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

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

[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?

Eric Schmidt's Response to Steve Jobs

[Freaky Spook]

"Folks who want cancer can buy an iPhone"

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: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.

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

[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

[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: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.

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.

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: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]

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

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

[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

[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.

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!