alcohol, Tobacco or Drug Use" will. That's what makes it okay. If you can somehow prove that the type of sex in an app will shorten your livespan, Apple will probably approve of it. It's some kind of the deal they have with private healthcare companies, I think, to justify the high premiums.

Re:Good

[bemymonkey]

They ARE choosing your morals for you. Smoking is allowed, tits aren't...

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is like the Great Firewall of China. One day you can get any app approved, the next day nothing gets approved.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to think for yourself, you're not in Apple's demo anyhow.

Elitist much?

Re:Good

[cgenman]

Apple just banned wifi-searching and network tools apps from the app store.
They approved a large number of non-nude adult apps before turning around and banning them later.
They ban political parody apps, including one where you could have Obama jumping on a trampoline to collect votes.
They ban apps that "duplicate functionality" of stuff that Apple hasn't announced or released, and that the app creator has no way of knowing exists.
They just banned 3rd party code translation frameworks. This was intended to ban Flash-based applications. It accidentally also bans all unity-based games, as well as many, many others. Apple appears to be giving those a wink and a nudge at the moment, but who knows.
Apple has simply not responded to applications submitted to the app store, keeping them in limbo indefinitely with no comment as to why.
The app store approval process itself is prone to random and embarassing gaffes, including denying a particular Tweetie update because a trending topic that day happened to be a dirty one. They denied a bookreading frontend that hooked up to Project Gutenberg because Project Gutenberg (amongst hundreds of thousands of books) includes the Kama Sutra. They banned a Nine Inch Nails app because it linked to an adult Nine Inch Nails song in iTunes.
And unlike console (or other sane) development, there is no way to contact Apple ahead of time and get concept approval or a list of what might be wrong. You have to go ahead and invest the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in development, then pray that Apple doesn't decide to reject the app or leave it hanging in limbo.

They banned wifi-stumbling apps. They banned an LCD buyer's guide. They banned Leisure Suit Larry. They banned Seikai-Camera, a GPS photography tool. They banned a Pulitzer prize-winning satyrist, then caved to public pressure and approved him but remain continue banning everyone else. They banned 3G video streaming, which wasn't against their rules at all. They banned the South Park app, for having exactly the sort of content that they give valuable promotional space in iTunes to South Park episodes. They banned a British newspaper app for the sort of nudity you find in British newspapers.

The last few games I've worked on have had budgets of 10 - 20 million dollars. Can you imagine how terrible it would be if we developed all of that for the iPhone, only to be told by Apple on the whims of change that zombies are no longer allowed in the app store? Or having the iPhone be a lynchpin of a radical new form of telephony, only to be told that AT&T doesn't like it? This is not consistent enforcement of unpopular rules. This is random enforcement of random and ever-changing rules.

Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, and all of the other platform holders that I've worked with have had their approval rules. But they've also been responsive to developer queries. They work closely with developers before, during, and after development to make sure nobody is wasting their time or money. Their rules are locked months before final approval, so that you're not aiming for a moving target. Apple seems to want that level of financial reward for controlling the gateway, but none of the responsibility that a gateway holder needs to take towards their developers.

They need to either open up completely and trust their users to know what an "Adult" rating is, or they need to take some of that 30% they're absconding with and invest it into much better developer feedback systems.

Re:Good

[Stan Vassilev]

Then go Android and be treated like an adult. If you want to think for yourself, you're not in Apple's demo anyhow.

Just on a side note. Realistically, if everyone wanted to truly think for themselves, society would collapse ;).

I've noticed an interesting dissonance in Slashdot's culture. When a non-expert refuses to do what his resident geek is telling him is best, that's described as a bad user, akin to a patient not listening to the sound advice of his doctor.

At the same time, when a non-expert purchases a non-expert gadget, then he's described as being treated like a child, for having a limited set of options before him, and he can't even recompile his mobile OS kernel!

If you want to understand why Apple does what they do, don't put yourself in the end-user's shoes. Try putting yourself in Apple's shoes. End-users need to be taken care of to limit "accidents" and poor experience. That's a fact of life when geeks deal with end-users.

Of course, Apple could do many things to improve the life of developers. But the problem is, again, Apple doesn't exist to serve developers, and so they do only what is needed to maintain the end-user experience.

Re:Good

[dakameleon]

Dammit, mod points! Informative and Insightful both.

Re:Good

[Thanshin]

If you want to understand why Apple does what they do, don't put yourself in the end-user's shoes. Try putting yourself in Apple's shoes. End-users need to be taken care of to limit "accidents" and poor experience. That's a fact of life when geeks deal with end-users.

So your argument is that Apple is just being correctly managed by BOFH?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is not that Apple is making moral decisions about which applications to allow in the App Store. The problem is their ever-changing, wildly inconsistent approval guidelines. This application might get approved while other seemingly identical applications might get rejected. That's the real problem: developers simply have no way to know which way the App Store approval process wind is blowing on a given day. I wouldn't have such a bone to pick with Apple if they just picked a position and stuck with it consistently.

Although this point is valid, this incident is not an example of it. I have not heard of Apple banning other smoking-related apps.

Re:Good

[Anachragnome]

My first thought was that this was some still-wet-behind-the-ears tobacco corporation marketing dweeb's brainstorm, but then I realized that it is just a thinly disguised pothead game that the devs managed to get past Apple's app-approval dweebs by simply not mentioning anything illegal.

Calling it "Toke, Toke, Pass" probably would have sold more, but also make it HIGHLY likely the app would not be approved.

My guess is that most of the players are smoking pot, NOT tobacco. Smoking tobacco in such a fashion usually results in a puking session.

Re:Good

[ZeRu]

It's not about morals this time. They probably verified this application 'cause they might use it as an excuse to void your warranty.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I would prefer Apple not to choose my morals for me.

That kinda goes without saying. OTOH, I would prefer anyone but you to choose your morals for you. ;)

Re:Good

[uglyduckling]

Indeed. Just like the respective manufacturers do for the Wii, PS3 and XBox, PSP, DS, etc... Number of posts in the past 3 years complaining that Nintendo controls what is released on their console... about 0. What's the problem?

Re:Good

[Sulphur]

About the only real oddball judgment I can recall is when they started removing 'pointless' apps like the fart apps.

Smoking app also 'pointless', if by 'pointless' you mean lacking sharp smells.

--

Dyslexic OS : Pernel Kanic.

Re:Good

[indiechild]

Sour grapes.

Re:Good

[fractoid]

I prefer to call it intellectual honesty but you're free to form your own viewpoint.

Re:Good

[Stan Vassilev]

So your argument is that Apple is just being correctly managed by BOFH?

I have no argument. Only an observation. Microsoft ActiveX has been ridiculed here for years because it allows the users to easily opt in to install any third party piece of software on Internet Explorer. It's been suggested the feature is removed, limited, white lists are added and so on. A new platform emerges with that model (iPhone), but that's now no longer good either. What's good is allowing the user to opt in and install anything, again, like Android does.

My conclusion is, I see no morals being defended on this forum, just developers defending their developer interests. Don't cry when Apple has their own bias on how to handle their own platform either.

Re:Good

[thijsh]

Comparing apples and oranges there... ActiveX was a mechanism that can try to install software without you wanting it, only having to click a deceptive 'Yes' in a dialog. You have no further control after that what that ActiveX control does, you could be totally owned by a drive-by-download, it has shown to be a huge vulnerability in practice. It can't be compared to the normal operation of installing software from CD/DVD/floppy/USB-stick/flash/downloads by choice.

The marketplace can better be compared with just downloading and installing software from a trusted website like SourceForge. With some added automation that even warns you of the functionality used by the app in question. I'd say it's even a step forward by adding the automation and warning. I want all my platforms to be able to download and install any software I want... It works on all versions of Linux (binary/src), Windows (exe/msi), Windows Mobile (exe/cab), Android (dex/apk)... and no kludge of a system like ActiveX is needed. Oh yeah and I have a Windows Mobile phone, and in my experience there is plenty of pretty good software available from all over the web that can easily be installed. The the pre-marketplace mobile generation of systems works just fine, developers that are serious can publish software without too much of a hassle.

I think the marketplace can be a great step forward by giving users *more* control, not by limiting them!

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously not.... or at least not iElitist!

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the parent marked as Troll? There are no trolling remarks in there, and the quote is directly from the parent which is marked 'insightful'.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

That all is true. Yet the AppStore still boasts the biggest number of apps of all the current smartphone stores. Why is that?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Puritanical moral hang-ups more suited to a Sharia state than a capitalist democracy?

Are you new to the American capitalist democracy, where puritans have a lot of political power?

Re:Good

[Bysshe]

Yeah I guess when you reject so many apps the "don't count on it" rubs off

Re:Good

[Yvan256]

And I've got DNA.

Re:Good

[burris]

Don't forget that Apple also holds patents for the nifty multitouch stuff that makes the iPhone so great, then they don't let their own developers use them!!

Re:Good

[Altus]

"Puff, Puff, Pass" is pretty standard joint smoking lingo where I grew up. I'm not sure you could even call this thinly veiled. Is the pipe made out of multi-colored glass?

Re:Good

[Makzu]

The difference is once a game is released for Wii, Nintendo can't turn around and say 'You can't sell this any more.' Once you're approved, you're approved, and you can go on to profit from your work. They have known rules for what kind of content is allowed that don't undergo major changes every couple of months. By contrast, Apple could decide tomorrow that all apps with purple backgrounds aren't allowed, and pull them all from the store immediately without notice. Then the next day they can decide that purple is okay, but only if it's darker than a certain shade. Then they could drop the whole rule again the next week. They reserve the right to change the rules at any time for any reason. How many wiiware/xbla/psn games have been pulled after release due to changing rules about what's ok and what isn't?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

30,000 fart soundboards can't be wrong.

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

Puritanical moral hang-ups more suited to a Sharia state than a capitalist democracy?

Good thing Apple is a dictatorship. All hail the Jobs! All hail the power of his turtleneck!

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

yo dawg! i herd u like iphones, so i made this app for your app so you can approve what you approve!

Re:Good

[Gorbag]

So, Apple can ask the 8 ball if it should approve the 8 ball itself. If it says "no", then apple should approve it, and if it says "yes" then they shouldn't.

Re:Good

[gstoddart]

but don't blame me when I take my business elsewhere

Apple doesn't blame you. They don't care, because there's people lined up around the block buying their stuff.

The fact that some people don't like their technology is largely irrelevant. There's plenty of people who do like their tech, and they buy it.

People made more or less the same arguments about the iPod -- it's too restricted, it doesn't let me to some arcane feature that most people will never use or understand, it's got freakin' white headphones, it's going to get beaten by the Zune (ha!). The reality is Apple has sold some huge number of the damned things.

The people who didn't buy them? Apple hasn't exactly had their feelings hurt. The people who buy their stuff like the managed user experience and functionality (read: just works) -- the people who don't, want something else and a little more control over their device.

Re:Good

[mdvolm]

Actually, the problem IS that Apple is making moral decisions about which applications to allow in the App Store.

Re:Good

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Sounds like you're taking a bit of marketing speak too seriously.

In the art world, you can go an awfully long way on "you're just not insightful enough to understand the vision"

Not really. At least not any further than you'd get in IT just speaking buzz words. Which, admittedly, can sometimes go too far.

Re:Good

[Phoghat]

Don't bogart that joint, my friend

Pass it over to me

Don't bogart that joint, my friend

Pass it over to me

Roll another one

Just like the other one

You've been hangin on to it

And I sure would like a hit

Re:Good

[vuffi_raa]

if you changed it so that when your app gets approved you celebrate with a cigarette you would be a shoe in.

Re:Good

[L1feless]

There was a seal clubbing app which was just rejected yesterday I believe by Apple. Again only to repeat what has already been asked simply because if it is repeated and read enough perhaps someone can come up with Apple's logic. What makes one app done in poor taste better than another?

This should be fun

[willoughby]

People will probably object to this as "encouraging smoking", but will whine & complain about any suggestion that violent video games encourage violence.

Re:This should be fun

[alvinrod]

Nah. The Apple apologists will apologize, the Apple haters will hate, and I'll wonder why in the hell this worthless story is on Slashdot in the first place.

Ah– kdawson. That explains it.

Re:This should be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had a game that required you to bludgeon a person with a brick in order to play the game, then your analogy would make sense. This doesn't encourage smoking, you cannot play unless you have a cigarette "joint", cigar "blunt", or pipe "bowl". I mean it's pretty obvious the game is about smoking weed, and not tobacco, because who really passes a cigarette around. A cigar would get nasty fast, and a pipe isn't much better because you hold the smoke in your mouth. If you inhale pipe smoke you will throw up.

This is a weed game, it does not encourage smoking, you must smoke to play. You would not buy it if you didn't already have the weed, or tobacco ... I guess?

Re:This should be fun

[Dhalka226]

I think you're missing the point, along with a lot of others in this thread. This story was not created and posted because a smoking application was approved for the iPhone. I really doubt anybody here cares, much less objects. In fact most probably would prefer the app DOES exist because most people here are all about letting each individual make these choices for themselves.

Rather, this story is here because Apple has appointed themselves gatekeeper of the application universe for iPhone, and because their decisions are seldom intelligible or predictable. An application for a Pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist gets banned (until public disgust forces them to reconsider). An application where you shake a baby to death is approved (though later removed.) Applications for lingerie are banned. If memory serves, even ones that do not have any sort of model shots, just the products themselves, are banned. Meanwhile an app for Playboy is passed. Now, an app about smoking a joint* with your friends has no trouble passing muster. I would not be surprised in the least if it turns out these people wrote the app explicitly to see whether or not Apple's ever-inconsistent "morality" would catch it.

I don't think it was worth a story here (Wired is free to write whatever they want for whatever reason they want), because I find the value in Slashdot to be the discussions and this is not the type of story that will encourage a decent one. There will be fanbois and haters going back and forth with little actual thought put into anything, which is almost reason enough NOT to post it for me.

But anyway. Nobody cares that this app was approved, they care that this app was approved relative to other ones that have been rejected. It's entire purpose is to take shots at Apple for playing gatekeeper, and for doing it in such a wildly inconsistent manner. I'm not sure it's worth posting on that basis alone, but the reason it is on Slashdot, at least, has nothing to do with whether or not it encourages smoking.

* Sorry, a "cigarette." Yeah, right. When's the last time anybody sat around in a circle passing a cigarette around with five of their friends?

Re:This should be fun

[tecnico.hitos]

But hey, if hypocrisy comes from Apple, it must be cool. I guess I will complain about this app just to join the trend.

Re:This should be fun

[gsslay]

People will probably object to this as "encouraging smoking"

I don't know. But I do know 3 things;

1 The game will inevitably be crap.
2 People will buy it anyway, cos, you know, it's about dope and your friends will lol.
3 The writers of this game are loving all the free publicity.

Re:This should be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

People will probably object to this as "encouraging smoking", but will whine & complain about any suggestion that violent video games encourage violence.

Yes, because puffing from a pipe is not the same as cracking open someone's head open with a baseball. There's a difference between self-abuse and abusing others. There's a much smaller threshold to indulge in self-abusing behaviour than it is to take up harmful behaviour towards others.

Re:This should be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather, this story is here because Apple has appointed themselves gatekeeper of the application universe for iPhone, and because their decisions are seldom intelligible or predictable.

Nope, it was posted because you Apple haters love a good anti-Apple story. Even if only to complain that there is another Apple story.

Eric Schmidt's Response to Steve Jobs

[Freaky Spook]

"Folks who want cancer can buy an iPhone"

Re:Eric Schmidt's Response to Steve Jobs

[Cryacin]

Make love, not cancer?

I know what sort of pipe I'd be smoking...

[Dexter Herbivore]

and if this has been approved by Apple, I;'m guessing Steve Jobs has been taking a few hits from that pipe too.

Re:I know what sort of pipe I'd be smoking...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably almost as much as kdawson for even fucking putting this on slashdot. Not that I'm new... I saw the headline, looked at kdawson as the editor and just knew that it wasn't worth the summary, let alone the article. And I have had more than enough Apple bullshit on slashdot lately. Is Apple attempting to take over /. or something? Or is kdawson and a couple of the editors really *that* much of stupid fucking pawns?!

Re:I know what sort of pipe I'd be smoking...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know! and FUCKING MAGNETS! How do they work?!

Re:I know what sort of pipe I'd be smoking...

[Sulphur]

My iPhone is on iFire belching iSmoke ever since that attempt to smoke an iPeacepipe*.

* the back side of an iTomahawk.
--

My UID is prime, whew.

Re:I know what sort of pipe I'd be smoking...

[Kristoph]

If there is a person who needs a hit from the 'peace pipe' more then Steve Jobs it's the average Slashdot reader.

Apple appealing to their fan base

[Anonymous Coward]

Those iPhone users are all pipe-smokers anyway.

Re:Apple appealing to their fan base

[Anonymous Coward]

Pipe smoking != Pole smoking

Re:Apple appealing to their fan base

[gyrogeerloose]

Those iPhone users are all pipe-smokers anyway.

Like, hey, no waaay, dood. We smoke mostly, like, you know, blunts.

Well ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

... it's still safer than smoking a cigarette.

In all seriousness, WTF Apple? Surely this isn't why you strong-armed developers into switching to XCode, is it? To produce this?

Ouch

[WiseWeasel]

Makes you shudder to think of the poor kids who will get beat up for demonstrating this unbelievably lame app. Won't anyone think of the children? Apple?

Re:Ouch

[ZosX]

Hell. I could see just about every friend I have with an iphone showing this off. In case you didn't notice, smoking (cigarettes and especially weed) are extremely popular with generation Y. It seems fairly prevalent in my generation too, but not nearly as much. Of course, when I was in my 20s it seemed like everyone I knew smoked anyways. So maybe its just an age thing, but yeah, I can totally see this as being a hit with the "kids."

non-smokers

[hduff]

"Non-smokers can purchase an Android." -- Steve Jobs

Re:non-smokers

[Anonymous Coward]

Android sales overtake Apple's iPhone-June 2010

Re:non-smokers

[failedlogic]

iGanja and iCrack are next on the iApprove list.

Re:non-smokers

[courteaudotbiz]

Or they can buy the "iPatch" application to quit smoking their iCigarette!

What is this world coming to?

[snowraver1]

That is crazy... You know what I saw the other day? A game that you could kill humans with assorted weapons. The gore was obscene! You could beat hookers up and kill puppies all while driving a car down the sidewalk.

What were we talking about again? Smoking? Ban it!

Re:What is this world coming to?

[drinkypoo]

What were we talking about again? Smoking? Ban it!

How did this get modded insightful? Nobody is calling for a ban on this game. In fact, the opposite is true; it's being used to show that games which have been banned should not have been. Way to troll the knee-jerk idiots with modpoints, though.

Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

So my Bong game is a shoe in!

I don't get it

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I don't get it. How would it be the "moral high ground" to prevent developers from selling and consumers from buying this application? Is there a theory this game presents a danger to someone? Is it just that you object to smoking being depicted for some reason? What morals are we talking about?

Re:I don't get it

[trawg]

Presumably, the same morals that they use to justify why they won't let porn (or a myriad of other applications) in the AppStore.

Re:I don't get it

[BasilBrush]

Because games with smoking in them are like pictures of naked people?

Re:I don't get it

[cgenman]

Apple has been taking the "moral high ground" by banning apps with jiggly women, excessive violence, and political satire. They have said that they want to be a family safe zone, and have hurt many developers to become that.

Also, developers are particularly upset about the inconsistent interpretation of Apple's ever-shifting rules. For a while, slightly dirty apps were OK so long as they were wearing underwear, then they were mass banned. Apps have been banned for "duplicating functionality" of Apple applications that hadn't been released or announced at the time of the rejection. They recently banned 3rd party code interpretation tools, due to their years-long war with flash, which has thrown into doubt the state of thousands of popular applications.

At this point, basically everyone except Steve Jobs would like to see Apple stop babysitting their users and actually utilize the ratings system that they implemented. Short of that, they need a degree of consistency that they are nowhere near achieving.

Re:I don't get it

[dasdrewid]

The same morals that say that bikinis aren't allowed but Playboy breasts are, that satiric pullitzer price winning cartoons are taboo but fart soundboards are an important part of our comic culture, and a few swear words is totally not allowed but sex position games are just fine.

The point is that Apple is claiming to take the moral high ground, and since the established moral high ground with smoking is that advertising is not ok (see Joe Camel, television advertising, etc.), it would seem the standard moral high ground would be to not allow that, especially given Apple's history of "looking out for the children" regarding things like suggestive language and boobies.

We're talking about Apple's so-called "morals", how they try to enforce them and stand behind them, even though a) they're bullshit and b) they can't even keep them straight themselves.

Re:I don't get it

[hldn]

Because games with smoking in them are like pictures of naked people?

i think we've found the person responsible for approving apps on the appstore.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has been taking the "moral high ground" by banning apps with jiggly women, excessive violence, and political satire. They have said that they want to be a family safe zone, and have hurt many developers to become that.

Also, developers are particularly upset about the inconsistent interpretation of Apple's ever-shifting rules. For a while, slightly dirty apps were OK so long as they were wearing underwear, then they were mass banned. Apps have been banned for "duplicating functionality" of Apple applications that hadn't been released or announced at the time of the rejection. ... they need a degree of consistency that they are nowhere near achieving.

The one thing consistent with Apple's constant shifting is that they are in the news when they do it. Apple rejected scantily-clad-women-apps not because of any moral argument, but so they could be seen by others rejecting scantily-clad-women-apps.

Re:I don't get it

[fermion]

none of which relates to legal drug consumption, so none of the examples apply. Violent games often have fantasy criminal activity, such as rape, murder, and illicit drug use, which some object to.

I see tons of apps on iTunes that relate to legal drug use. Many smoking, wine beer, etc. The problem is that many people clump everything they don't like together and make it equally bad, or rationalize their sinful nature as natural, while others as bad. So while having a glass of wine is sophisticated, smoking is indication of low breeding, equal to watching naked people dance.

I agree that the it seems the Apple censorship can seem to be random. In this case, however, there is no evidence of it. Legal drug apps are plentiful. It is just that a few clueless people would lump drug use in with other unrelated things that they don't like, and think that if Apple blocks one thing they don't like, Apple should block everything they don't like.

Re:I don't get it

[cgenman]

Tangent: Hardly any retail games in the US contain passing references to rape at all. I challenge you to list even 3. Illicit drug use is somewhat more heavily referenced, but hard to pull off in terms of actual player usage. See Heavy Rain's excellent and horrifying withdrawal sequences.

On topic: The name of the app is "puff puff pass" and features "phat beats." That's no more relating to legal substances than "The Little Black Book" app was about celibacy. This is clear glorification of smoking pot. Even taken at full face value, glorifying an age-locked activity the causes cancer runs directly counter to the "family safe" rulings at the core of this mess.

None of this is to say that I personally believe the app should be banned. But rather, this being approved is a symptom of how broken the app store approval process has become. And how desperately in need of revision the whole process is.

Re:I don't get it

[Lemming Mark]

Well, it violates their "family safe" goal / excuse, doesn't it? The other things referenced are also legal to enjoy (though in virtual sense in the case of excessive violence) yet frowned upon morally by some and definitely not generally considered family safe these days. The point is that Apple are again giving the lie to the excuses they've made when rejecting some other apps.

Re:I don't get it

[burris]

No, you'll find plenty of fanbois outside of Apple who will zealously defend the notion that the iPhone/pad is not a computer, that "sharia law" is the only way to give the user the best possible experience, that users will always blame Apple when their phone crashes or the battery doesn't last, that they would be helpless to download crap from dicey alternative app stores that would crash their phone and their babies would die because they couldn't call 911, etc...

Re:I don't get it

[drinkypoo]

Tangent: Hardly any retail games in the US contain passing references to rape at all. I challenge you to list even 3.

I can't list three, but I can remember being kind of distressed about my character being raped in Phantasmagoria, or was it the sequel? There was even some FMV showing you pinned up against something and, uh, pinned some more. But that was a long time ago. For a computer, it was nearly an eternity. Hmm, there was a whole infamous game about it back in the day and another one recently, I'm sure you have read about Custer's Last Stand and RapeLay. But anyway, there's only really one US video game with rape in it, and that's the first one I mention. AFAIK...

Re:I don't get it

[cgenman]

Good Memory! There is Phantasmagoria (early 90's) and Custer's Last Stand (early 80's). There is also a rather disturbing underground MMO called SocialoTron, that makes me fear for humanity.

The messed-up asian Hentai games like RapeLay haven't really seen a US release, certainly not a retail one, so they don't really count. The aforementioned MMO also isn't retail, though it has a US release.

In games in the west, any sex at all is considered controversial. Mass Effect's sex scene was probably the most visceral sex scene in modern gaming. Which is to say, it didn't show any bits, or any penetration, or really anything that couldn't be shown on post 9PM television. It was also incredibly controversial, and drew out a media firestorm. God of War, a game where you attempt to evicerate gods one at a time with giant claw-hooks of death, had their one sex scene off-camera. Grand Theft Auto, famed poster boy for how gaming is destroying all societal values, had their sex off camera. Source-of-all-evil posterboy Pyramid Head from Silent Hill gets as far as dry humping some mannequins through his clothes. Heck, Gologo 13 the NES title contained the incredibly controversial cut scene where two people hugged, then a curtain in their apartment closed.

There were a couple of bad sex-based games that pornographers experimented with in the financial boom at the end of the 90's. None of them went anywhere, as they were considered poison.

Sex really doesn't exist in games. There is some underdressed female protagonists, and some games have mechanics where people have children. But sex proper is basically verboten. Rape? In games? You'd have to admit that people have sex first, and that is still taboo.

Re:I don't get it

[drinkypoo]

Heck, Gologo 13 the NES title contained the incredibly controversial cut scene where two people hugged, then a curtain in their apartment closed.

I remember playing Golgo 13: Top Secret Episode on the NES, and further, I remember it as one of the best games on that console :) And even more, I remember turning to the friend with whom I was engaged in completing the title and exchanging snide comments about the goings-on. Only later when I actually saw Golgo 13: The Professional did I realize how tame that was by Anime standards. :)

I can see it now.

[rxan]

iNicorette. Simulates smoking to help you crush your worst cravings!

like it

[promotepoint]

i like the smoking game, using it on my iphone

After having read the article

[Dexter Herbivore]

Am I the only one bothered that in the picture of the app, there's 2 hot girls, 2 "cool" guys and a fat geek with a beard?

Re:After having read the article

[jack2000]

Hm yes, geeks are consistently miss represented. Where's the type 2 geek! We tall and slim geeks need more exposure.


No the sun is deadly.

Re:After having read the article

[Anonymous Coward]

How about us type 3 geeks! Tall, well built, wise cracking and awesome.

Re:After having read the article

[drinkypoo]

Am I the only one bothered that in the picture of the app, there's 2 hot girls, 2 "cool" guys and a fat geek with a beard?

Well, shit dude, they had to get their "cigarette" somewhere.

Re:After having read the article

[hmar]

myth....

There's a rejected app for that!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder about Apple sometimes. I know that their actual intent with the app store is:

A) Be the only channel for iPhone apps, so that they get a piece of every sale. (Which is the *real* reason for not allowing Flash, emulators, etc.)
B) Not get sued (thus the restrictions on parody and such).
C) Not piss off too many customers (thus the restrictions on porn and whatnot).

But the execution is terrible, because C conflicts with A as well as with itself (you get people upset both for allowing and forbidding porn). And because they want to maintain point A, they have to take ALL the blame for whatever they reject or allow. Frankly, I'm surprised that people still develop for the platform. I know there was an initial gold rush, but now that that's pretty much over, I would personally do everything I could to make the platform less attractive. Why help them when they'll screw you? Better to boost other platforms that don't give you crap like this.

Re:There's a rejected app for that!

[ProdigyPuNk]

I know quite a few people who develop for the iPhone. Although every one of them will admit to the pain caused by app store policies, it's still the only real game in town. It's a simple platform to program on, and much like this app, you don't really need much functionality to sell a ton of copies. It's much easier to throw together 10 half-assed apps hoping just ONE will be a decent seller and pay your bills vs. spending time to put together a good app for the Android platform, where even if it does become a "good seller", your still barely covering your overhead.

Re:There's a rejected app for that!

[Darkness404]

Um, Apple requires a -lot- more overhead than Android ever will. Lets see, if you don't have a Mac, it costs, what? $500-600 for the most basic Mac desktop? Compared to the fact you can program for Android on just about anything? Plus add in the fee to be an Apple 'developer' and you are looking at about $650ish for development hardware alone. Lets add in the price for an iPod touch (cheapest thing that runs iPhone OS) and you have a $800 total investment or so. A powerful Android phone costs $530 unlocked that you can use with almost any carrier without contract. So the total invested for Android -at most- would be $530 or so. At the very least it would cost $800 to develop for the iPhone.

The main reason why Android is less appealing to program for is because things are certain. Apple may randomly decide to give someone a monopoly and refuse any competing products leaving you as the sole provider. Such things don't happen on Android so people are free to compete, naturally if its a basic app, someone with spare time will code a free version. If its polished, no one is going to spend the time usually giving you still lots of profit.

Crap apps become free on Android. Crap apps on the iPhone generally have small monopolies.

Re:There's a rejected app for that!

[kc8apf]

You carefully document the costs to buy a mac, but assume that an Android developer would already have some computer. That's not a fair comparison. The cost of the machine should be prorated based on additional uses. Thus, the Mac will still cost more than the already owned machine, but it isn't free.

Re:There's a rejected app for that!

[mjwx]

It's much easier to throw together 10 half-assed apps hoping just ONE will be a decent seller and pay your bills

This, ultimately is why the platform will fail. Throw together 10 low quality applications, hope that some pass the censors and then hope that one makes some money. This plan relies on hope, which is a terrible business model. Android will be better off without supporting this kind of thinking.

Now where this business model falls apart is that very few are making money using this model. It requires constant releases in an ever diluting market, which increases overheads. Fortunately people still believe that there is money to be made here so there is no shortage of suckers. Notorious Time Share touts like Absolute Resorts are still in business despite being revealed on several current affairs programs because many people just cant use logic to figure out a bad deal.

Android platform, where even if it does become a "good seller", your still barely covering your overhead.

This is where you completely stop making sense (not that you were doing to well before).

OK if your ratio of 10 applications for every 1 success is true then you need to do 10 times the coding, so that one success needs to cover 10 times the work + iphone + mac + yearly fee. Most US$0.99 applications wont cover the $99 yearly fee, let alone the developers time and definitely not the A$1,500 starting price of a Mac, I'll ignore phone costs as both Android and Iphone handsets cost money although it is worth mentioning you can almost buy two Motorola Milestones (Droid) outright for the price of an Iphone 3GS outright (A$540 vs A$950 before delivery).

With Android, if you want to make a simple application it can be tested using the Android VM's available in the SDK. If you make a complex application you need to do extensive testing on handsets (wait until someone develops the idea of using a beta program, just like PC game development). If you want to make money in the Android market, you need a good idea and some coding skills, it doesn't support bad clones of existing applications like the Iphone market. You simply cannot charge for simple applications in Android because someone will or has already coded a free application that does the same thing (ye olde market at work).

Re:There's a rejected app for that!

[Darkness404]

You carefully document the costs to buy a mac, but assume that an Android developer would already have some computer.

But isn't it realistic to assume that any person, wanting to program for an Android handset, with the skills to program would have a computer? On the other hand, many people who own iPhones (in fact, chances are, most of them) and many people with skills to program don't own Macs. In fact, if you -really- needed a computer, you could probably boot a library computer from a USB key and develop for Android and pay, what, $7 for the USB stick? Good luck finding a public library that lets their patrons use Macs for free...

The cost of the machine should be prorated based on additional uses. Thus, the Mac will still cost more than the already owned machine, but it isn't free.

But the machine is already purchased. The machine doesn't decrease with use. Most of the things that kill computers aren't determined by use but rather by fate. Once a computer is out of warranty, it can have expensive repairs if it is turned on for 24 hours a day every day, 1 hour every day, or even if it is rarely used.

If something was purchased for a non-business use and is used in the business, realistically it can't be considered part of the costs when it can be used for work and play. For example, if I bought a shirt in 2007 and wore it to work in 2010 to start up my business, it really didn't cost anything more because I still owned it, I still would have worn it and it doesn't really decrease all that much in use.

Re:There's a rejected app for that!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can test iphone OS apps in xcode as well. That is how 99.99995% of all iPad dev was done befor ethe ipad was released because Apple were cocksuckers and didn't supply hardware to needed developers, instead handing them out to douchebag comedians and the like.

I'm not an apple fanboy, but I've seen commercial dev for all their current devices. I own an android phone, and I can't even say I'm an android fanboy.

I can say in all certainty that the Pre sucks.

Re:There's a rejected app for that!

[Z34107]

You carefully document the costs to buy a mac, but assume that an Android developer would already have some computer. That's not a fair comparison.

You have a point, but I think it is a fair comparison. Prospective iPhone developers are, well, developers. I don't know of a single developer that doesn't have any computer at all, but I know quite a few that don't have Macs. And, the "additional use" of an already-owned PC won't cost any extra until TPM adoption reaches critical mass.

If you already have a Macintosh, the cost to develop for iPhone over Android is the Apple developer fee. Otherwise, it's developer fee + Mac purchase.

Re:There's a rejected app for that!

[david_thornley]

If you're actually trying to make a living, a cost of $800 to get going is peanuts. There's lots of jobs with far higher barriers to entry, such as auto mechanic and bus driver. It's only a barrier for people doing hobby development.

Makes perfect sense

[Anonymous Coward]

No boobs because kids use iPxds, but we'll let them pretend to smoke.

Sounds logical to me.

Mixed Priorities

[Random5]

Want porn? Go get android you filthy person. Smoking? No worries, light up!

Steve Jobs played that game once or twice

[ZosX]

I really wonder what apple's policy on employee drug usage is........

Ah well. It will get banned and ported to android in a few months. Did anyone port the shaking baby game? I could think of all sorts of fun, twisted apps for the android. How about

Toss the Foetus

"You are an assistant at cut rate abortion clinic. Your job is to take the foetuses from a bucket and toss them into the dumpster. Score points by not leaving them to bake on the alleyway asphalt. Extra points for a rim shot."

Anyone remember the talk to jesus app for Mac OS 7? I loved that thing I could totally port that to android. Anyone still have a copy? (My old mac drive died years ago)

Re:Steve Jobs played that game once or twice

[Anonymous Coward]

"Extra points for a rim shot"

What the FUCK am I reading.

Re:Steve Jobs played that game once or twice

[gyrogeerloose]

Anyone remember the talk to jesus app for Mac OS 7? I loved that thing I could totally port that to android. Anyone still have a copy? (My old mac drive died years ago)

The one where you hammered nails? Yeah, I do. The same guy wrote one called "Rupture the Rapture" where you tried to shoot down souls rising to heaven. It was great. Wish I still had a copy.

Openness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the moral high-ground.

Let's hope that it catches on there.

(Captcha is "morals," so I know I'm right :)

Make up your mind

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple bans an app, and it gets a flurry of bad press on slashdot.
Apple approves an app, and it gets a flurry of bad press on slashdot.

Make up your mind, outraged mob!

Re:Make up your mind

[Anonymous Coward]

You're generalizing a bit much there. It's not all apps that are banned or approved, just the ones that had one fate but deserved another.

Namely, crap that got approved and awesome apps that got banned.

420

[Anonymous Coward]

This should have been released on 4/20. For those that don't understand, no one shares cigarettes or cigars or pipes with tobacco. This app is for simulating smoking of pot, and it's kind of stupid in that regard because it doesn't get you high (the app).

I gave up cigarettes for my New Year's resolution

[patiodragon]

But I didn't give up SMOKING!

Where is my Fedora when I need it?

Nobody Cares

[whisper_jeff]

I admit, I'm an Apple Fanboy and enjoy reading stories about Apple but I just do not give a flying fuck about "this" app being approved and "that" app being rejected. I really, really, really just do not care.

Here's a secret - a _LOT_ of apps are approved/rejected on a regular basis. Like, really, a lot. I'd wager a fuckton would be an accurate measure of the quantity. This really is not news. Really, really not news.

And I don't care if it paints Apple in a bad light or a good light - I just don't give a fuck. Why streamline the "story" to read "Apple conducts business just like it did yesterday." Much simpler that way.

Ok. Rant done.

Re:Nobody Cares

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem has nothing to do with arbitrary accept and rejects of apps it has to do with why they reject them. look at this from the standpoint of the developer. you just spent months putting together an amazing app just for it to be rejected for some asinine reason. im not saying that no apps should be rejected. i can completely understand if all the apps rejected where just quickly thrown together pieces of garbage. in fact i would applaud apple if they did that. the thing is they don't. they constantly let a large number of worthless apps come aboard there i-train and reject perfectly good ones for bizarre reasons. its a bad business practice and frankly just cruel to developers and whether customers realize it or not cruel to them as well.

Re:Nobody Cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging by the number of replies stories like this generate, plenty of people care. The fact that you don't doesn't indicate a damn thing about the rest of Slashdot's users (clearly).

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Now my iPhone has lung cancer too!

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Slashdot for corporate censorship, or against it. You lost me again.

Re:Wait...

[awshidahak]

Is Slashdot for corporate censorship, or against it. You lost me again.

Against. The GP mainly is pointing out the inconsistency of Apple's censorship.

Let me translate for you...

[sakti]

Come one... how many people sit in a circle and pass around a cigarette. You all know this is a pot smoking game. They might have well specified the items as 'joint, fatty and bong'.

Re:Let me translate for you...

[Anonymous Coward]

" You all know this is a pot smoking game"

The pot smokers forgot that part.

Pot smoking is for losers and idiots. And you know what, if you aren't a loser or an idiot
when you start smoking pot, just keep it up and you'll get there.

Re:Let me translate for you...

[internettoughguy]

Exactly, and you can probably buy a [insert a regional colloquialism for a small quantity of cannabis here] for the price of this app, so why pretend?

Re:Let me translate for you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do in-app upgrades work yet? Pity this wasn't approved by 4/20.

Re:Let me translate for you...

[Anonymous Coward]

And your point is?????

Re:Let me translate for you...

[drinkypoo]

Exactly, and you can probably buy a [insert a regional colloquialism for a small quantity of cannabis here] for the price of this app, so why pretend?

I thought about this for a while, and what comes back to me is that the only real market for this app is kids. Although to be honest, when I was a kid, I could get drugs. They should rename the app to My First Reefer, or perhaps Pothead Trainer.

Re:Let me translate for you...

[Altus]

Yea well... that's just, like, your opinion... man.

You think it started as a cigarette?

[mysidia]

For every app accepted there were 100 rejected

You think it's emulating a cigarette you're blowing?

Hint: this is a modification of an existing app, where 'suck' turned into 'blow' and fellatio changed into smoking.

I don't know this for a fact, just an educated guess :)

Makes sense for the developer to modify the app to be acceptable to Apple's more attuned tastes, and their key demographic.

Re:You think it started as a cigarette?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: this is a modification of an existing app, where 'suck' turned into 'blow' and
fellatio changed into smoking.

Half right. The half wrong, however, is so wrong that I have to wonder if you hate your parents for dropping you so much as an infant.

Re:You think it started as a cigarette?

[kramerd]

If its called puff, puff, pass, its not a fellatio game, its a marijuana game.

Let me guess, you had a private school education?

Re:You think it started as a cigarette?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you had a private school education?

Given that he immediately wondered about bj's, I gotta wonder if it wasn't a Catholic school education.

For someone who doesn't care

[Anonymous Coward]

you just posted a rant claiming you don't care multiple times.

I do say "good job Apple" and mean it.

[Montezumaa]

It is not Apple's place or right to make moral or ethical choices for me or anyone else. I will choose what is and is not correct for me and I will not leave it in the hands of any other person or entity. This is the main reason I decided to jailbreak my iPhone as soon as I obtained it.

Re:I do say "good job Apple" and mean it.

[Kristoph]

The vast majority of major retailers in the civilized world make 'moral or ethical choices' on behalf of their customers. Get over it.

Re:I do say "good job Apple" and mean it.

[drinkypoo]

This is the main reason I decided to jailbreak my iPhone as soon as I obtained it.

Too bad you voted for more draconian control when you gave Apple money. Next time, give the money to someone who supports Open Source, Free Software, and personal responsibility. Nobody is impressed that you jailbroke your iPhone, that is old news. "I jailbroke my iPhone" is code for "I just don't fucking get it."

Tobacco?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right, this game is about smoking tobacco, just like water pipes, bongs and Zig Zag rolling papers are solely designed and sold to be used on tobacco!

Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

Moral high ground? It's smoking, not killing jews. Give it a rest already.

R. Zimmerman for the American Cancer Society

[Bodhammer]

"But since I Lost One of My Lungs, I’ve Cut My Smoking In Half."

Re:R. Zimmerman for the American Cancer Society

[KPexEA]

Cheech and Chong's wedding album was a classic!

YOU don't care. Don't speak for everyone else.

[Camael]

Of course you don't care. You won't until it personally affects you.

I didn't care much either, until Apple forced the Stanza app to remove its functionality to load books through the USB cable. Which I liked, instead of using the wireless transfer or internet download workarounds

Wait till the Apple restrictions bites you or your favourite app in the ass.

In Other News Apple decrees seal hunt objectionabl

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple allows games with cold blooded murder but not a seal hunting application.
www.isealclub.com

Apple has to protect children, dont they ?

[unity100]

thats why they have censored any potential porn app and access to them recently ... and left playboy, hustler related stuff still in app store, and sites reachable ... for some reason ...

and now they are condoning a 'puff puff' game, for smoking cigarettes or pipe. all the while protecting the children.

im calling the apple fans to defend this kind of thing reasonably. i wonder whether any of you will succeed. i also wonder how lonw will it take you people to realize that apple has been going down the drain ethically.

big buisness must dieeeeee

[Anonymous Coward]

i believe if you pay for the internet service you should be able to use the technology as you see fit if your gonna purchase the device and the web service with your own hard earned money you have the right to use it as you see fit unless its something that harms people, if it harms businesses i believe they shouldn't have been so greedy anyway i.e microslop , and im onlu anonymous cause im too tired to create an account im calirefugee

Re:big buisness must dieeeeee

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think you actually own anything you've purchased lately, think again. Companies own everything you buy these days; you're just paying for the right to use it, whether it's software or hardware.

Oh I see where you're going with this

[commodoresloat]

First they came for the porn but I was not a wanker so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for the cancer apps but I wasn't a smoker so I didn't do a thing. ....

Re:In Other News Apple decrees seal hunt objection

[mat72]

Of course grand theft auto is no worse

And?

[KDR_11k]

Many of the games on the App Store have violence, often more casually brutal (like people being dissected and their entrails dangling about or heads exploding and fountains of blood gushing out) than you'd see in a retail release that has to pass the ESRB rating yet people get upset by a smoking game?

Am I the only one

[Anonymous Coward]

who came here expecting to read about the terribly unauthorized things that this game does to an iPhone to get it to actually release the blue smoke?

This is news because...?

[Anubis IV]

I'm wondering if this app would have made the news either way. It's a Catch-22 for Apple. Either they approve the app and get this type of coverage, or they deny it and get panned once again for limiting the free speech of developers or some such. I'm an admitted Apple fanboy (though I like to think I'm actually rational about it, if there is such a thing), but come on, does anyone seriously care that Apple approved an app? When Opera mini was approved, that was news, since it was related to interesting tech and bucked a trend. When Apple approves just another iFart or flashlight or spin the bottle app though...who cares? There are hundreds or thousands of them. This is not news. It's not particularly nerdy. It doesn't matter. Why is it on Slashdot?

Re:This is news because...?

[SharpFang]

Apple denies thousands of apps a month, for trivial reasons. I assure you this would not get any attention for getting denied.

Smoke, don't porn

[bagsta]

"You know, there's a porn store for Android. You can download nothing but porn. You can download porn, your kids can download porn. That's a place we don't want to go, so we're not going to go there."

So, Mr Jobs doesn't allow to kids to download porn(although there are some applications from "more reputable companies" which are allowed) but allows them to download something relevant to smoking. Well done Mr Jobs, show the kids the way.

Pratice makes perfect! ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

;-)
This app is for those that fail their Drug Tests.
Consider it practice/homework...know the subject well, and you can pass the tests.

I've practiced with weed for about 40 years now*, and have consequently never failed a drug test!
Like they say: 'Practice makes perfect!'...although it seems to me that (x) practice makes you perfectly (x).
[ie: mediocre practice makes you perfectly mediocre]

In the immortal words of Jimi Hendrix:
"Are you experienced? Well, I am."

As a starting point, I recommended a gram of White Widow per player, and the 'per player' time limit be set to five minutes, using a vaporizer, or bong/water pipe.
For us 'old school' stoners, raise it to two grams, and make it a 'one hit' time limit.

Aqualung FTW!!! ;-)

Head a splodes....

[rts008]

You don't cut your car's brake line, and then complain when your breaks don't stop as expected.

[ my emphasis]

Yo, dawg!
Heard ya like to brake while ya break, so we broke yer breaks so ya could brake while ya break yer brokes.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously not seen iSnort: http://www.theisnort.com/

It's brilliant!

[AlgorithMan]

finally iPhone owners have a reason to suck on their phone... :o)

Re:It's brilliant!

[GMThomas]

Judging by some posts by Apple fanboys, some iPhone owners probably wouldn't mind sucking OFF their iPhone.

what kind of smoking?

[Anonymous Coward]

perchance was it cock smoking Apple fan bois?

Erm, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this different from all the firearms apps? You cock and fire a gun, and sometimes the shot is followed by a scream as whoever you're pointing your iGun at is ripped into by hot lead...

Imitatable? Yes
Entertaining? Yes
Dangerous? Not unless you have some serious problems, in which case I don't think a family friendly mobile phone will really help you

The High Road

[192939495969798999]

puff puff pass? Sounds like Apple definitely took the high road to me.

Friday afternoon approval

[courteaudotbiz]

I guess it was friday afternoon when they approved this app. So I guess it was when they approved the "I am rich" application. The latter was removed on next Wednesday.

So wait, maybe they'll remove the app later today :-)

The TERRORISTS WIN when you report this stuff!

[Bradicus]

Please, pretty please - this isn't news. Stop letting Apple's very silly iPhone platform content controls manufacture "news" just to keep them in the headlines. This is a slashdot post about an app that, presumably, you're anticipating somebody will find offensive? Their policy is silly, we all agree, but every time you make a big hubub about the existence or banishment of a somewhat controversial app, THEY WIN because they get the free publicity. And, like it or not, when it comes to Apple, even bad PR is good PR because it reminds people how "important" and "popular" the iPhone is, which adds to it's critical mass and perceived popularity (which is why people have iPhones in the first place). The insanity has gone from newsposts about their app store, to apps that are banned, and now to apps that aren't banned but are possibly offensive? Por favor, stop rewarding their idiotic policy with free headlines!

Astonishing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! More and more totally awesome apps are coming out for the iPhone that make me want to fork out $400 for the phone right NOW! - sarcasm

Waste of dev time

[sldghmr]

Freaking hilarious! Who the hell could be entertained playing a digital puffing game on an tiny little screen???? LOL forget the screen size, how can an app like this hold anyones attention at all? Moving on.

why afraid of smoking games while bloody killing g

[khoanguyendang]

Apple is not understandable about its approval process... but why afraid of smoking games while bloody killing games are allowed?